A Paradox Perspective on Faith-Based Organizations

A PARADOX PERSPECTIVE ON FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATIONS

Roger Jeffrey Huston

A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the University of Delaware in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in in Urban Affairs and Public Policy

Spring 2019

A PARADOX PERSPECTIVE ON FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATIONS

Roger Jeffrey Huston

Approved: ______Maria P. Aristigueta, D.P.A. Director of the Joseph R. Biden, Jr. School of Public Policy and Administration

Approved: ______John A. Pelesko, Ph.D. Interim Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences

Approved: ______Douglas J. Doren, Ph.D. Interim Vice Provost for Graduate and Professional Education

I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it meets the academic and professional standard required by the University as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Signed: ______John G. McNutt, Ph.D. Professor in charge of dissertation

Signed: ______Maria P. Aristigueta, D.P.A. Member of dissertation committee

Signed: ______Anthony E. Middlebrooks, Ph.D. Member of dissertation committee

Signed: ______Joseph S. Wholey, Ph.D. Member of dissertation committee

EPIGRAPH

“Heavenly Father, we bow our heads and thank You for Your love. Accept our thanks for the peace that yields this day and the shared faith that makes its continuance likely. Make us strong to do

Your work, willing to heed and hear Your will, and write on our hearts these words: ‘Use power to help people.’ For we are given power not to advance our own purposes, nor to make a great show in the world, nor a name. There is but one just use of power, and it is to serve people. Help us to remember it, Lord. Amen.”

– George H. W. Bush, Presidential Inauguration Prayer,

January 20, 1989

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to especially thank my advisor, John McNutt, for his enduring patience, wisdom, and for allowing me considerable autonomy in the creation of this project! My journey would not have been the same without you! Thank you also to my dissertation committee for their helpful and thoughtful feedback. By graciously sharing their time, and providing guidance throughout the course of this project, the entire committee enhanced the overall scope and quality of this dissertation. Thank you to the five organizations who participated in this study. They provided much-needed validation on the importance and timeliness of this project; this project would not have been possible without you! I am amazed by your dedication to serving your communities. I am also honored by the hospitality you showed during my time with you. I truly enjoyed every minute I spent observing organizational operations and doing interviews with you. Together we laughed, cried, and confided our personal hopes and professional dreams. My time with you has left a lasting, positive impact on my life, and my outlook, moving forward in my career. Thank you to my wife, Shawna, who encouraged me to pursue my educational goals. You shared my countless frustrations, read numerous pages, and listened to hours of explanations, incomplete thought-formations, and political strategizing. You helped me stay sane through many setbacks. You also watched our rambunctious children and financially sustained our family while this dissertation was written. I love you! Thank you also to my entire family for your inspiration and support throughout the course of my education.

v Finally, thanks be to God! Throughout this project I was reminded of one of my favorite sayings, “From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required; and from the one to whom much has been entrusted, even more, will be demanded” (Luke 12:48). Indeed, I pray that this project helps others, and that one day I can return some of the many boons done for me by those who profess your name and who are in your service.

vi DEDICATION

I would like to dedicate this endeavor —

To God:

I am truly humbled by this travail; to you be the glory forever and always. I hope and pray this dissertation can be used in service of “the least of these.”

To Jeffrey:

I know you would have wanted me to use my knowledge to help others; I will do my best to make you proud.

To Noah & Micah:

Remember, do not give in to hubris; find your own path in life; anything you do, try to do it in the service of others. I love you both very much!

vii TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ...... xiii ABSTRACT ...... xiv

Chapter

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.1 Research Overview ...... 1 1.2 Research Problem ...... 2 1.3 Research Purpose ...... 7 1.4 Research Questions ...... 9 1.5 Research Sampling ...... 10 1.6 Research Rationale ...... 11 1.7 Research Significance ...... 14

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 17

2.1 Overview of Faith-Based Organizational Research ...... 17 2.2 Government Funding & Collaboration ...... 19

2.2.1 Federal Government Funded Social Service Provision ...... 19 2.2.2 Local Government Collaboration ...... 22

2.3 Faith-Based Organizational Outcomes ...... 24

2.3.1 Inefficiency & Ineffectiveness ...... 24 2.3.2 Effectiveness & Efficiency ...... 28

2.3.2.1 Program Effectiveness ...... 28 2.3.2.2 Service Efficiency ...... 30

2.4 Defining Faith-Based Organizations ...... 32

2.4.1 Prior Research Definitions ...... 32 2.4.2 Organizational Faith ...... 37 2.4.3 Organizational Typologies ...... 43 2.4.4 Operational Definition ...... 46

viii 2.4.5 Future Definitional Directions ...... 49 2.4.6 Current Definitional Advancement ...... 51

2.5 The Faith Factor ...... 55

2.5.1 The Missing Faith Factor ...... 55 2.5.2 The Faith Factor Found ...... 57 2.5.3 The New Faith Factor ...... 59

2.6 Limitations in Prior Faith-Based Organizational Research ...... 62

2.6.1 Past & Future Methods ...... 63 2.6.2 Methodological Sampling ...... 64 2.6.3 Organizational Theory ...... 66

2.7 A Paradox Perspective on Faith-Based Organizations ...... 68

2.7.1 Faith-Based Organizational Tensions & Their Management ...... 69 2.7.2 A Paradox Perspective ...... 74 2.7.3 Applying A Paradox Framework ...... 76 2.7.4 Exemplar Literature Summary ...... 82

2.7.4.1 Core-Category Paradoxes ...... 82 2.7.4.2 Cross-Category Paradoxes ...... 93

3 RESEARCH DESIGN ...... 104

3.1 Methodological Overview ...... 104

3.1.1 Multiple Comparative Case Studies ...... 105

3.2 Data Selection ...... 107

3.2.1 Number of Cases ...... 108 3.2.2 Subjects ...... 109

3.2.2.1 Service Mission ...... 110 3.2.2.2 Religious Affiliation ...... 111 3.2.2.3 Organizational Size ...... 112 3.2.2.4 Human Subjects & Data Storage Procedures ...... 113 3.2.2.5 Selection Pool ...... 114

3.3 Data Collection ...... 115

3.3.1 Observations ...... 118

ix 3.3.2 Interviews ...... 120 3.3.3 Documents ...... 124

3.4 Data Examination ...... 125

3.4.1 Data Coding ...... 126 3.4.2 Data Analysis ...... 129 3.4.3 Data Inclusion ...... 131

3.5 Case Study Reports ...... 131

3.5.1 Findings Rationale ...... 131 3.5.2 Findings Structure ...... 132

4 ALPHA ORGANIZATION ...... 136

4.1 Overview ...... 136 4.2 Belonging Paradoxes ...... 138 4.3 Learning Paradoxes ...... 149 4.4 Organizing Paradoxes ...... 154 4.5 Performing Paradoxes ...... 166 4.6 Cross-Category Paradoxes ...... 177 4.7 Summary ...... 186

5 BETA ORGANIZATION ...... 187

5.1 Overview ...... 187 5.2 Belonging Paradoxes ...... 189 5.3 Learning Paradoxes ...... 200 5.4 Organizing Paradoxes ...... 206 5.5 Performing Paradoxes ...... 218 5.6 Cross-Category Paradoxes ...... 227 5.7 Summary ...... 235

6 DELTA ORGANIZATION ...... 236

6.1 Overview ...... 236 6.2 Belonging Paradoxes ...... 238 6.3 Learning Paradoxes ...... 250 6.4 Organizing Paradoxes ...... 258 6.5 Performing Paradoxes ...... 272 6.6 Cross-Category Paradoxes ...... 282 6.7 Summary ...... 290

x 7 EPSILON ORGANIZATION ...... 291

7.1 Overview ...... 291 7.2 Belonging Paradoxes ...... 293 7.3 Learning Paradoxes ...... 306 7.4 Organizing Paradoxes ...... 314 7.5 Performing Paradoxes ...... 331 7.6 Cross-Category Paradoxes ...... 342 7.7 Summary ...... 350

8 OMEGA ORGANIZATION ...... 351

8.1 Overview ...... 351 8.2 Belonging Paradoxes ...... 355 8.3 Learning Paradoxes ...... 366 8.4 Organizing Paradoxes ...... 373 8.5 Performing Paradoxes ...... 395 8.6 Cross-Category Paradoxes ...... 407 8.7 Summary ...... 419

9 DISCUSSION ...... 420

9.1 Overview ...... 420 9.2 Study Limitations ...... 421

9.2.1 Design Limitations ...... 422 9.2.2 Theoretical Limitations ...... 424

9.3 Organizational Nuances ...... 426 9.4 A Faith-Based Organizational Nonprofit Perspective ...... 427

9.4.1 Confirmations ...... 428 9.4.2 Challenges ...... 434

9.5 A Faith-Based Organizational Paradox Perspective ...... 443

9.5.1 Adopting A Paradox Framework ...... 444 9.5.2 Cross-Case Comparison ...... 446

9.5.2.1 Core-Category Paradoxes ...... 446 9.5.2.2 Cross-Category Paradoxes ...... 456

10 CONCLUSIONS ...... 466

10.1 Research Summary ...... 466

xi 10.2 Research Implications ...... 467

REFERENCES ...... 469

Appendix

A NATIONAL & STATE SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL CONTEXTS ...... 499 B INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD PROJECT APPROVAL LETTER .. 501 C ORGANIZATIONAL RECRUITMENT LETTER ...... 502 D ORGANIZATIONAL INFORMED CONSENT FORM ...... 503 E INDIVIDUAL INFORMED CONSENT FORM ...... 506 F PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ...... 509 G INTERVIEW GUIDE ...... 510 H OBSERVATION GUIDE ...... 512 I INTERVIEW CHECKLIST ...... 513 J ORGANIZATIONAL DOCUMENTS OBTAINED ...... 514 K CODES – CATEGORIES – CONCEPTS ...... 515 L FAITH-BASED PARADOX LIST: EXHIBITED ELEMENTS & MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES ...... 526

xii LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Exhibited & Managed Core-Category Paradoxes ...... 80

Table 2.2: Exhibited & Managed Cross-Category Paradoxes ...... 81

Table 3.1: Data Summary ...... 116

xiii ABSTRACT

A significant amount of research exists pertaining to faith-based organizations (FBOs). However, thus far, this research has focused primarily on government- funded, faith-based, social service provision. A fuller portrait of the complexities of faith-based organizations is warranted, given their rich history in the religious, cultural, and socio-economic contexts of civilization. In addition, research has only begun to touch on the management of faith-based organizations, and the tensions, contradictions, and oppositions that exist within them. This study explores the application of a paradoxical framework on faith-based organizations. Building on the research and categorization of organizational paradoxes by Smith and Lewis (2011), the study uses 33 paradox exemplars to inform a micro-level understanding of five established community faith-based nonprofit human service organizations. Comparative case studies have been used to investigate (1) the tensions, contradictions, oppositions, and simultaneous paradoxes within faith-based organizations, and (2) how they are managed. The findings suggest that the application of a paradoxical framework is a useful perspective from which to view the management and operation of faith-based organizations. The findings demonstrate that the faith-based organizations in this study exhibited all 33 paradox exemplars.

The findings also reveal that the paradox management techniques and tactics identified by existing literature can be successful in managing the 33 paradox exemplars.

xiv Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Research Overview Faith-based organizations (FBOs) have existed for millennia in the form of religious congregations, voluntary associations, and grassroots movements. Recently, faith-based organizations in the United States have garnered more scholarly attention due to the increased involvement of governments in the supply of social services (Bielefeld & Cleveland, 2013a). While this research offers an extensive analysis of the outcomes of contracting with the federal government for social service provision (Fischer, 2003), it sheds less light on the culture of the work, the nature of faith, the organizational identity characteristics, the idiosyncrasies of stakeholder interests and contributions, and the common problems faith-based organizations face, and how they are managed. In particular, scholars have yet to fully explore the tensions, oppositions, and contradictions that exist within faith-based organizations. This study seeks to fill this knowledge gap by exploring the following research questions: (1) What paradoxes exist within faith-based organizations and (2) how are these paradoxes managed? What is an organizational paradox? According to Smith and Lewis (2011), organizational paradoxes are the tensions, contradictions, and oppositions that exist or persist simultaneously over time. In paradoxes, simultaneity appears most often in the literature related to an organization in its entirety. However, personal paradoxes related to individual stakeholders within an organization do occur. Organizational

1 paradoxes can occur as dualities (both ‘A’ and ‘B’), where opposites coexist; as dilemmas, where stakeholders make competing choices, each with their own advantages and disadvantages; and as dialectics, where contradictory elements are interrelated, and the persistence of change allows for, or demands, the integration of new elements. As such, organizational paradoxes may have two, three, four, or more simultaneous attributes that cause organizational friction. Building on the research and categorization of organizational paradoxes by

Smith and Lewis (2011), this study utilizes 33 paradox exemplars to inform a micro- level understanding of five established community faith-based nonprofit human service organizations. Each organization in this study is classified as non-government contracting. By adopting a paradoxical framework, this study explores organizational paradoxes and their management through qualitative comparative case studies. The findings from the case studies demonstrate that the faith-based organizations in this study exhibit all 33 paradox exemplars, and that they use several of the paradox management techniques and tactics identified by existing literature. As detailed in the discussion chapter, this discovery suggests that applying a paradoxical framework provides a useful perspective from which to understand the operations and management of faith-based organizations.

1.2 Research Problem As the following discussion indicates, a significant amount of research exists pertaining to faith-based organizations. However, thus far, this research has focused primarily on government-funded, faith-based social service provision. Additionally, through questionnaires and surveys, research has tended to focus on macro-level issues pertaining to faith-based organizations. A fuller, micro-level portrait of the

2 complexities of faith-based organizations is warranted. Research has also only just begun to explore how organizational theory can aid in faith-based organizational management. Research on faith-based organizations is located in the “nonprofit” area of the public policy and administration scholarship field. Known as the “third sector” because it is neither the public government sector nor the private business sector, nonprofit organizations hold a unique place in the fabric of society (Weisbrod, 1997).

While the systematic investigation of nonprofit organizations began in the 1970s (Anheier & Seibel, 1990), only a portion of the literature devoted to their investigation has focused on faith-based organizations (Smith, 1983; Wuthnow, 1990). Bielefeld and Cleveland (2013a) found 811 domestic and international studies that examined faith-based organizations since 1912. However, according to their classification of these studies (p. 444), the vast majority (over 80%) of published research on faith-based organizations has only been conducted within the past two decades. Schneider (2013a) has argued that the study of faith-based organizations has lagged behind other types of research due to its lack of depth, not its breadth of knowledge. Bielefeld and Cleveland (2013a), in their review of the existing literature on organizations that can be classified as either “faith-based” or “religious,” found that

“nearly half of the articles focused on services, about one third on the relationship with the government, about one-seventh on the theological uniqueness and the remaining one twelfth on methods” (p. 445).

With such a substantial amount of research directed towards faith-based organizations, it is apparent that FBOs are not understudied; rather, they are studied through a lens that, thus far, has focused primarily on the social services they provide

3 and their relationship with governments. So, research has yet to paint a full portrait of the complexities of faith-based organizations. Although the general management of faith-based organizations exists within practitioner literature (Anthony & Estep, 2005; Bacher & Cooper-White, 2007; Berkley, 2007; Powers, 2008; Queen, 2000; Safranski, 1985; Welch, 2005), and while scholarly works have explored the management of faith-based organizations (Brinckerhoff, 1999; Jeavons, 1994; Miller, 2002) and the tensions within them (Torry, 2005), these tensions are only broadly identified and described. In order to more accurately understand faith-based organizations, we must more thoroughly identify and describe these tensions, and, most importantly, explain how they impact organizations and analyze how tensions are managed within them. It is possible to paint a fuller portrait of faith-based organizations by exploring these tensions and how they are managed. This study argues that applying a paradox perspective to faith-based organizations is an appropriate theoretical lens (Lüscher &

Lewis, 2008) to use to more deeply understand the phenomenological issue of these tensions and their management within faith-based organizations. Cornforth (2003) asserts that “the governance of nonprofit organizations is relatively under-theorized in comparison with the governance of business corporations” (p. 6). He also argues that a better understanding of nonprofit organizations can be gained by taking “a multi-paradigm perspective and focus[ing] explicitly on the paradoxes, ambiguities, and tensions involved in governance” (p. 11).

DiMaggio (1995) notes that “the best theories are hybrids” (p. 392) and “multidimensional” (p. 396) as they allow for a combination of approaches towards a particular topic or phenomena. Unique or new ways of studying organizations are

4 often a precursor to developing new theories about them, thus allowing for a fuller understanding. Sutton and Staw (1995) contend that even a “small set of interviews, a demonstration experiment, a pilot survey, a bit of archival data may be all that is needed to show why a particular process might be true” (p. 383). Finally, as advocated by Bisei and Lindman (2009):

Religion has a great deal to offer the study and practice of public administration. Public issues…are informed by the often principled positions raised by religious authorities. The impulse to serve one’s community is a powerful one. Religious communities are very effective in identifying social welfare needs and mobilizing citizen efforts toward these various public purposes. (p. 19)

Although many scholars have suggested making connections between faith- based organizations and the management literature, it has rarely been done. This has been to the detriment of third sector research generally, and faith-based organizations specifically. Tracey (2012) found in his comprehensive review of religion, as a focus of the management literature, that only 86 articles had been selected for assessment from a total of 21 management journals. He concluded by saying that:

Few management scholars are likely to dispute the profound role of religion in most economies and societies. Yet, somewhat curiously, religion has been largely excluded from systematic analysis in the main scholarly journals in the discipline. It is notable that with the partial exception of Administrative Science Quarterly, religion hardly features at all in the major journals that count for tenure at the leading business schools. The picture is also true for the other main management journals. (p. 124)

Consequently, this study “paves a path forward” for future endeavors as it examines the three disciplines mentioned by Tracey (2012): organizational strategy, theory and behavior. This study is located within this theoretical tradition by applying a paradox

5 framework from the organizational literature. It then offers the same perspective on faith-based organizations. Morgan (1986) states that to understand the complexities of organizations, studies and theories of organizations must take unique approaches so that they can “grasp the multiple meanings of situations and…confront and manage contradiction and paradox, rather than pretend they do not exist” (p. 339). Although the relevance of organizational theory to the study of religious organizations has been argued for over two decades (DiMaggio, 1998; Jeavons, 1998), a discussion of paradoxical tensions has been scantly applied to nonprofit organizations. DiMaggio (1998) underscores this point by noting that “the potential…for testing theories and enhancing our ability to explain the scope and size of the nonprofit sector (including its religious component) has not yet been tapped” (p. 16). Cornforth (2003) contends that understanding organizations and their management problems needs to evolve beyond “simple either/or choices of seeing them as paradoxes. Managing paradox means embracing and exploring tensions and differences rather than choosing between them” (p. 11). Some articles have hinted at possible tensions within faith-based organizations, such as the tensions between: religious and secular forces (Hehir, 2000; Thyer, 2006); their social service mission; economic realities (Kvasny & Lee, 2010); religious organizational identity (Unruh, Sinha, & Belcher, 2010); and organizational change due to government funding (Scheitle, 2009b). Scholarship on faith-based organizations has yet to fully explore the tensions that exist within FBOs and their management. However, faith-based organizations have the potential to be an exemplar of paradox theory as they epitomize paradoxes. They are a religious organization existing in a secular world with

6 personnel management representing individual faiths, while simultaneously meeting the demands of service in an increasingly complex socio-economic and political environment. Lewis (2000) maintains that by “using the paradox framework, in future studies researchers can explore organizing as an ongoing process of equilibrating opposing forces and detail its tensions, cyclical dynamics, and management” (p. 769). Smith and Lewis (2011) also note that “a paradox perspective argues that long-term sustainability requires continuous efforts to meet multiple, divergent demands” (p. 381). Thus, using a paradox perspective to examine faith-based organizations not only yields important empirical data on tensions and their management within these organizations, but can also: (1) integrate existing management models and theories that have mostly only been applied to for-profit organizations, and (2) offer new insights into how research is conducted on faith-based organizations.

1.3 Research Purpose The purpose of this comparative case study of faith-based organizations is twofold. First, the study sets out to identify, describe, and analyze the underlying tensions, oppositions, and contradictions within faith-based organizations. Second, based on this data, the study then explores how these underlying tensions, oppositions, and contradictions are managed so that a fuller portrait of faith-based organizations is offered. Unlike previous studies that have examined faith-based organizations either at the program or organizational level, or studies that have focused primarily on identification and description, this study goes further in exploring organizational processes and operations at the individual and staff level. This allows for the application of existing organizational theory—a paradox perspective.

The literature on faith-based organizations shows that imprecise language is often used to identify and describe FBOs by both the academy and government (Sider & Unruh, 2004; Bradley, 2009). This undifferentiated language has led to confounding definitions of what constitutes a faith-based organization in both the academic community and the public policy arena. What is a faith-based organization? Recently, Bielefeld and Cleveland (2013a) reviewed the literature on faith-based organizations to discover that the definition and understanding of FBOs varies widely in both practice and scholarship. They found there is no universal definition by which to categorize faith-based organizations. Although the existence of the varied nature of faith-based organizations has been well documented, the specifics of organizational operations have been less frequently researched. Since public policy relating to faith-based organizations is primarily concerned with government funding of faith-based organizational programs, the academic literature has also focused on this area of theory and practice, often at the expense of other areas of scholarship. In addition, although researchers have struggled to define faith-based organizations through various typologies, another problem in understanding the organizations stems not from defining their varied nature at the macro-level, but rather how they operate at the micro-level (Felin & Foss, 2005; Langley, 1999). In other words, there is an inherent difficulty in identifying, defining, and characterizing an organization unless there is empirical data on how it operates.

While the academy and the government have focused on whether a faith-based organization should receive public funding for social service provision, research on faith-based organizations has concentrated mainly at the program level and not at the

8 individual or management level of the organization. In order to more accurately identify, describe, and analyze what faith-based organizations are, and more importantly for this study, how they operate, a more precise portrait of faith-based organizations and their management is needed. This study offers a more nuanced and holistic approach to faith-based organizations by exploring the categories of belonging, learning, organizing, and performing within FBOs through the lens of organizational paradox theory.

What is organizational paradox theory? Poole and Van de Ven (1989) describe underlying tensions, oppositions, and contradictions in organizations as a paradox. Smith and Lewis (2011) have subsequently advanced this understanding of organizational paradox by clarifying that these underlying tensions, oppositions, and contradictions in organizations may at first seem to be contradictory but, in fact, also represent opportunities. They describe organizational paradoxes as: “integrated elements that exist simultaneously and persist over time” (p. 382).

1.4 Research Questions In order to advance the knowledge of faith-based organizations, the following research questions guide this study:

RQ 1: What are the tensions, oppositions, contradictions, and simultaneous paradoxes that exist within faith-based organizations?

RQ 2: How are these tensions, oppositions, contradictions, and simultaneous paradoxes managed within faith-based organizations?

These questions follow the suggestions for future research proposed by Smith and Lewis (2011, p. 397). While the research questions above are relevant across the broad range that comprises faith-based organizations, not all types of faith-based organizations are

9 included in this study. The diverse spectrum of faith-based organizations include, for example, religious type (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, wherein there are FBOs with ties to congregations, and those without congregational ties), size (large multi-national FBOs as opposed to small neighborhood or established community FBOs), service (from FBOs that focus on basic human needs, such as food, shelter, and clothing, to those that help people with abuse, addiction, or mental health issues), and even geographical location (urban, suburban, rural, and exurban).

1.5 Research Sampling For this comparative case study, five non-government contracting faith-based organizations were included in the sample. Sampling was limited to those organizations that could be classified as established, community, faith-based, nonprofit, and human service organizations. Similarly, the paradoxes that were applied to the faith-based organizations in this study were also limited. Smith and

Lewis (2011) categorize four organizational paradoxes: belonging, learning, organizing, and performing. They use six cross-categories to illustrate their independence from, and interrelatedness to, each other. Further, they found 33 exemplars that show specific paradoxical elements within these 10 categories. This study adopts these 33 exemplars as its primary theoretical framework. Thus, this study advances a paradox perspective on faith-based organizations through rich and detailed case reports and a cross-case comparison. The data for this study was derived from: organizational documents; artifacts via observations; and stakeholders, through informal and formal interviews. This study contends that the stakeholders of the participating organizations are the board members, staff members, volunteers, and donors to the organizations as they all “hold

10 a stake” in the processes and outcomes of the organizations (Abzug & Webb, 1999; Freeman & Reed, 1983; Gregory & Howard, 2009; Hoge, Zech, McNamara, & Donahue, 1998). It remains outside the scope of this study to directly involve the clients or service recipients of faith-based organizations, although their interactions with each other and the stakeholders of the organizations were often noted in the case reports. By focusing on the stakeholders of faith-based organizations, this study investigates the daily processes of the organizations.

1.6 Research Rationale The rationale of this study involves exploring what makes faith-based organizations unique from other organizations in the for-profit, not-for-profit, and government sectors. In what may appear to be an obvious statement, it is important to note that faith-based organizations differ from non-faith-based nonprofits (Fischer, 2006; Grettenberger, Bartkowski, & Smith, 2006; Jeavons, 1994, 2004; von

Furstenberg, 2006), primarily because stakeholders in FBOs may feel free to “overtly” express their spiritual identity and religious values (Sider & Unruh, 2004). This is not to suggest that people working in non-faith-based nonprofits are not “spiritual” or “religious.” For example, nonprofit workers may identify to varying degrees with organized religion and have different affiliations with spirituality. However, non- faith-based nonprofits do not necessarily provide an environment where expressions of spiritual identity and religious values are “overtly” encouraged as they are assumed to be in their faith-based counterparts.

The study seeks to know how the role of paradox in faith-based organizations helps to illuminate our understanding of the interwoven complexities of faith in the workplace. In a world where spirituality in the workplace continues to diminish

(Mitroff & Denton, 1999), faith-based organizations offer individuals an opportunity to work in an environment that supposedly supports personal commitment to spiritual beliefs, values, and goals (Flanigan, 2010). Reave (2005) argues that these commitments to spiritual beliefs, values, and goals offer individuals, and the organization as a whole, a tangible, “added benefit” through leadership effectiveness. These tangible, added benefits, from shared spiritual meaning, purposes, and vision for the individual and the organization may be broadly described as “spiritual capital”

(Zohar & Marshall, 2004, p. 27). In part, due to these added spiritual benefits to the individual, faith-based organizations retain a spiritual influence on their board, staff, volunteers (Cnaan, Kastemakis, & Wineburg, 1993; Wilson & Janoski, 1995; Wymer, 1997), and their recipients (Lockhart, 2005). Furthermore, faith-based organizations maintain spiritual capital with stakeholders because they believe in the overall work of the organization (Lam, 2002). Middlebrooks and Noghiu (2010), in their definition of spiritual capital

(p. 75), show that faith-based organizations can foster the type of individual service disposition needed for spiritual capital. Individuals who serve in faith-based organizations can manifest their faith through working in the organization by: (1) the ability to believe in something “bigger than themselves” through the mission of the organization; (2) having a sense of interconnectedness through shared beliefs and values in the organization; and (3) sharing a commonality with other coworkers in a “call to serve.”

The “call to serve” is a recurring spiritual and religious theme among nonprofit workers (Lam, 2002; Loveland, Sikkink, Myers, & Radcliff, 2005; Wilson & Musick, 1997). Light (2002) notes that despite people indicating that they may receive better

12 pay elsewhere, “nonprofit employees come to work for the chance to accomplish something worthwhile” (p. 8). Similarly, a “service before self” identity model in organizations can often substitute for incentive-based worker compensation (Akerlof & Kranton, 2005; Speckbacher, 2003). While lackluster compensation in faith-based organizations (Scheitle, 2009a) rarely encourages an obligation to organizational service, it is the faith present in FBOs that encourages worker commitment to the organization. So although spiritual identity, service meaningfulness, and intrinsic motivation are not only found in faith-based organizations (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000), it remains a substantial reason for why people choose to work for FBOs (Flanigan, 2010; Lam, 2002; Netting, O’Connor, Thomas, & Yancey, 2005). Research on faith-based organizations thus offers a unique example among the non-faith-based, not-for-profit, for-profit, and government sectors. The individuals who work for faith-based organizations have a passion for, and commitment to, religious beliefs and spiritual values. Meanwhile, the organization itself purports to possess a commitment to religious beliefs and spiritual values. This passion and commitment for the social mission of an organization, coupled with individual religious beliefs and spiritual values, has been shown to have implications for personnel performance (Cropanzano, Rupp, & Byrne, 2003) and the management of an organization (Garcia-Zamar, 2003). Yip, Twohill, Ernst and Munusamy (2010) show that managers who lead faith-based organizations have the opportunity to “bind” the organization together through shared commitments to mission and faith, but these same shared commitments can “blind” the organizations to unintended consequences. This paradoxical commitment to individual religious beliefs and shared organizational spiritual values highlights the fact that because faith-based organizations embed

13 multiple beliefs and values simultaneously, they also display important management insights for research. For example, Yip et al. (2010) describe identity tensions within an interfaith faith-based organization in Asia. Some of its Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist workers with non-Christian beliefs started to complain about the role of faith in the organization when the organization’s stakeholders—the Christian church—wanted to draw on biblical values and principles during staff meetings. Similarly, Unruh, Sinha, and Belcher (2010, p .6) describe identity tensions in a board meeting at a Christian faith-based organization in Baltimore, USA, when some of its members wanted to change the organization’s mission to be more inclusive towards other faiths. This incident is another example of how faith-based organizations “walk a fine line” between competing goals, missions, values, and beliefs. Thus, the rationale for this study also involves gaining a fuller understanding of the role of paradox in faith-based organizations. Similarly, another rationale for this study is that the potential exists for future research to focus on emerging topics due to the application of a paradox perspective on faith-based organizations. Some of the topics that may emerge from this study include (1) how faith-based organizations innovate; and (2) how all nonprofit organizations can use a paradox perspective to help manage their paradoxes.

1.7 Research Significance The significance of examining faith-based organizations through a paradox perspective is twofold. First, more detailed descriptions of faith-based organizations can be developed through which the government and academy can better identify and assess FBOs. This study advocates for a shift in scholarship from the mere

14 identification and description of faith-based organizations and their programs and services, to the application of organizational management theory. Second, the application of organizational management theory to faith-based organizations has the potential to build upon and advance existing organizational theories and management models. In going beyond the mere description of nonprofits towards the application of theory (Brooks, 2005; Flyvbjerg, 2006), a more complex insight into faith-based organizations allows for theory development and the future testing of management models. While it is outside the scope of this study, some of these paradoxes may require new categories of understanding in future research. Landsberg (2004) argues that non-profits are more complex than their for-profit counterparts due to their diverse set of constituents, stakeholders, obligations, and revenue sources. He advises that for-profit management and theoretical models may need modification when applied to nonprofits. This study is cognizant of this possibility and acknowledges the complexity of the theory-praxis nexus. Indeed, as noted in the discussion chapter of this study, some aspects of the for-profit paradox management model do not directly cross over and illuminate all the ways in which faith-based organizations manage their paradoxes. DiMaggio (1998) underscores this point, arguing that some models and theories may need to be altered when applied to faith-based organizations. The findings from this study help to expand knowledge in the “research gap” between for-profit theoretical management models and faith-based organizations. As such, the findings from this study are both timely and significant for practitioners and the academy. The study is also opportunistic in that prior research highlights the need for continuing studies on faith-based organizations (Schneider, 2013a). Additionally,

15 previous calls for papers (Ehnert, Lewis, & Michaud, 2013) highlight the need to study organizations with multiple and shifting goals (for example, innovation and social responsibility) and multiple and shifting individual roles (for example, professional identity and personal values). The following literature review provides a more in-depth overview of prior research on faith-based organizations, as well as offering a synopsis of the paradox management theory utilized in this study.

Chapter 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Overview of Faith-Based Organizational Research This literature review analyses the primary areas of prior research on faith- based organizations. Two questions are fundamental to the concerns of this study: (1) What do we know about faith-based organizations and (2) what has research uncovered thus far about faith-based organizational paradoxes? This literature review provides some answers to these two foundational questions by exploring the following sub-questions: (I) What contexts underpin faith-based organizations and matters of government funding and collaboration? (II) Are faith-based organizations more or less effective and efficient than their secular counterparts in delivering service outcomes? (III) How are FBOs defined? (IV) What is the so-called “faith factor” and why is it important? (V) What are the limitations of previous research on faith-based organizations? This chapter explores the answers to these sub-questions in order to inform the research undertaken in this study. Finally, this chapter also provides a synopsis of the paradox management framework this study adopts to form “a paradox perspective” on faith-based organizations. This study argues that a paradox perspective aides in gaining a fuller portrait of faith-based organizations, faith-based services, and their relationship to the government. Faith-based organizations, their relationship to the government, and the services they provide, have volumes devoted to their study. Indeed, the contexts that underpin faith-based organizations and matters of government funding and

17 collaboration are the dominant frames through which FBOs are generally understood (in the United States and internationally). Bielefeld and Cleveland (2013a) conducted a meta-analysis of the literature on faith-based organizations written since 1912. According to their classification, faith-based services and their relationship to the government account for nearly 80% (or 707 out of 889) of all international and U.S. based articles. Still, other frames for understanding faith-based organizations have developed alongside this dominant frame. Scholars have also attempted to research faith-based organizations by the nature and role of faith within the organization, the organization’s mission, the methods used to study them, and the organizational theories by which they can be classified. Nevertheless, these latter four frames represent a small minority of existing research. According to their classification, Bielefeld and Cleveland (2013a) argue that 571 out of 716 U.S. based studies (or nearly 80%) focus on either effectiveness and/or efficiency assessments of social service outcomes provided by faith-based organizations, or the organizations’ relationship to the government through the funding of its social services. Additionally, Bielefeld and Cleveland (2013a) note that articles on U.S. faith-based organizations account for over 80% (or 716 out of 889) of all the articles produced, compared to fewer than 20% of international articles on the same topic. As such, it is relevant to analyze the historical context of the existing literature and the lens through which the vast majority of these studies have regarded faith-based organizations. As Bielefeld and Cleveland (2013a) show, wide-spread research interest in faith-based organizations has only recently gained traction in the U.S. over the last two

18 decades. This research interest is based in large part on public policy choices that have allowed U.S. federal government funds to be allocated to faith-based organizations that provide social services. As Wuthnow (2004) notes, “much of the interest in faith-based organizations has been generated by public policy debates over the appropriateness of channeling government money to and through these organizations (p. 139).

2.2 Government Funding & Collaboration This section highlights the primary area through which much of the existing literature on faith-based organizational research has focused—government funding for social service provision. Although faith-based organizations only recently gained attention by researchers as social service providers because of their connection to receiving U.S. federal funding, faith-based organizations have also held a long history in establishing local government collaboration. As detailed below, local government collaboration can occur without direct funding of social services. The following sub- section provides a brief historical overview of U.S. federal government policies regarding faith-based funding for social service provision.

2.2.1 Federal Government Funded Social Service Provision The present form of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships (OFBNP) has undergone several changes since its inception in 2001. Its foundational mission of allowing faith-based organizations to compete for federal funding (White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, 2009a, 2009b) has been prevalent through the “Charitable Choice” program under the Clinton Administration. According to the federal government, faith-based organizations

19 include religious organizations (churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples), religiously affiliated organizations (schools and hospitals), and other nonprofit organizations that are faith-based. While these organizations have legal jurisdiction to apply for federal funding to enact government services, there has always been several assumptions about the organizations and their relationship to the government (White House, 2001). Some of these assumptions are elucidated by Vita and Wilson (2001), including the claims that: (1) faith-based organizations are ineffective; (2) FBOs are inefficient; and (3) federal funding of FBOs is illegal because the beneficiaries and recipients of the services are from disadvantaged populations, feel constitutionally violated, and are generally unhappy with the services provided. These assumptions have caused many lawmakers to refrain from allowing faith-based organizations to compete with other government agencies and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) for federal funding for social services. Nevertheless, the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community

Initiatives (OFBCI) was created quickly after George W. Bush’s administration took office in 2001. The OFBCI was designed to be an office from which community faith-based services and programs could operate under the umbrella of religious and nonprofit organizations (White House Office of Faith-Based and Community

Initiatives, 2003). Unfortunately, the office, its programs, and the faith-based organizations operating social services with government funding underwent legal and administrative problems (Gibelman & Gelman, 2002). Kearns (2003) claims that research shows

…a recurring pattern of negative outcomes associated with growing reliance on government contracts including increased bureaucratization, loss of autonomy, mission creep, and the inability of nonprofit boards

to exercise appropriate control over the increasingly complex task of administering government contracts. (p. 118)

While it may have been a worthy or noble cause to create the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI), several legal concerns arose from its creation. First, the office involves all three branches of the federal government, which means that there were instances where jurisdictional boundaries pertaining to the funding of FBOs was unclear. Second, the constitutional separation of church and state remains the most problematic issue for the program. As the “separation of church and state” issue pertains to faith-based organizations, FBOs want to retain their distinctive religious character while the government desires to have religion play a remarkably diminished, or even absent, role in the delivery of social services. Due to this constant constitutional battle, some of the faith-based programs have been consumed by time-consuming litigation (Lupu &Tuttle, 2005). Yet, provisions in the law existed to maintain the separation of church and state through the same provisions that existed within the Clinton Administration’s “Charitable Choice” program (Gossett & Pynes, 2003). The Federal Register (2004) highlighted the constitutionality of the faith-based programs by stating that they were “within the framework of constitutional church-state guidelines” (p. 42586), and that these “programs are implemented in a manner consistent with applicable statutes and the requirements of the constitution, including the Establishment, Free Exercise, and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment” (p. 42586). The OFBCI received wide- spread public and congressional criticisms regarding the separation of church and state because it was thought that public tax dollars were supporting private religion. However, Cnaan and Boddie (2002) have highlighted that since the provision of Charitable Choice in 1996, the OFBCI no longer appears to regard the religious

21 character of faith-based organizations as a concern. That is, they argue that the OFBCI is not apprehensive about the separation of church and state in circumstances where FBOs are providing social service programs with federal funding. One of the largest departments that oversaw faith-based organizations and their government-funded programs was the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2002). The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2013) website provides the following rules about funding faith-based organizational programs:

The United States Supreme Court has said that faith-based organizations may not use direct government support to support ‘inherently religious’ activities. Basically, it means you cannot use any part of a direct Federal grant to fund religious worship, instruction, or proselytization. Instead, organizations may use government money only to support the non-religious social services that they provide. Therefore, faith-based organizations that receive direct governmental funds should take steps to separate, in time or location, their inherently religious activities from the government-funded services that they offer.

Thus, activities like religious worship, instruction, and proselytization are expressly forbidden in government-funded social service programs. However, the stigma that faith-based organizations would, and do, use public monies for practices like religious worship, instruction, and proselytization remains at the center of much of the literature.

2.2.2 Local Government Collaboration Bielefeld and Cleveland (2013a) note that previous research has illuminated the complex ties to government funding that many faith-based organizations in the

U.S. have. They also describe how these relationships can cause organizations to suffer from the same types of control and autonomy issues described by Kearns (2003), above. However, since the five organizations in this study are classified as

“non-government contracting,” they were not subject to the same federal governmental requirements that impacted the faith, identity and culture of the organizations that others have described. In further elucidating the findings of Gazley and Brudney (2007), who contend that nonprofit organizations will not want to form relationships with government agencies because their missions are incompatible with them (p. 411), all five organizations did, in fact, attempt to collaborate with local, regional, and state governmental agencies and did receive grants for qualifying programs and infrastructure improvement. Although Gazley and Brudney (2007) were correct to note that there is often a high level of mistrust of the government on the part of stakeholders within nonprofit organizations, overall the majority of stakeholders from the five organizations in this study represented sufficient interest and enough trust to collaborate with government agencies where they deemed this appropriate. In opposition to the findings of Ebaugh, Chafetz, and Pipes (2007) that the “most explicitly religious” organizations choose not to seek collaborations with, or funding from, the government for social service provision, all five of the organizations in this study actively sought collaboration with the government to carry out their ministry. To this end, confirming the findings of Monsma (1996), the stakeholders at all five organizations also felt comfortable to decline grants and service assistance if they felt it would conflict with their faith identity and culture. Similarly, in contrast to Marvel and Marvel (2009), the majority of stakeholders at all five organizations, while remaining cautious but trustful (Van

Slyke, 2007) of a potential collaborative relationship with particular government

23 agencies, were also enthusiastic about the prospects, incentives, and outcomes of working alongside their local, regional, and state government agencies.1

2.3 Faith-Based Organizational Outcomes In addition to their historical ties to both the federal and local governments, and the legality through which they receive government funding, faith-based organizations have also been the subject of much research on their perceived ineffectiveness and inefficiency in delivering services. This section details the second most voluminous area of historical research on faith-based organizations— ineffectiveness and inefficiency. However, as shown below, there are several assumptions prior research makes about this area.

2.3.1 Inefficiency & Ineffectiveness Much of the existing literature on FBOs receiving federal funding for social service provision attempts to highlight or prove inefficiency or ineffectiveness compared to secular based organizations (Bartkowski & Regis, 2003; Daly, 2009; Kennedy & Bielefeld, 2006; Sager, 2010; Wineburg, 2007). However, not all the

1 One significant qualification that future researchers may do well to consider is that although the majority of stakeholders in this study were optimistic about forming relationships with the government (so that the organization could further its mission to serve recipients), this did not mean that they personally, or politically, felt the same admiration towards “the government” or its agencies. One could be personally and politically mistrustful of the government but, at the same time, when it came to the organization, as long as the government did not “interfere” with the identity or culture of the organization, most stakeholders were happy to receive additional personnel and financial resources to benefit organizational goals and those of recipients. As one stakeholder at EPSILON Organization quipped during an observation: “Money is money, it doesn’t matter where it comes from as long as we use it for good” (July 23, 2014).

24 literature is skeptical of faith-based organizations. Some research highlights the value-added to society from faith-based organizational social services (Stritt, 2008)2 and their program effectiveness (Cnaan, 1999, 2002; DeHaven, Hunter, Wilder, Walton, & Berry, 2004; Garrow, Nakashima, &McGuire, 2001; Littlefield, 2010; Wuthnow, Hackett, & Hsu, 2004). Thyer (2006) cautions that the “effectiveness of a faith-based program in no way validates the theology underlying the program” (p. 79). DeHaven et al. (2004) argue that,

Only by increasing the evaluation component of faith-based programs and disseminating the information gained will it be possible to determine how these programs can contribute systematically to improving the health and quality of life of at-risk populations in our communities. (p. 1034)

Bielefeld and Cleveland (2013b) go beyond claiming the mere effectiveness of faith- based organizations and contend that a “number of studies found FBOs provided equivalent or superior services to their secular counterparts” (p. 471). Research also indicates that faith-based organizations have not been given a level playing field when it comes to applying for federal funds versus their secular counterparts (Campbell, 2002a; Farnseley, 2001; Kvasny & Lee, 2010; Pipes & Ebaugh, 2002; Wilson, 2003). Conversely, scholars argue that there is little comparable difference between faith-based social service programs and their secular counterparts (Amirkhanyan, Kim,

& Lambright, 2009; Clerkin & Grønbjerg, 2007; Goldsmith, Eimicke, & Pineda, 2006; Lockhart, 2005; Mulder, 2004). When there is a difference between faith-based social service programs and secular programs, it is most often due to funding (Ebaugh,

2 Stritt (2008) estimates the value added benefits to society from faith-based organizations to be approximately $50 billion.

Chafetz, & Pipes, 2005, 2006a; Kearns, Park, & Yankosi, 2005; Twombly, 2002) or scope of program offerings (Campbell, 2011; Graddy & Ye, 2006). Recently, Chaves and Wineburg (2010) have argued that despite interest in government funding for their social service programs, religious congregations have not increased their collaborations with the government in providing these services since 1998. Additionally, they argue this is because the faith-based initiative enacted by the Bush administration, and continued (though in reduced form) by the Obama administration, has mostly underestimated the broad and diverse existing roles religious congregations already played in providing social services to their communities. Why do so many scholars see faith-based organizations as ineffective and inefficient? One reason for the perceived ineffectiveness of faith-based organizations resides in the role religion plays in faith-based programs. Monsma (1996) argues that the faith-based organizations that have been initially interested in contracting with the government for social service programs eventually refuse to do so because they fear losing their religious identity and independence. Moreover, other faith-based organizations who perceive benefits from government collaboration, not from increased religious adherence, but rather increased awareness of their organization (Hall & Kennedy, 2008), may opt to participate in faith-based funding. These faith- based organizations may be referred to as practicing what Johnson, Tompkins, and Webb (2002) refer to as “intentional religion.” That is, religion as a means to an end, rather than as a purpose in itself.

Thus, faith-based organizations may either be too afraid of losing their religious identity when contracting with the government (Sinha, 2013), or may have little religious identity in the first place. As such, faith-based organizations may see

26 contracting with the government as a way to grow the organization, rather than fulfill a faith mission. In this respect, perhaps not enough attention has been paid to nonprofit organizational autonomy when considering the relationships between nonprofit organizations and the government. The funding and collaboration scenarios described in previous research appears to indicate that nonprofits are in such desperate need of government funding that they will ultimately choose government assistance, and forfeit certain elements of faith in order to acquire this assistance. However, the scenario described above was not the reality, in terms of financial dependence and autonomy, for the faith-based organizations who participated in this study. A reason for the proposed inefficiency of faith-based organizations stems from a lack of consistent leadership and stakeholders. Chambré (2001) contends that a lack of consistent leaders is derived from faith-based organizations taking on federally funded programs only to lose a vast amount of their private funding for religious activities. Also, after agreeing to contract with the government to provide social services, many faith-based organizations may face challenges with their accountability to the government (Romzek & Johnston, 2005; U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2006). Another area of concern for faith-based organizations is the how contracting changes the services provided to the recipients.

For example, Ebaugh, Pipes, Chafetz, and Daniels (2003) observed that after contracting with the government, stakeholders at faith-based organizations often pursued dramatic changes in (1) funding sources and preferences, (2) decision making-tools, and (3) organizational culture and practices. They argue that while religion may play a significant role in why a faith-based organization wants to contract with the government to provide services, often the relationship with the government

27 ends up changing the overall character and mission of the FBO. Additionally, they note that a principal cause of this change in character over time follows from continually revolving staff that appear to be primarily volunteer-based. However, this is not to say that the religious beliefs of those who lead faith- based organizations undergoes a change, or is somehow diminished by their interaction with governments. Indeed, Kaplan, Calman, Golub, Ruddock, and Billings (2006) found that religious leaders still have an opportunity to inspire, motivate, and intervene in the lives of those who receive faith-based services. Faith-based organizations who receive government funding may fall into a perilous position if too many of their resources are spent on grant administration, instead of on being leaders of faith for their clients and communities.

2.3.2 Effectiveness & Efficiency As shown above, prior research has dutifully compared the effectiveness and/or efficiency of faith-based organizations to similar secular organizations. However, it remains outside the scope of this study to compare faith-based organizational effectiveness and/or efficiency to non-faith-based organizations. Instead, this study is concerned with how faith-based organizational stakeholders view their own effectiveness and efficiency. Surprisingly, most stakeholders at the five organizations in this study were not overly concerned about either their program effectiveness or their service efficiency.

2.3.2.1 Program Effectiveness When asked what makes a program effective for recipients, every stakeholder at all five organizations pointed towards “growth” as evidence that they are achieving

28 their mission. Yet, this thinking around what constitutes “effectiveness” may not be the same as the thinking in the minds of researchers when they issue surveys and questionnaires asking stakeholders to evaluate their own success (Herman & Renz, 1998, 1999; Lin & Van Ryzin, 2012; Sowa, Selden, & Sandfort, 2004). Indeed, in some ways, asking stakeholders if their programs are “effective” is problematic. This is because these issues are complicated by stakeholders’ perceived mission. For example, stakeholders in this study were constantly questioning if: (1) A program’s primary mission should be to increase the total number of recipients served (that is, achieving growth in program efficiency)? (2) Is program efficiency more or less important than quality of service (also called “service efficiency”)? (3) Should a program aim to simply feed, clothe, house and provide prayer for recipients? Or (4) should it, instead, aim to actively reduce poverty by providing recipient services? Conversely, many researchers when inquiring about an appropriate “outcome” in program effectiveness simply ask stakeholders if recipients fed, clothed, housed, and if someone prayed for them (that is, were services provided)? If the answer is “yes,” long-term recipient stability in relation to poverty is a secondary consideration, or even a byproduct of, the most fundamental part of an organization’s mission—food, clothing, housing, and prayer. Prior research confirms some of these competing aspects of an organization’s mission. Cnaan (1999), Cnaan (2002), DeHaven et al. (2004), Littlefield (2010), and Wuthnow et al. (2004) argue that some faith-based programs can be effective at achieving their mission, while still being mostly ineffective at lowering both short- term and long-term recipient poverty rates. This situation also appears to be true in the case of the five organizations in this study, as programming at all five

29 organizations lacked outcome measures. Whether it was lacking appropriate data to measure service outcomes, or lacking the initiative to critically analyze their data for insights on their service impact, the five organizations in this study did not attempt to ascertain if their programs were effective at reducing poverty in their community. Instead, program capacity in terms of organization growth that included trade-offs between quality, size, and scale of services in nonprofit organizations (Carman & Nesbit, 2012) was most common “effectiveness” measure stakeholders considered.

Additionally, the effectiveness of the organization was understood by the majority of stakeholders at all five organizations as being “competent” in their work responsibilities, in areas such as communication (Garicano & Posner, 2005) and financial and personnel administration (Lazear & Shaw, 2007). Due to the lack of outcome measures at the faith-based organizations in this study, Saperstein (2003) was correct to maintain that professional training sessions and certification are needed in order for the staff of faith-based organizations to be genuinely accountable in the delivery of their programs.

2.3.2.2 Service Efficiency Service efficiency was even less of a concern among stakeholders at the five organizations. For them, increasing the total number of recipients served remained the primary indicator of how they evaluated their ministry. While the number of recipients ebbed and flowed from week to week, or month to month, primarily due to the external forces of poverty, recipients often caused internal fluctuation in work processes through their suffering. Acknowledging that organizational work remains highly fluid and flexible, and that faith can and will disrupt workplace priorities,

30 stakeholders turned their focus towards personnel, and financial efficiency. Callen, Klein, and Tinkelman (2003) view efficiency as “expense ratios to outcomes.”3 Yet, many stakeholders in the study rejoiced at living out their faith by taking time throughout their day to offer love, hospitality, and stability to suffering recipients, despite the potential detriments to the timely completion of their tasks and decision making. If efficiency is tied to productively achieving organizational outcomes, and part of those outcomes is tied to recipient well-being, then conceivably, these five faith-based organizations are displaying the development of new processes and capabilities. After all, these organizations often faced little competition in their local social service marketplace and were not competing directly against businesses or government (Van Slyke, 2003).4 Additionally, when they did face competition, they sought to find an ideal balance between flexibility and innovation which provided a competitive advantage against their nonprofit peers (Holmes & Moir, 2007). Although Vita and Wilson (2001) have argued that recipients are generally unhappy with the services they receive at faith-based organizations, there was no apparent evidence of this at any of the five organizations in this study. While not necessarily related to satisfaction, several recipients did express that their faith had grown because of the organizations they were involved with. This tangential

3 Callen, Klein, and Tinkelman (2003) “measure organizational efficiency by three metrics: the ratio of administrative expenses to total expenses, the ratio of fundraising expenses to total expenses, and the ratio of program expenses to total expenses” (p. 495).

4 Cunningham (2005) maintains the reverse, in that “public administrators are competing with religious organizations for providing services to bodies and minds” and that “if we fail to consider the spiritual/emotional needs of those we serve, faith- based organizations will outperform public sector organizations” (p. 953).

31 discovery confirms the findings of Hugen, Wolfer, and Renkema (2006), who found that recipients often felt that their faith grew because “God loved them” and “Jesus was watching over them” through their established relationships with the personnel at faith-based organizations. There was also inconclusive evidence that the limited number of staff and available resources ultimately leads to many faith-based organizations being “decent, at best” in delivering human services. At least amongst the five organizations in this study, they appeared to be fulfilling their mission of serving low-income recipients and at-risk youth through emergency food, clothing, housing, and spiritual assistance. So, perhaps “efficiency,” for these five faith-based organizations, is substantially different from that found in previous research.

2.4 Defining Faith-Based Organizations The third category of inquiry regarding faith-based organizations concerns how scholars and practitioners define FBOs. Prior research definitions of faith-based organizations are detailed in this section, before proceeding to the primary ways in which scholars and practitioners have attempted to clarify the undifferentiated language surrounding FBOs—the role of faith in organizations and organizational typologies. An operational definition of faith-based organizations for this study is then proposed, followed by some suggested future definitional directions. Lastly, I offer current definitional advancements based on the discoveries of this study

2.4.1 Prior Research Definitions The preceding discussion focused on the historical policy context of FBOs. It also discussed outcomes-based approaches to organizations where the majority of

32 literature on FBOs has been concentrated. The second dominant frame for understanding faith-based organizations is the area of their definition. Instead of understanding faith-based organizations in terms of the effectiveness or efficiency of their social service programs or their relationship to the government through the funding of these programs, this section focuses on what makes a faith-based organization “faith-based.” According to Bielefeld and Cleveland’s (2013a) classification in their meta-analysis of 889 articles, this type of inquiry, where

“religion” or “faith” is the dominant frame for researching faith-based organizations, accounts for roughly 13% (or 118 out of 889 studies) of the available literature on faith-based organizations. Despite hundreds of studies on faith-based organizations, scholars have failed to reach consensus about what makes a faith-based organization “faith-based.” Therefore, a broad yet imprecise definitional understanding of faith-based organizations remains. Goldsmith, Eimicke, and Pineda (2006) ask the foundational question, “‘What is a faith-based organization?’ This most fundamental question does not yet have a clear answer. There does not seem to be a generally accepted description used by government, academia, the media or even the faith-based sector” (p. 2). Sider and Unruh (2004) further explain that “the general term faith-based organizations [is] inadequate because no clear definition exists of what it means to be faith-based” (p. 109). Sider and Unruh (2004) argue that the undifferentiated language that has been used to categorize all faith-based organizations has led to misconceptions and unclear definitions of what constitutes a faith-based organization. Ebaugh, Chafetz, and Pipes (2006b) hold that “beyond the individual level, what makes an organization ‘religious’ or ‘faith-based’ is not well defined in the

33 literature, especially regarding empirical indicators” (p. 2259). Empirical indicators can include “service religiosity,” such as praying with recipients and distributing religious materials, “staff religiosity,” such as praying at staff meetings and demonstrating God’s love to recipients, and “formal organizational religiosity,” such as a religious mission statement and the use of sacred images in public areas (p. 2264). The dilemma expressed in the statements above is that the research is yet to identify what a faith-based organization is, or how faith operates within organizations.

Consequently, the literature relies on a characterization of an organization as faith- based stemming from the self-identification of the organization. Bielefeld and Cleveland (2013a) maintain that regardless of how research describes or defines faith-based organizations, research is structured around three categories of assessment: program implementation, organizational control, and expression of religion. The authors’ suggest that previous research on program implementation looks at faith-based organizations through the lens of the work they do in service delivery and, in particular, through the religious work they do in service delivery. Organizational control studies, they contend, examines faith-based organizations based on their funding sources, power, and decision-making processes within the organization, such as hiring preferences based on religion or client preferences based on religion. Finally, they found that previous research on religious expression focused on the self-identity of faith-based organizations and the religiousness of the people involved with these organizations.

While Bielefeld and Cleveland (2013a) created these three categories to help delineate how research on faith-based organizations has been conducted, the categories also show how there is a gap in the literature that focuses on the

34 management and overall organizational processes of the organizations. Moreover, despite such focused attention on defining what a faith-based organization is at a macro-organizational level, research has advanced little in describing a faith-based organization at the micro-organizational level. The research that exists has focused on the micro-organizational level and the religiousness of those involved in the organization. Even with studies of individual religious behavior exhibited at the micro-organizational level, the internal processes and management of the organization remains mostly untapped by scholars. Nevertheless, based on either the expression of religion by individuals surrounding the organization, or the social services and programs provided by the organization, scholars have formed some basic parameters for defining faith-based organizations. The Working Group on Human Needs and Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (2002, pp. 35-36), in its report titled, Finding common ground: 29 recommendations of the Working Group on Human Needs and Faith-Based and

Community Initiative, produced a typology of faith indicators that are used to place an organization on a continuum of religiosity so that research on these organizations might be performed. The characteristics of a faith-based organization identified by this study are:

 A mission statement; founded for a religious purpose

 The religiousness of a controlling board, senior management, and staff

 Affiliation with external religious agencies

 Financial support from religious sources

 501(c)3 tax status

 Religious content of the program(s)

 The connection between religious content and outcomes

 Religious environment (e.g., name, building, religious symbols) Relatedly, Ebaugh et al. (2006b) sought to identify faith-based organizations by the following features:

We opted for the term faith-based social service coalition but use it in a very precise sense to include only organizations that meet four criteria: (1) the organization defines itself as faith-based; (2) it delivers at least one social service (from an extensive list of service types); (3) religious congregations are in some manner affiliated with the organization; and (4) it has its own board of directors. Follow-up research demonstrated that virtually all also enjoy 501(c)3 tax status. (p. 2262)

While this was a good start towards classifying what a faith-based organization was in 2006, more recent research (Wittberg, 2013) has shown that religious congregational affiliation was not always present when examining faith-based organizations. The mere existence of non-denominational or inter-faith-based organizations where no one religion or faith was represented, also shows that not all faith-based organizations are founded by, or maintain affiliation with, religious congregations. Also, not all “faith-based” organizations file for 501(c)3 tax exemption status. Faith- based organizations may not file for 501(c)3 tax exemption status for a variety of reasons, including a lack of organizational size or scope of services, the absence of desire to formalize operations, for religious preference, and to maintain separation from government entities. Furthermore, an argument for the existence of for-profit faith-based organizations could even be made (Ibrahim & Angelidis, 2005; Taylor,

2017). For example, one example of a for-profit faith-based organizaiton may be Chick-fil-A (2019), who remains closed for business on Sundays and whose corporate

36 purpose states: “To glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us and to have a positive influence on all who come into contact with Chick-fil-A.” Corporate purpose statements such as these, along with similar profit-seking ventures into social capitalism, corporate citizenship, or corporate social responsibility (Carroll, 2015; McWilliams & Segel, 2000), show that research and classification of faith-based organizations only within the nonprofit realm may be premature since research has yet to identify or study for-profit faith-based organizations. Another example of a for- profit faith-based organization may be Hobby Lobby (2019); which also remains closed for business on Sundays and also describes itself in faith terms when it proclaims as its core values:

We believe that it is by God's grace and provision that Hobby Lobby has endured. He has been faithful in the past, and we trust Him for our future…We are committed to Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with biblical principles.

Research has shown a penchant for attempting to define faith-based organizations by their faith. However, the crux of such an approach also depends on pinpointing the role of faith in faith-based organizations. Thus far, pinpointing the role of faith in faith-based organizations has remained elusive.

2.4.2 Organizational Faith What is organizational faith and how does it operate within faith-based organizations? These two questions comprise what scholars term the “faith factor” in faith-based organizational research (Fischer, 2006; von Furstenberg, 2006;

Grettenberger, Bartkowski, & Smith, 2006; Jeavons, 1998; Sider & Unruh, 2004). Scholars have suggested that the so-called “faith factor” is the distinctive characteristic between faith-based organizations and non-faith-based social service providers.

Bielefeld and Cleveland (2013a) argue that “researchers should model, test, and validate in detail how the faith factor arises and works” (p. 458). Scholars have largely strayed from answering these two questions in favor of concentrating at the programmatic and macro-identification levels of faith-based organizations. Despite faith, religion, and spirituality being studied as a defining characteristic in faith-based organizations in roughly 15% of the available literature (Bielefeld & Cleveland, 2013a), foundational questions regarding the definition of faith and how it operates in faith-based organizations have never been fully answered by any studies. As such, precisely defining a faith-based organization has been extremely difficult. Bielefeld and Cleveland (2013a) also show, in their review of the available literature on faith-based organizations, that the “faith factor proved difficult to identify and evaluate and work remains to be done on this central issue” (p. 461). Instead of focusing on how faith arises and works within faith-based organizations, scholars have researched the religion and faith of individuals affiliated with FBOs.

For example, Cnann, Gelles, and Sinha (2004) reveal that despite the pressures of secularism, religion and a faith connection to houses of worship remains strong. Clarke (2007) notes of well-being among the poor that “faith is a key aspect of cultural identity and FBOs important institutional expressions…in this context faith communities and FBOs are important actors, using idioms of spiritual belief to provide practical support to the poor” (p. 90). Perry (1998) found that for those who have faith, there are numerous self-benefits which contribute to well-being, hope, self- esteem, and educational attainment. Finally, Johnson, Tompkins, and Webb (2002) show that religion has a positive impact on decreasing hypertension, mortality,

38 depression, suicide, deviant sexual behavior, alcohol abuse, drug use, and criminal activity. Additionally, scholars have observed religious phenomena, which they classify as individual and organizational indicators of faith. Ebaugh et al. (2006b) define three faith factors: (1) service religiosity, (2) staff religiosity, and (3) formal organization religiosity. “Religiosity” was defined through items related to religious practice, and several individual items that could be observed, interviewed, or found within a document analysis. These items are:

(1) Distributing religious materials to clients, (2) helping clients join congregations, (3) praying with individual clients, (4) praying with groups of clients, (5) using religious beliefs to instruct clients, (6) encouraging client religious conversion, (7) using religion to encourage clients, (8) providing information about local congregations, (9) having programs that require religious conversion, (10) religious discussion with clients, (11) praying at staff meetings, (12) favoring religious job candidates, (13) putting religious principles into action, (14) demonstrating God's love to clients, (15) inspiring clients' faith via staff's actions, (16) a religiously explicit mission statement, (17) an organizational leader as ordained clergy, and (18) sacred images in public spaces. (p. 2264)

The faith indicators, above, are useful in setting basic descriptions of faith existence or non-existence within the organizations’ documents, and amongst its staff and volunteers. The results indicate a sliding scale by which an organization can be considered “faith-saturated” or “secular.” In regard to defining faith-based organizations and individual religious beliefs, Chaves (1994) argued that FBOs might be called “faith-based” if the majority of its members shared the same faith. Smith and Sosin (2001) refined that definition to include a faith-based organization’s institutional attachment to a religion, stating:

Faith-related agencies may be defined as social service organizations that have any of the following: a formal funding or administrative agreement with a religious authority or authorities; a historical tie of this kind; a specific commitment to act within the dictates of a particular established faith; or commitment to work together that stems from a common religion. (p. 652)

One notices the authors chose to use “faith-related” instead of “faith-based,” with the implication that the association between faith and the organization can be loosely tied to faith, instead of based on faith principles. In contrast to the faith indicators listed above (Ebaugh et al., 2006b), Smith and Sosin (2001) argue the term “faith-based” is “problematic because it implicitly assumes faith can be represented by a readily identifiable set of practices” (p. 653). They also found, in their study of 24 agencies, that faith was the most influential indicator of an organization’s choice of services, but less influential regarding their selection of personnel, ties to religious congregations, and ties to funding sources. Chambré (2001) also attempts to deal with what it means when faith is involved in faith-based organizations, but strays from thoroughly answering this question. Chambré (2001) notes the distinction between religious-based organizations and faith-based organizations in that religion is tied to more traditionally organized groups, whereas faith is highly personal and private. Nevertheless, Chambré (2001) concedes that “far less attention has been devoted to the actual nature and the meaning of ‘faith’ in faith-based organizations, that is, its role in determining organizational missions, influencing programs, and shaping organization cultures” (p. 437). Without ever defining the role of faith in faith-based organizations, Chambré (2001) holds that

“the limited research on the nature of faith in faith-based organizations suggests, then, that the effects are subtle and the possibility of change is substantial since organizations respond to external demands, constraints, and resources” (p. 439).

In other words, depending on the forces affecting an organization at any given time, the role of faith in a faith-based organization might change. Chambré’s view that this was a likely outcome developed out of her research where, in her study, four faith-based organizations started to change how they ran their programs after being funded by the federal government. Her ethnographic study of four organizations in New York City who each received government funding for their work with the AIDS community, Chambré (2001) notes:

The original meaning of ‘faith’ changed. In an era when government and foundations are turning to faith-based organizations as places where social services can be enhanced by timeless moral teachings, the transitions of these agencies from religious to spiritual to having a trace of the original religious spirit is instructive and provides a glimpse into the nature of faith in service organizations. (p. 447)

The assumption, then, on the part of researchers has been that because some organizations may have changed how they ran some of their social service programs when the federal government funded them, that they then also changed their faith identity as an organization. Scheitle (2009b) adds to the above discussion by reviewing 1,900 U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 990 tax forms for Christian nonprofits, and concluded that Christian nonprofits who receive government funding are less likely to use inclusive language when describing their religious identity. While receiving government funding did not appear to cause a decrease in religious identity, Scheitle (2009b) argued organizational identity changes were likely due to long-term changes within the organization. Scheitle (2010) also later showed that these Christian nonprofits are beginning to alter the religious landscape of America by pursuing social service programs while becoming more secularized in their approach to religious practices.

Much like the sliding scale mentioned above of what it means for an organization to be “faith-based,” Scheitle (2010) argues that the world of Christian nonprofits increasingly is becoming secularized in much the same way that American society, in general, is becoming more secularized. The viewpoint that faith-based organizations are becoming increasingly secularized is echoed in Ebaugh, Pipes, Chafetz, and Daniels (2003), who found among their survey respondents who performed social services that 10% were once religious, but had recently changed their operations to secular-based. Ebaugh et al. (2003) also found that one cannot determine a faith-based organization by its name alone, but in most cases can identify a faith-based organization by whether or not it defines itself as one. That is, whether the faith-based organization makes its presentation of self as faith-based through symbols, artifacts, and observable religious practices. Ebaugh et al. (2003) also found that faith-based organizations typically differ from secular organizations in regards to their funding sources, decision making, organizational culture, leadership, and staffing. Kearns, Park, and Yankosi (2005) compared faith-based organizations and secular community organizations and found similarities between them in their size, funding and program capacity. However, their survey of 237 organizations also showed that faith-based organizations self-reported a more extensive reliance on volunteers and individual donations. Interestingly, they also found that “28% of faith-based organizations in the survey were founded independently, without assistance from a congregation, interfaith organization, religious order, or denomination” (p. 215) and that currently “slightly over half of

FBOs in this study do not have congregational roots, and more than half say that they do not even identify with a particular denomination” (p. 215). Hugen, Wolfer, and Renkema (2006) maintain the importance of religious congregations as faith-based organizations to social services in their communities. Much like the previous studies mentioned above, they too attempted to define faith and relied heavily on the psychological and sociological fields for definitions. Hugen, Wolfer, and Renkema (2006) also tried to measure faith through participant experiences in community ministry or social service programs, including Habitat for Humanity, Meals on Wheels, child care, and youth development. They found that 47% of their survey respondents identified that their faith had grown through providing social services, but the respondents did not, or were unable to, describe how their faith had “grown” through community ministry participation.

2.4.3 Organizational Typologies Following in the tradition of the Working Group (2002 & 2003), Sider and Unruh (2004) created a typology by which organizations and programs could be identified and categorized. The organizations and programs in their study had to have “readily observable” (p. 118) ways in which religion was expressed. The typology, which was based on case studies of 15 organizations in and around the city of Philadelphia, identified organizations by their mission statement, founding, religious affiliation, board, management, staff, support (financial and non-financial), and religious practices of personnel. Similarly, the typology identified programs by their religious environment, program content, integration of religious components, and the expected connection between religious content and desired outcome.

The typology of organizations and programs includes those organizations and programs that are considered by Sider and Unruh (2004) to be faith-permeated, faith- centered, faith-affiliated, faith-background, faith-secular partnership, and secular. The division between the six typologies typically breaks down via implicit versus explicit observable religious phenomena, or the frequency with which religious phenomena can be observed. They note that the

…typology identifies the tangibly expressive ways that religion may be present in a community-serving organization or program. It is concerned primarily with religion as it is expressed in observable and explicit phenomena such as language, symbols, policies, and activities. Such manifestations of religion may include mission statements, selection criteria for personnel and resources, administrative practices, programmatic activities, and service methodologies. This typology does not fully reflect the ways in which personal convictions and religious values, like mercy and justice, motivate and give deeper meaning to service work, although this is an important dimension of faith. We thus emphasize that the typology is not a tool to characterize a group or program as being more or less religious in the sense of being animated by a set of beliefs. (p. 117)

However, when defending the organizational typology and offering it for future research, they caution the following:

Although the typology was inductively grounded in case studies and developed with input from leaders of national service and civic organizations, it has yet to be systematically tested. Two kinds of follow-up research are needed. First, the model should be tested empirically on a representative sample of organizations to assess whether the types represent the true variety of organizations and programs and whether the characteristics prove to be analytically significant. Second, the model should be evaluated qualitatively with practitioners in diverse grassroots organizations. How do those working ‘on the ground’ assess the typology’s accuracy and helpfulness? Do the given religious characteristics capture what they see as the essential elements of their organization’s or program’s religious nature? (p. 129)

While Sider and Unruh’s typology has offered a progression in being able to identify faith-based organizations, because congregations were the sole source of the typology, there remain many questions about how or if the typology could be applied to non- congregational FBOs. Scholars are also in disagreement about whether or not religious congregations (churches, synagogues, mosques, temples) should even be considered faith-based organizations. Jeavons (2004) argues that while congregations fill an essential role, the question of whether or not congregations should be included as a faith-based organization

…may be the most important question to answer, at least in the present policy debate, for there is no issue more divisive and contentious than that of whether congregations should be allowed to get government funding under the proposals now being circulated to steer taxpayer dollars to FBOs….Some would argue, and I am one of them, that congregations should not be described as FBOs under any circumstances. First, it is an affront to common sense when one looks at the use of language and how people who are members of congregations of every type think of them…But even more importantly, I would argue that congregations should not be called FBOs because it blurs the very distinctions that are critical for policy purposes. (pp. 143-144)

However, Cnaan, Sinha, and McGrew (2004) recognize congregations as faith-based organizations, and Cnaan and Curtis (2013) hold that “it is the religious and spiritual aspects of congregations that make them unique” (p. 8) when compared to other voluntary nonprofit organizations. Cnaan, Sinha, and McGrew (2004) show that congregations in the Philadelphia area alone add nearly a quarter billion dollars to the quality of life of the city. Similarly, Cnaan (2006), in inventorying all the congregations in Philadelphia, found that congregations are not only integral to the quality of life in the city, but they are also vital to its human capital structure. Thus, given the social service mission and economic impact of religious congregations,

45 religious congregations can be seen as faith-based social service providers alongside non-congregational faith-based organizations. Ultimately, defining faith-based organizations has been an arduous process for researchers over the past two decades. While practitioners, the academy, and the government have not reached a consensus on a singular definition of “faith-based organizations,” research has offered valuable insights into its broad organizational characteristics, individual religiousness, and potential observable faith indicators.

These insights have allowed researchers to form some basic understandings and typologies by which we can recognize and analyze faith-based organizations.

2.4.4 Operational Definition Given the preceding discussion about the ambiguity surrounding the definition of faith-based organizations, it is necessary to clarify the term “faith-based organizations” to be applied in this research. For the purposes of this study, the following three operational definitional elements are used when identifying faith- based organizations: (1) It defines itself as faith-based, (2) it is formally incorporated through a government entity, and (3) it has applied for IRS 501(c)3 tax-exempt status. First, the organization defines itself as “faith-based,” “religiously-centered,” God- focused,” “spiritually-driven” or any other self-description whereby they admit to being established for this purpose. Netting (1984), Kearns, Park, and Yankosi (2005), and Ebaugh et al. (2006b) argue for the primacy of this faith-based self-identification. The first definitional element using Sider and Unruh’s (2004) typology is the self-identification in the organization’s founding or mission statement. In order to be considered “faith-based,” the organization would include any of the first four characteristic classifications (faith-permeated, faith-centered, faith-affiliated, and

46 faith-background), but not either of the last two characteristic classifications (faith- secular partnership and secular). In other words, there is still a connection to some faith element, either in the mission or the founding of the organization regardless of whether or not that faith element is presently “strong” or “weak.” As Torry (2005) notes, “for an organization which states a connection to a religious tradition or to a religious organization is likely to have that connection, even if it isn’t quite as strong as the respondent might suggest” (p. 118).

The second definitional element for faith-based organizations is whether or not it is formally incorporated (Jeavons & Cnaan, 1997) through a government entity, such as their state’s office of the secretary of the state. Salamon and Anheier (1996) note that this formal incorporation is also a condition for tax exempt status. Along with formal incorporation also comes documents stating the purpose and governing principles of the organization, by way of articles of incorporation and organizational bylaws. These formal documents help distinguish formal organizations versus informal associations or grassroots organizations (Brainard & Brinkhoff, 2004; Smith, 1997; Smith, 2000). The third definitional element, for the purposes of this study, relates closely to the second, in that it too requires formal documentation by a government entity5 to recognize an organization as a not-for-profit, either by way of foundational principles or by service mission. A faith-based organization identifying itself as “faith-based” depends on whether or not the organization has applied for, or is in the process of

5 It is outside of the scope of this study to discuss the taxation laws of all states and nations. While this study may be U.S. specific, similar nonprofit taxation rules to those of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) may apply elsewhere.

47 applying for, 501(c)3 tax-exempt status.6 In the United States of America, the Internal Revenue Service (2017) has determined that qualifying organizations who are given 501(c)3 tax-exempt status will use any excess revenue, above the expenditures of the organization, to inure to the financial benefit of the organization (and thus the organization’s mission) and not to individuals or stakeholders of the organization (Hopkins, 1992). For this reason, all faith-based nonprofits in the United States, unlike their congregational counterparts (churches, synagogues, mosques, temples), must file an IRS 990 Form that lists, among other items, their revenues, expenditures, assets, board members, and primary employees. While it remains outside the scope of this study to focus entirely on filling in the existing typologies of faith-based organizations, the three definitional characteristics described above will serve as the basis for identifying the organizations that are analyzed in this study. The literature espouses several other characteristics that can be used to delineate further what exactly constitutes a faith-based organization. As noted previously, this effort to define faith-based organizations, though well-intentioned, does not adequately address the lack of knowledge in certain areas of faith-based organizational research such as (1) the faith factor, (2) a diverse methodological sampling of FBOs across religiously affiliated incorporation, service

6 Despite the possibility of for-profit organizations being faith-based, as mentioned in the discussion above with organizations like Chick-fil-A and Hobby Lobby, for the purposes of this study, only those organizations that are not-for-profit were considered for inclusion as a “faith-based organization.” Although research has yet to fully explore the idea of “for-profit” faith-based organizations, the fact that they were incorporated primarily to make a profit as for-profit organizations, as opposed to a faith founding exclude them from this study.

48 mission, and geography, and (3) the application of organizational theory. These three areas comprise current weaknesses in faith-based organizational research.

2.4.5 Future Definitional Directions Concerning the definition of faith-based organizations, in addition to the primary need to add further description of faith-based organizational processes at the micro-level (Felin & Foss, 2005) through qualitative methodologies (Sider & Unruh,

2004), such as the comparative case study model used in this study, prior research notes the need to expand methodological sampling to include consideration of geographic location (Grettenberger, Bartkowski, & Smith, 2006; Reingold, Pirog, & Brady, 2007). This study advances the discoveries of faith-based organizations along all these parameters by including case studies of organizations from exurban, suburban, and rural areas (Boddie, 2002; Schneider, 2013a), as well as non- congregationally-tied organizations (Kearns, Park, & Yankoski, 2005; Schneider,

2013a). This study confirms the findings of Bopp and Fallon (2011) that there are subtle distinctions between faith-based organizations when considering their geographic location. For example, access to personnel, whether its volunteers, board members, or staff members, will differ based on the geographic location of the organization, as suburban and exurban communities may have a favorable living environment for personnel. Geographic location also has an impact on access to financial resources as rural areas struggle at times to find wealthy benefactors and large for-profit businesses to funnel in-kind and monetary donations to the organizations. This study also informs how previous typologies (Sider & Unruh, 2004; Working Group, 2002 & 2003) are more or less useful in defining faith-based

49 organizations. Unfortunately, for social science uniformity, this study has shown that each organization is unique in its “religiousness” and can be classified in a myriad of ways, from “faith-saturated” to “secular.” Ultimately, however, this study argues that these assessments are not very instructive in defining an organization, as they paint an incomplete portrait of faith-based organizations by reducing the sum of an organization to its component parts in order to explain its religiosity. Faith in the organizations included in this study simply did not always wholly conform to the rules of social scientific injury. Therefore, it is recommended that researchers should be “fluently familiar” with the faith of the organizations they are attempting to study if they are going to be able to understand the general psychology and behavior of the stakeholders and then explain it to a wider audience. For example, a fair portion of prior research in this area seemed to misapprehend the basic elements of faith, with some of the questions asked concerning “the faith factor” in faith-based organizations. Undoubtedly, previous attempts through typologies of faith-based organizations add insight into the possibilities of where religiousness may be displayed (i.e., staff, programs, congregational ties). However, these facets, when segmented from the entire organization, do little to explain how faith arises and works within the organization. Indeed, the mere presence of faith does not indicate whether or not faithfulness or faithlessness is being displayed, and how stakeholders act and feel about these faith elements. Ultimately, as it pertains to faith-based organizational research, following the recommendations of Ebaugh et al. (2006b), Kearns, Park and

Yankosi (2005), Netting (1984), and Torry (2005), this study holds the primacy of self-identification—that if an organization publicly defines itself as “faith-based,” “religiously-centered,” God-focused,” “spiritually-driven” or any other self-

50 description whereby they admit to being created for this purpose, either through its mission statement, name, website, or other public feature, then this is likely a useful starting point for further inquiry, and should not be doubted until proven otherwise. As stated above, the primacy of self-identification does further lend itself to the possibility of for-profit faith-based organizations, and this may be an interesting future area of research.

2.4.6 Current Definitional Advancement Although previous research has yet to conclusively agree on a single definitional understanding of faith-based organizations (Sider & Unruh, 2004), this study helps narrow this understanding through in-depth, detailed organizational analysis provided in individual case studies (Eisenhardt, 1989; Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007; Gioia, Corley, & Hamilton, 2012; Siggelkow, 2007). Interestingly, this study discovered the exact opposite of Smith and Sosin (2001), in that (1) faith endured through, and was most influential in, an organization’s personnel selection, their (2) ties to religious congregations, and (3) their ties to funding sources, but less influential in regard to their choice of services. Faith services were offered (such as counseling, prayer, and bible studies), but generally speaking, stakeholders in all five organizations held the role of their local religious congregation (most often a church) in high regard and would often refer more in-depth matters of faith to those institutions that specialize in instructional theology. Similarly, this study also found the opposite of Chambré (2001), that faith is highly personal and privatized. This notion of faith as only personal and private is more akin to the term “belief.” In contrast, this study found that faith is publicly expressed in the organization as part of identifying with a community (Diamond &

Allcorn, 2009). As such, in addition to its personal and private characteristics, faith is also both communal and public. Additionally, especially among Christian stakeholders, because faith is held to be rooted in action, faith is considered a lived experience! This study does not go so far as to hold the findings of Scheitle (2010), which argues that the world of Christian nonprofits increasingly is becoming secularized in much the same way that American society, in general, is becoming more secularized. Instead, as previously stated, faith persevered in all five organizations through their religious programming. Even though the religious nature of programming may be viewed as increasingly secular, despite being “borne out of faith,” most of the stakeholders in this study described their organizations in familial terms (such as, “loving,” “hospitable,” and “caring”), rather than as a secular service provider. Therefore, there remains a high likelihood that previous understandings and classifications of the “religiousness” of social service programs at faith-based organizations are inaccurate, and need to be reexamined through methodologies more conducive to elucidating the nature of faith and how it “arises and works” (Bielefeld & Cleveland, 2013a, p. 458) within faith-based organizations. Not surprisingly, then, whereas Ebaugh, Chafetz, and Pipes (2006b) note that the lack of “empirical indicators” (p. 2259) appears to add to the confusion surrounding the definition of what makes an organization faith-based, the five organizations in this study left little ambiguity to conclude that they do exist and operate because of their faith. The five organizations in this study qualify as faith- based organizations because they meet this criteria (p. 2262) for (1) defining themselves as faith-based, (2) delivering at least one social service, (3) partnering with religious congregations, (4) have a board of directors, and (5) were classified as

501(c)3 tax-exempt by the IRS. Furthermore, as Chaves (1994) notes, the majority of stakeholders at each of the five organizations shared the same faith (Christianity) and, as Smith and Sosin (2001) contend, maintained formal funding, historical ties, and commitment to the values, ethics, and morals of that faith. Therefore, a lack of “empirical indicators” is likely due to methodological weaknesses. As has been shown above and further detailed below, faith permeates throughout the organizations in this study and pinning “faith” to a singular “factor” would be highly difficult to achieve, and presumptuous to do through surveys, questionnaires, and telephone interviews. Faith, then, is more than just an “add-on” feature as characterized by Ebaugh, Pipes, Chafetz, and Daniels (2003, p. 423). Faith is also not a feeling or emotion. Rather, as this study has found, faith—as belief put into action and manifested through cultural spirituality and religious identity—is a lived experience. For multiple reasons, as detailed above and below, faith has defied past research attempts at categorization. As Smith and Sosin (2001) correctly note, it would be inaccurate always to assume that “faith can be represented by a readily identifiable set of practices” (p. 653). The three assessment classifications by Bielefeld and Cleveland (2013a), of program implementation, organizational control, and expression of religion, help to further illuminate how these five organizations display their faith. As discussed in the individual case studies, exposure to religious activities in program implementation varied across the five organizations depending on the activity and audience. For example, the at-risk youth in two organizations (namely, BETA & EPSILON) appeared to be exposed to religious instruction more often than adults. Additionally, adults had fewer programs aimed directly towards evangelism. For the most part,

53 stakeholders in all five organizations encouraged evangelism and basic religious teaching through programs, but also recognized this work is better delivered through their partnering churches (Monahan, 1999). Finally, as shown in the individual case studies, the expression of religion was pronounced at all five organizations, and with the majority of its stakeholders. Therefore, these five faith-based organizations could be characterized as “faith- saturated”7 (pp. 35-36) by the Working Group on Human Needs and Faith-Based, and

Community Initiatives (2002). The five organizations in this study (1) had an explicitly religious mission statement, (2) were founded by a religious group, (3) the controlling boards are explicitly religious, (4) faith commitment was a prerequisite for senior management, with faith being important at all personnel levels, (5) are affiliated with religious organizations, with the overwhelming majority of funding coming from those sources, and (6) had religiously explicit programs available for recipients. The five organizations would also all be classified as established local or community institutions by the Working Group on Human Needs and Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (2002, pp. 41-42) because they (1) had a mix of professional and experientially qualified staff, (2) reliance on volunteers, (3) fundraising capacity, (4) independent financial accounting and reporting, (5) a diverse board, (6) some experience in documenting service quality, quantity, and outcomes, (7) access to regulatory professionals, and (8) were well-connected to peer agencies and organizations.

7 The typology’s scale from most to least faith representation in an organization is as follows: Faith-Saturated, Faith-Centered, Faith-Related, Faith- Background, Faith-Secular Partnership, and Secular.

2.5 The Faith Factor Given the importance of prior research in identifying and describing the “faith factor” in faith-based organizations, this section highlights some of the ways in which the so-called “faith factor” emerged in this study. Although the following discoveries were not the direct objective of this study, and while they may not elevate to the level of generalizability to all faith-based organizations, they nevertheless help to illuminate the complexities of how faith operates within the five FBOs in this study. Therefore, this section will briefly review the ways in which prior research has presumed the “faith factor” was missing in faith-based organizations, and where the “faith factor” was found in the organizations participating in this study. Finally, based on these discoveries, a new description of “faith elements” is proposed for future research, to replace the under-nuanced description of the “faith factor.”

2.5.1 The Missing Faith Factor Prior research has tended to view faith-based organizations based on what they assume is different about them from other organizations—namely, the so-called “faith factor.” While this effort may seem logical, researchers have presumed that isolating a perceived difference in an organization will thus lead to an explanation of how the entire organization operates. This logic is flawed and superficial because “faith” is multidimensional (Perry, 1998). Faith exists simultaneously throughout an organization at various times, in several levels of an organization, and in multiple ways through numerous people—board members, paid staff, volunteers, and clients

(Moore & Casper, 2006). Therefore, this study proposes that faith is studied alongside internal organizational processes, instead of in isolation from internal organizational

55 processes. Isolating the “faith factor” for empirical testing and outcome evaluation, as scholars have done previously, is not only impossible, but also imprudent. Although faith does not defy categorization, researchers have depended too heavily on overt observable religious characteristics in assessing “faith” in faith-based organizations. For example, scholars have mentioned they have witnessed prayer as an example of how individual faith is manifested in the organization. This omits important questions such as: What led to the prayer? What did the individual(s) feel at that time to manifest their faith publicly? Was there a tension that they were trying to resolve and that needed God’s intervention? What was the content of the prayer? Was the prayer biblically-based? Was the prayer for an individual, the mission, the program, or the organization? What were the requests of the prayer and why? Was the prayer resolved? That is, was the prayer answered in the opinion of the one praying? These are just some of the questions that have not been asked by scholars when identifying the faith factor in organizations. Just like any other observable event in an organization, such as snide remarks to coworkers, shaking hands with new potential clients, or sleeping during mandatory meetings, there are reasons for actions and these reasons matter when identifying, describing, and analyzing stakeholder behavior and organizational culture (Schein, 1996).

Research also posits a pervasive understanding of the “faith factor” as a particular type of faith that exists only within Christian faith-based organizations. In fact, according to Bielefeld and Cleveland (2013a), researchers “use the term religion or religious to describe broad activities that include different religious heritages and reserve the use of the term faith to describe specifically Christian activities” (p. 444). What about interfaith faith-based organizations? Should they then be classified as

56 interreligious faith-based organizations instead, or does “faith” not have a place in non-Christian organizations? Also, Schneider (2013b) makes the following assumption in relation to non-denominational or interfaith FBOs when she says, “faith-based organizations are created by faith communities or their members to address community needs in the context of the theology of justice and charity of that particular faith” (p. 518). However, what if the “faith” in question that led to the establishment of the faith-based organization is not “particular,” but rather “generic,” as in the case of approximately half of the FBOs in Kearns, Park, and Yankoski’s (2005) study? Thus, the so-called “faith factor” in current research needs significant clarification and elaboration to be truly useful in understanding the nature and meaning of faith in faith- based organizations. This study sought to understand how individuals and groups felt when faith played a role in their organization and their job-related tasks—not to isolate faith, but rather to illuminate how faith enables or hinders the organization. The particular line of inquiry in this study is, thus, focused on explaining what tensions, contradictions, and oppositions are related to individual and organizational faith, and how faith plays a role in the management of organizational paradoxes.

2.5.2 The Faith Factor Found There are two aspects to the so-called “faith-factor” that this study contributes to understanding. The first aspect relates to defining faith for the organizations involved in this study. While a more nuanced argument for the existence and manifestation of faith was noted throughout the individual case studies, this study argues that for stakeholders, faith was observed through the practice of religious beliefs that are usually seen through spiritual mannerisms. As such, this study notes

57 that faith is pluralistic and should be defined as such in future research. The term “faith elements,” while perhaps not the most eloquent option, best captures the findings that faith exists within organizations in either the form of faithfulness or faithlessness. Additionally, faith signaling is highlighted to show a specific method through which stakeholders tried to confirm a commonality in spiritual culture and/or religious identity. Faith was also discovered to be at the core of all five organizations in this study. That is, faith permeated through all macro aspects of the organizations but was also rooted in deeper micro organizational matters. The second aspect concerned how the presence or absence of faith defied previous researcher assumptions. First, this study did not witness “intentional religion.” That is religion as a means to an end rather than a purpose in itself. Nevertheless, it would be hard to place a value assessment on the genuineness of the faith displayed in the organizations. Stakeholders did not appear to have “time to waste” on a “false faith” whose aim was to promote a positive or negative outcome.

Second, although the stigma that faith-based organizations use public funds for private religious worship, instruction, or even proselytization remains at the center of much of the literature, the notion that faith-based organizations are attempting to “convert” recipients at all times or in all programs was simply not substantiated in any of the organizations in this study. While all five of the organizations did not dispute that recipients who request it can receive evangelism or “spiritual guidance,” due to the realities of organizational time constraints and service demands, despite their claims that faith takes priority in their organizations, more often than not, faith was surprisingly, infrequently witnessed. Instead, personnel were usually “too busy” serving, mentoring, or

58 counseling recipients to have time to provide religious instruction. Personnel at all five organizations were found to be hopeful, resilient, and generally satisfied and committed to their roles. Certainly their faith played a part in their attitudes and intrinsic motivation to work and persevere through a fluid, rigorous, and emotionally challenging work environment. Yet, as the individual case studies show, observable positive psychology and behavior among personnel (Luthans, 2002; Luthans & Church, 2002) were also routinely encouraged by, and displayed among, the leadership within the organizations.

2.5.3 The New Faith Factor This study has advanced an understanding of (1) “what is faith for faith-based organizations?” and (2) “how does faith operate within faith-based organizations?” As mentioned above, these two questions compose what scholars term the “faith factor” in faith-based organizational research (Fischer, 2006; von Furstenberg, 2006;

Grettenberger, Bartkowski, & Smith, 2006; Jeavons, 1998; Sider & Unruh, 2004). Taking the suggestion of Bielefeld and Cleveland (2013a), who argue that “researchers should model, test, and validate in detail how the faith factor arises and works” (p. 458), this study has provided detail about how faith “arises and works” within five faith-based organizations via individual case studies. This study found the opposite of Chambré (2001) who holds that “limited research on the nature of faith in faith-based organizations suggests that the effects are subtle and the possibility of change is substantial since organizations respond to external demands, constraints, and resources” (p. 439). The nature of faith displayed in the five organizations in this study was not subtle, but rather pronounced, and while the possibility for change is significant, over the course of their histories, all five

59 organizations remained remarkably consistent in both their motivations, and commitment to (Haslam, 2004), faith and how they responded to external demands, constraints, and resources through this faith. As mentioned throughout this study, it would be inaccurate to describe a singular “faith factor.” Instead, there are ‘faith elements’ that permeated through the five organizations. Ebaugh, Pipes, Chafetz, and Daniels (2003) were correct in their assessment when they argued,

Religion is what makes faith-based agencies religious. Where's the religion? Everywhere. Religion infuses agency self-presentation, personnel, resources, decision-making processes, and interactions with clients and among staff in faith-based agencies. (p. 423)

Perry (1998) astutely described faith as multidimensional, and Moore and Casper (2006) observed that faith exists simultaneously throughout organizations at various times, in several levels of the organization, and in multiple ways through numerous people.

As Schneider (1987) and Hogg and Terry (2000) maintain, the people of the organizations make them what they are—both their psychology and behavior—and the stakeholders in these five faith-based organizations were essential in influencing their organization’s religious identity and spiritual culture. Perhaps one of the most important revelations that these five organizations can offer the pantheon of literature related to faith-based organizations is that faith organizational identity and culture is NOT primarily for the recipients. Correcting a common misconception in prior research, the religious identity of these organizations had very little to do with the recipients they served. Although recipient evangelicalism, “spiritual guidance,” and even proselytization did occur (Jayasinghe, 2007), the faith identity and culture of the organizations were primarily for the organization’s personnel—the board members,

60 staff members, volunteers, and donors. Indeed, this study confirms the findings of Schneider (2013b) when she says, “Faith-based organizations are created by faith communities or their members to address community needs in the context of the theology of justice and charity” (p. 518). Thus, research is yet to establish some of the discoveries of this study as it pertains to faith—one of the significant roles faith played in the organizations is faith signaling. As a form of communicative efforts to express cultural spirituality and religious identity, faith signaling allowed stakeholders at every level of the organization to recognize and form their own micro-community of believers. Subtle gestures such as the phrase “have a blessed day” or overt language pronouncements such as, “In Christ’s name we pray,” signal a common faith and reinforced similar Christian values, morals, and ethics. In an effort similar to interview probing,8 stakeholders not only gave both verbal and nonverbal confirmation and continuation gestures, but they also frequently invoke this method with potential donors and recipients to gauge their interest in a spiritual conversation, or common religious identity. However, another discovery that has yet to be parsed by past research that is shown in this study is that: faith exists in two forms—faithfulness and faithlessness.

So, although faithfulness can have a unifying and sustainable effect among stakeholders in the five organizations, the reverse of this was also found. As noted,

8 For example, Rubin and Rubin (2012) describe attention probes by saying, “You use attention probes to indicate you care about what they are saying, and that it is okay for them to keep on talking. Attention probes can be nonverbal given through facial expression or body posture” (p. 140).

61 through an analysis of the individual case studies, because the faith displayed in the organizations could be described as shallow—that is, the theology is rudimentary to only the basic tenants of Christendom—this can lead to misconceptions and missed expectations of what is orthodox behavior and belief among Christians. These misconceptions and missed expectations often, in turn, lead to tensions, contradictions, oppositions, and paradoxes. Paradoxes surrounding expectations occurred throughout the study on a number of occasions. A fair amount of profoundly personal suffering was usually the result. There are dozens of denominations in Protestant Christianity alone representing both major and minor divisions when it comes to Practical Theology (how theology is practiced). So, it naturally follows that some of these doctrinal separations are present in faith-based organizations. Therefore, not only is “the faith factor” not accurate in terms of its one-dimensional characterization of occurrence, but it is also inaccurate regarding its monolithic representation of the vast intricacies of belief systems even with a single religion. As such, faith permeates or “saturates” the organization in all aspects of identity, culture, management, financial processes and decision making. Thus, future research would do well to become more nuanced in its language of how faith operates within these organizations by describing occurrences of faith in pluralistic and dynamic ways, such as using terms such as ‘faith elements’ and the like.

2.6 Limitations in Prior Faith-Based Organizational Research As previously noted, there have been several limitations to prior research on faith-bases organizations. This section will review previous methodological limitations, along with future research options as suggested by scholars and

62 practitioners who have engaged in faith-based organizational research. Methodological sampling and organizational theory as past areas of weakness, and future opportunities of faith-based organizational research are also detailed.

2.6.1 Past & Future Methods Research has used a variety of methods for studying faith-based organizations, including ethnographic research (Adkins & Kemper, 2006; Chambré, 2001; Goode,

2006; Kaplan, Calman, Golub, Ruddok, & Billings, 2006; Kemper, 2006; Mulder, 2004; Wittberg, 2013; Woodrick, 2006), case study research (Grettenberger, Bartkowski, & Smith, 2006; Schneider, 2013b), survey research (Ebaugh, Chafetz, & Pipes, 2005; Kearns, Park, & Yankoski, 2005; Littlefield, 2010), participatory research (Sinha, 2006), action research (Crist, Parsons, Warner-Robbins, Mullins, & Espinosa, 2009), outcome evaluation (Cnaan & Boddie, 2006; Fischer, 2004; Thyer, 2006), narrative content analysis (Scheitle, 2009b), and grounded theory (Netting, O’Connor,

& Yancey, 2006). Kearns (2003) cautions that “large surveys of faith-based organizations…are methodologically incapable of capturing the complex and sometimes subtle changes in organizational culture, and character…what is needed are in-depth case studies” (p. 132). As Harden (2006) argues, what has been lacking in existing research on faith- based organizations is a diverse set of theoretical approaches. Hung (1998) notes the literature surrounding the governance of non-profit organizations and for-profit organizations have developed separately from each other. As a result, though we possess a robust understanding of for-profit organizations due to a variety of theories and approaches to studying them, we lack studies of non-profit organizations, especially faith-based organizations, which make use of existing organizational

63 theories. By offering a comparative case study approach using a paradox perspective, this study seeks to resolve some of the weaknesses in how and what type of faith- based organizations are researched.

2.6.2 Methodological Sampling The weaknesses of how previous studies identify faith-based organizations goes beyond the faith factor and individual belief systems in organizations and extends to the types and locations of organizations that are studied. When forming their typology, Sider and Unruh (2004) focused on Protestant Christian churches from Philadelphia (pp. 116-117). As such, their typology did not include non-Christian faith-based organizations, non-denominational or interfaith FBOs, or rural or suburban FBOs. This sampling methodology falls in line with much of the current research on U.S. faith-based organizations in that research has tended not to specifically focus on suburban and rural FBOs (Boddie, 2002; Schneider, 2013a) or non-congregationally and non-denominationally tied FBOs (Kearns, Park, & Yankoski, 2005; Schneider, 2013a). This study seeks to expand upon existing research by offering further insights into non-congregationally tied faith-based organizations and FBOs that are located in more than one geographic location in the United States of America (U.S). In making a case for the importance of faith-based organizational research to consider geography, Boddie (2002) argues the following:

In general, rural communities share strong attachments to their families, their network of congregations, and their geographical location. The culture indigenous to rural life establishes consistent norms for exchanging resources, effective patterns interacting with other organizations, and strong values associated with family life…Rural congregations, like others, are engrained with local history, spiritual and secular leadership, political power, and broad-based community support. Their networks are not confined to the congregation but

encompass other private and public institutions with the community, creating a seamless pattern of services…An examination of social service provision in rural areas is necessary because both policy and programmatic responsibilities increasingly are delegated to state and local governance and ultimately to local communities. (pp. 320-321)

Reingold, Pirog, and Brady (2007) consider geographic location in their sample of faith-based organizations. Grettenberger, Bartkowski, and Smith (2006) explain how geographical settings for faith-based organizations are relevant for research due to the particularities of the local service landscape and thus sample their comparative case study of FBOs by geography and mission. Generally speaking, the needs of recipients, “clients,” or “gusts” are reflected in the types of missions offered by local faith-based organizations and these needs often differ by geographic location. It would be imprudent to assume that urban recipients have the same social service needs as recipients in suburban and rural areas. For example, Whitt-Glover, Hogan, Lang, and Heil (2008) uncovered the need for a faith-based physical activity program in a suburban community in North Carolina and Cantanzaro, Meador, Koenig,

Kuchibhatla, and Clipp (2007) found in their national study of Christian faith leaders that suburban faith-based organizations were the most likely to have a health ministry. Conversely, Bopp, and Fallon (2011) found that differences emerged in faith- based organizations by geographic region and well as geographic location. They note of health and wellness activities (HWA) offered by faith-based organizations that

“regional differences emerged such that Mid-western FBOs reported more parent organization support for HWA compared with Southwestern FBOs” (p. 1112) and that

“differences in HWA by urban/rural location revealed that urban FBOs were offered more HWA compared with rural institutions” (p. 1113). While the differences between faith-based organizations due to their geographic location (urban, suburban, and rural) and region (Midwest, South, Northeast, Mid-Atlantic & West) are

65 beginning to emerge, it nonetheless represents a current weakness in the existing literature as scholars have yet to differentiate FBOs by their geography fully. While it is beyond the scope of this study to fully concentrate on the differences geography may evoke among faith-based organizations, this study identified and described paradoxes that were related to FBOs and their location.

2.6.3 Organizational Theory Organizational theory is a vast field that has had the majority of its theoretical applications in business administration. As such, little attention has been given to faith-based organizations. Ebaugh, Pipes, Chafetz, and Daniels (2003) have offered the following critique of the relative absence of organizational theory being used in conjunction with studying faith-based organizations:

Although organizational theory has been used to understand the structure and processes of religious organizations (e.g., Chaves, 1997; Becker, 1999; Wuthnow, 1988; Schoenherr & Young 1993), religious organizations as uniquely religious or faith-based entities have garnered little attention from scholars in the field of organizational study. Likewise, religious researchers have simply assumed that we all know when an organization has a religious character. In the case of congregations, denominations, seminaries, church councils, and national ecclesiastical bodies, the assumption of their "religiousness" is rather self-evident. However, when it comes to social service agencies, local civic groups, and other voluntary associations devoted to various causes, knowing the name of the organization, its purpose, or its public persona may be insufficient to identify it as faith-based. (p. 412)

Langley and Royer (2006) argue that “cases studies are the source of some of the foundational work in organization theory” (p. 81), and DiMaggio (1998) also notes the need for scholarship to apply organizational theories to the study of faith-based and religious organizations:

Insofar as students of religion concern themselves with such formal organizations as congregations, denominations, and religiously affiliated schools and service agencies, it seems plausible that they may also benefit from applying insights and methods from the study of organizations in their research. I have suggested that changes within organization theory have created a more auspicious context for such an attempt at cross-fertilization than existed even a few years ago. Ultimately, however, students of religion will have to adapt organization theory’s conceptual and methodological tools to the contours of their own field. And, if they do, focused attention to organizational aspects of religion may redound to the benefit of organization theory itself, as students of religions broaden the scope and variety of organizations against which analytic generalizations can be tested, and from the study of which they can be derived. (pp. 19-20)

Thus, this study was mindful of the need for a multidimensional conceptual framework (DiMaggio, 1995; Morgan, 1986; Sutton & Staw, 1995) as it sought to discover (Locke, Golden-Biddle, & Feldman, 2008) and explain paradoxical phenomena in faith-based organizations. Organizational theory offers a diverse line of inquiry with many helpful frames for understanding, describing, and analyzing organizations.

For example, organizational identity theory (Albert & Whetten, 1985; Fiol, Hatch & Golden-Biddle, 1998; Hatch & Schultz, 1997; Whetten, 2006; White, 1992) and organizational culture theory (Akin & Hopelain, 1987; Gioia & Thomas, 1996; Isaac & Pitt, 2001; Ravasi & Schultz, 2006; Schein, 1984, 1996) may help explain the specific nature of the tensions that arise within organizations. Similarly, neoinstitutionalism theory (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991; Ingram & Clay, 2000; Selznick, 1996) may point to external forces on an organization and explain why an organization is modeled and managed after similar organizations in its field. Schneider (2013b) cautions that “our findings reveal that neoinstitutionalism can explain stewardship strategies to a certain degree but that isomorphizing elements

67 come out of religious culture as much as society-wide structures” (p. 519). These three theories are an example of several theories that could be used to help explain paradoxes within faith-based organizations. This study was open to exploring what organizational literatures might help explain the nature and management of paradoxes within faith-based organizations as recommended by Corbin and Strauss (2008) when they argue “a researcher should remain open to new ideas and concepts and be willing to let go if he or she discovers that certain ‘imported’ concepts do not fit” (p. 40).

However, regardless of which theories might be used to help describe faith- based organizations, this study followed an inductive approach when adopting a paradox perspective by maintaining a theoretical framework that builds concepts and ideas from the data through comparative analysis (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). This study also heeded the following caution by Poole and Van de Ven (1989) when describing how management and organizational theories can help explain paradoxes: “The complexity and interdependence of individuals and organizations typically exceed researchers’ capabilities to describe or explain them with coherent and consistent theories” (p. 576). Studying faith-based organizations is no exception to this statement, which is why this study grounds its research in established organizational paradox management theory.

2.7 A Paradox Perspective on Faith-Based Organizations Although the focus of this study is to explore exhibited paradoxes and their management in faith-based organizations, this is not the first study to uncover tensions within FBOs. As previously noted, and detailed below, some literature has touched on tensions that are commonly found in faith-based organizations. While the management of these tensions was not fully identified, described, or analyzed, the

68 existing literature on faith-based organizational tensions provided a base set of assumptions and findings to help guide this study. This section also discusses what is entailed in a paradox perspective and how a paradoxical framework is applied in this study. Finally, this section and the chapter conclude with a summary of the 33 exemplars from organizational paradox management theory literature that are used in this study.

2.7.1 Faith-Based Organizational Tensions & Their Management While this study seeks to explore tensions and their management within FBOs, the precedent for identifying tensions and studying management processes has been touched upon in the existing faith-based organizational literature. Perhaps highlighting the disjointed nature of the literature surrounding the management of faith-based organizations more broadly, Bielefeld and Cleveland (2013a) uncovered 611 studies of U.S. non-congregational faith-based organizations, and according to their classification of these studies (p. 445), the primary topic of the studies did not explicitly delve into the management of faith-based organizations. An example of how the nonprofit literature touches on management within faith-based organizations, but does not explicitly set out to study faith-based organizational management, can be found in Clerkin and Grønbjerg (2007). They note the differences in capacities and challenges among FBOs compared to religious congregations and secular nonprofits. They note the access to information technology, staff/board policies, volunteer programs, and financial controls of faith-based organizations as part of a

“management structure,” but do not describe or analyze those management structures since the data came from self-reported surveys (p. 119).

However, management of faith-based organizations exists in professional literature in the form of managing specific religious congregations (Safranski, 1985) and management handbooks, which include topics such as developing financial accountability controls, personnel administration, managing board relationships, planning and budgeting, legal and tax concerns, and even some consideration of organizational theory (Anthony & Estep, 2005; Bacher & Cooper-White, 2007; Berkley, 2007; Brinckerhoff, 1999; Powers, 2008; Queen, 2000; Welch, 2005).

Literature outside the nonprofit field has also researched the management of religious organizations, and organizations that claim affiliation with religious organizations. Examples of this literature include studies on schools (Hannaway, 1991; Hughes, 1994; Judge, 2001; Lyon, Beaty, Parker, & Mencken, 2005; Minow, 2003; Wallace, 2000) and hospitals (Coyne, 1982; Harrison & Sexton, 2006; Ozcan & White, 1996). Indeed “management” in its broad sense has been researched in faith-based organizations, but this study seeks to identify and describe paradoxes, and then analyze their management within faith-based organizations. As such, this study is mindful of several studies that have touched upon tensions in their studies of faith- based organizations. As mentioned in the introduction to this study, some research has hinted at possible paradoxes within nonprofits, and some nonprofit studies have touched on the paradoxes that exist simultaneously and persist over time. These paradoxes in nonprofit organizations can center around conflicts of commitment between the board of directors of the organization and the executive director of the organization (Golden-Biddle & Rao, 1997), maintaining accountability to community- level outcomes while focusing on project-level results (Campbell, 2002b), and

70 maintaining a full range of hospital services to the community despite decreasing revenues and increasing costs (Harrison & Sexton, 2004). While these paradoxes have been exposed, faith-based organizational research is still discovering tensions, contradictions, and oppositions and is still uncovering paradoxes. Indeed, Torry (2005) argues that “an important question to ask of any faith-based organization is what tensions it experiences” (p. 119). Smith and Lewis (2011, p. 397) detailed the importance of describing organizational phenomena by asking what are the tensions and how are they managed within organizations? These questions served as a fundamental starting point for this study. Faith-based organizations, like other voluntary associations, depend on volunteers to help them meet their service mission (Cnaan & Curtis, 2013; Musick & Wilson, 2008; Smith, 2000; Toepler, 2003; Wilson, 2000). Unfortunately, tensions can arise within the organization due to the constant turnover of volunteers (Hustinx, 2010; Jamison, 2003), and due to the relationship between volunteers and paid staff

(Netting, Borders, Nelson, & Huber, 2004). Skoglund (2006) concludes, “Retention and turnover are important variables to volunteer program managers because they present serious problems for organizations that depend on volunteers to execute their mission statement” (p. 217).

Similarly, Jeavons and Cnaan (1997) uncovered tensions when small congregationally tied faith-based organizations grew and hired paid staff with different religious ideologies and goals than the host congregation and when the organization sought funds outside their congregational revenue streams. They also found that as the organizations grew, formalization and institutionalization occurred, which left many who started the programs to feel “a loss of the sense of ownership of the

71 programs in the congregations…In these cases, growth undermined the organizations’ original missions and characters” (p. S76). This tension of how much, or what type of growth an organization should incur, is noted when they ask the question, “Should they support expansion when it seems likely that it will fundamentally alter the very characteristics that seem to make the SRNPs [Small Religious Nonprofits] effective in fulfilling their mission” (p. S76)? Tensions surrounding how a faith-based organization responds to its religious tradition, or to a specific religious organization, has been uncovered by La Barbera (1991, 1992). Torry (2005) notes that “particular tensions can be experienced between the faith-based organization and any religious organization to which it remains attached…Increasing tensions in such a relationship will often result in a loosening of the bond” (p. 120). La Barbera (1991) found that religious organizations’ primary purpose is social or spiritual, not income related’ and that they are more cooperative than competitive than their secular nonprofit counterparts. La Barbera (1992) also found that constraints in religious organizations can revolve around religious laws and imperatives, conflicts in mission, and a refusal to exploit supporters of the organization for financial and volunteer resources. These attributes of religious organizations can inevitably cause tensions if actors or stakeholders within these organizations challenge or change the existing organizational norms. Unruh, Sinha, and Belcher (2010) describe the following situation at a faith-based organization’s board meeting in which the openness to other faiths participating in the mission were challenged:

At a GEDCO board meeting, it was proposed to change the organization’s mission statement from: “In partnership with faith communities, GEDCO provides affordable housing…” to “Motivated by the shared values of our faiths, GEDCO provides affordable

housing…” The change was intended to reflect the fact that the GEDCO had recently expanded to include organizations without any religious aspect or affiliation and to indicate greater inclusiveness that was not religiously restricted. Several individuals raised concerns that the change would be misunderstood by GEDCO’s member organizations as representing a shift away from the faith-based motivations of its founders. The motion was shelved. This incident offers an example of how a board functions as a steward of an organization’s identity, and also how Mainline groups walk a fine line between openness and secularizations. While groups like GEDCO are willing to create ties with secular agencies and government entities, they do not want to be defined by these. (p. 6)

Williams (1994) uncovered similar tensions between conflicting missions when theological schools confronted change due to multiple stakeholders. Conflicting missions likewise occurred for faith-based organizations in a study where Alexander (2000) researched adaptive strategies of nonprofits to maintain viability. Specifically, Alexander (2000) found that “faith-based organizations that serve the poor expressed frustration over the mission conflict that resulted as they were pressed to generate income through programs and services” (p. 300). Kvasny and Lee (2010) also found tensions in African American churches’ social service missions and the economic realities which often prevented them from achieving these missions. As mentioned above, tensions have been found in faith-based organizations where the FBOs face both religious and secular pressures (Hehir, 2000; Thyer, 2006). In remarking about how faith-based organizations struggle between religious and secular forces, Vanderwoerd (2000) discovered in his study that “the blurring of ‘us’ and ‘them’ boundaries allowed these organizations to reach beyond their religious beliefs to provide services to all, motivated by an ethic of service to all those created by God” (p. 255). Tensions related to the individual religious identity of priests versus their social and personal identities have been uncovered by Kreiner, Hollensbe, and Sheep (2006). Religious organizational identity tensions have occurred due to

73 organizational changes tied to government funding (Alexander, 2000; Scheitle, 2009b, Unruh, Sinha, & Belcher, 2010; Yip et al., 2010). Vanderwoerd (2000) found this tension between government funding and maintaining religious identity in the history of one of the faith-based organizations in his study. He summarized the situation by saying, “Faced with the prospect of stripping away the religious content in order to continue receiving funding, the organization closed down the school for children amid tremendous controversy and shifted to services primarily for adults” (p. 245).

Broadly speaking, the current literature on faith-based organizations has found tensions in the organizations surrounding their mission, growth, and expansion, paid and unpaid personnel, multiple stakeholders, religious identity and affiliation, financial constraints, secular pressures, and government funding. Faith-based organizational scholarship has yet to fully explore how the role of a paradox perspective might apply to understanding the management of these tensions. While this study is mindful of these tensions that have been uncovered thus far in the existing literature, it is open to uncovering new tensions that may currently defy categorization.

2.7.2 A Paradox Perspective What is an organizational paradox? As explained previously, organizational paradoxes are those tensions, contradictions, and oppositions that exist or persist simultaneously over time. Smith and Lewis (2011, p. 382), explain that organizational paradoxes can occur as: dualities (both ‘A’ and ‘B’) where opposites coexist; dilemmas where stakeholders can make competing choices, each with their own advantages and disadvantages, and; dialectics where contradictory elements are interrelated, and the persistence of change allows for, or demands, the integration of new elements. As such, organizational paradoxes may have two, three, four or more

74 simultaneous attributes that cause organizational friction. For example, Smith and Lewis (2011) argue that Ford and Ford (1994) uncovered trialectic paradoxical elements while Jarzabkowski and Sillince (2007) discovered pluralistic paradoxical components. Smith and Lewis (2011) further note that although dualities reflect the most frequently used concept of paradox, “the lack of conceptual clarity in this field is evident in the varying language used to describe tensions, including ‘paradox,’ ‘dilemma,’ ‘dichotomy,’ and ‘dialectic’” (p. 385).

When categorizing the organizational paradoxes, Lewis (2000) argues for three categories of paradox: (1) belonging, (2) learning, and (3) organizing. Lüscher and Lewis (2008) later argue for an additional category of paradox: (4) performing. In their meta-analysis of 360 organizational paradox articles, Smith and Lewis (2011) found that the four categories of (1) belonging, (2) learning, (3) organizing, and (4) performing can also intersect with each other to form six additional cross-categories (p. 383). A quarter-century ago, Cameron and Quinn (1988) sought to refine how organizational scholars understood and applied paradox. They note that:

Paradoxes differ in nature from other similar concepts such as dilemma, irony, inconsistency, dialectic, ambivalence, or conflict…In precise terms, paradox differs from each of these concepts in that no choice need be made between two or more contradictions. Both contradictory elements in a paradox are accepted and present. Both operate simultaneously. The key characteristic in paradox is the simultaneous presence of contradictory, even mutually exclusive elements. (p. 2)

In developing a framework for understanding organizational paradox, Lewis (2000) contends that tensions are the underlying sources of paradox. Lewis (2000) describes tensions as “cognitively or socially constructed polarities that mask the simultaneity of conflicting truths” (p. 761). These tensions can appear in several ways, such as mixed

75 messages or system contradictions. Organizational actors may be unaware of the existence of these tensions, but may also be aware of them and even reinforce them. In regard to the management of organizational paradoxes, this study was also mindful of the foundational understanding of organizational paradoxes by Cameron and Quinn (1988), who state that “not all paradoxes need be resolved” (p. 13). Lüscher and Lewis (2008) maintain that managing or “working through” organizational paradoxes does not mean eliminating paradox, but rather “constructing a more workable certainty that enables change” (p. 234). Rather, Fiol (2002) argues that “capitalizing on a paradox means utilizing the inherent tensions to one’s advantage rather than ignoring or resolving them” (p. 655). Similarly, Andriopoulos and Lewis (2009) argue, “managing paradox does not imply resolution or eliminating the paradox, but tapping into its energizing potential” (p. 702). Smith and Lewis (2011) show that “managing paradoxical tensions also helps individuals, groups, and firms be flexible and resilient, fostering more dynamic decision making” (p. 394).

2.7.3 Applying A Paradox Framework Building upon the research and classification of Smith and Lewis (2011), this study adopts a paradox framework to explore paradoxes within faith-based organizations. The paradox framework includes the four categories of paradoxes and the six intersectional, cross-categories. Smith and Lewis (2011, p. 383) identified 33 exemplars in the existing literature across ten paradox categories. This study focuses on these 33 paradox exemplars as its theoretical framework for uncovering exhibited paradoxes and their management within the five faith-based organizations under

76 examination. However, as Smith and Lewis (2011) also note, there are several other illustrative examples of paradoxes represented in the existing literature.9 This study offers rich detail and description of paradoxes within faith-based organizations before proceeding to a management analysis of the five faith-based organizations. In its analysis of management, this study adopts a paradox perspective. As Smith and Lewis (2011) contend, “A paradox perspective seeks managerial strategies that support contrasting elements simultaneously” (p. 396) and asks the following question, “How can organizations and their managers effectively engage A and B simultaneously” (p. 395). So, this study utilizes the conceptual framework of a paradox perspective to analyze how board and staff members manage, lead, create sustainability, and innovate despite tensions, contradictions, and oppositions. When taken together as a whole, this research approach, of applying a framework from existing literature to uncover exhibited paradoxes and their management to faith-based organizations, is seen as a paradox perspective on faith-based organizations.

9 See, for example: Consensus and conflict (Cameron, 1986), organizational change and employee involvement (O’Connor, 1995), defense and attachment (Vince & Broussine, 1996), diffuse power and divergent objectives (Denis, Lamothe, & Langley, 2001), structural control and dysfunctional state (Clegg, Cunha, & Cunha, 2002), control and collaboration (Sundaramurthy and Lewis, 2003), alignment and adaptability (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004), acquisition and governance (Graebner & Eisenhardt, 2004), exploration and exploitation (He & Wong, 2004), problematic change resolution and transcendence (Beech, Burns, Caestecker, MacIntosh, & MacLean, 2004), exploring and exploiting (Smith & Tushman, 2005), job dissatisfaction, job attitudes, and organizational apathy (Pfeffer, 2007); efficiency and adaption (Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008), efficiency and innovation (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008), project design and project cultures (Marrewijk, Clegg, Pitsis, & Veensijk, 2008), consumerism and citizenship (Johnston, 2008), incremental innovation and discontinuous innovation (Tushman, Smith, Wood, Westerman, & O’Reilly, 2010), social mission and business outcomes (Smith, Besharov, Wessels, & Chertok, 2011).

As Oman et al. (1992) argue, typical management analysis of public organizations uncovers the identification of trends, patterns, and exceptions while manipulating the data “as little as possible” (p. 102). Likewise, this study was careful to present raw data as examples of located phenomena within a particular paradoxical context. The primary purpose of this is to allow for increased interpretation as to how the raw data can further elicit connections between the theoretical framework and paradoxes and their management within faith-based organizations. By adopting a paradox framework, this study discovered that organizational management literature was supportive in explaining some of the tensions, contradictions, and oppositions that exist within faith-based organizations. Adopting a paradoxical framework enabled this study to take a micro-level approach to organizational management, which also illuminated the management techniques used by the five faith-based organizations to maintain balance, equilibrium, synergy, and optimization, despite exhibited paradoxes. Table 2.1 and Table 2.2 below lists the 33 exemplars from the literature, as noted in Smith and Lewis (2011, p. 383). The tables illustrate the theoretical framework applied in this study. The tables summarize the content of the exhibited paradoxes and their management of the 33 literature exemplars. Table 2.1 summarizes the 18 core-category paradoxes. Table 2.2 summarizes the 15 cross- category paradoxes. In both tables, the first left column lists the categories of paradox (i.e. “belonging,” “learning,” etc.). The second left column lists the number of the paradox. The paradoxes have been numbered to aide in following them throughout the study. For example, the first paradox [1] is labeled in bold with a number and brackets. Further, underlining was used to signify the paradox by its exhibited elements and management techniques, as argued by the various authors of the

78 exemplars. These numbering and underlining identifiers are consistent with the exemplar literature summary section that follows the table, as well as the case reports. The first right header describes the exhibited paradoxes as simultaneously existing tensions, contradictions, and oppositions. So, the first paradox [1] in the “belonging” category concerns the simultaneous tensions of “personal core values” and “organizational core principles” as described by Badaracco (1998). The second right column header then describes the paradox management techniques through balance, equilibrium, optimization or synergy. Thus, the first paradox [1] in the “belonging” category concerning personal core values and organizational core principles is suggested by Badaracco (1998), to be managed by balancing idealism and realism.

Duty

Practices

–

Aggregation

Splitting

–

Facilitator / Mentor Facilitator

–

Inducing Continuity Inducing

Partitioning

Historical Context Historical

–

Structures

–

Integration

–

Acceptance Innovator / Broker Innovator

–

Switching

Attitudes

–

Condition Reconsideration Condition

Deletion

–

Driving Change Driving

Current Values Current

Conformity

Old / New Knowers / New Old

–

Coordinator / Monitor / Coordinator

Acting

–

Temporary Decentralization & & Decentralization Temporary

–

Knowledge

Confrontation

–

Enrichment

Differentiation

Reintegration

–

Adjustment

–

Feeling

Realism

–

Values

–

Sensemaking”:

Contributing Conditions / Company / Beneficence Benefits Company / Conditions Contributing

Property Claims / Efficiency / Due Process / Due / Efficiency Claims Property

“Rhetorical Strategies”: “Rhetorical

“Stakeholder Management”: Management”: “Stakeholder

Power

Centralization Centralization

“Decision Making”: Making”: “Decision

“

Condition Improvement Condition

Normative Cohesion Normative

Producer / Director Producer

“Managerial Leadership Roles”: Roles”: Leadership “Managerial

Metaroutines

Adaptation

Systems Thinking Systems

Fast / Slow Learners / Slow Fast

Compartmentalization

Thinking

“Emotional Balancing”: Balancing”: “Emotional

Assimilation

Idealism

“SYNERGY” “BALANCE,” “EQUILIBRIUM,” “OPTIMIZATION,” or “OPTIMIZATION,” “EQUILIBRIUM,” “BALANCE,” PARADOX MANAGED

–

CategoryParadoxes

–

Changing Roles Changing

Personal Interdependence Personal

Multiple Stakeholders Multiple

–

Stakeholder Contributions Stakeholder

Economic Objectives Economic

–

Group Identity Group

Core

Mental Model Mental

Continuous Change Continuous

–

Dynamic Efficiency Dynamic

Innovation

–

Changing Relationships Changing

Team Learning Team

–

Exploitation

Efficiency

–

Humanitarian Needs Humanitarian

Multiple Strategic Goals Strategic Multiple

Building Employee Commitment Employee Building

Stakeholder Interests Stakeholder

Divergent Objectives Objectives Divergent

Individual Autonomy Individual

Exploration

Changing Organization Changing

“Sensemaking”: “Sensemaking”:

Static Efficiency

Strong Cultures Strong

Requisite Varied Leadership Requisite

Behavioral Complexity Management Complexity Behavioral

Flexibility

Episodic Change Episodic

Shared Vision Shared

Personal Mastery Personal

Exploration

Organizational Identity Synergy Identity Organizational

Organizational Identity Plurality Identity Organizational

Personal Independence Personal

Organizational Change Organizational

Organizational Continuity Organizational

Individual Identity Individual

Organizational Core Principles Core Organizational

Personal Core Values Core Personal

“OPPOSITIONS”

“TENSIONS,” “CONTRADICTIONS,” or “CONTRADICTIONS,” “TENSIONS,” EXHIBITED PARADOX EXHIBITED

NUMBER

PARADOX :

[9]

[8]

[7]

[6]

[5]

[4]

[3]

[2]

[1]

[18]

[17]

[16]

[15]

[14]

[13]

[12]

[11]

[10]

Exhibited & Managed ExhibitedManaged &

2.1:

Learning

Belonging

PARADOX

Organizing Performing

CATEGORIES

Organizing

Belonging::

Belonging

Performing::

Organizing

Performing:

Performing

Learning::

Organizing

Learning::

Belonging

Learning::

Table Table

2.7.4 Exemplar Literature Summary The following literature summary provides an overview of the 33 exemplars used in this study. Each exemplar includes a review of the tensions, contractions, or oppositions that represent the paradox. The management of that paradox through balance, equilibrium, optimization, or synergy is also discussed. As in Table 2.1 and Table 2.2, each paradox is identified by its bold and bracketed [number] and by its underlined paradox exhibited elements and management techniques.

2.7.4.1 Core-Category Paradoxes Belonging paradoxes are fostered when tensions of identity occur between the individual and the collective, and between competing values and roles (Badaracco, 1998; Brewer, 1991; Huy, 2002; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Pratt & Foreman, 2000).

[1] Badaracco (1998) describes competing for personal core values and organizational core principles in light of one’s own personal understanding of right and wrong as a “defining moment” (p. 116). These defining moments are related to the identity questions of ‘who am I?’, ‘who are we?’, and ‘who is the company?’ and are viewed as “a natural tension between two valid perspectives” (p. 117). In this regard, defining moments are those that occur when someone, through self- introspection, balances their personal idealism and their professional realism. Badaracco (1998) argues that the traits applied when choosing the right action in defining moments are “characterized by tenacity, persuasiveness, shrewdness, and self-confidence” (p. 118), and that picking a side or taking a firm stance on an issue allows people to solve problems from a position of strength.

[2] Brewer (1991) distinguishes between individual identity and group identity. In contrast to personal identities, social identities are “where I becomes we” (p. 476). A sense of belonging is often juxtaposed with a sense of distinctiveness, as social identities and group loyalties are formed by the contradiction of differentiation from others, and assimilation with others. Social identities are also more complex than personal identity as they are chosen by individuals, and are expandable and contractible across many different levels, as “transformations in the definition of the self and the basis of self-evaluation” (p. 476) occurs. However, a group identity often leads individuals to feel, either, too distinctive from the group, or too undistinctive within the group. Optimal social distinctiveness, or equilibrium, then, is achieved when assimilation to the group, and differentiation from the group, are equal. In order to perpetuate an appropriate balance for individuals in groups, and secure group loyalty, groups should allow their members to maintain their boundaries of differentiation, while satisfying a sense of belonging through their affiliation. In this way, a collective identity with the group can shield individuals from threats to their self-esteem, while also becoming an emotional source of pride.

[3] Huy (2002) found emotional balancing is an integral part of managing change in an organization. He noted that “employees seek predictable relationships, dependable resources, and consistency in behavior and thinking, while simultaneously seeking new stimulation and personal development. Individuals are more likely to join collective action, such as implementing change, when there is trust, support, or organizational identification” (p. 31). In order to mitigate the contradictions of organizational continuity and organizational change, managers should seek

“adaptation” through “emotional balancing” (p. 59), such as calming processes. Continuity, through relatively predictable outcomes, versus change that is discontinuous and unpredictable, is best emotionally balanced by those who are driving change and inducing continuity in organizational settings.

[4] Markus and Kitayama (1991) argue that when viewing “the self” through the lens of its surrounding culture, individuals identify themselves through personal independence or personal interdependence. Cultural context is crucial to understanding self-behavior, especially motivation. When the self is viewed as either independent or interdependent, the result has “significant cognitive, emotional, and motivational consequences” (p. 231). Balancing thinking, feeling, and acting of the self within an appropriate context, coupled with a positive construct of the self can lead to consistent motivation and success in abilities, efforts, and tasks.

[5] Pratt and Foreman (2000) discovered that individuals often ask, “who am I?” and, as a collective “who are we?” when attempting to ascertain their identity. Organizations containing individuals have thus been found to have many “selves” and that their multiple identities (organizational identity plurality) should be managed

(organizational identity synergy). Managerial responses to multiple identities can consist of compartmentalization, deletion, integration, and aggregation. Compartmentalization consists of preserving all existing organizational identities but does not attempt to link them together into a coherent whole. Deletion involves removing one or more organizational identities. Integration occurs when organizations form their multiple identities into a distinct new whole. Finally,

84 aggregation maintains all existing organizational identities and attempts to forge links between them into a coherent whole.

Learning paradoxes arise when organizational actors have to adjust to a new reality of knowledge (March, 1991; Senge, 1990; Weick & Quinn, 1999). A new reality of knowledge in an organization is evident when a new future is created and the old past is left behind. This change from the old to the new, such as when a new technology is introduced, has the potential to allow actors and their organizations to innovate. However, tensions arise when organizational actors have to learn to integrate a new reality of knowledge into existing operations.

[6] March (1991) describes the tensions that are created when an organization seeks exploration and exploitation simultaneously. Organizational risk-taking, discovery, flexibility, and innovation are all part of an exploration strategy.

Conversely, organizational exploitation consists of implementation, efficiency, refinement, and production. Exploration is the search for new knowledge while exploitation is the use of existing knowledge. The two competing forces are summarized as follows: “Exploitation is the refinement and extension of existing competencies, technologies, and paradigms. Its returns are positive, proximate, and predictable…exploration is experimentation with new alternatives. Its returns are uncertain, distant, and often negative” (p. 85). Maintaining an appropriate balance between these areas of exploration and exploitation can lead to competitive advantage; an imbalance can lead to either a short-term or long-term competitive disadvantage. In order to seek an appropriate equilibrium in organizational learning, and thus

85 manage tensions between actor and organization, mutual learning between actor and organization must include both fast learners and slow learners. To achieve this learning equilibrium, a successful strategy mixes “old-timers” (old knowers) with a redundant but larger amount of “novices” (new knowers) that know less, but may be able to contribute to an organizational code (p. 79). Indeed, March concludes that “once a knowledge equilibrium is achieved, it is sustained indefinitely. The beliefs reflected in the code, and those held by all individuals, remain identical and changing, regardless of changes in reality” (p. 80).

[7] Senge (1990) argue that an effective learning organization currently faces four disciplines concerning personal mastery, mental models, building a shared vision, and team learning. Personal mastery is dominance or a particular proficiency or over people and things. Mental models are assumptions that are entrenched in our worldview and help make up the decision-making process. Building a shared vision is a genuine picture of what an organization is, or can become, that binds “people together around a common identity and sense of destiny” (p. 9). Team learning is the capacity for a collective to develop coordinated action. The proposed method for confronting these paradoxes is for an organization and its personnel to engage in systems thinking. Systems thinking views patterns and structures through interrelationships and interconnectedness and is a “discipline for seeing wholes” (p. 68).

[8] Weick and Quinn (1999) highlight organizational change tensions between episodic change and continuous change. Organizational change is necessitated within

86 the context of organizational failure. Whether the organizational change is planned or spontaneous, tensions surround an organization when small or large, and frequent or infrequent adaptations and adjustments occur. Organizational change never ceases and, as such, organizational failures arise when actors fail to adapt to the fluctuating nature of organizations. Weick and Quinn argue that “episodic change is driven by inertia and the inability of organizations to keep up, while continuous change is driven by alertness and the inability or organizations to remain stable” (p. 379). Conversely, an “ideal” organization would mitigate these tensions between episodic change and continuous change by preserving an equilibrium that continuously applies adaptation and adjustment. Continuous adaption is made possible by “unfreezing” group norms, organizational culture, and personal defenses. Continuous adjustment includes having well-defined managerial responsibilities, having strategic initiatives inside and outside current strategies, clear project priorities, richly connected communication systems, and highly flexible development processes.

Organizing paradoxes occur when there are competing processes that attempt to solve a problem or obtain an outcome in an organizational system (Adler, Goldoftas, & Levine, 1999; Denison, Hooijberg, & Quinn, 1995; Flynn & Chatman,

2001; Ghemawat & Costa, 1993; Lüscher & Lewis, 2008; Siggelkow & Levinthal, 2003).

[9] Adler, Goldoftas, and Levine (1999) reviewed the existing literature surrounding the tensions between organizational flexibility and efficiency and the tradeoffs associated with choosing one over the other. However, when analyzing car

87 model change in the Toyota production system, they noticed the company has an “exceptional capability for both” (p. 64), and that leadership was instrumental in achieving the company’s desired results. Organizational flexibility includes the fluid process of adjustment while efficiency “requires a bureaucratic form or organization with high levels of standardization, formalization, specialization, hierarchy, and staffing” (p. 44). Balancing the tradeoffs between flexibility and efficiency can be achieved through metaroutines, enrichment, switching, and partitioning. Metaroutines include standardized procedures for changing existing and creating new routines. Enrichment allows for innovation and flexibility in routines by seeking worker fulfillment and additional skill sets. Switching allows separate times for workers to switch between routine and non-routine tasks. Partitioning provides subunits, groups, or committees to refine capabilities and specialize in routine or non-routine activities.

[10] Denison, Hooijberg, and Quinn (1995) studied 176 executives and their leadership roles as rated by their subordinates and elucidated “that effective leaders demonstrate more complex, contradictory, and paradoxical behaviors than ineffective leaders” (p. 535). They contrasted behavior complexity management that has the ability to “perform multiple and contradictory roles” (p. 525) with requisite varied leadership which is “implied by an organizational or environmental context” (p. 526). In order to form a synergy between multiple and contradictory roles, effective managers must optimize flexible and stable roles with internally focused and externally focused roles. These roles include that of innovator / broker, producer / director, coordinator / monitor, and facilitator / mentor. They conclude that “the definition of effective leadership implied by the model is not the capacity to be either a

88 monitor or director or an innovator, but rather to perform all of these roles simultaneously” (p. 528).

[11] Flynn and Chatman (2001) explain that strong cultures can be a hindrance to innovation. They argue successful innovation often depends on cultural group norms that foster creativity and implementation. Freedom to express divergent thinking that can result in innovation is a norm that should be supported through a balance of normative cohesion and conformity. All organizational groups possess some conformity among members in relation to interest agreement. However, conformity is not uniformity, and preventing identical attitudes and behaviors can be achieved through normative cohesion. Social and group norms that facilitate interest in cooperation, creative ideas, and support for the implementation process is possible through cohesive agreement.

[12] Ghemawat and Costa (1993) studied tensions between static efficiency and dynamic efficiency and concluded that there are trade-offs to competitive advantage when choosing between them. Static efficiency includes a fixed set of initial conditions and continuous search for improvements within these initial conditions while dynamic efficiency “involves continuous reconsideration of initial conditions” (p. 59). They contend that a balance between condition improvement and condition reconsideration can help to manage the efficiency trade-off. Regarding competing processes in organizations, the organizational strategy should provide consistency in methods of addressing both specialization and regularity, and innovation and flexibility.

[13] Lüscher and Lewis (2008) found that middle managers engage in “sensemaking” in order to interpret, communicate, and implement change from executive management. They found that these managers contend with three challenges of organizational change when understanding directives from executive management. They also found an approach to manage each of the three challenges. The first challenge was changing relationships, which contained “an emotional cycle of social interactions” (p. 232) as personnel dealt with simultaneously asserting their individuality and the fear of rejection from the group. Personnel could manage this “recursive cycle” through the confrontation of individual defensiveness via reflection, and group sparring via discussion. The second challenge, changing organizations, consisted of communication patterns that were entrenched within organizational structures, processes, and practices. Acceptance of change was not submission to change, but rather an understanding of inconsistencies, conflict, and ambiguity that enabled personnel to become aware, feel empowered, and reduce blame during shifting responsibilities. The third challenge, changing roles, came from conflicting demands, and often resulted in mixed messages as personnel were required to respond to multiple communication signals. Splitting allowed personnel to focus on one task at a time in order to “enable a more workable certainty” (p. 231).

[14] Siggelkow and Levinthal (2003) argue that a competitive organizational advantage is balanced through structures that address exploration and exploitation. They argue that the structures necessary for achieving optimization in organizational refinement comes through the “decision making” adaptation process of temporary

90 decentralization with subsequent centralization reintegration. A strictly centralized or decentralized organizational structure was found to present problems in the tradeoffs between exploration and exploitation. However, temporary decentralization, whereby decision making can be “disaggregated into a number of subunits” (p. 651), and then reintegrated into a centralized whole, “yields the highest long-term performance” (p. 652).

Performing paradoxes transpire with multiple and competing goals desired by a plurality of stakeholders (Denis, Langley, & Rouleau, 2007; Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Jarzabkowski & Sillince, 2007; Margolis & Walsh, 2003).

[15] Denis, Langley, and Rouleau (2007) found that strategizing in pluralistic contexts is problematic due to individual autonomy, multiple stakeholders, and divergent objectives. Individual autonomy can lead to collective paralysis while multiple stakeholders can produce inflationary consensus. Divergent objectives derived from diffuse power can lead to dilution of initiatives in strategic change. Strategizing then must be achieved through shared power, values, and knowledge. They conclude that “understanding what actors inside and outside the organization want and can support, and designing and redesigning strategic projects that can slide through windows of opportunity where interests converge” (p. 208) creates long-term legitimacy, commitment, and investment.

[16] Donaldson and Preston (1995) advance stakeholder theory by articulating that managers often need to acknowledge and respond to multiple stakeholders who

91 may have divergent demands. Stakeholder interests can complicate stakeholder contributions as they are investing or participating in the organization and may be receiving minimal benefits or rewards in return. Therefore, they argue that organizational processes and policies should support stakeholder decision making. However, supporting stakeholder decision making requires actively attending to “stakeholder management,” which balances “legitimate” stakeholder attitudes, structures, and practices.

[17] Jarzabkowski and Sillince (2007) found that building employee commitment, despite multiple strategic goals, can be achieved through “rhetorical strategies.” Rhetoric can link goals and commitment through current values and historical context. Commitment as a collective construct allows personnel to see commonalities between the values and goals of the organization, while established rhetoric grounds the pursuit of multiple goals in the historical context of the organization. Personnel who see their work as maintaining the historical context of the organization will also further their commitment to both the organization, and its multiple goals.

[18] Margolis and Walsh (2003) explain that organizations often face competing goals, with the requirement to contribute to social initiatives while still maintaining competitive financial performance. This simultaneous tension of humanitarian needs and economic objectives represents a perilous double reality for managers—one of answering society’s demands, and the other of maximizing financial wealth. Responding to these competing desires requires balancing property

92 claims, efficiency, and due process with contributing conditions, company benefits, and a beneficence duty. Regarding economic objectives, organizations should first ensure that there is not a misappropriation of funds or resources by anyone claiming property for the organization. Second, organizations should see that resources are allocated efficiently for their prescribed purpose. Third, justifiable concerns over accountability should be addressed. Regarding humanitarian need, organizations should first instigate a response if they create a situation that passes “some form of cost, violation, or degradation that others bear” (p. 292). Second, they have a duty to respond if there is an unjust benefit to which it did not contribute. Finally, there is a “duty to promote the well-being of others, in particular, to provide aid to prevent or relieve suffering or dire conditions” (p. 292).

2.7.4.2 Cross-Category Paradoxes Learning::Belonging paradoxes represent personal and professional views of the self while addressing the need for change (Fiol, 2002; Ibarra, 1999; O’Mahony & Bechky, 2006).

[19] Fiol (2002) contrasts radical change within personal and professional identity transformation. Individual and organizational identities interact with each other and sometimes come into conflict with each other. Personnel will cycle through greater or lesser identification with the personal or professional self in a process described as identity transformation. In order to manage the identity transformation process, action steps of deidentification, situated reidentification, and core strategy identification are undertaken. Deidentification entails learning to loosen ties to organizational identity while situated reidentification builds new individual ties to

93 organizational settings. Finally, core strategy identification constructs individual belonging to the core ideology of the organization. Fiol concludes that “the strength of this multiphase model of identity transformation lies in its sensitivity to, and use of, the opposing tensions between the need for both strong and weak member identification” (p. 662).

[20] Ibarra (1999) describes how people experiment with “provisional selves” in professional adaption between the current self and the future self. This professional adaption process consists of situational and individual influences on skills, attitudes, styles, and routines in new roles. Tasks performed that facilitate this professional adaption process include role model observation, provisional selves experimentation, and provisional selves evaluation. Observing role models includes role-playing and matching with the identity of a new role in order to develop the skills, attitudes, styles, and routines necessary to be successful. Experimenting with provisional selves includes imitation and “true-to-self strategies” (p. 787) that allow for the creation of a new role based on an old self. Finally, internal and external evaluation of their “provisional selves” helps to inform personnel if they are adapting to a new role.

[21] O’Mahony and Bechky (2006) found that external labor market workers needed to engage in career progression, but occupational contexts created tensions between personal job attainment and work experience deficit. In other words, workers faced the familiar paradox of needing a job to gain experience but did not have the experience needed to gain a job. Workers managed this through a process called “stretchwork” whereby they would “learn new skills by leveraging a source of

94 continuity while stretching their previously demonstrated competence into a new area” (p. 924). “Stretchwork” consisted of differentiating competence, acquiring referrals, framing and bluffing, and discounting. “Differentiating competence” involved building trust and a solid reputation in their base work while outperforming the competition. This situation had the potential to snowball into more and more tasks as contract workers gained skillsets and competencies in new areas and, thus, were hired for even more jobs. “Acquiring referrals” opened new markets and opportunities through professional networks. “Framing and bluffing” involved marketing one’s skillsets by “using analogies or comparisons that stressed the similarities to proven skills” (p. 929) to coincide with a particular job, even if the worker was exaggerating or “bluffing” their competence in the area. “Discounting” comprised of accepting compensation below market value for the completion of a job in order to make oneself more attractive to potential employers.

Learning::Organizing paradoxes arise when dynamic capabilities are challenged by the need to seek efficiency and flexibility and stability and continuity to maintain a competitive advantage (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Teece & Pisano, 1994).

[22] Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) argue that in a resource-based view (RBV) of organizations, two markets determine dynamic capabilities, resources, and competitive advantage. In high-velocity markets, effective capabilities rarely rely on existing knowledge, and frequent change follows unpredictable outcomes, with an emphasis on selection. Market players are generally unknown, and organizational processes are simple, experiential, and fragile. In contrast, effective capabilities in a

95 moderately dynamic market rely on existing knowledge, and frequent change follows predictable outcomes, with an emphasis on variation. Market players (such as suppliers and competitors) are generally known and organizational processes are detailed, analytic, and stable. This is the market for the organizations in this study. In order to achieve a balanced approach in a moderately dynamic market, Eisenhardt and Martin suggest that organizations focus on product development, strategic decision making, and alliancing. Competitive advantages for organizations are aided by altering the resource base by creating, integrating, recombining, and releasing resources.

[23] Teece and Pisano (1994) explain that “dynamic capabilities” derive from having a competitive advantage in the marketplace. “Dynamic” refers to the ability to shift and respond to the nature of the market environment. “Capabilities” refer to the ability and competency to adapt to changes, reconfigure skills, and integrate resources.

These dynamic capabilities require organizations to explore new learning while exploiting existing knowledge strategically. In order to explore and exploit, organizations must manage dynamic capabilities through organizational processes, positions, paths, ongoing assessment, and the inability of competitors to achieve replicability and imitability. Processes are routines or patterns of learning, while positions are an organization’s technological, intellectual, consumer, and supplier assets. Paths are possibilities or future alternatives that can be taken by organizations, while assessment refers to evaluative methods by which organizations identify and predict performance and outcomes. Finally, replication is the ability to continuously produce identical outcomes based on routines, while imitation is a competitor’s ability

96 to replicate the same outcomes. On this point, Teece and Pisano argue that “one should not, however, overestimate the overall importance of intellectual property protection” (p. 552) in maintaining a competitive advantage.

Learning::Performing paradoxes exist through creating immediate success while simultaneously preparing for future capabilities (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009; Dweck, 2006; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996).

[24] Andriopoulos and Lewis (2009) discuss issues of exploitation and exploration as these matters affect organizational ambidexterity and their impact on innovation. They argue that in order “to prosper, or even survive; firms must excel at both exploitive and exploratory innovation” (p. 696). They found that the contradictory elements of strategic intent, customer orientation, and personnel were managed through tactics of integration and differentiation. Integration tactics are those that stress interdependence between exploitation and exploration elements, while differentiation focuses on either exploitation or exploration elements. The cyclical process of enabling integration and differentiation can aid in innovation by, both, creating new knowledge and utilizing existing knowledge.

[25] Dweck (2006) shows that people, groups, and organizations can choose to suffer or restrain themselves from personal or professional advancement with a

“fixed mindset.” As an impediment to continuous progression, a fixed mindset is static and avoids challenges, gives up easily when faced with obstacles, perceives effort as wasteful, ignores constructive criticism, and feels threatened by the success

97 of others. As a result, achievement is less than full potential. Conversely, a “growth mindset” enables personal and professional development. A growth mindset is dynamic and embraces challenges, is persistent when faced with obstacles, perceives effort as a path to mastery, incorporates constructive criticism, and finds inspiration in the success of others. As a result, achievement of full potential is possible.

[26] Tushman and O’Reilly (1996) discuss how organizations overcome inertia to implement innovation and change through ambidextrous tactics. The challenging patterns of evolutionary (incremental) change and revolutionary (discontinuous) change are instituted through aspects of people, strategy, technology, and organizational design. Indeed, an organizational culture characterized by an inward focus, extensive procedures for attempting to achieve consensus, the arrogance of past success, and entitlement among some personnel is the antithesis of necessary change. The authors’ argue that “organizational culture is the key to both short-term success and, unless managed properly, long-term failure” (p. 23). As such, management techniques to avoid cultural pitfalls include organizational architectures that focus on speed or size in execution to prevent stagnation. Multiple cultures are effective as strong social control and “a common overall culture is the glue that holds these companies together” (p. 26). Finally, ambidextrous managers reinforce core values such as innovation, accountability, initiative, autonomy, and teamwork.

Performing::Organizing paradoxes concern processes and outcomes and seek commitment and performance (Eisenstat, Beer, Foote, Fredberg, & Norrgren, 2008; Gittell, 2000; Kaplan & Norton, 1996).

[27] Eisenstat, Beer, Foote, Fredberg, and Norrgren (2008) argue that managers must confront the tensions between performance (the economic organization) and people (the social institution). Choosing one over the other could lead to the inability to produce long-term value and complacency or “employee disenchantment…and loss of competitive vitality” (p. 51). To combat these opposing forces, managers should practice a strategy of “High Commitment / High

Performance” which entails managers holding the center, developing shared purpose, and keeping perspective. Holding the center involves managers earning trust, engaging with the organization, maintaining focus and consistency of purpose, and creating collective leadership capability. Developing a shared purpose includes building a better world while delivering a performance to be proud of, and providing opportunities for growth. Finally, keeping perspective entails establishing personal and professional boundaries, and not taking “themselves or their positions too seriously” (p. 56).

[28] Gittell (2000) found organizations may have difficulty achieving high- performance outcomes when there are employee and organizational issues of coordination and control. A synergy between coordinating and controlling systems can be managed through accountability, supervision, employee selection, and conflict resolution. Team accountability allows for the diffusion of blame when errors occur in organizational performance. Supervision that facilitates learning helps personnel do their jobs more effectively and efficiently. Employee selection that is based on choosing personnel who would make good teammates is also instructive in enabling

99 high performance. Finally, proactive conflict resolution, when situations arise, allows for problems to be quickly addressed before they became larger future issues.

[29] Kaplan and Norton (1996) explain how a balanced scorecard, as a strategic management system, can address an organization’s ability to link its long- term strategy and short-term actions. As a tool for introducing management processes, a balanced scorecard helps managers by translating a vision, communicating and linking, business planning, and feedback and learning. Translating the vision helps to clarify the vision by gaining consensus among personnel, while communicating and linking aids in communicating, educating, setting goals, and linking rewards to performance outcomes. Business planning includes setting targets or benchmarks, aligning them with strategic initiatives, allocating resources appropriately, and establishing milestones. Finally, feedback and learning consists of articulating the shared vision of an organization, supplying strategic feedback, and facilitating learning and strategy review.

Performing::Belonging paradoxes occur when personal and social identities clash with professional performance (Dukerich, Golden, & Shortell, 2002; Kreiner,

Hollensbe, & Sheep, 2006).

[30] Dukerich, Golden, and Shortell (2002) uncovered voluntary cooperative behavior among personnel when workers’ perceived organizational identity and their construed external image maintained a positive association. If personnel viewed their organizational identification positively, they were more likely to participate in

100 organizational cooperation. Similarly, if personnel construed the external image of their organization positively, they were also likely to cooperate with the organization because they were able to personally and professionally identify with the organization.

[31] Kreiner, Hollensbe, and Sheep (2006) discovered that personnel attempt to achieve an optimal balance between personal identities and social identities. In order to deal with identity demands at work and identity tensions that require both the need for inclusion and the need for uniqueness, personnel engage in coping tactics. These coping tactics revolve around differentiation, integration, and neutral / dual- function differentiation or integration techniques. Differentiation tactics include separating roles from identity, setting occupational limits, creating an identity hierarchy with a clear order of identities, escaping into entirely different roles, and turning on or off identity switches. Integration tactics involved merging roles with identity, infusing elements of self into work tasks, and casting the self as a symbol of the occupation. Finally, neutral / dual-function techniques consisted of seeking refreshment through renewal and self-preservation, involving other people by inviting help, and tapping spiritual resources by “finding answers to identity dilemmas in prayer, scripture, worship” (p. 1045).

Belonging::Organizing paradoxes intersect with individuals submitting themselves to the aggregate benefit of the group (Murnighan & Conlon, 1991; Smith

& Berg, 1987).

101

[32] Murnighan and Conlon (1991) explore the internal subtleties of intense work groups. They found that since their work as a string quartet could only be done as a unit, the group faced simultaneous oppositions of leadership versus democracy, the assistant leader or “second fiddle,” and confrontation versus compromise. Leadership versus democracy was encountered when, as a group, they needed a designated leader or “public face,” but wanted to ensure a fair and equal say in decision making. They found the assistant leader was capable of leading, but had to play the role of supporter and received little attention, despite their importance to the group. Confrontation was needed for conflict resolution, but because members of intense work groups are interdependent, confrontations over known problems often led to conflict. Similarly, compromise did not always adequately deal with conflict and created future issues in the group. Managing oppositions was achieved through passive leadership, role acceptance and support, and constructive conflict absorption. Passive leadership advocates for democratic action among the group and, in this study, participants did not seek attention for their leadership roles. Rather, they accepted their secondary roles, and this was appreciated by the group. Absorbing conflict, rather than compromising, meant that the intense work group confronted issues, but they quickly let unnecessary emotions and disruptions fade as compromise could not be meaningfully undertaken by the group.

[33] Smith and Berg (1987) detail the trials and tribulations of the individual in group life through membership, participation, and influence. Membership consists of involvement through individuality, identity, and boundaries. Participation includes issues of intimacy, trust, disclosure, and regression. Influence revolves around

102 authority, dependency, courage, and creativity. The authors note that “decisions concerning how these internal experiences are managed, avoided, confronted, understood, or distorted are in turn exported back out into the larger context by group members” (p. 87). Management of these contradictions was seen through the idea of “stuckness,” because “as the group struggles to ‘solve this problem’ by reconciling the opposing forces or eliminating contradictions, pressure is created in the opposite direction in order to ensure that the full range of contradictory reactions can be expressed” (p. 211). In the case of “stuckness,” group members attempt to compromise emotions and find a middle ground, eliminate contradictions through power struggles against each other, and separate the contradictions by ignoring or authorizing the issue to go to a subgroup. Conversely, groups also engage in movement by living within contradictions through splitting and reclamation, and immersion and exploration. Splitting and reclamation involve reclaiming emotions and reactions that were “split off” when confronting contradictions in the group. They argue that immersion “provides the experience necessary to discover the connection or link between the extremes if one exists” when exploring a compromise of group paradoxes.

103

Chapter 3

RESEARCH DESIGN

3.1 Methodological Overview The current approach to studying faith-based organizations has led to several advantages, including an assessment of outcomes of their social service delivery, and a general typology from which to understand them. However, the current approach to studying faith-based organizations has also led to problems of undifferentiated language when describing them (Sider & Unruh, 2004) and a deficiency of richness in detail on their internal organizational processes from which to build categorical understandings for management analysis. In order to fill the knowledge gap between detailed richness and undifferentiated language, data collection strategies in this study sought to identify and describe the paradoxes within faith-based organizations and analyze how they are managed. Uncovering paradoxes requires a semi-structured protocol whereby some flexibly is needed in order to react, when necessary, to data gained from the research. Rather than testing the theories of prior research, this study adopts an inductive, theory-developing approach. Therefore, this study expands research from the common survey sample study of churches towards non-congregationally tied faith- based organizations who identify themselves is some manner as Christian. It also expands the research regarding geography by not solely focusing on urban areas.

104

3.1.1 Multiple Comparative Case Studies Yin (1981a, 1981b) argues for the use of multiple-case studies to address potential validity and trustworthiness issues. Besides helping to divert the likely skepticism and criticism of using only one case in a study, Yin (2014) argues that a benefit of multiple-cases is that comparison between cases supports a hypothesized contrast and, thus, “a strong start toward theoretical replication” (p. 64). When researching tensions, Andriopoulos and Lewis (2009) hold that a comparative case study method permits the selection of theoretically relevant cases while fostering “a vital mix of depth and breadth, allowing immersion with multiple ambidextrous organizations” (p. 698). For example, Graebner and Eisenhardt (2004) were able to compare 12 cases to produce a broader theoretical view of corporate governance, while Alvesson and Empson (2007) found organizational identity construction when comparing four occupationally related but distinct organizations. The multiple case study approach is also found in faith-based organizational research. Both Chambré (2001) and Grettenberger, Bartkowski, and Smith (2006) each compared four faith-based organizations, and Sider and Unruh (2004) compared 15 religious congregations with community service programs. Schneider (2013b) analyzed 81 faith-based organizations using comparative case studies and was able to generate three categorical systems for understanding stewardship. Thus, an advantage to a comparative approach to case studies is category building, which helps to expand understanding, research strategies, and analysis (Siggelkow, 2007)—something which is desirable in the faith-based organizational literature (Schneider, 2013a).

While this study uses pre-existing categories based on theoretical constructs from which to describe and analyze faith-based organizations, because much of the framework for this study is multidimensional and exploratory, flexibility was needed

105 in order to adapt, when necessary, to the data being collected (Yin, 2014). Following the recommendations of Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña (2014), this study sought a balance between a highly structured research design and a loosely configured design. Flexibility during data collection was needed in order to gain the most insight into organizational paradoxes. Moreover, research design flexibility was necessary in order to compensate for the gap between an applied framework and organizational data. For example, additional probing questions were asked during interviews to ensure that any noted paradoxes were expanded upon for clarity and detail. As Eisenhardt (1989) argues, research design flexibility is crucial when building theories from case study research because essential features of quality social science research “is the freedom to make adjustments during the data collection process” (p. 539). Flexibility also allows for receptiveness to local idiosyncrasies in multiple-case research (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014, p. 20). In order to maintain continuity throughout the study while still being adaptable to the exploratory nature of this study (Yin, 1981a, 1981b), this study follows the rationale and structure of the multiple case study procedure outlined in Yin (2014). Yin (2014) outlines the multiple case study procedure by describing the process of selecting one or two cases, then writing individual case reports, then drawing cross-case conclusions, and finally, if necessary, conducting remaining case studies and, thus, repeating the process (p. 60). Once all cases are conducted, an analysis and comparison between all cases should be pursued, followed by the development of theory. Yin (2014) argues that “any use of multiple-case designs should follow a replication, not a sampling logic and a researcher must choose each case carefully” (p. 63). Because of the dynamic and emergent nature of the inquiry in

106 this study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), the first two organizations served as an opportunity to become more familiar with the phenomenon of tensions in faith-based organizations (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). As data was being gathered during the first two case studies, it became apparent what methods were working effectively, and what methods needed improvement in terms of data collection techniques. These adjustments are described below in the sections detailing the observation, interview, and document collection process. Yin (2014) argues that “you have every right to conclude that your initial design needs to be modified” (p. 65). Since the research questions were specific before data collection occurred, they were extremely helpful in defining the scope and sample of the study and, thus helped to yield the data needed in order to answer this study’s primary research questions.

3.2 Data Selection There were several choices when it came to data selection for this study. This section discloses the rationale for the number of cases chosen for the study, as well as the subjects chosen for inclusion in the study. The number of cases was determined in accordance with the suggestions of prior, rigorous case studies and the recommendations of the methodological literature. The subjects in this study were chosen according to their service mission, religious affiliation, and organizational size. Attention was also paid to issues concerning human subjects and data storage procedures. Finally, there is a review of the selection pool for this study.

107

3.2.1 Number of Cases As evidenced in the existing literature, identifying paradoxes within organizations not only required being aware of underlying tensions, oppositions, contradictions, and anomalies (Lewis, 2000), but also being able to locate and bracket the phenomena related to these (Ehrlich & Hatch, 1993). Therefore, in order to more accurately identify paradoxes, the selection of similar faith-based organizations to participate in the study was paramount to the overall success of the study. As shown in the case reports following, there were several similarities between the five organizations selected for this study. The similarities between the backgrounds of the organizations, in terms of their national and state socio-economic and political contexts, can be found in Appendix A: National & State Socio-Economic and Political Contexts. The faith-based organizations included in this study were theoretically driven and purposefully selected (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014, p. 33). One goal for this purposive sampling was to explore the application of existing theories and to establish comparisons between the cases (Maxwell, 2013, p. 98). According to the recommendations of Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña (2014): “With high complexity, a study with more than 10 cases or so can become unwieldy…If we were forced to recommend a specific number, we would suggest five richly researched cases as a minimum for multiple-case sampling adequacy” (p. 34). Moreover, five cases met both the standards for rigor in comparative case study research (Gibbert & Ruigrok, 2008; Gioia et al., 2012), as well as answering the research questions outlined in this study. In this regard, this study follows Andriopoulos and Lewis (2009), who sought to explore tensions within five organizations and then coded their data to uncover paradoxes. Patton (2002) finds that

108

“there are no rules for sample size in qualitative inquiry. Sample size depends on what you want to know, the purpose of the inquiry, what’s at stake, what has the most credibility, and what can be done with available time and resources” (p. 244). In selecting the organizations to be researched in this study, homogenous purposeful sampling was used to identify the cases.

3.2.2 Subjects Given nature of this study, the decision to arrive at homogeneous purposive sampling did not come easily. Criterion sampling was also considered, but since the study was explorative, the use of a criterion such as paradoxes was not assured. Even though this study is theoretically-driven, since it was unknown if paradoxes existed within the sample organizations, any selection based on that criterion would not suffice. Similarly, stratified purposeful sampling was also considered. However, since Patton (2002) notes that “the purpose of a stratified purposeful sample is to capture major variations rather than to identify a common core” (p. 240), the common core that this study is researching is paradoxes and their management within faith- based organizations. Finally, this study achieved its sampling purpose by following the suggestion of Patton (2002) that “reasonable coverage of the phenomenon” (p. 246) should occur. Patton (2002) also argues that a homogenous purposive sample focuses the study by reducing variation (p. 243). A homogeneous sample allows for comparisons of similarities among the cases while simultaneously permitting the discovery of differences, if any, between the cases. The goal of studying similar faith-based organizations is gaining insight into the phenomena of paradoxes and their management. By collecting data from similar cases, generalizability was easier when

109 theorizing about the broader implications (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007) of faith- based organizational paradox research. Following Andriopoulos and Lewis (2009), faith-based organizations of similar size, mission, and faith were selected in order to avoid better potential pitfalls in the analysis between faith-based organizations that contrast with each other too much. These authors’ note in their study that “selecting firms that offer common services, including product design, engineering, and branding, helped control for certain contextual factors….To provide variety, however, we chose firms with different industry specializations, thereby offering eclectic settings for exploitative and exploratory innovation” (p. 698).

3.2.2.1 Service Mission The missions of all the faith-based organizations in this study are similar in that they may be broadly defined as “survival services” for their recipients (Fabricant, 1986; Guo, 2010). In other words, they are “human service” organizations. Although their primary recipients were at-risk youth (BETA & EPSILON) or adults (ALPHA, DELTA, & OMEGA), these small variations in mission specialization have not been found to be a significant factor in prior comparative case study research of faith-based organizations. For example, Schneider (2013b) contends the faith-based organization in her research “had much in common regardless of the type of service they provided and their size, age, and location” (p. 519). In fact, in order to avoid a selection bias (von Furstenberg, 2006), faith-based organizations with different mission specializations were studied. It is also worth repeating that all of the organizations were deemed to be “non-government contracting.” That is, they did not receive a majority of their funds from a government entity to provide social services.

110

3.2.2.2 Religious Affiliation As mentioned above, case study selections were purposively made based on religious affiliation. Religious self-identity is one of the factors that gives faith-based organizations the most variability from each other (Bielefeld & Cleveland, 2013b; Cnaan & Curtis, 2013). Therefore, faith-based organizations with similar religious self-identities are included so that they can be more precisely compared to each other. Although they can be broadly identified under the title of “faith-based organizations,” this study did not select churches or faith-affiliated hospitals and schools to study. Moreover, this study only considered non-congregationally tied (non-denominational) faith-based organizations for study purposes. What makes a faith-based organization, “non-congregational”? Kearns, Park, and Yankosi (2005) show that while congregationally tied faith-based organizations and non-congregationally tied FBOs are similar, a distinction can be made between the two types of organizations. For example, non-congregationally tied faith-based organizations formally incorporate themselves (through a government entity) independently of religious congregations. Cnaan and Curtis (2013) identify six attributes that make an organization a religious congregation (p. 11). Among the most important of these attributes for this study as assembling for the purpose of worship. If organizations do not assemble for the purpose of worship, they cannot be considered a “religious congregation.” As such, a faith-based organization that is not overseen by any particular religion or Christian denomination, and does not primarily assemble for the purpose of worship could be viewed as a “non-congregationally tied faith-based organization.” Another argument could be made about what constitutes a non-congregationally tied faith-based organization. In her study of faith-based umbrella organizations, Wittberg

111

(2013) found that many faith-based organizations that are congregationally tied have a shared identity with a sponsoring organization. As such, if a faith-based organization does not claim to identify with a particular religious congregation, they could also be viewed as a non-congregationally tied FBO.

3.2.2.3 Organizational Size The final factor in selecting the types of faith-based organizations that were included in the study was organizational size. Grettenberger, Bartkowski, and Smith (2006) argue that “the size of the organizations is particularly relevant to the comparative study of faith-based organizations and secular organizations” (p. 233). As mentioned previously, faith-based organizations can range in size from small local neighborhood or community organizations that were established recently, with small budgets under $100,000 and only have a handful of staff members, to large national organizations with agencies in nearly every state, that have a long history, multi- million dollar budgets, and hundreds of staff members. A large, multinational organization may prove to be challenging to study with too many staff to observe and interview (Grettenberger, Bartkowski, & Smith, 2006). Therefore, this study set parameters for selection based on 5 to 25 staff members or a $200,000 minimum annual budget. Recent IRS 990 Forms (2012, 2013, & 2014) and organization websites were used to aid in confirming these parameters. As there is no model in the existing literature for these sampling criteria, this study recognizes that these specifications are subjective. However, these specifications were found to be appropriate as they yielded an ample amount of participating organizations and data.

112

3.2.2.4 Human Subjects & Data Storage Procedures Given this study is essentially about people (Schneider, 1987), and that the nature of some of the conversations about paradoxes in the organizations and individual faith may be sensitive, this study underwent IRB approval for human subjects research (Appendix B: Institutional Review Board Project Approval Letter). Before initially soliciting organizations for their participation in the study, I anticipated that the executive director would be my main contact for entry into the organizations (Grettenberger, Bartkowski, & Smith, 2006) and this turned out to be true in all five cases. In trying to procure approval to study the organization, specific attention was paid to this relationship. In some cases, throughout the pre-approval process, my relationship with the executive director, which consisted of phone interviews, email conversations, and one-on-one meetings, lasted several months before access was granted, or not granted to the organization. While attention was paid to this relationship, during the data collection stage, and after the data collection was completed, other relationships were formed, which were important for follow-up questions and further data collection, such as observations and documents. An organizational recruitment letter (Appendix C: Organizational Recruitment Letter) was sent to prospective organizations addressed to the executive directors via physical letter and email, when available. The executive directors, while not only being the managers of the organization, were also some of the only staff that could be located through online search tools. The names and contact information for organizational staff members, board members, and volunteers and donors were often not available. So, if the executive director chose not to respond, there was often no way of contacting the organization unless I went there in-person.

113

Once granted access to the organization, informed consent letters were signed by the director of each organization (Appendix D: Organizational Informed Consent Form), as well as every person who agreed to be interviewed (Appendix E: Individual Informed Consent Form). A signed physical copy was given to each organization and interview participant. A hard copy of the consent forms was stored in a locked file at the University of Delaware. Once the data was collected, no identifying information was included in this study. The raw data was stored on a personal computer in password protected files with a hard drive back-up (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014). No data was lost or stolen during the study.

3.2.2.5 Selection Pool Given the parameters laid out above, faith-based nonprofit organizations were searched online, with the former being a popular way to find websites and information on individuals and organizations, and the latter being a way to search for nonprofit organizations. Guide Star, in particular, maintains a database of organizational information such as basic finances and contact information, as well as more detailed information for organizations that participate in their database. In searching online databases, basic parameters were chosen, most specifically, location. Search terms for both search databases included “religious organization,” “religious nonprofit,” “religious nonprofit organization,” “faith organization,” “faith- based organization,” “faith-based nonprofit organization,” “Christian organization,” “Christian nonprofit,” and “Christian faith organization.” If an organization was found online via Google, it was subsequently searched for in Guide Star to ascertain the above-referenced sampling information of service mission, religious affiliation,

114 and organizational size. A list was then compiled of organizations that fit the sampling criteria. After IRB approval of the project, 25 faith-based organizations were contacted via mail, email, and phone follow-up to request a conversation about participating in the study. Of these organizations, 14 returned some form of communication expressing their interest, or non-interest, in participating in the study. Finally, 5 of those 14 organizations agreed to participate, and are the organizations that are included in this study. The organizations in this study have been given a pseudonym to further protect their anonymity. Overall, the study was able to achieve a 20% (5 out of 25) participation rate. After initial data collection at the five participating organizations, no data was subsequently discovered that would nullify its participation in the study.

3.3 Data Collection It was initially estimated that two weeks of observations (10 days) were needed, along with one week for interviews (5 days), for a total of three “business” weeks of fieldwork at each organization. With five organizations at which to collect data, this would equate to roughly three months of data collection. However, sequential observation and scheduling of interviews was rarely available. The dates at which the organizations agreed to the study also meant that data collection would overlap each other. This semi-structured protocol aided in confirming that the planned data collection strategies were appropriate. When the strategies needed to be adjusted, it was done with as little inconvenience to the organizations as possible. The specific strategies for each collection method are described below, and in the forthcoming sub- sections.

115

In all five cases, data collection took place over a roughly two month period, with overlapping collection dates between the organizations. Table 3.1 lists a summary of data gathered from the five organizations:

Table 3.1: Data Summary

Organization Data Collection Interviews Observations Interviews Observations Documents Pseudonym Dates Duration Duration March 18 – ALPHA 15 12:40:22 13 45:45:00 22 July 9 March 27 – BETA 5 5:14:25 14 20:50:00 24 July 17 August 5 – DELTA 7 7:53:35 11 36:00:00 24 September 22 July 16 – EPSILON 11 9:38:03 13 20:15:00 18 September 23 March 21 – OMEGA 15 15:49:23 15 51:45:00 23 September 29 Total > 6 Months 53 51:15:48 66 174:35:00 111

There were three primary sources of data: documents (online and print), observations (of the staff made up of individuals, small groups, teams, artifacts, and symbols), and personal one-on-one formal interviews and casual conversations. The three data sources helped to triangulate the data findings so that findings remained as trustworthy as possible (Maxwell, 2013). Data collection strategies achieved the stated goals of at least 50 observations, 50 interviews, and 100 documents to analyze amongst the organizations.

In total, the five organizations produced fifty-three interviews with accompanying participant demographics (Appendix F: Participant Demographic Information). Semi-structured interviews were performed in accordance with the

116 interview guide (Appendix G: Interview Guide) and garnered a total of 51 hours, 15 minutes, and 48 seconds of data. Sixty-six field observations were performed using the observation guide (Appendix H: Observation Guide) with a total of 174 hours and 35 minutes with subsequent notes. Finally, 111 documents were collected, and the details for each organization can be found in Appendix J: Organizational Documents Obtained. After the data collection was complete at the first two sites, a “briefcase report” was created for the first two organizations, and an initial analysis of the data was conducted for each case. The individual case data should have revealed whether or not any assumed data was absent. I considered what was learned from the data, if the data confirmed my expectations, and if there were any surprises in the data that might cause me to seek additional data. If additional data was needed, or the interview guide or research questions needed adjusting based on what the data was offering, this was done after the first two case studies, but before the next case studies. There were only five occasions in the first two organizations where additional data collection, regarding more observations and more documents, were needed. However, overall the data retrieved from the first two case studies met expectations regarding scope and depth, and procedures were then reproduced a further three times for a total of five case studies. While selecting the last three sites, the same as the first two sites, attention was paid to ensure an upfront and honest conversation with the executive director of the organization so that they knew what I was going to be doing and the type of data I needed for the case study to be successful. Following the recommendations of Maxwell (2013), this study recognizes that establishing personal relationships with

117 those whom I intended to study was vital to the success of data collection. Although my professional experience and personal background were something the faith-based organizations were interested in working with, I was mindful that not all the organizations I selected had the time or desire to devote resources towards helping me complete my study. So, for those organizations that agreed to the study, I offered them some professional feedback about their organization, as is typical for in-depth case studies (Yin, 2014). By offering the organizations an executive summary of the case report, they were able to add to the analysis and confirm the accuracy of data that was gained from the observations, interviews, and documents.

3.3.1 Observations Chambré (2001) found that observations were helpful in identifying, describing, and analyzing faith elements in faith-based organizations. Similarly, observations within the organization were also a crucial element in discovering if tensions, contradictions, oppositions, and paradoxes exist and, if so, how they are managed. As mentioned above, care was taken not to impose preordained understandings of paradoxes and their management on findings (Gioia, Corley, & Hamilton, 2012). For this study, observations in the organizations were first meant to aid in the description of the faith, identity, and culture of the organization and, second, as a means to uncover possible paradoxes and their management. As such, observations attempted to glean data from anywhere and everywhere possible, such as meetings, casual conversations, various work tasks and behavior, and artifacts

(Yanow, 2006). The artifacts in faith-based organizations were a significant source of data (Rafaeli & Pratt, 2006), and much more than a symbol (Schultz, Hatch, & Ciccolella, 2006), as discussed later in the findings section. Thus, both large and

118 small phenomena were observed and were recorded in detailed field notes (Eisenhardt, 1989). Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw (2011), argue that researchers should take note of their initial impressions, what they believe to be significant or unexpected, and to document key events and incidents, be as systematic as possible in their note-taking, and look for variations from, or exceptions to, emerging patterns (pp. 24-29). While these recommendations were followed, since this is not an ethnographic study, an observational field notes guide was created which allowed for the semi-structured direction of observations toward theoretical constructs (Yin, 2014). The observational field notes guide used was helpful in reiterating some of the things I was looking for in the organizations, and also provided a place for much need critical reflection. Using a pen and paper for this exercise helped me to be more discrete in the organizations, as typing on a laptop computer would have been cumbersome and, at times, intrusive. So field notes were later transcribed, coded, and analyzed. Typing hand-written notes after the observation also allowed for further reflection and note-taking (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014). In their field observations, Ehrlich and Hatch (1993) note that laughter during organizational meetings was an indicator of humor, and was sometimes used to mask an underlying tension within an organization. In many instances in this study, the observations noted the detailed nuances of organizational staff and volunteer behavior, and were critical in establishing several of the codes needed to fully describe the paradoxes that existed among the personnel in these organizations. As this aspect of observations pertained to data collection in my study, perhaps the most important aspect of the observations was the casual conversations with staff members and

119 volunteers. The relationships established through these conversations greatly enhanced my ability to gather the data needed for this study.

3.3.2 Interviews Ravasi and Schultz (2006) conducted 50 semi-structured interviews with 40 organizational members and found that these semi-structured interviews produced strong evidence of organizational culture. They also discovered that internal communication tools produced moderate evidence of organizational culture, while annual reports and external communication tools only presented sporadic evidence of organizational culture. However, they did note that these tools also were helpful in portraying organizational identity. Patton (2002) notes the “snowball sampling” approach to interviewing is common in emergent research designs. Andriopoulos and Lewis (2009) affirm “as data collection and analysis unfolded, our interviews became increasingly focused. Within each firm, we continued recruiting informants until additional interviews failed to dispute existing, or reveal new, categories or relationships—that is, we achieved theoretical saturation” (p. 699). While this approach may seem unstructured in its attempt to gather data, the questions that were asked of interviewees were semi-structured. This study builds on these theoretical frameworks and methodologies by conducting casual conversations before the formal interview (Seidman, 2013). Although some paradoxes may not be immediately obvious to the stakeholders, other paradoxes may very well be personal and a major source of conflict within the organization. As such, I was aware that some people might not feel comfortable talking about conflict with strangers, newcomers, or researchers. Therefore, these “informal interviews” that took place in the observation period were used to help to

120 build trust with the stakeholders, as mentioned above, so that more detailed questions relating to the research questions might be asked in a formal interview. Also, following the recommendation of Yin (2014), as in all cases of personal interaction, every effort was made to be a “good listener,” and also to be adaptive to what is being offered by the interviewee. The formal interview followed a semi-structured approach with an interview guide. The interview guide was meant as a guide, not a blueprint to ensure that the interview was fluid rather than rigid (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). The initial interview guide followed the recommendations of Gioia, Corley, and Hamilton (2012) by ensuring that it focused on the research questions. That is, it was thorough, did not ask leading questions and was revised when necessary (p. 19). For example, after a couple of interviews, I discovered that the question order for questions 2 and 3 should be switched in order to help the interview flow better. Another example was that further explanation was needed to help the participants understand questions 1 and 7. Despite these minor corrections, the interview guide produced the data it was intended to. Following Andriopoulos and Lewis (2009), questions 1-3 start off by inviting participants to “ease into” the conversation by talking about themselves, with the purpose of gaining a general sense of the person’s story. These introductory questions allowed the participants to “open up” and create a dialogue so that they “felt comfortable” providing essential details in their “organizational storytelling” (Adorisio, 2009) for the remainder of the interview. Questions 4-7 then ask participants to expand on their thoughts about the organization. Given the discussion regarding the importance of the faith factor and its potential to raise tensions within the organization, questions 8-12 ask participants about faith in the organization.

121

Questions 13-14 ask respondents to expand upon their own personal faith. Finally, the interview concludes with questions 15-22 which discuss peoples’ personal experiences in the organization. Questions 23-27 relate to a participant’s thoughts about the organization. All of these questions are meant to cover a broad understanding of the organization so that a rich description and analysis of paradoxes can be provided to the interviewer. Although the interviews varied in length depending on specific participant responses to question probes, generally, the interviews followed a 90-minute format (Seidman, 2013). The average for all fifty-three interviews was 59 minutes, 25 seconds. However, there were some outliers in this time range, as the shortest interview was only 11 minutes, 56 seconds, and the longest interview was 1 hour, 58 minutes, 26 seconds. Participant demographics among the fifty-three interviewees were 32 females and 21 males. Fifty-two identified as White/Caucasian and one as Black/African American. The average age among interviewees was 42.22 for the 32 staff members, 60.17 for the 12 board members and 51.78 for the nine volunteers. The self-identified religion was 48 Christian, 2 Agnostic, 1 Jewish, 1 Muslim, and 1 “unknown.” As recommended by Yin (2014), the interviews were voice recorded, per participant permission, transcribed, and later coded and analyzed. I always followed the same interview protocol and an interview checklist (Appendix I: Interview Checklist) helped to ensure this process was uniform across the interviews. The interview process began with the participant selecting a place for the interview, usually a private office in the building. The study was explained to the participant in further detail. The individual informed consent form was signed, and a participant

122 demographic information record was filled out. Interview quotations included in this study sometimes contain edits for clarity. Specifically, interview quotation edits are denoted by the following:

[ ] confidentiality edits

( ) additional explanatory or clarification edits

… a pause or break in the conversation

{ } nonverbal or expressive communication

However, raw data is displayed in the case reports as often as possible (Oman et al., 1992). The interviews targeted all of the paid staff within the organization. As the organizations are small, the number of interviews was not only manageable, but also provides a full sense of the organization. Since this study is focused on paradoxes and their management, those volunteers and board of directors who were willing, were also requested to conduct an interview. There were a couple of occasions where staff members contacted both volunteers and board members after they had already been interviewed. This “snowball approach” (Adler, Goldoftas, & Levine, 1999) was often the result of interview participants “feeling safe” and “enjoying” the experience. There were several occasions where the interview participant described the experience as “cathartic” afterwards, and that “a huge weight had been lifted off of them” because they were able to share their intimate thoughts about the ministry, their coworkers, and the organization. The interviews were at times very emotional for some of the participants. Numerous times the tape recording was offered to be turned off to give the participant a moment to compose themselves or share “off the record” information about the organization. On other occasions, the interview was quite lively, and

123 participants shared their humorous stories about working in the organization. Further still, other interviews were very “business-like,” where participants appeared to just “answer the questions” in a straightforward manner.

3.3.3 Documents Patton (2002) argues that “documents prove valuable not only because of what can be learned directly from them, but also as a stimulus for paths of inquiry that can be pursued only through direct observation and interviewing” (p. 294). Indeed, documents may contain data that is not otherwise collectible through observations or interviews. In regard to the theoretical inquiry expressed in this study, paradoxes can be manifested in print through the organizations’ website, print media, mission statement, written history, and strategic plan. Paradoxes may also be made available through internal documents such as Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, 501(c)3 tax- exempt application (IRS Form 1023), financial records (IRS Form 990), or memos.

These documents represent a host of data that might inform a line of inquiry on the organization. O’Connor (1995) noted in her document analysis that mixed messages might be an indicator of paradoxes. As such, the documents of the organizations that were recovered in her study proved crucial when uncovering organizational paradoxes. Studying an organization’s documents is also rooted in the existing faith-based organizational literature. Ebaugh et al. (2003), analyzed 58 mission statements of faith-based organizations to argue the religious nature of the organization was mostly absent from the organization’s themselves. Scheitle (2009b) reviewed 1,900 IRS 990 tax forms for Christian nonprofits and concluded that Christian nonprofits who receive government funding are less likely to use inclusive language when describing their religious identity. Beyond the themes that were uncovered in organizational

124 documents, the organizational documents also served as a way to understand the organization more broadly (Dyck, Starke, Harder, & Hecht, 2005). To my knowledge, if the documents exist for the organization, I was granted access to all of them for all five organizations. The documents requested and obtained before and after entry into the organization are shown in Appendix J: Organizational Documents Obtained. As it relates to data collection, some financial and media documents were available before observations and interviews were conducted, while administrative documents were collected during and after the observation period. If there were paradoxes or general information in the documents that required further inquiry, further inquiry was conducted during the observations and interviews. As stated above, some of the executive directors viewed administrative documents as the most sensitive information of the organization and only permitted their review after having me in their organization for months. In some respects, this sensitivity was also connected to observations, where discussions in board and staff meetings concerned topics such as the budget. As a public organization, there were no “secrets” per se, but many documents revealed a current assessment of the organization, and there were times when documents, and what was written or not written on them, did not match with that shared or provided during the observations and interviews.

3.4 Data Examination Data examination was performed using the recommendations of Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña (2014). The research questions provide the overall framework for the data inquiry. Following, Jarzabkowski and Sillince (2007), this study clusters exhibited paradoxes and their management by research question. Using a grounded theory approach (Corbin & Strauss, 2008), a review of the data was

125 conducted over four phases utilizing Andriopoulos and Lewis’ (2009) model for the investigation of organizational paradoxes (pp. 700-704):

1. This study identifies initial and broad organizational categories within each case study.

2. This study allows concepts to emerge from the data through coding and then links these to related concepts within each case.

3. The concepts from each case are compared to other cases and then similar themes are formed.

4. Finally, from these categories, concepts, and themes, theoretical constructs are established. These are compared to existing theoretical frameworks from the organizational paradox and faith-based nonprofit literature.

This model is in keeping with Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña’s (2014) and Gioia, Corley, and Hamilton’s (2012) models for qualitative data analysis. Data coding and analysis in this study utilizes the recommendations of Saldaña (2013) and existing theoretical frameworks from the organizational paradox literature.

3.4.1 Data Coding Data coding follows the recommendations by Saldaña (2013), who argues that those beginning their fieldwork career are wise to code “anything and everything” (p. 17) until one becomes more experienced and familiar with what to look for in their data corpus. Others, such as Seidman (2013), note that only that data which is most significant to the research questions should be coded. So, a practical approach was taken between these two opposing views, in that care was taken to code everything where possible, such as participant responses in the interviews, but other data, such as my personal feelings or insights was left un-coded if found to be non-salient to the purpose of the study. There were times, however, when some data from interviews

126 was not relevant, and some insights initially passed over turned out to be worthwhile after a second and third analysis. This ongoing cycle of analysis and coding is recommended by many in qualitative analysis, such as Yin (2014), Saldaña (2013), and Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña’s (2014). In the first cycle of data analysis, depending on the content of the data, multiple coding approaches were used as Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña’s (2014) note that “you do not need to stick with just one approach for your coding efforts; some of them can be completely ‘mixed and matched’ as needed” (p. 74). As Glaser (1978) and Wertz et al. (2011) recommends, the first cycle of coding in this study initially consisted of “seeing the data anew” (p. 172) through line-by-line coding. This inductive approach of “open coding” (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) or “free coding” resulted in extracting content from the data set that was representative of each specific paradox. Coding then gave way to the deductive approach of uncovering (Langley, 2007) the first research question regarding whether or not there were any “tensions,”

“contradictions,” or “oppositions” in the observations, interviews, and documents. While analyzing the raw data and creating codes of that data, “tensions,” “contradictions,” and “oppositions” emerged as large categories within the study. Additionally, since “paradoxes” are those tensions, oppositions, and contradictions which exist simultaneously, data were recorded in a “paradoxes” category when two or more tensions, oppositions, and contradictions were contained within the same fragment of data.

The second research question then asked how these tensions, oppositions, contradictions, and paradoxes are ultimately managed. Data containing insight into the management of paradoxes was then placed in a category called “sustainability.”

127

The coding category of “sustainability” is the state in which the organization attempts to maintain itself, manage problems, and display growth. Sustainability as a category is not to be viewed as necessarily a guarantee of continued success in the participating organizations. Sustainability as a category for this study is, however, a way in which the organizations have endured, continue to survive, and are attempting to thrive. Finally, and sometimes before the previously named categories of “tensions,” “contradictions,” “oppositions,” and “paradoxes,” there were a number of

“assumptions” that researchers have had about faith-based organizations, as evidenced by the literature review. Data related to these assumptions was placed in this category. For the purposes of this study, the “assumptions” categories is based on previous literature and information that was “true” for participants in the organization, whether stemming from belief or knowledge. Using primarily holistic coding (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014, p. 77) to capture broad groupings, six categories were established as coded data were placed into general areas that represented: (1) “assumptions,” (2) “tensions,” (3) “oppositions,” (4) “contradictions,” (5) “paradoxes,” and their management (6) and “sustainability.” A second cycle review of the data was then performed using primarily provisional coding (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014, p. 78). Provisional coding was used to uncover five prevalent concepts: (1) “faith,” (2) “identity,” (3) “culture,” (4) “management,” and (5) “financial.” These concepts represented the line of inquiry into individuals and the organizations. In each of these concepts, under their related categories, there were several codes and sub-codes (Appendix K: Categories – Concepts – Codes).

128

The coding was then applied to the case reports using the 33 paradox exemplars, so that themes within each organization could emerge. This coding then helped to uncover how each organization exhibited and managed each paradox (Appendix L: Faith-Based Paradox List: Exhibited Elements & Management Techniques). After a case report was prepared for each organization, the organizational themes were then explored alongside the existing theoretical framework, consisting of the 33 paradox exemplars from the literature. The resulting findings of the cross-case comparisons of the five organizations, and the theoretical framework, are detailed in the discussion chapter of this study.

3.4.2 Data Analysis The process of analyzing the data was at times linear. For example, raw data was analyzed in an interview, a section of the interview data was used to form a code, codes of similar tensions were placed under the tension category, and finally, similar codes were grouped into corresponding concepts. This process was repeated in each interview, observation, and document at each organization. This process was performed on the computer in Microsoft Word. The raw data, though coded, was able to be viewed alongside similar coded data. As a practical matter, multiple screens were available on the computer which greatly aided in the simultaneous viewing of data and coding analysis. This process allowed for flexibility (Yin, 2014) in changing the codes or recording the data when necessary, and was recommended for novice coders over CAQDAS programs

(Saldaña, 2013, p. 26). The process of continually updating and refining the codes was done throughout the analysis. As the analysis process continued, it was discovered that the codes did fit well into the above-mentioned categories and

129 concepts. Nevertheless, a second, third, and sometimes a fourth review of the raw data required some data to be re-coded. The analysis process that produced the codes and concepts was especially pronounced in the interviews, as phrases used by participants (In Vivo Coding) (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014, p. 74), and their feelings and beliefs (Values Coding) (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014, p. 75) related to questions about their faith and identity. The organization’s culture, management, and financial condition presented a uniform way to organize codes across the six categories. While the coding categories and concepts fit within all five organizations, each organization was unique in how many codes and what types of codes were in each theme. Of course, as one might expect, when comparing the five cases to each other, there were outliers in how some individuals and organizations viewed their relationship to each other, their organization, and their community. For example, while document and observation data suggests otherwise, all interview participants at

EPSILON did not believe (1) that it was possible to improve the organization, and (2) that faith is in anyway a hindrance to the organization. These values and beliefs were not seen at other organizations or in their participants. To help ensure that these categories, concepts, and codes were as accurate as possible, after a draft of the case studies reports were written, they were presented to the individual participants who participated in the interview portion of the study, and who remained at the organization. There were no dissenting comments received from any of the stakeholders participating in this study.

130

3.4.3 Data Inclusion Data for the case reports were included if at least two sources confirmed the same phenomenon. As examples, an observation and a document, two interviews, or an interview and a document that referenced the same phenomenon would merit inclusion in the presentation of the data. While it is preferable to have all three sources (documents, observations, and interviews) reference the same phenomenon to triangulate the data, this was not always possible. So, phenomena that were demonstrated across all three sources were notable in all five faith-based organizations.

3.5 Case Study Reports This section reviews the findings rationale and the findings stature of the case reports. As detailed below, the rationale for how the findings were chosen for the case reports follows established methodology for both comparative case studies and rigorous paradox research. The findings structure discusses the format of the case reports, along with the data chosen for inclusion in the reports.

3.5.1 Findings Rationale The findings of this study follow the methodology outlined above. As shown in the forthcoming sections below, the individual case studies are illustrative in providing limited generalizability (Gibbert & Ruigrok, 2008) through the subsequent enfolding of similar and differentiating literature (Eisenhardt, 1989). However, it is also important to note that as part of the analysis process, Eisenhardt (1989) details how several researchers compile their case study reporting with a commonality of “pure descriptions,” but concludes that “there is no standard format” (p. 540) for case reports themselves. This study is mindful that according to Eisenhardt (1989):

131

The overall idea is to become intimately familiar with each case as a stand-alone entity. This process allows the unique patterns of each case to emerge before investigators push to generalize patterns across cases. In addition, it gives investigators a rich familiarity with each case which, in turn, accelerates cross-case comparison. (p. 540)

Therefore, using substantive organizational documents (Patton, 2002), in-depth participant interviews (Rubin & Rubin, 2012), and researcher observations with comprehensive ethnographic field notes (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 2011), this study follows other organizational studies (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009; Smith & Lewis,

2011; Smith, 2014) by composing rich, thick, and often redundant detail and descriptions for all five cases. As reasoned by Eisenhardt (1989), we “are trying to understand each case individually and in as much depth as is feasible” (p. 539).

3.5.2 Findings Structure The findings structure of the case reports follows purposeful typical case sampling (Patton, 2002). The case reports primarily focus on the four core paradox categories of belonging, learning, organizing, and performing. As such, each case study provides an explanation of the exhibited and managed paradoxes representing the 18 exemplars10 identified by Smith and Lewis (2011) from the four core paradox categories. Most of the tensions, contradictions, and oppositions highlighted in the 18 individual paradoxes are also found in the six cross categories. Therefore, in order to avoid redundancy, purposeful intensity sampling (Patton, 2002) was used to identify information-rich examples from the 15 paradoxes in the six cross categories. Three

10 It was outside the scope of this investigation to fully explore the individual elements related to paradox [7] personal mastery and mental models (Senge, 1990). Therefore, the case reports and cross-case comparison reflected primarily on the organizational paradox of building a shared vision and team learning.

132 cross-category paradoxes were chosen for each organization, with all 15 exemplars detailed between the five organizations. Although each organization exhibited all 15 cross-category paradoxes, and several paradox management techniques were evidenced, only the most three information-rich examples are detailed in the case reports. The twelve remaining cross-category paradoxes were NOT included in the case study report. In the case reports, each paradox is numbered to correspond to Table 2.1,

Table 2.2, and the exemplar literature summary. For example, the paradox number identifies the paradox in the case report as [1], [2], [3], etc. Additionally, each tension, contradiction, or opposition that was exhibited in a given paradox is underlined, followed by the appropriate (author) citation. For example, the first sentence of each exhibited paradox will read something to the effect of: [1] personal core values and organizational core principles (Badaracco, 1998). After the introduction to the exhibited paradox, the case report then details how that paradox was exhibited by the specific organization. The example of each tension, contradiction, or opposition for the organization is illustrated by italics. So, for ALPHA organization:

[1] The paradox of personal core values and organizational core principles (Badaracco, 1998) was exemplified by the Christian faith and being a human service nonprofit.

Similarly, after a discussion of the exhibited paradox representing the findings of research question one (RQ 1), each management technique of the organization, if evidenced, is underlined. Finally, the management technique used by the organization to balance, equalize, optimize, or synergize their exhibited paradox is shown in italics. The identification of the management technique is then followed by a discussion of the

133 managed paradox, which represents the findings of research question two (RQ 2). So, for ALPHA organization:

The paradox was partially managed by idealism. Personnel at ALPHA simplified and directed their Christian faith to one organizational strategy—loving neighbors.

In some instances, there were other illustrations for each exhibited paradox and each managed paradox. For example, ALPHA displayed at least three other “learning” exploration and exploitation paradoxes (March, 1991) in addition to recipient stability and food pantry improvements.11 In occurrences where two or more paradoxes or their management were displayed, the most dominant or “typical” example was explained in the case report. Exhibited paradox or managed paradox dominance was assessed by the frequency with which it was evident in the data. The findings for each organization are detailed over the next five chapters. A discussion highlighting significant findings through cross-case comparisons follows in the third chapter (Section 6), with conclusions following in the last chapter (Section

7). Each case report begins with a brief background dealing with the organization’s relevant history, social-economic, and policy contexts. The organization is then identified by its distinguishing characteristics among the other organizations included in the study. The case report then moves through the paradoxes exhibited by the organization, followed by the management techniques employed for each of the exhibited paradox examples.

11 Namely, volunteer recruitment and volunteer productivity, board member capabilities and board member commitment, and staff member preparation and staff member performance.

134

Consistent with the methodology and theoretical frameworks outlined above, the findings from each of the five faith-based organizations demonstrates that the faith-based organizations in this study exhibit all 33 paradox exemplars identified by the existing literature in response to the first research question: RQ 1: What are the tensions, oppositions, contradictions, and simultaneous paradoxes that exist within faith-based organizations? The same finding is true of the second research question: RQ 2: How are these tensions, oppositions, contradictions, and simultaneous paradoxes managed within faith-based organizations? These findings, therefore, demonstrate that the faith-based organizations in this study use several of the paradox management techniques and tactics identified by the existing literature.

135

Chapter 4

ALPHA ORGANIZATION

4.1 Overview Historical Context: “ALPHA” organization was founded in 1984 by the executive director. The executive director began ALPHA by serving food to those in need out of the back of her car. Initially, the area religious council sustained the organization by providing food items and volunteers. In 2007, the organization formally separated from the area religious council and applied for 501(c)3 tax-exempt status as a “religious organization.” In 2009, it doubled its facility size and now serves about 2500 people each month, with the largest frequency of recipients in November (Thanksgiving), December (Christmas), and April (Easter) (Common Questions &

Answers, 2014, p. 1). ALPHA’s current location is a warehouse and office space leased by a partnering college in the city at $1 per year through to May 30, 2023 (Common Questions & Answers, 2014, p. 2). In addition to 10 full-time staff members and 15 board of directors, ALPHA oversees about 350 volunteers during distribution days and “approximately 3000 volunteers a year also work in the office, visit families, write thank you notes, find bargains, work at the farms, teach cooking classes, can and freeze surplus food, unload trucks, serve on board committees, and sort food for distribution” (Common Questions & Answers, 2014, p. 1). The cooperation and ties to partnering religious institutions are still prevalent as the organization boasts that over 66 churches and 40

136 organizations are “active with [ALPHA], providing volunteers, funds, food, or a combination of all three” (Common Questions & Answers, 2014, p. 3). The organization believes that nearly 90% of its service area qualifies for participation in its food distribution because it is a low-income area (March 24, 2014). Approximately 60 food items are provided to each person at distribution, with a retail value of $182.00. Additionally the organization also oversees 30 farm sites during the summer to glean fresh fruits and vegetables to make produce available free for the community at their farm stand. The farm stand serves 600 to 1200 individuals each month (Farm Stand Statistics, 2014, p. 1). In addition to the monthly distribution and farm stand, other programs include food delivery to the homebound, a child summer feeding program, high tunnel farming at the local area high school, and cooking and nutrition education. Financial Background: The organization had a budget of $3,549,000 for 2013; but according to line item 70100, $2,664,099.19 in “revenue” was in the form of in-kind donations (Budget, 2013, p. 6). According to its last Annual Report (2014, p. 2), ALPHA lists its expenses by programs ($3,095,385), management ($117,546), and fundraising ($103,105) for overhead administration costs of approximately 7.1% of the organization’s yearly expenses. Between the years 2010 and 2014, 990 forms indicate that ALPHA was financially stable as it increased its total net revenue by $326,123, and grew its net assets from $665,858 in 2010 to $1,240,998 in 2014—a total increase of $575,140 or 86.37%.

RQ 1 Findings: ALPHA exhibited all 33 paradoxical exemplars. ALPHA distinguished itself from the four other organizations in the study through the number of people served and the standardized manner by which it served them. Every

137 recipient was treated equally, as the organization provided the same service to each person. This standardization often resulted in paradoxes. The overarching issues in the organization were cultural and management problems related to frequent staff turnover and controversial leadership techniques and decisions. RQ 2 Findings: ALPHA implemented several paradox management techniques and managed the majority of the 33 paradoxical exemplars. ALPHA managed 17 of 33 paradoxes including: [2], [4], [5], [8], [11], [16], [17], [18], [19],

[20], [21], [22], [24], [25], [26], [30], and [31]. When ALPHA displayed management techniques, it most often did so by redirecting stakeholders to its popular brand in order to maintain stability through its emphasis on their mission. The “what” (mission) of the organization was often a rallying point for stakeholders and the community. Notwithstanding recurring personnel disputes, many stakeholders identified with, and were committed to, a basic desire to “help people.” Although other organizations in this study had a more nuanced explanation for their services, or a more complex mission than ALPHA, ALPHA’s simplicity of purpose aided it in maintaining a devoted partnership base within their community.

4.2 Belonging Paradoxes Belonging paradoxes for ALPHA revolved around tensions, contradictions, and oppositions related to personnel employment, personal faith, and organizational mission. Management techniques primarily revolved around ALPHA’s personnel being able to successfully integrate their personal values with the various identities of the organization.

138

[1] The paradox of personal core values and organizational core principles (Badaracco, 1998) was exemplified by the Christian faith and being a human service nonprofit. The majority of employees held the Christian faith as an essential personal core value. Christian faith was also transferable to their sense of belonging to the nonprofit field, the organizational mission, and more notably to their coworkers. The Christian faith was the lens by which they assessed whether the organization was doing “good work” and whether their coworkers were behaving in a manner consistent within a common belief system. Tensions often arose when personnel believed the organization, and in many instances coworkers, did not behave in a manner consistent with expectations regarding the Christian faith. At the organizational level, this inconsistency was often related to the identity of the organization as a human service nonprofit. All employees agreed with the organizational mission of providing access to survival help and education as part of “God’s call to love one another” through the organization’s stated core values of “compassion, empowerment, excellence, and integrity” (Bylaws, 2014, pp. 1-2). However, when they felt that their coworkers were not exhibiting “Christian love” or “compassion, empowerment, excellence, and integrity” to other coworkers by degrading their service to recipients, and the organization that serves them, feelings of discouragement occurred. One staff member explained the paradox of Christian faith and working at a human service nonprofit by saying:

It’s a paradox, it’s an enigma….Here is where I am gonna be brutally honest. It can feel really, really good and then it can feel really, really bad. And what I mean by that is the people on the staff are wonderful, they work so hard. Coming from corporate America where we got paid really, really well, these people make practically nothing, and they

139

work their tail off. And long hours. I think I put in a 60 hour week last week. And they work very hard and it’s an investment of your heart as well as everything else because of what we do and because you’re investing in people. And you’re truly impacting their lives. So, the staff, the volunteers, and the recipients, it’s very, very easy to develop a quick love for all of those people and begin to feel like a family all the way around. I love that!… [But] it’s very challenging putting all the pieces together and the team is just told, ‘Make it happen.’ And we do. What feels bad about it is that… our director is never happy because she doesn’t perceive that things go well. She perceives poor planning, ‘this was wrong,’ ‘that was wrong.’ (Sarah, March 28, 2014)

As a human service nonprofit, ALPHA is dependent on many dedicated volunteers and committed staff members to achieve the organization’s mission. However, because the organization is a nonprofit, every dollar is “squeezed” to “get the most bang for their buck” from donors. So, when executive management perceives its middle managers and support staff to be wasteful with their time or talents, it reverberates as disappointment throughout the organization. Middle managers and support staff frequently internalize this executive management disappointment in relation to their performance as dejection, and believe it is inconsistent with their

Christian faith. This paradox was partially managed by idealism. Personnel at ALPHA simplified and directed their Christian faith to one organizational strategy—loving neighbors. As such, numerous Christian faith personal core values were evident among most of the personnel at the organization. One staff member explained how her personal core values interact with her job-related tasks by recalling,

I think faith plays a role in how I approach people, just in general. I try to approach them in a loving manner and try to be as Christ-like as possible. I think that people notice kindness and being appreciated. I’ve prayed with people who have been struggling and also talk to them about questions that they’ve had. I think that it’s more of a lifestyle than ‘What you do for your job?’ kind of thing. So, I think it’s who you

140

are as a person that plays out more than anything. (Mink, April 21, 2014)

However, the organizational core principle behind ALPHA being a human service nonprofit did not achieve a realistic balance with idealism. Many of the personnel at the organization were unprepared and unable to convert their Christian faith idealism to the realities of survival among recipients who sought assistance at the organization. Echoing the beliefs of many personnel in the organization, one staff member argued that serving recipients in secular venues ran counter to its own organizational core principles:

If I could change anything about the organization, I would say that we could impact more by partnering better with other [churches]…we had a gentlemen here that was a superintendent so he was talking about getting a summer feeding program into the schools. Which is great but in my head, I’m thinking, ‘Okay, but we are taking Christ out of church?’ Not to say He is not there in the hearts of children. So I was wondering, ‘Okay [ALPHA] feeds, and this is something I struggled with personally, you can’t turn [faith] on or off. We feed the belly [of kids] and the schools feed the mind, but what about our spirits?’ So, I’m wondering, ‘Why has some of the summer feeding programs not been in churches?’ If we go to the schools, that’s just a whole new area. We need the Holy Spirit! (Ty, April 8, 2014)

Thus, Christian faith idealism did not always achieve synergy with the realities of administrative and fundraising tasks necessary to be a vibrant nonprofit organization. There was a common mantra within the organization that “God will provide,” and this belief was repeated frequently when the organization was facing tensions regarding budget or labor shortages. Yet, this was also used as an excuse when facing accountability for poor performance related to not allocating appropriate resources for fundraising (March 24, 2014), or recruiting the appropriate number of volunteers (April 16, 2014).

141

[2] Similarly, paradoxes of belonging occurred when board members, staff members, and volunteers felt their individual identity was contradicted by their group identity (Brewer, 1991). Almost all staff members, and most board members and volunteers, individually identified themselves with the Christian faith. Their group identity as a faith-based nonprofit was often challenged when the organization adopted an interfaith or non-faith identity. This generic or all-inclusive group identity as an “inter-faith service organization” (Bylaws, 2014, p. 1) or as “an interfaith, nonprofit cooperative” (Annual Report, 2014, p. 1) often occurred through rhetoric. For example, ALPHA maintains it provides services to all recipients regardless of faith identification. Yet, public prayers at the organization are often a cause for conflict as many staff members, board members, and volunteers expect that prayers be exclusively of the Christian faith. Staff meetings were observed to end their public prayers “in Jesus’ name” (March 21, 2014), whereas any individual ascribing to any religion could offer public prayers before food distribution. One staff member highlighted this individual versus group identity contradiction by saying,

Well I do have problem with, like when we have distribution, I overheard them talking about praying and I believe they are allowing anyone in any religion to come in here. And I don’t like that. I think if we are a Christian based religion, we should stick to that. I mean, I don’t mean that we should be snobs about it, but isn’t it kinda like a church? Would we let a Rabbi come in and speak from our pulpit? I mean, maybe speak but not, I like when I hear somebody pray, I want to hear them say, ‘In Jesus’ name.’ I have mixed emotions. If somebody just walked in here, they would not think that this is a Christian organization, I don’t think. But knowing that [the executive director] is a Christian and most of the staff are—but it’s not a requirement to work here and I don’t think that it should be—but I don’t know how you come in here and know that it is a Christian organization. I do think that the expectation that this is a Christian organization is based more on the people and not the mission or management style. (Ginger, April 10, 2014)

142

Balance between assimilation in loving neighbors and differentiation through Christian service was used at ALPHA to manage this paradox. The value of loving neighbors no matter their present circumstance allowed personnel to identify with, and assimilate to, individual and group religious beliefs. Regarding living out one’s personal beliefs at the organization, one volunteer said, “I mean, being able to reach out to people that are less fortunate, and living the things that Jesus taught people to want to do is, ‘Whatever you do to the least of these, you do to me,’ that kind of idea”

(Rudy, April 14, 2014). Personnel were also able to differentiate themselves from the group, and the recipients they served, by viewing their job in the context of Christian service. Viewing their job through the lens of an organizational ministry to the community allowed personnel to maintain distance from their job, and provided some boundaries between their coworkers and recipients. The belief of Christian service in the organization could be summarized as “going the extra mile,” or following the “Golden Rule.” One board member argued that ALPHA’s main mission is:

To provide food. And so when they come in—food in an environment that is safe, an environment in which all the staff and all the volunteers, there is a sense from the recipients that we are all for them, we are not against them, we are for them and to—through smiles on faces, through greetings that give value, language that encourages and then sacrifice and service, they know that we will go the extra mile for what it is that they need. (Martha, April 21, 2014)

However, the belief of Christian service at the organization also set parameters on the job aspect of the ministry. Several personnel described how they initially had to learn the appropriate belonging balance between their personal beliefs and their organizational employment by not bringing home their work. One staff member described that,

143

I go home to my husband and have other responsibilities. I have to say that at one point I was letting a lot here consume my thoughts. You know—‘How can we do work different?’—just my mind would keep going. So, I learned to separate because this labor from my home life…because all work and no play makes for stress. And my family needs to be important too! And so, I’m creating boundaries there. (Ty, April 8, 2014)

[3] Belonging paradoxes were also evident between organizational continuity and organizational change (Huy, 2002). While ALPHA’s organizational continuity could be maintained through the mission, staff turnover contributed significantly to organizational change. When asked about recent changes in the organization, one staff member replied that the organization:

Is constantly evolving just because we are a small nonprofit. We have a high turnover rate with employees because of the amount of work that is put on you. So it’s definitely hard. You have to be made for the job. If you’re not made for the job, you’re not going to last long around here because of the work. (Mink, April 21, 2014)

Other staff members referred to the organization as a “revolving door” with its “nonstop turnover.” ALPHA’s mission was seen as the “saving grace” or reason why the organization has thus far been able to continue. When asked how mission relates to the staff turnover, one staff member stated,

I think we are all just so passionate about what we are doing that we all just kinda take it on the chin. And sometimes I guess it does feel like a bit of a lie or it does feel a bit deceptive but more so it’s we know the good of the organization. So we present it as the good, as the whole good; rather than—I think we can all put aside, I think we are all really good at putting aside—the inner turmoil and the pain and the problems. And we can put on the good face. We can rise above until we can’t take it any longer. And then we don’t, and then we go. (Lydia Mae, March 28, 2014)

144

Staff turnover at ALPHA also exemplified belonging paradoxes related to one’s personal and professional identity. While some staff members were resigned to leave the organization in the midst of turmoil for personal and professional reasons, others were content to remain at the organization and “ride it out.” ALPHA did not manage this paradox. ALPHA did use the management technique of driving change. While ALPHA continuously drove change in its mission by helping people, its unabated staff turnover did not induce continuity. The tasks related to directly providing help to recipients allowed personnel in the organization to maintain focus on the mission. One volunteer noted that,

I just enjoy being here. I enjoy the whole thing. I just enjoy helping people and I enjoy being with people. I’m a people person…I think having a heart and realizing that God has provided for us, we need to provide to people who are not as fortunate. That’s how I think—the love of people. I think that’s a Christian concept, helping people, sharing, those are concepts I think you need to have. (Golf, April 14, 2014)

However, executive management and middle managers were unable to adapt to the emotional balancing needs of personnel as they dealt with organizational change related to staff turnover. Several staff members vented frustrations during interviews about the loss of their colleagues and their immediate replacements. One staff member, expressing her emotions over the inability of management to curtail the staff turnover, recalled the sadness she felt by the recent loss of one of her former coworkers:

I don’t know that it’s been three weeks, but she handed in her notice and left that very day. She had also been a big target. And she knew farming in and out and just had this great rapport with everyone, this infectious, beautiful {10 second pause}…{respondent begins to cry}…she’s just a wonderful woman! And she was just targeted and driven out of here. And she sustained attacks—she fended off attacks

145

that nobody would have dealt with—which is just completely wrong. But you know she still has the most amazing attitude and outlook on life. And we just love her. The new hire knows absolutely nothing about plants, farming, or anything like that….the [executive management] never changes and it makes it worse and we [staff] implode. You can’t mess with…we employees are real people with spouses, children, mortgages, and lives that shouldn’t be toyed with…{respondent resumes crying}…Power is not something that should be taken lightly, you know. It’s wrong! It’s just so wrong. (Lydia Mae, March 28, 2014)

[4] The personal independence and personal interdependence paradox (Markus & Kitayama, 1991) was demonstrated by staff members confronting the opposing forces of their personal independence as non-employees and their personal interdependence as an employee. As an ALPHA employee, many staff members felt joined to their coworkers as a team and were frequently observed rejoicing in cooperation with fundraising (March 24, 2014) and organizational building projects (April 8, 2014). The staff members formed friendships and shared several commonalities related to faith, personal values, and professional goals. Conversely, they also recognized the role of personal independence as a non-employee. As the working environment deteriorated, staff members began to identify less with the organization. This paradox was managed by most personnel balancing their non-employee and their employee personas through their personal values. Personnel often engaged in thinking (cognition), feeling (emotion), and acting (motivation) to maintain “a healthy view” of themselves, their work tasks, and the roles of others. One staff member said she felt executive management did not balance their work and home life very well, but that she and many of her coworkers did when she said, “I like to operate on balance. I’ve learned the hard way, as you probably did in ministry. And most of

146 us here like to work with balance in our lives. And [executive management] doesn’t really recognize that” (Alex, March 28, 2014).

[5] The belonging paradox of organizational identity plurality and organizational identity synergy (Pratt & Foreman, 2000) was noted at ALPHA through representing multiple identities as an established community faith-based nonprofit human service organization. Personnel at ALPHA drew upon all organizational identities, depending on the context. If staff members spoke to the media, they noted that ALPHA is an established, and thus a reputable, organization that provides for the community. Invoking their historical past and current reputation was perceived to secure more financial donations and volunteers (March 21, 2014). For example, board members recalled ALPHA’s initial commitment to human service as part of its foundational principles when outlining future organizational strategy (March 24, 2014). Moreover, volunteers said they enjoyed working at the organization because it is a faith-based nonprofit (April 16, 2014). This paradox was managed at ALPHA by aggregation. The aggregation of multiple identities as an (1) established (2) community (3) faith-based (4) nonprofit (5) human service organization meant that ALPHA attempted to retain all five of its identities and forge links between them. The established history of the organization aided in a positive reputation within the community. Several staff members saw the establishment of the organization within the community as its greatest strength, with one staff member arguing that, “I think the greatest strength is that it’s established and some of the volunteers who have been coming here, have been coming here for years and years. And just the reputation…we are established with a strong reputation”

147

(Alex, March 28, 2014). Other personnel sought to link the faith-based aspect of the organization with its other identities, such as being involved with human service or being a nonprofit. One staff member connected the faith aspect of the organization with being a nonprofit by saying of the organization,

It’s a non-profit—it’s feeding people instead of selling for profit and all of that stuff. Being a faith-based organization, a Christian organization, where we can speak openly about our faith and feel like it is fulfilling the commission that Jesus gave us—to go out and help those less fortunate. (Sarah, March 28, 2014)

Other staff members alluded to the idea that being faith-based makes the organization better able to serve those in need by providing a human service that genuinely offers the feeling of compassion, safety, and trust to recipients. Speaking about the faith- based atmosphere at ALPHA, one staff member claimed, “I think it provides a more sincere environment and a more, like people always think we are going to do the right thing. I don’t know if we do, but it just seems like they know that we are guided by God. And so, I think that helps bring more people in—especially more faith-based people” (Alex, March 28, 2014). Likewise, other personnel felt the organization’s commitment to human service was a reflection of ALPHA’s commitment to their community. One staff member explained that,

The mission of ALPHA is to provide a place for people to come, that they feel safe, that their needs can be met—whether that’s food, clothing, friendship, companionship—a place that they feel wanted and have friends. And also a place in the community that can be counted on in any situation, no matter if it’s a financial need or if it’s—just like we do a lot of events when we just show up so that basically we get our name out there—but it’s to show the community we care about them and we want a better community as well. So, it’s a lot of empowering, and embracing, and showing people that they’re loved; whether that’s by things that they need or friendship. (Mink, April 21, 2014)

148

These organizational identities created recursive cycles that reinforced synergies between each of the five identities. Personnel at the organization were known to embrace whichever identity benefited a particular situation most, and to provide commonalities and shared values with other personnel, community members, and donors. For example, if personnel were speaking to unknown donors from the area, they often highlighted ALPHA’s commitment to the community and its mission of human service, or if they were speaking to churches recruiting volunteers, they often spoke about the faith aspect of the organization.

4.3 Learning Paradoxes Learning paradoxes at ALPHA mostly centered on improving services for recipients while contending with financial and personnel issues. ALPHA struggled with appropriate management techniques in relation to learning paradoxes. Personnel who were able to adapt to the “learning curve” within the organization found success by relying on their coworkers for job training and encouragement.

[6] Recipient stability and food pantry improvements represented the paradox of exploration and exploitation (March, 1991). ALPHA continuously explored ways to help recipients obtain stability in order to survive. ALPHA maintained that most often the recipient path to stabilization was receiving food aid during monthly distribution. While programs such as a clothing pantry, after-school education for school children, and the production of handicap vehicles have all been used for recipient stabilization, the organization’s monthly food distribution program remains part of its foundational objective to feed those in the community who are hungry and cannot afford consistent access to food. Due to the complex nature of poverty, and the

149 myriad issues involved in helping recipients achieve socio-economic stability, the organization frequently chose to allocate its resources to exploring ways to better help recipients find stability by improving the organization’s food pantry. Food pantry improvements consisted of (1) standardization of ordering, organizing, and delivery, (2) increased selection of fresh fruits, vegetables, and meat, and (3) infrastructure upgrades, such as new refrigeration units. As a nonprofit organization, many staff members, board members, and volunteers often felt they must choose between improving their primary food distribution program and discovering new food programming options. This paradox was not managed because the organization failed to balance fast and slow learners and old and new knowers. ALPHA possessed frequent staff turnover which prohibited older knowers from developing within the organization. The lack of veteran knowledge was a severe handicap during recurring recipient programming and fundraising events, as newly hired staff members were unable to build on previous successes or learn from prior failures. However, ALPHA personnel did display a combination of fast and slow learners among its board members, staff members, and volunteers. As part of expectations at the organization, many staff members described a cycle of how they have evolved in their position over time—at first slowly learning the requirements of their position, and then becoming fast and proficient with the tasks that make up their position, only to be handed new tasks. Regarding managing this learning process, one staff member said,

We have a standard that we want to live up to and show how hard we’re working here. So I don’t mind the critiques; I think it’s helpful. And it’s helping me learn better. And I can tell my projects are continuing to improve from the brochures I’ve made. There have been fewer and fewer things I’ve had to correct after each time. So I’m

150

kinda getting a grasp on what the [executive management] wishes are with the projects too. (Karina, April 21, 2014)

[7] ALPHA demonstrated the paradox of shared vision and team learning (Senge, 1990) through recipient survival help and organizational recipient programming. The organization’s vision, as specified in its bylaws, states: “We envision a strong community where all people in need with the…area have adequate access to survival help and education through programs and partnerships with other community providers” (Bylaws, 2014, p. 1). For many staff members, the organization’s vision simply means that they try to help people survive. However, tensions arose among team members when there were disputes as to the best way to provide help to recipients through recipient programming. With limited resources, several staff members, board members, and volunteers often felt conflicted if they perceived some of the organization’s programs were not solely focused on providing food to recipients. For example, the production of handicap vehicles, also known in the organization as the P.E.T. (Personal Energy Transportation) program, was frequently a source of tension for the majority of personnel. In fact, staff members were mandated by executive management to learn and implement the program, even though they did not share the vision for the program, nor did they believe it would serve the origination’s mission. One staff member argued,

Personally, and I think for most of the staff in [the] discussion…we don’t understand how it fits into the mission statement…I think it’s a commendable vision but it’s not really becoming a reality…it was really hard whenever, we were saying we didn’t have any money, but funds were being allocated for P.E.T. to get that whole area going. And we gave up the clothing room for it. (Alex, March 28, 2014)

151

ALPHA did not engage in systems thinking in an attempt to reconcile this paradox.

[8] The paradox of episodic change and continuous change (Weick & Quinn, 1999) also highlighted learning issues within the organization. Staff turnover and staff expectations both contributed to learning tensions at ALPHA. Staff turnover was so prevalent that many staff members never felt accustomed to organizational programs or policies. Several positions within the organization changed personnel almost every year for the past twenty years. The vicious cycle of staff turnover reinforced and amplified learning paradoxes within the organization. One staff member said,

I think there is learning curve, we have alarming turnover rates! Since I have been here three people have walked out. They left without other jobs because they just get up to here with it {gesturing with her hand above her head}. So, you are always starting over. Everybody here is new! There is hardly anybody in here who has been here a year. And the minute you walk in the door every expectation is put on you...I think that is an ongoing learning process. Some of these people don’t have other kinds of experiences; and they have a really hard time with it. And some people get stressed and frustrated. It’s something that they need to learn. And it’s something…I don’t know how to say this, and I mean this in the kindest most loving way, these are people that are taking a job for $20,000 a year and…it’s like you are trying to really cut costs because you are a nonprofit. And then you are asking that person to really step it up and some of those people have an easier time than others to do that. (Sarah, March 28, 2014)

At the same time, high expectations for staff remained. Many staff members described how they had to “learn on the go” because they could not count on proper training from other coworkers. One staff member said of the expectations and lack of training from the organization that,

A lot is expected of people . And we—and I think probably our greatest weakness is that we—don’t train people well. There is not a

152

good program for training people when you come, and so we assume that you will learn on the job as you go and you will ask a lot of questions. (Esther, May 20, 2014)

ALPHA did not directly attempt to resolve two of its most considerable tensions in staff turnover and staff expectations. However, ALPHA did manage this paradox through adaptation and adjustment. ALPHA learned to adapt to staff turnover with new employees. New employees were brought in almost immediately after an employee resigned or were fired by executive management. Staff members noted that job position vacancies at ALPHA rarely lasted a month as there were many candidates ready and willing to fill needed roles. One staff member argued that,

It’s a revolving door. It’s very detrimental, it’s a huge a liability...it’s just detrimental to this place. But somehow it still survives, and it still works and it limps along. I don’t know what action word it is, but it could be flying and soaring. It’s not limping but its maybe jogging. Whatever it is, it still goes. It goes on God’s power, God’s strength… and there really is an endless supply (of people) because (those) people don’t know what it’s really like (to work) here. (Lydia Mae, March 28, 2014)

While several personnel within ALPHA were confused how executive management was able to consistently hire new staff members, they nevertheless admitted that the organization had persistently adapted to new personnel over the past several years. One staff member noted that,

All these people are leaving, so how can this place keep going? But it has for thirty years. And I look back through the files and see it has been a constant turnover—constant for many, many years. It still keeps going! So [executive management] can do it and keep turning people over. There have been many before me…and when I leave [executive management] will get somebody else; and it will keep going. (Sarah, March 28, 2014)

Similarly, ALPHA staff members learned to adjust to evolving and high work performance expectations through accepting failure and relying on teamwork. One

153 staff member said that in order to be successful in the organization, “[You] have to be willing to be told what to do, to start somewhere and be corrected—willing to take criticism” (Heather, April 21, 2014). Another staff member highlighted that she and other coworkers in the organization had learned to accept their shortcomings in order to improve their performance:

Critiques by the executive director don’t really ever bother me. I think part of me, I always push myself to be the best that I can. I always was a straight ‘A’ student—always wanted to be great! You know, try my hardest. So not that it doesn’t hurt a little, because you always want to get it perfect the first time, but realistically you know that’s never going to happen. (Karina, April 21, 2014)

The same staff member later reiterated another staff expectation management technique, which is teamwork, by saying, “A sense of team and unity is present everywhere…and I haven’t been in an environment where it was so focused on the team effort throughout the whole process. We’re always trying to think how we can improve as a team” (Karina, April 21, 2014). Several times personnel throughout the organization were observed to be assisting their coworkers if they were struggling with a project or needed additional support to complete a task on time.

4.4 Organizing Paradoxes Organizing paradoxes at ALPHA pertained to the limitations of being a human service ministry and providing goods and offering assistance to recipients. ALPHA struggled to provide management balance in its organizing paradoxes. These paradoxes were mostly not addressed due to executive management power and control. Ironically, management techniques around organizing paradoxes that proved useful at ALPHA were typically enacted by middle managers, support staff, and volunteers, instead of the executive director and the board of directors.

154

[9] The paradox of flexibility and efficiency (Adler, Goldoftas, & Levine, 1999) was illustrated by recipient engagement by organizational personnel and service delivery. Although the primary goal of the organization is to “help” recipients, service delivery was viewed by personnel as physically and emotionally taxing. Recipients frequently spoke with staff members and volunteers about sensitive topics during inopportune times while in public places. Although staff members and volunteers generally encouraged recipients to “share their story,” they became flustered when they had tasks to perform and recipient engagement took place during inconvenient or highly stressful service delivery periods. The flexibility of engagement with recipients on a personal, emotional, and religious level often occurs at ALPHA at the expense of efficiency. For example, in one occurrence (March 20, 2014), 50 minutes before food distribution, when the staff were making their final preparations of the facility before hundreds of recipients entered the building to receive their monthly allotment of food, the volunteer coordinator passed by the kitchen in the hallway and came across a young child of a recipient. The child asked if the volunteer coordinator would hug him. The volunteer hugged the child and then the child asked her if she would play.

The volunteer responded by saying she “had to work now, but would come back later.” While the most efficient task may have been to politely tell the child that she would come back later to hug and speak with him, the volunteer coordinator showed the type of “flexible mentality” many staff members and volunteers employ at the organization. Of this constant tension between flexibility and efficiency, one staff member said, “You have to be pretty flexible and still manage to stay organized, with

155 disruptions. And I don’t know that some people can do that part of it…you still have to get your work done” (Heather, April 21, 2014). Although ALPHA did not resolve this paradox, personnel at ALPHA did use the technique of switching between routine and non-routine tasks to aid in its management. Most staff members mentioned that the flexible nature of their tasks related to recipient engagement and service delivery was one of their favorite job aspects. One staff member noted that,

I like not having the same routine every day; that’s why I like being here because it’s different…I get to move around, I’m in the produce area and then I’m in the kitchen area and I can still keep up with stuff I’ve always wanted to do. But it’s a lot more fun because it’s not constant all the time doing the same thing. (Heather, April 21, 2014)

Middle managers were crucial to achieving flexibility in support staff schedules so that staff could complete their routine and non-routine tasks. Daily and weekly staff meetings often provided a venue to allow support staff to express their concerns about their schedules, and any difficulties they were having with completing non-routine tasks. For example, at daily staff meetings, trust in receiving help from team members was frequently displayed. Middle managers often aided support staff in completing their tasks by providing emotional support through prayer, and time related to project advisement.

[10] Likewise, the organizing paradox of behavioral complexity management and requisite varied leadership (Denison, Hooijberg, & Quinn, 1995) might best be summarized by employee versatility while working in a chaotic environment. Illustrating the chaotic environment of a recipient food distribution day, on one occasion (March 20, 2014), 45 minutes before food distribution, a staff member was

156 asked by a volunteer if she could take off her hair net while making food in the kitchen because “it made her head itch.” The staff member said to the volunteer, “If you are going to be working on the hot chocolate, you have a choice to either wear a hat or a hair net.” During the exchange, the staff member was courteous and firm with the volunteer, but the volunteer did not want to follow the kitchen rules. After the exchange, the staff member breathed heavily and emitted a sigh in a frustrated and stressed manner, and continued walking down the hallway. One staff member said of the constant chaos at the organization surrounding the recipients, that “I love what I do but it’s a difficult, um, it’s a difficult work environment. And there is a lot, a lot, expected and the pay isn’t high at all” (Alex, March 28, 2014). However, staff expectations are that their work is performed promptly despite recurrent distractions. One staff member, commenting on employee versatility, replied:

Well it is a nonprofit and typically nonprofits do have to stretch their money and their resources. And so, I get it that a lot people wear many, many different hats and that’s to be expected; but to expect somebody to do more than what’s humanly possible, that’s just unrealistic. And so, you try to do your best and hope that there’s some grace involved in what people can actually accomplish in a day. (Lydia Mae, March 28, 2014)

The paradox summarized as “employee versatility while working in a chaotic environment” was not managed by ALPHA. At ALPHA, “managerial leadership roles” were unbalanced as they were split between two individuals. At ALPHA, the executive director filled the innovator, director, and monitor roles, while the operations manager performed the broker, producer, coordinator, facilitator, and mentor roles. The splitting of the leadership roles did not address organizing issues during fluid and frenzied situations. Middle managers, support staff, and volunteers frequently had difficulty discerning the proper chain-of-command as they sought each

157 executive management leader for different purposes, and advice, related to their respective roles. The splitting of managerial leadership roles also precipitated feelings of favoritism, and the breakdown of teamwork between individual staff members. One staff member described the breakdown in the chain-of-command, and signs of employee favoritism at ALPHA, due to the distinct leadership roles of the operations manager and the executive director:

The warehouse people are the people that will go to [the executive director], and if [the executive director] respected the chain-of- command she would send them to [the operations manager] because that’s the way the chain-of-command is supposed to work. But [the executive director] will listen and then act on (an issue)….I think I might feel like I’m trapped in the middle. I respect the chain-of- command and I use the chain-of-command. But I know people who don’t. I also know sometimes that people who aren’t in the [the executive director] camp get overwhelmed. I think they’re justified. And I would (get overwhelmed) too if I was treated the way some of them are treated. I don’t know that I could ever say anything nice about [the executive director] because it’s just like you’re beaten down until there is nothing left. (Alex, March 28, 2014)

Although several staff members described a precarious situation in relation to the chain-of-command, recognizing the distinct leadership roles between the executive director and operations manager, one staff member described how she nevertheless preferred to go straight to the executive director to receive answers on issues about creativity, goal-setting, and monitoring performance:

My chain of command, I was backwards. And I don’t know, we finally had to discuss it. For the longest time I was just comfortable going right to [the executive director]. Because I knew her; she’s been here the longest. I always felt like I would get the answer a lot faster, especially if sometimes if the operations manager doesn’t know the answer…I think my mentality was well, ‘You don’t know [the] answer, I should just go there first.’ So that was something I had to adjust myself to and hoping that I would get the answer and that things would get resolved. (Heather, April 21, 2014)

158

[11] Organizing tensions were also discovered in the paradox of strong cultures and innovation (Flynn & Chatman, 2001). ALPHA struggled to innovate in its recipient programming because of its strong culture of recipient stigmatization. Many staff members, board members, and volunteers held a stigmatized view of recipients not wanting “to help themselves,” or not utilizing the services offered by the organization, or even “taking advantage” of the organization. For example, when speaking about how they view some of the recipients, one volunteer argued that, “There are, sometimes there are, tensions with recipients. Well there are some recipients that maybe take this service for granted” (Rudy, April 14, 2014). Another volunteer claimed, “People want to be taken care of. People don’t want to work like they used to and provide for themselves. We have too many giveaways. I mean here I am helping people but deep down in my heart I think that you need to help yourself” (Golf, April 14, 2014)! One board member even recalled,

Sometimes I get frustrated with, you know, you see some of the people that are coming through the line and you go, ‘Wait a minute why are they here?’ Why are they taking advantage of this human service when they sure as hell don’t look like they fit the mold? (Sumo, April 10, 2014)

The stigmatization and stereotyping of recipients was a significant barrier for ALPHA being able to innovate in its human service programming. Many personnel at the organization felt that they were doing all they could to help recipients or that other programs aimed at alleviating poverty would not be useful because recipients would not use them. The underlying feeling among many personnel was, why try to add services to either be “taken for granted” or “taken advantage of” by recipients?

159

On one occasion (July 9, 2014), the executive director asked staff members during a meeting how the organization could improve. Staff members appeared perplexed and one asked the executive director to clarify the question. The executive director said that the organization should be helping to get recipients to be self- sufficient, instead of just “taking a hand out.” Yet, no additional programming options were offered. Instead, staff members focused on generalities related to getting recipients to “walk with God” and teaching them to take care of themselves.

Paradoxically, this pervasive stigmatization of recipients often prevented innovation. When asked why the atmosphere could be negative towards recipients and towards additional programming that could help stabilize their situation, one staff member replied,

I think that a lot of us just have to realize they have had this life. So, you know it’s probably, just maybe, its engrained in them—they don’t know how to be any other way but bitter and non-believing that things will get better. And they just want to come here, and get what they need, and just go home and back to what they are used to instead of just trying to reach out or help themselves. (Heather, April 21, 2014)

The paradox represented by recipient stigmatization and recipient programming, was managed by ALPHA with a synergy between normative cohesion and conformity. ALPHA produced cohesion among its norm of human service. All personnel in the organization believed in, and conformed to, ALPHA’s mission of helping people. Although several personnel at the organization produced a strong culture of recipient stigmatization, they tried not show it in their service to recipients.

While personnel may be thinking or feeling negatively toward recipients, they attempted to withhold these feelings in their actions. Instead, personnel, though

160 frustrated with difficult recipients or recipient situations, often still displayed patience and compassion to recipients because they believed in helping people. In regard to helping people, one volunteer stated that the organization’s commitment to human service is why he volunteers at ALPHA by saying, “We want to serve and help people. And that’s why I volunteer here; I want to be able to help people. I want to do nice things for people and help the people that need help” (Golf, April 14, 2014). A staff member also explained that norms within the organization allow personnel to be more patient and empathize with recipients,

I think that faith gives us all a different view on the way things should be done and our attitudes on the ways we should approach people and the task that is at hand. I think that people aren’t as quick to snap. I mean, everybody gets frustrated and we are human and we all sin but we aren’t as quick to snap at others. And we try to see the other person’s point of view; and that’s not just because of our faith but because of the empathy we have for people. (Mink, April 21, 2014)

[12] The organizing paradox of static efficiency and dynamic efficiency (Ghemawat & Costa, 1993) was evident in recipient programming and fundraising events. While recipient programming remained relativity stable with its repetitive, predictable, low-risk activities and a short-term focus, the opposite was true for fundraising events. As a nonprofit organization, fundraising events comprised a significant focus for ALPHA, as the view among most personnel was that the organization was always in dire need of funds to meet its budget. One staff member claimed that the organization was currently suffering from a lack of success at fundraising events, “We’re not taking in money like we used to. Our fundraising has been awful, almost nonexistent. I said, ‘You know, in our budget, the expenses are way higher than they have ever been’…I don’t know why there is a lack of fundraising

161 right now” (Ginger, April 10, 2014). As a nonprofit organization, ALPHA personnel were sensitive to any fluctuations in the outcome and success of their fundraising events. One staff member explained some of the pressure ALPHA faces as a nonprofit organization by explaining,

We are a non-profit, we have a budget, and we depend on donations and the generosity of people. Some of our fundraising events do better than others, and we depend on those. And that is encompassed in the budget—it’s planned for something. And if you don’t make the money you anticipated in that fundraising event, then you don’t have the money to pay for something that you have to pay for—and I am including salaries in this too. The other thing is big things need done! Things need renovated and things need fixed. (Sarah, March 28, 2014)

Although the organization could count on providing regular programming for recipients, such as monthly food distribution, fundraising events were viewed as urgent, unpredictable, high-risk activities with a long-term focus. Personnel and programming consistency were at stake with each fundraising event. The outcome or success of any given fundraising event at ALPHA had the potential to positively or negatively shape the budget of the organization for years. ALPHA did not engage either condition improvement or condition reconsideration in an attempt to reconcile this paradox in recipient programming and fundraising events.

[13] Staff members at ALPHA also had to engage in “sensemaking” in order to address organizational paradoxes concerning changing relationships, changing roles, and a changing organization (Lüscher & Lewis, 2008). Changing relationships occurred during staff grouping or “clicks” that formed because of personal preferences and managerial favoritism. Changing roles occurred when staff expectations changed

162 due to increased demands or role evolution. A changing organization revolved around staff turnover. All three tensions circled and reinforced each other. Staff turnover and staff expectations were also part of other paradoxical categories, but staff grouping presented a particular challenge for managers, as teamwork often suffered from the perception that executive management favored certain individuals. While some of the staff grouping tensions were exacerbated by the fact that staff members were physically separated into three distinct office spaces at ALPHA, most staff grouping was related to self-segregation and favoritism from the executive director, with certain individuals benefiting most (April 21, 2014). One staff member argued, “We are getting turnover now and it’s funny because I’m sensing we’ve got a new little click coming in, and they are enthralled with the executive director, and they are newer” (Lydia Mae, March 28, 2014). Another staff member recalled the favoritism of the executive director saying,

I have observed staff alliances, for sure; it is really horrible. I just mean the people have left…people in the other office really felt like others were against them…and [the executive director] does have a major problem. She talks to the employees about other employees and shouldn’t be doing that. (Ginger, April 10, 2014)

ALPHA personnel engaged in “sensemaking” in order to address staff grouping, staff expectations, and staff turnover through confrontation, acceptance, and splitting. Middle managers confronted changing relationships arising because of staff grouping. Changing roles occurred with the evolvement of staff expectations being split and shared among support staff and volunteers. The splitting and sharing of work tasks was common at ALPHA, especially when it came to recipient programming and fundraising events. One staff member described how the annual volunteer appreciation day was an example of splitting tasks among support staff and volunteers:

163

We try to form little sub-committees here on our own. We just did our volunteer appreciation day. A couple of us who wanted to be part of that to help plan it got together with little meetings and worked together on it and we split up our tasks. So, I was in charge of making sure we had a task done by a certain point. Someone was in charge of this and someone was in charge of that. But we all seemed to work together really well on it and didn’t have any problems. So that was on top of our other work we already had. And I noticed that there are certain people here who felt like they are already at their limit with their area, that they didn’t volunteer to help. They knew that they wouldn’t have time to do both. (Heather, April 21, 2014)

Moreover, even if they did not approve of a changing organization brought on by frequent staff turnover, all personnel nevertheless accepted staff turnover as part of “doing business” at ALPHA. One staff member even admitted, regarding staff turnover, that,

Well I am resigned to (the turnover), which is why I’m looking (for a job), because I realize it’s not gonna change and it’s not gonna get better. So right now, I am just resigned to it. So, if that’s the way they want to run it, then people will continue to leave. The rest of the staff stays—there’s a few that have learned how to work it, and they will probably stay, and others are looking for a job. I know for a fact there are probably three other people that have actively been looking (for a job). (Sarah, March 28, 2014)

[14] The organizing paradox of exploration and exploitation (Siggelkow & Levinthal, 2003) was also evident at ALPHA. The organization often explored recipient stability options while having to engage in the exploitation of food pantry improvements. ALPHA is organized around its mission to help recipients, and it does so primarily through its food pantry. One staff member explained how they are continually refining and improving their food pantry:

We’re always changing cuz there’s something with the economy and there’s something we found better. Or, you know, there’s always a way we find to tweak something in here. But, for the most part, I feel we

164

have it pretty down pat…and it’s always nice when I hear from other people, ‘You have quite an operation here compared to so and so.’ Or a volunteer will tell me, ‘Well, up at the other food pantry they don’t, you know, just you get this.’ And here we offer so much. And by letting (the recipients) have choices when they come through, and the amount that we offer, I don’t think any other place does as much as what we do here. (Heather, April 21, 2014)

Given the importance of the food pantry and the continuous improvement ALPHA makes to it, the organization frequently faces a tradeoff between exploring additional programs or services to help recipients, versus placing crucial and limited “time, talents, and treasure” where they know it will serve the most people—their food pantry. One board member highlighted this paradox by conceding,

Our main focus, if we say our main focus is to distribute food and ‘care’ and those kinds of things, we just need to make sure that another area isn’t taking away from that primary vision and primary purpose. Well, from practical terms, logistical terms, such as, how much time from other staff people is involved in this (other project) that takes away from what their primary role is? Also, financially is this (other project) being sustained on its own? (Martha, April 21, 2014)

ALPHA did not manage the organizing paradox seen in recipient stability and food pantry improvements by adapting decision making through temporary decentralization and centralization reintegration. Instead, ALPHA consistently maintained a highly centralized organizing paradigm. All major organizational decision making, goal setting, strategizing and missional vision, and program innovation came from the executive director. Additionally, the board of directors did not attempt to gain control over the executive director’s powers and did not substantively provide a “checks and balances” system over the executive director.

165

4.5 Performing Paradoxes Performing paradoxes at ALPHA revolved around nonprofit ethos tensions, personnel oppositions, and mission contradictions. Management of performing paradoxes at ALPHA focused on ensuring that the values of human service remained at the core of the mission for personnel at every level of the organization. While these values were ascribed to by everyone in the organization, the power, structures, and accountability to enforce these values was mostly performed by middle managers and support staff.

[15] The paradox of individual autonomy, multiple stakeholders, and divergent objectives (Denis, Langley, & Rouleau, 2007) was exemplified in staff and volunteer task freedom, board member involvement, and executive management control. Many of the staff members and volunteers identified with the flexibility and autonomy they had when performing their work tasks. One staff member noted that,

That’s the role of the job though—I feel like it is to be flexible and work on whatever project comes up. I’m dealing with probably five different projects right now for different people and I feel that I’m good at multitasking. So, if I have a little chunk of time, I can determine what I should be working on or what I can get done. So even though it’s stressful at times, just keeping track of everything and maybe not knowing exactly what I’ll be doing next. But I kinda like that too because it keeps it interesting also. No day is the same. I never know really what to expect. (Karina, April 21, 2014)

However, while individual autonomy was encouraged due to the chaotic and continuously changing nature of the work environment, this often resulted in a lack of teamwork. Additionally, when board members became involved in day-to-day work operations, tensions within the team often became worse, because most board

166 members did not have an adequate understanding of how the organization functioned at the operational level. One board member indicated that,

I think volunteering should be required to be a board member. But no, I don’t think it is. I would just guess that maybe half the people on the board have never seen distribution or been a part of sort of the day-today tasks in this organization. I think it’s important that they all spend some time here. Take a vacation day or two and just spend some time, or come in Saturdays when we do distribution. It’s important to see every aspect of what goes on here...I would like to see a change to our By-Laws to enforce that…we haven’t ever brought anything like that to the board before; if we have, I wasn’t part of it. But I think it’s important. (Johnnie, April 14, 2014)

So, when conflicts and disagreements among staff members and volunteers arose about which direction the organization should take with a given project, program, or event, board members would defer their authority to the executive director. One board member acknowledged that, “I think it’s the board’s direction that’s holding up the staff members from doing more of their part. We are not giving them clear direction” (Johnnie, April 14, 2014).

The relinquishing of board member power, along with divergent objectives among staff members and volunteers, frequently resulted in the dilution of strategic change initiatives, such as recipient stability and fundraising events. In essence, the executive director at ALPHA had complete control over the organization. All decision making abilities related to the mission, vision, and goals of the organization were created and exacted according to the executive director’s wishes. One reason behind many of the paradoxes at ALPHA was highlighted when a board member divulged that, “The board here is handpicked by [the executive director]” (Golf, April 14, 2014). A board member admitted that in relation to the board abdicating its fiduciary and oversight responsibilities for the organization, in favor of not contradicting the

167 executive director that, “The greatest weaknesses I would think, it’s the board not being strong enough and not developing and sticking to our mission, our vision plan” (Johnnie, April 14, 2014). ALPHA’s paradox of staff and volunteer task freedom, board member involvement, and executive management control were not managed. Ideally, the organization would have equilibrium between power, values, and knowledge among its personnel. However, power and knowledge resided primarily among a few key board members and the executive director. Synergy in organizational performance among personnel was lacking as middle managers, support staff, and volunteers often did not have the knowledge or power to strategize or innovate in their domains of recipient programming and fundraising events. Accordingly, staff members and volunteers maintained a balance in their values of human service and helping people, and simply “got the job done” in terms of routine tasks. One volunteer recognized that shared values in the organization meant that, “When you work for an organization like this, you’re committed to it—whatever it takes to get the job done, you’ll do. You’ll make sacrifices to do it” (Golf, April 14, 2014).

[16] ALPHA exhibited the paradox of stakeholder interests and stakeholder contributions (Donaldson & Preston, 1995) through organizational financial condition and fundraising duty abdication. Stakeholders in this paradox were board members and their interests revolved around the financial condition of the organization. Board member contributions were lacking as they abdicated their duty to fundraise for the organization. Every board member is required to sign the Board of Directors Expectations & Affirmation Statement (2014), “to assure that the organization’s

168 activities, budget, and expenditures are in accordance with its mission” and “to help secure financial support” (p. 2) for the organization. Even though all board members understand their duty in relation to the financial health of the organization, several board members did not express interest in, or commitment to, this role. Several board members mentioned they did not confront the executive director with concerns about the financial condition of the organization. One staff member admitted that,

I think we talk amongst ourselves about the financial condition of the organization. We are worried about it. But we are afraid to bring it up to [the executive director] because we don’t want to upset her because she’s just a nice person. That’s a problem with this board. We are afraid to say, ‘This is what we really need.’ And I know we’ve been— I’ve been friends with [her] for a long time. When I bring that up, she just, you can just see her get upset. We need to get to the point where we say, ‘Okay folks, this is the year that we really have to work our butts off to figure out how we are going to get additional revenue to start getting the people in place so that [the executive director] can be the spokesperson to go out and do some fundraising.’ We haven’t done that…I’ve heard the same thing probably every year for the last three years I’ve been on the board; and we haven’t done it! (Johnnie, April 14, 2014)

Echoing the sentiments of personnel throughout the organization, one board member highlighted this contradictory behavior between stakeholder commitment and duty abdication, confessing that,

A lot of times there is a lot of conflict between the leadership of [ALPHA] and the board. The leadership often times believes it should be able to do whatever it wants financially and that the board is there to guide that. So, there is some natural friction between, my view now, the leadership of the organization and the board. How effective is the board? The board is a loose collection of personalities. You know there is, I think its 15 members—which almost gets to be unruly in terms of the size of it. There’s various levels of commitment. I wouldn’t say I’m the most committed board member, but I’m somewhat committed to try and do what I feel I should (in order) to support the organization…and people get burned out on the board—

169

burned out with the mission of the organization and the trials and tribulations of the board. You know, I think maybe people at some point would say, we’re not effective. It’s hard because you meet once a month. You meet for an hour and everyone’s got busy schedules. So when we talk about strategy and long-term strategic plans, I’m internally rolling my eyes because we’ve been through these drills several times and they never go anywhere because the board and the organization is not stable enough to deal with big long-term strategic goals. (Sumo, April 10, 2014)

ALPHA did not appropriately balance the paradox of organizational financial condition and fundraising duty abdication. While the organization assigned its board members and executive director the roles of fundraising and monitoring the organization’s financial condition, most of the board members did not want to fundraise. Also, the executive director did not monitor the organization’s financial condition to ensure sustainability. As such, the organization did not give attention to the personnel who had some of the most substantial financial stakes in ALPHA—the middle managers, support staff, and volunteers. The attitudes, structures, and practices in place at the organization were not designed to allow some of the organizations most prominent advocates the opportunity or responsibility to oversee the financial health of the organization. The equity that middle managers, support staff, and volunteers placed in ALPHA was immense compared to the board members. Similarly, middle managers, support staff, and volunteers had even more at stake financially than the executive management team. Unlike executive management, middle managers, support staff, and volunteers did not control the budget for their salaries or recipient programming; both of which directly translated to the amount and type of work they performed for the organization. One staff member, in charge of accounting for the organization, but who was not given any authority over formulating the budget, described how some of the attitudes, structures,

170 and practices held by the executive director and board members were leading towards further financial turmoil:

Our budget isn’t done the way any business would do it; and I’m part of the finance committee. And it’s like, well, when we do the budget and, like, [the executive director] puts extra money in the salaries—and we do put out to the edge {gesturing on a budget sheet} $10,000 if it is for her. And some of it was for [the operations manager]—and then there was this extra row and some of it was for extra needs that come up and the board approved it. Well you know you can’t just get the extra money out of the air. And so, when we do the budget [the executive director] just goes back to the income and says, ‘Well put some here, put some here, and put some here.’ And I went in yesterday and I said, ‘I feel like this is time for me to say something.’ I said, ‘We’re not taking in money like we used to, and our fundraising has been awful—almost nonexistent.’ I said, ‘You know in our budget the expenses are way higher than they have ever been?’ [The executive director] said, ‘I know, don’t remind me.’ You know, I’m not going to be here when this shit hits the fan; I’m gonna be gone! (Ginger, April 10, 2014)

[17] Commitment was also an issue for ALPHA staff members as the organization displayed the performing paradox of building employee commitment and multiple strategic goals (Jarzabkowski & Sillince, 2007). Although staff memebers were observed to be fully committed to their roles and duties within the organization, as a result of frequent staff turnover, they had a harder time building commitment to the organization. Likewise, staff turnover created tensions when addressing the strategic goals of recipient programming and fundraising events. While staff member expectations remained high, coupled with the continuous change of personnel due to staff turnover, many staff members complained of feeling overwhelmed and frustrated. One staff member commented on the emotions she routinely perceived in her coworkers, “You can see on other coworker faces if they’re overwhelmed. And

171 they try and they try and they try, but sometimes it’s just not meant to be” (Mink, April 21, 2014). Another staff member explained, “The turnover is extremely frustrating and it’s extremely sad” (Alex, March 28, 2014). When multiple strategic goals surrounding recipient programming and fundraising events were introduced into this dynamic, the organization did not perform to its capacity, according to many of its personnel. One board member, commenting on these multiple goals, made the point that the organization needed to seek collaboration from other organizations in order to gain additional resources, and fill in organizational service deficiencies, so that it could concentrate on becoming more successful with recipient programming and fundraising events:

We need to do more with other organizations in [the area] so that we are just a piece of the entire pie…we’ll buy the food, we’ll provide nutrition training. But I don’t think we have the wherewithal to do the education component at this point in time. We don’t have the resources first of all. And I don’t see that we have the team in place to really get to that next level. We really need to partner more with other agencies so we can fill the gap. We can’t do it all. We can’t be all and do it all for all people. (Johnnie, April 14, 2014)

ALPHA was able to manage the paradox of frequent staff turnover and recipient programming and fundraising events. Although staff turnover did lessen staff member enthusiasm for long-term employment at ALPHA, short-term commitment to the organization and its multiple strategic goals of recipient programming and fundraising events remained high. Employee commitment was built through “rhetorical strategies,” by highlighting the organization’s current values of human service, and its historical context of being established and community focused. Staff members repeatedly mentioned ALPHA's current value of human service as “the best part” of working at the organization. One staff member recalled, “I love working

172 with the recipients and I think being part of this organization is great” (Alex, March 28, 2014). Another staff member explained how it begins to “feel like a family” when working at ALPHA:

It’s an investment of your heart as well as everything else because of what we do and because your investing in people. And you’re truly impacting their lives. So, the staff, the volunteers, and the recipients, it’s very, very easy to develop a quick love for all of those people and begin to feel like a family all the way around. I love that! (Sarah, March 28, 2014)

Other staff members highlighted how a focus on the needs of the community, and an established reputation, helps to reinforce staff member commitment to the organization. One staff member who was able to get her church to invest in the organization, noted that building relationships with the community often results in greater staff commitment to the organization:

I believe it’s the people—just all the people who are willing to donate their time and their talents and their money. We just have—the church I attend—we have a heart for this organization. And [the church] is starting to partner with us…so it’s the community; the community is the heart of this organization. (Lydia Mae, March 28, 2014)

[18] The performing paradox surrounding humanitarian needs and economic objectives (Margolis & Walsh, 2003) epitomized many of the tensions, contradictions, and oppositions within the organization. There was no greater view of the humanitarian need for ALPHA than that of helping recipients. All personnel at the organization understood the mission of the organization at its most basic level was that of “helping those in need.” Similarly, all personnel in the organization who worked, or volunteered there, did so because they personally wanted to “help those in need.” According to the organization’s Bylaws (2014), Article II states the founding belief

173 that, “In giving we receive, and in receiving we give.” This belief is meant to showcase how the organization offers recipients “survival help” above all other goals, and in so doing, those aiding in this task are blessed. One staff member noted of “survival help” that,

That’s the main goal—is to help people see how what they struggle with today can really be a stepping stone into how they can manage for themselves into the future, and how their obstacles can actually be the learning points or the teaching points for getting along better and better into the future. (Esther, May 20, 2014)

The main goal of attending to humanitarian needs was often challenged by the ongoing problem of facing difficult economic objectives as a nonprofit organization. The economic objectives surrounding the nonprofit ethos at ALPHA were permanent and resolute. The organization faced constant tradeoffs between the best allocations of resources to “help as many people as possible.” In terms of this paradox, the focus for ALPHA was not necessarily providing “the best care,” “the greatest success,” or “the happiest outcome” for a select few recipients. The quantity of those served took precedence over quality of individual recipient attention. Although recipients went through an intake process, whereby they disclosed their present financial condition, an individual social worker or case manager was not assigned to individual recipients. Instead, one recipient coordinator oversaw the individual needs of about 2,500 recipients on a monthly basis. In addition to providing help to the greatest number of people possible, ALPHA also experienced financial constraints by having to provide help at the smallest cost. Reducing expenditures at ALPHA typically took the form of eliminating staff positions and then spreading those roles and duties amongst the available volunteers. Although many nonprofits rely on volunteers, without

174 significant funding, human service organizations would simply cease to function without them; and ALPHA is no different in this regard. Whether it was sorting and handing out food, greeting recipients, data entry and accounting, or committee involvement, volunteers made up a prodigious portion of the labor of ALPHA. With over 3000 volunteers on an annual basis and nearly 350 volunteers assigned to duties on food distribution days (Common Questions & Answers, 2014, p. 1), ALPHA depended on these volunteers to help the organization help recipients. This reliance created issues when there were problems with volunteer performance, or there were simply not enough volunteers to perform the work needed. One staff member argued that,

Sometimes I feel the organization relies too heavily on volunteers to function. It can become stressful because of just not being proactive. A lot of people come to me at the last minute and say, ‘Can you get volunteers for this and that?’ But at the last minute I don’t have the timing. Staff is already scheduled. So, I think that while it’s good because it is a nonprofit, if we don’t have the money, we rely on volunteers and that sometimes can become tricky if it’s not executed correctly. (Mink, April 21, 2014)

Finally, as a faith-based organization, ALPHA has an additional spiritual mandate to help people because of its religious history. The majority of personnel shared common religious values as they recognized the Christian command to “go the extra mile” and to “love their neighbor.” One board member, recognizing this part of the faith-based nonprofit ethos, said:

There is a difference between for-profit organizations and nonprofits. I think faith-based organizations are (even) deeper. They will go further for a person to help them more than a regular nonprofit. This is what we do! We’ll see that it gets done. And if we have to do something different we are not really interested in doing, a faith-based (nonprofit) is going to help that person no matter what they need. Maybe it’s not

175

exactly what you do, but they will go the extra mile to help somebody. (Golf, April 14, 2014)

The paradox represented by helping recipients and a nonprofit ethos was balanced by board members and the organization’s duty to human service. Board members at ALPHA, though not always fully committed to their role, did have power and control to consider the economic objectives of the organization in juxtaposition to its mission of fulfilling humanitarian needs. Specifically, as stakeholders of the organization, board members considered claims that resources be efficient and allocated appropriately. In addition, board members considered accountability when helping to set strategic vision and goals. One board member summarized the role by saying,

We’re accountable for anything that represents [ALPHA], good or bad. We ultimately are accountable; we are accountable for the finances of it, for how the finances are used, how they come in, maintaining a budget, and those types of things. We are accountable for the reputation of [ALPHA], for making sure that we are moving in the direction of the vision…What it means to be on the board is that we all need to be part of fundraising. We all need to be part of building relationships with organizations and community to support…Truthfully, I least enjoy the fundraising part. I mean, I'm not a salesman, I don't like to sell; I drag my feet at doing it, though I know that is part of my role. But at this point, we've not been pushed as a board to do it and we're not doing it. (Martha, April 21, 2014)

At the same time, the board members at ALPHA did concern themselves with ensuring that the human service aspect of their role was held accountable. One board member reiterated that the organization is about more than just handing out food, and that the board of directors should hold all its personnel accountable for ensuring a positive experience and benefits for all recipients, saying:

The mission of the organization is to provide not only the food or nutrition education but it’s to essentially give people hope—to make them feel like they are worthwhile entities, that when they walk in, they

176

are not just here for a handout. You know, we need to—and I think most of the people that are going to handouts or the distribution—greet everybody, smile, say, ‘Hello, how are you doing?’ Boost their morale as much as you can because we are getting people from all over—of various walks of life and all sorts of different economic situations. Some are just temporarily laid off. Others are young people that are just struggling to make ends meet. There are others that are just not going to get out of this—they are elderly, they have a long-term illness. But we’ve got to make their experience here as positive as it can be and help them in every way we possibly can…I think it’s important that we—that everybody, all the full-time and volunteer folks—take every recipient as they enter or when they interact with people, they have to be very positive in their interaction. They can’t be negative in any way, shape, or form. And they need to provide, ‘Whatever.’ You know, whether it’s an ear to listen, or to, you know, help connect families with a church organization, or connect them with somebody in the community that can get them to that next level. (Johnnie, April 14, 2014)

4.6 Cross-Category Paradoxes Cross-Category paradoxes were displayed by ALPHA through three unique paradox exemplars. ALPHA’s cross-category paradoxes were primarily evidenced through staff members learning to cope with feelings of marginalization within the organization. Learning issues were managed through techniques that addressed staff member belonging and organizing, such as focusing on serving those in need and being receptive to opportunities for personal and professional self-improvement.

[20] The learning::belonging paradox of professional adaption of the current self and the future self (Ibarra, 1999) was typified by support staff. ALPHA support staff demonstrated this paradox when they viewed their current job as a “stepping stone” to a better job in the future. One staff member, commenting on why there was so much staff turnover in the organization said that,

177

I think that it would be not enough training. Yeah, there’s no training and direction. You just kinda, it’s ‘sink or swim’ sometimes. It’s a feeling. It’s a feeling that there’s not enough support. It’s not anyone’s fault—it’s just, it’s just we’re learning a position….this is just a stepping stone for some people to go back out; like this is never meant to be a position to stay. (Ty, April 8, 2014)

All the support staff at ALPHA viewed their job as unpredictable and short-term. None of the support staff had a long-term plan to stay with ALPHA by “climbing the ladder” within the organization. So, with this feeling of uncertainty, a lack of job security, a perception of low pay and high expectations, and frequent turnover, why do staff members continue to work at ALPHA? There were two main reasons identified by support staff. The primary reason was the chance to adhere to their personal faith and religious values. One staff member reiterated her personal “call” to work at an organization like ALPHA, saying,

I’ve always had a really big heart for helping people who are in need. And I knew that God wanted me to be a social worker because he wanted me to help provide daily necessities to people who didn’t have any. And I just felt like He blessed me so much that I wanted to be able to bless other people. (Mink, April 21, 2014)

The secondary reason for working at ALPHA concerned professional self- improvement. High expectations and individual autonomy allowed support staff to grow in responsibility and learn new skills. One staff member stated that she enjoyed working at the organization because,

I’m gaining more responsibilities as the days go on. And I think they are seeing that they can trust me to get projects done quickly. And I think they know how much I can get accomplished. And they understand a lot of people are giving me projects at once. So, I might not be able to—if you give me a project right now—it probably won’t be done by the end of the day, but I’m going to work my hardest to get it done within a day or so. I think they’re respectful in that aspect of it, but I think they do (trust me) and they’ve told me they realize how much I contribute here which; I’m not trying to put myself or make

178

myself sound great or whatever. But it feels nice that I feel like I play a role in here. And they really appreciate all the work I do here. (Karina, April 21, 2014)

Support staff managed this paradox by learning from their work environment and employing the three professional self-adaptation techniques of observing role models, provisional selves experimentation, and provisional selves evaluation. Several support staff mentioned how they “look up to” the executive director and tried to perform role imitation by carrying out tasks for her, and they also mentioned making a good performance impression through their work. One staff member described her relationship with the executive director by saying,

I can email her any time and she’ll get back to me definitely within that day, probably within a few hours. I have her phone number. We do things outside of work, you know, church-related. She shows that she cares about you in the work area as well as outside. She acknowledges your work and she tells you, ‘You're doing a good job,’ even if she does have to give you a few suggestions along the way, because she wants you to improve, and that’s important. You know, I want to keep getting better. Every day I want to help her as much as I can because that’s what I feel like I’m there for. They kinda joke like I’m her little assistant. (Karina, April 21, 2014)

Support staff also engaged in an internal and external personal evaluation. Support staff described how they attempted to take on new roles or new tasks in the organization in order to improve skill sets. An external evaluation was also carried out individually and jointly with the operations manager. One staff member described the evaluation process by saying,

I picked up roles that weren’t handed to me. I’m now like the, I would say, co-chair of special events; which wasn’t in my job description to necessarily head up. So, I kinda stepped up on my own to be part of it, but my job description was pretty thorough and long. So, they do a really nice job—when [the operations manager] first hired me—in going through and reassessing the role. That happened about a year ago. So, they’re pretty up to date and the job descriptions are evaluated

179

yearly. I have a monthly one on one evaluation just to make sure my progress is moving along and to discuss anything that’s frustrating, or like, joys that I’ve had. (Mink, April 21, 2014)

[21] ALPHA personnel experienced the learning::belonging paradox of “career progression” with conflicting tensions over personal job attainment and work experience deficit (O’Mahony & Bechky, 2006). Similar to support staff, middle managers faced both learning and belonging challenges at the organization. All the middle managers at ALPHA had been employed less than a year at the organization. Also, all ALPHA middle managers came from for-profit fields not involved in human service. All of the current middle managers at ALPHA previously worked at large multinational corporations and private small businesses. They did not disclose why they no longer worked at their previous employer, but all of them stressed that their current job at ALPHA represented a “sacrifice” in their career progression. While all of the middle managers at ALPHA said they enjoyed their work, they described a

“learning curve” coming from different employment backgrounds. They also described how they felt they did not “fit in” with the rest of the support staff or executive management. Echoing many of the learning and belonging sentiments of other middle management staff members at ALPHA, one of the middle managers described some of the differences of working in a community human service nonprofit, versus her previous employment at a large multinational corporation, by saying,

I see a lot of tears here, which you don’t see in corporate America. They [support staff] get to that point. They get angry! There is anger that comes out, and they lash out at their co-workers. Or some people will run to [the executive director] and tell on somebody; which you don’t see that in corporate America like you do here….There is oversight in a for-profit and there is really not oversight here because

180

[the executive director] basically invites her own board members to be on the board. There is really no HR staff here to speak of, it’s a volunteer. And I’m shocked at the things that happen here that would not fly in corporate America; it just wouldn’t! Telling employees about other employees’ warning letters and discussing that [with others], you just don’t do that; you would be fired. And telling volunteers that somebody is on a written warning, you just wouldn’t get away with that at a for-profit…this is a small company. Where I came from, managers had managers, you know, all the way up the line. Of course, our CEO had a board, so everybody had a boss. And here, it doesn’t feel that way here. It feels like [the executive director] has no boss, and she can do whatever she wants, and we have to live with it, or leave! So that is different. There is no recourse. That’s another thing that is different. You can go to the board, or HR volunteers that come in, but nothing happens except retribution. So, you don’t do that, and you just have to learn. It’s just so different, that’s completely different. (Sarah, March 28, 2014)

The “stretchwork” employed by middle managers displayed the management tactics of differentiating competence, acquiring referrals, framing and bluffing, and discounting. Prior to their employment at ALPHA, all the middle managers came from for-profit business or large multinational corporations. Yet, this prior experience was viewed by executive management as a potential strength for the position for which they were hired. Several middle managers said that they had competence in their current area within the organization because of their prior work experience. For one staff member in her current job managing operations at ALPHA, decision making was her primary role and she claimed her previous job encouraged her to make decisions:

I came here as a middle-level manager from [a multi-national corporation]. And there I was encouraged to just make my own decisions. And I was trusted to do that. And I feel very comfortable not always making the right decision, but making a decision and then learning from that decision. And I thrive on that…I did many, many jobs at [there] over 27 years…And people seemed to be reasonable if I made a mistake, ‘Oh I didn’t know that.’ ‘Well that’s okay, did you learn from it’? And the mistakes were expected. In fact, we were told

181

you will make mistakes, ‘Just make a decision. If it’s wrong, we will figure it out.’ And so, it was expected you would make a mistake and then you moved on. (Sarah, March 28, 2014)

Similarly, several middle managers were able to acquire referrals with ALPHA based on their previous experience and who they knew at the organization, and past volunteering history with the organization. One middle manager was able to acquire a referral to the organization by having been a volunteer at ALPHA, and by knowing two current employees, including the executive director, because they all went to the same church:

I have studied as a commercial artist. I’m a graphic artist. So, I have graphics in my background, photography, and marketing, and that sort of thing…I’ve spent a number of years in design studios and the corporate world. And so yes, a number of years doing the whole real creative, funky studio, to a cubicle at a corporation. So pretty much the whole gamut…(but) I had volunteered here, volunteered with the home delivery service for about five years. And I absolutely loved that. And then [the operations manager], who also goes to my church…she approached me, and said, ‘Come work for us…there’s a job opening, and we’d love for you to work with us, and come interview.’ So, I said, ‘Yea!’…In my hiring process, I think [the executive director] felt that she trusted [the operations manager’s] opinion. And I knew her, I knew [the executive director] beforehand from my church…So yeah, she just knew who I was and said, ‘Come aboard.’ (Lydia Mae, March 28, 2014)

In other words, executive management felt that they already knew some of the individuals hired into their positions.

Additionally, middle managers “framed” and “bluffed” their previous experience to coincide with the human service aspect of the organization. For example, one middle manager who was recently hired, but who had no prior experience in her role, explained that her previous work and education revolved around the human service aspect of “helping people:”

182

I have recently graduated from college with a degree in social services. I was a nurse’s aide for four years prior to obtaining my degree. I’ve done things such as waitressing. I have been a cleaning person…I’ve always had a really big heart for helping people who are in need. And I knew that God wanted me to be a social worker because he wanted me to help provide daily necessities to people who didn’t have any. And I just felt like He blessed me so much that I wanted to be able to bless other people. (Mink, April 21, 2014)

Middle managers also discounted their pay in order to fit in with the nonprofit ethos. One middle manager said of her nonprofit discounting that, “I found myself laid off, and so I really needed to take a job. This was a significant pay cut over what I had made previously. But I also thought it would be completely different than what I was doing in corporate America” (Sarah, March 28, 2014). Another middle manager mentioned the joy she receives from the human service aspect of the work by saying, “It definitely feeds my soul. People think, you know, if you work at [ALPHA] you are great; it is very well received by the community. But like I said, the pay is less than enticing” (Alex, March 28, 2014).

[22] Finally, ALPHA evidenced the learning::organizing paradox of a “resource-based view” (RBV) of the organization’s dynamic capabilities, resources, and competitive advantage (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000). The organization’s dynamic capabilities revolved around food distribution with community collaboration being the organization’s greatest resource. This enabled ALPHA to pursue a competitive advantage in its local market. However, personnel at ALPHA felt the organization was in a precarious situation in regard to its support from the community. One staff member highlighted what many personnel throughout the organization thought was ALPHA’S greatest resource:

183

I think it’s the support of the community. I think [ALPHA] has the support of the community, the churches, the businesses, the grocery stores—they give generously. There is a constant influx of cash and food to this place. And the name [ALPHA] means something to this community. And [this area] is that kind of community where they want to take care of their own. (Sarah, March 28, 2014)

However, many personnel were also worried that any loss of support from the community was also the organization’s greatest threat. One board member explained that, “If we lost the support of this community at large, you know, for the greater

[area] community, yeah, that would be our greatest threat. If (the community) does not see [ALPHA] as caring as it should be… we need to show that we care for the community, and are involved in the community as well” (Martha, April 21, 2014). One fear that drove worries about losing community support and competitive advantage in the local market would be public news surrounding the sometimes dysfunctional internal operations of the organization. One board member expressed his concern by saying, “No, most people in the community are not aware of some of the turmoil in the organization. At this time, it’s internal” (Golf, April 14, 2014).

ALPHA personnel were regularly concerned about the organization's inability to reduce staff turnover and present unified Christian values among their employees. ALPHA personnel felt these issues would eventually result in lost funding and volunteers. One volunteer admitted, “I think there is so many other organizations in [the area] itself that help the poor, that the donations could go, they could fall off. But if you believe in God, you got to believe it's not going to” (ALICE). Another volunteer added,

I think faith plays a very big role. I mean, I think that as far as support from the local churches, is key to the success. And continued success of the organization. And I know that the people who work here, and certainly the people on the board, and the key members are all Christian, they’re all active church members. And I think there is

184

always prayers before every event, before every distribution, and meetings and everything. (Rudy, April 14, 2014)

Thus, personnel at ALPHA were hypersensitive to pleasing key benefactors in the community to avoid lost support. The largest area of support, both financially and from volunteer labor, came from churches. Thus, Christian values were always a potential tension when collaborating with corporate sponsors. Corporate sponsors viewed the organization primarily as a food pantry and only wanted to support this aspect of the organization’s mission. ALPHA had to learn and organize itself around maintaining a faith-based identity, a human service focus, and an established local presence in order to successfully compete for area resources. ALPHA managed this paradox through product development, strategic decision making, and alliancing. Although these areas of focus were not always well- received by the majority of personnel at the organization, through the vision of its executive director, ALPHA did develop new products with its recipient programming. The P.E.T. program, the farm stand, and the high tunnel program all received additional personnel and financial resources to grow and improve. For example, the organization’s farm stand, where recipients could select fresh fruit and vegetables gleaned from nearby farms, was scheduled to receive a major renovation to allow more patrons access, greater selection, updated refrigeration units, and a reliable heat source for the building (March 25, 2014). ALPHA also maintained a mission focus, which enabled them to make strategic decisions for the betterment of “helping people.” For example, board members discussed that they were working on an updated strategic plan so that the organization “stays on track” with its mission (March 24, 2014). Moreover, ALPHA was able to maintain alliances throughout the area to steadily draw upon available

185 community resources. One staff member noted that the resources offered by the community help to sustain the organization by saying,

Through our connections with farmers, and corporations, and the community, and the volunteers, we all come together and have this program. And it’s just wonderful to see how this all works together, and we all play a role…how we can all work together and just help other others. It’s really neat! (Lydia Mae, March 28, 2014)

4.7 Summary ALPHA exhibited all 33 paradoxical exemplars, but was able to manage 17 of them. This case report explores all 18 core paradoxes, along with paradoxes [20], [21], and [22] from the cross-categories. Despite learning, organizing, and performing issues related to their frequent staff turnover, as well as belonging issues related to their lack of consistent organizational faith identity, ALPHA’s implementation of several paradox management techniques was crucial to their ability to sustain their programs and community support.

186

Chapter 5

BETA ORGANIZATION

5.1 Overview Historical Context: “BETA” organization celebrated their 25 year anniversary at the time of data collection. The organization was initially incorporated as a private foundation under section 509(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. On July 8, 1996, BETA was reclassified as a tax-exempt organization under the 501(c)3 Internal Revenue Code (IRS Letter 1078, 1996, p. 1). The reason for originally incorporating as a private foundation is unclear. The organization has been slowly increasing its programs and services with up to 300 (unduplicated) children being served each month in its after-school center (Brochure Blessing, 2014, p. 1).

BETA serves a rural population in a small town between two major cities. Of all the organizations included in this study, the town in which BETA is located has the highest poverty rate, the lowest population, and the lowest average household income. The organization’s primary mission is to “nourish” the low-income and at-risk youth in the area with food, activities, behavioral guidance, homework assistance, and spiritual mentorship. BETA’s mission statement is religious in tone and reads, “[BETA] shines the light and love of Jesus to the…area youth through our staff- directed, volunteer-supported center and programs” (Strategic Plan, 2013-2017, p. 1). Two years prior to this study, the board of directors determined that their current location and facilities were no longer functioning appropriately for organizational growth. At the time of data collection, the organization was undergoing a significant

187 transition from their present location of 19 years in a storefront building on the town square, to a custom-constructed building that more than doubled the indoor space, and provided nearly 4 acres of outdoor space for a parking lot and game fields. Financial Background: The organization had a budget of $255,104 for 2014 (Budget, 2014). BETA lists its expenses by salaries ($148,604), programming ($40,000), fundraising ($21,000), administration ($18,300), and current building maintenance ($27,200). Only 26% of the 2014 budget was allocated for programming expenses. Between the years 2010 and 2014, 990 forms indicate that BETA was financially stable as it increased its total net revenue by $1,796,594, and grew its net assets from $200,628 in 2010 to $1,981,945 in 2014—a total increase of $1,781,317 or 887.87%. This remarkable growth in net assets was due to an intensive capital improvement fundraising campaign for their new building. However, this robust financial growth was a cause of significant organizational change within the organization.

RQ 1 Findings: BETA exhibited all 33 paradoxical exemplars. BETA distinguished itself from the four other organizations in the study by being the “smallest” organization in terms of its paid employees and volunteer base. However, the organization had a very devoted following in its community and was able to raise nearly ten times its operating budget in three years in a fundraising campaign for a new building. The organization also was the most visibly attached to the Christian church by identifying itself as a “parachurch ministry.” The organization’s unwavering Christian identity created some paradoxes. BETA’s overarching issues were cultural and management related to the problematic nature of working with at- risk youth.

188

RQ 2 Findings: BETA implemented several paradox management techniques and managed the majority of the 33 paradoxical exemplars. BETA managed 23 of 33 paradoxes including: [1], [4], [5], [6], [8], [10], [12], [13], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [28], [30], [31], [32], and [33]. BETA management techniques most often centered on drawing personal boundaries between coworkers and maintaining a work-life balance. BETA personnel also displayed patience and compassion with recipients. By focusing on the immediate needs of at-risk youth,

BETA was able to sustain organizational stability through its emphasis on its mission. The “why” (vision) of the organization was a rallying point for stakeholders and the community. BETA’s devotion to its organizational core Christian values through its Christian service to at-risk youth aided in its ability to produce continuity in times of change; especially as it underwent a significant transition in designing, fundraising for, and constructing “a new home” building.

5.2 Belonging Paradoxes Belonging paradoxes at BETA revolved around tensions, contradictions, and oppositions related to personal faith, organizational faith, and organizational mission. BETA addressed belonging paradoxes through management techniques related to establishing professional boundaries consistent with personal values.

[1] The paradox of personal core values and organizational core principles (Badaracco, 1998) was exemplified through the Christian faith and being a human service nonprofit. All employees and board members held the Christian faith as an essential personal core value. Personal faith also contributed to a sense of belonging within a broader faith community. However, a belonging paradox ensued as it

189 contrasted personal faith with that of the mission of the organization as a human service nonprofit. As a human service nonprofit, BETA personnel cared for those who were often outside of their own professed faith. In fact, the at-risk youth involved with the organization were frequently unappreciative of the organization’s efforts to help them (May 6, 2014). At-risk youth often ignored the Christian faith values of BETA personnel through a range of behaviors. For example, recipients at BETA engaged in what was perviced by personnel as “minor infractions” at the youth center, such as not saying ‘please’ and ‘thank you,’ cursing, fighting, and bullying to more consequential decisions outside the youth center such as, sexual activity, drug use, armed robbery, attempted murder, and dropping out of school. One staff member expressed his frustration over the type of working relationship he has with the recipients:

They don’t want more for themselves because of a lack of confidence, hopelessness, and despair. Like these folks back here {gesturing with his hand}, one is pregnant with twins, you know…18. So, I think the current circumstances that a lot of the kids are in cause them not to be able to really even think…to make steps toward making their lives better is like a monumental task for them because they are dealing with issues that they need to deal with at home. Whether it’s being pregnant, or whether it’s mom and dad in jail, or whether it’s raising their own their little brothers and sisters. So, there are monumental things they have to deal with at home in their personal life that keeps them from getting to the next level; and it’s frustrating. I mean, I want to help them with filling out a college application, getting their driver’s license, which I have; but I end up helping them with more personal issues and keeping them kind of at a baseline. So that’s frustrating. (Joe, July 10, 2014)

This paradox was managed through a balance of idealism and realism. All personnel held idealistic views of loving kids or “showing the love of Christ” to at-

190 risk-youth. One staff member explained that as long as the organization is open and able to “show love,” BETA is fulfilling its mission:

As long as we keep shinning the light and love of Jesus, we are completing our mission. And so, my key phrase to our staff and board members is: ‘A successful day at [BETA] is when the doors are open, and the lights are on.’ As long as we are doing that, we are completing our mission because our staff and volunteers love on the kids like crazy. There is no one that is just putting in time. They really seek well, or do well, and everyone has a special niche that they bring to the ministry. (Elmer, July 14, 2014)

Personnel at BETA did not just rely on their idealism of loving kids. Personnel were also realistic and understood that it is essential to the emotional and social development of the recipients to receive patient discipline. Personnel were frequently observed being patient with the at-risk youth. For example, (July 10, 2014), when a child was observed throwing a full milk carton at another child, one staff member asked the offending child calmly, and without a raised voice, to “please clean up the milk.” The child refused and, in a voice audible throughout the building, shouted back at the staff member, saying “I’m never coming back!” The staff member simply replied, “Have a nice day,” and proceeded to smile as the child slammed the front door shut. One staff member, explaining the balance of being “firm” but “compassionate” with recipients, suggested that staff behavior with the children was in keeping with the Christian identity of the organization:

I think that if we were a non-Christian organization, we would be yelling at kids more. And I just think the kids would not feel safe here because I think our attitude would be quick to yell at them, or quick to send them home, or things of that nature. Where we really try not to do those things because they might be getting yelled at home. And we try to really think about how their home lives are affecting their lives here. So, I think that in terms of the kids, the fact that we value being a Christian organization, and the fact that we do try to be good examples for them…we value ourselves as Christians here. I think it helps the

191

kids in a better way because our attitudes are in check. And I mean, I really don’t see any of us getting angry really quickly. (Jeff, July 1, 2014)

[2] Similarly, a paradox of belonging occurred when volunteers felt their individual identity was contradicted by group identity (Brewer, 1991). Most volunteers at BETA individually identified themselves with the Christian faith. However, some church and school volunteers questioned the group’s identity as a faith-based nonprofit when the organization adopted a strict Christian only identity. Many volunteers felt the organization’s primary role was to “help children.” So, when the board of directors changed the volunteer requirements to church-attending Christian only, regardless of expertise or experience in serving at-risk-youth, some felt betrayed. One staff member described a conversation she had with a volunteer who withdrew his support of BETA over the new “group identity” policy for volunteers:

Those restrictions are put on through the board of directors. So, the board requires that every one of our volunteers is an active Christian— everyone that volunteers is actively participating in a church. I struggle with that because not everyone here who is actively going to church every Sunday is necessarily a great person who is going to be able to disciple to our children. I struggled with that a lot because a volunteer actually emailed me saying that in the eyes of [BETA], he ‘wasn’t fit to be a volunteer’ because, ‘he doesn’t go to church.’ But he still thought he was Christian. But I don’t know? I guess we just want people in here who love Jesus and are living their lives like Jesus; because we hold bible studies. Kids have these questions and we want our volunteers to be able to answer their questions. And we don’t want our volunteers to be talking about parties they are going to, or things like that. So, I do think it’s a little restrictive…but I think as long as the people volunteering are here for the right reasons, and wanting to volunteer for the right reasons, they’ll overlook that, I hope. (Jeff, July 1, 2014)

192

BETA used a differentiation management technique for their paradox of Christian faith within a faith-based nonprofit organization. While individual identity was not assimilated into a cohesive group identity, personnel at the organization did differentiate themselves from the group through personal boundaries. All personnel interviewed and observed at BETA noted the commonalities in their service to the organization. Most personnel said they “got along” with their peers, but also explained that they did not spend time with each other in social settings. One staff member said of his coworkers, “I mean there’s definitely personality differences between [us]…on a personal level we don’t try and hang out much outside of work unless it’s an official function” (Joe, July 10, 2014). Another staff member reiterated the need for personal boundaries, saying: “One thing I have learned is we do a lot of ministry together, and work well together, but our personal time is just our personal time! I think that is healthy. So it gives everybody freedom and a little break from each other” (Elmer, July 14, 2014). Similarly, staff members differentiated from each other, not only in time spent outside of work, but during work as well, when they often refrained from religious and political conversations. As one staff member explained, staff members did not want to engage in substantive issues related to individual beliefs and, instead, opted for personal boundaries:

I try my best to just keep my religious views to myself, I guess. I don’t feel like it’s the time or place to hash out what we feel on different issues. So I think maybe we all kind of do that because we never kind of really take anything that we hear in the news about things going in here, because I think that every Christian has a different view on about everything…I’m pretty liberal in my thinking, and I don’t think that [they] are, really are. So, I often just try to keep quiet, and try not to upset anyone. And neither of them are going to change…I’m a little bit more easy going with certain things. And I don’t stress-out about different things in political views and stuff, so why talk about it? (Jeff, July 1, 2014)

193

[3] Belonging paradoxes were also evident between organizational continuity and organizational change (Huy, 2002). While BETA’s organizational continuity was maintained through the mission, program development contributed significantly to organizational change. BETA envisioned its future programming developing around “teachable” programs, whereby staff members and volunteers might help at-risk-youth feel like they are connected to an organization that is linked to the Christian church.

Instead of focusing on basic needs assistance, BETA wanted to shift its programming towards a more spiritualistic component. One board member even argued for the purpose or mission of the organization being primarily religious in nature, as opposed to being service orientated:

The overall mission—my perception of it—is rooted in the idea that life, eternal life, forgiveness, joy, and a meaningful, mature, and growing life on earth, is all bound up in what Jesus did on the cross. So, it starts there. And that’s what [BETA] is fundamentally about: sharing that news with the kids in the community. Now, methodology says more than word, even Jesus said more than word, do in deed. And so that’s why there are various programs that engage the kids. Whether it’s something simple like daily bible verses or coloring sheets that engages the kids. And even music lessons, or choir, and they take field trips, they grow things in the garden, all these things are meant to show that not only is the love of Christ being taught in word, but they are being shown that Jesus makes a difference. Not just in a theoretical way, but it can make a difference in their life. And to walk them through that, to demonstrate that, I don’t know what their background is, I’m coming out of my place just to meet with this kid as a volunteer or board member—to demonstrate the love of Christ, not just to speak about it. So, I see the [BETA] mission doing that. It’s taking that calling, the gospel of Jesus Christ, the truth of it, and expressing it in real life situations via programs, or time spent with kids, or whatever. (Bart, July 25, 2014)

194

While most board members supported a change in programming focus, many staff members were uncomfortable with the evangelistic content of the organization’s current programs. So, most personnel advocated for less spiritualism in program development. One staff member reasoned that:

I’m not a big fan, this is just a small thing, I’m not a big fan of doing bible worksheets right before a meal. I just think it’s supposed to be a free meal! I’m not against the Bible lessons. But you’re saying in order to get a free meal you’ve got to do this first, then it’s not really free. There’s a condition to getting your free meal. It’s a little lame, but maybe having some other kind of way to have them do a worksheet instead for getting (their) free meal…. Not as many would attend bible study if it was completely voluntary. I hate to say it. We would probably have about maybe five kids. And that’s why going into a new building we have some opportunities to change some things. And that might be one thing we change, is just they definitely come in for the food, not necessarily my great bible teaching. But it’s the food, and camaraderie, and the acceptance. I think our staff does a good job letting them know that they are accepted. And we give them a lot of grace before, and we are meant to, before we kick them out. (Joe, July 10, 2014)

BETA did not manage the paradox between mission and program development. BETA was initially very hesitant around change occurring in the organization. Over the last 20 years, BETA had maintained consistency in its board of directors, executive director, and support staff. Essentially, BETA was not active in driving change. Instead, whenever possible, they passively allowed change to occur and preferred to focus on inducing continuity. Even the infrastructure improvements the organization was undertaking with the new building took several years of discussion, prayer, and passive acceptance of the need and opportunity to grow. The board of directors and the executive director ultimately felt “God calling them to do it,” and they did not view the new building as an active desire to change. Additionally, the infrastructure improvement was actually intended to induce

195 continuity between the current building and the new building. No new programs, or hiring of staff members, are planned for the new building. BETA personnel expressed a desire to produce the same level of service to the at-risk youth regardless of infrastructure improvements. Even decorations in the current building will be transferred to the new building in an effort to bridge the transition for recipients. Several pieces of artwork, including a mural of Jesus, and a sign that reads, “Bring Your ‘A’ Game,” were sentimental to both personnel and recipients. One volunteer noted of the recipients and their need for stability and familiarity in their life that, “I feel sure that every sign that’s out there {gesturing to the activity room} will be in the new building. That’s what makes it home. That’s what makes it cozy. That’s what the kids are used to. I think they’d be disappointed if it wasn’t that way. You know, the decorations will be the same” (Sue, July 17, 2014).

[4] The personal independence and personal interdependence paradox

(Markus & Kitayama, 1991) was on display at BETA. Staff members dealt with the opposing forces of their personal independence as a non-employee and their personal interdependence as an employee. There was a dynamic at BETA where the executive director had essentially dedicated the past twenty years to the service of the organization. All personnel throughout the organization perceived the executive director’s service as an unnecessary sacrifice of his personal independence. Two of the younger employees viewed his “dedication” as not having an appropriate work-life balance. As a result, they sought to distinguish their own employee and non-employee identities and relationships with coworkers and the organization. That is, have a different work-life balance to that modeled by the executive director. One staff

196 member, commenting directly on achieving a work-life balance, and a clear employee and non-employee identity, said:

I can go home, and I am married. I have a partner at home, so it helps…but [the executive director] is not married, he goes home to, I don’t know, to nothing. He has no one to bounce off the issues of the day. Yeah, I mean you can get caught up in working. Not just doing what you’re supposed to do, your job requirements, but also pick extracurricular stuff…You can get caught up in a lot of the issues that the kids have outside of [BETA], and that can be draining. I think for [the executive director] especially, like when there is a death in the community, especially if it’s a youth, he takes those situations really to heart and it’s really draining on him…I would say [the executive director] is synonymous with [BETA]. When people think of [BETA], they think of [the executive director]. He would say he doesn’t want that, but maybe there is a little bit of, his identity is really wrapped up, a big part of his identity is wrapped up in his work. Which, for a lot of people is, sometimes they question whether there’s a separate identity or a personal life—like a separate life outside his work life. I have to find a space that’s separate from what I’m doing here…because, or else, yeah. I need some space. (Joe, July 10, 2014)

BETA personnel managed their non-employee and employee personas by thinking, feeling, and acting in accordance with their personal values. In order to maintain a healthy view of themselves, their work tasks, and the roles of others, personnel often engaged in thinking (cognition), feeling (emotion), and acting (motivation). Several staff members described how emotionally draining it is to work with at-risk youth. At-risk youth were perceived by BETA personnel to have specialized needs, and complicated personal issues to work through. One staff member, having just returned from a hiking vacation, touched on how acting and thinking away from work helps him deal with his emotionally draining job at BETA:

When you spend six days on a mountain trail, and you’re doing 12 miles a day with a pack [on your back], and you’re just thinking about getting from point A to point B, and what you’re doing—how you’re going to get enough firewood to make a fire because your gas ran out,

197

that kind of stuff. You just start to clear your mind of petty stuff! You just start thinking about what matters! So, for that, a vacation’s great. I had kind of cleared my mind. And I felt at peace about coming back to work. I was ready [to return]; I felt it was a good vacation. I was able to clear my mind. But then the first day back, you’re like, ‘I’m kicking a kid out because he threw a chocolate milk at someone?’ But you know, I can find opportunities to disconnect from my work; whether it’s going to the gym, whether it’s doing music. And that’s healthy, that’s healthy for me to do. (Joe, July 10, 2014)

[5] The belonging paradox of organizational identity plurality and organizational identity synergy (Pratt & Foreman, 2000) was represented at BETA through multiple identities as an established community faith-based nonprofit human service organization. Staff members and volunteers at BETA drew upon all identities depending on context. For example, volunteers at the organization’s music program would highlight the nonprofit human service aspect of the organization’s “helping at- risk-youth” (April 28, 2014) program. When procuring continuing education for professional development, staff members would highlight the nonprofit human service aspect of the organization, as opposed to the faith aspects of the organization. One staff member noted that BETA had a great weakness in its professional development outside of the ministry arena, which necessitated additional training:

We are trying to work on just training our staff. And what I mean by that is equipping them by going to more seminars and education sessions. They are more general in nature, and nonprofit orientated than ministry related. There are more and more seminars hosted by foundations in our community that are fairly inexpensive, and it just focuses on nonprofits working in [the] county. And so, you get to network with people in the area, but also with work with those that work with low-income clientele. (Elmer, July 14, 2014)

This paradox was managed at BETA by compartmentalization of the multiple identities as an (1) established, (2) community, (3) faith-based, (4) nonprofit, and (5)

198 human service organization. BETA retained all five of its identities, but did not make a concerted effort to forge links between them. The nonprofit aspect of the organization was viewed as “a given” within the organization, but BETA did not actively advertise itself as a nonprofit. For example, on monthly newsletters, only a footnote about their official registration with the state was made. Even in giving and fundraising, BETA did not mention that donations were “tax deductible.” BETA also did not advertise that it is a 501(c)3 tax exempt organization (Website Giving, 2014, p.

9). In fact, for undisclosed reasons, BETA was originally founded as a 509(a) “private foundation,” but was reclassified by the IRS as a 501(c)3 on July 8, 1996 (IRS Letter 1078, 1996, p. 1). Similarly, BETA personnel rarely drew upon its 25-year history in the community, except to say that it is a stable organization. Moreover, when BETA did market its 25-year history in the community, it did so in what might be regarded as “unflattering” terms as a needed human service in the area. For example, their website noted, “[BETA] began with a vision of many concerned citizens of the community”

(Website About, 2014, p. 1). A fundraising brochure argued,

The reason [BETA] has remained strong for 25 years is that it addresses problems inherent to a significant segment of [area] residents: low-income households, single-parent families, teenage pregnancy, non-violent crimes involving youth, violent crimes involving youth, drug, and alcohol abuse, and school truancy. (Brochure Blessing, 2014, p. 6)

BETA preferred to use its identity as a faith-based organization by marketing itself as helping “at-risk youth in the…area, shining the light of Jesus through staff-directed and volunteer-led activities and programs” (Brochure Blessing, 2014, p. 1). Additionally, personnel framed the human service focus of the organization on its faith aspects. One staff member explained,

199

I think faith plays a big role. I mean when it first began, [BETA] was actually just a safe-haven for kids. I think faith played a role in getting [BETA] established but…I just think for [the first executive director], it was just getting kids off the street, hanging out with them. I think with our current executive director, faith plays a big role in his life and he would say that it plays a big role. You know, planting seeds and helping kids know Jesus. And the board would also probably agree; they would say that as well. Faith is a big part of what we do here. (Joe, July 10, 2014)

5.3 Learning Paradoxes Learning paradoxes at BETA mostly centered on improving services for recipients while addressing organizational development issues. BETA readily used management techniques to address learning paradoxes. Personnel found success in equalizing roles and tasks between veteran staff members and newer board members and volunteers.

[6] The paradox of exploration and exploitation (March, 1991) was demonstrated through recipient stability and Christian programming. BETA routinely attempted to explore new ways to entice children to attend its events and after-school programs. However, the organization was often confronted with the reality that children did not like, or want to engage in, Christian programming. For example, many at-risk youths were frequently disinterested in bible studies before their “free meal” and acted out accordingly by shouting, fighting, running, or causing trouble for the staff members and volunteers. In one instance (May 6, 2014), children broke the organization's pool table by sitting and bouncing on it during bible study. Despite a lack of interest from the children, BETA personnel were nevertheless compelled to offer and exploit Christian faith instruction at every available opportunity. One

200 volunteer said that even small behavioral changes in the children are worth the difficulties arising from offering Christian faith instruction:

I hurt for the kids today who don’t have parenting figures. They don’t have anybody teaching them morals. They don’t have anybody teaching them the things that will help them succeed in life, to be happy. It’s like, will they ever be happy? Because it just seems like one bad decision leads to another. And so, it’s in our hope and our prayers that faith will make a difference, you know? This is their home, this is where they get a foundation…we see them learning how to make choices, good choices. Whereas before they didn’t have the influence…you know not necessarily that they become Christians, but the very least they’ve learned a bit about responsibility…they learned that to treat each other more lovingly. Again, not necessarily are their hearts all being changed, but they are learning at least to be better people. (Sue, July 17, 2014)

This paradox was managed through a balance of fast and slow learners and old and new knowers. Staff members mentioned the learning process of working together and growing knowledge with each other. One support staff member said the executive director and the board of directors had been at the organization for “a long time” and that, as a recent hire, she had learned to work with them:

The board and [executive director] get along really well. He’s really close friends with a lot of them. And a lot of the board members have been board members for a long time…the [executive director] is a little ‘OCD,’ but I’ve learned how to work with that. So, it’s fine. And I mean, it’s good that he has that because then all the bills get paid well and everything is straightened out. (Jeff, July 1, 2014)

Similarly, support staff members described how they had learned from the knowledge and experience of volunteers, and vice versa. Volunteers were observed talking with support staff as to the best ways to “reach kids.” This was done in order to help them better relate to the kids. One volunteer was known for teaching children how to knit, and support staff would often join in to form a knitting group in order to “casually chat” with the at-risk youth (April 28, 2014). Volunteers were also observed

201 asking support staff how best to handle situations related to discipline (April 25, 2014). Finally, the board of directors and executive director discussed how they had learned from each other. The executive director discussed how he had recruited recently appointed board members and helped them become more acquainted with the vision and goals of the organization. The learning process also included board members becoming more familiar with the executive director, who had been at the organization for over two decades. One board member explained his initial reaction to meeting the executive director, along with some of the trust he had gained through their working relationship:

When I first started at [BETA], I thought some people were ‘drinking the cool-aid!’ For real {laughing}! No discredit to [the executive director]. I love the guy and the Lord has really worked in his life. But when I first started, I was like, ‘This is weird.’ People are bending over backwards. ‘[Executive director] this, [executive director] that.’ I was leery. You know, I paid attention to it. It’s kind of like when Mary was watching Jesus grow up as she hid all these things in her heart—I was tucking the stuff away; just keeping my eye on it in case I felt like I started to take a sip myself. I didn’t understand what was really going on. I think it was weird, it was a little off. I think the language has changed…what was weird was like—it’s Christ that’s doing the work here. It’s Christ that’s causing this thing to grow, to be sustained. I mean he is working through him. He is just a dude just like everybody else. But I’ve learnt that he is a very talented dude, and a very committed dude. Certainly, with his flaws, and we’ve had to work among the personnel committee too, you know, working through those things. (Bart, July 25, 2014)

[7] BETA demonstrated the paradox of building a shared vision and team learning (Senge, 1990) through recipient survival help and recipient survival. All personnel shared the vision of BETA providing successful survival help to recipients. However, the team was in a continual state of learning how to cope with the ways

202 recipients have learned to survive. Some of the methods at-risk-youth use to survive are lying, cheating, or fighting to get what they want. Recipients at BETA frequently “tested” volunteers to see if they could “get away” with something; most often this included trying to get food—either before others or through a second helping (July 1, 2014). One volunteer mentioned how she wished the organization could learn to limit this behavior from some of the recipients:

They’re teenagers, for one thing. Teenagers struggle with identity to begin with. And things aren’t good at home, and they all know about everybody else’s issues. They know what’s going on in their families and what have you. So, it’s the survival of the fittest. There’s no question about that…some of them can’t get out of the mess that they’re in. They’ll just always be that way! But I would like to see…when the kids try to cheat, if they want a meal, they’ll say to me, ‘I already did the paper.’ And I’ll go, ‘I don’t think so.’ And I’m checking with [the volunteer coordinator], ‘Did he give the paper here?’ I wish there was some way we could stop that. You know that they are lying to you. That’s what they come from. I would love to see something that we could come up with that would really curtail that. But you can’t be punishing them all the time. They’ll never come. So, you handle the big lies and you overlook some of little ones. (Sue, July 17, 2014)

BETA did not engage in systems thinking in an attempt to reconcile the paradox of survival help and recipient survival.

[8] The paradox of episodic change and continuous change (Weick & Quinn, 1999) also highlighted learning issues within the organization. Infrastructure development and staff expectations both contributed to learning tensions at BETA.

Staff members typically had to learn to work well together; this was especially true at BETA where they had less than five full-time staff members. The intimate working environment presented its own continuous challenges for coworker learning

203 expectations. One staff member explained that a lack of personnel support made his job extremely difficult, saying:

Some days I do really feel stressed out when there’s only myself and [the program director] out here, and [the executive director] is in his office, or something like that. Like it feels a little overwhelming because there’s like 80 kids in here and only a couple of us to kind of deal with them all. So, I definitely think one of our weaknesses is kind of like, almost like, crowd control in a way. (Jeff, July 1, 2014)

However, episodic change regarding the organization’s new building made work requirements even harder. One staff member lamented that,

In the community, since I’m well known, I feel appreciated, but I also feel the need to help others at all times. Even when I’m off the clock, I still get phone calls to my house. And so, when I want to get away, for instance yesterday, I had to leave our community and not tell anyone where I was going. You know, especially with the building project, there will be people that will start calling me at six in the morning as things are starting over there (at the building project). And then, we are open until six or seven at night! And then afterwards if there is a committee meeting, or just some other items to work through or a fundraising event—there are long days. We have four big fundraisers a year now. That, of course, takes time. But also, with the building project on top of that. And then, like I said, working through a new strategic plan. If I work less than sixty hours (a week), that is almost like a vacation for me! (Elmer, July 14, 2014)

BETA managed this paradox through adaptation via board policy changes and adjustment to evolving staff roles. Staff members and volunteers noted how board policy changes were sometimes detrimental to the continuity of operations. Whether it was changes to evangelism goals, funding needs, or volunteering requirements, staff members often felt “out of the loop” during organizational decision making. The changes passed on to staff and volunteers were usually accompanied by an explanation explaining that BETA was following its “Christian principles.” Staff members occasionally felt board policy changes, implemented for faith reasons, were a

204 hindrance to the mission. Nevertheless, staff members adapted to board policy changes, as one staff member explained:

I think faith hinders the organization because we have certain standards for our volunteers…I actually got those handed to me with the latest volunteer application a couple of days ago; I didn’t get through it (yet). I’m guessing it’s the same kind of wording, maybe a few changes, but the same kind of application process. So, there are a lot of times that people that come in here that could really contribute to our program in, and really could contribute to our kids. But they may not meet our strict standards. They may not be able to fill out that application as we would like them to fill it out. We, meaning the board. I think it comes right down from the top. So, we are excluding some people from our application process who could really benefit [BETA]…I don’t know maybe no one has presented that to (the board of directors). Like hey, ‘You are hindering certain aspects of what we do here that could be better by modifying the volunteer application.’ I have never expressed it myself personally. It’s about balance. But I think we are moving a little, shifting a little bit more to maybe, not to lower our religious standards, but I think a little more about how we could be more relevant in what we do as a youth center. (Joe, July 10, 2014)

Episodic board policy changes also sometimes necessitated continuous changes to staff roles. Although their tasks constantly evolved, staff members were able to make adjustments, whether it was dealing with less “hands-on” personnel availability, additional recipients receiving care, or programming modifications. One staff member noted that board policy changes that required adjustments to staff roles were sometimes a hard transition but they still “make it work” for the betterment of the organization:

One of my pet peeves, I guess that [the executive director] is in his office when the kids are here. Not all the time, but sometimes he’ll eat his food at the counter or the table and then he’ll go back. I think it’s a little frustrating especially if we’re open, and it’s a little like a little crazy. Part of me feels like sometimes you should be able to hear what’s going on. Like I say, it’s crazy here! But a lot of it is because

205

of the building and the board is very demanding on certain financial things for him. And I get that. And obviously we’re doing fine, but sometimes it is a little hard. But it is what it is. (Jeff, July 1, 2014)

5.4 Organizing Paradoxes Organizing paradoxes at BETA pertained to issues of organizational growth, while simultaneously addressing recipient stability. BETA dealt with organizing paradoxes through staff member commitment to serving recipients, and the organization’s ability to acclimate to change.

[9] BETA demonstrated the paradox of flexibility and efficiency (Adler, Goldoftas, & Levine, 1999) through its management of recipient engagement and service delivery. The organization struggled to provide efficient service delivery as at- risk-youth ministry continually posed challenges to mass service provision. Staff members complained that they were rarely able to provide the type of instruction they wanted for recipients and, instead, had to be flexible and engage them with the client’s individual needs. One staff member explained that, “A lot of times we help them with things that the school may not be able to assist them in—in more personal matters— like helping them get their state IDs so they can get aid from the state” (Joe, July 10, 2014). At the same time, because all recipients voluntarily received services at the same designated time after school, no uniform manner or model aided the organization in providing flexible one-on-one instruction and care, while still efficiently making sure the needs of all the recipients were addressed. Recipients often “slipped through the cracks” as the organization was continuously understaffed to provide individual case management.

206

There was also a provocative level of mistrust among the volunteers and board members when it came to offering individual freedoms to the recipients. One volunteer claimed, “These kids need monitoring, absolutely! In every corner, you know, you can’t turn them loose” (Sue, July 17, 2014). Yet, there were numerous occasions when recipients were alone and isolated in programming areas throughout the building, such as, the recreation room, the kitchen, and the music room. One staff member noted that the organization’s program director had so many responsibilities that he was unable to effectively monitor the children:

The Program Director is also going to have a lot more things to do like maintaining the building, and maintaining the food pantry, and things like that. So [the program director] is in the process of trying to get people to take over certain aspects of [the service]. Like right now he’s in charge of the music part; he’s in charge of food; he’s in charge of all these other programs. So, he’s trying to find volunteers who might be able to take on some of these programs. So that he’s not the only one that can take the kids into the music room. I mean, I can take them up there, but I don’t have any idea what they would be doing up there. (Jeff, July 1, 2014)

Staff members were frequently observed moving between program areas, and all of them said they sometimes felt more like “babysitters” than ministers or human service providers. The paradox of recipient engagement and service delivery was addressed using two of the four management techniques, by establishing metaroutines and partitioning through creating subunits to handle specialized and non-specialized work tasks. Staff meetings served as the primary example of the organization’s metaroutines. Staff meetings at BETA performed an essential function for personnel to create new procedures and change existing rules. For example, during one staff meeting (April 28, 2014), personnel discussed changing recipient rules regarding access to the music

207 room in an effort to maintain constant supervision of the kids. Staff members also created new procedures for children to memorize and recite their bible verse before receiving their meal. Support staff viewed the meetings as an opportunity to ask questions about their roles and duties while “receiving their marching orders” from the executive director. And the executive director used staff meetings as an opportunity to understand issues relating to the day-to-day operations of the organization. Personnel committees were also used to allow the organization to be flexible and efficient through the partitioning of specialized and non-specialized work tasks. Personnel committees were a small group of individuals with specialized knowledge, experience, or a passion for a given area related to the organization. For example, BETA had personnel committees for the new building, human resource issues, and recipient programming. While the personnel committee in charge of the new building often managed non-routine problems, such as what type of flooring to use on the new basketball court, or what layout the new cafeteria should have so that recipients could receive food in an orderly fashion, other committees dealt with routine issues. For example, the human resource personnel committee allowed staff members to voice any problems, small or large, that they might have. One staff member discussed how the personnel committee was helping staff members cope with all the evolving roles and duties at BETA, with an increased number of recipients being served, and time management problems with the new building project:

I think my relationships would be a recurring problem, but we are just working through change as best we can. And what that means is just, we have stopped updating our job descriptions, because it’s just tough to do, as we are going through this period of time. I think that is a thing that is we are just trying to do the best we can, and what we are doing this year, we are doing on purpose is, we are bringing the personnel committee in more just to talk to the paid staff. And actually

208

sitting down and meeting all together. And then they are also meeting with them without me just to see if there is anything that comes up, just that we can work through it the best way we can…And so there are some things that come up sometimes that I realize I’m doing, or that I could be doing better. And so, when that arises we work through that. And I’ve been flexible with that, and I think that’s been very healthy for everybody. So, when things are going well we are very happy and when I maybe should do something a little different, then we work through it. The personnel committee and disciplining are more of a joint effort mainly just because of communication. Someone may say, ‘Hey, let’s just do this in-house and not worry about that.’ I’ve been burnt by that in some of our past years here, so I just bring the personnel committee in right away. And our staff knows that now. So, ‘Hey, there is an issue that either they are questioning my authority or not listening or doing things that I think are inappropriate,’ then the personnel committee gets brought in right away. And even if the paid person thinks it’s a small item, whatever it is, they are still brought in. (Elmer, July 14, 2014)

[10] The paradox of behavioral complexity management and requisite varied leadership (Denison, Hooijberg, & Quinn, 1995) was demonstrated by employee versatility while working in a chaotic environment. Staff members were routinely challenged by the responsibility of monitoring around 30 children of varying age ranges, sexes, and races. The atmosphere was always observed to be hectic, but employees had to be versatile in order to attend to both individuals and the group simultaneously. One staff member explained the constant difficulty that personnel face when trying to focus on particular individuals, while still providing some attention to each child:

We kind of generalize which ones we need to focus on more. Like at a staff meeting, we try our best to pick a kid that we feel like we want to kind of pray for, and focus on, or a kid that we thought maybe struggled last week and things like that. And so, through that I think, ‘I should…be praying for that kid.’ So, I think that helps me with that, because I have to actively think about the kid…And I mean, yeah, there are certain kids that I’m like, ‘This kid is like on the edge, he needs

209

help, or she needs help!’ Like we need to focus all of our time and energy on this one and then, ‘Oh, that one’s fine.’ But at the same time, the one that you’re saying, ‘Oh, that’s fine too,’ can easily slip under if they’re not getting the kind of attention that they need. So, I don’t know. I try my best to at least ask every kid how their day is— even if it’s a small thing, and they kind of give me the head shake {gesturing with a head nod} like it’s fine. At least that’s my biggest goal here, is I try my hardest to at least acknowledge every kid when they’re in here. It’s been a lot easier this summer with all the less attendance. (Jeff, July 1, 2014)

BETA equalized “managerial leadership roles” among the board of directors and staff members to deal with their paradox of employee versatility and a chaotic environment. The four leadership roles of innovator / broker, producer / director, coordinator / monitor, and facilitator / mentor were delegated among the board of directors, executive director, program director, and volunteer coordinator. The board of directors oversaw the creative aspect of the organization as an innovator and enabled change, while also attending to the external legitimacy of the organization through the cultivation of resources. The executive director fulfilled the producer role of the organization by focusing on task-orientated duties, and ensuring compliance in behaviors for the other staff members, while also establishing expectations and role clarifications. The program director scheduled, coordinated, and engaged in problem- solving for the organization’s most notable aspect—recipient programming. At BETA, the volunteer coordinator, who also served as the office assistant, was in charge of facilitating volunteer operations. The volunteer coordinator also had the responsibility of serving as a mentor for recipients. The volunteer coordinator was often observed seeking consensus with coworkers, compromising with volunteering duties, and seeking fairness around individual recipient needs.

210

[11] BETA exhibited the organizing paradox of strong cultures and innovation (Flynn & Chatman, 2001) through recipient stigmatization and recipient programming. Recipient stigmatization was especially influential at BETA due to its connection to the Christian church. Many of the churches who financially supported the organization also held longstanding negative views towards the children served by BETA. One board member confessed to the recipient stigma by Christians connected to the organization:

I have seen people who aren’t Christians just love, be gracious towards people, and be kind, and put some Christians to shame. And that to me, I’m glad they are good, and kind, and encouraging, but I don’t think that’s what Jesus wanted. He wanted the church, and the people they are a part of, to be obviously more caring, more compassionate. And so, to withdraw from some person based on their activities is kind of not what the church is meant to do…[but] like I said, we have too many teen pregnancies and guys fighting and all this mess. Yeah, they’ve got rough backgrounds and stuff, but when they come here, it’s not just that they are expected to behave…they know when they mess up that they are loved, even though their behavior is not tolerated. (Bart, July 25, 2014)

The strong culture of recipient stigmatization had an adverse impact on the organization’s ability to innovate. Many of the churches supporting the organization believed solely in providing evangelism and proselytization as a means to encourage normative behavior. However, this vision limited the direction the organization could take in relation to recipient programming. The board of directors prohibited outside influence from community social work organizations being involved with BETA. Likewise, the board of directors prohibited funding from corporate institutions that did not support the strict Christian faith of BETA. BETA used the management technique of normative cohesion with their paradox of recipient stigmatization and recipient programming. The strong culture of

211 recipient stigmatization and innovation in recipient programming always centered on loving kids. The strength of this group norm—to show love towards at-risk youth— resided in all individuals at BETA who believed in the Christian value to “love your neighbor.” One volunteer expressed the importance of showing the Christian value of loving people at BETA:

From a Christian perspective, Jesus tells us to love one another you. And this is certainly a place where you can love—love on the kids. And you know, some people chose to work at an old people’s home, that’s where they go to love people; they need it too. I just happen to love kids and I can come here and love kids. (Sue, July 17, 2014)

Cohesion in displaying compassion and patience with the children allowed all personnel at BETA to simultaneously identify with the Christian faith, while still providing a check and balance on its power within the organization. Personnel showing “true love to kids” meant occasionally refraining from the perception that there are “bad kids” that “can’t be helped,” or that staff needed to be constantly proselytizing. One staff member noted that, “I don’t want any kid to feel like we’re focusing more on ‘the bad ones,’ and that they are ‘not good enough,’ because they are all doing all right” (Jeff, July 1, 2014). Another staff member argued,

I think you know the overall mission is to give a safe haven for kids who come in. And then if we can plant a seed with them spiritually, then that’s great. It’s kind of very basic but yeah… we are not proselytizing every day. I don’t think proselytizing is really our mission, I don’t think that’s what we are really here to do. But faith I think is evident on two things, we have bible study, and I think faith is evident in our care that we have for the kids—our love that we show to them through our feeding program, and also through helping them with their school work and other personal issues that they may have—just caring for them. (Joe, July 10, 2014)

212

[12] BETA demonstrated the paradox of static efficiency and dynamic efficiency (Ghemawat & Costa, 1993) through its recipient programming and fundraising events. The repetitive recipient programming of daily meals, access to musical hobbies and athletic recreation, and assistance with homework, were frequently offset by the stress of preparing for large fundraising events where the outcome was uncertain. One staff member noted that, “this job can get stressful at times trying to meet deadlines for certain grants or fundraisers” (Jeff, July 1, 2014).

The organization essentially cultivated its yearly operating budget from four fundraisers corresponding to the seasons. The new building project also further complicated issues related to fundraising events, as donors became confused if they were financially supporting the yearly budget, or the capital campaign for the new building. The contrast between the continual stressors of recipient programming, coupled with concerns over fundraising, had one staff member admitting a career change may be on the horizon:

I think especially within the last five years we have been changing so rapidly with hiring more staff, and then putting them full time, and then with the building project, and the strategic plan, that I’m definitely ready to go to another career where there is not a lot of push, and the stress level is not as high. (Elmer, July 14, 2014)

BETA engaged condition improvement and condition reconsideration in an attempt to reconcile their paradox of recipient programming and fundraising events. Community collaboration was used to both improve recipient programming and reconsider the purpose and objectives of fundraising events. Community collaboration had been central to recipient programming efforts throughout BETA’s history. One staff member recalled how the community had supported, and continued to support, the organization due to the public service it provides:

213

I think another strength is just that we’re able to provide a place that the community likes. Before, like I guess 26 years ago, kids were getting into a lot of trouble in the streets. And by providing this (youth center), it kind of helps clean up the community a little bit too. We have good community support with the Mayor and the police department too— they really like that we’re here. (Jeff, July 1, 2014)

Community collaboration was also essential in continuously reconsidering the financial condition of the organization. Although board members initially believed the community would not be able to financially support an infrastructure expansion, fundraising events and continued community collaboration showed that the board should reconsider their initial position. Speaking about the building project, one volunteer highlighted “community support” by saying, “It has been a blessing to me to watch the new building come together. I’ve never seen such generosity with large sums of money…this is so supported by the community around here; it’s a blessing to be a part of it” (Sue, July 17, 2014). A staff member added,

I enjoy fundraisers because it’s really cool to see how the community supports [BETA]…and I think they’re just my favorite because all the board members come together. And I’ve been able to build a relationship with the board members. And I’ve been able to see how much the community realizes that this is something these kids need. (Jeff, July 1, 2014)

[13] In order to address changing relationships, changing roles, and a changing organization (Lüscher & Lewis, 2008), staff members at BETA also had to engage in “sensemaking.” Changing relationships occurred during staff reorganization. One staff member described how he had to change his relationships with the young people of BETA:

My relationship with the youth has changed over the years. I still go to the schools, and network with the teachers, and eat breakfast and lunch with them, and do Tuesday bible study. But on an ongoing basis, it is

214

less, even though I am still here (at the youth center). But more so I am in the office. So, my role has really shifted to the role of a principal, that when a need arises, or when there is an issue that arises, I get brought in to the equation. There has just been some change here this year with job descriptions, and just trying to work through some of that. (Elmer, July 14, 2014)

As mentioned by the staff member above, changing roles also occurred because of changes in staff expectations. As staff work tasks evolved with new job descriptions and areas of focus, so too did relationships and roles. In contrast to previously working as a group or team, staff members were now expected to work independently, with clearly defined capacities. Staff members noted how teamwork in relation to recipient programming had deteriorated ever since the organization undertook the new building project. As such, a changing organization had been mostly brought about by organizational growth. The desire to more effectively serve recipients had precipitated financial, personnel, and then infrastructure growth over the past two years. In turn, this recurring cycle of growth had also paradoxically caused changing relationships and roles among personnel at the organization.

BETA personnel also engaged in “sensemaking” through confrontation, acceptance, and splitting, in order to address staff reorganization, staff expectations, and organizational growth. Executive management confronted changing relationships due to staff member reorganization. Changing roles that occurred with the evolution of staff expectations were split and shared among support staff and volunteers. All personnel accepted a changing organization brought on by organizational growth. One staff member described some of the changes that personnel had undergone and opined that “sensemaking” tactics, into the future, included the ability to explore new possibilities:

215

If we also become more strict, and more conservative about certain things, I think we are bound to, or if we are not open to exploring new things, I think that will be like a threat to our growing. And having an executive director who would be close-minded; which I think he’s been more open-minded for the past few years because he’s had to—in some areas he’s had to because I think he’s had to raise money for this new building. Not that he’s compromising anything, but he’s had to realize a few things, and that the world is a bigger place. We’ve all had to kind of grow a little bit too, to this new process—transitioning into a new building, seeking more funding, and not compromise, but grow. And if we are not doing that, I think it’s going to be a threat to our future. (Joe, July 10, 2014)

[14] Similarly, the organizing paradox of exploration and exploitation (Siggelkow & Levinthal, 2003) was evident in recipient stability options and infrastructure improvements. BETA personnel had recently made decisions to focus on infrastructure improvements as a means to increase recipient stability options. Some of this decision making, regarding the tradeoff between focusing on infrastructure improvements over additional recipient stability options, came from thinking about what did and did not work in the past. One staff member admitted that all of the organization’s programs revolved around at-risk youth being able to obtain a meal:

I really enjoy feeding the kids. I think because that’s a need that can easily be met. Why food out of all the other areas of ministry? Well I think when I first came here, I was really trying different kinds of programming. Just the program would fizzle out. And it was hard to even track what we are doing. And the food was kind of an instant success. These kids were coming after school, and they were hungry, and they would eat. It was satisfying for them, and satisfying for us to see that. It was kind of a way for us to kind of connect with the kids. There’s just something about sharing food together. And so, we could track that; it’s easier to track how many kids we served, how many meals we served. And yeah, the numbers aspect that we need for grant purposes; that’s always something that’s tricky to come up with concrete numbers and report for grants. (Joe, July 10, 2014)

216

Thus, BETA is not currently focusing on providing new programming options but, rather, increasing the availability of options to more recipients through a larger building. Instead of the current ½ basketball court that can hold a maximum of 25 children, the new building will be able to provide 75 children access to basketball recreation with 1 ½ basketball courts. Likewise, instead of 3 computers in a public area to help children with homework at the current building, the new building will provide 8 semi-private computer stations. However, while there will be an increased supply of resources for recipients, the underlying causes of recipient instability will not be addressed. BETA did not engage in temporary decentralization and centralization reintegration of decision making to manage their paradox of recipient stability and infrastructure improvements. Organizational decision making, goal setting, strategizing, missional vision, and program innovation was continuously centralized with the board of directors; and they did not yield their authority or seek additional opinions from the support staff or volunteers to do this. Board members made even minor decisions relating to the type of flooring for the basketball courts at the new building without consulting staff members and volunteers who work one-on-one with the children on a daily basis. Perhaps most importantly, the board of directors did not ask the at-risk youth, who are the primary beneficiaries of the new facility, their opinions on the design and construction options available for the building. The same type of all-encompassing power, authority, and decision making were also evident in the volunteer selection process. One staff member reasoned of the volunteer selection process that, “I do feel that it’s a little strict with everything that we ask, there’s not much wiggle room, I guess, with the requirements from the board” (Jeff, July 1, 2014).

217

5.5 Performing Paradoxes Performing paradoxes at BETA centered on issues related to the organization’s growth, vision, and financial condition. Managing performing paradoxes at BETA revolved around ensuring that the values of the Christian faith, and commitment to community service, remained at the core of the mission by personnel at every level of the organization.

[15] Executive director control, board member involvement, and staff and volunteer freedom exemplified the paradox of individual autonomy, multiple stakeholders, and divergent objectives (Denis, Langley, & Rouleau, 2007). The executive director noted that his relationship with the board of directors allowed him significant control and direction over the organization’s budget, goals, vision, and personnel. While he had individual autonomy to make significant and small decisions for the entire organization, staff and volunteers often did not feel they had the freedom, or proper avenue, to voice their disagreement or concerns on organizational direction. For example, one of the changes staff members wished they could make was to the requirement that volunteers be only church-attending Christians. This requirement from the board of directors that staff members and volunteers had no control in making, was viewed as detrimental to BETA’s mission. One staff member lamented that,

I have a few friends who I think would be great volunteers, but they don’t go to church right now. And they don’t really feel like they need to go to church. They believe in Jesus, and that’s enough for them. And they would be wonderful volunteers here, but I don’t extend that invitation because of that. And so, I think we’d be able to reach more kids, and have more volunteers, if we were able to do that requirement a little bit loosely…They’d still be great to hang out with kids or mentoring kids and doing things. But I think that’s just something that

218

I think is hindering us from getting volunteers sometimes. (Jeff, July 1, 2014)

Although personnel in the organization who work one-on-one with at-risk youth advocate for certain policy changes, these changes have to be approved by the board of directors through a recommendation from the executive director. Although board involvement with recipients was lacking within the organization, due to their personal Christian faith, many board members still felt the need to involve themselves in the day-to-day policies of the organization. One board member admitted that,

We talked about it a board retreat last year, what role or what niche— why were we involved with BETA personally—what was it? And what I found my answer eventually being was that—it isn’t that I don’t have a concern for the kids in the community, that’s true but—I think that my primary function, my primary desire and joy, is to see a number of people committed to Christ. To come together with the singularity of the gospel of Christ in mind, and begin to use their gifts, use their differences to work together to further that—to further reach kids with the good news of Jesus’ love for them. (Bart, July 25, 2014)

This paradox was not managed by BETA. Executive management control, board member involvement, and staff and volunteer freedom resulted in excess power and authority given to board members. This also resulted in an imbalance of knowledge and experience by staff members and volunteers. However, all personnel shared a belief that Christian values should form the basis of the overall strategy of the organization. One board member expressed a shared understanding of God’s perceived role in the strategic thinking of the organization:

What does prayer look like? How do we approach it? I would say primarily we do it because we want to know what God wants. We don’t want to step out in front of Him, or move too quickly. We’ve seen that happen. It’s just a time wherein all of our planning we stop. I guess each of us has to individually humble ourselves and say at the end of the day, ‘I want to know what God wants.’ If that means letting go of an idea, or a goal that we may have had on our own, a strategy, then fine! So, there is that personal needing to know, wanting to know

219

if what we’re choosing is because we want it—it will look good in the community—or because God saying, ‘Hey, this is what I want to do.’ (Bart, July 25, 2014)

[16] Similarly, BETA exhibited the paradox of stakeholder interests and stakeholder contributions (Donaldson & Preston, 1995) through organizational Christian values and an organizational parachurch vision. Many of the staff members and volunteers disagreed with some of the Christian-only vision and values the board members directed on to the day-to-day policies and programming of the organization. However, the board members, as foundational stakeholders of the organization, were granted absolute control over its vision and values. While the board of directors relegated some of its responsibilities to the executive director, such as financial management, human resources, and goal-setting, it viewed its principal role as preserving a Christian vision for the organization through the overt display of what they perceived as Christian values. The board members viewed the organization in direct relationship with the Christian church, and identified BETA as a parachurch organization. One board member argued:

Fundamentally when we speak of board meetings, this is a Christian organization, a parachurch organization; not meant to replace the church but born of it—meant to reach the world with the gospel of Jesus Christ—that’s bottom line…You know, the programs the community needs, the social welfare of various kids and their families, that’s not the root; that’s the effect. And the cause is the gospel of Christ in it. So, I think it has to be a Christian organization. I think that’s where we are at—we represent multiple [Christian] faiths as a parachurch organization. Again, we’ve talked, said things like doctrinal differences, and parachurch, and all that; but as far as that, there is a lot of agreement in the board. There is a lot of agreement. We have some Presbyterians, Baptists, Mennonite; I think that’s it. But in regard to salvation through Christ alone by faith, and the authority and infallibility of the scriptures, pretty tight on that. I’m sure some of

220

them do some other stuff with baptism, but anyway, yeah. (Bart, July 25, 2014)

Since, according to Article I of the organization’s Bylaws (2014), the board of directors had absolute authority over the organization (p. 1), they were also given power to ensure the organization performed as a parachurch. For example, some of the stated vision duties of the Board of Directors are as follows:

The long-term vision will be very dependent on the board of directors. While the [BETA] vision is for all teens / preteens, the board will be responsible to see that its primary focus is unchurched youth. While the [BETA] vision includes a holistic approach, each program…must be designed to build intentional relationships which will serve as the main conduit for spiritual growth. In all areas the vision and practice of [BETA] will keep in line with its evangelism methodology statement. (Bylaws, 2014, p. 1)

Essentially, the board of directors was less concerned with the “social welfare” of recipients and its intention for the organization was evangelizing and “bringing kids to Christ.” Every activity at the organization, whether it was basketball, music lessons, eating with others, or finishing homework, was in some way supposed to “glorify

God” or “show the love of Christ” to “unchurched youth.” BETA did not manage their paradox of organizational Christian values and an organizational parachurch vision. Although the board of directors at BETA were entrusted with control over Christian values, and the parachurch vision of the organization, there was little synergy between faith-related attitudes, structures, and practices within the organization. For example, it was the volunteers who were charged with performing the attitudes and practices necessary to enforce BETA’s values and vision. Although BETA did not have robust structures in place for the volunteers to express their opinions, knowledge, and experiences working with at-risk youth directly to board members, empowered volunteers as stakeholders nevertheless

221 felt free to interpret their vision and values as these corresponded to those demanded by the board of directors. For example, while all personnel agreed that Christian values formed the bedrock of recipient programming, volunteers interpreted this as showing compassion, love, and patience to at-risk youth, as opposed to board members who desired an evangelistic outcome from BETA’s programming. In 2012, the board of directors approved an amendment to BETA’s mission explaining what they felt encompassed a parachurch vision for the organization:

[BETA] is a parachurch organization that embraces the vision of reaching unchurched youth with a relevant message of the good news of Jesus Christ. We work on the premise that the church must reach out to unchurched youth and that a genuine proclamation of the good news of Jesus Christ demands a holistic approach when doing so, thus ministering to the physical, emotional, and spiritual needs of those youth. We also realize that for the most part, these unchurched youth will not come to a traditional church setting, thus the need for a facility that is neutral where volunteers can build relationships with these youth on ‘their turf’ so to speak. Based on these principals, our approach to youth evangelism is to reach out to youth through program activities. (Form 990 Schedule O, 2012, p. 25)

Despite the vision of a parachurch organization based on Christian values, many volunteers felt uncomfortable “proselytizing” or “sermonizing” to at-risk youth through activities such as, billiards, ping-pong, basketball, board games and services such as homework assistance and a daily meal. Instead, volunteers interpreted their role as showing “the good news of Jesus Christ” through “living” their own personal attitudes and practices. One volunteer explained this lived attitude and practice that is common in the organization by saying:

I would never say faith is lacking in this organization. You know it’s not—you just don’t shove it down their throats. That’s the point there. But faith is lived, it’s lived. You see the signs around {pointing to scripture references on the wall}. I’ve never heard anybody raise their voice here. I mean, if you watch them work with the kids especially

222

[the program director], he almost whispers to them, and they respond. That probably amazes me more than anything. [The executive director], the same way. We never raise our voice. We simply say, ‘No more, no more.’ And if the kid continues we’ll say, ‘I’m afraid I’m going to have to ask you to leave.’ And the kid gets upset. They don’t like it when they’re asked to leave; it hurts. And that’s a good thing because then they know they overstepped the boundaries. Whereas they don’t have boundaries otherwise. So, the kids are learning all these things. The kids learn from here on up; no excuses! (Sue, July 17, 2014)

[17] The performing paradox of building employee commitment and multiple strategic goals (Jarzabkowski & Sillince, 2007) was demonstrated by staff expectations and recipient programming and survival. Staff members had vastly different organizational performance expectations than those of the board of directors. While the board of directors expected the organization to perform as a parachurch organization with a focus on evangelism, staff members interacting with the recipients on a day-to-day basis treated the organization as a “drop-in center.” Recipient programming was intended to help at-risk-youth feel safe and provide activities to “keep them off the streets.” As such, BETA staff members continually faced contradictions between carrying out the board’s vision and values and simultaneously assisting recipients in their survival. One staff member explained:

I think probably the best way to describe this more and more is as just a drop-in center that is faith-based, but doesn’t always share its faith. So, for instance, when the kids come and get their meals, they memorize a bible verse. But bedsides Tuesday bible studies, there is really no, there is no push for the message, or just to share with the kids how to get to heaven. And we are doing more of that, just to make sure kids are off the streets and in a safe place. (Elmer, July 14, 2014)

However, even though staff members encouraged the children to feel free to come and go, increasing employee commitment to mission goals was sometimes tricky since the

223 organization functioned as a “drop-in center.” One staff member claimed that the performance of the organization as a drop-in center was his least favorite part of working at BETA:

I would say the least favorite aspect is being frustrated watching one of our youths really make some gains by participating in the program, and then all of a sudden just saying, ‘I quit.’ Like not following through on a program that we may have. Because there’s no reason for him, there is no one making him come here. It’s not school; you have to go to school. So that’s frustrating not being able to work with youth consistently because it’s a drop in center. They are in and out. If you’re helping a kid go through filling out a job application and…they may go through the first process of it, and then they just don’t come in, they give up on it and then you don’t see him. And so, then there’s nothing. And there’s no parent on the other end to say, ‘Hey, you’ve got to get in there and fill that application at BETA.’ So, it’s frustrating. (Joe, July 10, 2014)

BETA was able to manage this paradox of staff expectations and recipient programming and recipient survival. Employee commitment to the organization and its multiple strategic goals of recipient programming and recipient survival remained vigorous. Employee commitment was built through “rhetorical strategies” of emphasizing the passion for the organization’s current values of Christian faith and its historical context of community service. Several personnel explained how BETA is now beginning to bridge the gap between a broader future view of the organization’s community service component, and its Christian base of support that has sustained the organization in the past. One staff member noted that a better balance in this area has helped BETA move from a prior weakness, to an opportunity for including more people who have a passion for helping at-risk youth:

I mean a couple of years ago one of the weaknesses—I think we are reaching out to grant agencies, and we weren’t doing that last year as much as we are doing now. I think just reaching out and realizing we need to be a little more, how would you say, a little more part of ‘the

224

bigger picture’ when it comes to grant writing, be more visible, be more relevant in certain areas. Such as, you know, partnering with the schools on certain things, partnering with civic organizations maybe that don’t have religious affiliations, and even partnering with folks who may have different religious convictions, but they still have a passion for youth. I think it will always be a Christian organization, yeah. Which, I mean, if we were to make that jump (to non-Christian), we would lose a big part of our base, (our) supporters. (Joe, July 10, 2014)

[18] BETA exhibited the paradox of humanitarian needs and economic objectives (Margolis & Walsh, 2003). Executive management’s desire to address humanitarian needs in the community by helping recipients often presented a tradeoff for the board of directors and the executive director as they also considered the economic objectives of organizational growth. Executive management was very conscientious of the fiduciary duty they had to their donors. Many of BETA’s largest benefactors are area churches, and executive management did not want to be perceived as “wasteful” with “God’s money.” The foremost example of executive management toiling over which direction to take between current humanitarian needs and future economic objectives took place when considering the new building project. Several personnel at BETA described how the board of directors and the executive director debated for years their present low-risk reality of a fixed but growing need in the community, and the potential for high-risk future investment of a capital campaign for a new building. One board member explained some of the problematic discussions the board of directors faced over the past few years in regard to the building project:

We were talking about (the building project) early on, and it just felt like God saying, ‘Not yet.’ So, we canned it. And it’d come up again, ‘No.’ And then after a couple of years, it was like these things that sort of needed to happen began to happen. And we all looked back and said, ‘Maybe God’s saying, go?’ It was clear to us that it was God who

225

went first instead of us wanting to go, ‘Let’s do bigger, better.’ We waited. And it was like at one point God was just saying, ‘I’m going now, are you coming?’ As it regards the building project, oh my goodness, it’s just a ridiculous amount of work…the time spent in the different committees and all the preparations…everything was a surprise, even though we were told, ‘It’s going to be bigger, more busy, cost more money. And we started out optimistically thinking, ‘We could get away with a $1.3 million project.’ And I mean it’s like $2.4 million now. We were worried to death. Let me restate, we were very concerned that we wanted to be good stewards, like decisions, on money. We didn’t even have the money! So, we didn’t want to go spending things willy-nilly. So, when we tell them $800,000—this is in the beginning, that’s when we were just talking—then we just were talking about a million. Well, we just set it for a million. We were just like, ‘Are you kidding? We are talking about a million dollars!’ We had a $150,000 budget at that time. And we are talking about where are we going to find a million dollars? But to see the $2.4 million now…this is crazy! (Bart, July 25, 2014)

The paradox of helping recipients and organizational growth was optimized at BETA by support staff and executive management. The primary duties of executive management at BETA were to ensure that property claims from invested stakeholders, efficiency controls, and administrative and human resource due process were accounted for in the structures of organizational performance. Conversely, the primary duties of support staff were to ensure that dire community conditions actually trigger a response by the organization, that all at-risk youth in the community have an opportunity to benefit from the organization, and that the organization upholds its beneficence duty by providing charity to those in need in the community. Although the roles of executive management are to be primarily concerned with economic objectives, while the roles of the support staff are to be primarily concerned with humanitarian needs, both executive management and support staff supported the objectives of each other. All staff members at BETA noted how they worked together to achieve their own objectives and the objectives of their coworkers. As explained by

226 one staff member, ultimately all staff members worked together to achieve the organization’s joint financial objectives and humanitarian goals because of their Christian faith and call to Christian service:

I think faith plays a huge role, just because without it, there’s no purpose for us. Like I often think that the ‘Great Commission’ is just to go out and help other people, and go out into the world, and just help them. And that’s what we’re doing! Like we’re providing meals for kids that don’t get meals. I mean, just yesterday there was a little kid out there. He beat me to work. And he didn’t have breakfast. And there’s just nothing at home for these kids. And I think that we’re meeting their needs. So, I always see things as a Christian that I need to go out and serve. I need to do these things. I need to be a servant. And through that, I need to help people around me…I think that faith plays a huge chunk in it for me. And I think for [BETA] being a faith- based organization, just because we’re meeting these kids, what they need, and we’re not judging them. I often think of like the ‘Woman at the Well,’ and things like that. Where there are people who clearly would judge but we open our doors for these kids. And we know what they need. And they need food, and they need love, and that’s why we’re doing it. We do it because it’s what we feel as Christians—it’s like our call to do it. (Jeff, July 1, 2014)

5.6 Cross-Category Paradoxes Cross-Category paradoxes. BETA displayed three unique cross-category paradox exemplars. BETA’s cross-category paradoxes were primarily evidenced through staff members having to perform despite several changes in their work environment due to the chaotic nature of serving at-risk youth. Performance issues were managed through techniques that addressed staff member learning, organizing, and belonging, such as focusing on service values, teamwork, and Christian faith.

[24] BETA demonstrated the learning::performing paradox of exploration— exploitation and innovation (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009). Exploration tensions of

227 recipient stability and exploitation tensions of Christian programming were further complicated by innovation contradictions over community collaboration. The organization had a community-wide interest and potential investment in creating new programming to aid at-risk youth. However, in order to improve and innovate in its at-risk-youth service, BETA often chose not to seek additional community collaboration and resources. For example, although the area school district allows staff members into the building to work with the teachers of the recipients, BETA does not allow these same teachers to volunteer at the organization unless they are a church-attending Christian. Even though the teachers work with the recipients on a day-to-day basis, and possess specific knowledge that could be useful to advance stability on an individual recipient level, the organization is less interested in “social work” and more interested in “ministry.” Similarly, the organization has turned down grants and funding from community organizations and foundations on the basis that they feel their Christian programming is at risk. Many BETA personnel viewed collaborating with certain non-Christian people and organizations as “dangerous.” One staff member described how they perceive that a national grant agency would not provide funding to the organization without BETA reducing some of its evangelistic positions. Furthermore, the staff member, representing the views of many personnel, felt the absence of funding and collaboration with BETA was actually a loss to that national grant agency:

The only thing that hinders [BETA] is as we are doing fundraising, organizations like the [national grant agency] will not financially support us. And when we have those situations arise, God always blesses us abundantly after we have made that decision. So really faith doesn’t hinder us. It’s just, I think it takes a blessing away from people like the [national grant agency] that could support us. But because we

228

are faith-based, they said they can’t. And so, I will share with them that they are losing out on the blessing. (Elmer, July 14, 2014)

Exploration tensions of recipient stability, exploitation tensions of Christian programming, and innovation contradictions over community collaboration were managed through integration and differentiation. In order to perform the integration and differentiation techniques, BETA personnel had to learn to balance which rhetorical and identity strategies they would use under various circumstances while consistently performing within their stated Christian values. Personnel differentiated between recipient stability and Christian programming in order to facilitate community collaboration by using rhetoric highlighting the important aspects of social service. Activities such as basketball, and services such as homework assistance, were identified as a way to “keep kids off the streets,” and were used to bolster cooperation from the school district, police department, and civic organizations in the community. Conversely, Christian programming and recipient stability were integrated when collaborating with community churches for quarterly fundraising events, and routine church volunteers. Activities such as bible study, and services such as prayer, were mentioned by personnel as reinforcing financial and volunteer support from the churches in the community.

[28] The performing::organizing paradox of coordination and control (Gittell, 2000) was on display at BETA through the work of its volunteers and board members. Due to a high volume of recipients compared to a small number of staff members, volunteers were crucial to the operation of BETA. For example, successful delivery of “the daily meal,” the monitoring of activities, and general staff support were all made possible through coordinating volunteer services. In addition, if problems during

229 recipient programming arose, volunteers needed to be able to respond to unpredictable situations. However, there were several instances where volunteers were unsure of their role or responsibilities. On one occasion (July 1, 2014), volunteers from a local church were late arriving with the daily meal and were not prepared when kids began to line up to receive their meal. Partially due to the late arrival of the volunteers, some recipients began to get impatient and resorted to fighting by pushing in line, while some older recipients “bullied” younger ones by insulting their clothes. The recruitment and coordination of volunteers rested solely on one staff member at BETA:

I get to try my best to recruit volunteers. So, I do that just kind of when I’m out in the community or, at my own church, or when we go out to churches. We hand out fliers to get more volunteers. And so my role in that is I get to check up on our current volunteers and see how they are doing, making sure that they are doing okay. Because we don’t ever want a volunteer to leave here feeling like they weren’t helping or feeling like a kid said something too mean to them. Because sometimes kids can be mean to our volunteers. So, I try my best to check up every night to see how they are doing, and see if they have any concerns with the kids, or see if they have any concerns personally. And then with recruiting new volunteers, I get to go through their applications and read their applications, and contact their references, and do their background checks…but mostly right now, it’s just that and coordinating them with our calendar—trying to show when they are committed to it. And if we are ever closed or hours changed, we have to call all the volunteers and things like that. I can foresee in the new building more people wanting to volunteer, it will be a little overwhelming. (Jeff, July 1, 2014)

However, while this staff member coordinated volunteer operations, he did not control volunteer selection, training, or discipline. Instead, the board of directors controlled the volunteer selection process. One board member admitted that he, and several other board members, had never volunteered to support staff members in day-to-day operations at the organization:

230

What’s it feel like to volunteer here? It feels like where Mondays I’d rather not come to a board meeting! But I’ll come, and by the time l left, I couldn’t imagine myself having done anything else…[but], like I said, I’m not really here on the volunteer level with the kids. So, I’m certainly not hanging out with them in town. I just don’t know them; which in some ways I feel a little bit ashamed about that. Like, ‘What kind of guy am I?’ But then I go back to what’s my mission, what’s my goal—it’s to balance my family, to balance my involvement here, to balance my involvement at church and such. (Bart, July 25, 2014)

Despite this lack of knowledge or personal experience of what makes an effective volunteer at BETA, the majority of the board of directors still felt their role in controlling how staff members coordinate volunteers was appropriate. This paradox was managed at BETA. Staff members and the board of directors had shared responsibilities in accountability, supervision, employee selection, and conflict resolution. Staff members and board members maintained cross-functional accountability in order to diffuse blame if something went wrong, and to improve quality of performance. For example, the organization now uses what it refers to as “tracking sheets” in order to monitor the progress of at-risk youth. These tracking sheets include information about attendance and activity preference information, along with listed individual needs and characteristics. One staff member explained that the use of tracking sheets by the program director and volunteer coordinator has helped keep them accountable to the board of directors, in terms of sharing knowledge about what services are used and by whom:

I think it’s been, probably two years ago, and we now do tracking sheets that get handed out at board meetings. And so, the bar has been raised a little bit, especially with our program director. Just number- wise who are we working with, and what kind of programs we have been doing. And then our [volunteer coordinator] is doing that as well with some other items that we are working through. So, the benchmark has been raised. But also, instead of those individuals just kind of coming and going and doing what they felt was natural, now they feel, and have shared that, they are more accountable. And the bar has been

231

raised that, ‘Hey, we have to make sure we are doing our best here,’ and that we are keeping track of what we are doing so that we can know if we are meeting our goals, or if we need to change our goals. (Elmer, July 14, 2014)

Similarly, board members and executive management share responsibilities in supervision and employee selection. Board members, on the basis of recommendations by the executive director, have the “final say” in selecting employees for the organization. Board members and support staff review the executive director annually in December. The board of directors and executive director review the support staff annually in September. There is, however, no structure in place for staff members or volunteers to supervise, review, or select board members. Finally, the personnel committee, made up of staff members, board members, and volunteers, address conflict concerns. While there is no anonymous system for informing others within the organization of issues in performance, staff members and volunteers were encouraged to use the personnel committee for both small and large complaints. For example, one staff member described how the personnel committee is relatively new at BETA, but its resolution process has already helped with conflict among organizational personnel:

And just learning through the process of some things that happened a few years ago has helped. I think just when you go through any kind of issue that is pulled out of the context of what did happen, you just learn from it, and grow from it. And you just know that there are boundaries. So, I think, in essence, I have more boundaries with the board members than I have ever had before, which is very healthy. So, for instance, there is less social time, hang out time, than I have done in the past. When you become ‘buddy, buddy’ with a boss and then a hard decision has to be made, sometimes that gets a little wishy-washy. And so, just again, we are growing and learning. The personnel committee now is fairly young, just two years with these individuals, and they have

232

helped work through some things. And it has been in a healthy way. (Elmer, July 14, 2014)

[30] Finally, BETA exhibited the performing::belonging paradox of perceived organizational identity and construed external image (Dukerich, Golden & Shortell, 2002). Staff members, volunteers, and some board members perceived that BETA’s identity is that of a Christian service organization—an organization that focuses on helping recipients because their faith compels them to do so. Some personnel perceived the organization’s identity in basic service to at-risk kids as a “drop-in center,” or even just a place to “hang out.” As one volunteer stated, “The mission of the organization is taking kids in who don’t have a home life. They’re hurting, and come here, and hang out, and sit around, and get their free meal” (Sue, July 17, 2014). Still, others viewed the organization as a service that helps children feel “safe” and “loved,” as this staff member indicated:

Ultimately, I think [BETA] just provides an outlet for kids to feel safe and to feel loved. Because they go through so much at school with getting yelled at by teachers or friends or all these things. They just need a place to go after school, or just a place to find people that love them for who they are, no matter what. And I like it, because even when kids are annoying, or get in big trouble, it’s really cool because we give them a clean slate every day. So, they can screw up really bad, and we can send them home. But then tomorrow, they can come back and it’s fine. (Jeff, July 1, 2014)

While most personnel accepted the perceived service identities at BETA, some board members construed the external image of the organization more religiously by viewing

BETA as a parachurch ministry. In fact, some board members were uncomfortable with the perceived identity of the organization as primarily a social welfare or human service organization because it took “Jesus” out of focus. One board member noted that it was his job to ensure that BETA was not like other “social parachurches.” This

233 board member described some of the consequences he sees in how other parachurch organizations, that identified themselves as primarily a “social needs provider,” have hurt themselves by not focusing predominantly on Jesus and evangelism:

I think Parachurch organizations, I would think a lot of them have become more socially driven—‘social gospel’ even—where they’ve reached out to the social needs and gotten away from ‘Jesus matters.’ The change of heart, matters. The life that lives up, and is renewed, matters. And then, by just getting into modes of providing for material or social needs, it’s hurting [them]. So yes, organizations like [BETA] replace evangelistic outreach by churches. (Bart, July 25, 2014)

BETA managed this paradox of Christian service and parachurch ministry through organizational identification with Christian faith, and organizational cooperation with Christian values. The strength of the organization, as perceived by BETA personnel, was its Christian service to at-risk youth in the community, and its Christian values. A sense of belonging for staff was essential to them feeling that their faith was witnessed (through the service they provided via the organization).

Although BETA self-identified as a parachurch ministry, organizational cooperation was made possible because of BETA’s commitment to the community. One volunteer noted that this mission enabled personnel to feel a holistic sense of belonging with their coworkers by being more concerned with showing their faith through basic morality teaching to at-risk youth:

The organization is saturated with faith. I mean it’s strictly faith. We pray about everything. At the board meetings, it’s prayer. We do devotions. We’re very much in harmony. We don’t have any fragments out there. When we’ve worked with the kids, often times when they all go home, we pray for them. We enforce the morals, the standards, everybody’s on board with that. If you’re not on board with that, you’re not working here; and you don’t beat them over the head with it! You just hope that they see something here that they’re not seeing at home. (Sue, July 17, 2014)

234

Similarly, parachurch issues related to complex theological doctrine or frequent evangelism was all secondary to the primary Christian service mission of establishing an organizational identity rooted in Christian values for at-risk youth. The Christian values of the personnel were a direct reflection of the values of the organization. Christian values also allowed personnel to perform in a manner consistent with their faith. One staff member concluded that,

The values and culture of the organization are that you get to work in a positive atmosphere. That you know that you are getting encouraged and prayed for by the board members, as well as the community. And the culture of the organization is sometimes challenging at times, but I think that is what we are geared towards. And we can make a difference in the kids’ lives. (Elmer, July 14, 2014)

5.7 Summary BETA exhibited all 33 paradoxical exemplars, but was able to manage 23 of them. This case report explored all 18 core paradoxes, along with paradoxes [24],

[28], and [30] from the cross-categories. Despite belonging, learning, organizing, and performing issues related to their all-compassing, and sometimes overbearing, organizational faith identity as a parachurch ministry, BETA’s implementation of several paradox management techniques was crucial to their ability to sustain their programs and community support.

235

Chapter 6

DELTA ORGANIZATION

6.1 Overview Historical Context: Founded in 1982, “DELTA” organization started as a partnership amongst four churches in an exurban area “to provide a nonprofit service that will minister to the spiritual, physical, material and emotional needs” (Articles of Incorporation, 1982, p. 1) of their community. The Mission Statement (2008) proclaims that “[DELTA] is a Christian social service agency that shows the love and hope of Christ by serving our neighbors in times of need and supporting their efforts toward stability” (p. 1). DELTA serves a tri-county area that includes a diverse mix of rural, urban, suburban, and exurban population centers. According to a 2013 Annual

Report, the population of the service area for the organization is 257,074 people. DELTA served 12,254 people from 5,709 families and, of the three counties served, 9% of the total population fall under the federal poverty line (p. 8). At the time of data collection, DELTA operated six facilities and several mobile food pantry sites housed in participating churches. DELTA maintained over 200 church partnerships along with affiliations and collaborations with over 75 businesses and organizations. DELTA distinguished itself from the four other organizations in the study by being the “largest” organization in terms of the number of recipients served, paid employees, and operating budget. Paradoxically, the size of the organization also meant that DELTA was profoundly dependent on volunteers in order to perform their services. While the organization was relatively consistent in size and service in

236 achieving moderate growth over 25 years (from 1982 to 2007), since the 2008 financial crisis, the organization had grown exponentially. A Strategic Plan (2013) crafted to help cope with organizational growth noted: “This incredible growth is due to three factors: increased program capacity, an enlarged area of service, and the impact of a nationwide recession” (p. 2). As DELTA grew, it chose to focus on the number of recipients served, sometimes at the expense of meeting its recipient stability goals. Some stakeholders seemed to harbor resentment over this instability and the numerous changes that had taken place over the previous several years by making their complaints publicly known, or even resigning. Financial Background: DELTA had an operating budget of $1,546,000 for 2014 (Budget, 2014). DELTA lists its largest benefactors as individuals ($457,000) and churches ($240,000). DELTA lists its greatest expenses as staff salaries ($676,500) and programming ($334,500); which equates to roughly 22% of the budget allocated toward programming expenditures. Between the years 2010 and 2014, 990 forms indicate that DELTA was financially stable as it increased its total net revenue by $2,038,735, and grew its net assets from $2,039,019 in 2010 to $4,219,715 in 2014—a total increase of $2,180,696, or 106.94%. This significant financial growth in net assets was due to expansion and mergers and acquisitions of partnering and competing food pantries in the area. RQ 1 Findings: DELTA exhibited all 33 paradoxical exemplars. While DELTA maintained a consistent external faith identity, some stakeholders believed internal faith elements had changed due to organizational growth, and were now lacking; especially in their faith relationships with the recipients. The demonstration of faith was perceived as absent, or not significant due to staff job expectations

237 stemming from administrative requirements. Although the organization’s faith elements were in existence at its founding, several staff members felt DELTA was not fulfilling its foundational faith principles, which state that the organization identifies as a “nonprofit Christian social service ministry” (Bylaws, 2011, p. 1). According to DELTA’s Articles of Incorporation (1982), the organization’s “ministry is in obedience to the Word of God as revealed in the Old and New Testament Scripture and in the name of Jesus Christ” (p. 1).

RQ 2 Findings: DELTA implemented several paradox management techniques and managed the majority of the 33 paradoxical exemplars. DELTA managed 26 of 33 paradoxes including: [1], [2], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [12], [13], [14], [17], [18], [20], [21], [22], [23], [25], [26], [28], [30], [31], [32], and [33]. The idea of recipient stability and self-sufficiency is a defining aspect of the organization for its stakeholders. Recipient stability thus represents part of the reason “why” (vision) behind the mission. Faith represented the other reason behind the mission and was also a crucial component of the organization’s sustainability. The consistent external and internal faith identity of the organization as a “Christian social service agency” was a source of belonging, organizing, and performing for most personnel at DELTA. Several personnel at DELTA felt an unwavering commitment to hospitality for recipients, including through its implementation, through the dual modes of creating a “professional” or “business-like” organizational atmosphere, and a “caring” and “compassionate” personal attitude.

6.2 Belonging Paradoxes Belonging paradoxes at DELTA were related to personal faith, organizational faith, and rapid organizational growth. DELTA staff addressed belonging paradoxes

238 through management techniques such as adopting a realistic view of work while keeping separate from work tensions through personal perspectives.

[1] The paradox of personal core values and organizational core principles (Badaracco, 1998) was exemplified through the expression of individual Christian faith and DELTA’s commitment to Christian social service. Staff members expressed their sense of belonging to the organization by way of their own personal faith. In fact, as a Christian social service organization, DELTA overtly sought to hire staff members who could demonstrate an individual Christian faith. However, as one staff member explained, not all volunteers in the organization maintained an active Christian faith:

I think from a macro perspective it starts with our statement of faith and our mission statement. And our mission statement is we are a Christian social service agency that shares the love of Christ. I really feel a compulsion to make sure I name the name of Jesus in what we are doing…we are a group of committed Christians who are doing this because of our love for our Lord, and because, you know, we love our neighbors…So we are a ministry of our local church. That doesn’t mean that every volunteer here is a faith-oriented volunteer; we don’t have a requirement to be Christian to volunteer or to be served. We do have a requirement for staff, however…and [we are] legally allowed to discriminate, as a religious organization, on the basis of faith…and have passed by good [employee] candidates because they could not articulate a personal faith. (Arthur, August 5, 2014)

Yet, staff members mentioned a lack of faith being evident in the organization because of its commitment to social service, and its “business-like” approach to helping recipients. The organization demonstrated contradictions related to faith in the areas of relationships and programming. Faith was also perceived as not the most critical aspect of the organization, or always part of job-related tasks and decision making

239 processes. For example, staff members expressed frustration over not praying before staff meetings (August 18, 2014), or not discussing spiritual development at board meetings (September 22, 2014). Staff members also noted that in relation to their job- related tasks and decision making processes, faith “may just be less” than what they desired. Additionally, staff members frequently felt that faith was absent from their job-related tasks and decision making processes given the restraints of their work in the organization. One staff member, struggling to describe how faith “ebbed and flowed” in the organization, and the times and spaces where faith became apparent in the organization, if at all, said,

I don't know that faith is lacking, but I think it might just be less…I feel like it's there, and it just kind of comes when it comes. Because [DELTA] is, it's more business; it's less of the being with the people. So, it's, I don't know that it's removed, and I don't know that you need more of it, and I don't know that it's lacking. But I guess, in my mind, I'm thinking when I say ‘business,’ I think because we’re trying to keep everything moving. That's really what we have to do is to be able to have everything else move, so that everything here can happen; that's how I view it. So I don't know that it’s not there, it’s just in my mind, it's more you’re focused on doing those administrative tasks that aren’t related to program tasks that have interaction with clients. (William, September 22, 2014)

The paradox of Christian faith and Christian social service was managed by balancing idealism and realism. All personnel held idealistic views of service independence for recipients. For example, staff members’ core value of Christian faith enabled them to project positivity and hope that all recipients could wean themselves off of DELTA’s assistance. One staff member explained that the organization is more than just a food pantry, and that with all the available programs for recipients, recipients could use them to become service independent:

240

We’re not just a food pantry; which is what we started out as 30 years ago, pretty basic, it works! We’re still a food pantry. But GED classes, certified nursing assistant programs, scholarship funds…to get a cosmetology degree, or a CDL…so because we have all these different things, including after-school programs, it isn’t just the fact that we’re providing food. As key as that is. But we’re giving them—the people that we help—the opportunity to become self-sustaining. Try to break that cycle of poverty if they have been in it, or to try to get them back on their feet, it’s through nothing that they’ve done that they’ve landed down here. And we’re here to help them…we hope to have the success rate of making people self-sufficient, self-sustaining, and independent, and not need the government’s interference; but until that time…that poverty level has been tough. I can’t believe people are actually trying to make it work on those numbers; I can’t! I don’t know that I could, and I'm pretty darn good with money. But it’s ridiculous. (Milk Glass Maven, August 26, 2014)

Simultaneously, personnel also ascribed to the organization’s core principles of Christian social service, which held realistic views about service dependence. Despite praying for recipients, engaging recipients in faith-related conversations, providing basic need’s assistance, and life skills, staff members knew that not all recipients would be able to “lift themselves out of poverty.” The reality for many recipients, whether due to physical, mental, social, or even spiritual obstacles, is that they are unable to survive in America’s political and socio-economic system without some assistance. As such, personnel often felt “tough love,” or realistic expectations and accountability, should be placed on recipients to help cultivate the fortitude needed to endure societal obstacles. For example, DELTA personnel enthusiastically perceived their stability programs as providing a “hand up instead of a hand out” so that recipients could “help themselves.” As explained by one staff member, these social service programs are meant to encourage recipients to deal with the reality of their situations:

Another challenge I feel strongly about, is that just giving people free stuff ultimately harms more than it helps. We have to learn how to

241

empower people; not just keep adding more, and more, and more, to our service load. Change is hard, and takes time. I want to support folks as they do the work to become self-sufficient, but we need approaches that get people to be able to meet their own basic needs. (Arthur, August 5, 2014)

[2] A paradox of belonging occurred when staff members felt their individual identity was contradicted by group identity (Brewer, 1991). Most staff members at DELTA individually identified with the Christian faith. However, many staff members were challenged by the group’s identity, when DELTA identified itself as a human service nonprofit. As a human service nonprofit organization, DELTA’s primary mission states it serves “our neighbors in times of need and support[s] their efforts toward sustainability.” With volunteers and many recipients unable to identify with, or even antagonistic towards the Christian faith, some staff members were uncomfortable when they had to “defend their faith” from those who did not share their beliefs. On several occasions, recipients were observed asking staff members,

“Where’s your God in my life?” or “Why did God do this to me?” In addition, staff members were confronted with the “strict human service and nonprofit side of the business” when donors and charitable organizations were concerned more about the quantity of people served, than if the organization was making a spiritual impact, and creating stability for recipients. One staff member noted:

I think that—the quality—if we really want to actually make a difference, then numbers won’t be as high. Because a lot of times— just like say for instance we have 35 people come through the financial literacy class—none of them really get it, and we don’t have time to follow up with all of them. We can’t connect with all of them. Where if you have three people, and you really have the time to commit and be relational with them, and just be able to help, them like really, really get the big picture of what we’re doing here, and really see a difference in their lives, then, I think that’s more important. But I know at the

242

same time, that funding comes from the big numbers; that, ‘This is how many people we helped.’ But did we really help them? It looks like we help them on paper, but did we really actually help them, or we’re just doing it just to say we did it, or are we actually really helping them? And so that’s, I guess, the quality versus quantity thing. I think that’s where that numbers thing comes back into play. There is a lot of pressure, very usually from our non-Christian, non-faith-based grants and donors and things like that—businesses that just want to see how many people we’ve helped. And instead, well, I feel like our report should show like a face instead of a number. But instead of that, ‘Here is a list of numbers of what we’ve done’ and ‘Oh, it’s not good enough.’ (Vicki, August 19, 2014)

For the paradox of Christian faith while belonging to a human service nonprofit, DELTA personnel utilized the management techniques of assimilation and differentiation. Specifically, staff members compromised between teamwork and personality traits in order to assimilate and differentiate between social identities. Staff members highlighted that a “team” atmosphere fostered belonging, as well as being committed to a group identity as part of a human service nonprofit. Many personnel expressed how difficult it was dealing with the nature of human service work, and they felt that they could confide most of these emotions in their coworkers. At the same time, personnel enjoyed distancing themselves from their work through their own individual identities. Christian faith and personality traits served as unique identifiers amongst coworkers, and these individual identity markers were encouraged and supported in the team environment at DELTA. One staff member described the molding of personalities at the organization to highlight how coworkers were similar and different, at the same time:

There’s a good sense of teamwork, there’s a good sense of camaraderie. It’s probably one of the most close-knit groups…in terms of the employees and that molding of personalities—because you have 23 personalities, all distinctly different. Some who are so quiet, little mice, and then you got, me, who’s not! And it’s a whole different, a whole different thing. And [the executive director] does a really good

243

job of trying to balance all these personalities. Not a lot of men in the group, it’s all women. More power to him because, man, I know what we (women) can be like. (Milk Glass Maven, August 26, 2014)

[3] Belonging paradoxes were seen between organizational continuity and organizational change (Huy, 2002). DELTA’s organizational continuity was maintained through its mission. The majority of staff members viewed the mission as reinforcing personal faith through an obligation to help and love people. As one staff member noted, “I would say the overall mission of [DELTA] as a whole, is sharing the love and hope of Jesus Christ through meeting human needs” (Thomas, August 20, 2014). The common belief in the mission kept staff members engaged and committed to the organization, which aided in sustaining the continuity of the organization. The overall continuity of the organization due to this mission was noted by one staff member when she said, “There’s a longevity of employees here that’s, from my field, that’s pretty good. So, there’s a lot of people that have been here for a long time. And that I think speaks to the mission, and speaks to the administration” (Milk Glass Maven, August 26, 2014). However, organizational growth presented rapid change at DELTA. Organizational change was seen by many personnel as potentially having a long-term detrimental effect on DELTA’s continuity. One staff member, representing the feelings of many staff members, felt organizational growth could prevent future service provision:

The greatest weakness for me today, is the fact that as we’ve grown, but we don’t have a physical presence in every community we serve. Our greatest strength comes when we have a local presence and the community feels a strong sense of ownership for what we do. The communities where we are weakest in support are in areas of mobile service delivery. I also see the incredible growth we’ve experienced

244

over the past five years as a challenge to sustainability. We’ve worked hard to grow intelligently, but my greatest fear is not being able to keep these programs going. On a related basis, we’ve gone from serving 4,500 people a year, when I started eight years ago, to serving 14,500 people this past year; with growth of over 20% in the last year alone. I honestly don’t know, long term, how to keep providing services if this growth continues. (Arthur, August 5, 2014)

DELTA did not manage the paradox between their mission and organizational growth. Executive management at DELTA were continually driving change in order to provide improvements and growth to services and the organization as a whole.

However, “adaptation” through “emotional balancing” was not engaged as a tool to induce continuity during organizational change. Several staff members and volunteers noted that they were not able to adequately employ calming processes to voice feedback and share concerns. Instead, despite emotional reservations, personnel were instructed to “get on board” with the changes. One staff member claimed she almost quit due to the constant improvements and growth:

Like, we work as a team but I’m definitely more on my own as far as the area I cover…there were times where I’m like, ‘Oh my gosh, I’m going to quit.’ But I think that’s the same with anyone, especially in this position. When they hired me…to do this they were kind of like, ‘All right, just kind of make it up as you go.’ And so, some days I’m like, ‘What am I supposed to be doing?’ because…we are constantly like, ‘Okay, well, that’s not working, so let’s try this.’ And it’s constantly changing…so I think that’s probably the challenge that I face—the pushback that I feel sometimes from some of the other people in the organization as far as like coming in and changing things. And not knowing if it’s going to work anyway, but at least I’ve been trying to do different things. Well obviously, what we were doing wasn’t working, and this may or may not work, but, ‘Let’s try that.’ So, it’s just like one of those people that constantly come in and stirs things up. And that’s not necessarily something that people like. (Vicki, August 19, 2014)

245

[4] The personal independence and personal interdependence paradox (Markus & Kitayama, 1991) was also on display at DELTA. Staff members dealt with the opposing forces of their personal independence as a non-employee, and their personal interdependence as an employee. There were two central issues related to this paradox for staff members at DELTA. First, employees had concerns over time management. Several staff members claimed that their work at DELTA was very demanding on their “personal time” away from work as they sought to balance other interests, like family and church. One staff member explained of the tensions surrounding personal and professional time management:

I know like with [DELTA], in a sense there’s a lot of weekend activities. Like we have a walk for hope, we have a fundraiser, or these different events sometimes. It’s that tension of, ‘Okay, do I be home with my family, or do I go to [DELTA]’? You know when sometimes it may feel like the expectation is there to be involved with [DELTA]. (Thomas, August 20, 2014)

The second issue related to the “emotional investment” that is demanded of many staff members due to the nature of working with at-risk, disadvantaged, and impoverished populations. One staff member recalled how difficult it was to separate the employee from the non-employee, even at home during her “personal time” when she said,

When I first started all those years ago, I took cases home with me. I would cry myself to sleep! And my husband would say to me, ‘You are going to quit that job!’ Until I was able to roll it off on to God. And then after that, I said, ‘I can do this.’ And I don't take any work home with me anymore. (Dorothy, August 27, 2014)

However, some staff members continued to explain that other staff members are still unable to separate their work life from their home life. One staff member mentioned that one of the center managers she trained is still investing herself too heavily in her work tasks:

246

I trained [the center manager]. And I did try to instill in her the need to take care of herself, and the need to open up, and to talk, and to share cases, especially in the beginning. She had never done this work before, and I am not sure I did such a good job with [her] because [she] is very hard on herself, very hard on herself! So, if somebody is angry, she takes it personally. And I tried to talk to [her] saying, ‘Look, it is not your fault that their electric is shut off, they didn't pay their bills, not your fault.’ But she feels responsible. And at the end of this—she works until 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 o'clock at night—her husband has also asked me to, you know, ‘Keep an eye on her.’ And I do, but she is just that personality. And that is very difficult, and it is going to take its toll after a while, and I think it has (taken a toll on her). (Dorothy, August 27, 2014)

DELTA personnel managed their non-employee and employee paradox by synergizing their non-employee and their employee personas with their personal values. Personnel often engaged in the management techniques of thinking (cognition), feeling (emotion), and acting (motivation) in order to maintain a healthy view of themselves, their work tasks, and their relationships with others. For example, staff members would spend time during staff meetings to pray (act), share stories (feel), and listen (think) to others. Staff meetings were a time to address their personal interdependence with the work they do at DELTA, in order to help maintain personal independence from their work while away from the organization. In other words, staff members used time with each other to discuss work and disclose emotions so that they were less inclined to “bring it home” with them. One staff member explained this disclosure and discussion process at staff meetings, saying,

I think that’s probably two places faith is most prominent in the organization. One would be our staff meetings…when we come together and we share what’s going on personally, or in our work life. And I generally, you know, ask a question, ‘Have you seen God work, either in your personal or professional life?’ And if we don’t cut it short, you know, like half an hour, I mean, we would literally go all day. There are tears and there is just, it's hard work. And when we come together, and then we pray for one another, or we break into

247

small groups, and we pray for one another. It’s almost like a church service. That’s nice. There needs to be a place where we come together, we are unified. We are, you know, we are celebrating, and we are suffering with one another! I think it’s an experience that a lot of people, and I myself, don’t get in a local church. (Arthur, August 5, 2014)

[5] DELTA displayed the paradox of organizational identity plurality and organizational identity synergy (Pratt & Foreman, 2000) by retaining multiple identities as an established community faith-based nonprofit human service organization. Although DELTA had been providing for human service needs for over three decades, they did not regularly discuss their establishment in a single community because their service area had changed drastically over the course of their history. DELTA had been in one community for over twenty years, but within the last decade, it had expanded to six other communities, along with mobile services to eight areas across a tri-county region. As such, the organization did not try to highlight its growth or its various establishments across the communities they served. Instead, when speaking to those unfamiliar with the organization, and potential donors, DELTA focused on their faith-based identity and reputation as a nonprofit organization. One staff member claimed:

I think our Christian identity is a great strength. It unites churches from a lot of denominational and theological backgrounds together in programs that love our neighbors. We try to lift up the name of Christ in everything we do, and share God’s love with our guests. As a result, we have been blessed with abundant resources to share. Despite being a Christian ministry, we have an incredible reputation in the community. This is related to our high standards and innovative approaches to programming. Other strengths would include an incredibly strong volunteer force, quality staff, and strong partnerships in the community. (Arthur, August 5, 2014)

248

However, several volunteers, board members, and staff members were uncomfortable with the organization maintaining a pluralistic identity with multiple communities and establishments, each with their own unique histories. For example, the center managers of the original location, and the next two oldest locations, often felt that their centers were overlooked in favor of the “newer” centers (August 19, 2014). A few board members also discussed their concerns at a monthly board meeting regarding the logistics and expense of serving multiple sites, along with the continued expansion, by asking the question: “Who are we becoming?” (September 22, 2014). One staff member, discussing DELTA’s multiple identities, even argued that “being stretched too thin” was the organization’s greatest weakness:

We have that 30-year benchmark—that we’ve been doing it and getting stronger, and bigger and better. But then you have to wonder if, maybe, ‘Okay, are we too big?’ Which I guess any organization has to worry about? I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I’d have to think on that one. I do know we are being stretched too thin and expanding too fast! (Milk Glass Maven, August 26, 2014)

This paradox was managed at DELTA by deletion of their multiple identities as an (1) established and (2) community organization. As DELTA has recently expanded rapidly through the area, they no longer identified with a specific local site. Recently, DELTA had attempted to focus on creating a new history with their additional communities. In order to remain balanced in terms of its identity, DELTA could no longer view its mission, in relation to its multi-decade establishment in a single community, as part of a singular ongoing identity. Instead, DELTA chose to focus on the remaining three aspects of its organizational identity as a (3) faith-based, (4) nonprofit, and (5) human service organization. Several long-standing staff members and volunteers became upset when addressing this change in identity as the

249 organization was no longer synonymous with their organizational host city. At the same time, these same long-standing staff members and volunteers were hopeful that the recent changes, and organizational growth, would help to carry the organizational mission beyond the foundation city to new areas and communities in need. In an effort to create synergy with the other center locations, and balance the loss of a singular established community presence in the original host city, DELTA executive management planned to reinvest infrastructure improvements in the original center to elevate its physical condition to that of the newer centers.

6.3 Learning Paradoxes Learning paradoxes at DELTA mostly centered on improving services for recipients while contending with commitment and development issues. DELTA staff members and volunteers found success in using teamwork and harnessing the power of relationships to manage learning paradoxes.

[6] The paradox of exploration and exploitation (March, 1991) was shown through recipient stability and volunteer commitment. DELTA explored new ways to provide recipient stability through additional programming. These programs covered several educational areas focused on recipient learning, such as, cooking and nutrition, and basic household financial management. Personnel also had to learn how to implement recipient programs, and what methods and models would be fruitful for teaching adults “basic skills.” A staff member described some of the recipient program learning processes by saying,

Oh gosh, our mission focus has really changed over the years—I mean the stability program. You know, before I felt like we were just a ‘Band-Aid.’ We were just putting something over the wound, and it

250

would heal by itself. Now we are offering GED classes, we are offering the stability program, across the board-certified nurse’s training, you know, literacy classes, English as a second language, and all of these things. I see people changing. Since I have been here so long, I am now having some great-grandchildren come in. And it is heartbreaking, absolutely heartbreaking. But I see some of these great grandchildren not getting jobs. You know, ‘My mother was on welfare, my grandmother was on welfare, so I might as well be on welfare.’ That mentality is changing. They don't want to be on welfare. They don't want to be here. They want to be out there. And they want to be working. And [DELTA] is doing something about it to help them reach their dreams and their goals. They have the same dreams and aspirations as we do, but they don't have the tools to go about it. So [DELTA] is doing something about that—we are giving them the workshops. (Dorothy, August 27, 2014)

At the same time, volunteer commitment to the evolving mission focus from a “hand out” to a “hand up” was difficult for some volunteers. Several volunteers were observed becoming frustrated with the recipients. For example, volunteers usually assisted the recipient in selecting their food, and would argue with them if the recipient chose something that they were not designated to select from the color-coded food pantry shelves (August 8, 2014). On one notable occasion (August 19, 2014), one volunteer yelled at the executive director because he disagreed with the adequacy of the topics covered in the financial literacy class. Thus, DELTA struggled at times to get volunteers who were committed, not only to the mission, but also to the work involved in carrying out the mission. Volunteers, as a reliable source of labor, were difficult for the organization to exploit. As one volunteer explained, volunteers at DELTA have had to learn to evolve, just like staff members, to a changing organization:

I learned a lot from (the mission). I learned to have compassion! And you understand, you never know what’s going on in the lives of the people that are here. So, I get irritated at times, but really, you never know what really is precipitating that hostility that you might find in

251

one of the recipients. So, it’s a different mindset…well, I think sometimes many of us have frustrations. I think we have to learn to be more tolerant here as individuals. I think the staff, they are in this because of what they believe and sometimes we (volunteers) have to change our mindset a little bit, and understand that maybe somebody is struggling with something else. Dealing with difficult people, I think that sometimes we (volunteers) don’t handle that very well. (Jake, August 26, 2014)

DELTA’s paradox of recipient stability and volunteer commitment was managed through a balance of fast and slow learners and old and new knowers. Staff members and volunteers mentioned the learning process of gaining experience and knowledge by working together. Several volunteers had been at the organization for over a decade, and were often eager to help newer staff members establish relationships with recipients, other volunteers, and their fellow staff members. At the same time, staff members enjoyed launching new policies, procedures, and programs with volunteers in an effort to better help recipients take care of themselves. Both staff members and volunteers found common ground when trying to aid recipients, and involved themselves in team learning in order to improve the organization and its service delivery. The most notable area that staff members and volunteers worked together to mix old and new knowledge, and experience, was in the area of recipient engagement. One staff member described this staff member and volunteer joint learning process of getting to better understand the experiences of recipients:

I have seen the poverty experience! And I think it is useful as an entry point to understanding. I was meeting with a volunteer last week, and she was helping us during the (recipient) interview process. She was just telling us, ‘You know, the last shift I worked was one sad story after another all day long.’ And she has had the experience. And I think she has been doing this (work) for 14 years of hearing thousands of stories. She is more knowledgeable than most social work program graduates because she has had the experience of meeting people, and hearing them, and realizing that we have a lot of people who are victims. And it’s not that they can’t change but they sure face a lot

252

more struggle than you do, or I do on a daily basis. In trying to get the judgment out and…I mean particularly when put in the context of spirituality, we talk about hospitality, and we talk about lack of judgment, and we talk about love for your neighbor. But really I might not understand you and what you are going through, but I am not going to sit here and pretend that I do, or pretend that I know that what’s best for you. That’s half way. And I think, you know, that is something that they talk to us about in our social work training—is that, you may have lived the same experience of a client. Maybe you have been sexually abused, and your clients were sexually abused, but that doesn’t mean you still understand what their experience is like. You only know your experience. And to assume that what they have experienced is the same, and what they are feeling is the same that what you are feeling, is a real falsehood! And so, you develop a learning perspective that is to teach me what is it like for you, and you listen empathically. And it really doesn’t matter whether you get it or not! (Arthur, August 5, 2014)

[7] The learning paradox of building a shared vision and team learning environment (Senge, 1990) was revealed through recipient survival help and recipient stability. Personnel at DELTA confronted oppositions in the shared vision of needing to help recipients in “survival mode,” with wanting to aid those seeking their own “stability” and “self-sufficiency.” Several personnel described hearing recipient stories where recipients had suffered inadvertent tragedies, such as an unforeseen job loss or sudden medical issue that deeply impacted their desire to help recipients in need. Personnel also dealt with many recipients whom they perceived did not want to

“help themselves,” and were frustrated by allocating resources to those “who just take advantage of the system.” As such, personnel said that they learned to realize, over time, that “you can’t help everyone,” and that it is important to focus on improving some recipient conditions for those willing to do the work necessary to improve their situations. One staff member described a common dilemma personnel face when having to gauge if a recipient can be stabilized or become self-sufficient:

253

They (recipients) need to do the things that get them to where they need to be. That’s different. And the concept that we are using is stability. Stability and self-sufficiency are not necessarily the same issue. Self- sufficiency is that you don’t need any external services to be able to meet your basic needs. Stability means to the extent that you are able, you are able to provide for your own basic living. Some people don’t have the capacity for self-sufficiency, or they cannot easily achieve self-sufficiency, but they can increase their stability. So the idea is that you are taking steps towards the goal…you know, most of what they depend upon comes from community agencies or government support, or friends and family…if you have a three-year plan to work with them…and they might still need to visit the food pantry once a month, and come once a year—when they just get short, tight, they can’t afford a car repair bill—that’s still huge progress. We need to be able to encourage them to take those steps. You can’t say overnight, ‘Take up your bed and walk.’ We don’t have those powers; but we can provide step-by-step accountability and support to be able to get them to the next level. (Arthur, August 5, 2014)

DELTA engaged in systems thinking in an attempt to reconcile their paradox of recipient survival help and recipient stability. As a framework for understanding the holistic principles of interconnectedness within their organization, personnel at DELTA sought to create, cultivate, maintain, and utilize relationships in order to preserve and develop the organization. Whether it was “tapping into” volunteer resources for “heading up” a new program, collaborating with schools to mentor children after classes concluded, or partnering with churches to service recipients at mobile food pantry sites, staff members and board members at DELTA recognized that relationships “make things happen” and “help keep the organization afloat.” DELTA staff members viewed the organization at its most basic level as a complex system of interrelationships—all learning and working together with a shared vision to fulfill the mission. For example, one staff member explained the importance of relationships in regard to both growing the organization, and sustaining the

254 organization when something unforeseen happens, such as when a delivery truck broke down:

All we can really do is, use the tools that we have to the best of our ability. And I think a huge part of it is thinking beyond what we have always done and reaching out to people. And that’s the key difference —relationships—because fundraising in the end is all about relationships. I mentioned the truck campaign—we did have a truck die a year or so ago. And we needed $35,000, and that wasn’t planned. So, we effectively went through kind of our donor lists, and identified some key people and organizations, and we reached out to them individually. And we were able to secure that funding. And every donor understood what we were faced with. And so, they were able to reach out and give us the funding…but if we didn’t have those relationships in place, we wouldn’t have been able to do that! And I think that exact same thing is true with this growth that we are talking about; because even though we can’t guarantee what those numbers are going to be every year…being able to reach out is not as hard as it would be if you didn’t have these relationships. When you talk about growth that would be extremely challenging. So, having the development team in place, and knowing the steps to take in order to increase these revenue streams in these communities, is crucial and balances out. (William, September 22, 2014)

[8] The paradox of episodic change and continuous change (Weick & Quinn, 1999) also highlighted learning issues within the organization. Infrastructure development and recipient programming at DELTA contributed to an organization undergoing numerous changes in several areas. With DELTA’s recent focus on shifting the mission to providing stability programs, in addition to basic needs assistance, the organization had to implement continuous change aimed at increasing programming options and models. The organization had to learn to allocate resources toward areas such as teaching household finances or nutrition and cooking. The organization would then reassess the program and learn what worked, and what did

255 not work, before updating its programming. This continuous cycle occurred with all their recipient programming in an effort to improve programming options, availability, and outcomes. The most common continuous issue DELTA faced with recipient programming that made the programs change, was the lack of consistent recipient attendance at the programs. For example, there were several instances where only one or two recipients would attend nutrition and cooking classes. The staff member in charge of the nutrition and cooking class told a recipient that the format would change again shortly, in an effort to increase attendance. She stated that, “We are trying to revamp the program. Before, we would spend about an hour and a half talking about nutrition and then have 30 minutes of cooking. In the future, the class will be shorter” (August 12, 2014). Conversely, DELTA’s emergency and routine food pantry program offered a consistent, well-developed program that was not subject to many changes. In order to perpetuate the program, however, the organization undertook substantial infrastructure development projects to expand food pantry access to new communities, and produce more options and education through adding more building space, food items, and kitchens to prepare fresh food. The logistics of these improvements also required technological changes to software programs, increased inventory controls, more volunteers for food sorting labor, and more cost in electricity for food refrigeration, and fuel for food transportation. Thus, DELTA personnel were routinely challenged as they confronted a seemingly chaotic environment affected by both continuous programming, and episodic infrastructure change. One staff member explained that the learning process connected to change had been a challenge for many staff members, and even volunteers, due to the structure of the organization:

256

I push people really hard. Sometimes maybe a little bit too hard. I have got a great team that I work with, and we have had a cultural problem of, ‘Shit flows downhill.’ So, you know, I give a subordinate something to do, it’s going to be uncomfortable. And then they pass the buck and they say, ‘Well, I have do this.’ So, we call it, ‘Throwing people under the bus.’ And we did that all the way down to our volunteers. So, I would walk into a room and people were mad at me. I'm like, ‘Why are you mad at me?’ ‘You are making us do this.’ I'm like, ‘Well, that’s not fair because this was a process that lots of people had a hand in making.’ We had both external and internal reasons making the change…change is a process. (Arthur, August 5, 2014)

DELTA managed the paradox of infrastructure development and recipient programming by adaptation through teamwork and adjustment to evolving staff roles. Staff members and volunteers were able to adapt to changes in infrastructure and procedures by committing themselves to achieve the mission of the organization together as a team. If staff members or volunteers were experiencing increased demands due to episodic organizational changes, or even personal issues, their coworkers offered to help them complete tasks until they were able to learn new routines to achieve their new work objectives. As one staff member argued, DELTA coworkers were able to rely on each other:

I love everyone I work with. They’re all really great people! And I think that we work well together. We have to because we have to rely on each other because there is not that many of us. We kind of have to know everybody’s job around here—to be able to pick up slack if someone actually wants to go on vacation, or someone is sick, or something else comes up. You have to be able to step in whenever. (Vicki, August 19, 2014)

Evolving staff roles also presented an opportunity for staff members to adjust to continuous changes. While the organization had specific job descriptions, staff members learned to balance continuous change in the organization brought about by the nature of human service work, and recent organizational growth. One staff

257 member explained that he, and other staff members, had learned to “go with the flow” in order to accomplish short-term daily tasks, and long-term organizational goals:

I think, with the nature of what we do, and this happens all the time…something came up, and I went home, and I was talking about it, and…it was just like, ‘Oh my gosh, we are doing so many amazing things and there are so many amazing opportunities, and you can't say no to it!’ You just can't, you know? If it didn't fit, if it didn't make sense, we'd say, ‘No.’ But there are so many opportunities for us to really do whatever it is—programming, fundraising, or marketing—that when it comes upon you, it's like you do have to drop everything you're doing and move with it, because if you don't, someone else is going to get on that and move with it. So, I can't say that it's that there is too much on my plate. I can't say that's it not delegated…because I feel like you just have to go with the flow! I think maybe, the change would be that more staff and volunteers would go with that, would understand that way of working. You know that when something comes upon you, that if it's an opportunity—it just makes complete sense, or you can't say no to it—that you do have to drop something. And it might be that it doesn't get done as quickly as it should have. The same with like if a guest walks through the door. You know, if someone walks through and you may have had your next appointment planned, and you're going to do this, and you're going to do that, but if someone walks through that door and changes everything, and you have got to help this person, you got to do whatever it is, then that's what you do! I think the staff gets it more than probably a lot of the volunteers. I think that if you had more of that, I mean that would be awesome—if people worked like that. But that's a change in people! And I don't know that you can train that? I know you can talk about it, but I don't know if you can train it. (William, September 22, 2014)

6.4 Organizing Paradoxes Organizing paradoxes at DELTA revolved around issues related to recipient programming, volunteer dependence, and fundraising. DELTA dealt with organizing paradoxes through retaining personnel involvement in committees and preserving personnel commitment through common strategies and values.

258

[9] DELTA demonstrated the paradox of flexibility and efficiency (Adler, Goldoftas, & Levine, 1999) through recipient engagement and food pantry service. The food pantry at DELTA was its largest and most expansive program, with four building locations, and six mobile service sites installed at area churches. Regardless of location, service was standardized, formal, and with specified rules. Recipients had to make routine appointments to access the food pantry in advance, and were required to “show up on time” in order to enter. Recipients were asked to reschedule their appointments in cases of absence or tardiness. Upon entering the building, recipients were required to “check-in” and receive a number and wait to be called. At DELTA’s building locations, rules specified that only one recipient per volunteer was allowed in the food pantry. At DELTA’s largest facility, this rule meant that up to five recipients could enter at once. At DELTA’s smallest location, two recipients could enter at once. Once in the pantry, recipients were allowed to select one or two items from each of the color-coded food items corresponding to the food pyramid guidelines (boxed grains, canned vegetables, fruits, dairy, and protein), along with excess donated items in the “fresh food area.” Each recipient was given around 20 minutes to select their food options, with the assistance of a volunteer. Recipients then had to wait for a volunteer to bag their food. These procedures were designed to allow for an orderly service process, for both the recipients and the volunteers. While DELTA aimed to achieve efficiency in its food pantry service, it came with the tradeoff of not being flexible in relation to recipient engagement. Many volunteers and staff members listed recipient engagement, such as conversations, prayer, and hugging, as their favorite work task. Recipient engagement was also described as the most challenging aspect of serving recipients due to their perceived

259 selfish attitude and disruptive and aggressive behavior. On several occasions, recipients were observed shouting, arguing, or physically pushing past or against people, and taking items they were not supposed to receive (August 8, 2014). The paradox of recipient engagement and food pantry service was addressed by establishing metaroutines, enrichment activities, switching between routine and non-routine tasks, and partitioning, by creating subunits to specialize in work tasks. Organizational policy handed down by executive management served as the primary example of the organization’s metaroutines. These policies, whether popular or not, were adhered to by all personnel in the organization as part of a shared vision to improve infrastructure, programming, and fundraising. Enrichment actives most often took the form of staff member devotionals in staff meetings, or before and after meetings with board members and volunteers. Prayer was frequently observed (September 22, 2014) at meetings, and was the primary vehicle through which personnel felt connected to God, each other, and their work. Switching occurred through individual autonomy that was granted to employees. Executive management understood the fluid nature of human service work, and set broad guidelines for achieving routine tasks, so that when non-routine tasks arose, they could either be capitalized upon or completed. Staff member freedom to “take time out of their schedules” to engage recipients and volunteers in conversation or prayer was supported and encouraged as a fundamental aspect of maintaining successful relationships throughout the organization. One staff member spoke about the freedom he felt working at DELTA:

I think just being able to be more of myself, and grow as an individual, and also being able to take what I’ve learned from the mission of the organization…So for me, it's been an opportunity to grow personally in my faith walk. But then also to really go beyond what I had ever been

260

able to do before with integrating (my faith) with the mission of [DELTA]. And being able to have that freedom to express myself in conjunction with the mission through materials, through language and marketing in general, and fundraising in general. So that's the biggest difference. So, if I say freedom, it means a lot of different things, but it really spans everything! (William, September 22, 2014)

Finally, partitioning, through committees, allowed subunits within the organization to focus on items of specialized knowledge and experience, such as fundraising, infrastructure, and programming. Explaining the importance of a specialized committee to the organization, a staff member noted DELTA has successfully utilized a fundraising committee to set-up and run their golf tournament fundraiser:

So, if you get committees—like our golf committee rocks—they plan everything, they get the solicitations, they go out, we print out their email, brochures and things like that. We (staff members) don’t do…what you would think. The committee, it’s a very committee-run oriented group of people. And that’s really what nonprofits want, is to have the committees take it, and go with it, because that’s kind of one less thing for us (staff members) to do. (Milk Glass Maven, August 26, 2014)

[10] Employee versatility while working in a fluctuating environment highlighted the paradox of behavioral complexity management and requisite varied leadership (Denison, Hooijberg, & Quinn, 1995). DELTA’s employees had to be responsive and adapt to the different challenges that presented themselves during their routine work tasks. Several employees noted the fluctuating environment when describing their work tasks and the “many hats” they had to wear in order to accomplish their tasks. One staff member described additional duties he had to perform as part of “gearing up for school” that he held in addition to his normal duties:

Volunteer recruitment—I have the next two weeks here—I have a meeting with potential volunteers that are interested, background checks and paperwork to do. So those are a couple of projects. I have

261

three, four projects lined up. You come into the office and you get this whole slew of emails. It’s time management there. What are your important emails? What are your projects that you got to work on? So you have to wear many different hats, and bounce from one thing to the next. And you got your deadlines! (Thomas, August 20, 2014)

Another staff member explained how staff members are already “stretched thin” with their current work tasks and need to be able to both say “no” to some non-routine demands that some coworkers may unexpectedly place on them, while simultaneously being able to ask for help:

I think what we need to do as a staff is remember that there are coworkers to help, and not to be afraid to ask for that help. But if it gets overwhelming—because I think we are so focused on what we are doing, that most of us, myself included, don’t know how to ask for assistance—we don’t know how to say, ‘No.’ And we have to learn to say, ‘No.’ Because there is only so much a staff of 24 can do. We are stretched pretty thin! And some people are wearing multiple hats. And I just, I think some thing’s going to give at some point in time. And we’ve talked about it. (Milk Glass Maven, August 26, 2014)

DELTA used the equalization of “managerial leadership roles” among the executive director and program director to optimize employee versatility while working in a fluctuating environment. At DELTA, the four leadership roles of innovator / broker, producer / director, coordinator / monitor, and facilitator / mentor were split between the executive director and the program director. The executive director upheld roles with an external focus as a flexible innovator / broker and a stabilizing producer / director. The executive director was the “public face” of the organization. He was perceived by most personnel to be creative, encourage change, set goals, and made clear the expectations of personnel. He also preserved the legitimacy of DELTA within the community, and acquired essential resources from alliances, connections, collaborations, and partnerships. The executive director was frequently observed remarking how he was bringing a reputable vision to the

262 organization and that he wanted people outside the organization to know that, “We are not a bunch of nutters” (August 5, 2014). Conversely, the program director sustained roles with an internal focus at DELTA as a flexible facilitator / mentor and a stabilizing coordinator / monitor. The program director was frequently seen by staff members and volunteers as “bringing a softer touch” to the organization, and helped to shape the perception that the work of the organization is “a faithful ministry” with Christian values. The program director was responsible for providing stability during frequent periods of change through problem-solving, seeking consensus, and supporting fairness and individuality among the staff members and volunteers. One staff member remarked how the program director at DELTA was responsible for the interior decorating of the centers, which were meant to give recipients a “warm and welcoming feeling.” While another staff member claimed that the program director is “protective of the recipients” and that volunteers and staff members view her as “the mother” of the organization (August 5,

2014).

[11] DELTA also exhibited the organizing paradox of strong cultures and innovation (Flynn & Chatman, 2001) around recipient stigmatization and recipient programming. Recipient stigmatization was extraordinarily powerful at DELTA due to its strong connection to community culture. The area culture had been described by several personnel as “working class” that did not like “to give handouts but rather hand ups” to help recipients take care of themselves. Unsurprisingly, this strong culture of recipient stigmatization was manifested through personnel in the organization, and it created issues when it interfered with recipient programming.

263

Personnel were frequently observed arguing with recipients, or judging their behavior by rolling their eyes, raising their voices, shaking their heads, or audibly sighing in irritation (August 14, 2014). Several staff members noted that recipient stigmatization is a known problem at DELTA, and that it had impacted recipient programming, especially the food pantry service. One staff member explained his frustration that recipient stigmatization has been so bad at times that DELTA had had to dismiss volunteers:

It’s not about you! It’s about (recipients), and what they are getting out of the experience. You know, don’t do any harm in the interaction! If I can train people to that point and gosh, it’s one of the hardest things I deal with, particularly in this culture. Because we are in a very, very conservative…I don't mean socially, I mean, culturally conservative German immigrant culture. (Volunteers) just, the recipients get a bag of coffee and (volunteers) don’t want to give (recipients) a bag of coffee. I catch people pouring a bag, the coffee into five little bags. I'm like, ‘Put it back. Give them the whole the bag. Alright!’ ‘No, do you go and get a little bag of coffee when you go to a grocery store?’ Treat them how you would want to be treated! How you want your mom to be treated! And I actually get into some conflict with people. And I know it comes from that cultural background, but sometimes we have people that cannot ease up on our guests. And we have to remove them from a direct contact role because they are so darned critical. (Arthur, August 5, 2014)

DELTA did not use the management technique of normative cohesion, but did use conformity with the paradox of recipient stigmatization and recipient programming. The strong culture of recipient stigmatization and innovation in recipient programming was addressed by attempting to create an atmosphere of loving neighbors, regardless of personal religious, social, or political beliefs. While all staff members identified with the Christian faith, not all volunteers were Christian. And even some Christian volunteers were known in the organization to harbor strong feelings of disdain toward recipients. However, in an effort to minimize

264 confrontation, reduce stereotyping, and encourage innovation, DELTA enforced conformity to the mission of showing “the love and hope of Christ by surviving our neighbors.” One staff member explained that conforming to a belief in loving neighbors was essential to being successful in the organization:

I want to make sure that…we’re seeking what is the will of God. And ultimately Jesus said, ‘To love the Father, love God with all our heart, and to love our neighbor as ourselves.’ That’s if you want to know ‘what the law is summed up,’ that’s what you do. And then try to flush that out. Well, how do you do that? I think there are a lot of good organizations that do good things, but I want to make sure for my myself, and the staff I work with, that that’s coming out of a ‘heart for Jesus.’ That Jesus is leading us to do that. So yeah, I very much believe in the power of prayer…and that (recipients) have the options that they themselves can experience ‘the risen Christ.’ Yeah, I’d just say love and compassion for people, and helping people, are the greatest strengths of [DELTA]. The quality staff, they generally are relational and enjoy helping people, love people—just the sense I get from everybody is they’re doing it for the Lord. They’re doing it because they love Jesus first, and I have seen their compassion for other people. (Thomas, August 20, 2014)

[12] Recipient stability and infrastructure improvements at DELTA displayed the paradox of static efficiency and dynamic efficiency (Ghemawat & Costa, 1993). Recently, DELTA faced the realization that in order to help create stability for recipients, improvements to the organization’s infrastructure were necessary. For example, the organization started as a food pantry, and after several years personnel realized that many of their recipients did not understand how to cook the food they received. So, after receiving funding and support over the last few years, DELTA installed a commercial kitchen in their largest facility, and planned on installing a kitchen in all their facilities over the next several years, with the goal of enabling nutrition and cooking education programming. However, the organization had faced

265 tradeoffs in choosing between their objectives. This was because both recipient stability and infrastructure improvements required substantial resources, including funding, planning, and staff and volunteer time and commitments. As such, both objectives fell behind providing services for children and youth services, and basic needs and crisis assistance. In fact, the recipient stability program was the third most crucial objective in DELTA’s 2013 five-year strategic plan, and infrastructure development was listed as the seventh objective. This paradox was further highlighted by the fact that the strategic plan for recipient stability included many other focus areas, including financial education, GED program growth, and job training. DELTA engaged condition improvement and condition reconsideration in an attempt to reconcile recipient stability and infrastructure improvements. Strategic planning was used to both improve recipient stability, and reconsider the purpose and objectives of infrastructure improvements. For example, one of the strategic plans to help with recipient stability was to “launch monthly nutrition education classes at each center to teach clients to make healthy meals on a budget” (Strategic Plan, 2013, p. 5), which coincided with the intention “to develop effective facilities and tools to support service delivery and program growth” (Strategic Plan, 2013, p. 4). Strategic planning had led to improving the conditions of recipients by focusing on their stability, while simultaneously reconsidering their financial, social, and spiritual needs, and how DELTA could best help recipients through their organizational infrastructure. As an essential component of the continuous improvement of the conditions of recipients, strategic planning at DELTA included multiple stakeholders across all personnel levels. One staff member described how strategic planning, because of “stakeholder

266 buy-in” into the decision making process, had allowed for improvements to the recipient stability program, and fundraising development:

[We] set up a program committee in this process of reviewing outcomes of service statistics every year. And trying to make sense of them. And to make some strategic decisions. I think it’s critical. And I am dragging them through the weeds, you know, all the details. And I say, ‘I don’t want you to be hung up on the detail, I want you to help me look for trends.’ I want multiple people, whether it is a program director, or the managers who are running the individual programs, or the board to have an understanding of ‘why and what we do matters.’ And lead them through that decision making process. What I love is when my program director has taken…this direction of creating programs that inspires stability. The same thing with the development program where we have been incredibly successful as a small organization with community fundraising. And now I have got the staff who are telling me, ‘I think we need to do this,’ ‘we need to do that.’ And that fits into my idea that the essential knowledge of the organization, decision making process—we do the same thing with the strategic planning by the way—but it’s held among multiple people in the organization. (Arthur, August 5, 2014)

[13] Staff members at DELTA engaged in “sensemaking” in order to address changing relationships, changing roles, and a changing organization (Lüscher & Lewis, 2008). Changing relationships occurred during evolving staff expectations. Several staff members noted how their role had evolved, and their job requirements had intensified, as the organization had grown. Staff members sometimes communicated their frustration or had to “make sense” of the changes in order to complete their new tasks. One staff member noted how some DELTA staff members had reacted negatively in their relationships with other staff members due to these changing expectations:

[We] have some individuals, and I am sure this is true in the life of any organization, who started before I came to work here when the culture

267

was different, and the expectations were different. We have changed and become much more performance-oriented. We have also tripled the size of the organization in terms of people served during that time period. So, we had to get a lot leaner and…there is more accountability for staff. And there are some people, they don’t love the changes. And sometimes behind your back will get a little, ‘I don’t know why we have to do that’ or ‘I thought this was a ministry.’ You get some of that feedback…some of these tend to be the older staff in the organization. [We] could face an issue of age discrimination if it drew a line on the sand and said, ‘You are out.’ [We] don’t want to do that. And so, I know that there is going to be an inevitable retirement point. And I am probably compensating a little bit and trying to keep them engaged. But boy, am I looking forward to the day that a few of these people are retiring! (Arthur, August 5, 2014)

Changing roles also occurred because of volunteer dependence. According to DELTA’s Annual Report (2013), the organization boasted 886 volunteers who provided 22,806 service hours to the organization, which equated to 11 full-time staff positions (p. 6). The organization had increased its dependence on volunteers to fill essential roles that would otherwise have had to have been funded and staffed by employees. For example, food pantry, receptionist, social work, and warehouse positions are all now filled by volunteers. These changes have not been well received by some staff members and volunteers. One staff member recalled another staff member who resigned due to the increasing demand for volunteers:

Well, the executive office had wanted to change things around enough that they wanted volunteers to take more responsibility. Like, everybody that works at the front desk is a volunteer. Everybody in that food pantry is a volunteer. I mean, we couldn't run this ministry without volunteers! And they wanted them to be more responsible in doing case work, and doing things like that—making decisions for people to get food; but not to do it without direction from the executive office. And so [one staff member] didn't like that part of it. And she told [executive management] that she didn't like it. And [executive management] said, ‘Then you have a choice, you can either get on board, or not.’ And she chose not, and she left. And she left unhappy and told some stuff, I am sure! (Dorothy, August 27, 2014)

268

Finally, a changing organization has been mostly brought about by organizational growth, which was also responsible for changing relationships and roles. “Sensemaking” was used by DELTA personnel in order to manage staff expectations, volunteer dependence, and organizational growth through confrontation, acceptance, and splitting. Changing relationships occurred because staff members who viewed their expectations as unrealistic were eventually confronted by other staff members. Changing roles that occurred due to volunteer dependence were split and shared amongst even more volunteers. A changing organization brought on by organizational growth was accepted by all personnel. Staff members routinely voiced their concerns with any coworker relationship issues they had, and typically chose to confront problems through a passive means of discussion, and prayer at staff meetings. The constantly change roles of volunteers, due to new policies and procedures, were counter-intuitively equalized by adding even more volunteers into the mix, to share in completing tasks. While this approach did not solve the organization’s issue with its dependence on volunteers, it nonetheless spread tasks over a larger population of volunteers. Also, the organization has acknowledged its volunteer dependence, and its need for increased communication and decision making responsibilities amongst its volunteer base. As the 2013 strategic plan indicates, DELTA intends to balance concerns over changing roles in volunteers by way of the following changes:

Enhance communication efforts to involve volunteers to a greater extent in program changes. Activities will include staff and volunteer training on improving communication. Immediate follow up will include sharing results of volunteer surveys and communicating how these will be acted upon. (Strategic Plan, 2013, p. 6)

269

Finally, the proposed changes were accepted by all personnel, even if all staff did not agree with them, or found the “solutions” to the challenges lacking. An acceptance of issues related to change was at least seen by all personnel “as a first step” in making “a good faith effort” to manage people’s concerns. As one staff member stated, DELTA is aware of an ongoing communication issue between individual center managers and executive management, who reside in a separate location, and that some effort is going to be made to deal with this challenge:

Communication among the centers and programs is a weakness, both with staff, the different centers, and the programs…and the executive office. I think it's been a challenge, but I also think that we've been trying to address the challenge, and trying and come up with solutions too. But I still think it is a weakness. I think we operate on a very lean personnel budget. I think there are some people who are definitely overworked—that the job that they are tasked to do is overbearing. But I also believe there have been steps to move forward to try and address those as well. So, I don't think that they are not understood or heard, but I just think that’s a challenge. (William, September 22, 2014)

[14] Exploration and exploitation (Siggelkow & Levinthal, 2003) were also evident in the organizing paradox of recipient programming and community resources. While DELTA explored possibilities to improve new programming options, the organization simultaneously dealt with reassessing how to exploit community resources for recipient programming. For every program proposed or adopted within the organization, organizational strategy necessitated matching community resources in the form of funding, personnel, and support. However, locating and maintaining initial and ongoing community resources was a constant challenge. DELTA personnel noted that financial and volunteer support was often cyclical. It came and went with holiday seasons, special events, or capital building campaigns. One staff member

270 explained the difficulties inherent in the organization establishing and preserving its community resource support streams:

I would narrow it down and say we are a parachurch ministry. And practically what it looks like is that we are doing jobs that are important to a church, that churches don’t have the qualifications and resources to handle. That is—caring for the needs of the poor. You need to have extensive knowledge of community resources, and you need a lot of money, and a lot of talented people. Churches are good in feeding a central program like ours, but their enthusiasm kind of ebbs and flows. So, you get some ‘up-church’ that is really passionate, even though there are 20 regular committed volunteers for a year or two, and then it starts trickling off. And a couple of years later they will get excited again…I don’t just want to be chasing funding. I want programs to truly benefit the people in our community. Growth without local support, and remaining true to our Christian identity, would change who we are as an agency. I see the potential for competition for resources if we do not stay in touch with the needs of the communities we serve. We have also relied heavily on volunteers. If we don’t manage them well, we could lose key people. Conversely, if we don’t hire adequate staffing—we have essentially the same number of personnel we had eight years ago when we were serving 4,500 people a year—we risk the loss of quality in our programs and the ability to retain staff. (Arthur, August 5, 2014)

Temporary decentralization and centralization reintegration of decision making were used by DELTA to manage their paradox of recipient programming and community resources. Decision making exploring recipient stability, and exploiting infrastructure improvements, was sometimes deferred to committees within the organization. Committees often consisted of stakeholders at all levels of the organization with specialized experience or knowledge in a given area, such as programming, development, or fundraising. One staff member explained how the committee structure, and organizational decision making processes, worked at DELTA by describing her efforts on one of the organization’s committees:

271

I work with the development committee, which consists of board members and community members who pretty much monitor the development plan through the course of the year to make sure that we are on track to identify any deficiencies, any causes for concern, address any ideas or strategies that might be different from the development plan initially, and to report to [the executive director] any type of major changes or concerns that I can see as a result of all that analysis. (William, September 22, 2014)

While the board of directors and the executive director at DELTA never wholly relinquished control of the decision making process, and ascribed to their centralized roles, they did make efforts to include subsets of personnel throughout the organization in order to help make informed decisions and retain personnel commitment to organizational strategy and goals.

6.5 Performing Paradoxes Performing paradoxes at DELTA centered on issues related to the organization’s growth and volunteer reliance. DELTA managed some performing paradoxes by ensuring that personnel remained committed to the organization through their Christian faith. However, the organization did not do enough to address serious concerns from volunteers about their importance, roles, and power within the organization.

[15] Volunteer control, volunteer dependence, and volunteer commitment at DELTA exemplified the paradox of individual autonomy, multiple stakeholders, and divergent objectives (Denis, Langley, & Rouleau, 2007). Volunteers were influential stakeholders as they represented the largest personnel group. As an essential component of service delivery for the organization, DELTA was heavily dependent on volunteers. Any changes that impacted volunteers often represented a tumultuous

272 transition period at the organization. Generally, volunteers at DELTA were given the freedom to select their area of work, and the same freedom to provide labor and services according to their own schedules. However, executive management did not allow deviation from their procedures in recipient engagement, programming, and service delivery. For example, several volunteers (August 5, 2014) mentioned their displeasure about upcoming changes to the warehouse cataloging system. One volunteer explained of the new warehouse cataloging system that, “I hope it stays the same. I don’t want any more projects…I’m not doing it! Really, I just want something like what I’m doing now” (Jake, August 26, 2014). Several volunteers felt they were not given a voice in the change process, control over their chosen area, or individual autonomy to make a decision they thought was best for the organization. One staff member explained his view on the issue of volunteer control at DELTA, saying:

We are switching that warehouse over to a computerized inventory system. It’s going to add new tasks, you know, food intake. When the food comes in, and when food goes out, and when you move it from one shelf to another, you are going to have to track it on the computer. I am sure, there is going to be volunteers saying, ‘This is a pain in the butt.’ ‘What, I have to get out the scanning gun, and scan those barcodes, or change the amount on the pallet when I take something off of it?’ But the reality is that the organization needs that. [We] don’t know what [we] have and [we] don’t where it is. [We are] just about to add another warehouse…and now [we are] going to have food in two places. And if [we] know that [we] have got surplus of something in one place, and a shortage over here, [we] need to put it on a truck and bring it up here. So what [we are] trying to do is people at every level of the organization take responsibility for changes and decisions and say, ‘This is our policy, I've agreed to support it. I am not going to blame anybody else.’ [We are] willing to talk about it, and take your input if you don’t like the process, but this is the process that we all agreed to. And we are all going to be on the same page. (Arthur, August 5, 2014)

273

Yet, DELTA faced a dilemma when changing any policy or process at the organization. For example, several volunteers had resigned in the past over policy changes to recipient engagement procedures. Some volunteers had already resigned over the warehouse intake system changes. One volunteer, speaking about the difficulty the organization faced with volunteer dependence, noted the predicament that, “It’s hard to get volunteers! And it’s hard to get people to work for nonprofits with the pay scale” (Jake, August 26, 2014). Addressing issues of volunteer commitment due to organizational change and growth had further complicated the volunteering process at DELTA. Recurring volunteer commitment had been so important to the sustained success of the organization, that DELTA lists “volunteer development” as the fourth highest objective of the organization’s 2013 strategic plan. The strategic plan objective acknowledges the organization’s lack of volunteer appreciation, and its inability to adequately include volunteers in its policy and procedure decision making processes, saying:

[DELTA] endeavors to increase our capacity to recruit, train, effectively manage, and appreciate the volunteers who serve with us. Specific objectives for this include improving volunteer recruitment and our orientation and training process, improving communication, and involving volunteers to a greater extent in the agency’s decision making processes. (Strategic Plan, 2013, p. 3)

DELTA was unable to manage the paradox of volunteer control, volunteer dependence, and volunteer commitment. While Christian values were supported and encouraged in the organization, there were sometimes discrepancies amongst personnel as to what constituted an appropriate exhibition of these values. Many volunteers, and some staff members, maintained their stereotypical views of recipients as “wanting to live off the assistance of others.” As such, the values system within the

274 organization was designed to be simplistic, without a host of theological underpinnings. For example, in one observation (August 8, 2014), a volunteer who was in charge of greeting the recipients and bagging their food, was seen to be wearing what could be viewed as an inappropriate shirt that read, “Adoption, Not Abortion!” Similarly, the knowledge of staff members and board members that directly impacted changes from new policies, procedures, and organizational growth was frequently looked upon with skepticism by some volunteers, as they were the ones actually “doing the work” with recipients on a day-to-day basis. Lastly, power was only shared by a select few among the board members and staff members. Some volunteers even mentioned their resentment towards some staff members and board members about being “left out” of the decision making process. Thus, when it came to integrating power, values, and knowledge into a synergistic whole, there were often too many competing interests for the organization to be able to legitimize them all. Instead, a few key personnel appeared to “hold sway” over final decisions regarding fundraising, programming, and development.

[16] Similarly, DELTA exhibited the paradox of stakeholder interests and stakeholder contributions (Donaldson & Preston, 1995) through organizational stability and organizational growth. Personnel at all levels of the organization were torn between stabilizing the organization and continuing its growth. Although there were differing factions in each group, board members and volunteers sought to contribute to organizational stability. They were satisfied with the current character and performance of the organization and were resistant to further change. They desired that the organization be consistent with predictable routines and outcomes.

275

Several board members and volunteers mentioned continuous growth as a “threat” to the organization. One volunteer explained his desire to see the organization contribute to stabilizing itself, in order to allocate more resources to its main service center:

I would be content with plain old [main] center, you know. I think that it is a great deal of work that is generated by going to off into the various other centers as far as loading the trucks, and unloading the trucks, and driving down (there). It takes a lot of man-hours away from the main center…There’s a lot of work involved…I think that’s a threat in not having the personnel, and physical infrastructure, to service the areas that they’re taking on. I think that fits everywhere…I don’t have a vision to go any further than what they have (now). (Jake, August 26, 2014)

Conversely, the majority of staff members, perceiving an ongoing need in the community for DELTA’s services, sought to continue the organization’s growth. Several staff members had an interest in expanding services and funding in the community. They saw growth as an “opportunity” for the organization. Indeed, several staff members saw organizational growth as one of their favorite job aspects, but also noted the conflict it had caused with board members and volunteers. One staff member explained his desire for growth as part of the “creative aspects” of his job, while mentioning the conflict from the change that occurred from developing programs and facilities:

I enjoy being out in the community and getting to know lots of agencies and community leaders. I really like the team of people I work with every day, and respect their talents and commitment to the mission. I like the creative aspects of the job: building programs, facilities, growth, expansion of services. Finally, I relate to the mission and find significance in what we do—particularly the spiritual aspects of sharing faith and loving our neighbors. I get excited when people experience transformation! The worst parts of my job for me are conflict. This happens through territorial conflicts, resistance to change, interagency turf…past conflict with certain board members was draining! (Arthur, August 5, 2014)

276

DELTA did not balance organizational stability and organizational growth through the “stakeholder management” techniques of attitudes, structures, and practices. Despite staff members and board members acknowledging that volunteers form an essential component in ensuring the success of the organization, as a group, the inclusion of volunteer interests as stakeholders did not match their overwhelming contribution to the organization. There seemed to be a recurring double-standard among staff members and board members where volunteers were concerned. On the one hand, they knew that they could not run the organization without them, as mentioned by this staff member: “I think we have really, really great volunteers. If we didn’t have our volunteers, we would have to close our doors” (Vicki, August 19, 2014). On the other hand, staff members and board members constantly demanded more of their volunteers to improve DELTA, and placed blame, or at least accountability, on them when programs did not run as smoothly as envisioned. The same staff member later recalled that volunteers needed to do more to “help get the word out” about the organization’s stability programs:

We’ve got so big that it’s just not possible to talk with every single person. And we try to encourage the volunteers to know about these programs and be like, ‘Hey, did you know there is a cooking class today, or there is a GED program about to start?’ ‘Do you have your GED?’ And I think a lot of these volunteers have been here for so long that they don’t realize all the changes that are happening right under their nose. So yeah, I think that we could definitely use more help from our volunteers to help try to promote some of our stability programs. So that’s been a challenge for sure! (Vicki, August 19, 2014)

[17] The performing paradox of building employee commitment and multiple strategic goals (Jarzabkowski & Sillince, 2007) was demonstrated by Christian faith and recipient survival and recipient self-sufficiency. DELTA personnel were often

277 challenged by serving recipients who were either in “survival mode” or developing a capacity for self-sufficiency. The two goals were specified as separate in the organization's mission and strategic plan because they represented different goals and required different strategies for achieving success. Staff members attempted to bridge the gap between the two objectives through their employee commitment to the organization. However, commitment to the organization was only manifested for most staff members if they felt they could share and “witness” to their Christian faith while working. Several staff members believed that their commitment to, and placement within, the organization rested on God and the Christian faith. As one staff member explained, “I’ve grown into more of the belief, ‘It's not the mission, it is the reason behind the mission.’ And I’ve been able to grow. And for me, faith is personal. It’s I feeling that I am here, and that God moved me into this point in my life for this particular reason” (William, September 22, 2014). Despite this belief, given the administrative, procedural, and performance requirements of the organization, Christian faith was sometimes viewed by staff members as lacking and, thus, so too was their commitment to the organization and its goals. Instead of placing organizational priorities at the top of daily performance objectives, staff members would, instead, substitute elements of their Christian faith to ensure that their beliefs were satisfied first. As one staff member explained, the two organizational goals of recipient survival and recipient stability ultimately came second to Christian faith:

I’m sure we’re all lacking faith. We’re all slackers, ultimately, I think. I think we can always do more—whether we are saved or not. But I mean this is the kind of work that it does become taxing sometimes. You get tired and kind of burned out if you don’t take a break or whatever. We need a little bit of Jesus in everything. And so, I don’t

278

know if we necessarily do that; we could do a better job of having a little bit of Jesus in everything. And faith could be, yeah, a bigger focus. Because obviously that’s our actual, should be our first job. And then secondary comes food, and utility assistance, or GED’s. All of these things will help people, but it doesn’t matter if we’re making them comfortable on the way to hell! That’s the way I feel about it! So that should be our first priority; whether other people believe that, or not, or donors believe that, or not. And of course, I know we have churches that are here, and so some of it’s just like a humanitarian effort, and social service aspect that they enjoy, the feel-good part. But yeah, I feel like faith should be our first priority. (Vicki, August 19, 2014)

DELTA managed the paradox of Christian faith and recipient survival and recipient self-sufficiency through using the “rhetorical strategies” of their current values and historical context. Employee commitment to the organization and its multiple strategic goals of recipient survival and recipient self-sufficiency was due to its current values as a Christian faith organization, and its historical context as a Christian social service ministry. Staff members argued that without their Christian faith values, and the organization’s history as a Christian ministry focused on helping people, it would be difficult to do their job because of the constraints and challenges related to being a human service nonprofit. One staff member illuminated how being a Christian at DELTA enabled commitment to the job, along with the traits of grace and compassion that would otherwise be absent, and result in worse performance by staff:

It’s not about numbers. I know that’s the opposite of nonprofits. But I feel like if we help one person with one thing, that’s more than enough; even though we can’t prove that on paper…I feel quality is more important than quantity anyway. So that’s part of ministry and working within a Christian organization—is you keep going despite whether one (recipient) shows up, or 30 show up…I would definitely think that’s where the grace concept comes in. Because time and time again and compassion—we get that because we are Christians, we have that— that’s in place for us! Otherwise there are times where you will just

279

literally want to throw your computer because it doesn’t work, and we can’t afford to get another one, or just a person that comes in here demanding, ‘I need this and that,’ and ‘You need to help me with this and that.’ And just being able to have the grace and compassion to explain to them, ‘Hey, this is why we’re here, but we can’t help you with all of these things.’ And that gives you patience that yeah, you don’t necessarily have on your own. (Vicki, August 19, 2014)

[18] DELTA displayed the paradox of humanitarian needs and economic objectives (Margolis & Walsh, 2003) through helping recipients and financial stability. While helping recipients sometimes came second to evangelizing, proselytizing, or otherwise witnessing the Christian faith by some DELTA personnel (August 27, 2014), so too there was a dichotomy in the ways personnel addressed the financial stability of the organization. Several DELTA personnel also noted the constant stress of trying to balance the economic objectives of current expenses and a dedicated yearly budget, while also meeting competing demands for organizational growth. This necessitated a firm belief in the humanitarian mission of the organization. One staff member elucidated the complexity and randomness of the mission, and the ways this meshed with issues of fundraising, explaining:

Yeah, it’s interesting because, ultimately, yes, you have your budget and it’s like, ‘Okay, this is what we need to raise in the course of the year to make all the programs that we have in place now, or what we are hoping to grow in the course of the year, happen.’ So, there is lot of stress that’s around that whole piece. Even today, [the executive director], goes like, ‘Do you have any idea how we are doing for the month of September?’ And you know, it’s like, ‘Okay, let me run a report.’ And I did and…it is awful! So, I am sitting there and someone else is in the office, I said, ‘Please just be right, please be higher or the same, higher or the same.’ And it was lower….Here is the thing— fundraising—there is no science to it, there is no guarantee. So, when that budget comes out, and I work with [the executive director] on it, we think based on the prior year’s performance, whatever it might be. But the reality is there is no formula to saying that just because that we

280

raised ‘X’ amount of dollars last year from Churches, that we are going to raise that same amount or even a little bit more this year. There is just no guarantee as much—even if we follow the plan exactly the way we lay it out, and we do things exactly we did the year before—there is just no guarantee…So it’s challenging in that sense that there is a lot of different things going on, and there is this growth, and what else can we do? (William, September 22, 2014)

The paradox of helping recipients and financial stability was optimized by DELTA offering recipient stability programs and fundraising events. All personnel believed in the due process of helping people through the recipient stability programs at the organization. For example, staff members felt DELTA’s programs improved the contributing conditions of poverty for recipients. This coincided with their beneficence duty to improve the well-being of others in their community. One staff member noted her steadfast belief in the programs that the organization was offering as a way to help people who come to her:

There are a lot of people that come to me that need help. And so, I have to be prayerful about just guidance, and how to help them, and also just being able to share Christ’s love with them while I’m there— sitting there with them one-on-one, talking about their problems, or how they can’t pay their rent or whatever it is. And then also I pray a lot about our stability programs. Because I really do believe in them! And I think that they really can help people. And just I pray for the people that show up, and the people that don’t show up—and then maybe they will show up next time because they don’t realize how much these programs really can help them. (Vicki, August 19, 2014)

All personnel also believed that fundraising events helped to secure the economic objectives of the organization so they could continue helping people. For example, staff members perceived fundraising events as a way to support and stabilize the organization’s finances through relationship development, which they called “friend-raising.” Personnel viewed resource appropriations towards “friend-raising” efforts as “fruitful,” efficient, and beneficial for the organization’s “bottom line.” One

281 staff member described her “passion” for fundraising and “selling the programs” that ultimately helped humanitarian efforts at the organization:

You have to have that passion. And the people that you are speaking to in fundraising will understand and relate to that passion, because they see that you believe in it…fundraising I equate to, people will shudder, to sales. But it is really; you are selling the organization. You are selling the programs. You are selling the need! (Milk Glass Maven, August 26, 2014)

6.6 Cross-Category Paradoxes Cross-Category paradoxes. DELTA displayed three unique paradox exemplars in the cross categories. DELTA’s cross-category paradoxes were primarily evidenced through staff members performing despite several changes in their work environment. These changes occurred as a result of organizational growth. Performance issues were managed by leadership through techniques addressing staff member learning and organizing, such as helping staff members focus their efforts on organizational growth goals benefiting recipients.

[25] DELTA exhibited the Learning::Performing paradox of a fixed mindset (Dweck, 2006). Tensions surrounding volunteer and board member contentment to the status quo at the organization, and staff member burnout from a draining emotional investment to the work of the organization, created a reciprocal cycle of a fixed mindset. Many of the volunteers at DELTA were retired, and mentioned they enjoyed their daily routines, but did not like to deviate from their specified tasks. One retired volunteer noted of his activity at the organization that,

It was time to do something different with my life. I got bored very quickly (doing nothing). It took me two years to really get into a groove where I could spend some time doing the volunteering. I really

282

felt that you need to have a purpose in life. There has to be a reason to get up in the morning, and do something, and I wanted to do something productive. So I chose volunteering to fill the time. (Jake, August 26, 2014)

Similarly, board members at DELTA enjoyed predictable outcomes in recipient programming and fundraising events. Both personnel groups were generally content to maintain the organization at its current size and character. As such, both groups were generally averse to change and organizational growth. Staff members faced a different challenge than contentment with their fixed mindset. Several staff members noted that their work tasks required a lot from them emotionally, physically, and spiritually. Many staff members described their job as having “two or three jobs in one” and that they were “burnt out” and exhausted. Several staff members described how, although the challenges and obstacles they had faced in the organization could help others or the organization as a whole, they generally had learned to avoid “excess” work because of the personal effort it required, with no added personal financial or spiritual compensation. One staff member disclosed his feelings about his job after several years of employment at DELTA:

It feels like sometimes you’re doing two or three jobs—in the sense you almost feel it’s like three full-time positions you’re trying to do in one. So, I would say, yeah, I mean talking to other staff, I’d say that there is staff that often would get exhausted and maybe burnout. And so, I think trying to figure out how do you, because [DELTA] does so many things well, but trying to discern and taking care of ourselves, I think is important. And so that’s what I think that can be tough—that’s where staff can often seem tired and exhausted, a lot of us…I’ve felt that—and if you need help staff can also help each other out. I think, also our executive director is really big on volunteers. If there’s, responsibilities that we’re doing that we need to maybe get off of our plate, have volunteers help us. And we have so many volunteers. I think the challenge is sometimes with the staff when you’ve been doing something for a long time, you don’t want to give it up. That’s a

283

challenge for me too; being at [DELTA] for over ten years but learning how I’m going to take care of myself. So that I’m not going to be burnt out and I can come home…and not be consumed by work. And I’m going to have to be taking care of myself here and delegating stuff to other people. (Thomas, August 20, 2014)

DELTA balanced the paradox concerning volunteer and board member contentment, and staff member burnout with a growth mindset. While some staff members, board members, and volunteers remained in a fixed mindset due to contentment and a desire to avoid further challenges and obstacles, several influential staff members in executive management practiced a growth mindset. Over the past few years, DELTA has engaged in the challenge of increasing its services to new locations, and has done so through multiple building campaigns that established a physical, permanent infrastructure in their respective communities. Some of the reasons behind this growth mindset are a comfort and a “proven track record” in embracing challenges, persisting through setbacks, and effort as a path that leads to mastery. For example, several staff members noted that even though they have grown tremendously over the past few years, there is still more room to grow. In fact, they listed growth as the “greatest opportunity” for the organization. One staff member explained that growth is simply part of the mission to reach and help as many people as possible:

I think growth overall is the greatest opportunity. I think there is a lot of opportunity for reaching more donors…there is a lot of opportunity for getting our name out there more. And to be honest, one of the things that's part of the development plan for the year is to kind of look at marketing. Because that has been something that we really haven't done—is like paid advertising, or any type of paid marketing opportunities. It's all been social media, and just e-newsletters, and word of mouth type of thing. So, I think that there is an opportunity for us to have our name out there a little bit more. And I think that that will help with growing revenue. We've seen it to an extent with what we've been able to do. So, I think there is an opportunity to take it to

284

the next level. Program wise, I think there are always opportunities— there are so many organizations out there that like, you know, the little food bank here operating out of the church basement, and it's been doing it the same way year, after year, after year, you know, for 25 years. I think there are opportunities in programs like that, that exist in these communities, and the outlying communities—that if it was the best decision to make, and that would take obviously a lot of different people involved. I think that there is an opportunity to grow in that respect as well, which would then, in turn, serve more people, and probably serve them more effectively than they're being served through some of these other smaller programs…I mean, there is a lot of growth potential and expanding services…but ultimately it’s to be able to have our doors open as long as we can, to be able to service as many people as possible. (William, September 22, 2014)

Additionally, the growth mindset of many personnel was connected to their personal faith. Many personnel believed “God was in charge” of organizational growth and they had faith that DELTA could keep growing because “it’s what God wants.” The growth mindset for DELTA was very communal, and heavily incorporated the Christian faith. The belief that DELTA’s growth was influenced by God was illustrated by one staff member explaining how faith was involved in one of the recent building acquisitions:

You’ve heard the story about the building in [the new location]? Were we going to have a capital campaign? Oh, heck no! We did everything completely backwards with this campaign. It’s like, ‘Oh let’s buy the building and then have the campaign.’ No, no, no, no, no, it’s not how you do that! So, we did it totally not the normal protocol way because we’d had, we had signs. Four different people, four different times, in six different months said, ‘You need to look at this building; you need to look at this location.’ So, after like the third time, ‘Okay I guess we need to look at the building.’ And here we are with the building. And we’re going forward. That’s faith! And you’re looking at that word, that’s faith—that’s faith that He will provide, that He is guiding us in the way we have to do things. If we didn’t have that faith, we wouldn’t be as successful as what we are because we are trusting in God to provide—whether that’s money, food, trucks, instructors for our GED (program), computers, all of that! We’re trusting that if You’re guiding us down this path then we better practice what You’re telling us. And

285

what we believe in that we know it will be taken care of. (Milk Glass Maven, August 26, 2014)

[27] DELTA exhibited the Performing::Organizing paradox of performance as an “economic organization” and people as a “social institution” (Eisenstat, Beer, Foote, Fredberg, & Norrgren, 2008). Several staff members described how they were torn between enjoying the social structures and spiritual features of the organization, and the necessity of completing the economic conditions and administrative facets of the organization; which many described as their least favorite job aspect. For example, one staff member admitted that he enjoys being with people, and that he does not enjoy administrative tasks, but is working toward improving his performance:

I enjoy being with the kids, being with the staff, the volunteers, the meetings that I have with the schools, and school officials. So yeah, I would say that the relational part of the job is what I really enjoy the most. The administrative stuff, that’s something by nature I don’t enjoy. I think I have definitely grown in a lot of ways as my performance evaluation will show, year over year. But yeah, I mean that’s something that’s just gotten better, but it’s better for me to be out in the community. (Thomas, August 20, 2014)

However, staff members also faced the predicament of knowing that the administrative and economic performance of the organization is “what keeps the organization running.” Without making economic and performance considerations a priority, DELTA would not be able to operate as well as they would like to maximize their potential to help people. One staff member voiced his trepidation that some people in the organization and community did not understand the importance of performance, and its impact on “making a difference” in the lives of recipients:

I think the conclusion I have come to is that people think human service is easy—always just helping people, always just being nice. Anybody can do that! I talked to so many job candidates who are coming out of

286

corporate America, or you know, there's that, ‘I've always wanted to do something good.’ And they think that they know what it is about. And they have no idea how difficult this business is, and how difficult it is to do well! And one of the things that I've battled with, even in a nonprofit community, is what we do matters, and how we do it matters…so I do see a difference between a social work model and a general nonprofit and business model. (Arthur, August 5, 2014)

The social structures and spiritual features of the organization were balanced with “high commitment” and “high performance” management techniques. The economic conditions and administrative facets of the organization were managed through DELTA leadership support by holding the center, developing shared purpose, and keeping perspective. Providing consistency of purpose in the mission, engaging with co-workers and even the recipients, fostering comradery, and building a better community through the organization were all important qualities of successful leadership at DELTA. Many staff members remarked how they felt their leaders either learned to adopt these qualities, or already performed them. One staff member claimed that even after a difficult week with personal concerns, on top of intense work requirements, that leadership support was offered to her:

It was truly an overwhelming week, but you’re going to have that in our organization. How the administration handles that will then dictate to the lower level of people how to deal with things…and I have had all the support that I could ever possibly want. And to practice what you preach to me is the biggest sign that they get it, because not only they’re concerned about people that we help, but they are concerned about the people that are helping the people that we help. (Milk Glass Maven, August 26, 2014)

Also, balancing the importance of performance and people was done through the leadership qualities of earning trust, providing growth opportunities for others, and performance accountability. These traits were all essential in the ability to lead at DELTA. According to one staff member:

287

I have some beliefs I try to follow including: I believe people want to do a good job, and they are working within the limits of their training and capability. I always assume that if I explain why something is important, and provide training and support, people will want to improve. I know I ask a lot from people, but I try to provide a lot as well. My general discipline practice would be to talk one-on-one, document the conversation in writing, and move through a logical process of verbal and written warnings. If the situation is egregious enough, I have placed people on paid administrative leave, and challenged them to think about whether this is a job they really want to do, while making it clear what the expectations are for continued employment. I have tried, with some success, to move people into roles that are a better match for their abilities. I probably give too many second chances for those in the business world, but I’m looking for the staff member to either improve their performance, or figure out that it isn’t working out and support them to make a successful transition. I’m not afraid to let people go, but I want them to perceive that they were treated fairly. (Arthur, August 5, 2014)

[29] The second Performing::Organizing paradox revolved around DELTA’s long-term strategy and short-term actions (Kaplan & Norton, 1996). DELTA’s long- term strategy of recipient stability was to wean recipients off organizational support by assisting them in developing the educational competencies and skills necessary to be stable or self-sufficient. However, DELTA’s short-term actions of helping recipients often overlooked underlying financial, physical, psychological, social, and spiritual components that resulted in recipients needing basic assistance from the organization. Several staff members mentioned their concern that there is sometimes a “disconnect” in the link between DELTA’s short-term actions of helping people, and the long-term strategy of getting recipients to be stable or self-sufficient. One staff member explained that while the organization can meet basic needs assistance, they are usually unable to get regular recipients to a point where they no longer need the organization to be self-sufficient:

288

Well, [DELTA] is meeting human needs…but I feel ultimately our goal should be to meet their spiritual needs. We should be pouring—yes with food…with shelter, and water, and those things that are just everyday essentials—but I feel that we also should pour out more love and compassion and understanding for just the situations a lot of these people are in. And a lot of them, they can’t help it, or they’re a product of their environment, or it’s just a cycle of poverty that they’re stuck in. And it’s so hard to get out of that! And I feel that we just—that’s what we want to do, is get them out of that. And sometimes I feel like we focus a little bit too much on the food and basic needs aspects. Honestly, I don’t think anyone in this country is really going to go hungry…if you really search out for food, you could find it.…And there is an abundance (of food) here in the U.S. And obviously, it’s not proportioned correctly, but yeah, I feel that for our donors, a lot of them, they get really excited about the food aspect and the immediate needs. But those don’t fix-up the real problem in the long haul! (Vicki, August 19, 2014)

Managing the paradox of recipient stability and helping recipients was done through leadership savvy. While DELTA did not employ the “balanced scorecard” specifically, leadership did employ all of its processes in order to address its long-term strategy of recipient stability, and its short-term goal of helping recipients. DELTA leadership used the management technique of translating the vision through clarification, communicating the vision by educating and setting goals, planning the vision through allocating resources and establishing milestones, and finally learning from the vision by bringing in shared experiences and strategic feedback. One staff member said that of the greatest strengths of DELTA, “leadership is a strength of the organization. Specifically, the executive director and his visionary abilities” (William, September 22, 2014). Another staff member, representing the sentiments of several personnel said:

Leadership I think is primary. [The executive director’s] got a vision. He clearly explains it to the staff. And he expects it to be done, and it gets done! He expects it in a non-threatening expectation kind of way. But he still, since he mapped out where we’re going to be in five years,

289

and we’re kind of right on target there. (Milk Glass Maven, August 26, 2014)

The leaders of the organization frequently shared the vision of the organization. For example, during a fundraiser for the newest building (August 13, 2014), the executive director noted that, “tonight is about sharing the vision” before opening the presentation with a prayer. He thanked God “for the blessing of this building,” and said that DELTA “demonstrates love for our neighbors and God’s love” through its services. He also said that the Matthew 25 bible verse was the reason why the organization exists. He said the organization is primarily a food pantry, but that the vision of the organization is not to enable people because, he said, “You take away their initiative” to be self-reliant. He said one of the requirements for receiving consistent aid is a budgeting program, so that long-term issues can be addressed. One volunteer remarked just before the presentation that she was excited about the new building because it was going to have showers, a kitchen, and a truck delivery area, where forklifts could be used to “better transfer food.” She said they “don’t have any of that now,” but she “was there when the executive director laid out the vision for the new center” regarding the needs of the building, and how the community could help fund it, and staff it. She concluded with a smile and said, “God will provide!”

6.7 Summary DELTA exhibited all 33 paradoxical exemplars, but was able to manage 26 of them. This case report explored all 18 core paradoxes, along with paradoxes [25],

[27], and [29] from the cross-categories. Despite belonging, learning, organizing, and performing issues related to their rapid organizational growth, DELTA’s implementation of several paradox management techniques was crucial to their ability to sustain their programs and community support.

290

Chapter 7

EPSILON ORGANIZATION

7.1 Overview Historical Context: “EPSILON” organization started in 1994 as a partnership among churches in a rural community. For approximately nine years they provided after-school programs for at-risk youth. The organization formally incorporated in 2003. In their Articles of Incorporation (2003), they describe their purpose as a “respite center for dysfunctional children” with a plan “to provide a nonprofit service that will minister to the spiritual, physical, material and emotional needs” (p. 1) of those in their community. EPSILON aids over 150 adults per year through their food pantry and counseling services, while providing activities for over 140 children per year at their youth center. The mission of the organization states that EPSILON aims to connect those in poverty with resources “by educating the community to understand the various sides of poverty (financial, emotional, mental, spiritual and physical)…because everyone’s journey matters” (Mission Statement, 2014, p. 1). Financial Background: EPSILON had an operating budget of $368,500 for

2014 (Budget, 2014). EPSILON listed its largest benefactors as individuals ($85,000) and businesses ($35,000). It listed its greatest expenses as administration ($219,900) and ministry ($43,000). Administrative costs, including salary, benefits, taxes, and reimbursements equaled roughly 57% of budget expenditure. Between the years 2010 and 2014, IRS 990 forms indicated that EPSILON was struggling financially. While EPSILON increased its total net revenue by $100,406 over five years, in 2012 and

291

2013 it only grew its revenue by $5009 and $3120 respectively. Similarly, EPSILON only developed its net assets from $204,374 in 2010 to $272,258 in 2014—a total increase of just $67,884, or 33.21%. This lack of robust financial growth in revenue and net assets often resulted in paradoxical tensions, contractions, and oppositions. RQ 1 Findings: EPSILON exhibited all 33 paradoxical exemplars. EPSILON was the “smallest” organization in terms of its budget, assets, and recipients served compared to the other four organizations in this study. As such, they had a limited scope of impact, with about 100 families served per year. In addition to its youth programming, EPSILON had dedicated staff to assist adult recipients with one-on-one, long-term, individualized, socio-economic-spiritual casework and nutrition education. However, this personalized service, by providing “financial, emotional, mental, spiritual and physical” resources, and opportunities for recipients in the community, came with organizational tradeoffs. Tradeoffs for personalized recipient service included increased staff expectations, loss of staff work efficiency, personal threats from recipients, and increased organizational financial costs. For example, additional staffing was required in order to offer one-on-one services. Most stakeholders saw the number of staff members in the organization as the primary driver of the organization’s financial instability. EPSILON’s financial instability had caused the organization to miss its payroll obligations at least three times in the past few years. During times of missed payroll, some staff members had to delay their paychecks in order to balance the organization’s budget.

The vision of the organization was also a source of concern for many stakeholders as it had endured significant change under the supervision of the executive director. The current organizational vision is to grow EPSILON with any

292 community partner the executive director feels advances recipient programming. Mission implementation through recipient programming, combined with the secularization of community partnerships, has left some stakeholders concerned about the long-term viability of the organization’s identity as a “Christian” faith-based organization. RQ 2 Findings: EPSILON implemented several paradox management techniques and managed the majority of the 33 paradoxical exemplars. EPSILON managed 23 of 33 paradoxes including: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [12], [13], [17], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [30], [31], [32], and [33]. EPSILON retained a prolific amount of community support and collaboration with their recipient programming. The organization boasted one of the strongest ties to a public agency amongst all organizations included in this study via its partnership with the area school district, which began in 2009. This collaboration was evident in the “how” (goals) of the organization, as they viewed their mission in tandem with their “togetherness” vision. The “togetherness” vision was a strategic initiative to build collaboration with area governments, businesses, and churches to provide a holistic approach to social services. EPSILON’s collaboration with the community allowed it to expand its external innovation streams to offer more personalized services than all other organizations included in this study.

7.2 Belonging Paradoxes Belonging paradoxes at EPSILON highlighted issues related to personal faith, organizational faith, and tepid organizational growth. EPSILON addressed belonging paradoxes through management techniques related to a combination of personal

293 identity and organizational identity, encouraging organizational change, and implementing an organizational vision based on personal experiences.

[1] The paradox of personal core values and organizational core principles (Badaracco, 1998) was exemplified by the expression of individual Christian faith and EPSILON’s commitment to human social service. Stakeholders maintained their personal core values of Christian faith through a set of stated organizational beliefs, such as God is merciful, Jesus living a perfect human life, Jesus offering salvation through his sacrifice on the cross for human sins, God desiring disciples, and the authority of the Bible and the Holy Spirit (Faith Statement, 2014, p. 2). Stakeholders also usually identified with the social service aspect of the organization through its set of stated organizational core principles, such as investing in recipients, community partnerships, showing mercy, understanding poverty, and “relational currency” or the social capital produced from relationships (Values Statement, 2014, p. 2). However, stakeholder tensions surfaced when they felt organizational core principles contradicted their personal core values. For example, stakeholders at EPSILON often felt “caught in the middle” between “not being a church but providing religious services” versus “being a community organization and trying to provide a service to those in need regardless of recipient religious conviction.” As one staff member explained,

We are—as a parachurch ministry—at times, we can also be caught in the middle; meaning we are not the church but nor are we a business. And so, like oftentimes I feel like the church is reflecting on us, that we need to do more evangelism, or we should be doing discipleship. But our job is not discipleship; that’s the church’s job! So oftentimes, it can be frustrating because we’re kind of in this middle space. And I mean, honestly, like my heart is for the local church…So like Bible

294

study, I want to tell these kids about Christ, but ultimately, I can’t! You know? I can’t go meet one-on-one with everybody. I got to somehow pass them along to the local church. So, at times, I just kind of feel like we’re caught in the middle of again—local church, and business, and community. And how we can bridge that gap? How we can bring the church to the table and say, ‘This isn’t our job, your job is discipleship, not ours. So, don’t reflect that on us!’ It’s like, ‘You guys need to step up too.’ (Mike, July 31, 2014)

The paradox of Christian faith and EPSILON’s commitment to human social service was not managed by balancing idealism and realism. Personnel at EPSILON held idealistic and unrealistic views on many issues, and they were not optimized for sustainable organizational growth. For example, stakeholders understood that their financial situation was untenable as they had missed payroll, or became close to running a budget deficit on several occasions over the past few years. Paradoxically, however, the majority of stakeholders believed that “God will provide,” regardless of financial instability. They also believed that EPSILON’s financial situation would improve if they hired more personnel. Additionally, stakeholders held contradictory views when it came to how they perceived their recipient programming. Stakeholders believed in the ideals of recipient empowerment, but simultaneously also felt that their programs unrealistically do not enable, change, or judge recipients. One staff member confidently proclaimed,

We changed our philosophy…I’m tired of enabling, which leads to changing, which leads to judging. It’s not on the website, but we don’t enable, change, or judge. None of them work. Christians have been doing that for people and poverty for centuries. The government has been on that for centuries—enable, change, and judge—those don't work. What we want to do is be about ‘empowering.’ So, in order to empower people, you can't give them anything for free; because when you do for people what they should do for themselves, you disempower them. So, there is no cost or any strings for them to come in here and be with us. But to receive—not support as far as workshops and programs, they’re all free—but to receive goods, whether it be the food

295

bank, you can get that if you need to if its food, if it’s back to school supplies, if it’s Christmas presents, if it’s all that, those are material things that we do have strings attached now. You do have to earn this! (Saxon, August 6, 2014)

[2] Paradoxes of belonging also occurred when staff members felt their individual identity was contradicted by their group identity (Brewer, 1991). All staff members at EPSILON individually identified themselves with the Christian faith. However, many of them were challenged by their group identity as belonging to a community service nonprofit. As a community service nonprofit organization, EPSILON’s primary mission stated that:

We see our mission as not doing everything, but motivating and enlisting those with the resources to come alongside us, and help those with the needs in their community. For the churches, we want to be a bridge to the community. For the businesses, we want to be a catalyst to help them to give back to their community. For the school district and the townships, we want to be a resource and support for addressing issues of poverty in our community. (Mission Statement, 2014, p. 1)

However, not all stakeholders recognized the primacy of the community aspect of the organization’s service mission. Several stakeholders noted that there were some partners, primarily local churches, who desired a more evangelistic outlook to EPSILON’s community services. One staff member described frequent misunderstandings regarding identity in organizational service among volunteers and donors from participating churches:

We’re not an evangelical organization, which is something that has been misunderstood in the past, not necessarily by employees, but by supporters, that kind of thing. It’s not that evangelism can’t be part of anything that we do, but it’s not the focus of what we do. The focus of what we do is bring people in, and walking their journey with them. So, I feel like to understand that, to live that is important…I think churches have trouble understanding exactly what we’re doing and how we’re doing it. And I think if they could better understand, maybe they

296

would—and I’m not talking financial at this point, just to understand exactly what we do—then they would get behind it. We have some churches that are completely behind it and others that I think are still kind of not real sure why we’re doing what we’re doing, and why we’re not evangelical versus just faith being partly why we’re doing it. I don’t know how that looks? I don’t know how you get that across either? But that has been a barrier in some cases! (Max, August 6, 2014)

The paradox of individual Christian faith while a group belonging to a community service nonprofit was not managed through optimization of assimilation and differentiation. Personnel at EPSILON readily assimilated to the organization’s mission, values, goals, and Christian beliefs due to their personal convictions. However, personnel struggled to differentiate personal convictions from the professional principles of the organization. For example, personnel often sought to assimilate their own personal faith with that of the organization. One staff member explained that as a Christian, he wanted to evangelize more frequently, but had difficulty separating his employee and non-employee personas:

We’re not the church. And so, I wouldn’t say faith is lacking, but even as Christians, we could always be doing more. So, I don’t think it’s an organizational issue, but maybe just a personal conviction issue where we could always be maybe evangelizing more, you know, or telling people about Jesus. (Mike, July 31, 2014)

Similarly, staff members and board members had a desire to assimilate as a group of

Christians, and create personal bonds between themselves. However, there was not equilibrium in attempting to maintain appropriate professional and personal boundaries among many of the staff members. One staff member explained that he was always looking to “hang out” with his fellow staff members when he had “free time,” but he noted he also had hurt feelings when other staff members did not want to reciprocate:

297

And so, the board has kind of come down hard on [us] that you got to have boundaries with the staff. That’s hard for me to do, that’s so hard for me to do. But I think I understand it because I’m free on a Friday night. This is weird, but when I’m free, you know what I think? I think, ‘Hey, we should have [the youth director] and [receptionist] over and grill some burgers. ‘No, sorry’ (they would say in response). Are you kidding me? If you’re not going to be my friend, you can't work with me. I think I even told [someone] that once. So that’s how I am wired. (Saxon, August 6, 2014)

Finally, board members also did not attempt to differentiate themselves from the executive director, as an essential but a separate group within EPSILON, who ensured professional boundaries and appropriate checks and balances on the executive director’s power and control over the organization. One board member explained that he saw his role as “supporting” the executive director, as opposed to providing critical oversight of his performance:

I tend to be a support for [the executive director] in whatever way I can be. Sometimes that’s personal in nature and sometimes its work related, or ministry related in nature. I feel like my role specifically, and the board’s role in general, is to support our executive director in whatever way that may look like. I do not want us to overstep our boundaries and manage his job for him. That’s why we have empowered him to do that. (Ryan, September 2, 2014)

[3] Organizational continuity and organizational change (Huy, 2002) also highlighted belonging paradoxes. The majority of stakeholders maintained that EPSILON’s organizational continuity was achieved through consistency in its mission, but that its vision had changed over time. Board members and staff members noted how the organization’s mission had always been to “care for people in need.” Several staff members reiterated the continuity in the organizational mission over time through “caring because everyone’s journey matters.” One staff member described that, “We believe in people and that’s what people tell us. ‘When I went to [EPSILON], I was

298 cared about; I wasn’t a number.’ And I hear that over and over again, ‘[EPSILON] cares about me’” (Saxon, August 6, 2014). However, the vision of the organization had recently changed as new collaborations with individuals, religious organizations, businesses, and government agencies have resulted in a broader scope in the type and number of recipients served. One staff member explained how EPSILON had evolved in regard to its recipients, saying,

I don’t think the mission has changed in concept. I think we’ve always said that our mission has been ‘to care for people.’ I think maybe what has changed is that our scope has widened—you know, we used to just focus on teens…but now were able to gain access into homes through our teens. Our scope is so much wider. We are able to help families that don’t have teenagers…The growth of our social service department has allowed us to do that. We are on the precipice this coming school year of offering more and more workshops for adults…So have we changed that we cared about people? Absolutely not! Has our scope widened? I think it has for sure. (Ryan, September 2, 2014)

Not only did several stakeholders explain that the vision of the organization has changed over the past few years, but they argued that the vision now came solely from the executive director. The executive director was now solely responsible for deciding how the vision would be implemented. For example, the executive director has said he would partner with anyone, including non-Christians and atheists, to achieve “his vision” (August 6, 2014). The organizational change in vision over time had led some stakeholders to fear for the future direction of EPSILON. One staff member argued that, “Yes, I am worried about the board buying into the vision…the way we’re doing it now, it’s about [the executive director]. And this is not healthy long-term in the organization. [We] need board members to disagree with [him]” (Saxon, August 6, 2014)!

299

EPSILON did not manage its paradox between organizational mission and vision by “adaptation” through “emotional balancing” via driving change and inducing continuity. Changes were continuous within the organization, but continuity was lacking. The executive director was the primary driver of change within the organization. However, the executive director and other personnel on the executive management team did not make efforts to induce continuity in financial resources, staffing, mission implementation, or in a strategic or vision plan. The organization had stated its goals and desires to grow its community collaborations, create new partnerships, increase the number of recipients and the programs that serve them, and seek more sustainable fundraising avenues (SWOT Analysis, 2014, p. 1). Ensuring continuity between those changes through emotional balancing was not witnessed in observations or expressed by stakeholders. Instead, despite some concerns and ongoing tensions, all staff members and board members expressed their overall support for the continuous changes at EPSILON that had been driven by the executive director over the previous few years. However, the lack of continuity was seen as a weakness and concern among several stakeholders. One staff member claimed leadership and finances were the two greatest continuity weaknesses:

I’ve seen other weakness, because so much depends on [the executive director] and his vision. I mean, I don’t know somebody who could fill his shoes. So, if something were to happen to [him], heaven forbid, there would be a huge gap that somebody would have to step up and take over. And without the heart and passion that [he] has, it will be real difficult to do. So, I am seeing him (as a weakness) in the sense of he is that significant to the ministry…that it would be very difficult to see how we could continue. Other weaknesses, I think are probably that we’ve been growing so much in the last few years…financially it’s really hard to keep up with the things that we do. The room for growth and expansions, and all these ideas that we have, they are all great! But it’s hard to find, it’s hard to have the staff that can do that. So right

300

now, we can say that we are in the awkward size of small and large. (Laura, August 29, 2014)

[4] The personal independence and personal interdependence paradox (Markus & Kitayama, 1991) was also displayed at EPSILON. Staff members frequently confronted the opposing forces of personal independence as a non- employee, and their personal interdependence as an employee. Several staff members noted that there were tensions in their identity as both a staff member and community member. For example, staff members described having to create boundaries between their employee and non-employee identities. One staff member explained,

For me personally, I have to create a boundary for myself because my children are going to school with the kids of the people that we’re helping. So, I would never ever not talk to someone out in public. But I allow them to approach me because I don’t want somebody to be uncomfortable knowing that they know me from working here. And I’m also one of the parents of kids that are at their school. (Max, August 6, 2014)

Several staff members held concerns over the lack of work-life balance at the organization due to the intensity of personal relationships with the recipients. One staff member described how she had become “intentional” in whom she chose to befriend in order to maintain an appropriate distance between her professional and personal life:

There is a hard balance between the persons we work with and how involved we want to be in each other’s life…I don’t necessarily want every participant to be my Facebook friend. There are some that I don’t. I don’t necessarily want every participant to take up all my time every day. So, knowing the balance of loving people, and inviting them into your life, but also remaining a professional place…It’s hard to balance—loving people, loving people professionally, because there are some people who would take up every moment, every day for rides, for chatting, for things like that. (Laura, August 29, 2014)

301

Paradoxically, due to the social and spiritual nature of the work at the organization, staff members also intentionally joined their employee and non-employee personas in their personal life through their faith. For example, one staff member noted how she would take time during non-employee situations to contemplate and pray about her work and career saying,

So, I pray like in my personal life about if I have a class or something. If I am having a one-on-one with someone I really sometimes I don’t have faith in myself. But it is just how I have been brought up, that I now like to involve God in my career. And that is kind of the only way that I can (involve Him because) I think He has placed me on this track to become a registered dietitian for some reason, for whatever reason it is. So, I think that is kind of why I rely heavily on Him to bring out my abilities and strengths to help these individuals that I have been interacting with. (Bryn, August 11, 2014)

EPSILON personnel managed their non-employee and employee paradox with their personal faith values. Staff members and board members often engaged in thinking, feeling, and acting with their personal faith values by reading and contemplating scripture (cognition), embracing and coping with challenging work tasks (emotion), and praying to God for guidance (motivation) in order to sustain a spiritual outlook in relation to their work tasks and their relationship with others. For example, groups of staff members would spend time during staff meetings praying, reading scripture, and sharing personal and religious stories. Staff meetings were occasions where time spent as a group allowed each individual, as a Christian, to find personal commonalities and differences with their co-workers. Staff members felt this

“group time” was beneficial in helping them to cope with the emotions of the ministry. Reflecting the feelings of all staff members at EPSILON, one staff member described the staff meetings as an opportunity to “share needs” with each other:

302

I think faith is most prominent amongst the staff. You know, we open staff meetings with praying together. We do Bible study as a staff. We talk about spiritual things. We share our needs, and that kind of stuff with each other. I feel like on the board level kind of the same thing. I feel like it’s prominent in the structure of the organization…so that’s where it’s prominent, in our motive for why we help people in the community. (Max, August 6, 2014)

[5] EPSILON displayed the paradox of organizational identity plurality and organizational identity synergy (Pratt & Foreman, 2000) as it attempted to sustain multiple identities as an established community faith-based nonprofit human service organization. Although EPSILON had been in existence for over two decades, no stakeholders drew upon EPSILON’s history to describe their present organizational mission and vision. Instead, the majority of stakeholders recognized the changing nature of how they personally and professionally identify with the mission and vision of the organization. Professionally, several stakeholders highlighted how they view the mission and vision of EPSILON primarily as a human service organization who will partner with anyone who also supports the belief that “everyone’s journey matters.” In one observation (July 16, 2014), the executive director described how the mission statement had changed significantly over the past few years under his direction. He said, “the name of Jesus was paramount four years ago,” and now “the name of Jesus had been completely removed” from the mission statement. Additionally, one staff member explained how the professional faith-based aspects of EPSILON are secondary to the social service aspects, as personal faith-related issues are viewed as less substantial to the overall mission and vision:

So, we say it’s like dominoes, the various components (of the organization) all unpack each other. Which is why you can't just deal

303

with one. Which is (also) why you need the whole community because the church brings in a component, the school brings a component, the government brings a component, the non-profit, we all bring a component to it, and we all lend each other duties that we are good at…I say we’re a faith-based social services agency regardless of church denomination…We have a statement of faith—they used to require people to sign it before I got here and it kind of guides us—it’s very generic…we all agree on the essentials, and the other stuff doesn’t matter. So, what’s interesting for us is…once on the same day one church called us a social gospel (and) another church said we were legalistic. I’m like wow! Isn’t that crazy? But because we partner with churches that wouldn’t partner with each other, absolutely not, we don’t; we just don’t have qualifications for being ‘faith-based.’ We’ll partner with anybody as long as they don’t try to change our mission. So, we’ll partner with a non-Christian as long as he says, ‘I’ll partner with you.’ (Saxon, August 6, 2014)

Personally, several stakeholders were concerned over the desire to establish more substantial spiritual relationships with recipients, as EPSILON’s current mission and vision primarily valued community collaborations over Christian-based doctrine. For example, several staff members explained how personal faith-related issues were shared among staff members, but “secular professionalism” was given priority in recipient relationships. One staff member explained how she felt faith had been “pushed aside” in the organization’s current culture:

Yeah, it is hard! Even though you are working for a faith-based organization, it is still hard sometimes to put faith aside. Like a lot of people know that you don’t pray with individuals and what not…When I am mingling with the, my other co-workers, faith comes out all the time. But it is just with the services, I guess that I am providing, it doesn’t feel like faith is here…we are here to help. And we do want to serve our Lord and Savior. Maybe it is my misunderstanding of a faith- based organization, but yeah, just like with all the different things that I have to create and be in compliance with, it is sometimes, I feel like faith can get pushed aside. (Bryn, August 11, 2014)

EPSILON managed the paradox through the integration of their multiple identities as an (1) established, (2) community, (3) faith-based, (4) nonprofit, and (5)

304 human service organization. Leadership, under the direction of the executive director, with the support of the board of directors, had sought to form a new identity for the organization—one that integrated all of its component identities into a new coherent whole. As an offshoot of area churches, to fill a need for at-risk youth and their families, EPSILON had always embraced its faith-based and human service identities. However, as the organization had grown, EPSILON had also started to promote itself as a stable and established nonprofit. Additionally, the current vision of the organization aimed to continue strategic partnerships within the community. One staff member explained the current effort to fuse multiple actors together to create a new system of support emanating from EPSILON for those who need social services in the community:

[The executive director] has been the visionary for what [EPSILON] is…I think overall, it’s the vision of what we’re doing—the way the community works together, or partnerships with the local churches, with the school district, with the township—that is huge. We wouldn’t be able to do what we do without that. So, I think that probably might be one of our biggest strengths actually—the relationships that we have with all these different sectors of the community. And that it all works together for one purpose. And we’re not trying to change each other. But we’re not trying to stop each other from doing what we do either. So that’s big! (Max, August 6, 2014)

In the past, EPSILON’s five identities as an established community faith-based nonprofit human service organization had been used separately, depending on how the organization was attempting to present itself to the public. At the time of data collection for this study, EPSILON was attempting to balance their identities simultaneously under the guise of its “Together 2014” initiative. The “Together 2014” initiative was the primary strategic goal for how the organization intended to identify

305 itself and its services going forward. The initiative had broad support among board members and staff members. One staff member said in response to the effort that,

…how awesome and supportive our community has been with all of our initiatives, like the ‘Together 2014’, with the combination of, or collaboration with, the school district, churches and [EPSILON]. It has just been really awesome! And I think God has a serious role in allowing that collaboration to take place. (Bryn, August 11, 2014)

7.3 Learning Paradoxes Learning paradoxes at EPSILON revolved around improving services for recipients while contending with personnel development. EPSILON staff members and board members found success in cultivating their recipient and community relationships to manage learning paradoxes.

[6] EPSILON displayed the paradox of exploration and exploitation (March, 1991) through recipient stability and community collaboration. EPSILON attempted to explore and integrate new programming aimed at providing recipients options to aid in their social, spiritual, and financial stability. Financial stability for recipients was explored and addressed through one-on-one counseling. Typically, EPSILON personnel would refer financial stability cases to their food pantry program, which provided cooking classes, nutrition education, and laundry and hygiene services. These services were perceived by personnel to help defray costs in recipient budgets. Social and spiritual stability was also offered through counseling services. One staff member explained how the organization was still learning how to help its recipients with its one-on-one counseling program:

So, we’ll try to help them if it’s a sustainable thing that we can help them with—that it’s not just going to put a band-aid over it—but we’re

306

going to do something that is empowering them and helping them along their journey. What I’m finding is, this role can change so much, because I’ll be meeting with somebody for a financial need and realize that it turns into more than just financial. And now that I’m dealing with this deep emotional problem that comes out. And so, I help them process that through maybe journaling, or writing, or just letting them talk. So, the role can be very different; it’s not just mundane…It’s so different in each person I talk to…But out of that, you see the emotional issues that are the deep root of the problems—they are not just financial—there’s more to it than just that. I think it is drug abuse, physical abuse, some sexual abuse—I would say a lot of physical abuse from like a previous boyfriend or spouse—witnessing trauma; a lot of trauma! (Fiona, August 7, 2014)

At the same time, the organization is engaged in exploiting community collaboration to support its recipient stability programming. Yet, several staff members stated that their partnerships with the school district and area churches have been problematic. For example, one staff member described how the school district does not communicate well with EPSILON on recipient programs that take place on school district grounds:

The school district, I think could do a better job at partnering with us. Like, just with how the school program ran. I didn’t really get the feeling that—I don’t know that we had the greatest support from them. And just with like, some of the things with miscommunication that occurred with the different (program) sections. And then like [the youth coordinator] not knowing how many, like the school never let her know until hours before how many people they were expecting that day! So, there have been comments made about how the school is only accepting of that program during summer school. So, I don’t know, it’s like an iffy partnership that I have picked up on. (Bryn, August 11, 2014)

In another example, one staff member clarified how most area church donors and volunteers do not understand the vision and process of why and how EPSILON is providing recipient stability programming through its food pantry and counseling services:

307

So not really coming from a church as a background, I can almost relate to people in poverty better. And I’m seeing it as church people— they don’t get the culture—and so they don’t get the mindset of why somebody’s going to keep continuing to make poor choices. Then they just get frustrated, and they’re like, ‘Well, there’s nothing we can do because they’re continuing to make those poor choices.’ Or a volunteer maybe would say, ‘Why do they have a flat screen TV in their house, but they can’t afford food?’ But it’s just a difference in values. Like (recipients) can’t take their kids out to the movies. They can’t go here and there all the time. They only have maybe a vehicle or no vehicle. And so, the values are, ‘Well, go to Rent-A-Center and buy a television and hang it on our wall so they have their entertainment.’ So, I think it’s a difference in values and in their culture. And how some church people may see that as, ‘Well, they’re not saving, they could have saved that $35 a week to go to the movies or something like that.’ It’s a difference in, I think the value and the mindsets…But (recipients) only see kind of right here {gesturing in front of her face}, like right in front of them, and not the bigger picture. It’s hard for them to look towards the future. They only see what’s going to happen tomorrow or the next week. So, I think that would be a mindset difference between some of the recipients we see, and some of the church attendees that want to be volunteers—is that they see retirement and our recipients see, ‘What am I going to do tomorrow?’ They don’t see the larger picture. It’s really hard to change their mindset. And like I’ll work on a budget with them, but it’s really hard for them to follow it because it’s just not what they do. You know, it’s hard to change! (Fiona, August 7, 2014)

A combination of fast and slow learners and old and new knowers with staff members helped to manage the paradox of recipient stability and community collaboration. For example, while about half of the staff members had been with the organization for five years or more, the other half had been with the organization for about three years or less. Additionally, the staff members at EPSILON varied widely in age ranges, with some professionals nearing retirement, some in the middle of their careers, and others having been hired after graduating college within the past year. Thus, the staff members represented various educational attainments and prior work experience. This allowed for different perspectives in organizational problem-solving.

308

One staff member explained that although some of his work tasks had made him “uncomfortable,” his organizational role had nevertheless provided him with numerous learning experiences:

…learning how to deal with this community is a lot different than everything I have dealt with before…there are a lot of people in poverty…I think the poverty rate is thirty percent here. So, there are many people that are struggling. And a lot of people are somewhat embarrassed to come look for help…I learned everyone needs help eventually in their life. You should not be ashamed to ask for it. It is not abnormal. That has been something that I learned, definitely. And there have been recipients that have come in where I have been uncomfortable, obviously. This is not my forte—some of the issues that come up—but it has all been good for the learning experience in my book. I appreciate even when I would feel uncomfortable or panic in a situation where I do not know what to do. But I think all in all, it is good for experiential learning for my future. (Jake, August 7, 2014)

[7] Survival help and evolving expectations highlight the learning paradox of shared vision and team learning (Senge, 1990). Staff members at EPSILON all reiterated that they agreed with the stated vision of the organization which “is to create a safe place for teens and their parents to connect with others, and to connect with a God who loves them, so that they can receive help as they navigate through life” (Vision Statement, 2014, p. 2). However, staff members described the difficulties they have had in implementing the shared vision of providing survival help through recipient programming due to evolving expectations. As EPSILON had drastically changed its vision since the current executive director was hired in 2006, staff members voiced their concerns over how board members and volunteers were adjusting to learning challenges. For example, in one observation (July 16, 2014), the office assistant described how they were interested in learning what the board

309 members and volunteers “actually think” about EPSILON’s current vision. Additionally, the executive director admitted that even though he did not found the organization, EPSILON today is completely different than what it was when he started. The executive director described himself as EPSILON’s visionary, and said that he worried that the organization had learned to “take on his personality” without appropriate “checks and balances.” The evolving expectations over the past few years had resulted in several staff departures. One staff member described how the recent staff turnover had made communicating expectations even more paramount to avoiding organizational tensions:

The more staff you have, the more staff turnover you have, the more it’s necessary to make sure that your expectations are made clear…I feel like staffing has changed every year. We’ve added staff, had staff leave, changed what the positions are. I think if we get that stabilized, that that would be helpful. (Max, August 6, 2014)

The paradox of survival help and evolving expectations was addressed by EPSILON through systems thinking about relationships. All personnel at EPSILON viewed relationships as the means through which they achieve their mission, vision, and goals. Organizational problems and solutions are discerned through the impact of relationships, and how these relationships can provide a learning experience, or aid in implementing faith-based social services in the community. The executive director had called the organization “a model” for other faith-based organizations to follow because of its “relationships” (July 16, 2014). The office assistant likewise described EPSILON as a ministry that is “relationship-based” (July 23, 2014). Indeed, relationships were seen by many in the organization as its greatest strength. One board member argued that, “You need good relationships. You need Christian relationships” (Yohann, August 7, 2014)! One staff member stated that the ongoing

310 goals of the organization are centered around “building relationships and just continuing the relationships; not necessarily just dropping them when goals are made, but continually being an advocate for these people—for recipients and the community” (Mike, July 31, 2014). Finally, relationships are important, not just to the organization in terms of advancing organizational goals, but also because they view the people who form relationships with the organization as the primary principle of the organization— which is to fulfill its slogan, “Because everyone’s journey matters.” One staff member illustrated her ultimate purpose in working with the organization as relationships, even when her daily tasks seem monotonous and unimportant to the overall mission:

…the reason why I want to be doing ministry is, I want a direct connection and correlation between what I am doing developing relationships, and seeing people grow, and change, and seeing the truth. If I can connect the tasks that aren’t necessarily—every time I fax, people aren’t becoming believers and every time I answer the phone, people aren’t like, ‘Oh, God is good.’ You know? So that’s unrealistic, and stupid—but as long as I can connect the menial tasks to the underlying purpose of why it’s important within ministry. And sometimes I get frustrated with what I am doing, and I have to remind myself why it’s important, and good, and necessary…as long as I connect to the underlying purpose of, ‘This is what I’m doing,’ ‘This is why it’s important to the ministry.’ I think the other thing with faith, specifically for me, how it is important to my role, is just looking at people rather than just people or things that are frustrating…but looking at them as individual image bearers of God—like they’re inherently important and inherently valuable. And even the smelliest of the smelliest, most frustrating, lack of respecting person that walks in here, is still an image bearer. And it is unbelievably valuable, just as much as me! You know? So just even the way that I view people is incredibly affected by faith. And hopefully that, in turn, I see people coming in and feeling like their journey matters. (Laura, August 29, 2014)

311

[8] The paradox of episodic change and continuous change (Weick & Quinn, 1999) also underscored learning issues within the organization. Episodic change was most prevalent in EPSILON’s mission implementation, while continuous change was evident in EPSILON’s faith-based programming. Stakeholders described how mission implementation had changed over the past few years whenever the executive director introduced new visions for recipient programming, and when new partnerships were formed in the community. Several staff members voiced concerns over how sizable and incompatible they thought expectations were with the vision of the organization. This impacted the logistics of implementing recipient programming based on that vision. One staff member claimed his job expectations were initially unclear when he was hired, and then recalled the conversation he had with the executive director about the need to adjust his duties because he did not feel proficient in the area of recipient programming:

There’s a disconnect between the expectations and what’s going on here at the ground level…just not laying out maybe job expectations, or the fact that they’re always changing as the ministry changes, or as it grows. So, when [the executive director] hired me—I didn’t actually know this—but I was specifically supposed to be doing programming, where he was going to still be involved very much in the youth center, and doing all the relationship stuff. Where again, I was, you know, running games, some lesson times, doing logistical things. Whereas my position morphed more into contacting (our partners), and all the things that he was doing, where he was slowly moving out—kind of like a handoff (of jobs). But again, me being terrible on logistics, so [the executive director] needed to come back in as of late, and help me with that. Two weeks ago for the performance review, we kind of sat down, and talked, and he said, ‘You know, I need to help you more with the programming, with logistics. And let you know like when things should be done, because you’re not very good at it.’ And I was like, ‘Yes, I know this; please help me!’ (Mike, July 31, 2014)

312

Conversely, faith-based programming at EPSILON underwent continuous change. Several stakeholders noted that they did not understand the vision and direction the executive director had for how faith was going to be present in recipient programming. One staff member noted how other staff members had approached the executive director seeking clarification of the role of faith in the organization’s services, when he recalled, “I think that the faith distinction is a work in progress, honestly. Actually, we had a conversation about that earlier today” (Max, August 6,

2014). Another staff member, describing faith discussions amongst personnel said, “Everyone that I have had discussions with about things like spirituality—obviously there are some disagreements on those things—those discussions are pretty much friendly, open-minded discussions where I have learned from others” (Jake, August 7, 2014). Some stakeholders felt faith should be more prominent within recipient programming, and others believed faith played little to no role in recipient programming. For example, a volunteer representative from the local school district also claimed that faith is absent in the school district’s partnership with the organization:

I don't think faith plays a big role between [EPSILON] and the school district… I don't think faith plays a big role in it at all. And [the executive director] doesn't push that here. When he's here, he doesn't approach kids from that aspect. I think if we were in a crisis, he was here to support us as well, and a student said, ‘Don't mind if we say a prayer.’ I don't think he'd be opposed to it, but I don't think he would initiate that kind of thing. I know he wouldn't initiate that kind of thing here at school. He really has a good respect for the fact that we kind of have to, you know, be cautious of that! (Mom, September 2, 2014)

EPSILON attempted to balance the learning paradox of mission implementation and faith-based programming through adaptation and adjustment. Although EPSILON personnel aimed to balance adaptation in evolving roles, and

313 adjustment to vision refinements, the frequency with which personnel had to adapt, and the duration of time it took to adjust, was problematic and a cause for concern amongst many stakeholders. Some board members and staff members struggled to adapt and adjust to changing organizational considerations of current community conditions, but most staff members over time were able to adapt to their evolving roles, and adjust to the organization’s vision refinements. Staff members who were successful at evolving in their organizational roles, and who were accepting of vision refinements, and its subsequent implementation requirements, stated they grew in the learning process. For example, one staff member explained how she had learned to adapt and become flexible during recipient program implementation:

I guess that is a huge thing—the learning aspect of the job! Like there is just so much that I have been learning, not just with food, and food safety measures, and food preparation measures, but just with teaching, and how to adapt to different populations that I am educating. That has been a huge learning aspect of my job—working on my adaptability and flexibility. Like during the summer school program, that was really hard as there was only 20 minutes to work with the different types of students, and each group is so different—the ages—and, you know, it is almost impossible to create lesson plans for that short of time, and adapt it to each age group. So, you kind of just have to ‘fly by the seat of your pants’ and hope that it works out. Sometimes it didn’t; sometimes it worked out better than other days. (Bryn, August 11, 2014)

7.4 Organizing Paradoxes Organizing paradoxes at EPSILON revolved around issues related to evolving staff expectations, recipient programming, and fundraising. EPSILON managed several organizing paradoxes by preserving personnel commitment through common strategies and values. Strategies and values were frequently discussed at personnel meetings and personnel committees.

314

[9] EPSILON demonstrated the paradox of flexibility and efficiency (Adler, Goldoftas, & Levine, 1999) through recipient engagement and recipient programming. Work flexibility was valued in the organization as a way to produce a culture that provides hospitality in recipient engagement. The most common way stakeholders ensured “everyone’s journey matters,” was being flexible in “taking time for one-on-one relationships” with recipients. One staff member described how meaningful relationships sometimes took years to develop, but flexibility with recipient engagement allowed for “lasting change” to occur:

I think faith is prominent most in one-on-one relationships with our adults or students. It is difficult at times…but, I think, again the lasting change that we can have in people’s lives is in one-on-one relationships—the relationships where I can get them in small groups, or one-on-one, where they are interested in my life, just like I’m interested in theirs. That’s where the door is wide open for me to say, ‘You know what, here’s why I believe this way, here is why I have chosen to act this way.’ And people are much more receptive in those kinds of situations. You know, the investment of the relationships has been made sometimes for years. I have a student that I meet with semi- regularly; I’ve known this kid for about four years now. And only in the last six months or so has he really started to soften his heart—to just be willing to engage from a young man to a somewhat older man in a relationship. And it’s really neat to see that when it happens in that relationship. And I think the same thing is true of our adult clients that come in here for services. (Ryan, September 2, 2014)

Conversely, efficiency was not given priority at EPSILON. Aside from youth center activities, each recipient was intentionally seen in either one-on-one counseling or a small group workshop. One-on-one financial or social counseling sessions could last up to three hours per recipient, while small groups could last equally as long. For example, in one observation (July 29, 2014), a small group workshop on nutrition education went for three hours while the staff member invited five recipients to

315 participate in the preparation, cooking, and eating of a meal. Even a food pantry appointment for a single recipient lasts up to an hour. For example, in one observation (August 29, 2014), one recipient arrived at the office without an appointment, and the office assistant had to stop her current work tasks to accompany the recipient while she “shopped” the food pantry. One staff member remarked that recipient programming has changed and become more time-intensive as the organization favors what they perceive as effectiveness over efficiency in recipient programming:

I think that is one of their primary goals—obviously to help everyone they can around here as much as possible. That is why they are kind of broadening their reach with the workshops. I think this is the most workshops they are offering yet…They are going to have something like Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday workshops for someone. That is a lot that they are offering the community for such a small organization…They are really trying to have something available for everyone. (Jake, August 7, 2014)

The paradox of recipient engagement and recipient programming was managed by establishing metaroutines, work enrichment, switching between routine and non- routine tasks, and partitioning by creating subunits to specialize in work tasks. Metaroutines were most pronounced in organizational meetings. Board meetings and staff meetings allowed for board members and staff members to review current procedures and discuss any necessary changes to procedures. EPSILON personnel agreed the meetings were useful, and some even desired additional meetings “to ensure everyone was on the same page.” One board member argued that,

…one thing that I think we could stand to do, is maybe twice a year, just have everybody come back together, and have that discussion of, ‘Here's what working,’ ‘Here's what not working,’ ‘Here's a better way to get information out to you’…just sort of reiterating everybody's role in supporting our students and families. I guess if there's anything that I can think of that might enhance the process, it would be maybe

316

meeting like that once or twice a year just to refresh everybody. (Ryan, September 2, 2014)

Work enrichment for personnel was mostly held through spiritual development. Many personnel were quick to note that, “We don’t have any programs that are designed just purely for spiritual purposes, because that’s not us, that’s the church…it comes up in the overflowing of who people are, and their personal faith” (Saxon, August 6, 2014). However, personal spiritual development occurred between individuals and small groups across the organization and in personnel meetings. Every board member and staff member noted their personal connection to their Christian faith as the basis for why they work at EPSILON. Through their work tasks, and through their relationships with each other and the recipients, personnel were able to nurture their personal and their communal Christian faith. One staff member representing the views of the majority of other staff members explained that, although EPSILON is not the church,

The spiritual aspect is something that is definitely valued here…I think faith is kind of the basis of the organization. We strive to live off of the biblical core, and apply that to our organization as much as we can…We feel called to do this (job) because of our faith! It is the kind of a thing where we feel like…the main reason we do this is because we feel called that everyone is the same under God’s eyes. Everyone deserves to be loved. We want to show that…we want God’s love to be shown through us! (Jake, August 7, 2014)

Cross-training allowed staff members to switch between routine and non- routine tasks at EPSILON. Several staff members explained how the organization had recently implemented the requirement for other staff members to have basic competencies in other jobs across the organization. For example, the receptionist and executive director had some familiarly, and occasional fill-in, for the youth program

317 director; while the office assistant and social worker aided in covering for the receptionist and food program director. Similarly, personnel committees allowed for subunits within the organization to partition tasks that specialized in routine and non-routine tasks. For example, routine tasks related to organizational budgeting and fundraising were handled through “the planning committee.” Non-routine tasks, such as expanding strategic partnerships within the community, were handled through the “Together 2014

Committee.” One volunteer at the school district who served with the executive director on this committee, noted that, “We sit around a table, about seventeen of us and we’re called the ‘Together 2014 Committee’…we say what are some of the issues out there with kids, and how can we help them out. And now we are a lot more organized” (Dog, August 27, 2014).

[10] The paradox of behavioral complexity management and requisite varied leadership (Denison, Hooijberg, & Quinn, 1995) was demonstrated through employee versatility while working in an unstructured environment. All employees at EPSILON described how they had to be versatile in order to accomplish their work tasks. The ability to be flexible, adaptive, and reactive to recipient demands was seen as crucial to successful mission implementation. However, the versatility needed to complete multiple, and sometimes contradictory, roles was stressful for staff members. One staff member described how difficult it was to cope with, and react to, recipient demands, arguing,

(Recipient) problems are bigger than anybody else’s—their timeline is more important than anyone else’s. And certainly, like there’s always urgency. They’re always in an urgent crisis situation. And, in fact, every day is a crisis in some way…it’s more like, ‘My crisis is more

318

important than anybody else’s. So, I don’t care if you have five other people that you’re helping right now, you need to drop all that, and then help me. Because I need it right this minute.’ Or they’re famous for, ‘My rent was due yesterday,’ or ‘my electric is being shut off today.’ When, in fact, we know the electric company gives tons of notice that your electric is going to be shut off. But…the thought doesn’t cross their mind to, ‘Maybe I ought to do something about this before it’s a crisis.’ Then because we can’t react that fast—we don’t have a 24-hour turnaround—then that’s our fault. (Max, August 6, 2014)

Similarly, the unstructured work environment at EPSILON also contributed to staff members feeling that they needed additional predictability in their work tasks.

The unstructured work environment had been so problematic at EPSILON that individual board of directors had had to mentor some staff members for employee training, so that staff members better understood their role in the organization. The tensions surrounding the unstructured work environment were addressed by the executive director in one observation (July 18, 2014) when he said, “I’ve learned what not having things in black and white can cost. An employee handbook could have prevented problems this past year.” Describing the need for a more structured work environment, one former staff member, who is now a board member, recalled that,

I think the immediate goals, because we’ve had such a large amount of growth in the last five years especially…are to provide stability and structure to the growth that has happened. So, we have grown to have a full-time social worker here. Well, that’s great, and its reaping benefits and dividends right now, but what will that look like in a structured work environment? What is the expectation going to be? You know, it’s not this specific person that is here right now. It’s could the next person step in and fill that role as a social worker? Can we provide some structure, so that the working environment is not dependent upon one person? But, we can have interchangeable parts…when I was on staff, there was no employee handbook. There was no structured work environment. You just kind of showed up and did what was asked of you that day. (Ryan, September 2, 2014)

319

EPSILON’s paradox of employee versatility while working in an unstructured environment was balanced through “managerial leadership roles” among the executive director and the office assistant. The executive director handled the flexible leadership roles of innovator / broker and facilitator / mentor. The innovator / broker and facilitator / mentor roles allowed for both an internal and external organizational focus. Conversely, the stability leadership roles of producer / director and coordinator / monitor were completed by the office assistant. The producer / director and coordinator / monitor roles also allowed for both an internal and external organizational focus, while also helping to maintain appropriate checks and balances on the vision of the executive director, and the implementation of the vision from the staff. At EPSILON, an example of the flexible leadership role fulfilled by the executive director, and the stability leadership role fulfilled by the office assistant, was observed (July 18, 2014) when the executive director and the office assistant were jointly discussing the newly created employee handbook. Showing flexible leadership, the executive director stated that the two of them “have gone through every procedure,” but also that he does not “agree with everything.” He said they had to make the handbook to safeguard that “they aren’t inadvertently breaking the law.” Also, the executive director made the distinction that they are “an organization and a ministry.” So, the executive director claimed, “there are gray areas.” Showing stable leadership, the office assistant was tasked “with ensuring that the staff follows the employee handbook.” The office assistant noted that the new employee handbook was “black and white.” However, the executive director quickly interjected that “there are exceptions to rules.” He used the new bereavement policy as an example of where time off may or may not be granted, at his discretion for

320 accidents, illnesses, or death of “indirect family members” (for example, “second cousins”). The office assistant suggested adding more explanatory material to the bereavement policy to help further explain employee expectations, as she cautioned the need for better communication with employees given recent staff turnover. Yet, the executive director stated, “It wasn’t necessary.”

[11] Recipient stigmatization and recipient programming at EPSILON displayed the organizing paradox of strong cultures and innovation (Flynn & Chatman, 2001). Although EPSILON attempted to innovate in its recipient program by partnering with multiple stakeholders, the diversity among stakeholders led to tensions over recipient stigmatization. For example, EPSILON touted its collaboration with the area school district, local churches and businesses, community organizations, the municipal government, and individuals across all income levels. While this collaboration had produced and increased the number and types of services the organization provided, it also contributed to misunderstandings among stakeholders; especially towards recipients. One staff member maintained that faith- based partnerships in the community can hinder the organization through their judgment of the recipients, saying,

If faith would hinder, it’d be stereotypes; negative stereotypes. Christians are judgmental! You know…we’re trying to break that mold too, at the same time, at this organization. We’re trying to break the mold of being judgmental…It’s a whole different mindset between poverty, middle class, and wealthy. Where I’m looking at a problem like this {hand gesturing to one side}, somebody at the poverty level operates very much on a relational mindset {hand gesturing to the other side}…So any decision they make, anything they do, will be based off the relationships they have. (Mike, July 31, 2014)

321

Other staff members highlighted how a “middle-class ethic” persists in the community that had fostered misunderstandings between volunteers, donors, and recipients. One staff member explained that the organization became a liaison between the recipients they serve and the donors and volunteers who serve the organization, noting: “middle class and poverty creates a problem. If you push your middle-class values on people in poverty, and you expect them to jump through your middle-class hoops, it’s a problem” (Saxon, August 6, 2014)! Yet, that same staff member also made his own assumptions and assessments that fed into recipient stigmas when he said, “So we have some forms we no longer use, for they were middle class. We don’t use them anymore. We’re making assumptions about their IQ, that may or may not be there, or their ability to process information” (Saxon, August 6, 2014). Another staff member also admitted that she occasionally disrespects EPSILON’s recipients by failing to understand their mindset:

There are some things that are so middle class in my mindset that I disrespect them—you end up disrespecting people. It is considered an honor if you respect people…but if you just ‘on’ and ‘off’ respect people, that’s a huge issue with people living in poverty—respect is earned, not just granted to anyone. How important time is, how important relationships are…So I think the biggest surprise for me has been understanding the poverty mindset, understanding the significance of time in relationships better. Because again, it’s been really challenging for me to just always be gracious to people. (Laura, August 29, 2014)

EPSILON managed their paradox of recipient stigmatization and recipient programming through normative cohesion in the Christian faith, and conformity to community collaboration. As stated above, the Christian faith was a core reason why and how personnel at the organization personally identify with each other and their work tasks. The Christian faith helped to emphasize common group norms in

322 individual behavior, and provided a strong source of cooperation and implementation of goals. Conformity among EPSILON personnel was achieved through the requirement to uphold the organizational culture; and there was no stronger aspect of EPSILON’s culture than that of “relationships.” Relationships with other personnel, recipients, and especially strategic community partnerships, were seen by all personnel as the most valued aspect of the organizational mission and vision.

[12] The paradox of static efficiency and dynamic efficiency (Ghemawat & Costa, 1993) was evidenced through community collaboration and poverty misconceptions. EPSILON represented static efficiency by continually searching for improvements in their services for recipients. Through community collaboration, EPSILON had increased its volunteers and recipient access to resources, which had aided the organization in providing more financial and cooking workshops, social and spiritual one-on-one counseling sessions, and youth center activities. However, these programming improvements were still based on an assumption of fixed conditions around the causes of poverty. EPSILON therefore assumed that these programs work as intended—to solve poverty. The organization possessed no tracking requirements to evaluate whether or not the programs were “working.” Moreover, despite

EPSILON’s stated vision strategy to “become an authority on poverty in rural areas and train others to use our model” (Strategic Plan, 2013, p. 7), they had no objectives or goals to evaluate the effectiveness of their programs. One staff member stated,

I’m not sure how you measure success. It’s really hard to do. So, what is successful? You know, how do you measure what we’re doing? I feel like when we see people here, there’s not really a defined follow- up session. So, I think there needs to be more follow-up in collecting that data and input that so you can see your outcomes. And I think

323

that’s what we’re lacking; we don’t have any of that stuff on file. (Fiona, August 7, 2014)

Additionally, as an example of the lack of dynamic efficiency, EPSILON had not, and did not plan to, reconsider its initial belief that poverty is the result of poor individual choices by recipients. Instead, the majority of EPSILON stakeholders preserved poverty misconceptions by predominantly valuing recipient “individual accountability.” The organization employs Ruby Payne’s Bridges out of Poverty and Getting Ahead service model (Payne, 1998). Like other “self-help seminars” that rely heavily on individual self-fulfilling prophecies, the service model contends that low- income and at-risk populations can simply “rise up out of poverty” if they only “try hard enough.” Indeed, the service model as explained by Payne (2016), believes primarily in psychological and behavior modification that places the impetus on solving poverty primarily on recipient choices and levies little blame on society for not solving the dynamic sources of poverty, such as discrimination against race and gender, and economic and political structures.

The paradox of community collaboration and poverty misconceptions was not managed through condition improvement or condition reconsideration. While EPSILON provided several services to hundreds of individuals in their community, there was no objective evidence to suggest that EPSILON was successful at improving the conditions of poverty within their community. The organization did not evaluate their programs, nor did they have tracking measures or an outcomes-based approach to their programs. Instead, personnel viewed EPSILON’s programming as “personal” and “relational” and viewed program success through this prism. Similarly, despite statements to the contrary, many stakeholders still upheld very strong beliefs, and negative opinions, stereotypes, and stigmas concerning the recipients. They routinely

324 made little to no effort to reconsider the causes of poverty. Instead, the majority of stakeholders at the organization felt it was the recipient’s responsibility to “take care of themselves” and that they were “not going to enable them” through their group workshops or one-on-one financial, social, and spiritual counseling sessions. However, some stakeholders were aware of ongoing recipient judgments within the organization. One staff member openly stated some of her own prejudices towards the recipients in poverty by saying,

They go to the ‘Rent-A-Center’ and purchase furniture and a TV. And their mindset is they want to provide for their family in the limited amount of income that they have. But they want to kind of fit in too with the rest of society. But really, in reality, they’re paying triple the amount of what they could if they would have saved up something…And is it right or wrong either way? I don’t know. Like for me, I think, well yeah, that would be smart if you didn’t buy a TV for triple the amount and could save up for six months and then buy a smaller TV—but still be a flat screen on your wall. But that’s me; I mean that’s my opinion. But it is financially smart too. Yeah, it’s really tough. It’s really tough to instill those values. And am I imposing my values on them? So yeah, it’s really tough. (Fiona, August 7, 2014)

[13] EPSILON stakeholders engaged in “sensemaking” in order to address the paradox of changing relationships, changing roles, and a changing organization

(Lüscher & Lewis, 2008). Changing relationships were evidenced in staff expectations. As the organization had grown, expectations had changed for staff members. Changes from past experiences created tensions in staff relationships. Staff members were forced to continually adjust to new work tasks, duties, and responsibilities. One staff member, describing the weaknesses of the organization,

325 explained some of the “tough” problems facing staff members as they continually changed roles:

There are people that are working a lot because of the fact that they are helping so many people. And they are trying to implement so many programs or workshops…so that might be a weakness. I think another weakness would be recently they have not had a consistent social worker in the past seven months. So, they have had switching with social workers. So that has been tough on the organization, because the recipients who come and see one person one week, and then two months later they see another person. That has been one thing that is unfortunate. (Jake, August 7, 2014)

Staff members perceived changing roles as being caused primarily by evolving programming. Staff members were given “little to no say” in their new roles. One staff member, who failed to meet the executive director’s expectations for his role in EPSILON’s evolving programming, stated,

Like I said, I’m terrible at programming. I’m terrible at, like, logistics. And so, you know, I was thrown in head first. So not necessarily with much help. And understanding how to plan events, or how far out they should be. So here I am a month before a certain event, and I have very little done. And I didn’t necessarily know that I was supposed to have it all done three months ago. So just awkward tension of that…But again, the programming side of things, I don’t understand it at all! I don’t enjoy it either! So that was really hard. (Mike, July 31, 2014)

Finally, a changing organization was displayed through vision implementation. The executive director is a self-described “vision-caster.” And the board of directors has had conflicts with him over the implementation of his vision for EPSILON. For example, one board member noted that the organization has changed because of the executive director’s vision, but added that the board of directors has also had to “reel him in” and reduce the scope of his grandiose plans:

No, we don’t go along with everything [the executive director] does. [The executive director] is a visionary, really, very much a visionary.

326

Big plans, big events, he’s way out of the box! On the board, we try to pull him back a little bit…of course [he] has visions. And now we have to bring him in. But we are taking steps; we are trying to get [him] a coach that will say, ‘Hey, you are working too much, you need to divide your time, you need to change your time commitment.’ Basically, to work with [the executive director], to try to help him, guide him a little better. (Yohann, August 7, 2014)

“Sensemaking” through confrontation, acceptance, and splitting was used by EPSILON staff members in order to balance organizational paradoxes concerning staff expectations, evolving programming, and vision implementation. Staff members coped with changing relationships through confrontation. Confrontations occurred over issues related to a sense of belonging for individuals, groups, the community, and the organization. For example, in one observation (August 19, 2014), the receptionist and nutritionist discussed their feelings and frustrations regarding expectations and implementation of the summer school program. The nutritionist told the receptionist that she often reads the bible for her devotions and that it helps her “de-stress.” The receptionist then confronted the nutritionist over the issue because she felt the nutritionist was “pushing personal beliefs on her.” The receptionist then apologized and said she was “just trying to help her,” and the two hugged and then proceeded to discuss another topic. Changing roles in the organization were often handled by splitting mixed messages. In one observation (August 11, 2014), the nutritionist explained how miscommunication in such a small organization lead to mixed messages of responsibility when one of the staff members was gone. Specifically, she noted that as the primary contact person with recipients and the rest of the staff, the receptionist played a key role in facilitating detailed messages. When the receptionist was gone, the executive director would “take over the messaging” through emails and texts, and

327 many staff members would become confused. So, to help split mixed messaging issues among the remaining staff members, she had taken to putting lists and notes around the office in order to help solve miscommunication on specific items related to her area; such as when a staff member put a new donated item into the refrigerator for recipients. Similarly, a changing organization was reluctantly met with acceptance by staff members. Several staff members said they felt some trepidation about the current direction of the presence of faith, or lack thereof, within the organization. EPSILON was seen as becoming increasingly secular. One staff member explained that,

I don’t necessarily think faith is lacking. I think there’s always room for improvement, I guess. Maybe more programs need to be biblically- based. But then there’s that dichotomy too of, ‘We don’t want to scare people away who are not religious.’ We want to help no matter what! But then maybe if it’s a secular workshop, maybe just kind of throw in little nuggets of ‘truth’ in there? But not intentionally betraying either. It’s a really hard balance because you want to help people who are not Christians, or not religious, because their journey still matters as well…I think the only tension that is the potential—and this is so tough—how do you mix faith and secular together? I think that’s really tricky. (Fiona, August 7, 2014)

Ultimately, however, staff members accepted “a more secular vision of the organization” led by the executive director with the support of the board of directors. The presence of faith within the organization was described by some staff members as “in limbo,” as faith was neither encouraged nor discouraged by organizational leadership. One staff member recalled how she wished she could pray more often with the recipients, but that she also understood that she did not want to “push her faith” on others:

I almost wish I could do more with, like, praying at least before classes…like before we eat and stuff…I initially, going into starting

328

those classes had wanted to pray, like, at each one, whether it be before or after we eat, but it just never happened. And I think that is a personal barrier because I just didn’t feel comfortable doing it, because I wasn’t sure, like, how each one would take it. But it is something that has been on my mind to do. But I just, yeah, I don’t want to be pushing faith when it is not accepted. (Bryn, August 11, 2014)

[14] The organizing paradox of exploration and exploitation (Siggelkow & Levinthal, 2003) was exhibited by recipient programming and community collaboration. The decision making process at EPSILON faced tradeoffs and tensions between a centralized vision of program implementation from the executive director, and decentralized resources and inputs from community collaborators. Several staff members and board members were concerned that volunteers and donors in the community were not given an equal opportunity to shape the vision of the organization. Although community volunteers and donors were relied upon to implement the executive director’s vision, they were not permitted to change the visional or missional direction of the organization. Even though the executive director did not found the organization, he is both the CEO and president of the board of directors. Essentially, the executive director’s vision for EPSILON is absolute as it is the vision the organization attempts to implement (Director Report, April 2014, pp. 1-3). The lack of checks and balances within the organization was a topic of discussion at a board meeting (September 23, 2014). Yet, when asked about this contradiction of a centralized vision, but decentralized resources, and preventing the organization from being controlled solely by the executive director’s vision, board members explained that the executive director “has gotten them this far” and that “they will trust him,” even if they do not agree with many of his proposals. One board member described

329 how community collaboration was a current method of controlling executive director power, as the community was resistant to change, and the lack of staff training and financial resources were the only checks and balances on the executive director’s power:

I think everybody has their own opinions of things, but…[the executive director’s] vision for this organization that has caused this exponential growth…and so when you see it, it’s hard to argue with that. It’s hard to say now, ‘I suddenly think that his vision is not worth it any more’…but I do think in this community, especially, there is a hesitation to change. Change just because this was working, so why do we want to change it? And I think that sometimes it just takes some people longer to get to a place of understanding and recognizing a need for change, or why change might be important. And so as a board, we’ll just consider those types of things—it might take four, six, eight, ten meetings sometimes until…people have the full ability to process it, and see how much of a benefit that could be…I think [the executive director] has some very large ideas and vision for this organization to go with its involvement with family and school programming. But the lack of training…for staff numbers here, and financial constraints, have us ending up saying, ‘No, we shouldn’t do that.’ (Ryan, September 2, 2014)

EPSILON did not engage in adaptation though temporary decentralization and centralization reintegration of decision making to manage the paradox of recipient programming and community collaboration. The decision making of the organization was decidedly one-sided and centralized. Most decisions emanated from the executive director, along with some decisions in support of the executive director made by the board of directors. Staff members were occasionally allowed to offer ideas, but were mostly relegated to “receiving information.” During one conversation, the executive director reiterated the importance of his input and “veto authority” in decision making because he had experience in the areas where they had hired staff members, explaining:

330

…if I can't get consensus, and I feel that strongly about it (a decision), then this is the way it’s going to be! Well here’s the language that we use. There's the point person, they’re the ones in charge. There are the input people, they can give input, only if they are asked. There are information people, they’re just told…Input is me and [the office assistant], because we’ve done it before as we give input. [Other staff members] are information only, because they’ve never done it, and they don’t need to give any input. They can't give input, they should hold information. They all know this! They should be able to articulate that…So anyway we use that (phrase and procedure) a lot—‘input, information, veto.’ (Executive Director, August 6, 2014)

7.5 Performing Paradoxes Performing paradoxes at EPSILON revolved around issues related to financial instability and an insufficient number of volunteers. EPSILON managed some performing paradoxes by affirming that personnel remained committed to their work because of their Christian faith, and through their perception of their work as a Christian ministry. Yet, the organization did not do enough to address serious concerns about the structures and powers that had led to some stakeholders feeling disenfranchised from the decision making process.

[15] The paradox of individual autonomy, multiple stakeholders, and divergent objectives (Denis, Langley, & Rouleau, 2007) was evidenced by executive management, community collaborators, and faith deficiency. As the primary leader in the executive management team, the executive director was granted individual autonomy by the board of directors to assert his power and control over the majority of decision making at EPSILON. Collective paralysis among staff members and board members often occurred when the executive director requested the implementation of a vague vision, or held unworkable expectations in organizational programming and finances. Several stakeholders argued that EPSILON had exhausted its financial

331 resources, which only exacerbated tensions over unrealistic staff expectations. One staff member explained that the executive director lacked proper communication around his vision in program implementation:

The biggest tension between coworkers might be hidden expectations that I don’t know about, that I can’t meet; which come out in any relationship. On the job, it’s just awkward at times. It’s like, ‘I’m sorry that I didn’t meet this expectation.’ But at the same time, I didn’t even know that I was supposed to be doing this, or that I should have done that…I think the expectations failed because of the lack of communication…the expectations are still there. I’m supposed to complete everything. So how do I complete everything when I don’t have all the time I need to do so? Yeah, so the expectations of my job might be too unrealistic for everything I’m doing. And again, I can’t do more because again, our financial resources are somewhat exhausted month to month. (Mike, July 31, 2014)

Stakeholder conflicts also occurred with executive management as community collaborators, consisting of volunteers and donors, frequently holding opposing viewpoints and divergent objectives. For example, the majority of board members desired more faith-based programming. When speaking about his fellow board members, one board member recalled how they—as the executive management team—viewed their organizational mission as serving through the church:

Being Christian sometimes keeps us from recognizing all the potential possibility for us out there. Again, thinking outside the box, what if there is a way to interact and contact that student that we’re not doing right now? And because our lens is always in church—it’s always faith—were not willing to go outside the box to meet people where they are. Sometimes I think that maybe there is a workshop that’s out there but (we will say), ‘Well it’s not a faith-based workshop, so we are not going to do that.’ Again, I’m willing to look at it and say, ‘Yes,’ but is it going to serve our people well? Whether or not it is faith- based, and if the answer is ‘Yes,’ then I will take that step. I don’t see that happening a lot, but I do think it happens. We always bring with us the lens that we have. And as Christians, we often bring our church lens. [EPSILON] is not church…but I do think that we could think

332

outside the box with the ways we interact with people. (Ryan, September 2, 2014)

Conversely, volunteers in the school district were adamant that there should be no faith-based viewpoints expressed in EPSILON’s programming with at-risk youth. One volunteer admitted that the school district has imposed “safeguards,” such as monitoring, to ensure faith-related issues were not presented to children at school:

I’ll be honest, I go to church and all that, but I would say faith is very minimal. It’s just a good guy (the executive director) working with kids that we know can benefit from what we’re trying to do in our mission. Faith really has nothing to do with it…I kinda have [the executive director’s] word that when he’s here, or working with our students in a school-based relationship, that he doesn’t preach the faith to anybody…there were a few board members that were just like, ‘Watch him, we don’t know this guy real well!’ And I did little things; like if he was going to do a study hall, or something like that, I would have maybe a person there with him. So, if he was to have a study hall, and the last fifteen minutes he was going to preach about something. But not even close, not even close at all. (Dog, August 27, 2014)

EPSILON was unable to sufficiently synergize executive management, community collaborators, and faith deficiency. However, multiple stakeholders did identify with, and attempt to perform, their tasks according to the organizational values of relationships. EPSILON stakeholders repeatedly mentioned that they value organizational relationships with each other, with the community, and with recipients, as they held that “everyone’s journey matters.” This slogan in practice meant that regardless of race, religion, and financial condition, the organization did not turn anyone away from receiving services, or contributing to the organization as a volunteer or donor, as long as this person agreed to create and maintain positive relationships. One board member argued that “relationships are everything” to the organization, because “to see real lasting life changes it takes relationships, and I think that is something that is accomplished well here. And the change that we see tend to

333 be a lasting change, not irrational change” (Ryan, September 2, 2014). A volunteer with the school district also concurred that relationships were at EPSILON’s core values when she said,

There is a faith-based piece to [EPSILON], but they're not going to turn you away if that's not the way you feel. Because I think ‘everybody's journey matters.’ So ‘everybody's journey matters.’ And I think that's where we can kind of get away with maybe some of our (the school district) relationship, is that I think they see it as every journey matters. So, it doesn't really matter if you're Catholic, or Buddhist, or whatever—I think they will be supportive of you. (Mom, September 2, 2014)

[16] The paradox of stakeholder interests and stakeholder contributions (Donaldson & Preston, 1995) was exhibited through financial stability and fundraising weakness. All stakeholders at EPSILON expressed the desire for the organization to become financially stable. However, staff members and board members acknowledged the financial realities of the organization when they failed to meet payroll deadlines at least three times in the past year. One staff member described EPSILON’s financial predicament by saying,

This past year three times I didn’t know if we could do payroll…One time I didn’t pay myself for four days. And I’m tired of things like that. And that weighs on me…and I know it’s all part of God’s plan. So, he’ll take care of us. But I worry, I worry about money! And I shouldn’t worry about it because it always comes in. But I wish we had a cushion…So our biggest obstacle, any organization like ours, is staffing and finances for sure. And God has always taken care of us. But I just wish we had like a six-month cushion where I didn’t have to worry about doing payroll. (Saxon, August 6, 2014)

Part of EPSILON’s financial instability revolved around the majority of staff members and board members being unable to fundraise, or being ineffective at fundraising. One staff member admitted, “I’m not good at fundraising…that wouldn’t be my strong

334 suit” (Fiona, August 7, 2014). Yet, board members also noted how they, as part of the executive management team, did not actively fundraise on behalf of the organization. Instead, the executive director carried almost sole responsibility for organizational fundraising. Additionally, board members described a delicate and unstainable financial situation. Several members of the board of directors envisioned selling products based on the organization’s experiences in teaching their self-help recipient workshops in order to combat the financial issues facing the organization.

One board member even desired “shopping around” the executive director as a “poverty consultant” so that EPSILON might bring in its own income and stop “begging” for money:

Money is always an issue. We can’t make payroll this week, so how do we get it done? Getting money is probably one of our biggest headaches; which part of my goal is to make our own money…What I see my goal being, is with [the executive director’s] vision, and what’s happening here, and he’s starting to write a book and publish the book. And what I’d really like is for [the executive director] to do some videos. I know this one church in the past year asked [the executive director] to come to the church and teach ‘Getting Ahead’ workshops. It takes about a day to teach a workshop. So, we get people to ‘get ahead,’ yet he doesn’t charge for it! He’s almost won a consulting gig with all these different churches and organizations telling them what and how we are doing. But instead of doing all that free, let’s make a video, now let’s sell the video for whatever amount. Market this video, market this book, ‘Paradise Redeemed!’ Sell the book! How much money can the book make? How much money can the videos make? [We are] a small community, and there are millions of small communities in America. So why not make a good book and video and sell it? Now, we are making our own income. We can shop [the executive director] around and he can bring in money for speaking— that’s my plan for [EPSILON]. Let’s make our own money instead of begging for it. But that’s me being a business person; which isn’t always good…But we can do it, let’s pray about it! ‘If you ask, it shall be given.’ (Yohann, August 7, 2014)

335

EPSILON did not use “stakeholder management” to balance their paradox of financial stability and fundraising weakness through attitudes, structures, or practices. While EPSILON made an effort to please the “secular wing” of their community partners, such as the school district and municipal government, some board members and staff members felt it was as a tradeoff and a sacrifice to secure financial donors and volunteers from area churches. As a faith-based organization with all Christian staff members and board members, several staff members and board members were confused why the executive director sometimes appeared to “shun” or “silence” certain Christian elements within the organization. As such, several Christian stakeholders voiced their concerns over (1) the attitude exhibited from the executive director towards some churches, (2) the structure that provided the executive director with centralized power, authority, and decision making, and (3) the practices by the executive director of specifically including and elevating non-Christians to “partners” within the organization. Indeed, in one conversation, the executive director stated that his purpose at EPSILON was to protect both the Christian and non-Christian cultures within the organization:

My purpose here…is to protect the culture of this organization and the ethos, whether that’s board members, paid staff or volunteers, Christians, non-Christians, school, everybody. And protect that culture and that ethos of what we’re about…The other thing that I’ve become is a pastor in the community, both to Christians and non- Christians…I’m very comfortable in the Christian setting, and I’m very comfortable in the non-Christian setting…I can hang around with a bunch of non-Christians who are drunk and be totally okay with it. You know what I mean? (Executive Director, August 6, 2014).

However, protecting the non-Christian stakeholders in the organization had an equally detrimental consequence on some of EPSILON’s relationships with its Christian stakeholders. One staff member explained that some churches were starting

336 to withhold their financial donor and volunteer support for the organization over its changing vision and culture:

Well, some churches have stopped supporting us because of its (our culture). We have one church in particular, well two churches in particular, and neither one will support us. And they’re doing the same thing we’re doing with the food pantry because we’re ‘not doing it right.’ We don’t put scripture tracts in people’s bags when we give them food. We don't stop and pray with every single person who walks in the door. (Saxon, August 6, 2014)

[17] Faith-based action and volunteer recruitment and staff member restructuring demonstrated the performing paradox of building employee commitment and multiple strategic goals (Jarzabkowski & Sillince, 2007). The personal faith of staff members was a source of employee commitment to the organization. Staff members and board members all identified with the faith-based values of the organization. As one board member recalled, “We all have the same faith. We have a strong faith; which I think is at the core of the organization” (Yohann, August 7, 2014). All stakeholders saw the role of faith change in the organization as it extended its partnerships with secular community interests. One board member noted the changing role of faith in the organization, and how this changing role was affecting staff members and volunteers:

How much of a role does faith have to play in every volunteer that we have? These are the kind of conversations that we’re having right now…I think faith is a very large part of the backbone of this organization. But I would be one who would tell you that I feel like there will come a time where we could potentially have somebody who understands our big picture mission, but could be of a different faith, but could lead in some small way for this organization…And so I think faith plays a vital role in getting us to where we are, but it wouldn’t surprise me that faith is going to play a lighter role, or changing, as we move forward. (Ryan, September 2, 2014)

337

So, despite faith being heralded by the executive management as a “backbone” of the organization, staff members were often perplexed why their faith was not routinely acted upon at EPSILON. Indeed, staff members voiced concerns, and struggled with their commitment to the organization, when they were unable to establish “Christian relationships” with recipients and volunteers. One staff member explained that while they had not discussed how the organization maintains its Christian faith, he regarded the faith of its board members and staff members as evangelical. However, he also noted that,

We don’t require that the people who come here for help go to church, or go to a Bible study, or memorize scripture. My feeling is if we expected everybody to accept Christ, they would all do it as they walked in the door, if they felt that meant that we were going to give them money, or help them with what their need was. When, in fact, I think it wouldn’t really be a true conversion. I think the more we build relationships with people, the more they trust us. They see Christ through how we’re living—through what we’re doing, and through how we’re treating people. We probably have people who wouldn’t even come to us for help if they thought that we were going to demand that they did a Bible study, or they went to church…That’s one thing I’ve learned about the people that we work with, is trust is not something that you automatically have; trust is definitely something you have to earn. (Max, August 6, 2014)

Simultaneously, the organization held multiple strategic goals of increasing volunteer recruitment and staff member restructuring. A 2014 organizational self- assessment (SWOT Analysis, 2014, p. 1) contended that EPSILON had weak volunteer recruitment. The organization described itself as needing “more effective youth center staff,” and that “getting proper staff has been a struggle,” and that staff issues were a threat because of “not having the right staff in place.” Many stakeholders perceived these strategic goals as being negatively impacted by the lack of faith-based action within the organization. Several stakeholders argued that

338 regardless of the vision to grow recipient programming through community collaboration, vision implementation should follow the historical Christian mission of the organization. EPSILON managed the paradox of faith-based action and volunteer recruitment and staff member restructuring with “rhetorical strategies” related to their current values and historical context. Its vision of faith-secular community partnerships and collaboration, employee commitment to the organization, and its multiple strategic goals of volunteer recruitment and staff member restructuring, was due to its current values as a Christian faith organization, and its historical context as a Christian ministry. Staff members argued that without their Christian faith values, and the organization’s history as a Christian ministry focused on helping people, it would be difficult to do their job because of the constraints and challenges as human service nonprofit. One staff member explained how the Christian ministry had given her employee commitment:

I love that I get to work in a ministry where I believe in what the ministry is doing… and so even in that, for me, faith plays a role in this ministry, because it gives it purpose… That’s the perspective of understanding why we do what we do—the reason behind the ministry. It’s the reason why I can do some of the menial tasks that I don’t enjoy, because I can connect it to the underlying purpose of it’s mandated by scripture to be of service to people. (Laura, August 29, 2014)

Similarly, another staff member illuminated how her Christian faith helped her to identify with her job, and enabled her to perform the unknown aspects of her job:

I really didn’t know how the programs here would go. I didn’t know how many people would show up. I didn’t know how well they would run. I didn’t know how well my recipes would turn out a lot of times. I don’t have the resources, or the time, to try out recipes beforehand. So, honestly, going into every class that I hold is kind of like exercising my own faith. Because I really can’t do it on my own! I am just like, I

339

really rely on God to get me through each class, because…I couldn’t have done it without my faith! (Bryn, August 11, 2014)

[18] The paradox of humanitarian needs and economic objectives (Margolis & Walsh, 2003) was exhibited by EPSILON through helping recipients and financial growth. While all stakeholders at the organization wished and prayed “to help as many recipients as possible,” financial constraints prohibited the organization from maintaining a consistent budget. A 2014 organizational self-assessment (SWOT

Analysis, 2014, p. 1) held that the majority of EPSILON’s threats and weaknesses were financial. EPSILON’s self-assessment claimed that they “struggled with adequate cash flow,” that “development has not grown much,” that “our fundraisers have flat-lined,” there is a “lack of funding to keep staff,” and that the “inability to grow financially is causing us to cut back on staff and programs.” The financial constraints were severe enough that staff members described being worried about delaying their paychecks to help the organization balance its budget. One staff member explained the organization was now at a crossroads as to how to proceed financially:

Our budget is around $360,000 a year. When I came, it was $52,000. But I’m starting to feel like, ‘Okay, I don’t know if we can maintain that.’ I don’t know if we need to start hiring a development director that does go out and fundraise. I fight it. I have a friend of mine that all he does is take old ladies out for lunch and gets more money out of them. I couldn’t live with myself if I had to do that. So, we have to think strategically. And I don’t know what that looks like! Like I can send out an appeal to some people saying, ‘Hey, we’re really struggling financially. I need $15,000 in a week because we need to serve more people.’ And I’m thinking, ‘Maybe, that’s how we operate?’ But some people don’t like that! It’s like you don’t know what you’re doing! You know what I mean? So, it’s one of those things where we don’t really have an answer yet. We have to bring in more funds, or we have to stop doing some things, and start finding new people. And how do

340

we bring in more funds? The fundraisers—they’ve climaxed. So, how do we do that? (Saxon, August 6, 2014)

The paradox of helping recipients and financial growth was partially managed by EPSILON. EPSILON did not address property claims as it pertained to the misappropriation of funds or lack of financial resources. EPSILON did not practice efficiency in its personalized service towards recipients. Similarly, it did not engage in due process to try to reconcile financial instability in the organization by ensuring fairness in stakeholder input, power, or control. One staff member described discussions regarding the economic objectives of EPSILON as one-sided, without a clear understanding of the problem or solution:

I also think financially…I feel like we depend a lot on fundraising events, which don’t bring in enough money to make a huge chunk of difference. I feel like we need to…secure more sustainable financial support...we sat down as a staff and had that meeting. We want the staff to know that we never have a big reserve…That is how faith plays a huge role in what we do. And that’s tough, and it’s hard to know when you let everybody know what we’re lacking financially without scaring everyone too. But at the same time, like okay, there’s a reason why I’m saying, ‘Sorry, we can’t go buy paper right now.’ That’s hard; that’s probably the hardest part. (Max, August 6, 2014)

However, EPSILON with its emphasis on relationships indicated its desire to respond to contributing conditions to poverty in their community through their recipient programming. Additionally, EPSILON personnel felt a personal beneficence duty to use the organization’s available resources to assist recipients and promote their well- being. Indeed, every effort was made to service recipients in need with whatever service or company benefits the organization had available, regardless of a prior appointment, a new crisis, or an unforeseen emergency circumstance.

341

7.6 Cross-Category Paradoxes Cross-Category paradoxes. EPSILON displayed three unique cross-category paradox exemplars. EPSILON’s cross-category paradoxes were primarily evidenced through staff members having to learn and organize, because of changes in the work environment, due to revisions in the organization’s vision. Learning and organizing issues were managed by staff members feeling a sense of professional belonging to the organization through their personal faith, such as by focusing their efforts on personalized recipient programs where staff could potentially share their faith.

[19] EPSILON exhibited the Learning::Belonging paradox of radical change and personal and organizational identity transformation (Fiol, 2002). Board members and staff members highlighted organizational tensions surrounding group decision making and individual education. Several staff members and board members described situations where they felt learning in their organizational roles helped to evolve their sense of belonging to EPSILON and, in turn, helped the organization evolve. All stakeholders agreed the organization had undergone significant change over the past few years as increased staffing and programs, coupled with alterations to the organization’s vision and mission implementation, had transformed individuals and the organization as a whole. For example, one board member described how he felt the need for additional staff was initially a good idea, but over time had learned to take on more consensus decision making through a group learning approach when voting on significant organizational issues:

So, to use the example in the director of development job, we threw that out there. Immediately, most board members just went to check the price tag and said we can’t afford to bring another full-time person to do that. And they’re probably right to just compare it to the budget,

342

and that it would not work. But it’s worth the conversation in my opinion—the big picture—‘Yes, but could this position potentially pay for itself and potentially help grow this ministry even bigger?’ And, we’ll get there, it will take some time. That is something that I’ve learned. And again, I haven’t been on the board for very long, but I’ve learned that I’m somewhat different in my wiring than some of the people. I tend to jump into things and say, ‘Let’s run, we’ll just run with it, let’s see how far we run, and how much we can get there.’ And some things just take time. At times, it’s just better to go along with others, than just trying to go there by yourself. (Ryan, September 2, 2014)

Similarly, a staff member described her individual learning transformation over time as her role in the organization had changed her through teaching and educating others in the community about poverty issues:

The classes, like creating them, I mean I learned just like clients learn. I learn about things…I think a lot of the solution in fighting poverty is educating people in the middle-class—they kind of turned their backs to the fact that poverty is real, and peers of their own kids are going through it. But, for some reason, it is really hard to get them to understand. Like how useful a learning tool is to have someone come in and talk about hunger in our community and give, like actual statistics! And how it has just gotten worse after this recession, and not decreased. It is just really frustrating! (Bryn, August 11, 2014)

EPSILON’s learning and belonging paradox of group decision making and individual education was managed through deidentification of Christian faith, situated reidentification of social service, and core ideology identification of Christian service. In the deidentification of Christian faith, EPSILON personnel went through periodic episodes of loosening their individual ties to the organizational identity. Although all staff members and board members were required to be of the Christian faith in order to serve, personnel also had to accept the vision of the organization as serving recipients from all religious, and even anti-religious, backgrounds. One staff member argued

343 that, “I say the [EPSILON] ministry is ‘a faith-based social services agency’…Now, having said that, to be on our staff and board, you have to be a Christian…To be a volunteer at the youth center, you have to be a Christian…we’re a strong Christian organization” (Saxon, August 6, 2014). Additionally, personnel accepted the vision of the organization that it would continue to expand its partnerships and stakeholders with non-Christians and secular agencies. In the situated reidentification of social service, personnel built initial ties to a new organizational reality based primarily on “relationships.” While service to these relationships was often borne out of personal faith, personal faith, nevertheless, was viewed as tangential to the mission and vision of the organization. Finally, in the core ideology identification of Christian service, personnel were able to build their individual ties to the core ideology of the organization as an organization with a Christian faith premise, but a social service mission and vision. Personnel at EPSILON frequently discussed how “the reason behind the mission and vision” is the Christian faith. Simultaneously, personnel were careful to explain that the organization “is not the church,” and that it attempts to treat each recipient equally, “as God would have them do” in “loving their neighbor as themselves.” One staff member elucidated this organizational and personal faith nuance:

I think faith is most present in the vision…the way that we care about people…the way that we care about people exemplifies how Christ cared about people…the other thing is, even though this is a Christian organization, it can’t take the place of the church in my life, because…I do feel like you’re called to serving a church (too). (Laura, August 29, 2014)

344

The theological underpinnings of service and ministry formed the basis for the understanding of the organization as a “Christian service organization,” as one staff member explained,

I do not see this place being an ‘in your face’ Christian service organization; which I think is good, because then a lot of people would be uncomfortable with hearing that. If you come here, and you see how we treat individuals—how we function—then you will understand that behind those actions, faith is the reason why we are doing that. (Jake, August 7, 2014)

[23] EPSILON also demonstrated the Learning::Organizing paradox of dynamic capabilities and competitive advantage (Teece & Pisano, 1994). Dynamic capabilities for the organization centered on its ability to offer personalized service to its recipients. Personalized service provided a competitive advantage in the local market as all stakeholders touted the “uniqueness” of the organization. One board member argued that, “You are not coming in here strictly to be a name and a number.

You are going to come here, and we genuinely care about you, care about your family, care about your kids, and we don’t necessarily have any kind of endgame” (Ryan, September 2, 2014). Through one-on-one financial, social, and spiritual counseling, small group workshops about cooking, grief sharing, and poverty implications, and individual and family food pantry distribution, EPSILON had programs that aimed to treat recipients as “their own special family.” However, this personalized service came with the known tradeoff of inefficiency and financial costs with no guarantees of effectiveness, or the desired outcome of reducing poverty. Staff members were often frustrated when they had to “drop everything” and attend to an irate recipient, or “deal with another crisis” when

345 they were in the middle of performing their other work tasks. Since the organization had designed its services to be individualized, staff members had also been personally threatened or mistreated by recipients. One staff member recalled,

This one lady that I think has mental health issues, and because I took her and her husband out to try to talk with them, and see if I could help them, they threatened to sue us. We contacted our attorney…we’ve had others. They’re usually somebody that’s ‘high,’ and they get in my face, and they want to beat me up, because they’re out of control. So, we had a lady that we’re working with now…her son that hated us at times. So, she told me that at meetings. She’s like, ‘I hate you, I hate you, I hate you.’ I keep saying to her, ‘I’m not your enemy; I’m on your team. You need to understand that. I’m not your enemy!’ She’s got it into her head that I didn’t like her. Little things like that…So, there's been a few of those here and there. Students that were ‘high’ that I wouldn’t let them come in and verbally abuse their girlfriend. So, they’re going to beat me up. Put a knife to my throat. It comes with the territory. I’ve been threatened. My life’s been threatened three times! (Saxon, August 6, 2014)

EPSILON balanced their learning and organizing paradox of personalized service to its recipients while maintaining a competitive advantage in the local market.

As part of EPSILON’s dynamic capabilities, EPSILON relied on its coordination with stakeholders in order to integrate external processes to help form new organizational routines. For example, nonprofit best practices, such as monthly board meetings, updated human resource procedures, a new employee handbook, and detailed job descriptions, were recently added based on recommendations from, and coordination with, external stakeholders. Additionally, the organization was able to reconfigure and transform its organization in order to meet the specific requirements of its community, as it went from just offering after-school youth center activities, to a comprehensive social service organization in the time span of just three years.

346

EPSILON used its access to stakeholder partnerships to position itself, and its professional and locational assets in the community, as one of the primary providers of comprehensive social services. EPSILON was the only organization in the community with a youth center, a licensed social worker on staff, and they boasted the largest food pantry by size, volume, and selection. Thus, they formed clear paths to grow as the lone comprehensive social service organization in their local market, provided they continue an honest assessment of their current opportunities and threats.

The organization had performed periodic reviews, such as their 2014 organization self-assessment. EPSILON’s 2014 self-assessment listed some organizational strengths, such as being “an authority on working with those in poverty,” and “those we serve see us as a strength and speak very highly of us.” Similarly, some of their organizational opportunities were seen as “moving our influence beyond our current community” and “becoming more financially secure” (SWOT Analyis, 2014, p. 1).

EPSILON’s unique collaboration with the area school district, municipal government, local churches and businesses, and a diverse array of individuals were also an area where other nonprofit and social service organizations would have difficulty with replicability and imitability. As mentioned by all stakeholders, the relationships the organization has formed with its community partnerships had taken years to foster, and would not have been possible without the particular actors currently involved in the organization.

[33] Finally, the Belonging::Organizing paradox of “the individual in group life” through membership, participation, and influence (Smith & Berg, 1987) was

347 evidenced through Christian faith, service commitment, and executive management. As individuals in the group of organizational personnel, EPSILON staff members and board members often felt “membership” in the organization through their Christian faith. Board members and staff members described their Christian faith as something they “all have in common with each other.” Additionally, their participation in the organization was similar to their service commitment to the mission of the organization. Nevertheless, their influence was limited if they were not on the executive management team. The executive director held “veto authority” over any staff member on any issue he felt could change the culture of the organization. For example, in one conversation he stated,

I will only use veto power if it affects the culture of the ministry and where we’re heading. So, I use it sparingly. And they know when I use this, I think it’s affected the culture of the organization… I tell the staff if you’re frustrated by anything, even if it’s to do with me, come to me. It’s not going to impact your job. You have job security if you come to me. If you don't come to me, you might not. (Executive Director, August 6, 2014)

Support staff members also did not have the ability to influence, or a direct outlet to voice concerns to, the board of directors. One staff member recollected that she used to attend board meetings when the organization was smaller with fewer staff members, but she still could not vote on organizational issues:

Originally, I used to go to the board meetings too; I would go to take minutes. I didn’t participate in voting, but I was there….It’s a hierarchy thing…one of the board members was in here yesterday asking me for a financial breakdown of things, and I said, ‘I can’t do that.’ ‘I’d have to talk to [the executive director] first to make sure that that’s allowed before I could just hand the reports to you.’ (Max, August 6, 2014)

348

The paradox of Christian faith, service commitment, and executive management was managed by separating contradictions, splitting and reclaiming emotions, and immersion and exploration of relationships. A highly controversial vision for the organization was that of its Christian and non-Christian ethos. Several staff members and board members were confused by this paradoxical vision as expressed by the executive director. In practice, personnel learned to organize their work tasks around both ethos identities. Staff members were told to pray for recipients if they “seemed like they would be open to it,” or if it was requested. At the same time, staff members were told not to engage in any Christian instruction while at secular locations, such as the school district buildings. Dealing with these contradictory elements was an ongoing learning process, but one which had, thus far, been a success at gaining some new “secular,” or non-Christian community partners, albeit at the expense of a few prior partnerships with Christian churches. Splitting and reclaiming emotions often occurred throughout the vision implementation process. Both staff members and board members personally identified with the Christian faith, but also ascribed to the goals of the organization to serve everyone who needed help and requested it in their community. As one board member explained,

We want a home type of environment. But we want to be professional in what we do…we want you to come in here, and be warmly greeted, warmly cared for while you’re here, and that you feel like when you’re here, you’re a part of the [EPSILON] family. Because that’s what you are—part of our family. And that’s where your journey truly does matter to us. We don’t just say that. It’s something that is meant and believed by everybody who works here. (Ryan, September 2, 2014)

Finally, staff members and board members were encouraged to immerse and explore their own relationships with each other and with the recipients. Many

349 personnel concluded that the organization is “really about building relationships,” with a board member further elaborating that,

Ultimately, the reason that we care about them is because God has cared for us as individuals. And through relationships with them, we have an opportunity to share Christ’s love for us. And then also show how we can love one another, just the way He has loved us all. (Ryan, September 2, 2014)

7.7 Summary EPSILON exhibited all 33 paradoxical exemplars, but was able to manage 23 of them. This case report explores all 18 core paradoxes, along with paradoxes [19], [23], and [33] from the cross-categories. Despite belonging, learning, organizing, and performing issues related to their changing vision, EPSILON’s implementation of several paradox management techniques was crucial to their ability to sustaining their programs and community support.

350

Chapter 8

OMEGA ORGANIZATION

8.1 Overview Historical Context: Organization “OMEGA” was founded in 1967 and formally incorporated in 1971. OMEGA began as a consortium of thirteen churches “to unite the various religious groups and congregations to work together in an organized fashion in attempting to solve the problems and concerns of the community” and “to stimulate spiritual growth and cooperation to improve our community” (Articles of Amendment, 1989, p. 3). Over the next two decades, the consortium grew to thirty-three Christian churches and one Jewish synagogue, and formalized its operations by focusing its mission on social services. In 1989, the organization was granted IRS 501(c)3 status. In 1995, OMEGA began looking for a permeant facility from which to operate. In 2010, the organization moved to a building near Main Street in an “urban, downtown environment.” According to the president of the board of directors, this move resulted in growth over the next three years as the organization developed “from a candy store operation to [a] major contributor of quality service to our community” (Annual Report, 2013, p. 2). OMEGA now operates services to its community in six areas: (1) financial and supportive assistance, (2) an emergency food pantry, (3) a dry goods program, (4) a community meals program, (5) the ‘Getting Ahead Initiative’ and, (6) the chaplaincy program.

351

According to OMEGA’s 2013 annual report (Annual Report, 2013, p. 3), 3281 people requested financial assistance, and $52,981 in funding assistance was used to aid recipients with rent, utilities, and medication purchases. Additionally, 584 individuals received supportive assistance, such as one-on-one social and financial counseling. In 2013, 16,629 people (4837 families) utilized OMEGA’s emergency food pantry, and an undisclosed number of people also used their “walk-in pantry shelf.” 11,482 people received over 17,000 clothing, personal hygiene, and household items from OMEGA’s dry goods program in 2013. As the organization’s “longest running outreach program,” the community meals program (which takes place in one of five sponsoring churches) fed 18,590 individuals from the community. The ‘Getting Ahead Initiative’ began in 2013 and focuses on moving recipients “toward greater self-sufficiency” (Strategic Plan, 2013, p. 3). Finally, the chaplain program is available for recipients who wish to seek spiritual guidance and support. Financial Background: OMEGA had an operating budget of $431,730 for

2013 (Budget, 2014), with a surplus after net expenditures of only $700. OMEGA lists its largest benefactors as foundations ($123,000) and businesses ($48,000). Interestingly, despite its strong historical connection with churches, churches were only the fourth largest contributor to organizational revenue, behind donations of individuals. OMEGA lists its greatest expenditure as staff expenses ($267,668) and client financial assistance ($47,716). Yet, administrative costs, including staff expenses, professional and operating fees, marketing and fundraising costs, and building maintenance costs ($370,814), equated to roughly 86% of budget expenditure ($431,030). Between the years 2010 and 2014, IRS 990 forms indicate that OMEGA was financially inconsistent. While OMEGA increased its total net revenue by

352

$663,503 over five years, in 2012, it ran a budget deficit of -$48,958. Similarly, OMEGA developed its net assets from $420,290 in 2010 to $972,099 in 2014—a total increase of $551,809, or 131.29%. Concerns over financial solvency had led the board of directors to consider contracting with local governments, and other local social service agencies, to increase its social service offerings, and supplement its existing revenue. RQ 1 Findings: OMEGA exhibited all 33 paradoxical exemplars. OMEGA was the most racially and religiously diverse organization among the five organizations included in this study. Racially, OMEGA was the only organization in the study with an African American staff member, and the only organization in the study that served predominately African American recipients. Religiously, unlike the other organizations in this study, OMEGA had a few Jewish board members and a few Jewish, Muslim and agnostic volunteers. Both racial and religious diversity was a constant source of tension, opposition, and contradiction among organizational stakeholders. Indeed, all stakeholders acknowledged there was strong mistrust of the organization among the African American community they served. Likewise, many Christian stakeholders, especially partnering churches with deep historical ties to the organization, desired an ability to profess more outward manifestations of their spiritual culture. Conversely, internal and external secular identity pressures persisted over time. As OMEGA had struggled financially during the past few years, several non-Christian board members had suggested government contracting for their social service implementation. There existed an ongoing effort by financially influential stakeholders to weaken the organization’s primarily Christian religious identity in

353 favor of an “interfaith identity,” in order to receive increased funding from businesses, foundations, and collaboration with government. The weakening of an organizational Christian identity has resulted in a strengthening of secular-civic affiliations and connections. Yet, this ongoing effort had also resulted in a dwindling of their long- standing church partnerships, and internal and external Christian culture. RQ 2 Findings: OMEGA implemented several paradox management techniques and managed the majority of the 33 paradoxical exemplars. OMEGA managed 21 of 33 paradoxes including: [1], [3], [5], [6], [8], [10], [12], [13], [16], [17], [20], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [28], [30], [31], [32], and [33]. OMEGA was unique among all five organizations included in this study in that it was the only organization to assist in providing all three basic humanitarian needs (clothing, food, and housing). Additionally, it was the only organization to maintain a chaplaincy program. The chaplaincy program provided recipients, volunteers, and staff members the opportunity for spiritual edification and counseling. OMEGA also held a program commitment to both holistic healing and soft-skill services by embarking on recipient stability and self-sufficiency programs. For example, at the time of data collection, OMEGA was in the process of transitioning into their newly created ‘Housing Resource Center’ to aid those who needed assistance with low-income or reduced cost housing. Additionally, recipient stability was addressed through their ‘UP3’ program, and recipient self-sufficiency was managed through their ‘Getting Ahead’ model. The organization routinely focused on the “how” (goals) of their service in an effort to create more community foundation affiliations, business connections, and government collaborations. The organization was also the only one in the study to have a church delegate voting system to help it retain congregational support.

354

8.2 Belonging Paradoxes Belonging paradoxes at OMEGA revolved around issues linked to personal faith, organizational faith, and organizational mission and vision. OMEGA addressed belonging paradoxes through having a balanced understanding of values and principles, maintaining organizational continuity through change, and preserving different organizational identities.

[1] The paradox of personal core values and organizational core principles (Badaracco, 1998) was exemplified through the expression of individual Christian faith, and OMEGA’s commitment to being a human social service agency. All staff members at OMEGA identified themselves as Christian, and viewed their personal core values in relation to their individual Christian faith. However, organizational core principles often challenged staff members to be more ecumenical and open to differing religious views. OMEGA’s core principles centered on integrity, compassion, and faith. Values of integrity required stakeholders to be trustworthy and accountable to organizational policies and procedures, while values of compassion required stakeholders to “treat every person with dignity in all circumstances” (Strategic Plan, 2013, p. 2). As one volunteer stated,

The values, I think, while they can be somewhat general, you could also say that they are religiously-based. And I think the values are acceptance, and it is part of the culture too. So, acceptance, and loving, and charity. I guess that’s sort of values and cultures kind of mixed together. So, a lot of the, ‘be good to your neighbor kind of stuff’…you know, ‘be kind to your neighbor,’ and ‘the community is stronger when everyone helps each other.’ So, there’s a lot of just acceptance…I think it goes back to the acceptance that everyone who works here really seems to be in line with the values and goals of the organization. So, each client is treated like a human being. (Vienna, May 13, 2014)

355

Although all staff members wanted to fulfill the human social service values of integrity and compassion, OMEGA’s faith values required staff members to “remain true to our interfaith heritage” (Strategic Plan, 2013, p. 2). Indeed, the mission of the organization states, in part, that “through interfaith cooperation, [OMEGA] addresses the spiritual, social and basic human needs of persons within the greater [OMEGA] community” (Strategic Plan, 2008, p. 8). This ‘interfaith’ aspect of the organization caused tensions with several staff members over issues such as prayer, religious iconography, and the feeling of a loss of Christian culture. For example, one staff member explained the organization had changed by using “politically correct” terminology:

I struggle with working here now because it's a ‘faith community’ and not a ‘Christian community.’ When I joined, they really didn't worry about that as much. They were all about being Christian. Like our ‘food baskets.’ When I joined they were ‘Christmas baskets,’ because we handed them out at Christmas for Christmas dinner, and those were called ‘Christmas meals.’ Now they have to be called ‘holiday meals,’ which confuses the clients…it now has to be a very cultural-politically correct thing. And I understand that, because that's what they are now. But that's not what I want. That's what I would prefer not to work for. I struggle with working for a multi-religious organization…it's not a Christian organization, it's not. It's an interfaith organization. (Catherine, May 14, 2014)

The paradox of maintaining Christian faith while being committed to a human social service agency was managed by balancing idealism and realism. Most stakeholders held idealistic and altruistic values in helping people in need in their community. Several stakeholders even cited their personal faith as the main reason for their desire to help people. One board member stated,

I feel strongly the calling of putting faith into actions and how to do this. Certainly, one of the most fundamental ways that you can do that is by helping people put food on the table, and clothing on the backs of

356

the poor. So, you know, Mathew 25, I think it is a kind of a great inducement for me to be a get out there and help feed the poor. So, I immediately just connected with this role of the [OMEGA] mission. And I also felt the need…to give something back to the community. (John, May 15, 2014)

Many stakeholders were also realistic with their organizational core principles by acknowledging that there are poverty certainties where some people may always need the organization’s assistance in order to survive. Several stakeholders explained how those who are resourceful can utilize, and in some cases take advantage of,

OMEGA’s services for their survival. One staff member described how recipient resourcefulness and savvy is part of the realities of living in poverty if you want to survive:

You know that the clients that come in, or call to make these appointments and then come in. These are clients that probably have cell-phones, or are resourceful. So, they are not past the poverty level, they still need this service, but they are very, very savvy. And they are very resourceful. And they figure out how to get in here. And it’s consisting of the same people month after month, after month, after month. And we keep saying, ‘Are we hitting all the people that we need to?’ And it’s like ‘Yes, we are.’ But at the same time, we are not, because there’s a poverty level we can’t get to…the lower level poverty (recipients) that don't have the cell-phones, that don't have the resources, that have more struggles and more challenges that can’t get in here. And I think we bypass them. (Stotty, May 22, 2014)

[2] Paradoxes of belonging also occurred when staff members felt their individual identity was contradicted by their group identity (Brewer, 1991). As noted above, all staff members at OMEGA individually identified themselves with the

Christian faith. However, many of them were challenged by their group identity as belonging to an interfaith or secular nonprofit. The conclusions from OMEGA’s 10- year strategic plan, based on interviews with more than 80 stakeholders, found that,

357

“While [OMEGA] is historically based on interfaith cooperation, clients and staff experience it as a secular organization” (Strategic Plan, 2008, p. 6). One long- standing staff leader at the organization confirmed the organization had been, and continues to be, confused about its group identity:

I would describe us as having some components of a Judeo-Christian faith organization. I struggle with interfaith because I don’t really think that we go beyond Judeo-Christian, nor do I think we have the ability, or knowledge, to know what that really could look like. There are times that I think that we can very easily be perceived as simply a secular organization, that it doesn’t even have any of the religious components in it. (Susie, May 16, 2014)

The confusion surrounding group identity at OMEGA had caused several tensions among stakeholders at the organization, from commitment issues, to open conflicts about appropriate freedom and control to express individual faith identity. For example, one long-standing board member stated: “We don’t have the interfaith idea working—compassion and respect should be the basic operators for the organization” (Elizabeth, May 02, 2014). Additionally, one prominent board member argued that the lack of clarity around a consistent group identity was upsetting, and resulted in the board of directors approving the chaplaincy program:

One of the things that attracted me to this organization was there was a religious flavor to it. There was, you know, it was faith-based, it was interfaith; but when we were doing our research for the strategic plan, people that I interviewed—clients, staff, other people—they didn’t know it was an interfaith effort; they didn’t know it was faith-based! They thought it was just another secular organization, and that bothered me…And so one of the early things that we came up with was, if we create a chaplaincy program, or a chaplain’s office—strictly voluntary—that’s a great symbol to people that come in. It’s a great talking point for the church and the rest of the community that we do this. You know, we are not really secular. We do have an interest in spiritual well-being. (John, May 15, 2014)

358

The paradox of belonging to the Christian faith while serving an interfaith or secular nonprofit was not managed through optimization of assimilation and differentiation. Many stakeholders, especially staff members, were either unable or unwilling to assimilate to the group due to personal differences of faith, opinion, beliefs, or behaviors. Similarly, some stakeholders, again, especially among staff members, had trouble distinguishing their professional opinions, beliefs, and behaviors from that of the organization. Thus, hurt feelings from constant conflict among staff members typically led them to feel isolated and alone. As some staff members said, the inability to assimilate to, or differentiate from, the group had led them to take professional differences personally. One staff member claimed, “That’s what’s hard about this job, is that some of the staff just take it personally, what happens here! And it's not about that. But I also recognize that I also come from a very different place of understanding that” (Margaret, May 27, 2014).

[3] Belonging paradoxes of organizational continuity and organizational change (Huy, 2002) at OMEGA were demonstrated through continuity in its mission, but a change in its vision. As noted by OMEGA’s 2008 strategic team, the organization had held a consistent mission focus which “has a strong and positive tradition of interfaith cooperation to help the poor” (Strategic Plan, 2008, p. 5). However, while community concerns related to OMEGA’s vision initially focused on issues such as providing adequate “housing, emergency services, inter-racial dialogue and relations, religious services, and ecumenical religious education” (Articles of Amendment, 1989, p. 3), the organization had, at the time of data collection, recently shifted its vision focus to that of recipient self-sustaining initiatives, and lessened their

359 focus on inter-racial dialogue and relations, religious services, and ecumenical religious education. For example, OMEGA’s vision was now to be “recognized as a leader in meeting individuals’ basic needs and transforming lives in the [OMEGA] community.” Furthermore, “the [OMEGA] community will experience renewal as those previously helped by [OMEGA] achieve self-sufficiency and reach out to help others” (Strategic Plan, 2008, p. 9). All personnel at OMEGA voiced support for the organization’s effort to help recipients become more stable and self-sufficient, but the majority of Christian staff members held concerns over the organization’s lack of religious education and spiritual commitment. For example, in one observation (April 15, 2014), the executive director noted that OMEGA’s ‘spiritual committee’ was planning to put the 10 commandments up on the wall in the recipient waiting area. Yet, the executive director argued that she “will probably be dead before that happens,” indicating that it had been planned for over two years, but had yet to come to fruition. She also remarked that the spiritual identity of the organization depended on who was in the building or room, and changed based on the people involved, saying, “The more religious people there are, the more religious the organization tends to be.” OMEGA managed the paradox between its mission and vision by “adaptation” through “emotional balancing” between driving change and inducing continuity. In 2008, OMEGA stakeholders set out to drive change through their strategic plan, as they argued, “The overall focus of this project is on the concept of organizational transformation” (Strategic Plan, 2008, p. 4). The outcome of the strategic plan was designed to produce goals in order to “be especially attractive to those motivated to make a positive change in their lives. It will create positive change, generating

360 enthusiasm and hope for the staff, volunteers and clients” (Strategic Plan, 2008, p. 9). The strategic plan concluded that program development was necessary to add programs that focused on recipient stability and self-sufficiency. So, while OMEGA maintained continuous programs “to help people,” they also induced continuity through program development. Inducing continuity allowed for stakeholders to recognize the benefits “of the next step” in empowering recipients “to receive a hand up,” instead of just enabling and “being given a handout.” One staff member spoke of program continuity by arguing that OMEGA’s goals were always building towards improving the lives of recipients:

We want to continue to be a source of basic services, specifically food resources to people in the community. And to perhaps be a leader in helping people to move from being dependent upon services, to create a little bit more self-sufficiency. I hope to see us continue also to build on being an organization that challenges this community to really understand what it means to live in poverty, and how we can really effectively help people living in poverty. (Susie, May 16, 2014)

[4] The personal independence and personal interdependence paradox (Markus & Kitayama, 1991) was exhibited at OMEGA as staff members frequently confronted the opposing forces of personal independence as a non-employee, and their personal interdependence as an employee. Several staff members noted that they had had personal identity issues with their Christian values as they sought to serve what they perceived as an important professional social service need. Boundaries and barriers between themselves and the recipients they served, along with other personnel who did not share their same religious convictions, were seen as essential to maintaining a healthy balance in their employee and non-employee personas. However, many staff members described how they had difficulty separating their

361 employee and non-employee personas and the stress it caused them. For example, a staff member who had been with the organization for less than a year explained that,

It's hard for me too—I need to separate my own values from the [OMEGA]’s values…I think the values are some of what I've described already—making sure that people feel heard, making sure that people are served, and welcomed in. But then I also feel as a culture of working here, that there's a lot of like...there is a need, and it needs to be met. So, it's high energy, and sometimes chaotic, especially in the morning (during food distribution). And we all have to use our own judgment on how to create these barriers for ourselves, those boundaries, rather, for ourselves! And for me that's been a process of taking one thing at a time and not feeling like I have 50 things to do; but just doing one thing at a time. And I don't mean to burn myself out and stress myself out over it. I do see some stress level stuff with my other colleagues. So, I think that yeah, there is sort of like a high energy work ethic kind of thing going on here. It's a little different than other places I've worked. (L, May 16, 2014)

OMEGA personnel were unable to manage their non-employee and employee paradox. Specifically, staff members struggled to balance their employee and non- employee personas through thinking, feeling, and acting. Whether it was being unable to form strong connections and commitment to the organization because of a lack of consistent and similar organizational faith identity, or feeling that professional differences in opinion and actions over how best to help recipients being taken as a personal attack, staff members generally were unhappy with their employment situation. Several staff members were looking for new jobs, or had already threatened to quit. Others felt overwhelmed and isolated from coworkers who did not share their personal and professional attitudes. One staff member explained the personal turmoil she goes through as she internalizes her job, and, at the same time, because of her job, she is forced to decide if her personal feelings match her professional intuition:

Well, first of all, I hurt for the recipients. I feel very sad. There are days when people come in, I literally break down and cry, you know. I

362

try not to do that in front of them. If they’re really hurting, I try to take a minute if I can, and have them sit down, and try to put a hand on them, and try to give them a hug, anything like that…It’s hard when you hear some of their stories. And I know we can’t help everyone, but there are lots of people that are hurting. And I wish we could (help them), but, so, I do my best to try to see where they’re coming from. Is the hurt real? It is not real? Is it genuine? Most of it is genuine. You can tell the difference. (Kim, May 15, 2014)

[5] OMEGA displayed the belonging paradox of organizational identity plurality and organizational identity synergy (Pratt & Foreman, 2000). OMEGA has had difficulty in attempting to sustain its multiple identities in all aspects as an established community faith-based nonprofit human service organization. As an established community organization, with a history going back over half a century, OMEGA touted its deep religious roots and connections to partnering churches while serving their community. However, OMEGA had not had viable connections to foundations and businesses, and collaborations with government agencies until the past few years. By their own assessment, the organization argued that,

The need for [OMEGA] remains strong in the [OMEGA] community, and that need is expected to grow in the foreseeable future. Its current programs are appreciated by many, but there is a lack of broad community recognition of [OMEGA], especially the business community. Even if [OMEGA] limits itself to sustaining current handout initiatives, its long-term viability is at risk. (Strategic Plan, 2008, p. 6)

Similarly, despite OMEGA’s tradition of partnering with churches for funding and volunteers, the organization’s faith-based identity was at risk. The organization’s culture was viewed as becoming less Christian and more secularized. As there had only ever been one partnering synagogue, and no partnering Islamic mosques or Hindu or Buddhist temples, personnel did not envision equal participation of religious

363 identities, but rather, no religious identity whatsoever. Indeed, the “faith” of the organization was seen as “lacking,” “becoming watered-down” and that it “doesn’t mean anything anymore.” For example, one staff member argued that OMEGA had evolved in its faith-based stance to reflect American culture:

Well, the fact that they claim faith helps them because they get support, they say, 40 churches. And I know there are people that think this is a Christian organization in those 40 churches, and help for that reason. And then they're some that don't care, you know...I don't think there is a way to make it a Christian organization because it's not Christian! They would have to change what they are. See, when they started it 40 years ago, I remember it, and it was the [OMEGA religious consortium]. And pretty much it was the one synagogue and then several Christian organizations. And everything they did was kind of Christian. But as the politics and the culture of America changed, they have changed with it to be more and more like American culture; because they have never claimed to be Christians. As individuals (we) think we are Christian, but (as an organization) we're not. I myself am Christian, and a very strong Christian! (Catherine, May 14, 2014)

Even OMEGA’s nonprofit human service identities had changed over time.

OMEGA was originally envisioned as a cooperative that used its member organizations to create programs to aid those in need in the community. However, OMEGA had developed into a full-service social service provider that got its volunteers and funding from its member organizations. OMEGA says that it was “originally founded to generate programs that address broad concerns of the less fortunate within the community, but [OMEGA] ha[d] in recent years focused predominantly on implementing programs of meals and food / clothing distribution” (Strategic Plan, 2008, p. 6). Subsequently, the organization is now implementing even more programs in the areas of housing assistance and recipient self-sufficiency initiatives.

364

OMEGA managed the paradox through compartmentalization of their multiple identities as an (1) established, (2) community, (3) faith-based, (4) nonprofit, and (5) human service organization. OMEGA chose to preserve all their current and past identities, but was unable to achieve synergy between them. For example, OMEGA’s strategic plan touted both its established and faith-based identities, with its long- standing congregational support, along with its human service identity with its work, by arguing, “Sustained cooperation among a key group of member religious communities had sustained [OMEGA] for more than three decades. Even some who would label themselves ‘non-religious’ had a positive view of its work and volunteers at [OMEGA]” (Strategic Plan, 2008, p. 5). Similarly, one board member preferred to highlight the organization’s commitment to its nonprofit identity by aligning with its “business-like” standards:

I think we’ve been able to maintain that balance between becoming a pure secular business, versus just becoming more business-like in a, you know, a more faith-based realm. So, I think we’ve done a pretty good job of maintaining that. I don’t see any degradation there…and we’ve had some great discussions on the board when we are going to do this, or the other thing, or we’ve got a bonus plan for the staff. We’ve had a lot of discussions about the need to become more business-like. (John, May 15, 2014)

Some stakeholders preferred to focus and emphasize OMEGA’s relationship to its community, and how its identity was shaped by the community they serve. Some stakeholders stressed that OMEGA was trying to persuade greater community involvement, so that both recipients and non-recipients in the community understood more about poverty and the challenges some of their neighbors faced “in their own backyard.” One staff member illuminated that one of her coworker’s main goals was

365

“to be a face for the organization” and “to represent the recipients they serve” in their community:

[The program director] does that through her ‘bridges out of poverty trainings.’ She’s trying to get the community involved…I think she has already done half a dozen community trainings this year. And definitely more people from the community are getting interested in that, and want to hear it. The whole philosophy is that the more people that we can get to hear that piece, and then get excited about it, and spread it to somebody else, that perhaps at some point, maybe in the not so distant future, the entire community could actually be talking the same language, and understanding the same language, about what it really means to live in poverty. (Susie, May 16, 2014)

8.3 Learning Paradoxes Learning paradoxes for OMEGA revolved around improving services for recipients while contending with shifting stakeholder relationships. OMEGA stakeholders managed learning paradoxes through the desire to improve the organization’s programming and governance through self-assessments.

[6] OMEGA exhibited the paradox of exploration and exploitation (March, 1991) through recipient stability programs and evolving congregational support from partnering churches. Over the past two years, OMEGA had altered its programming to focus more on recipient stability, and encouraging recipient self-sufficiency. Two new ‘Getting Ahead’ recipient stability programs were undertaken by OMEGA: ‘Bridges out of Poverty’ and ‘Understanding Poverty to Plan and Persevere-UP3.’

Both programs employed Ruby Payne’s ‘self-help’ service model (Payne, 1998). The service model, as explained by Payne (2016), believed primarily in psychological and behavior modification. The service model places the impetus on solving poverty based primarily on recipient choices. The service model levies little blame on society

366 for not solving the dynamic sources of poverty, including race, gender, economic, and political structures. Like other “self-help seminars” that rely heavily on individual self-fulfilling prophecies, the service model contends that low-income and at-risk populations can simply “rise up out of poverty” if they only “try hard enough.” Nevertheless, staff members expressed that there was a “learning curve” when it came to exploring and implementing individual accountability measures from some of their recipients. One staff member said that learning to utilize the programs was an

“adjustment,” and that, “We are all learning, we are trying to figure it out” (Stotty, May 22, 2014). Another staff member, who is the primary facilitator of OMEGA’s new ‘Getting Ahead Initiative,’ remarked how much she has had to learn in order to implement the programs:

You have one person, myself—who I became a facilitator for Getting Ahead in the fall of 2012—and then started to facilitate our first group in 2013 in the winter. We started in February, graduated in June. In that time, I then go to Oklahoma City to get trained as a Bridges Out of Poverty trainer, come back, have to train the board by doing an hour of overview. And at that point, I don't know what I'm talking about because I haven't had enough time. I'm still learning my Getting Ahead stuff; which takes a lot of time when it's your first time to really know what you're talking about! And I would love to take all those people (recipients) and do it again. After doing it three times total now, because it’s so different, I mean, just so different . And what I understand now, and I’m able to bring to the table, just all of those things that are so much more enriching than just reading through a book, and doing mental models all the time. (Margaret, May 27, 2014)

While OMEGA had been exploring new programming options for recipient stability, it had also been struggling to retain congregational support from many of its churches. Stakeholders at OMEGA identified at least three main factors for the lack of continuous congregational support. First, some churches were concerned about the increased secularization of the organization. Second, churches were not committed to

367 recent programming changes at the organization. Third, some churches were no longer able to provide volunteer and financial support to OMEGA, because they themselves were struggling with retaining volunteers and securing donations. As one long-standing board member, who also volunteered as one of OMEGA’s chaplains, argued,

Churches were so instrumental, and so foundational in beginning this organization—when they did so they were in a much stronger financial position. Since then, [the borough] has changed significantly. Most of those congregations have diminished. So, for many of them, it’s a struggle to exist week to week…I just was part of this conversation the other day. That if you look at the books, if you look at the contributions to [OMEGA], churches—their largest contribution is ‘in- kind,’ it’s not in financial. Even if you look at it ‘in-kind,’ you’ll see that businesses…far outstrip the giving power of the churches in the community. So, now it’s like the cart became the horse, and vice versa. Now, [OMEGA] is in a much stronger financial position than many of the churches that initially started her, and tried to get her on her feet. So, they did get her on her feet. But now, she is chiefly sustained by businesses, and other agencies and programs that feed [OMEGA], and make it possible to do what she does. (Charlie, April 23, 2014)

A combination of fast and slow learners and old and new knowers with staff members helped to manage OMEGA’s paradox of recipient stability programs and evolving congregational support. Several staff members described how the organization had a combination of personnel representing different levels of knowledge, and different abilities, to learn new tasks and concepts. Recent hires in the Housing Resource Center reflected a balance in personnel abilities, as OMEGA retained an older staff member as the program manager who possessed years of knowledge about the county application and vetting standards for housing assistance. However, the housing assistance program manager learned more slowly than two recent hires at the Housing Resource Center who possessed little knowledge in the

368 technicalities of successfully placing a recipient in a new home. But each brought their own fast learning skillsets in the areas of social work. Other staff members also described how the executive director had displayed instances of being both a slow learner with old knowledge, and a fast learner with new knowledge. For example, one board member explained that when the executive director first joined the organization, she was allowed to make mistakes to help her learn and acquire the knowledge needed to run the organization successfully:

I think she’s matured in a lot of areas now. And she’s very knowledgeable. And after many, many years, she’s on a learning curve as a manager now for a big organization. And she’s learning very quickly. I mean she’s very good; taking more time now, and having more people involved. (John, May 15, 2014)

Similarly, one staff member described that after the executive director had been at the organization for several years, she helped her learn her role:

[The executive director] helped me to learn the whole thing, because when I joined, they gave me my desk and they said, ‘Here you go.’ I had to learn everything. No training at all; except I would ask all the people, ‘How do you do it’? Because it was done so badly before! And it was left in such a mess that there was no one to train me. So, I learned it all either from [the executive director], and then just from accumulating knowledge myself along the way. And she and I worked closely together; and I miss that. I miss her wisdom. I miss the talks with her; they were very helpful to me. (Catherine, May 14, 2014)

[7] The learning paradox of shared vision and team learning (Senge, 1990) was highlighted by survival help and recipient stability. As noted above, stakeholders at OMEGA had been slowly transitioning as the organization adjusted its recipient programming from basic and emergency survival help towards stability and self- sufficiency. Several staff members described OMEGA’s programming transition as a

369

“learning process” that had led to disagreements and conflict over program implementation. Although OMEGA staff members were supportive of the idea that recipients “work harder” and “make better choices,” they were not certain the new programs ensured the desired outcomes of “lifting recipients out of poverty.” One staff member noted how some program recipients were too unstable to benefit from the stability and self-sufficiency programs:

Our mission is to provide for the basic needs of people in the community. In doing so, to also look for ways to help people to become more self-sufficient; to not be depending upon us, or those needs solely, but to really build those people up. In the past two years, we’ve taken really the first solid strike at trying to add that piece to the mission. We’ve done the basic support for 40 years. The ‘Getting Ahead’ or the UP3 program…certainly encourages people to really recognize strengths in what they can do for themselves. Initially, when we were first starting in the very beginning, there were a lot of people who had zero income. So, it’s kind of hard for them to be self- sufficient until we can get them to the point where they can build some of those resources. (Susie, May 16, 2014)

OMEGA did not engage in systems thinking in an attempt to reconcile their paradox of survival help and recipient stability.

[8] The paradox of episodic change and continuous change (Weick & Quinn, 1999) also underscored learning issues within the organization. Episodic change was most prevalent in OMEGA’s recipient programming, while continuous change was evident in OMEGA’s increasingly formalized, professionalized, and secularized culture. Three significant recipient episodic programming initiatives had been undertaken over the previous two years at OMEGA. As noted above, the Bridges out of Poverty program aimed to bring the recipient poverty challenges to community members, and help recipients become more stabilized through educational workshops.

370

Similarly, the UP3 program aimed to prepare recipients to become self-sufficient, also through a series of workshops providing financial advice and social counseling. Additionally, OMEGA recently endeavored to partner with the county government to aid recipients in housing stability efforts, such as finding emergency housing, negotiating reduced rental rates with landlords, and utility and rent assistance through their newly established ‘Housing Resource Center.’ Conversely, continuous change was perceived by the majority of stakeholders as taking place in the organization’s culture. One board member noted the ongoing cultural change by saying, “As we became more professional…I think that we did become more business-like” (John, May 15, 2014). Many staff members noted how the organization had changed to become more formalized. As one staff member explained,

The organization had existed for a long time before I came here under the direction of a couple of part-time directors, and a very, very minimal staff…If you take a look at stages of organizations, this is a long and kind of an older organization. But I honestly saw it as really being very much so in the beginnings when I came here. While they had existed, they really didn’t exist with any formal structure whatsoever…We’ve really done a lot of changes governance-wise, policy-wise, building-wise, programmatically over the past six years. So, when I look at a new start-up…a lot of the stuff that has happened over the past six years really is similar to it being a new start-up. (Susie, May 16, 2014)

The continuous structural changes to OMEGA, in the form of increased professionalization, formalization, and “business-like” approaches to organizational governance, were deemed upsetting by many staff members. Several staff members complained that continuous structural changes were an affront to the longstanding culture of the organization. Indeed, they argued, the changes had resulted in a loss in the “family-like atmosphere” of the organization. One staff member noted her disdain

371 for the board of directors, whom she saw as being the primary instigator of the new “business model” and mindset at OMEGA:

We had a board function two weeks ago. And there are still members who don't even acknowledge that I'm in the room; to even just say, ‘Hi.’ And I think that is absolutely unacceptable as a board member. I am a staff person in this agency! Whether or not you see me for what I do in this agency, and how much work I provide, that's beside the point. What is the point is, I'm here; we're here together! We're all invited into the space to really celebrate what it is that we do. And I have a hard job. And so, you should appreciate that! The board came in and it changed over to be a business. We’re a business now. I don't like the business model, because I'm a social worker. It doesn't work for me. The business model for me is, you don’t get to know the people, and their feelings, and what truly is happening out there on the streets, and in the neighborhood, and in the community that you're too scared to go into. Because you're in your nice home, in your nice neighborhood…I don't forget where I work. I don't forget about the people who aren't able to feel safe, and maybe forget to lock their doors at night. I don't forget that. The board, I really struggle with sometimes. (Margaret, May 27, 2014)

However, OMEGA managed the learning paradox of recipient programming and secularized culture through adaptation and adjustment. OMEGA was able to adapt because of its improvement desire. Several stakeholders described the steadfast ways in which the organization seeks to improve, refine, and professionalize their processes. One board member illuminated that OMEGA does,

…whatever we need to do to get the job done! I really see our goal is to keep honing, keep refining, keep seeking better ways to do what we’re doing. I see that in fundraising. I see that in advancement. I see that in the way that food comes in the back door. I see that almost in every aspect of [OMEGA]. There is a real goal to improve what we do! And the expansiveness of what we do, to do so in a very professional manner…I think it takes strong leadership to just keep this thing from running amok…Just managing all those different aspects of how we serve clients, and how we manage what is in the building…I don’t really see any employees here sitting back and just resting on, ‘This is good enough, we’re feeding a lot of people, this is great.’

372

Instead, we’re becoming a very significant non-profit organization. (Charlie, April 23, 2014)

Similarly, OMEGA utilized organizational assessments in order to adjust to new demands and directions. Several stakeholders reflected on how they continuously adjust to changes in programming, facilities, volunteering, and governance based on internal self-assessments. One staff member clarified that despite not yet having a formal program assessment, she frequently asks staff members for predicated results from their program areas:

I also asked the staff who are running or overseeing the programs at the beginning of the year to tell me what outcomes they anticipate working on in each of their areas. And at the end of the year, I asked them to provide me a report as to ‘Yey,’ or’ Ney.’ Did we get there, or did we not get there, or what? Just give me some feedback. A formal assessment programmatically, no. I think that’s an area that we need to be stronger in. We’ve done a couple of organizational assessments though, and have looked at governance, finances, those kinds of things. We’re actually meeting in a couple of weeks to do a program analysis in looking at (facility) space, and what might make sense. What are we doing? What could we be doing? What maybe should we be doing? (Susie, May 16, 2014)

8.4 Organizing Paradoxes Organizing paradoxes at OMEGA revolved around issues related to evolving staff expectations, recipient programming, and operational improvements. OMEGA managed several organizing paradoxes through organizational planning, meetings, committees, a commitment to helping people, and a balance of leadership and implementation characteristics among personnel.

[9] OMEGA demonstrated the paradox of flexibility and efficiency (Adler, Goldoftas, & Levine, 1999) through recipient engagement and programming rules.

373

Employee flexibility was encouraged when engaging with recipients on social, financial, and spiritual issues. Stakeholders at OMEGA described how recipients were often “in crisis” and needed an immediate response to feeding their family, financial assistance to pay rent or buy fuel for transportation, and spiritual guidance when dealing with emotional trauma and societal ills. One board member remarked that the chaplains at OMEGA were uniquely suited to the flexibility required in the organization by saying, “I think that chaplains being what they are, and their title, have education and knowledge in dealing with crisis situations, and how to respond, and how to convey potential solutions” (Tom, May 15, 2014). Several stakeholders who demonstrated their flexibility in recipient engagement also mentioned how they enjoy “taking the time to talk to clients” and “getting to know them.” One staff member remarked, “I really enjoy when I feel like I have helped a client. Sometimes when I talk to them privately, they will tell me personal things now that they know me. They will say, ‘Hi’ to me on the street” (Catherine, May 14, 2014).

However, OMEGA struggled with flexibility in its programming rules. While programming rules aided personnel efficiency in terms of requiring recipients to schedule their food pantry visits, social worker counseling sessions, and housing assistance appointments, programming rules were also seen by some stakeholders as too rigid, and “not fitting with the mission” of helping recipients in their time of need. For example, organizational conflict occurred between two groups of people. One group was led by the program director, and held that rules are only guidelines and further subject to the overall mission. The other group was led by the food services manager, and believed recipient rules produced missional and personnel accountability and, therefore, resulted in more efficient recipient programming operations.

374

Interestingly, the executive director explained in one conversation, that despite believing in the need for rules, she chooses to stay out of “picking a side” between the two groups because she thinks the majority of staff members do not like the rules:

Some people feel like, ‘It’s good to give food out!’ That’s why we have it to give out. And other people feel, ‘We need to have rules!’ If we just give food out, then we’re not doing it properly. So, there seems to be some kind of issue with that. I stay out of it. But I think rules need to be in place because there are reasons why there are rules. (Executive Director, May 16, 2014)

One the one hand, one staff member explained that she wished the caseworker and program director followed the rules set by the food services manager because “the paradox” had caused issues with some recipients receiving food, and other recipients not receiving food:

I’m not sure everyone knows what the rules are anymore because we have a new caseworker. I don’t know it’s clearly defined in her job description what she can and cannot do. So, I don’t know if that is it, or is not. So, for me to say to her, ‘I don’t think you should be doing this.’ I’m not sure. But I really think that needs to be looked at though. Because, yes, people are definitely taking advantage of that. I’m bothered by that because I see that they get food, and I just turned someone away who doesn’t ask me to see a caseworker. If everyone did that, it would be just her full-time job. So that does bother me! (Kim, May 15, 2014)

On the other hand, one staff member wished that the food services manager would be more flexible with her programming rules because they do not always meet the overall mission of the organization:

We’re always going to have the struggle of, ‘Here are the rules, here's how we want things to be done.’ But there always going to be people who are going to bypass the rules and go directly to the caseworker. And some days the caseworker is going to let them do what they need, and other days the caseworker is going to say, ‘You know what, I can’t really help you with this today.’ When we went to appointments, and this is a piece with [the food services manager] and her rules. And

375

[she] really bought into these rules…but she struggles with them…I like that we do appointments. I like that we hold people accountable for those appointments. But I get that life happens. I understand that too. And so, I think we need to be sometimes flexible. But for [the food services manager], that's a problem sometimes for sure…I wish that she could be a little bit more flexible. (Susie, May 16, 2014)

The paradox of recipient engagement and programming rules was addressed by using the two of the four management techniques including establishing metaroutines, and partitioning, by creating subunits to specialize in work tasks. Metaroutines were most pronounced in organizational meetings. Board meetings and staff meetings allowed for board members and staff members to review current procedures and discuss any necessary changes to those procedures. For example, policies and procedures were areas discussed and established at board meetings. The executive director mentioned (April 9, 2014) that she tailored the board meeting agenda to the strategic plan, because she felt keeping the organization focused on strategy and future goals were important. Issues related to staff policies and organizational governance procedures were discussed at every board meeting (September 16, 2014). Staff meetings were also used to allow employees to participate in the procedure and rule- making process. For example, at a staff meeting (September 29, 2014), several staff members discussed possible solutions to an ongoing mouse infestation in the food pantry and storage area. One staff member mentioned having a cat brought into the building to control the mice, while two other staff members recall having a cat previously, and still seeing mice in the building. The executive director responded by saying, “We’ve tried that before, and we are not doing it again,” but then allowing for further discussion on the issue by saying, “We’ll try anything, but we have to be careful.” The food pantry assistant noted the issue is “so serious that we have feces back there.”

376

The food pantry manager then replied that “there is a sheet on a clipboard called ‘Mouse Events’ that can be filled out” by staff members, but that the exterminator “is not interested in our opinions.” The executive director showed support for the idea of filling out the sheet about mouse events, even though it was not deemed to be constructive towards solving the problem and, again, allowed the discussion of possible solutions to continue, despite not arriving at a consensus to resolve the issue. OMEGA also used partitioning of work tasks through their committees.

OMEGA has development, planning, governance, facilities, and spirituality committees that represented their various areas of specialization. The committees function through involvement from a mixture of staff members, board members, and volunteers. For example, the spirituality committee oversaw the chaplaincy program and addressed religious identity concerns and faith questions within the organization. As explained by the head chaplain:

The role of the spirituality committee would be to identify what is the spiritual identity that [OMEGA] should have going forward. That’s defined differently by people who have led that committee over the time that I’ve been here. As to the committee, it chiefly looks…at what happens in a spiritual sense inside [OMEGA]. It is the committee that gives oversight as a board committee to the chaplaincy program that happens within [OMEGA]. It’s also the committee that asks the question, ‘How does [OMEGA] relate to religious organizations in the community?’ ‘How do we keep them in touch with, engaged with, what’s the ongoing role of [OMEGA]?’ As [OMEGA] develops more of an advancement arm, some of those responsibilities seem to be shifting in that direction. So I suspect that we’ll alter a bit as to what the spiritual identity committee will end up doing…my opportunity as the head chaplain is to lead, to guide the chaplaincy program, to make sure that we handle the response that we have here in a professional manner—to make sure that we are not offensive to people of different faiths than our own. (Charlie, April 23, 2014)

377

[10] The paradox of behavioral complexity management and requisite varied leadership (Denison, Hooijberg, & Quinn, 1995) was demonstrated through a lack of employee versatility while working in an overwhelming environment. Several staff members noted a shift in the leadership of the organization as the executive director relinquished some operations management to the program director. Tensions had occurred over the versatility now required of staff members to adjust and adapt to different leadership styles, and areas of emphasis. For example, the program director had focused her attention on providing food that was in conflict with the organization’s stated rules and procedures regarding recipient appointments and provision quantities. Some stakeholders had described the program director personally authorizing a “grocery cart full of food” versus “a grocery bag full of food,” which had resulted in several staff members feeling guilty for not providing more food when asked by recipients. Giving recipients more food than is allotted by OMEGA’s rules had also resulted in leaving the organization without enough food to provide to recipients in need of emergency assistance. As one board member illuminated, the difference in leadership had resulted in a negative divide within OMEGA:

The other significant thing I think in the organization is that [the executive director] is now dividing her time, and this has put other people into larger, more significant roles of leadership, as in [the program director] in the building. I think there are shifts; there are changes happening because what [the executive director] was directly overseeing now [the program director] has a much more significant role. I think just that different personality, that different perspective is causing problems—I get that both from clients and from staff members who are also aware of that shift. I think that the shift presents challenges to folks because people got very accustomed to the way [the executive director] thought about things, and did things, and led things. [The program director] is not a puppet; [she] discerns things differently,

378

and has a bit of a different emphasis. My sense is it’s pulling the organization a little bit apart because, sort of the things that [the executive director] was very aware of, and [the program director] may not be as aware of, for a lot of reasons, or even care about to the degree that [the executive director] did…So, you see, as leadership has shifted, it’s loosened the organization. For some people that makes sense, ‘Yes, justice is being served here; people are getting what they need!’ Others say, ‘This organization cannot go on like this; people are taking advantage of us; we can’t keep doing this!’ That’s what I hear back and forth out there. I know that a lot of that is because of changes in leadership. (Charlie, April 23, 2014)

In addition to the leadership shift within the organization, staff members also had trouble coping with an overwhelming environment within the organization. All staff members described a “high-stress culture” with not enough time to complete all their work tasks, let alone help their coworkers complete their work tasks as a team. One staff member, explaining this work situation, said, “I think we have blinders on to the other areas of the organization. And part of that is because they are feeling pretty overwhelmed with their own stuff” (Susie, May 16, 2014). Another staff member pointed to the failed leadership of the board of directors for adding more programs to an already overwhelmed staff:

This is a stressful position with people always demanding your time, always demanding your sympathy. And lots of times it is heart rendering...And some on the board don't seem to really care about the organization; but more about just a process, or ‘What can we do?’ Like they want to keep starting new programs. But we are overwhelmed with work on the programs we have right now! (Catherine, May 14, 2014)

The paradox of lacking employee versatility while working in an overwhelming environment was equalized through “managerial leadership roles” among the executive director and the program director. Several stakeholders praised both leaders in their respective areas. The executive director handled the stability leadership roles of producer / director and coordinator / monitor. The producer /

379 director and coordinator / monitor roles allowed for both an internal and external organizational focus, while also helping to maintain appropriate checks and balances on the vision of the board of directors, and the implementation of OMEGA’s vision from the support staff. Specifically, the majority of the board of directors and support staff felt the executive director had brought professionalism and accountability to the organization with more financial stability. As one staff member explained,

I think one of the greatest strengths of the organization is [the executive director]. She really, really knows what she is doing…she knows what needs to be done to make something work. And she is not afraid to do it! She is not afraid to speak up to us or to the people she needs to speak up to on the board. She knows the words to use to get grants…and she has a lot of experience. And she is just really good at what she does. She has the background, and the experience, and the knowledge. And she knows how to use it. And she has the personality that makes it work. I don't think we could be anywhere near where we are now without her. (Catherine, May 14, 2014)

Conversely, the flexible leadership roles of innovator / broker and facilitator / mentor were handled by the program director. The innovator / broker and facilitator / mentor roles also allowed for both an internal and external organizational focus, but encouraged creativity among the support staff and volunteers in implementing OMEGA’s mission and goals. Stakeholders also felt the program director had brought enthusiasm and innovation in developing programs to meet new organizational goals.

Stakeholders also described how the program director had brokered greater programming interest in recipient stability and self-sufficiency externally among the community-at-large, and internally among staff members, volunteers, and board members. As one board member said,

I think they’ve got exciting new programs which I think keeps interest among the staff…I think that they’ve good leadership there. And I think it’s extremely important to have good leadership in programming.

380

I think it’s important to have interesting programs and things that they can work with, and trying to make things better…I think there’s a real striving for increasing the programs and things that we’re doing for the clients. Enthusiasm! You know? There’s a nice way about [the program director]! And now a nice way about the staff. She talks positive about people and things, and tries to look at the positive things people are bringing to the table. (Philadelphia, May 13, 2014)

[11] OMEGA exhibited the organizing paradox of strong cultures and innovation (Flynn & Chatman, 2001) through recipient stigmatization and recipient programming. OMEGA continuously attempted to innovate in its recipient programming by offering program advancements, such as improved healthy food options, a wide assortment of dry goods (clothing and consumer staples), increased housing assistance, and a greater focus on helping recipients achieve financial stability and self-sufficiency. However, these programming efforts were marred by consistent recipient stigmatization, stereotyping, and judgment. Despite OMEGA’s goals of producing a “nonjudgmental approach to helping those in need” (Strategic Plan, 2008, p. 5), judgment of recipient choices, behaviors, attitudes, and mannerisms were frequent within the organization. On several occasions (April 15, 2014; May 27, 2014; September 29, 2014), staff members, volunteers, and board members were witnessed rolling their eyes, sighing and huffing, complaining to themselves, staring, and crossing their arms with angered expressions towards the recipients. One staff member admitted recipient judgments contradicted organizational values and stakeholder actions and beliefs, saying,

Yeah, it’s called judging. We judge! We are definitely judging, you know, as far as it goes, with, you see clients coming here, and their hair is done, their nails are done, they are out there smoking, and they have expensive jewelry on. And it’s like, ‘Well, wait a minute here, what

381

are they doing here?’ ‘They drive a nicer car than me.’ ‘What are they doing here?’ (Mary, May 27, 2014)

Several stakeholders felt the tensions over stereotyping are the result of poor individual choices and accountability on the part of the recipients. As elucidated by one staff member,

They found that is the way they survive on the street without actually getting a job. And it's something they might have even learned. You know, some of them, it's generational. It's what they learned. And so that's why they do it. They do it automatically, without even thinking a lot of times, I think. And it does happen here. (Catherine, May 14, 2014)

Other stakeholders denied any judgment of recipients and instead relied on their Christian faith, saying that judgment of recipients is reserved for God; as indicated by one volunteer when he exclaimed, “We’re here to help ‘these people;’ that’s why we’re here. And I’m not going to judge them one way or another—God’s going to judge them! God’s going to judge them, not me. So, I just try to get beyond that, and just try to focus on my job here” (Cat, May 23, 2014).

One of the reasons offered for the negative stereotypes, stigmas, and judgments against recipients was because of the opposing racial diversity between the organization’s stakeholders and the recipients—as the organization only possessed a handful of African American volunteers, one staff member, and no board members.

When asked if there are racial tensions in the organization (April 15, 2014), the executive director responded, “Absolutely!” The executive director described how there is currently a lawsuit against the organization based on race. She explained that there had been “cultural misunderstandings between White and Black co-workers” in the organization. She noted that she is very cautious about what she does or says around her African American coworker because of the lawsuit. She noted that, in her

382 experience, her “Black employees over the years have tended to have less work ethic” than her white employees in that “they arrive late” and have “a casual attitude” toward their work tasks. She said she was not aware of any racial tensions in the chaplaincy program but noted that the chaplains are all young, white males. She also noted that she had tried to recruit Black and Latino employees before, but that often “they are under-qualified for the position” or simply “not interested in the job.” Finally, other stakeholders also admitted that they had racial issues within the organization, but were reluctant to say it was an underlying reason for recipient judgment, stereotyping, and stigmatization. One board member did concede that a lack of diversity in the staff was a threat to the organization, as the local African American community perceived the organization as racist:

Diversity in staff, I mean, that's one of the threats for sure. And that's the feedback we get from the Black churches—staff in particular. I mean, we've had a couple of African American employees that were hired; and, you know, quick, messy terminations. And now in the Black community, it’s, you know, ‘Our brothers and sisters don't last long at [OMEGA]—that organization is racist!’ That word is out ‘on the street,’ in the Black community here. So that's a counteractive matter. (John, May 15, 2014)

OMEGA used the management technique of conformity to address the paradox of recipient stigmatization and recipient programming. Normative cohesion was not readily displayed as part of OMEGA’s identity. Organizational culture routinely fluctuated based on personnel at OMEGA. And stakeholder groups were often marred in conflict over policies, procedures, and rules. However, conformity among all stakeholders for helping people was exhibited throughout the organization. As one volunteer noted of OMEGA’s programming, “I love the idea of our continuing openness to the additional programs where we can help people” (Tom, May 15, 2014).

383

Several staff members noted that helping people was the main mission of the organization. One staff member explained OMEGA’s mission as:

To serve the less fortunate in the area—to help keep them housed, or clothed, or fed, or safe. I mean, I think, we all want that for them. We want them to be…self-sufficient. But we also just want them to be fed and safe. We treat them like they belong here and that we care. And I think we all try to do that in our own way. (Kim, May 15, 2014)

Several staff members also noted that the favorite aspect of their job is “helping people,” whether that is through handing them food items, seeing their face when they receive clothes, or household items, listening to them, or even praying with them. As one staff member claimed,

I’m a people person! And I love working here because…I actually had the experience of coming here and needing to get food for myself and my family, at one point. And I like working here because I can actually share that story with clients. They are here, and you see it on their face, they are scared. They don’t know what to do! They are upset, and crying, and I can say to them, ‘You know what, it’s not the end of the world. What you did was a courageous thing by even coming through that front door. You did what you needed to do—to make sure that you had the things that your family needs. And that’s to come here, to get help, to get the food, to get whatever it is that you need to make sure that your family is taken care of—just the basic necessities.’ (Mary, May 27, 2014)

[12] The paradox of static efficiency and dynamic efficiency (Ghemawat &

Costa, 1993) was evidenced through operational governance and poverty misconceptions. Static efficiency was difficult for OMEGA in the area of operational governance as the organization attempted to continually search for improvements in the governance of their operations. Several stakeholders mentioned that OMEGA’s governance suffered in two main areas.

384

First, the policies and procedures for the organization were “out-of-date,” with one board member conceding that, “The governance committee looks at the different groups within the organization, and examines the policies and guidelines that…function within the organization…We need to update those…do we have the right things in writing to guide each of those groups” (Charlie, April 23, 2014)? Many stakeholders noted that they viewed outdated policies and procedures at OMEGA as a result of complacency among board members.

Second, OMEGA has thus far failed to adhere to its own strategic plans, benchmarks, and goals. A 2013 self-assessment of their five-year accomplishments from their 2008 ten-year strategic plan, found that the organization had, at the time of the report, addressed any area of governance, including developing an organizational diversity policy, and developing succession plans for board and staff members (Strategic Plan Review, 2013, p. 3). One board member argued that the majority of board members were satisfied with the organization’s current direction, and did not see a need for improvement, or a need to get new members to offer different perspectives:

The board has kind of sat back and said, ‘You know, we can’t get good board members.’ But we can get good people! I think we should have term limits (because) you should always be looking for new people. I mean, I’m going to present a new candidate. I think they’re a great addition to the board. But if you just sit there, and thankful we are here, we can sit here as long we want…I think you need fresh eyes…I think we get too settled in our ways. I just think that there are good people out there, that if we can get them interested, they might help with the mission. (Philadelphia, May 13, 2014)

The continuous search for improvements in operational governance, despite a lack of implementation, was contrasted with a lack of continuous reconsiderations of why they were attempting to improve the organization in the first place—which was

385

OMEGA desired to establish robust recipient programming that aided in alleviating poverty through recipient stabilization of basic needs, and self-sufficiency through increased soft skill development. As such, OMEGA also struggled with dynamic efficiency when it did not seek to reconsider their own initial presumptions about recipients and the conditions that lead to poverty. Unlike the policies and procedures that had provided strategic plans and assessments regarding its operational governance, thus far OMEGA’s recipient record keeping had failed to aid in the evaluation of its programming. Furthermore, OMEGA did attempt to produce evidence-based results targeting specific objectives, goals, and outcomes in its programming. Poverty misconceptions persisted among the majority of stakeholders due to their assumptions about how best to “help recipients.” OMEGA had failed to demonstrate improvement in recipient poverty conditions over the five decades the organization has provided services to the community. In fact, one long-standing staff member noted that during the course of her four years with the organization, OMEGA has yet to meaningfully impact recipient stability and self-sufficiency, despite the organization saying it had “a priority” to do so:

I think they are targeting the upper poverty level, at a higher percentage than they are in the lower levels. They are reaching the lower poverty level, but not as much as they should be. I think that there is this very, very small percentage that they hit. And I think it’s out of sheer luck for some of these people that have somehow gotten themselves in here. I think that some—a small percentage—is moving up (the socio- economic ladder), but I think the larger percentage is still here {gesturing to the ground}. I've been here for four years, and I'm still seeing some of the same faces. And you can go back and look at our records, and they are just the same! And everybody here thinks we’ve seen the same names…So there’s like a little path for someone to get out (of poverty). (Stotty, May 22, 2014)

386

OMEGA engaged condition improvement and condition reconsideration in an attempt to reconcile their paradox of operational governance and poverty misconceptions. Strategic planning was used to both improve recipient programming, and reconsider its purpose and objectives in alleviating poverty conditions in the community. For example, strategic planning by the board of directors and executive director brought about the realization that the organization could be doing more with their housing assistance program. Together they decided to explore, and eventually partner with, the county government to create a Housing Resource Center with the goal of improving their existing housing assistance programming. Several stakeholders saw housing assistance as another practical and tangible way to help alleviate poverty and “get more people off the streets.” And, for many staff members, they felt more engaged with OMEGA if they believed they had a purpose in improving the lives of recipients, and in growing the organization. For example, one staff member said that she was fanning interest in her present position at OMEGA, until discussion led to plans to create the Housing Resource Center:

I think that what I have discovered over the years here, is that I like the challenge of big projects and the possibilities of things. So last year, in all honesty, before the Housing Resource Center project became even a possibility to us, I was sort of thinking, ‘Wow, we’ve just finished a three-year capital campaign, we’re in the building, things are running pretty well. Maybe I’m done here?’ I wasn’t all that excited about being here anymore! But then the Housing Resource Center project is a huge challenge. So, for me, I think that those challenges keep interest for me. And now if we go to looking at more facility space, perhaps that will be of interest to me too? (Susie, May 16, 2014)

Similarly, strategic planning also served the role of getting stakeholders to think about and reconsider their existing recipient programming. Several stakeholders noted that their strategic planning process resulted in the formulation of a ten-year

387 strategic plan (Strategic Plan, 2008), a five-year strategic plan (Strategic Plan, 2013), and one organizational assessment (Strategic Plan Review, 2013). The programs section for each of these three planning processes all produced an analysis, and recommendations for both existing programs, and the creation of new programs, such as the ‘Housing Resource Center’ and ‘Getting Ahead Initiative.’ As stated in the five-year strategic plan, “The programs section objective is to evaluate new and existing programs to assure that we continue to provide nonduplicative, cost-effective, and highly beneficial services to our clients within the limits of our resources” (Strategic Plan, 2013, p. 3).

[13] OMEGA stakeholders attempted “sensemaking” in order to confront the paradox of changing relationships, changing roles, and a changing organization (Lüscher & Lewis, 2008). Changing relationships occurred due to differing personalities. Several staff members cited how their differing personalities, beliefs, and opinions on program implementation had caused rifts within the organization. New staff members had been added over the last year as the organization had grown, but these new personalities had only complicated the existing organizational culture. When asked about her relationships with her coworkers, one staff member admitted that, “I don’t think it’s good…you have your incidents here and there” (Mary, May 27, 2014). Another staff member proclaimed she was still trying to “figure out” her coworker relationships, and listed them as concern she was having within OMEGA:

The new relationships with my coworkers are a concern—just figuring out where we stand with each other. My relationship with [the executive director] is figuring out where we stand, and how that works together, and just getting through how she works. I think that with [the housing coordinator] definitely—and she knows this about herself—she

388

sort of flies off the handle about things…though I wish she was around more to help. But she's not! With [the executive director], I think our relationship is okay; it's very professional. She's a very professional person…at times it's hard to see her sense of humor. (L, May 16, 2014)

Other staff members openly described ongoing conflicts over “power struggles” due to a vacuum in leadership left behind by the executive director relinquishing control over some program operations. One staff member claimed she thought that ongoing tensions and negative feelings between staff members had a lot do with the fact that the staff members were all women:

We were thinking about hiring a guy caseworker. But I thought he’d probably get crucified with all the women. I think that some of the staff, we’re just not getting along. Probably power struggles. Work, just work. Power struggles, or work, that’s all. Women are problem…you know? A man wouldn’t be able to deal with all the moods here {laughing}. Yeah, the problems are it is an all women staff…and when we are doing a staff meeting, it is all women sitting there…it’s all just power struggle! ‘I wanted to do this,’ stuff like that. ‘I want the cup over here. ‘No, I want it over here.’ ‘I’m the boss.’ ‘You are not the boss.’ Simple things like that. This stuff is just chatty girl, catty stuff. (Stotty, May 22, 2014)

Meanwhile, staff members perceived changing roles as being caused primarily by evolving expectations. Expectations had recently evolved at OMEGA, and had caused several tensions among staff members as their work roles had shifted with increased task demands, time commitments, and stress. Several staff members described difficult conditions to complete work requirements on-time, with reduced personnel benefits, in a high-intensity atmosphere where production was increasingly valued. Echoing the sentiments of her coworkers, one staff member explained she felt over-worked and undervalued, and had moved to part-time employment:

I was working more. But now it is so stressful and everything. I am glad to be only (working) for 30 hours. And they do not let you work overtime. So, if I stay late one day, I have to leave early, or come in late another day. And that is very hard for me to get my work done.

389

And it is very hard for [the food services assistant], who should have more hours too, to get her work done; because neither of us, we are always trying to figure out at the end of the pay period how to get everything in and make up the hours. So, we do not have enough time. I no longer know if I want to work fulltime here, cause now if you’re fulltime, you never get overtime. You’re expected to be at everything! They expect you to do more than you should have to do when you’re regular staff. Yeah, and I don't want to put that time in…I just think it is unfair to ask people to work say 50 or 60 hours a week, and then not let them take a day off once in a while. [The program director] is also way overworked, way overworked…That is why I would be afraid to be fulltime here. There are fulltime people that are way overworked. And I think that is unfair. (Catherine, May 14, 2014)

Finally, a changing organization was displayed through cultural and operational development. One board member illuminated how OMEGA’s culture had changed in recent years:

Oh gosh, the culture has changed dramatically. You know, when I first came, we had very little structure or policy. And you were pretty much thrown into it! And you had to see if you could figure out what to do without help. And you go ahead and do it…part of our strategic planning process was to upgrade the staff handbook—you know, policies, and procedures, and training. And we formalized things a little bit. So, our culture has changed quite a bit. (John, May 15, 2014)

Similarly, one staff member explained that organizational operations were constantly changing because OMEGA was continuing to develop:

In all honesty, here the operations day-by-day changes every day. It feels like things are constantly changing! And there are enough things for me that definitely the days go by and there are not enough hours in the day. I would say that [the program director] says the same thing to me every day, ‘Like, oh my gosh, things just happen all the time.’ So, for me, the day-to-day operation for right now, I feel like there is a lot going on; and it just is what it is. (Susie, May 16, 2014)

“Sensemaking” was used by support staff at OMEGA in order to synergize differing personalities, evolving expectations, and cultural and operational development through confrontation, acceptance, and splitting. Support staff members

390 coped with changing relationships through confrontation. As noted above, they often felt comfortable confronting their coworkers about differences of opinion when it came to organizational procedures and rules. Support staff members described “cat fights” over seemingly inconsequential issues, such as who should be in charge of unclogging toilets and ordering toilet paper (September 29, 2014). “Constant bickering and barriers” between coworkers also occurred over more consequential beliefs, such as which recipients should qualify for assistance, and how much assistance they should receive (April 15, 2014). Changing roles in the organization were often handled by splitting mixed messages. For example, because the executive director chose to “stay out of the cat fighting” (September 29, 2014), support staff often split her communication into portions, which fit their already existing viewpoints on issues. Even one volunteer noted, “There seems to be some lack of communication among the staff” (Vienna, May 13, 2014). On other occasions, support staff described having a lack of communication or miscommunication because of the mixed messages from the executive director. One staff member explained that the executive director had not been clear on several of her expectations and requirements in the newly created Housing Resource Center, and that communication was one of OMEGA’s greatest weaknesses:

Communication! Sometimes communications I would say would be an issue…Sometimes there are communication issues ‘cause I don’t think [the executive director] is clear on her expectations all the time…Something happened where an issue happened here, and we weren’t in the office…So she got pissed off because that was a problem we weren’t here to adjust it, or work on it, or whatever to resolve it…I communicated with her, I need to stop taking on cases; which she had said when you feel like you’re at your max let me know. And I did! And she still forced me to take on more cases! So, I don’t know. I feel

391

like I communicated and was told to do whatever she wanted anyways. (Sarah, May 14, 2014)

The support staff member went on to describe how she interpreted the executive director’s mixed messaging regarding her absence, and decided to create a schedule to address the problem, so the executive director knew when she would, and would not be in the office. Finally, support staff members accepted a changing organization. Support staff came to realize that they had little control over decision making about issues important to them. For example, all of the Christian staff members described how they wished they could express more of their Christian faith. Yet, they reluctantly accepted the ‘interfaith’ mission of the organization. As one staff member clarified,

I’m a Christian! But we have folks here of the Jewish faith, and the Muslim faith. So, I think we all appreciate each other. And we accept each other’s faith for what we are. So, it’s hard to say as far as faith goes where I would like to see more of it, but we could always use more of it, that’s for sure! (Kim, May 15, 2014)

Another staff member was more precise in her desire for a more Christian-based environment when she clarified that,

I would change the organization by making it a Christ-based organization flat out, and go that route. But I don’t see that happening, at least right now, you know. I mean, we should have Bible studies here! Things like that, devotionals. Have a weekly—not to turn it into a church—but do like maybe some weekly testimonials, or maybe write up some people (in our newsletter), you know, sharing success stories. (Cat, May 23, 2014)

[14] The organizing paradox of exploration and exploitation (Siggelkow & Levinthal, 2003) was exhibited by operational improvement and employee productivity. In recent years, OMEGA had sought to explore continuous

392 improvements to its operations. OMEGA had established (Strategic Plan, 2008) and maintained (Strategic Plan Review, 2013) operational development plans in the areas of programming, facilities, and funding. Recent notable programming improvements had been the ‘Housing Resource Center’ and the ‘Getting Ahead’ initiatives. Recent facility improvements had been remodeling the current building for more office space, and a larger dry goods area. Recent funding improvements included the creation of a master fundraising plan, and alterations to the OMEGA ‘branding’ in marketing materials. However, the desire for continuous development had come with the tradeoff off of several employees being unable to “keep up with all the changes.” Additionally, several employees stated that they felt exploited by the board members who were “demanding more and more” with employee productivity as the organization developed. For example, one staff member claimed,

As we grew, and as we got professionals instead of church members on the board, they started being really picky. And then we got all of these rules we have to follow…The greatest weaknesses, I think, is that the board makes all these decisions. And they have no idea what we really do, or how it runs. And they will make a decision that completely messes things up frequently. (Catherine, May 14, 2014)

Another staff member described how she and other employees, most notably the executive director, were all overwhelmed with the nonstop development of operational improvements and employee productivity expectations:

I feel like sometimes that it is so overwhelming in terms of the caseload that I have…I feel like [the executive director] is also overwhelmed right now…I’m not sure that [the executive director] knew what she was getting into with directions, and the amount of work that she was going to have to do with the Housing Resource Center. (Sarah, May 14, 2014)

Indeed, at a board meeting (September 16, 2014), the executive director, in her monthly presentation to the board of directors, designated the recent changes to the

393 organization as “substantial.” She also stated that with all the changes, there was now a need to update the organizational chart. She noted that she was “formally requesting an extra week of vacation” for all the directors, including herself. Finally, when describing the newly created Housing Resource Center and housing assistance program to the board, she naively said, “It became very overwhelming in the beginning because we thought we would help everyone.” She later accurately stated, “We are not going to fix poverty with the Housing Resource Center.”

OMEGA did not engage in temporary decentralization and centralization reintegration of decision making to manage operational improvement and employee productivity. Despite OMEGA having a church delegate system with partnering congregations, several committed volunteers, and staff members who were interested in participating in the policy, programming, planning, and vision process of the organization, the decision making at OMEGA remained centralized at the board of director level. As most staff members explained, the board of directors frequently chose not to consult support staff and volunteers in the organization for input. In fact, according to several staff members, the board of directors sometimes puts obstacles in place for staff members around making autonomous decisions. As one staff member illuminated,

Sometimes they slow me down, or put some roadblocks in, or hoops that one must jump through to get to something. Sometimes I think they're pointless because then the next month, they’re just totally on to something else!…I’m very frustrated by a couple of board members that keep going out, and doing some development things on their own, and not feeling the need to let the development staff know what's happening; despite me repeatedly saying, ‘We really need to do it in this fashion!’ (Susie, May 16, 2014)

394

8.5 Performing Paradoxes Performing paradoxes at OMEGA revolved around issues related to a lack of commitment to the organization and an insufficient number of volunteers and resources. OMEGA managed most performing paradoxes through proper resource allocation, an enjoyable volunteering experience, and a commitment to helping people while being an advocate for those they serve.

[15] The paradox of individual autonomy, multiple stakeholders, and divergent objectives (Denis, Langley, & Rouleau, 2007) was evidenced by support staff, church delegates, and the board of directors. As noted above, the leadership void created by the executive director focusing on new programs and funding efforts at OMEGA resulted in three support staff members vying for control and power over their own areas, and other areas in the organization. The program director, food services manager, and development coordinator all began to assert their individual autonomy on issues important to them personally. For example, the program director frequently disregarded the rules and procedures pertaining to financial, basic, and emergency needs assistance. Conversely, the food services manager attempted to follow organizational rules and procedures to ensure accountability, and reduce the appearance of recipient favoritism. Moreover, the development coordinator focused her marketing and fundraising efforts towards her personal faith affiliation as a Christian, despite the board of director’s objective to seek out cooperation and collaboration with secular volunteer and funding sources. As argued by the majority of staff members, the collective decisions by the three support staff members produced a fragmented approach to programs and development. In a candid, informal conversation, the food

395 services manager reflected on the fractured programming efforts at OMEGA, and the strain it had caused her personally and professionally,

A lot of the rules I make, almost all were approved at a staff meeting, or even by [the executive director]. And it's just that I enforced them. And no one else enforces them. And so, then it gets more and more out of control! And then, because I was enforcing them, and other people weren't, then it created a barrier between us. Because like they would get upset when I would turn a client away when they were late. Or I would say, ‘No, we don't give bags for the free shelf, you need to bring your own.’ If you're giving away extra free food, you could at least bring your own bag. We have to scrounge for bags, you know? And my coworkers were handing them out behind my back. And then in front of me, after a while. And they were making faces behind my back, which sometimes I would turn around and see. And it caused a problem, to where I went to [the executive director] and said, ‘I'm leaving if this doesn’t change!’ Because I'm not understanding the fact that I'm keeping the rules we all agreed on, so I'm the bad person…But sometimes it gets so bad where I think I can't really work here. Because I have a standard I want to keep. And if I can't keep it, and my coworkers won't help me, then I can't work! (Food Services Manager, May 14, 2014)

Issues of control and power at OMEGA were also evidenced through multiple stakeholders, each of whom sought to provide influence over their own areas of interest. The most influential stakeholder group at OMEGA had historically been an assembly of church delegates, which consisted of two members representing each partnering church in the organization. However, while OMEGA acknowledged their historical ties to the churches, and their delegate assembly, recently the power and control structure within the organization had changed. As one board member discussed, as OMEGA became more formalized, the church delegates could not adapt to needs and changes at the organization quickly enough to be effective. So, the board of directors eventually limited church delegate authority and decision making, even

396 though they were the largest source of funding and volunteers for the organization at that time:

Somewhere along the line, as the board and the organization became more professionally operated, it just wasn't working for the delegates to be able to make the decisions that needed to be made. It was just becoming too complicated. And also, time-wise, some decisions had to be made faster than it would have happened otherwise. And so…the bylaws were changed so that the delegate assembly could not vote on decisions. (Elizabeth, May 02, 2014)

Finally, divergent objectives were displayed through organizational decision making by the board of directors. Several stakeholders derided the organizational decision making of the board of directors as “not doing what is best” for the organization, such as focusing too much on programming instead of fundraising, or for “being short-sighted” by not authorizing additional staff hires, or for “not being committed” to their roles. The majority of staff members actually referred to the board of directors as one of OMEGA’s biggest weaknesses. Even one former board member said, “One weakness, unfortunately, is the board. There are some members that aren't as involved as I think they should be” (John, May 15, 2014). One staff member also proclaimed, “I think that our board is a weakness to our organization…I don't think collectively they see the big picture, and really look at big picture stuff. And I don't believe that we have all of the right people that we need on the board”

(Susie, May 16, 2014). OMEGA was unable to fully optimize their support staff, church delegates, and board of directors. OMEGA struggled with balancing its power and values among its stakeholders. For example, OMEGA’s long-standing partnerships had suffered because the board of directors had chosen to weaken congregational input and identity in the decision making process. One board member acknowledged that this loss of

397 power and Christian values amongst the board members had resulted in several churches pulling their financial and volunteer support from OMEGA:

There are already churches that have distanced themselves, that no longer support [OMEGA] over the whole thing about how we are going to pray in a board meeting. They are no longer board members. They no longer support us financially. They no longer attend the delegate meetings. They have really distanced themselves from us. They remain friendly, but no longer encouraging or supportive in the way that they once were. That is largely due to that whole, ‘What does spirituality look like within [OMEGA]?’ ‘How would a Christian be permitted to express him or herself within [OMEGA]?’ (Charlie, April 23, 2014)

However, OMEGA did attempt to optimize their use of knowledge about their recipients to become recipient advocates on the behalf to stakeholders and the broader community. Several staff members described not only wanting to help recipients, but also educate them as to how they could help themselves. Several staff members also desired to educate the community as to how they could help the recipients as well. For example, one staff member explained that she had become an advocate for her recipients by sharing her knowledge and experience with them, and by sharing her knowledge about them to the community:

So, I think that as I have become more established here at [OMEGA], and more established here in the community, I recognize that there is a need for people to advocate for those who can't advocate for themselves…And so I find it to be extremely important that we talk about privilege. We talk about race. And we talk about the underbelly of poverty. And so here I am, and I have the ability to empower people who are homeless, or people who really struggle with their stability. And so, for me, I think it's my job, it's a responsibility that I have to advocate for them. (Margaret, May 27, 2014)

[16] The paradox of stakeholder interests and stakeholder contributions (Donaldson & Preston, 1995) was exhibited through alleviating poverty and

398 volunteering declines. All stakeholders at OMEGA had an interest in the organization’s primary goal of alleviating poverty in their community. However, there was also a realization on the part of most stakeholders that the organization (1) was not competent enough to accomplish that mission with its current resources, (2) had reached service capacity given their limited funding, facilities, food, and (3) did not possess the ability to recruit the number of volunteers necessary to increase their service capacities and effectiveness. According to OMEGA’s own assessment, in order to achieve its interests in alleviating poverty in their community, there remained:

A need for clarity on [OMEGA’s] mission and vision (as it) has hampered (our) effectiveness and (our) ability to move beyond sustaining hand out programs to generating hand up initiatives…the existing mission statement in the Bylaws is rarely referred to or used as a guide for decision making. (Strategic Plan, 2008, p. 6)

Similarly, as noted above, several staff members commented on the overwhelming nature of the work environment and believed that the organization was currently unable to “take on” more recipients and programs. Indeed, one staff member alluded to the organization having reached its recipient capacity by saying, “It does get very hectic. You want to service as many people as you can. But we really can’t service all the folks that call in here, or come in here. So we’re doing our best” (Kim, May 15, 2014). Additionally, volunteering declines over the past several years had left the organization with a lack of personnel to carry out its desired interest in alleviating poverty. In their Strategic Plan (2008), the OMEGA noted the decline in volunteering from its primary base of support—churches—mirroring the problems churches in their community were also facing with funding and volunteers in their own congregations:

While historical records of individual volunteering and contributions exist, challenges remain in gathering reliable information that can be used for decision-making about the client base, volunteer involvement,

399

and support…there is a growing sense of urgency about the number of volunteers at [OMEGA] and church donations to its programs. Younger persons are not taking the place of older volunteers, as many are currently 70+ years old, as they become less and less able to do the work. This trend is true not only for volunteers but also for [OMEGA] Church Delegates and the [OMEGA] Board of Directors. Clearly, a significant need exists for persons willing to volunteer for active leadership and committee work in these challenging times of increased unemployment, rising fuel costs, and inflation. (p. 6)

OMEGA managed the paradox of alleviating poverty and volunteering declines via “stakeholder management” through attitudes and structures among its volunteers, and with practices as a unique source of services in the local market. Several board members and staff members believed that volunteers were essential to the operations and overall performance at OMEGA. Staff members and board members cited volunteer attitudes and established organizational structures that aided in the enjoyment of volunteering, and the overall performance of the volunteers. One staff member described the attitudes of volunteers from churches by saying,

I think that people who get into this line of work, and this type of volunteering, do so because of some very real ideas that they are having to do with serving and giving. Because you are giving back, and people who are giving of themselves, of their time, and their resources. And so, I think that those are real obvious tangible ways they express their attitude. (L, May 16, 2014)

According to several stakeholders, the organizational structures related to volunteering had also improved at OMEGA over the past few years. As one board member explained,

We do now have better on-sight supervision with volunteers. We are heavily dependent on volunteers! We have better, more robust policies and procedures…actually the organization is much better controlled, much more keenly observed. Not perfect, but much better than it used to be several years ago. It’s come a long way. The people, in terms of the spiritual content, most of the people here work because of their faith, and wanting to give something back to the community. Again,

400

every day here at [OMEGA] we pray, I think you’ve seen that. Very, very faith-based volunteer quorum. (John, May 15, 2014)

The enjoyment of volunteering at OMEGA due to a good volunteering structure and positive attitude towards, and from, volunteers was witnessed on several occasions (April 11, 2014; April 23, 2014; September 16, 2014) through smiling, laughing, and a relaxed atmosphere. Additionally, the enjoyment of volunteering at OMEGA was mentioned by several volunteers, with one saying,

You know, as much as I like the good feeling of helping out the clients, also, I really like the interactions between my fellow volunteers…I mean, of course, I really do like helping the clients out, but…I also really just like interacting with other volunteers. It’s really what I really enjoy here. (Vienna, May 13, 2014)

Finally, the local market of OMEGA allowed its volunteering practices to flourish because there were essentially minimal competitor human service volunteer opportunities in town. In an observation at a board meeting (September 16, 2014), the executive director, highlighting OMEGA’s dominance in the local market, said to the entire board of directors, “[OMEGA] is the only game in town.” She later claimed, “We are actually the only one stop shop social service agency in the county.”

[17] The performing paradox of building employee commitment and multiple strategic goals (Jarzabkowski & Sillince, 2007) was evinced through personal and organizational values and organizational growth and development. OMEGA struggled to build the commitment of stakeholders, especially employees. Although some board members expressed their personal desire to “help people,” and how that commitment to human service coincided with organizational values, other board members noted that there were various levels of commitment in the organization. One board member argued, “Certain people are committed, but there are various levels of

401 commitment. And I can't expect everybody to have the same in-depth commitment that I do” (Tom, May 15, 2014). For example, no staff members expressed a commitment to OMEGA because of their personal values. Instead, staff members viewed their personal and organizational values as separate. Staff members were committed to the mission of “helping people,” but they felt unable to display their personal faith. Staff members did not see how a proposed “interfaith mission” allowed them to perform their work according to their beliefs. As one staff member explained,

I think faith is lacking, hugely. I don't see how it couldn't. To me spirituality, people tend to see as all-encompassing like a faith-thing, ‘Oh, I'm really close to God.’ To me, if you're not close to ‘the true God,’ you just have an idol. It's not really God. So, you're really just fooling yourself. I mean, (the book of) James says that—it has to be faith in the true God. I mean, there is no faith in a religion that isn't serving the true God, or even acknowledging him. So, but we're open to those people being part of this organization. But there can be no ‘faith’ there! (Catherine, May 14, 2014)

Other stakeholders also noticed this lack of commitment to developing synchronist personal and organizational values by arguing that staff members were not interested in learning non-Christian ideology. One board member said, “I think there is not an interest to learn each other’s culture or styles of worship” (Elizabeth, May 02, 2014). Similarly, one of the Christian chaplains noted that staff members were unable to build personal commitment to the organization based on faith values because the “interfaith component” was unstable, undefined, and not present: “If I could change anything about the organization, I would be more intentional about working on bringing more stability to the whole faith component. What is interfaith? How does it express itself? How does it work in this agency” (Charlie, April 23, 2014)?

402

Conversely, organizational growth and development represented multiple strategic goals that sometimes suffered due to a lack of employee commitment. OMEGA noted in their Strategic Plan (2008) that staff turnover had been one of the causes for ineffectively achieving their goals: “Staff turnover, lack of results addressing facility issues, funding challenges, and governance issues have hampered [OMEGA’s] effectiveness” (p. 6). However, a lack of resources, and a lack of clarity around the current major goals of the organization also contributed to an inability to achieve multiple strategic goals. For example, several staff members noted that they did not know what the major current goals of the organization were by arguing, “As far as current goals, I’m actually not terribly sure about that” (Vienna, May 13, 2014). Furthermore, “The major current goals of the organization? Well, you've sunk me there because right now, I don't know” (Catherine, May 14, 2014). Similarly, several staff members could only recall vague goals with no discernable benchmarks, such as, “Provide stability, provide support, I don’t really know” (Sarah, May 14, 2014).

Likewise, “The major current goals for this organization, I would say, would be to help people in need” (Mary, May 27, 2014). OMEGA managed personal and organizational values and organizational growth and development with “rhetorical strategies” through their current values and historical context. Although some employees struggled with their commitment to the organization, at times they generally maintained their commitment to their work through their current values of teamwork. As one staff member clarified,

I feel like we work as a team. So, if one specific program can’t help them in what they need, we can refer them to the other part of the organization…because they are with us, they can go and use all the different resources we have in this building. We always have our morning meetings and prayers. So that gives us a little support to get

403

our day started and…I think that we at the Housing Resource Center are really close, and make a really good team. I’m very close to them, but I get along with everybody else too. (Sarah, May 14, 2014)

Multiple strategic goals were also managed through OMEGA’s historical context. OMEGA’s strategic plans bear witness to its history of helping people in their community through several services and programs. Stakeholders frequently mentioned how their current advancement into stability and self-sufficiency programs had its historical context in the organization’s basic and emergency assistance programs. As one staff member explained,

There's definitely a long history of giving out food, and giving out clothing. And people feel good about that! And that's great, but…I think anybody can do that. I’m not here to do that. I'm here to take a look at the other half of our mission in building people up, and getting them off of the need for their basic needs (here)…The reality is that you have to put a little bit of effort into receiving assistance. And not that I want to make it difficult for people, but my experience is that, the easier that you make it for people, the less sometimes people will do for themselves. And I don’t think that's what we’re about! I think we’re about trying to encourage people to figure things out for themselves! (Susie, May 16, 2014)

[18] The paradox of humanitarian needs and economic objectives (Margolis & Walsh, 2003) was displayed at OMEGA through helping recipients and a nonprofit ethos. All stakeholders expressed an aspiration to help people who are “in need” in their community. Echoing comments by many stakeholders, one staff member referenced the meaningfulness of their work, and the compassion they have for helping recipients, saying, “Well you always have that compassion to help people. I mean, everybody has that compassion. Everybody wants to just touch some lives, or do something that helps other people; something a little more meaningful” (Stotty, May 22, 2014).

404

However, the financial realities of working within a nonprofit ethos were common constraints on OMEGA’s ability to advance their agenda and vision. Several staff members were uncertain about whether or not the organization was practicing good stewardship with the resources given to them. One staff member believed that OMEGA was doing its best with what “God has provided” for the organization, but she was also unsure if other stakeholders felt OMEGA was performing well with its resources by maximizing their impact and influence:

I’m certainly a believer that we are doing the best that we can, with the resources that we can, and that God’s helping us to provide what it is that we need to make sure that we can get services to people who need them, as best as we can. I don’t know? I would be curious to hear what other people think about that! (Susie, May 16, 2014)

Another staff member also felt that OMEGA was making a good effort to be accountable with their available resources, but she noted that they still lack space and money to help even more people in need in their community:

I think we're making an effort to try to keep really, very good accounting of the resources that we are giving out, the people that we serve, how often we serve them. You know, just making sure—I mean, it's not a sexy goal by any stretch of the imagination—but just making sure that we're accounting for what comes in, and what goes out, and continuing to be good to people…I don't know if it's a threat, but space and money is certainly an issue. You know, just having space and money to do things. And really, I mean, we need these services to be available eight hours a day! And they can't be because of space and money. I think that, I would just hope [OMEGA] had more resources to do things. (L, May 16, 2014)

OMEGA’s paradox of helping recipients within a nonprofit ethos was partially managed through property claims, efficiency, and beneficence duty. OMEGA did not constructively engage in due process, contributing conditions, or company benefits. The board of directors and the executive director sought to ensure the proper

405 appropriation of organizational resources to serve OMEGA’s mission. Property claims and efficiency were practiced through resource management, such as ensuring food, housewares, and financial assets were accounted for, and given to recipients in accordance with organizational rules and procedures. As one board member stated, “We do seem to be fairly stable now. And our finances seem pretty good” (Philadelphia, May 13, 2014). Another board member illuminated that,

There is always that drive to the next fundraiser…so that’s what I see in terms of goals. I always see [the executive director] writing the next grant; just always pursuing other resources of funding for [OMEGA]. I think that’s really what keeps us so healthy and strong, not struggling to make it, to get by from month to month. (Charlie, April 23, 2014)

Although the majority of staff members worked within the confines of the organization’s resources to ensure that most recipients received fair assistance, and were treated equally, a few staff members disregarded rules and procedures for recipient assistance and their due process. As explained by one staff member, some of her coworkers treated the recipients unfairly, and did not provide a uniform manner around equal assistance:

We have a new caseworker, and she’s doing things a little differently. She texted me if people come in here and are hungry, ‘I’m going to give them food!’ And I thought, ‘Great, that’s what we all want to do.’ But what happens in this place is, as soon as someone gets something others don’t, they go out on the street. And it takes about five minutes for half of the town to know what’s going on here. And that’s with anything here in the borough. So, then they hear someone has gotten food. And I honestly don’t think she can keep up with it all! So, I’d like to see that change. (Kim, May 15, 2014)

Finally, OMEGA personnel felt their beneficence duty through helping people, and by being good stewards of the resources they had been given, so they could maximize helping people.

406

8.6 Cross-Category Paradoxes Cross-Category paradoxes. OMEGA displayed three unique cross-category paradox exemplars. OMEGA’s cross-category paradoxes were primarily evidenced through staff members struggling to belong in a tepid faith environment, and struggling to perform with contrasting leadership styles. Belonging and performing issues were managed through techniques that addressed staff member belonging, learning, and performing, such as speaking to the community service history of the organization, developing leadership skills, and concentrating on their personal faith and values.

[26] OMEGA exhibited the Learning::Performing paradox of evolutionary “incremental” change and revolutionary “discontinuous” change (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). Evolutionary or incremental change was exhibited at OMEGA by its declining congregational support. As partnering churches had slowly and continuously suffered from a lack of resources over the past few decades, OMEGA had been forced to look elsewhere for a viable pool of volunteers and donations to sustain the organization. This decline in congregational support had been so severe that OMEGA believed it must shift its focus to secular partnerships in order to bring stability to its mission, vision, and goals. As noted in their strategic plan, OMEGA surmised that,

Many of [OMEGA] member churches are experiencing decreases in membership, and financial challenges as fewer and fewer persons choose to be involved in religious communities. The churches who do contribute financially are more likely to support specific causes and events than general administration of [OMEGA]. Finally, newer churches and clergy without a historical connection to [OMEGA] seem less and less likely to be involved in supporting its work. (Strategic Plan, 2008, p. 6)

407

Simultaneously, the organization over the past few years had been forced to look for partnerships to boost its revenue and resources. OMEGA had thus turned to secular government collaboration. While churches understood OMEGA’s mission, vision, and goals, the organization now had to attempt to cultivate relationships with the county and local borough in order to facilitate mutual cooperation. However, the revolutionary or discontinuous change of suddenly involving the government in their operations had not been a smooth transition. One major issue in transitioning away from congregational support to government collaboration was that the government was not very familiar with OMEGA, and had contradictory views about poverty. As explained by one staff, the local government believes organizations like OMEGA actually inadvertently contribute to poverty, and that OMEGA would be better located outside the downtown area:

On a county level, I think we are pretty new in that we’re excited to have the relationship that we currently have with the county. And I’m hoping that our working with them is going to build that relationship, and build their confidence in us…As far as the borough and the surrounding area, (we) have spent a considerable amount of time participating in networking and collaborations to try to get people to know who we are, know who the organization is…the borough, it seems as a whole, has very little tolerance for people living in poverty because it brings down business values. It causes people to not want to live in town. It causes businesses to not want to come to town. And so there has forever been the concept that if the social service agencies moved out of downtown, that the town would be really great. And that if we would stop pulling our magnets out in dragging people into town who are living in poverty, that would make some miraculous difference in the town. I don’t believe that. (Susie, May 16, 2014)

Additionally, due to OMEGA’s increased government collaborative efforts, several stakeholders also noted their fear in developing antithetical values to their current organizational beliefs, as one board member explained,

408

If I have a concern for the organization, it is that it would get…more government-like and less compassion-like—government rules, regulations, stipulations that keep us from even being able to help people who really need help. I think that’s a threat to the integrity of the organization as a helping organization, versus just another government agency that has so much bureaucratic red tape that people get lost in it. (Charlie, April 23, 2014)

OMEGA balanced their paradox of declining congregational support and secular government collaboration through organizational architectures, multiple cultures, and ambidextrous managers. Organizational architectures were seen through organizational committees. Committees at OMEGA enabled the organization to emphasize small, autonomous groups, which allowed speed in execution, despite a growing organizational size and scope. Although the spirituality committee, in particular, had been described as “un-functional,” the planning committee, governance committee, development committee, and facilities committees had all been able to produce results in their areas. For example, OMEGA had already outgrown its current facility in less than three years. The facilities committee was responsible for assessing the organization’s current space, and for finding ways to improve the space by reorganizing personnel offices. Construction to renovate these offices came within three months after the facilities committee assessed the problems, and proposed solutions within the confines of the current building. In one observation (September 29, 2014), the executive director remarked about how quickly the office remodel was progressing. She said she “did not waste any time and used the previous builder who just finished another office remodel.” She said that OMEGA was using the husband of the receptionist, and several men from a bible study at the church that both she and the receptionist go to, and that the construction crew was willing to donate their labor. The executive director proclaimed that she “can always get people to donate for

409 building changes and program improvements” because people can “see the changes in the building” or like the “accountability on the clients” in the programs. Multiple cultures were also evident through interfaith acceptance. Although the organization was predominately Christian, the acceptance of people from other religions, and a focus on interfaith dialogue, allowed OMEGA to seek cooperation from a diverse set of community stakeholders. The vision and commitment to an interfaith mission were not without its tradeoffs, but many stakeholders commented on how it enabled the organization to appear “reputable,” and perform in a “more professional,” albeit “secular style.” Also, while the vision for, and commitment to, an interfaith mission had been steadfast over the organization’s history, in practical terms, the altruistic behaviors and motivation for most stakeholders in the organization came from the Christian faith, with its values for compassionate human service. Indeed, the values of Christian compassion were seen as the impetuous for most volunteers, and the vast majority of staff members and board members who worked and labored for OMEGA. As one board member said,

I think that Matthew 25:31 is the chief motivation for many of the volunteers. Volunteers who do not know about Matthew 25 function on the idea of helping each other. That is increasingly becoming prevalent in our society…I think the volunteers’ volunteer because they think it’s the right thing to do, based upon the faith expressed in Matthew 25! I really do. (Elizabeth, May 02, 2014)

Ambidextrous managers were also seen in the executive director and program director. Together they sought to produce, amongst their staff and volunteers, the values of autonomy, teamwork, initiative, accountability, and innovation. Shifting rules and procedures were often an issue at OMEGA, but the absence of these, or personnel flexibility, were frequently designed to give support staff and volunteers

410 control over their own decision making. If a volunteer or staff member felt the need to give more than the allotted assistance to a grieving recipient, that decision was supported by a majority of stakeholders, even if it violated the rules, because the majority of stakeholders thought that “helping people” ultimately “serves the mission” of the organization. Similarly, a fair amount of leeway was given in programming to allow for the creation of new ideas and innovation in implementation. For example, one staff member explained that she tried to create leadership moments for her staff,

From a leadership perspective, I am really trying to provide every opportunity for those in leadership positions here to have the autonomy to be leaders in those areas…it's your program! You tell me what you want to do and run it by me. ‘Thank you for running it by me.’ If you need my signature on it, that's fine. But I want you to do this! I want you to own this! (Susie, May 16, 2014)

[31] OMEGA also demonstrated the Performing::Belonging paradox of personal identities and social identities (Kreiner, Hollensbe, & Sheep, 2006). Staff members at OMEGA struggled to integrate their personal identities as being Christian, or belonging to the Christian faith, with that of the interfaith emphasis of the organization. Some staff members identified the organization as being of the Christian faith by claiming, “I would say we are Christian definitely” (Mary, May 27, 2014). Another staff member proclaimed, “To me, I feel it’s mostly Christian. I know a lot of the churches in the area are Christian. So, the folks coming in are mostly of the Christian faith” (Kim, May 15, 2014). Yet, certain basic principles of belonging to the

Christian faith were no longer allowed at OMEGA, such as public prayer in Jesus’ name. As one staff member explained,

A couple of years ago, they said we may no longer pray…‘in the name of Jesus.’ You have to pray a generic prayer. Well, whenever I pray, I

411

always pray in the name of Jesus! And they asked me to pray sometimes. Well, as soon as they ask me not to pray that way, I won't pray anymore! Because to me, that's not even praying then. It's a useless thing! I'm very inclusive as far as there are people here of different of faiths. But I don't think they know that I think they're wrong. If they would ask me outright, I would tell them…I don't think they're right. (Catherine, May 14, 2014)

One staff member also asserted that, “You can’t talk about Jesus. I know, I've learned that. Don't talk about Jesus. Yeah, no, ‘in Jesus we pray.’ That was a big fight at one time too” (Margaret, May 27, 2014). Although surprisingly, public prayer in the name of Jesus’ was still observed (April 11, 2014) during morning prayer, after the staff and volunteer meeting. The prayer was performed by a Christian chaplain, despite two Muslim volunteers being in attendance. Similarly, stakeholder’s struggled to integrate a unified social service identity into the organization. Instead, racial and gender bias dominated social identities. Several staff members described past, or ongoing, performance conflicts with each other, because they were an all-women staffed organization. For example, one staff member stated,

Honestly, I don’t mean to be stereotypical about women, but it’s a problem being in a building with 15 women some days. I think it will be fabulous if we can balance it out with a couple of guys. But I pity the first guy who has to come in here, and be that first person to try and break that barrier, because I think it will be a challenge. (Susie, May 16, 2014)

Staff members also described past, or ongoing, performance and belonging conflicts among themselves, and volunteers, and recipients over race. As stated above, the organization is currently under a wrongful termination lawsuit with a previous African-American employee, and there are tensions between the African-American assistant and the Caucasian food program manager. One staff member explained that

412 these ongoing racial issues are also related to deep-seated socio-economic and cultural differences between the two races:

I think culture and race are often hand-in-hand. And there's some of that certainly with some of our clients. Like, for example, it's beyond me this idea of just like having kids—just keep having kids. And you have no support. Like no family support, no men in your life supporting you. And I have seen so many Black women come through here in the same situation. Just like three or five kids. And I just don't understand it! So, there's that I don't get. So that's certainly cultural. I think it's partly a race thing too. Like I think that there's something to that, and there's something that is very real…and that obviously I don't understand. I've been explained by women of that culture before, that it sometimes has to do with like, you get attention. When you're pregnant, you get attention. When you have a child, this is like one of the big moments in your life where you get attention in a culture and a society that doesn't give you much attention; because of who you are, because of where you come from. So that's a big thing. There's also a culture of poverty that I grew up in a middle-class society, and a lot of people in my culture, meaning white, middle-class, making okay money, kind of like, ‘Why don't people go to work?’ ‘How could you not want to work?’…It's complicated. There are complicated reasons behind why some people—and they grew up in poverty—don't seem to have the motivation to work...There's just a culture of poverty. I literally feel like I can sometimes see somebody wearing poverty on them. Wearing it…It looks like they're down. And part of it is in the way they dress. Part of it's in the rampant drinking, and constant smoking, and it just looks unhealthy…I'm talking about people walking around looking physically unwell, wearing pajamas around the city. That kind of thing makes me sad…It's a very poor town…So that's hard. And I feel like you can see it in people. I feel like you can see their poverty. (L, May 16, 2014)

OMEGA managed their paradox of Christian faith and racial and gender bias through differentiation, integration, and neutral / dual-function tactics. Staff members at OMEGA practiced differentiation tactics from the organization by “separating their role from their identity,” and by “flipping the on/off switch” through the establishment of personal boundaries. Staff members felt a constant tension to help people in

413 whatever way they can, while staying true to the organizational mission and vision; which also sought to be good stewards of resources, and to empower recipients with more than just a “hand out,” but also a “hand up.” For example, staff members frequently described “being torn between” how best they should help people by teaching them accountability if they missed their appointment, and yet provide a service if they still needed emergency assistance. One staff member described the ability among several staff members to create personal boundaries by using a “rational approach to solving problems” with “a sympathetic ear” towards listening to grieving and frustrated recipients:

I think that we try to maintain as much of an open door policy as possible. I think that we have somebody at the front door who is welcoming, yet can create healthy boundaries; which I think is important. I think that we try to have a situation where our doors are open. So especially, you know, I work in the Housing Resource Center, and I tell people, ‘Come in if you are struggling.’ ‘Come in and talk to me.’ ‘Come in and let's just sit down for a second; let's figure some stuff out.’ I try to encourage folks into directions that they can go in, and maybe we can help them out a little bit by giving them the tools—giving people the tools that they need to succeed. And I think that this place tries to hire folks that have a heart for caring about people, and have a gift for social work, and for day in and day out, and working with people who are experiencing great need, and sometimes are reacting to their own need, and some serious frustration. So, to be able to roll with that as well—to understand where that frustration comes from, to make sure people know that they are heard. It's so important! And I think that people here do a very good job of that, making sure that clients feel heard. I think that's a real way of loving people. (L, May 16, 2014)

Conversely, integration tactics involved staff members “merging their roles with their identity,” and “infusing self-aspects into tasks” through their personal values. All staff members clarified how their Christian faith, and their belief in helping people in need, were major reasons why they had “chosen to serve” at

414

OMEGA. They viewed their job as “a vocation” or “a calling,” and they did not see their professional role as entirely distinct from their personal values. As one staff member illuminated,

The focus of my life is doing what I think God wants me to do with my life! And a major thing that God wants us to do, is help other people. I am interested in service things…I've done a lot of volunteer service things. And so, service is attractive to me, because I don't like a job where I don't feel like I'm making a difference for people. So that's what I was looking for—a job where I'm actually helping someone! I'm a Christian! (Catherine, May 14, 2014)

Finally, staff members used neutral / dual-function tactics such as “seeking refreshment,” “involving others,” and “tapping spiritual resources” through shared values and boundaries. Several staff members described how they sought refreshment by creating boundaries between work that allowed for respite and avoided burnout. Whether it was distancing themselves from work and their coworkers by going to church for spiritual resources, or even talking to the chaplains at work, staff members enjoyed connecting with their personal faith. Involving coworkers was also used by staff members “to vent problems” about work or co-workers. Although this sometimes led to “gossip” and “cat-fighting,” it was seen as “an essential release of pent-up emotions,” and was viewed as an effective way to relieve stress. As one staff member elucidated,

Staff-wise, to some extent, some of the staff needs are our staff just needing to vent about a crappy situation—that they just had to recognize that they can’t do anything about. And so, I have to help them with that, or I’m going to burn them out. We’ve grown so quickly that some of those little detail things just have to happen. (Susie, May 16, 2014)

415

[32] Finally, OMEGA evidenced the Belonging::Organizing paradox of leadership versus democracy, the assistant leader, and confrontation versus compromise (Murnighan & Conlon, 1991). As noted above, due to the executive director redirecting her focus towards other areas of the organization, there was a power and control vacuum within OMEGA around vacated responsibilities. Within the power and control vacuum, an excess of democracy through various opinions and actions was asserted by three staff members—the food services manager, the program director, and the development coordinator. However, according to several stakeholders, no clear leader or leadership attitudes amongst the three staff members emerged. Instead, “petty in-fighting” was common amongst the three staff members as they tried to gain control and power over others. Several support staff members explained that they had to choose between the different policies and agendas of the multiple middle managers. One staff member described following the rules of the food services manager as the job she enjoyed the least:

The job that I enjoy the least is the factor that sometimes we have to turn clients away, or tell them, ‘No.’ I know rules have to be made. Rules have to be followed. But to just tell somebody, ‘No, we can’t give them food.’ That’s the part that I hate the most…we have some (staff) that are like, ‘I’m just going strictly by the rules.’ ‘I’m going strictly by the rules!’ You have that…and it’s like they’d rather throw the food away than give it to somebody. And that’s hard for me to grasp. (Mary, May 27, 2014)

Similarly, issues management connected to assistant leaders were dispersed among the multiple middle managers, namely, the food services manager, the program director, and the development coordinator. However, the three assistant leaders frequently descended into constant conflict over compromise. As such, repeated disagreements over rules and procedures, and support staff having to “choose sides,”

416 left several staff members describing an unenjoyable work environment that was often devoid of commitment to OMEGA’s mission, vision, and goals. As one staff member described it, the ongoing conflicts had become too much for many staff members at OMEGA:

Sometimes I think that we have taken on so much that we've lost, to some degree, what it is that we're trying to do. Just because there are so many rules and regulations that we have to adhere to, and it's very confusing. And it's very confusing when you put somebody in the management side of services who is just very black and white. And it makes it just all the more difficult, I think, because for people we all have an exception. We're all very different. And so, everybody is going to come at life in a very different direction. But when you stick to your black and white rules, it just gets very messy, and complicated. (Margaret, May 27, 2014)

OMEGA balanced their paradox of a power and control vacuum, multiple middle managers, and constant conflict through passive leadership, role acceptance and support, and constructive conflict absorption. Although the board of directors did not allow much in the way of decision making to reside outside of the boardroom, stakeholders described how the executive director routinely attempted to involve staff members and volunteers in procedural rule-making, and program implementation practices. The executive director was someone who was described by stakeholders, and witnessed during observations, to practice passive leadership by allowing democracy and seeking consensus and “buy-in” among personnel before reaching a final decision on an issue. However, when a final decision was reached, the executive director showed strong leadership, as any decision reached was seen as a firm or “final decision,” even it was later to found to be a mistake. As the executive director mentioned,

I repeatedly say, ‘Look, we’re going to try this, and if this is the way you want to try it, that’s great. But, we’re probably going to change it

417

ten times before it gets to the point that we think it's working well.’ And I'm okay with that! Like, I could not care less about that. I am a person who believes that you need to make mistakes. And you need to learn from those mistakes. And it's not a horrifying thing. We've made some mistakes. (Executive Director, May 16, 2014)

No participant interviewed at OMEGA questioned, ridiculed, or second-guessed the executive director’s leadership. As one board member said,

I think the staff has a very good leader…I think some of the staff seem to be devoted! And I think that’s important. I think [the executive director] is somebody who has a direction. Who’s interested in, should I say, doing better, or making things better? You know, not just sitting back and saying, ‘Here we are, isn’t this great?’ (Philadelphia, May 13, 2014)

In regard to addressing assistant leadership, role acceptance and support was also offered by the executive director. The executive director was also not afraid of sharing leadership by letting others “take the lead” in their areas. As one staff members replied, “Another thing [the executive director] does well is, when she gives you leadership, she lets you take it” (Catherine, May 14, 2014).

Staff members at OMEGA also practiced constructive conflict absorption by preferring compromise to confrontation. When confrontation did occur, as happened over differences of opinion and strategy regarding recipient assistance, those conflicts usually occurred in private. Additionally, confrontation among staff members was usually also related to power struggles for a “second-in-command.” As such, the majority of staff members described themselves as non-confrontational, and they suggested they enjoyed the teamwork and comradery they experienced with their coworkers. A non-confrontational attitude and disposition were also seen as an essential attribute when working with recipients, who could be challenging, temperamental, frustrated, “in survival mode,” and “in need of basic necessities.” Sharing a recurring belief among most staff members at OMEGA, one staff member expounded that if she

418 had to confront people, she would, but she preferred just trying “to keep the peace” when working,

I don’t like to have confrontations with anyone. Whether it be staff, friends, family, clients. I don’t like confrontations…and some people just don’t like want you in their business. And unfortunately, if you are in my program, I need to be in your business…So I see where they’re coming from when they get frustrated with me. So, I try to treat them the way I want to be treated; even though sometimes I have to have those confrontation conversations… But I’m also really easy going. I don’t like confrontation! So, if there’s a problem, I probably let it go for a while and try to appease that person, because I don’t want to deal with confrontation. It’s also easier if I work in a happy place! So I don’t want to have confrontation. But if you’re doing something that bothers me, if it’s really extreme, then I’ll say something! Otherwise, I’ll just let it go, and whatever. So, I just try to keep the peace at work. (Sarah, May 14, 2014)

8.7 Summary OMEGA exhibited all 33 paradoxical exemplars, but was able to manage 21 of them. This case report explored all 18 core paradoxes, along with paradoxes [26],

[31], and [32] from the cross-categories. Despite belonging, learning, organizing, and performing issues related to reaching their service capacity, and a lack of organizational faith identity as an interfaith alliance, OMEGA’s implementation of several paradox management techniques was crucial to their ability to sustain their programs and community support.

419

Chapter 9

DISCUSSION

9.1 Overview This chapter discusses the main findings of the study. After a review of the study’s limitations, and the significant nuances of the organizations, two main areas of findings related to the literature are explained. The first set of findings confirms and challenges previous “nonprofit and public administration” research on the tensions that exist within faith-based organizations. These findings are based on the case studies, and are detailed in the “faith-based organizational nonprofit perspective” section below. The second set of findings represents results of the evidence gleaned from applying a “paradox framework” to the case studies. A cross-case comparison of the five organizations, and paradoxical categories, were used to show common themes among exhibited and managed paradoxes. Overall, the findings suggest that the application of a paradoxical framework is a useful perspective from which to view the operations and management of faith-based organizations. The findings demonstrate that the faith-based organizations in this study exhibit all 33 paradox exemplars. The findings also show that these organizations use several of the paradox management techniques and tactics identified by the existing literature to manage some of the 33 paradox exemplars. These “exhibited and managed” paradoxes are discussed in the “faith-based organizational paradox perspective” section below.

420

9.2 Study Limitations As with all research projects, this study has limitations. While using an inductive approach and qualitative methods allows for richness of detail and the ability to form and build categorical understandings of faith-based organizations for micro- level analysis (Langley, 1999), the outcomes of this study do not necessarily yield infallible generalizability to all faith-based organizations, nor all aspects of paradox management theory (Flyvbjerg, 2006; Gibbert & Ruigrok, 2008). Langley (1999) argues that:

There are constant calls in the scholarly literature for more in-depth process research that will enable us to understand organizational phenomena at more than a superficial level. And yet, when we actually go and get the data required to achieve this, we find that the deep understanding we sought does not magically leap out at us. (p. 706).

Therefore, by focusing on the categories of paradox as described by Smith and Lewis (2011) as a means to understand faith-based organizations, the approach necessitates research on individuals, small groups, and intra-organizational behavior.

Since this study is limited by the number of organizations which it can study to provide rich description and analysis, large-scale definitions of “faith” in an abstract form, (apart from the stakeholders and the organizations themselves), are outside the scope of this study. While an understanding of paradoxes and faith have been gathered for the individual organizations studied, these findings do not necessarily wholly apply to other faith-based organizations. Similarly, because faith-based organizations are unique from other nonprofits due to the “faith factor,” it remains to be seen whether or not the paradoxes in faith-based organizations would be the same in non-faith-based nonprofit organizations, or if the manifested themes and analysis would be directly applicable to non-faith-based nonprofit organizations. Instead, this

421 study focused on tensions, contradictions, oppositions, and simultaneous paradoxes and their management in organizations, such that it enhances the existing literature on organizational paradoxes and may inform a more richly detailed typology of faith- based organizations.

9.2.1 Design Limitations Two design limitations for this study include (1) methodology, and (2) researcher presence. Of course, there are other areas of limitations, including, but not limited to, researcher fallibility,12 researcher access to organizational information, the number of sites included in this study, and individual case study limitations (Langley & Royer, 2006). In regard to methodology, this study has already discussed, above, the benefits and drawbacks of using a multiple comparative case study approach versus a single case study. However, after data collection, and answering the research questions, this study fulfilled its expectations for both the depth and breadth of data.

While it is true that a single case study could have provided more in-depth detail, this data may have been even less generalizable, and would, perhaps, not have as thoughtfully answered the research questions.

12 Before the outset of this study, I was mindful that not everyone is comfortable talking about faith personally, or from a social scientific perspective. So I made every effort to appropriately balance and explain how faith works for the stakeholders and the organization without “being preachy.” This study is not an apologetic for the Christian faith, or lack thereof, in faith-based organizations. Bias was limited in all areas of the study through a rigorous methodology that culminated in careful and precise data collection and analysis. However, this study argues that personal and professional experience in the subject of one’s study makes logical sense, and helps to produce a more informed product.

422

In relation to researcher presence, I assumed before gaining access to the organizations that my presence may be an issue in terms of some of the observations. There were times I noticed different behavior occur when staff, volunteers, and recipients noticed my presence in the area. For example, the following was divulged in an interview about the youth of one organization noticing my observations:

I often tell them that you’re a student. That you’re kind of doing just research and they were like, ‘Oh sure we need good behavior.’ He’s not there, he’s just observing. No big deal. I don’t really go into depth about what you’re doing. But once I say that, they can carry on and you’re not observing for good or bad, you’re just honestly observing them we’re kind of okay. But they, like a lot of them, think that you’re judging them. But then, once I tell them that you’re not, then they’re fine. (Jeff, July 1, 2014)

Even though I did dress in “business casual” attire and wear a small name tag so those who needed to identify me could do so, I acted as discreetly as possible; usually this entailed occupying a chair at a table, in the lobby, or in a staff office where I could perform observations. However, I did not really “blend in” as well as I had hoped.

This was probably due to my “professional” appearance, due to the fact I could be seen writing in my observational field notes guide, and that fact that I had a briefcase nearby. There were still numerous times that recipients and volunteers would speak to me about mundane things, such as the weather.

At other times, without even knowing who I was or what I was doing at the organization, people would tell me what they thought of the organization in similar positive ways, such as “they do God’s work here” or “they are so nice and helpful here.” Staff members at all five organizations knew who I was, and what I was doing there, as the executive director announced my presence before observations began. This provided me an appropriate time to explain a little bit about the study and more

423 about myself to help ease the transition of my presence. I did not detect awkwardness among most stakeholders after I introduced myself; which probably had more to do with my description of my religious, educational, and personal background, and less to do with my explanation of the study. That said, there were some stakeholders who still did not want to speak to me even in a casual way, during the observation period, much less in a formal interview; this outcome was expected.

9.2.2 Theoretical Limitations There were three notable theoretical limitations to this study in regard to the application of a paradox framework towards the five faith-based organizations: (1) methodological, (2) data applicability, and (3) theoretical applicability. First, following the methodology of Andriopoulos and Lewis (2009), this study did not go into the participating organizations looking specifically for each of the 33 paradox exemplars identified by Smith and Lewis (2011). While data collection instruments such as the interview protocol do ask questions dealing with common paradoxical topics, such as change, values, and conflict, it does so with the intent to generally explore paradoxical possibilities, and not to interrogate participants on each specific paradox. However, observations and document analysis assisted in filling in any missing gaps in the data as this pertained to specific paradoxes uncovered during the interviews. Second, in order to focus the study on applying the theoretical framework detailed in the literature about paradoxes and their management, this study did not provide examples from the extant data that did not conform to the existing literature. Instead, this study focused on seeking redundancy in its data collection techniques to answer research questions one and two. In several instances, the data did not apply or

424 fit into the preexisting findings from paradox literature. While all five organizations displayed examples of each of the 33 paradox exemplars, there were several more paradoxes not covered in this study. An argument could also be made that the four core categories, and their six intersecting cross-categories, are not sufficient to adequately classify a recurrent paradox evident from the data. For example, the uncovered paradox of faithlessness and faithfulness was displayed across all five organizations, and appeared to involve all four paradoxical categories of belonging, learning, organizing, and performing. In addition, several of the organizations were aware of some recurring tensions, but at the time had chosen not to, or were unable to, address them. Issues ranging from volunteer dependency, faith identification, and board member apathy, to staff expectations, insufficient fundraising, and stagnant recipient programming, were all known to the organizations, but the majority of personnel were resigned to them due to a lack of resolve and resources.

Third, the vast majority of paradox literature deals with large national for- profit businesses and multinational corporations. The theoretical applicability of this literature to nonprofits generally, and faith-based organizations specifically, was excellent. However, some of the characterizations of corresponding paradoxes may be disputed. For example, some of the management methods detailed in the literature exemplars are theoretical, and were not readily observed in the field. As such, uncovering examples of management tactics and techniques that have been mostly pertinent for multinational businesses, and then subsequently applying these management tactics and techniques to established community faith-based human service organizations, proved challenging at times.

425

There were other weaknesses of applying the framework, including literature that essentially did not contend with: (1) size differences between organizations, (2) the nature of volunteering and voluntary action, (3) board members as essential stakeholders, (4) cultural issues of race and gender, (5) political issues related to values, and (6) most importantly, “recipients” as opposed to “consumers” of goods and services. In some respects, because of these theoretical limitations, the paradox exemplars were unable to capture the robustness or “characteristic essence” of the faith-based organizations. For example, the paradox exemplars focus heavily on executive and middle managers. In contrast, the faith-based organizations in this study operated primarily on the labor of volunteers and support staff, with board members having decisive influence over organizational mission, vision, and goals. Perhaps most importantly, the organizations in this study relied on donations as revenue to operate, as opposed to selling goods and services, which was not addressed through the paradox exemplars.

9.3 Organizational Nuances When taken as a whole, the findings reveal some distinct differences between each of the five organizations. Specifically, OMEGA held a commitment to holistic healing of their recipients and was the only organization in the study to assist in providing all three basic needs (clothing, food, and housing), in addition to a volunteer chaplaincy program. BETA had clarity of messaging about their youth mission and an extraordinary ability to fundraise despite limited personnel resources. EPSILON commonly cited its community and school partnerships to ensure its sustainability, and uniquely viewed its mission in tandem or in “togetherness” with its partners, regardless of religious affiliation or creed. DELTA was unsurpassed in its broad and

426 bold commitment to, and transparency in relation to, its religious purpose and values. Perhaps because of this, it notably had the fewest issues related to faith. Finally, ALPHA, more than any other organization, attempted to standardize their ministry and treat every recipient as equal. As such, ALPHA and OMEGA preferred to emphasize the “what” or mission of their organization in their management, identity, culture, finances, and faith. BETA and DELTA differed from other organizations included in the study in that they both emphasized the “why” or vision of their organization more than other areas. Finally, EPSILON preferred to concentrate on the “how” or strategy of fulfilling the mission of their organization in their management, identity, culture, finances, and faith.

9.4 A Faith-Based Organizational Nonprofit Perspective As noted in the literature review, prior research on faith-based organizations has found tensions surrounding the mission, growth and expansion, paid and unpaid personnel, multiple stakeholders, religious identity and affiliation, financial constraints, secular pressures, and government funding of these institutions. However, the dynamics of these tensions were often unexplained and their management unexplored. Additionally, while previous studies have only highlighted management techniques at religious organizations and religiously affiliated organizations, such as hospitals (Coyne, 1982; Ozcan & White, 1996; Harrison & Sexton, 2006), and schools (Hannaway, 1991; Hughes, 1994; Wallace, 2000; Minow, 2003; Lyon, Beaty, Parker, & Mencken, 2005), this study directly targeted management techniques at faith-based nonprofit human service organizations.

427

9.4.1 Confirmations According to the findings of this study, previous nonprofit and public administration research was correct in identifying several tensions, contradictions, and oppositions in faith-based organizations. The faith-based organizational ineffectiveness tensions found by Bartkowski and Regis (2003), Kennedy and Bielefeld (2006), Thyer (2006), Daly (2009), and Sager (2010) were upheld in several aspects of this study. First, several stakeholders in this study acknowledged that they might be ineffective in their roles and duties. One board member at ALPHA honestly noted of his fellow board members, “You know, I think maybe people at some point would say, ‘We’re not effective!’ It’s hard because you meet once a month, you meet for an hour, and everyone’s got busy schedules” (Sumo, April 10, 2014). Second, stakeholders acknowledged that they might be ineffective at their primary goal of reducing poverty in their communities. The tensions of commitment to community-level outcomes, while focusing on project-level results (Campbell,

2002b) was displayed at organizations DELTA and OMEGA. Reiterating the sentiments of all five organizations, one staff member at OMEGA highlighted how long-term effectiveness in reducing poverty, (observed in the form of encouraging recipients not to become dependent on the organization), remains elusive:

The organization is reaching the lower poverty level but not as much as they should be. I think that there is this very, very small percentage that they hit. And I think it’s out of sheer luck for some of these people that have somehow gotten themselves in here. I think that some, a small percentage is moving up [out of poverty], but I think the larger percentage is still here because if I've been here four years and I'm still seeing some of the same faces. And you can go back and look on our records and just the same names, and everybody else thinks so, you’ll see the same names…We are still getting them…I feel like there's a big amount of the upper poverty (recipients) that are still here too. So,

428

there’s like a little path for someone [who is here] to get out [of poverty]. (Stotty, May 22, 2014)

Third, there is some trepidation and ineffectiveness in performing an outcomes-based approach in their programming. Fear that the organizations are not making a meaningful difference in lifting individuals and families out of poverty through their programs prevents regular recipient follow-up sessions, or the tracking and measurement of data. While some stakeholders said that their programs and spiritual components are “hard to track,” (with one staff member at BETA saying,

“some things are not always tracked or trackable” (Joe, July 10, 2014)), other stakeholders recognized, and voiced concerns over, tracking recipients or following-up the outcomes of their programs. One stakeholder at EPSILON admitted,

I feel like when we see people here; there’s not really a defined follow- up secession. So, I think there needs to be more follow-up in collecting that data and input that so you can see your outcomes. And I think that’s what we’re lacking; we don’t have any of that stuff on file. (Fiona, August 7, 2014)

For all five organizations, monitoring program effectiveness came by way of “thank you cards” and at-risk youth class graduation amounts (not rates). One staff member at DELTA recalled, “No, we don’t follow-up or track the success of recipients. People, they graduate from GED classes, CNA classes, and financial literacy classes. Those are the success stories. Instead, we get, ‘Thank You cards’ from people”

(Dorothy, August 27, 2014). Another staff member at BETA conceded that future outcome evaluation, recipient follow-up, and tracking of recipient success should probably be included in their programming, but unfortunately,

We are able to see, like just a handful of them; but I definitely think it would be hard to track all of them. But I think it would be something to do… I don’t think it’s going to be anything that we like turn into a program where we track what’s going on with them after they leave. Eventually maybe some grant will tell us that we need to do that, but

429

for now, I think it’s just out of our own like love for the kids that we’re going to try to follow-up. (Jeff, July 1, 2014)

Inefficiency conflicts. Chambré (2001), Ebaugh, Pipes, Chafetz, and Daniels (2003), and Wineburg (2007) noted concerns over how inefficiently faith-based organizations allocated their resources for social service provision. Some of these concerns, including inefficient personnel procedures, inefficient program implementation, and inefficient recipient relationships, were also found, as noted, in the case studies. Also, there were several stakeholders across all five organizations who regarded their financial management as inefficient, in terms of using their funds for the maximum benefit of recipients. One volunteer at ALPHA highlighting these inefficiency suspicions among the stakeholders at all five organizations argued that,

I don’t know what the numbers are, but I can’t see how this could be considered a very efficient charity with a number of people that work here. And I may be wrong about that. It’s just something that on the surface of appears to me to be the case. (Rudy, April 14, 2014)

Religious identity dependence. Confirming the conclusions of Working Group (2002 & 2003), and Sider and Unruh (2004), this study found that organizational control and religiosity in all five organizations were heavily influenced by funding sources and hiring decisions. For all five organizations, partnering churches provided the bulk of donor and volunteer support. Personnel hiring practices based on religious preferences was essential to DELTA and EPSILON, and all BETA stakeholders had to be “Christian” in order to be a staff member, volunteer, or board member. Hiring practices of paid staff with different religious ideologies and goals than the host organization was found at organizations ALPHA and OMEGA. Being

430

Christian was preferable, but not required, at ALPHA and OMEGA for their staff members and board members. However, all five organizations unequivocally held that recipients need not be of any particular race or religion to receive services. Every stakeholder, formally or informally interviewed within this study, viewed the religious identity and spiritual culture of the organization as an organizational strength. The biggest hindrance of organizational religious identity and spiritual culture was a lack of potential future cooperation in strategic alliances and/or fundraising possibilities with donors.

Faith-secular culture dichotomy. Tensions relating to the struggle between religious forces and secular pressures (Vanderwoerd, 2000; Hehir, 2000; Thyer, 2006) were also found in this study. Stakeholders from the five organizations often felt called because of their faith in the ministry of serving and helping their “neighbors in need.” The religious beliefs of stakeholders formed the basis for their service.

Secular pressures, after stakeholder faith commitment, only intensified their feelings of faith obligation. In other words, because of their faith, the more stakeholders perceived that recipients are suffering due to the myriad effects of poverty (Mani, Mullainathan, Shafir, & Zhao, 2013), the more they worked to help them endure their struggle, and persevere through these challenges.

Proselytization occurrences. Finally, prior research was correct to assume that proselytization occurs in faith-based organizations. Unlike “religious instruction” or “spiritual guidance,” which involves the consent of recipients, proselytization, generally speaking, does not involve recipient consent. As evidenced in the case

431 reports, proselytization was explicitly discussed and witnessed on a few occasions at four of the five faith-based organizations in this study (ALPHA, BETA, DELTA, and EPSILON). Proselytization only occurred in reference to at-risk youth when receiving biblical instruction and prayer before receiving meals or activities. Interestingly, adults were not exposed to proselytization except by way of public prayer; for which they could decline to participate and were not required to participate in order to receive services. Nevertheless, the proselytization of at-risk youth was a deep cause of concern among some stakeholders and, as stated in the individual case reports, the practice caused several tensions, contradictions, and oppositions among some board members, and the majority of staff members and volunteers.

Growth and expansion issues. This study also confirmed the findings of Jeavons and Cnaan (1997) that faith-based organizations can exhibit paradoxes related to organizational growth and expansion. Specifically, tensions related to seeking funds outside their supporting congregational revenue streams, and concerns over how much or what type of growth an organization should incur, was found at all five organizations. Formalization and institutionalization of programs, leading to a feeling among some stakeholders of a loss of ownership over the programs, was found at organizations BETA, DELTA, and OMEGA. The organizational expansion that has led to the perception of an undermining of the original mission and character of the organization was found at organizations DELTA, EPSILON, and OMEGA. Finally, stakeholders believing their organization is now ineffective in fulfilling its mission due to the altering of organizational characteristics from expansion was displayed at all five organizations.

432

Executive commitment oppositions. Oppositional commitments between the board of directors and the executive director (Golden-Biddle & Rao, 1997) were also displayed at some of the organizations (ALPHA & OMEGA). Several board members at these organizations suffered from a lack of commitment to roles and duties. The executive directors expressed frustration at board meetings and staff meetings that some board members would become distracted by tangential projects and abdicate their responsibilities of fundraising on behalf of the organization. Executive directors and their board of directors at all five organizations also had varying levels of commitment towards ensuring and implementing consistent organizational visions and goals.

Volunteering contradictions. Finally, previous research surrounding the tensions of volunteering (Musick & Wilson, 2008) was also found in this study. As illustrated in the case reports, all five organizations in this study presented issues related to volunteering. Problems such as the dependence on volunteers (Cnaan & Curtis, 2013; Smith, 2000; Toepler, 2003; Wilson, 2000), volunteer reliability (Hustinx, 2010; Jamison, 2003; Skoglund, 2006), and volunteers’ relationships with staff members (Netting, Borders, Nelson, & Huber, 2004) were common throughout the five organizations in this study. Furthermore, although stakeholders were sometimes personally uncomfortable fundraising for the organization, generally staff members did not have concerns about recruiting volunteers and exploiting volunteer labor because it usually reduced the amount of staff and financial resources needed to operate the organization and deliver

433 services to recipients. Indeed, confirming prior research (Paik & Navarre-Jackson, 2011; Mattis, Jagers, Hatcher, Lawhan, Murphy, & Murray, 2000; Ruiter & De Graaf, 2006), many Christian staff members in this study were especially enthusiastic about recruiting and asking volunteers if they would be willing to assist the organization in achieving its mission. Alternatively, La Barbera (1991, 1992) also noted that tensions could arise within organizations regarding religious traditions and a refusal to exploit supporters of the organization for financial and volunteer resources. These tensions held some salience across the five organizations. For example, board members at BETA changed the organization’s volunteer application to better reflect its organizational religious identity within a “Christian stakeholder only” tradition. Similarly, some staff members at ALPHA were reluctant to ask for donations from certain partnering churches for fear of exploiting or “abusing their faith” for the benefit of additional organizational resources.

9.4.2 Challenges In contrast to the confirmation of the findings from past research, this study also found evidence that challenged previous scholarship. In regard to government collaboration, this study found the opposite of Gazley and Brudney (2007), Ebaugh, Chafetz, and Pipes (2007), and Marvel and Marvel (2009) in that overtly religious faith-based organizations do seek collaborations with governments; at least with local government agencies. Through cultivated relationships, many personnel at all five of the organizations in this study became trustful of their government partners. Partnerships at the local (city and county) level were successful in part because the stakeholders at these government agencies resided in the communities the

434 organizations served. Relationships with government officials meant “they knew them” and that “they are our neighbors.” Indeed, many stakeholders described cordial relationships between their organizations and their local governments. At organizations BETA and OMEGA, they tended to be the ones who were trying to foster trust and maintain positive collaborative relationships with the government. For example, BETA often celebrated its relationship with the local police department to help monitor at-risk youth. This special relationship sometimes resulted in “special breaks” for “BETA kids” who were caught by officers breaking the law. Another example would be OMEGA’s new grant program with the county to provide emergency housing assistance to recipients in the area. Even though the money was sourced from the government, the personnel and funds were managed inside the organization, thus increasing the organization's personnel, budget, and infrastructure while maintaining their autonomy over all their existing programs. DELTA was able to receive significant grants from their regional collaborators at the county level for substantial improvements to their infrastructure, including new roofs, food pantry upgrades, warehouse remodeling, new service vehicles, and even entirely new buildings. Finally, ALPHA and EPSILON both enjoyed cooperation with their local public school districts, with programs designed to help feed and mentor low- income and at-risk children during and after school. EPSILON even boasted an after- school program at a youth center that was formerly the elementary school that the school district sold to the faith-based organization for only $1.

Effectiveness as an outcome-based measure of success was challenged by several stakeholders across all five organizations in this study. For example, several

435 personnel saw “relational effectiveness” through the lens of the relationships that are built by fulfilling basic and emergency needs in the community. One staff member at OMEGA felt that future programming goals should include the ability to actually lift some of its program recipients out of organizational dependency, “to continue to be a source of basic services, specifically food resources, to people in the [OMEGA] community and to perhaps be a leader in helping people to move from being dependent upon services to creating a little bit more self-sufficiency” (Susie, May 16,

2014). The most direct response to organizational effectiveness from the stakeholders in all five of the organizations was given by an OMEGA board member who claimed, “Our mission is to provide programs, quality programs; not watered down nonsense, but programs that are effective and administered properly with integrity and to help the people in the way they are meant to be helped” (Tom, May 15, 2014).

Efficiency was not a stated concern among the vast majority of stakeholders at all five organizations. However, stakeholders were also “intentionally inefficient” at certain work tasks, because task efficiency would directly contradict their organizational mission, vision, or goals. The most common example of this ‘faith- based organizational efficiency’ was in regard to recipient relationships. Stakeholders, and especially personnel at all five organizations were frequently observed delaying their official or specified work tasks to aid or help recipients in need. Additionally, contrary to prior research findings, personnel efficiency was a matter of concern for many stakeholders at the faith-based organizations in this study. One staff member at ALPHA noted how personnel efficiency through cross-training can lead to greater organizational success when there is already limited or absent personnel:

436

So we are more efficient [through cross-training] and so that if someone is off or sick or on vacation or whatever that someone else can fill in. And that people don’t always understand the whole workflow, and so I am hoping to get charts that not only show the workflow, but that people can be plugged in at different points and understand the rest of the process. (Esther, May 20, 2014)

Staff member training sessions and certification were utilized at four of the five organizations (ALPHA, DELTA, EPSILON, and OMEGA) to aid in the efficient delivery of their programs. Faith-based organizational affiliations with continuing educational organizations, such as PANO (Pennsylvania Association of Nonprofit Organizations), and personnel certifications and degrees in social work and nonprofit administration, were common among leadership staff members. Only BETA did not have any staff members with advanced training, education, or certification in either social work or nonprofit administration.

Accountability. Although prior findings of faith-based organizational ineffectiveness and inefficiency and did not single out personnel and financial accountability specifically, the general implication has been that several FBO stakeholders are not currently, or have not been held, accountable with their financial management. Yet, the faith-based organizations in this study desired to help recipients move beyond basic needs assistance toward stability of self-sufficiency. As such, they learned to scale and balance short-term performance at the project-level of serving basic needs while simultaneously providing innovative programming that could fulfill their long-term goals of positive community outcomes. By decreasing the number of recipients in need of assistance, several stakeholders felt they were being accountable to the interests of all stakeholders, including themselves and their own faith commitments. Indeed, being accountable for stakeholders at organizations ALPHA

437 and EPSILON meant maintaining a full range of services, despite decreasing revenues and increasing costs (Harrison & Sexton, 2004). For stakeholders at all five of the organizations, especially among staff member leadership and the board of directors, accountability primarily revolved around sound financial stewardship. One staff member at EPSILON emphasized the convictions of many staff members at all five organizations by arguing that their faith makes them feel more financially accountable to the organization and to the communities they serve, “I feel like faith causes us to strive to be wise stewards with the money that people have given to us. And for me personally, how I handle myself” (Max, August 6, 2014). Similarly, one board member at EPSILON, representing the majority of board members feelings about personnel accountability, argued that,

I just see each individual as wanting to be here. I’m sure they all want to be good stewards, that’s are why they are here, and that’s why we have board meetings that start at 7:00 and sometimes we leave at 10:00—that’s long for a weeknight! They all want to be here. I’m sure everyone might have a little different agenda, but it’s all basically centered around Christ and trying to do what he wants us to do. (Yohann, August 7, 2014)

Taken as a whole, for the most part, stakeholders appeared to be accountable for their positions and roles within the organization. When stakeholders were not deemed to be accountable, they caused paradoxical tensions, contradictions, and oppositions. Each group endured through their shortcomings and those shortcomings included poor guardianship or over protectionism; but those same individuals and groups were also capable of, and did produce sound financial and program development, activism, creativity, innovation, and ultimately organizational sustainability through their perseverance.

438

Recipient faith and satisfaction. Despite objections over faith-based social provision and concerns about recipient faith coercion and service satisfaction, as noted in Vita and Wilson (2001), this study found that recipients were satisfied and grateful for faith-based organizations and the services they provide. Many recipients referred to their faith-based organization service as “their lifeline in times of crisis,” and that “without them, I would be living on the street.” Several recipients mentioned that they often felt that their faith grew while receiving services at their faith-based organization because they finally felt that “God loved them” and that “Jesus was watching over them.” One stakeholder at OMEGA, reiterating the recipient faith experience, argued that,

I think that faith helps the clients become peaceful. I think that it gives them hope that this is a difficult time and they are in despair. And I think that talking with the chaplains makes them personally feel better and like, ‘Okay, you know what, I may be able to get out of this situation.’ So, I think it helps with their sadness. I think it helps; I think it makes them feel like there’s a light at the end of the tunnel. (Stotty, May 22, 2014)

However, since recipient comments represent their individual belief systems related to a specific context, the human factor in having staff members and volunteers care for their needs should not be taken out of the equation when considering their level of satisfaction with their faith-based organization, and how their faith grew through their

FBO programming. Simply put, through faith-based organizational personnel taking the time and effort to listen to them, hug them, and pray with them, many of the recipients felt reassured that someone loved them. Moreover, if a stranger loved them, why wouldn’t God love them? One stakeholder at OMEGA shared how human

439 discernment is often involved in the recipient’s relationship with organizational personnel, and with God:

I have asked folks, ‘Our chaplains are here, would you like to pray?’ And some folks do not. They decline, but you know I’ll ask them. They have a right to say no. Most of them don’t though. Most of them will want to talk with anyone, pray with anyone just to have someone listen to them…if its drugs or something related like that, or if there’s a death in the family, and that’s their need, you know, then I do refer them to our caseworkers. I probably should refer them more than I do but I think I do a pretty good job of trying to discern who can be helped by speaking with a chaplain. (Kim, May 15, 2014)

Religious instruction and secular programming. This study found the opposite of prior research which states a common misconception, which is that if religious instruction occurs at faith-based organizations, it is usually against the will of recipients. However, in this study, recipients were often asked if they wished to receive religious instruction or prayer. Stakeholders across all five organizations were frequently very careful not to “push their personal religious beliefs onto the recipients.” For example, a staff member at DELTA illuminated the religious instruction misconception by explaining that during the recipient intake process to receive goods and services, they will only offer a prayer:

When we have an interview with the guest, we usually close the session, and I tell staff, ‘Deliver the service before you offer the spiritual component—offer prayer.’ Most people say, ‘Yes, please.’ Even people identified as pagan or atheists, if you are hurting and if somebody is willing to hold your hand and ask God’s blessing on you, it feels pretty good. Some people say, ‘Could you help me find a church?’ Or, you know, now and then we get somebody who says, ‘Would you tell me how to have a relationship with Jesus?’ Nothing does make our heart better, but that's auxiliary to giving food to hungry people. (Arthur, August 5, 2014)

440

As stated in the literature above, and shown in the individual case reports, another reason stakeholders at these five faith-based organizations were not explicit in their recipient religious instruction is that faith primarily existed within the organization for the benefit of the stakeholders, not the recipients. Conversely, another common misconception has been that if a program’s content is devoid of religious instruction, it is therefore considered secular in tone and scope. However, this was also not always found to be accurate. For example, in the financial literacy class at DELTA, if one was to send a survey or questionnaire about the content of the program, it likely would be classified as secular as it tries to educate recipients on how to prepare a spending plan, create monthly expense worksheets, take advantage of available tax credits, and give instruction as to where and how to obtain debt counseling and credit management, amongst other features. However, while that is the formal content of the course material, the very nature of the program was born out of faith in the values, ethics, and morals of Christianity. Specifically, DELTA supports people being knowledgeable and responsible about their financial condition; but informally, as part of “sharing Christ’s love by meeting basic human needs,” what may not immediately come across in external program materials is that some organizational personnel attend each class with recipients to provide encouragement and support. The program takes place within the hospitality of the organization, and each class begins and ends with prayer. So there are frequently several occurrences of ‘faith-related activity’ within so-called ‘secular programs.’

“Us” vs. “Them” boundaries maintained. The conclusion by Vanderwoerd (2000), that ‘us’ and ‘them’ boundaries between stakeholders and recipients was

441 blurred as a result of stakeholders’ service ethic, was not fully substantiated in this study. Many stakeholders were able to differentiate between their religious faith and their call to service by “loving their neighbor.” However, stakeholders’ service ethic did not reduce their pervasive stigmas and stereotypes of the recipients (Muturi, 2007). In fact, recipient behavior inside and outside the organizations (Hackman, Farah, & Meaney, 2010) may have only reinforced and perpetuated stakeholders’ predetermined beliefs (Major & O’Brien, 2005) of recipients “being lazy” or “wanting a hand-out.”

Indeed, “us” versus “them” boundaries, or what Bhattacharya and Welsbach (2002) call “disidentification,” was a constant source of tension through all levels of the five organizations in this study. Lastly, stakeholders would make the distinction that the primary reason they were serving those in need was their religious beliefs. The humanitarian and social service values of all Christian stakeholders in this study were viewed as secondary to their religious beliefs. As such, they did not reach beyond their religious beliefs as

Vanderwoerd (2000) found. Instead, their religious beliefs were the foundation of their service ethic. Some stakeholders even attributed the persistence of ‘us’ and ‘them’ boundaries to their Christian culture, noting that some Christians are judgmental and biased against people who receive “handouts.”

Historical religious context importance. The findings of La Barbera (1991, 1992) and Torry (2005) that tensions surrounding how faith-based organizations relate to their historical religious context, or their present ties to supporting religious institutions, were generally not upheld in this study. For example, all five organizations in this study expressed admiration for the deeply religious, financial, and

442 volunteer support of their partnering churches. Stakeholders at all five organizations enjoyed, and often rejoiced, at their ongoing relationships and ties with their supporting communities of faith. There were, however, concerns among stakeholders that the organizations were not “religious enough,” but these concerns were internal and not related to external partnerships.

Missional conflicts. Finally, conflicts related to the mission of the organization (Williams, 1994; Alexander, 2000; Unruh, Sinha, & Belcher, 2010; Kvasny & Lee, 2010), were also unsupported by this study. All five organizations possessed a clear commitment to their mission of social service. The reason behind this commitment varied due to personal religious beliefs and humanitarian values, but every stakeholder in this study expressed an apparent desire to fulfill the organization’s mission. While some dissent regarding the strategy or vision of the organizational mission occurred, there was no evidence from any stakeholders suggesting they wanted to alter the mission substantively, or that it should go unfulfilled.

9.5 A Faith-Based Organizational Paradox Perspective The perspective argued for in this study holds that exploring paradoxes and their management are illustrative in helping to paint a fuller portrait of micro-level operations in faith-based organizations. By adopting a paradoxical framework in a cross-case comparison of five faith-based organizations through the 33 exemplars from literature, this study uncovered several tensions, oppositions, and contradictions that are exhibited in FBOs. Furthermore, this study demonstrated how stakeholders resolved, but did not eliminate, some of those paradox exemplars through management

443 techniques related to balance, equilibrium, optimization, and synergy. This section summarizes some of the issues involved in applying a paradoxical framework to faith- based organizations, and uses a cross-case comparison to identify some potentially generalizable findings across the five FBOs in this study.

9.5.1 Adopting A Paradox Framework Adopting a paradoxical framework helped to ground this study within the findings of organizational management research. In applying a paradox perspective to how faith-based organizations manage paradoxes, this study recognizes that organizations might also have the ability to convert these paradoxes into organizational sustainability. The management strategies of acceptance (Schneider, 1990), confrontation (Smith & Berg, 1987), and transcendence (Denison, Hooijberg, & Quinn, 1995) were all found among the five organizations in this study. However, since this study was also exploratory, it is mindful that some organizations may not be aware that their organization contains some of the tensions, contradictions, and oppositions uncovered in this study. For example, the majority of interview replies to a question about whether or not faith hinders the organization from completing its mission, vision, or goals (Appendix G: Interview Guide—Question 12) were either “No,” or “I don’t see how it could.” Simply put, many participants had never considered the question before it was asked in the interview. The cross-case comparison below is an explanation of commonly exhibited paradoxes and paradox management themes across all five organizations. Findings in evidence across all five organizations are presented for the four paradoxical categories and six intersecting cross-categories. The categorization of paradoxes into (1) belonging, (2) learning, (3) organizing (Lewis, 2000), and (4) performing (Lüscher

444

& Lewis, 2008) are illustrative in analyzing and presenting the myriad ways in which paradoxes arise and exist within the five faith-based organizations in this study. The six intersecting cross-categories, as explained by Smith and Lewis (2011), are also instructive in further dissecting and splitting more complex issues with multiple simultaneous existing tensions, contradictions, and oppositions. Among the ten categories of paradox, this study found that all five organizations exhibited all 33 exemplars, as identified by Smith and Lewis (2011) in their meta-analysis of paradoxical research. During the compilation of the case reports, there were multiple examples in a given organization demonstrating the paradox that could have been included for some of the exemplars within the case studies, but the most prevalent examples were detailed in the individual case reports presented previously. However, while all 33 exhibited paradoxical exemplars were found in each of the five organizations, several of these examples were not managed, as suggested by the literature. Here, the gap between the primary samples of for-profit businesses in paradoxical literature, and the sample of faith-based non-profit organizations for this study, may have caused this discrepancy. It is also possible that the faith-based organizations in this study may have

“managed” the paradox at issue, but did not do so according to the literature framework adopted for this study. Indeed, the management of many of the paradoxes identified by literature was usually resolved through some combination of reassuring faith values, recommitment to the mission, and the use of community resources—all of which would not commonly present as a viable option in for-profit businesses.

445

9.5.2 Cross-Case Comparison This section compares the findings from each of the ten paradox categories. Commonalities and differences between the cases are explored. The exhibited paradoxes and their management from all five organizations are discussed in aggregate. The first section reviews exhibited and managed paradox themes from the core-categories while the second section reviews themes from the cross-categories

9.5.2.1 Core-Category Paradoxes Belonging paradoxes manifested themselves as stakeholders endured issues relating to their identity inside and outside of their organizations (Badaracco, 1998; Brewer, 1991; Huy, 2002; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Pratt & Foreman, 2000). The most common exhibited paradoxes were personal core values and individual identity, with Christian faith juxtaposed against both organizational core principles and an organization’s group identity as a nonprofit organization. For example, some stakeholders at ALPHA and OMEGA openly questioned how their individual roles at the organization fit within the broader context of helping recipients become more stable in their fight against the effects of poverty. Similarly, Christian stakeholders at BETA, DELTA, and EPSILON sought predictable relationships and consistency in behavior and thinking. While each organization noted a different primary tension for organizational change, all five organizations maintained organizational continuity through their mission. Staff members at all five organizations also struggled with the personal independence tension as a non-employee versus personal interdependence tension as an employee. For example, many stakeholders noted how “emotionally exhausting” the work is, and how “it is difficult not to bring it home” when investing so much spiritual and human capital into their work.

446

All five organizations also contained multiple identities as established community faith-based nonprofit human service organizations. As detailed throughout the case reports above, stakeholders were often torn between multiple identities and struggled to integrate them into a coherent whole. For example, while all stakeholders at BETA recognized and confirmed an organizational identity of a “parachurch ministry,” this identity revealed an “exclusive” practice among board members and an “inclusive” practice among the staff members. As such, there were frequent tensions of an “us” versus “them” mentality between board members and staff members, with recipients caught in the middle. Board members continually pushed to evangelize or even convert at-risk youth to “save their soul,” while staff members sought to provide patient and “loving care” to each “child of God,” regardless of religious affiliation, values, or morality. Management techniques in response to belonging paradoxes varied widely across the five organizations. All stakeholders had a sense of idealism when equalizing personal core values and organizational core principles. Stakeholder idealism usually focused on a difficult, nondescript, and nearly unachievable organizational goal such as “loving recipients” or getting recipients to be “service independent.” Conversely, if individual and group identity paradoxes were managed, they focused mostly on individuals differentiating from the group through personal preferences, such as establishing professional boundaries or recognizing distinctive personality traits. All staff members at the organizations did utilize personal values to address personal independence as a non-employee, and personal interdependence as an employee. For example, staff members used “personal time” at work or at home to re- center their work-life balance around their most cherished values. Staff members at

447 all five organizations described doing actions such as hiking, running, knitting, baking, thinking, such as praying or reading scripture, and feeling, such as talking, listening, crying and laughing, in order to ensure the correct personal combination of independence and interdependence, with the organization and their co-workers. Finally, the organizations in this study approached balancing their multiple identities through varied methods. ALPHA and OMEGA had the most diverse set of independent identities and sought to aggregate them. For example, they used each identity as an established community faith-based nonprofit human service organization to their advantage, depending on the context, such as speaking to current and potential donors, engaging volunteers, and providing media material. Thus, their identities were fluid and flexible. As noted in their case reports, this flexibility did create paradoxes with stakeholders who wished to remain firm on one or more primary identities—in terms of either the faith-based or human service aspects of the organization. Similarly, DELTA used deletion to create stronger existing identities. BETA compartmentalized their identities by focusing on their community and faith-based aspects, while EPSILON fashioned their “together vision” for the community by attempting to integrate all their identities into a coherent whole.

Learning paradoxes were present as stakeholders attempted to evolve and adapt to new conditions (March, 1991; Senge, 1990; Weick & Quinn, 1999). The most common exhibited paradoxes surrounding all five organizations explored the possibility of recipient stability; that is, giving recipients “a hand up instead of a handout.” This was a central theme in the mission and long-term goals and strategy in programming. Similarly, all five organizations sustained a shared vision for survival

448 help. Survival help and recipient stability were contrasted with simultaneously exploiting an existing area of organizational weakness—team learning. Team learning was used to understand how the different dynamics of survival help and recipient stability would affect and/or improve recipient well-being. For example, survival help and recipient stability were seen as the fundamental services of the organizations. However, each organization had to contend with their own unique methods of improving these services, such as through food pantry upgrades (ALPHA), expression of religious instruction in Christian programming (BETA), additional volunteer commitments (DELTA), further community collaboration (EPSILON), and increased congregational support (OMEGA). All five organizations mostly expressed learning paradoxes through organizational change. Organizational change was different for each of the five organizations and was brought about through dissolving undesired programs (ALPHA), infrastructure improvements (BETA), organizational growth (DELTA), attempts to expand community alliances (EPSILON), and the creation of new programming (OMEGA). There was consistency in exhibited paradoxes among the organizations, with evolving staff expectations and roles in dealing with these changes. Staff roles and expectations were part of both continuous and episodic changes at the organizations. For example, internal pressures from programming changes caused ALPHA and OMEGA personnel to change existing tasks and goals, while external pressures from improvements to infrastructure and services at BETA,

DELTA, and EPSILON caused personnel to create new tasks and goals. Management techniques applied to learning paradoxes, at all five organizations, centered on staff members and volunteers providing a synergy of fast

449 and slow learners with old and new knowledge. Together these two groups were able to work together as a team to adapt and adjust to organizational change. However, staff members saw volunteers as a critical centerpiece to the operations of all five organizations. For example, volunteers were able to aid staff members in creating new routines in response to new work tasks by assisting in the completion of projects and duties. This was especially helpful to staff members when they altered recipient programming, as volunteers provided knowledge from their experiences and offered labor for future change implementation. Many volunteers themselves actually suggested they enjoyed being exploited by the organization and said they “felt useful” and “felt needed” by the organization. Conversely, it was staff members who routinely attempted to explore new possibilities for recipients. Thus, staff members and volunteers at all five organizations were able to balance interests, tasks, and duties in order to learn from each other’s knowledge and experience.

Organizing paradoxes presented themselves during competing problem- solving or outcome-obtaining processes (Adler, Goldoftas, & Levine, 1999; Denison, Hooijberg, & Quinn, 1995; Flynn & Chatman, 2001; Ghemawat & Costa, 1993; Lüscher & Lewis, 2008; Siggelkow & Levinthal, 2003). Commonly exhibited paradoxes at all five organizations were balancing flexibility, leadership, exploration, and changing roles and relationships with competing interests. All five organizations considered flexibility a crucial element in organizing, as all personnel were encouraged to be open to recipient engagement. In this regard, efficiency in service delivery was perceived as secondary to the mission of “helping,” “loving,” and “caring” for recipients. These recipient engagement tasks were frequently observed to

450 slow performance, and had the potential to be emotionally draining, but were also seen to be a favorite aspect of a staff members’ job. Similarly, leadership qualities and employee versatility (which derives from personal traits) were often at odds with the demands of a chaotic and fluctuating work environment. Indeed, leaders in all five organizations, especially executive directors, often exhibited these complex personal traits and professional characteristics. On the one hand, this group was often identified as the default religious leader of an organization, while on the other hand, they were expected to be an administrative professional responsible for the overall success of the organization, including being responsible for the financial livelihoods of staff members and recipients. As the public face of an organization, expectations often did not match the private persona on display with personnel. The paradox of strong cultures regarding recipient stigmatization versus innovation in recipient programming was manifested in similar ways at each organization. Some personnel at every level of each organization possessed a stereotypical view of recipients as “lazy,” “rough,” “freeloaders” who were “just looking for a handout.” This recipient stereotyping apparently even applied to at-risk youth, the elderly, and those with physical and mental disabilities. As such, innovation in recipient programming, and exploration in recipient stability to help recipients “wean themselves off assistance” was a common goal for each of the five organizations. For example, ALPHA maintained a produce gleaning and nutrition program to help recipients make healthier eating decisions to aid in reducing physical impairments. BETA assisted recipients with job applications. DELTA provided financial and budgetary classes. EPSILON provided one-on-one social work

451 counseling. Moreover, OMEGA was the only organization that addressed all basic needs (food, shelter, and clothing) and spiritual needs (chaplaincy). Finally, changing roles and relationships among staff members due to their evolving roles and duties was manifested because of a changing organization. Interestingly, all personnel perceived that their organization was changing and, regardless of the cause, with so few staff members, these changes had a direct negative impact on their jobs. No personnel described organizational change as having a positive impact on their daily tasks, roles, and duties. All personnel argued these changes caused increased stress and decreased job satisfaction. Organizing paradox management techniques at all five organizations were demonstrated by staff members attempting to balance their work tasks through diverse roles and shared responsibilities. Whether it was the creation of new routines, finding enjoyment in current tasks, or distributing duties to willing coworkers, staff members found ways to equalize their work demands. For example, at all five organizations, staff members used meetings to deal with the short-term and long-term challenges of their job by discussing personal and professional concerns and emotions, and engaging in faith-related dialogue. Staff members also used meetings to plan how to delegate or “split” some of their tasks to other coworkers or volunteers, to reduce their work-load, and help build teamwork around collective tasks affecting the whole organization. Staff members also found themselves engaging in various leadership roles in an effort to mitigate directives and create ownership over required tasks.

All five organizations also employed conformity and/or cohesion around important aspects of their missions to ensure a smooth transition to an organizational change in culture and innovation. The actions by all personnel of “helping” or

452

“loving” recipients brought consistency in organizational structures, regardless of organizational change. Improving recipient conditions, or reconsidering recipient conditions, was done to assist in the fulfillment of an organizational mission. Finally, acceptance of change was seen as a crucial personal and professional characteristic among staff members at all five organizations. For example, staff members understood that their job was too emotionally intense to be able to perform well at their work without being able to accept change. Whether it was evolving roles and duties, the addition and subtraction of coworkers, changing policies, procedures, programming, or priorities, staff members willingly accepted, or were forced to accept, the fluid nature of their work.

Performing paradoxes occurred within the five organizations when a plurality of stakeholders had multiple and competing goals (Denis, Langley, & Rouleau, 2007; Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Jarzabkowski & Sillince, 2007; Margolis & Walsh,

2003). How many recipients is the optimal number to serve simultaneously? Should we expand services to a new location? How will accepting donations from secular connections positively or negatively impact organizational identity and culture? These are just some of the many common questions organizational leaders were forced to consider. Leaders at all five organizations often needed to acknowledge and respond to multiple stakeholders who had divergent demands. Volunteers represented stakeholders with the most divergent objectives at all five organizations.

Generally speaking, across the five organizations, volunteers were content with their present tasks, were not future orientated, and concerned themselves with the mission only in so far as it fulfilled a need to serve and “live out “ personal values. As

453 such, volunteers were the most resistant to change in all five organizations. Paradoxically, however, this group was also viewed as the most essential in performing the tasks necessary to operate the organizations successfully. Volunteers were sometimes seen as unreliable and were given individual freedom and autonomy to “set their own schedules” because staff members knew they were dependent on their labor. This dynamic led to some resentment amongst support staff, not least because volunteers were generally viewed by board members and executive management as “on the same level” as support staff with knowledge and expertise. The five organizations in this study also faced competing organizational goals, with a requirement to contribute to social service initiatives (ministry), while still growing assets. Unfortunately, executive directors often had the dubious distinction of being both “compassionate caregiver” and “revenue producer.” For the executive directors at the five organizations, this transpired through performing as an intermediary between the board members who had macro organizational goals, and staff members who had micro organizational goals. For example, executive directors were torn between establishing vision and goals that grew the organization, as opposed to improving existing conditions to maintain familiarity with current structures and organizational characteristics.

One area that all stakeholders had in common across the five organizations was a tension between providing humanitarian needs through “helping recipients,” balanced against an economic objective of being a reputable nonprofit that is fiscally responsible. Staff members viewed this paradox as the single most profound area of pressure on their performance. Staff members were encouraged and identified to make a social connection with recipients, but knew that ultimately, as an employee,

454 they needed to perform tasks that were often directly unrelated to “ministering to the needy.” Management techniques for performing paradoxes varied widely across the five organizations. Managing multiple stakeholders and divergent objectives through the synergy of individual, group, and organizational values was the only consistent method across all five organizations. Stakeholders at all organizations worked to ensure that either or both of the values related to faith and service were performed during various work tasks, roles, and duties. Similarly, managing stakeholder interests and contributions through balancing attitudes, structures, and practices also proved elusive. Volunteers, as an essential personnel group, due to their contributions to the performance of the organizations, were also, nonetheless, not given the structures necessary to express their interests. For example, at BETA, existing volunteers were unable to confer with the Board of Directors about changes to the volunteer recruitment and application process. Similarly, DELTA and EPSILON excluded volunteers from policymaking decisions, instead preferring to “pass along directives from the top.” Lastly, ALPHA and OMEGA freely exploited their volunteers and would often not consult them about their volunteering preferences. This usually meant that even long-standing volunteers might be regulated to cleaning rotten potatoes and onions from the food pantry (ALPHA), or they might sorting clean and dirty clothing in the housewares pantry (OMEGA) because staff members knew they would perform the tasks when others would not. However, all five organizations were able to find, in their current values and historical context, a dedication to service. This dedication to

455 service helped to equalize destabilizing pressures related to multiple organizational goals and, sometimes, had an impact on wavering employee commitment. Finally, all five organizations also found a beneficence duty to have a robust optimization strategy for managing humanitarian needs and economic objectives. For example, multiple stakeholders at all five organizations had a variety of areas from which they could target personal interests and energy in helping the organization fulfill its mission. ALPHA and OMEGA saw many of its personnel rally around the idea that an organization achieves a human service for those in need. BETA and EPSILON personnel enjoyed focusing on how the assistance and instruction they provided to at-risk youth benefits the community by “keeping kids off the streets.” Moreover, DELTA personnel found solace in the growth of the organization in new communities that previously did not have access to basic needs and stability programming.

9.5.2.2 Cross-Category Paradoxes Learning::Belonging paradoxes (Fiol, 2002; Ibarra, 1999; O’Mahony & Bechky, 2006) saw staff members contend with personal and professional issues related to faith and service. For example, staff members at all five organizations dealt with personal issues of belonging when confronting work motivation, experience, and satisfaction. Faith—as a central aspect of personal and professional identity— frequently challenged staff members to adapt and seek “streatchwork,” despite encountering numerous personal challenges, such as fatigue, burnout, and low morale.

At the same time, staff members faced professional learning issues when coping with changes in work tasks, roles, and duties. Yet, because of their faith, “dedication to

456 service” through “helping others” compelled many staff members to view career progression, in the form of “gaining experience,” as “worth the effort.” Management of learning and belonging paradoxes were similar across all five organizations. Personal and organizational change and transformation were balanced by personnel identifying with a Christian service core ideology. Every employee at all five organizations identified as Christian and viewed their job as a Christian service to the community. The depth of ideology varied across all five organizations, with

ALPHA utilizing a Christian service ideology the least, and DELTA harnessing it the most. Similarly, staff members adapted professionally in their careers by imitating the roles of other personnel, and by taking on new tasks in order to improve their skillsets. Many staff members addressed their career progression by discounting their service because they believed in the nonprofit ethos and ministry the organization provided. For example, staff members at all five organizations remarked how they either took a pay cut, or were not seeking a better paying job, because they believed in the organization’s mission and “felt called to serve.”

Learning::Organizing paradoxes (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Teece &

Pisano, 1994) were also demonstrated by all five organizations. All five organizations had to struggle with contrasting aspects of their service and location in order to achieve competitive advantage over available resources. Every organization in this study saw food as the most basic need of recipients who faced financial challenges. As such, every organization learned a way to distribute food, whether it was for at-risk youth after school (BETA), adult recipients scheduling a one-on-one counseling

457 session with a dedicated social worker (EPSILON), an appointed time to shop (DELTA & OMEGA), or en masse with hundreds of recipients simultaneously (ALPHA). As detailed, through analytic, predictable and stable processes, food distribution represented a dynamic capability for each organization. Conversely, the markets served by all five organizations were simple, experimental, unpredictable and fragile. Organizing was a recurring issue as recipients did or did not show up, the community did or did not support endeavors financially or with volunteers, and service provision did or did not have intended outcomes on recipient stabilization. For example, the BETA and OMEGA communities, via businesses (BETA) and local government (OMEGA), were either openly indifferent or hostile towards these organizations providing services in their locations (at the time of the study) near the main streets of their respective towns. Management techniques used to address learning and organizing paradoxes saw all five organizations possess complimentary methods to balance their dynamic capabilities and competitive advantage. All five organizations used the development of recipient programming, the alliancing of community resources, and the strategic dimensions of staff coordination processes, community resource positions, and local market paths to their advantage. Organizational development of recipient programming was seen by stakeholders as essential to both fulfilling their missions and to garner the support and engagement of the community to their causes. Likewise, the alliancing of community resources allowed each organization to integrate a vast array of resources that they did not have within their organizations. Whether it was donated goods, such as food or clothing, experience, and knowledge from board members who were bankers, lawyers, and doctors, financial support from area

458 businesses, or volunteer support from area churches, each organization aligned themselves with those who could support their mission. The balancing of strategic dimensions also allowed the organizations to maintain their dynamic capabilities and competitive advantage. Routines surrounding staff coordination processes with work tasks enabled continuous “on the job” learning. The organization’s position with community resources enabled continuous financial and volunteer support and relationships from which to refine and grow the organization. Finally, the path of the local market produced opportunities and alternatives for the organizations. For example, BETA and EPSILON were able to coordinate with the local school district to advance program cooperation and strategic relationships, while ALPHA, DELTA, and OMEGA cooperated with local businesses and governments to secure necessary grants and permits to develop new infrastructure. Without the current trajectory of the local market, these organizational advancements would not have been possible.

Learning::Performing paradoxes (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009; Dweck, 2006; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996), for the five organizations, involved performing to aid recipient stability, while learning to cope with a fluctuation in recipient programming. All five organizations learned to explore recipient stability, but had to perform exploitation in order to innovate in a variety of areas, such as fundraising events, infrastructure improvements, and community collaboration. Similarly, incremental change in recipient programming, and discontinuous change in a variety of areas, such as fundraising events, infrastructure improvements, and community collaboration, also created performance challenges for staff members.

459

However, it was the “fixed mindset” of each organization that produced the most weaknesses and threats. For example, singular thinking about recipient experience related to poverty, coupled with prima facie recipient stereotypes, created a noticeable culture of stagnation and contentment among recipient service delivery at each organization. Despite a mission to “help those in need,” and a vision to “love neighbors,” recipient empathy was frequently lacking among personnel at all levels of each organization, which negatively impacted both organizational learning and performance. There was no uniform management approach to learning and performing paradoxes across all five organizations. Each organization in this study managed their own unique learning and performance issues with specific management techniques. For example, a “growth mindset” at each organization varied depending on board member control and executive management authority. Personnel at ALPHA sought to get the organization “to move on to the next level” because it was stuck in “a holding pattern” waiting for staff turnover and financial issues to resolve. BETA, DELTA, and EPSILON were immersed in infrastructure improvement projects. BETA was finalizing plans to double their facility size and move locations for the first time in decades, while DELTA was in the process of completing their fourth service location with a new building. EPSILON recently finished building a new food pantry and nutrition education center and was looking to renovate their youth facility. OMEGA was in the process of integrating a new housing assistance program, which added 33% more employees, and nearly a 25% increase in budget expenditure. Together, these endeavors, primarily on the part of a few key staff members and board members,

460 helped to propel the organizations forward to take on new challenges and obstacles, in order to more “fruitfully achieve their mission.”

Performing::Organizing paradoxes (Eisenstat, Beer, Foote, Fredberg, & Norrgren, 2008; Gittell, 2000; Kaplan & Norton, 1996) saw issues of performance related to financial stability contrast with long-term strategies of improving recipient stability. Each organization had future idealistic goals to help recipients “get out of poverty.” However, executive management faced practical and persistent challenges in relation to operating an organization with a diverse set of stakeholders and the financial accountability that comes with being a public, nonprofit organization. In this regard, “the people” of the organization representing the social, institutional aspects of the ministry were usually seen as secondary to its service mission. Likewise, a long-term strategy was often juxtaposed against short-term actions in favor of making sure the “doors remain open” to the organization, that ensure recipient basic needs are addressed first and foremost. However, each organization struggled with a different aspect of the coordination and control paradox. For example, ALPHA and OMEGA dealt with coordination issues of teamwork and grouping while BETA, DELTA, and EPSILON demonstrated tensions securing coordination among volunteers, while control was consistent at all five organizations, as directed from the executive management in consultation with the board of directors. All five organizations also varied their management techniques in relation to the performing and organizing paradoxes. However, each organization attempted to balance the economic “performance” of the organization with the social aspects of the institution by developing a shared purpose amongst personnel. Leaders sought to

461 encourage and support people as roles and duties evolved towards fulfilling an advancing organizational mission. If this meant more resources were allocated to fundraising or administrative tasks, personnel transitioned their performance to reflect these tasks because they understood it was “better for the bottom line.” This understanding reflected more than just a concern for fulfilling the organizational mission for recipients. It also reflected an interest in the self-sustainability of the organization.

A common perception throughout each organization was that without a financially healthy and fiscally responsible organization, everyone suffers. Due to this economic perception, every organization except ALPHA was extremely selective about which employees they hired. Leadership attempted to control the vision for achieving the mission by ensuring that the employees they hired would “mold to the existing identity and culture” of the organization.

The paradoxes of Performing::Belonging (Dukerich, Golden, & Shortell, 2002; Kreiner, Hollensbe, & Sheep, 2006) saw the personal and social identities of “belonging related to faith,” clash with the professional and organizational identities of “performance related to service.” Personnel at all levels of each organization had to combat opposing personal and professional forces. For example, faith was seen as a primary personal reason for belonging to a faith-based organization, and for performing a service on behalf of “those who are in need.” While this was usually sufficient justification for working at the organization, on occasion personnel were professionally challenged when they felt they had to choose between their own

462

“personal faith” values and “serving others,” as the priority guiding how they performed their work tasks, roles, and duties. The choice between personal faith values and performing contradictory roles was perceived by most stakeholders as a challenge to their sense of belonging within the organization. For example, staff members at each organization, especially those dealing with non-faith related fundraising and community collaboration tasks, described how external secular pressures of money and influence caused internal issues of trust and relatability among coworkers. The private reality of being “pure enough” to one’s own faith, in the face of public perceptions, tested every executive director in this study. The paradoxes of performing and belonging were managed through a balance of Christian faith, and establishing shared values and boundaries. Every staff member at all five organizations identified with various Christian faith aspects of the organization, which helped motivate them to perform with cooperation during times of organizational change. Indeed, the perceived organizational image allowed all staff members to identify with the Christian service (ALPHA & OMEGA) or Christian values (BETA, DELTA & EPSILON) aspects of each organization. Similarly, personal and social identities were balanced through shared values and boundaries.

Coworkers at each organization felt they jointly belonged to the organization as fellow Christians, but people also sought to establish boundaries between themselves and their organizations as they each valued their independence and non-employee identities.

463

Finally, employees at all five organizations faced paradoxes of Belonging::Organizing (Murnighan & Conlon, 1991; Smith & Berg, 1987). The concept of an assistant leader or “second fiddle” to the executive director or executive management team was an issue that caused professional relationship and organizational structure conflicts at each organization. Similarly, while every individual could identify with a group at the organization on the basis of their faith, relationships and structures at each organization presented problems of participation and influence among members. For example, both a lack of trust and tenure at an organization could lead to conflict among personnel at any level of the organization. At ALPHA, DELTA and OMEGA, volunteers who had been with the organization longer than some staff members frequently tried to assert their dominance over these staff by deifying policies and procedures and exercising pervasive autonomy. Likewise, at BETA and EPSILON, staff members who had been tenured at the organizations many years did not fully trust recently acquired volunteers, board members, and staff members and sought to limit their influence and participation in the organization. Management of belonging and organizing paradoxes saw commonalities among the five organizations surrounding passive leadership and teamwork.

Leadership in all five organizations was fraught, with several tensions including installing a democratic process to voice concerns, contradictions over creating structures to allow others to lead, and oppositions to seeking compromise. However, each organization had their specified leaders who put forward a passive leadership style to balance these organizational conflicts.

464

Teamwork was also utilized to equalize problems relating to individuals in group life. Issues of employee membership, participation, and influence were all addressed through teamwork concepts of compromise and elimination, or separation of divisive subjects and divergent objectives. For example, teamwork was most evident through fundraising events at ALPHA, an at-risk youth after-school feeding program at BETA, organizational growth transitioning at DELTA, and recipient casework management at EPSILON and OMEGA.

465

Chapter 10

CONCLUSIONS

10.1 Research Summary Consistent with its research purpose and research rationale, the findings of this study confirmed and challenged previous scholarship surrounding faith-based organizations. Utilizing past faith-based organizational research as a lens from which to gather information, and following the recommendations of Eisenhardt (1989) and Andriopoulos and Lewis (2009), this study purposefully sampled organizations that would provide a robust data set from which to explore its two research questions of: (1) what are the tensions, oppositions, contradictions, and simultaneous paradoxes that exist within faith-based organizations and (2) how are these managed within faith-based organizations? Using a cross-case comparison of five established community faith-based nonprofit human service organizations, this study demonstrated that (1) paradox management methodologies, models, and theories that lie outside of third sector research are applicable to faith-based organizations, and that (2) they are supportive in uncovering and discovering meaningful insights into faith- based organizational operations and processes. Furthermore, following the recommendations of DiMaggio (1998) and

Ebaugh, et al. (2003), this study utilized theoretical elements from organization management literature to gain a deeper understanding of faith-based organizations and their management. DiMaggio (1998) and Ebaugh et al. (2003) recommended using organizational theory to more fully and uniquely understand nonprofits. This study

466 aimed to begin with this purpose. This effort resulted in the application of a paradox framework. The paradox framework included four core categories of paradoxes and six intersectional cross-categories consisting of 33 paradoxical exemplars identified by Smith and Lewis (2011). Each of the ten categories of paradox and all 33 paradoxical exemplars were evidenced in each of the five organizations in this study. By adopting a paradox framework, this study discovered that organizational management literature was supportive in explaining some of the tensions, contradictions, and oppositions that exist within faith-based organizations. Adopting a paradoxical framework enabled this study to take a micro-level approach to organizational management. This approach also illuminated management techniques used by the five faith-based organizations to maintain balance, equilibrium, synergy, and optimization despite exhibited paradoxes. When taken together as a whole, this research approach, of applying a framework from existing literature to uncover exhibited paradoxes and their management, is described as a “paradox perspective.”

10.2 Research Implications The application of a “paradox perspective” onto faith-based organizations is illustrative in beginning the conversation for future research about some of the types and nature of problems, issues, quandaries, dilemmas, dichotomies, and paradoxes that exist in faith-based organizations. Indeed, a paradox approach allowed this study to go beyond mere description of the organizations studied, and into an analysis of their processes at the micro-level. The data indicates that faith-based organizations use management techniques of balance, equilibrium, optimization, and synergy to attend to concerns caused by paradoxes. While paradoxes were never completely removed or resolved, the management tactics employed by the five faith-based organizations in

467 this study allowed them to foster community support and generate organizational growth. Ultimately, the paradox management techniques evidenced by the five faith- based organizations in this study provided stabilizing programming options for recipients who required assistance dealing with the life-threatening ramifications of poverty.

468

REFERENCES

Abzug, R., & Webb, N. J. (1999). Relationships between nonprofit and for-profit organizations: A stakeholder perspective. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(4), 416-431.

Adkins, J., & Kemper, R. V. (2006). Oasis housing corporation: From solutions to dissolution in a faith-based organization. Urban Anthropology and Studies of Cultural Systems and World Economic Development, 35(2), 237-264.

Adler, P. S., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. I. (1999). Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science, 10(1), 43-68.

Adorisio, A. L. M. (2009). Storytelling in organizations: From theory to empirical research. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Akerlof, G. A., & Kranton, R. E. (2005). Identity and the economics of organizations. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(1), 9-32.

Akin, G., & Hopelain, D. (1987). Finding the culture of productivity. Organizational Dynamics, winter, 19-32.

Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. (1985). Organizational identity. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 263-295.

Alexander, J. (2000). Adaptive strategies of nonprofit human service organizations in an era of devolution and new public management. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 10(3), 287-303.

Alvesson, M., & Empson, L. (2007). The construction of organizational identity: Comparative case studies of consulting firms. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 24, 1-16.

Amirkhanyan, A. A., Kim, H. J., & Lambright, K. T. (2009). Faith-based assumptions about performance: Does church affiliation matter for service quality and access? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(3), 490-521.

469

Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696-717.

Anheier, H. K., & Seibel, W. (1990). Introduction. In H. K. Anheier & W. Seibel (Eds.), The third sector: Comparative studies of nonprofit organizations (pp. 1-4). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.

Anthony, M. J., & Estep, J. (Eds.). (2005). Management essentials for Christian ministries. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers

Ashmos, D. P., & Duchon, D. (2000). Spirituality at work: A conceptualization and measure. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9(2), 134-145.

Atlas of Giving. (2015). U.S. charitable giving: 2014 results ad initial 2015 forecast, 12, 1-16. Retrieved from http://www.atlasofgiving.com/atlas/9564728G/9564728G_12_14.pdf

Bacher, R. N., & Cooper-White, M. L. (2007). Church administration: Programs, process, purpose. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Badaracco, J. L. (1998). The discipline of building character. Harvard Business Review, 76(2), 114-124.

Bartkowski, J. P., & Regis, H. A. (2003). Charitable choices: Religion, race, and poverty in the post-welfare era. New York: New York University Press.

Becker, P. E. (1999). Congregations in conflict: Cultural models or local religious life. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Beech, N., Burns, H., Caestecker, L., MacIntosh, R., & MacLean, D. (2004). Paradox as invitation to act in problematic change situations. Human Relations, 57(10), 1313-1332.

Berkley, J. D. (Ed.). (2007). Leadership handbook of management and administration. Revised and expanded edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

Bhattacharya, C. B., & Elsbach, K. D. (2002). Us versus them: The roles of organizational identification and disidentification in social marketing initiatives. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 21(1), 26-36.

470

Bielefeld, W., & Cleveland, W. S. (2013a). Defining faith-based organizations and understanding them through research. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(3), 442-467.

Bielefeld, W., & Cleveland, W. S. (2013b). Faith-based organizations as service providers and their relationship to government. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(3), 468-494.

Bisesi, M., & Lidman, R. (2009). Compassion and power: Religion, spirituality, and public administration. International Journal of Public Administration, 32, 4- 23.

Boddie, S. C. (2002). Fruitful partnerships in a rural African American community: Important lessons for faith-based initiatives. Journal for Applied Behavioral Science, 38(3), 317-333.

Bopp, M., & Fallon, E. A. (2011). Individual and institutional influences on faith- based health and wellness programming. Health Education Research, 26(6), 1107-1119.

Bradley, T. (2009). A call for clarification and critical analysis of the work of faith- based development organizations (FBDO). Progress in Development Studies, 9(2), 101-114.

Brainard, L. A., & Brinkerhoff, J. M. (2004). Lost in cyberspace: Shedding light on the dark matter of grassroots organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(3), 32S-53S.

Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475-842.

Brinckerhoff, P. C. (1999). Faith-based management: Leading organizations that are based on more than just mission. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Brooks, A. C. (2005). What do nonprofit organizations seek? (And why should policymakers care?). Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(3), 543- 558.

Callen, J. L., Klein, A., & Tinkelman, D. (2003). Board composition, committees, and organizational efficiency: The case for nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(4), 493-520.

471

Campbell, D. (2002a). Beyond charitable choice: The diverse service delivery approaches of local faith-related organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(2), 207-230.

Campbell, D. (2002b). Outcomes assessment and the paradox of nonprofit accountability. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 12(3), 243-259.

Campbell, D. (2011). Reconsidering the implementation strategy in faith-based policy initiatives. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(1), 130-148.

Cameron, K. S. (1986). Effectiveness as paradox: Consensus and conflict in conceptions of organizational effectiveness. Management Science, 32(5), 539- 553.

Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1988). Organizational paradox and transformation. In R. E. Quinn & K. S. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management (pp. 1-18). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.

Carroll, A. B. (2015). Corporate social responsibility: The centerpiece of competing and complementary frameworks. Organizational Dynamics, 44(2), 87-96.

Cantanzaro, A. M., Meador, K. G., Koenig, H. G., Kuchibhatla, M., & Clipp, E. C. (2007). Congregational health ministries: A national study of pastor’s views. Public Health Nursing, 24(1), 6-17.

Carman, J. G., & Nesbit, R. (2012). Founding new nonprofit organizations: Syndrome or symptom? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(3), 603-621.

Center for Poverty Research. (2016, August 30). What are the annual earnings for a full-time minimum wage worker? Retrieved from https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-are-annual-earnings-full-time-minimum- wage-worker

Chambré, S. M. (2001). The changing nature of “faith” in faith-based organizations: Secularization and ecumenicism in four AIDS organizations in New York City. Social Science Review, 75(3), 435-455.

Chaves, M. (1994). Secularization as declining religious authority. Social Forces, 72(3), 749-774.

Chaves, M. (1997). Ordaining women: Culture and conflict in religious organizations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

472

Chaves, M., & Wineburg, B. (2010). Did the faith-based initiative change congregations? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(2), 343-355.

Chick-fil-A. (2019). Who we are. Corporate purpose. Retrieved from https://www.chick-fil-a.com/About/Who-We-Are

Clarke, G. (2007). Agents of transformation? Donors, faith-based organizations and international development. Third World Quarterly, 28(1), 77-96.

Clegg, S. R., Cunha, J., & Cunha, M. (2002). Management paradoxes: A relational view. Human Relations, 55(5), 483-503.

Clerkin, R. M., & Grønbjerg, K. A. (2007). The capacities of challengers of faith- based human service organizations. Public Administration Review, 67(1), 115- 126.

Cnaan, R. A. (1999). The newer deal: Social work and religion in partnership. New York: Columbia University Press.

Cnaan, R. A. (2002). The invisible caring hand: American congregations and the provision of welfare. New York: New York University Press.

Cnaan, R. A. (2006). The other Philadelphia story: How local congregations support quality of life in urban America. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Cnaan, R. A., & Boddie, S. C. (2002). Charitable choice and faith-based welfare: A call for Social Work. Social Work, 47(3), 224-235.

Cnaan, R. A., & Boddie, S. C. (2006). Setting the context: Assessing the effectiveness of faith-based social services. Journal of Religion & Spirituality in Social Work: Social Thought, 25(3-4), 5-18.

Cnaan, R. A., & Curtis, D. W. (2013). Religious congregations as voluntary associations: An overview. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(1), 7-33.

Cnaan, R. A., Gelles, R. J., & Sinha, J. W. (2004). Youth and religion: The gameboy generation goes to “church.” Social Indicators Research, 68(2), 175-200.

473

Cnaan, R. A., Kastemakis, A., & Wineburg, R. J. (1993). Religious people, religious congregations, and volunteerism in human services: Is there a link? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 22(1), 33-51.

Cnaan, R. A., Sinha, J. W., & McGrew, C. C. (2004). Congregations as social service providers: Services, capacity, culture, and organizational behavior. Administration in Social Work, 3(4), 47-68.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Third Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cornforth, C. (2003). Introduction: The changing context of governance – emerging issues and paradoxes. In C. Cornforth (Ed.), The governance of public and non-profit organisations: What do boards do? (pp. 1-20). New York: Routledge.

Coyne, J. S. (1982). Hospital performance in multihospital systems: A comparative study of system and independent hospitals. Health Services Research, 17(4), 303-329.

Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., & Byrne, Z. S. (2003). The relationship of emotional exhaustion to work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 160-169.

Crist, J. D., Parsons, M. L., Warner-Robbins, C., Mullins, M. V., & Espinosa, Y. M. (2009). Pragmatic action research with 2 vulnerable populations: Mexican American elders and formerly incarcerated women. Family & Community Health, 32, 320-329.

Cunningham, R. (2005). Religion and public administration – The unacknowledged common (and competitive) ground. International Journal of Public Administration, 28, 943-955.

Daly, L. (2009). God’s economy: Faith-based initiatives and the caring state. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Denis, J-L., Lamothe, L., & Langley, A. (2001). The dynamics of collective leadership and strategic change in pluralistic organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 809-837.

Denis, J-L., Langley, A., & Rouleau, L. (2007). Strategizing in pluralistic contexts: Rethinking theoretical frames. Human Relations, 60(1), 179-215.

474

Denison, D. R., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. E. (1995). Paradox and performance: Toward a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organization Science, 6(5), 524-540.

DeHaven, M. J., Hunter, I. B., Wilder, L., Walton, J. W., & Berry, J. (2004). Health programs in faith-based organizations: Are they effective? American Journal of Public Health, 94(6), 1030-1036.

Diamond, M. A., & Allcorn, S. (2009). Private selves in public organizations: The psychodynamics of organizational diagnosis and change. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

DiMaggio, P. J. (1995). Comments on ‘what theory is not.’ Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 391-397.

DiMaggio, P. J. (1998). The relevance of organization theory to the study of religion. In N. J. Demerath III (Ed.), Sacred companies: Organizational aspects of religion and religious aspects of organizations (pp. 7-23). New York: Oxford.

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). Introduction. In W. W. Walter, & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 1- 38). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91.

Dukerich, J. M., Golden, B. R., & Shortell, S. M. (2002). Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: The organizational identification, identity, and image on the cooperative behaviors of physicians. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 507-533.

Dyck, B., Starke, F. A., Harder, H., & Hecht, T. (2005). Do the organizational structures of religious places of worship reflect their statements of faith? An exploratory study. Review of Religious Research, 47(1), 51-69.

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new phycology of success. New York: Random House.

Ebaugh, H. R., Chafetz, J. S., & Pipes, P. F. (2005). Funding good works: Funding sources of faith-based social service coalitions. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34(4), 448-472.

475

Ebaugh, H. R., Chafetz, J. S., & Pipes, P. F. (2006a). The influence of evangelism on government funding of faith-based social service organizations. Review of Religious Research, 47(4), 380-392.

Ebaugh, H. R., Chafetz, J. S., & Pipes, P. F. (2006b). Where’s the faith in faith-based organizations? Measures and correlates of religiosity in faith-based social service coalitions. Social Forces, 84(4), 2259-2272.

Ebaugh, H. R., Chafetz, J. S., & Pipes, P. F. (2007). Collaborations with faith-based social service coalitions. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 18(2), 175- 191.

Ebaugh, H. R., Pipes, P. F., Chafetz, J. S., & Daniels, M. (2003). Where’s the religion? Distinguishing faith-based from secular social service agencies. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42(3), 411-426.

Ehnert, I., Lewis, M. W., & Michaud, V. (2013). EGOS 2014 – Subtheme: Leveraging a paradox perspective to rethink and reshape organization tensions. European Group for Organizational studies. Retrieved from http://www.egosnet.org/2014_rotterdam/subthemes

Ehrlich, S. B., & Hatch, M. J. (1993). Spontaneous humor as an indicator of paradox and ambiguity in organizations. Organization Studies, 14(4), 505-526.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. F. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25-32.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1105-1121.

Eisenstat, R. A., Beer, M., Foote, N., Fredberg, T., & Norrgren, F. (2008). The uncompromising leader. Harvard Business Review, 86(7/8), 50-57.

Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2011). Writing ethnographic field notes. Second Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Fabricant, M. (1986). Creating survival services. Administration in Social Work, 10(3), 71-84.

476

Farnsley, A. E. (2001). Can faith-based organizations compete? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30(1), 99-111.

Federal Register. (2004, July 16). Participation in Department of Health and Human Service programs by religious organizations: Providing for equal treatment of all Department of Health and Human Services program participants. Federal Register, 69(136), 42586-42595.

Felin, T., & Foss, N. J. (2005). Strategic organization: A field in search of micro- foundations. Strategic Organization, 3(4), 441-455.

Fiol, C. M. (2002). Capitalizing on paradox: The role of language in transforming organizational identities. Organization Science, 13(6), 653-666.

Fiol, C. M., Hatch, M. J., & Golden-Biddle, K. (1998). Organizational culture and identity: What’s the difference anyway? In D. Whetten & P. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations (pp.56-59). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fischer, R. L. (2003). The devil is in the details: Implementing outcome measurement in faith-based organizations. Cleveland: Center on Urban Poverty and Social Change.

Fischer, R. L. (2004). The devil is in the details: Implementing secular outcome measurement methods in faith-based organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 15(1), 25-40.

Fischer, R. L. (2006). Testing faith: Improving the evidence base on faith-based human services. Journal of Religion & Spirituality in Social Work: Social Thought, 25(3-4), 105-122.

Flanigan, S. T. (2010). Factors influencing nonprofit career choice in faith-based and secular NGOs in three developing countries. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 21(1), 59-75.

Flynn, F. J., & Chatman, J. A. (2001). Strong cultures and innovation: Oxymoron or opportunity? In C. Cooper, S. Cartwright, & C. Early (Eds.), International handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp. 263-287). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219-245.

477

Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (1994). Logics of identity, contradiction, and attraction in change. Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 756-785.

Freeman, R. E., & Reed, D. L. (1983). Stockholders and stakeholders: A new perspective on corporate governance. California Management Review 25(3), 88-106.

Garcia-Zamar, J. C. (2003). Workplace spirituality and organizational performance. Public Administration Review, 63(3), 355-363.

Garicano, L., & Posner, R. A. (2005). Intelligence failures: An organizational economics perspective. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 151-170.

Garrow, E., Nakashima, J., & McGuire, J. (2011). Providing human services in collaboration with government: Comparing faith-based and secular organizations that serve homeless veterans. Review of Religious Research, 52(3), 266-281.

Gazley, B., & Brudney, J. L. (2007). The purpose (and perils) of government- nonprofit partnership. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(3), 389- 415.

Ghemawat, P., & Costa, J. E. R. (1993). The organizational tension between static and dynamic efficiency. Strategic Management Journal, 14(winter), 59-73.

Gibbert, M., & Ruigrok, W. (2008). What passes as a rigorous case study? Strategic Management Journal, 29(13), 1465-1474.

Gibelman, M., & Gelman, S. R. (2002). Should we have faith in faith-based social services?: Rhetoric versus realistic expectations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 13(1), 49-65.

Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209-226.

Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2012). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15-31.

Gioia, D. A., & Thomas, J. B. (1996). Identity, image, and issue interpretation: Sensemaking during strategic change in academia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 370-403.

478

Gittell, J. H. (2000). Paradox of coordination and control. California Management Review, 42(3), 101-117.

Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Goldsmith, S., & Eimicke, W. B., & Pineda, C. (2006). Faith-based organizations versus their secular counterparts: A primer for local officials. (DRAFT). The Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation, John F. Kennedy School of Government. Harvard University. Available online at http://www.innovations.harvard.edu/cache/documents/11120.pdf

Golden-Biddle, K., & Rao, H. (1997). Breaches in the boardroom: Organizational identity and conflicts of commitment in a nonprofit organization. Organization Science, 8(6), 593-611.

Goode, J. (2006). Faith-based organizations in Philadelphia: Neoliberal ideology and the decline of political activism. Urban Anthropology and Studies of Cultural Systems and World Economic Development, 35(2), 203-236.

Gossett, C. W., & Pynes, J. E. (2003). The expansion of “charitable choice” and “faith-based initiatives”: Human resource management implications for nonprofit organizations. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 23(2), 154-168.

Graebner, M., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2004). The seller’s side of the story: Acquisition as courtship and governance as syndicate in entrepreneurial firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(3), 366-403.

Graddy, E. A., & Ye, K. (2006). Faith-based versus secular providers of social services—differences in what, how, and where. Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, 29(3), 309-335.

Gregory, A. G., & Howard, D. (2009). The nonprofit starvation cycle. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Fall, 49-53.

Grettenberger, S., Bartkowski, J. P., & Smith, S. R. (2006). Evaluating the effectiveness of faith-based welfare agencies: Methodological challenges and possibilities. Journal of Religion & Spirituality in Social Work: Social Thought, 25(3-4), 223-240.

479

Guo, B. (2010). Beyond the public safety net: The role of nonprofits in addressing material hardship of low-income households. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(5), 784-801.

Hackman, D. A., Farah, M. J., & Meaney, M. J. (2010). Socioeconomic status and the brain: Mechanistic insights from human and animal research. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 651-659.

Hall, L. M., & Kennedy, S. S. (2008). Public and nonprofit management and the ‘New Governance.’ The American Review of Public Administration, 38(3), 307-321.

Hannaway, J. (1991). The organization and management of public and Catholic schools: Looking inside the ‘black box’. International Journal of Educational Research, 15(5), 463-481.

Harden, M. G. (2006). Towards a faith-based program theory: A reconceptualization of program theory. Evaluation Review, 30(4), 481-504.

Harrison, J. P., & Sexton, C. (2004). The paradox of the not-for-profit hospital. The Health Care Manager, 23(3), 192-204.

Harrison, J. P., & Sexton, C. (2006). The improving efficiency frontier of religious non-for-profit hospitals. Hospital Topics, 84(1), 2-10.

Haslam, S. A. (2004). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach. London: Sage.

Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (1997). Relations between organizational culture, identity, and image. European Journal of Marketing, 31(5-6), 356-365.

He, Z-L., & Wong, P-K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481-494.

Hehir, J. B. (2000). Religious ideas and social policy: Subsidiarity and Catholic style of ministry. In M. J. Bane, B. Coffin, & R. Thiemann (Eds.), Who will provide? The changing role in religion in American social welfare (pp. 97- 120). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (1998). Nonprofit organizational effectiveness: Contrasts between especially effective and less effective organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 9(1), 23-38.

480

Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (1999). Theses on nonprofit organizational effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(2), 107-126.

Hobby Lobby. (2019). Our story. Core values. Retrieved from https://newsroom.hobbylobby.com/corporate-background/

Hogg, M. A. & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121-140.

Hoge, D., Zech, C., McNamara, P., & Donahue, M. (1998). The value of volunteers as resources for congregations. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 37(3), 470-480.

Holmes, S., & Moir, L. (2007). Developing a conceptual framework to identify corporate innovations through engagement with non-profit stakeholders. Corporate Governance International Journal of Business in Society, 7(4), 414- 422.

Hopkins, B. R. (1992). The law of tax-exempt organizations. Sixth Edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Hugen, B., Wolfer, T.A., & Renkema, J. U. (2006). Service and faith: The impact on Christian faith of community ministry participation. Review of Religious Research, 47(4), 409-426.

Hughes, E. (1994). Religious education in the primary school: Managing diversity. London: Cassells.

Hung, H. (1998). A typology or theories of the roles of governing boards. Corporate Governance, 6(2), 101-111.

Hustinx, L. (2010). I quit, therefore I am?: Volunteer turnover and the politics of self- actualization. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(2), 236-255.

Huy, Q. N. (2002). Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: The contribution of middle managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(1), 31-69.

Ibarra, H. (1999). Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional adaptation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 764-791.

481

Ibrahim, N. A., & Angelidis, J. P. (2005). The long-term performances of small businesses: Are there differences between ‘Christian-based’ companies and their secular counterparts? Journal of Business Ethics, 58(1), 187-193.

Ingram, P., & Clay, K. (2000). The choice-within-constraints new institutionalism and implications for sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 525-546.

Internal Revenue Service. (2017). Inurement/Private benefit – Charitable organizations. Retrieved from https://www.irs.gov/charities-nonprofits/charitable-organizations/inurement-private-benefit-charitable- organizations

Isaac, R. G., & Pitt, D. C. (2001). Organization culture: It’s alive! It’s alive! But there’s no fixed address! In R. T. Golembiewski (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior, second edition, (pp.113-144). New York: Marcel Dekker.

Jamison, I. B. (2003). Turnover and retention among volunteers in human service agencies. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 23(2), 114-132.

Jarzabkowski, P., & Sillince, J. (2007). A rhetoric-in-context approach to building commitment to multiple strategic goals. Organization Studies, 28(11), 1639- 1665. Jayasinghe, S. (2007). Faith-based NGOs and healthcare in poor countries: A preliminary exploration of ethical issues. Journal of Medical Ethics, 33(11), 623-626.

Jeavons, T. H. (1994). When the bottom line is faithfulness: Management of Christian service organizations. Indianapolis: Indian University Press.

Jeavons, T. H. (1998). Identifying characteristics of “religious” organizations: An exploratory proposal. In N.J. Demerath III (Ed.), Sacred companies: Organizational aspects of religion and religious aspects of organizations (pp. 79-95). New York: Oxford.

Jeavons, T. H. (2004). Religious and faith-based organizations: Do we know one when we see one? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(1), 140-145.

Jeavons, T. H., & Cnaan, R. A. (1997). The formation, transitions, and evolution of small religious organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 26(S), S62-S84.

482

Johnson, B. R., Tompkins, R. B., & Webb, D. (2002). Objective hope – assessing the effectiveness of faith-based organizations: A review of the literature. Center for Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.

Johnston, J. (2008). The citizen-consumer hybrid: Ideological tensions and the case of whole foods market. Theor Soc, 37, 229-270.

Judge, H. (2001). Faith-based schools and state funding: A partial argument. Oxford Review of Education, 27(4), 463-474.

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard Business Review, 74(1), 75-85.

Kaplan, S. A., Calman, N. S., Golub, M., Ruddok, C., & Billings, J. (2006). The role of faith-based institutions in addressing health disparities: A case study of an initiative in the Southwest Bronx. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 17, 9-19.

Kearns, K. (2003). The effects of government funding on management practices in faith-based organizations: Propositions for future research. Public Administration & Management, 8(3), 116-134.

Kearns, K., Park, C., & Yankoski, L. (2005). Comparing faith-based and secular community service corporations in Pittsburgh and Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34(2), 206-231.

Kemper, R. V. (2006). Anthropological perspectives on faith-based organizations. Urban Anthropology and Studies of Cultural Systems and World Economic Development, 35(2), 141-153.

Kennedy, S. S., & Bielefeld, W. (2006). Charitable choice at work: Evaluating faith- based job programs in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E. C., & Sheep, M. L. (2006). Where is the “me” among the “we”?: Identity work and the search for optimal balance. The Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 1031-1057.

Kvasny, L., & Lee, R. (2010). The paradoxical consequences of the White House faith-based and community initiative for black churches. New Media & Society, 12(4), 619-636.

483

La Barbera, P. A. (1991). Commercial ventures of religious organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 1(3), 217-234.

La Barbera, P. A. (1992). Enterprise in religious-based organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 21(1), 51-67.

Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691-710.

Langley, A. (2007). Process thinking in strategic organization. Strategic Organization, 5(3), 271-282.

Langley, A., & Royer, I. (2006). Perspectives on doing case study research in organizations. Management, 9(6), 81-94.

Langley, K. (2016, March 24). Pennsylvania’s budget impasse comes to an end: ‘We need to move on.’ Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved from http://www.post- gazette.com/news/politics-state/2016/03/23/Pennsylvania-governor-relents- after-9-month-budget-impasse/stories/201603230184

Lam, P. Y. (2002). As the flocks gather: How religion affects voluntary association participation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41(3), 405-422.

Landsberg, B. E. (2004). The nonprofit paradox: For-profit business models in the third sector. The International Journal of Nat-for-Profit Law, 6(2). Retrieved from http://www.icnl.org/research/journal/vol6iss2/special_7.htm

Lazear, E. P., & Shaw, K. L. (2007). Personnel economics: The economist’s view of human resources. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(4), 91-114.

Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760-766.

Light, P. (2000). The content for their character: The state of the nonprofit workforce. Nonprofit Quarterly, 9(3), 6-16.

Lincoln Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. London: Sage.

Lin, W., & Van Ryzin, G. C. (2012). Web and mail surveys: An experimental comparisons of methods for nonprofit research. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(6), 1014-1028.

484

Littlefield, M. B. (2010). Social services, faith-based organizations, and the poor. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(6), 1014-1026.

Locke, K., Golden-Biddle, K., & Feldman, A. S. (2008). Making doubt generative: rethinking the role of doubt in the research process. Organization Science, 19(6), 907-918.

Lockhart, W. H. (2005). Building bridges and bonds: Generating social capital in secular and faith-based poverty-to-work programs. Sociology of Religion, 66(1), 45-60.

Loveland, M. T., Sikkink, D., Myers, D. J., & Radcliff, B. (2005). Private prayer and civic involvement. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 44(1), 1-14.

Lupu, I. C., & Tuttle, R. W. (2005). The faith-based initiative and the constitution. DePaul Law Review, 55(1), 201-318.

Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 221-240.

Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(6), 695-706.

Luthans, F., & Church, A. H. (2002). Positive organizational behavior: Developing and managing psychological strengths. Academy of Management Executive, 16(1), 57-72.

Lyon, L., Beaty, M., Parker, J. & Mencken, C. (2005). Faculty attitudes on integrating faith and learning at religious colleges and universities: A research note. Sociology of Religion, 66(1), 61-69.

Major, B., & O’Brien, L. T. (2005). The social psychology of stigma. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 393-421.

Mani, A., Mullainathan, S., Shafir, E., & Zhao, J. (2013). Poverty impedes cognitive function. Science, 341(6149), 976-980.

March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87.

Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268-305.

485

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253.

Marrewijk, A., Clegg, S. R., Pitsis, T. S., & Veenswijk, M. (2008). Managing public- private megaprojects: Paradoxes, complexity, and project design. International Journal of Project Management, 26, 591-600.

Marvel, M. K., & Marvel, H. P. (2009). Shaping the provision of outsourced public services: Incentive efficacy and service delivery. Public Performance & Management Review, 33(2), 183-213.

Mattis, J. S., Jagers, R. J., Hatcher, C. A., Lawhan, G. D., Murphy, E. J., & Murray, Y. F. (2000). Religiosity, volunteerism and community involvement among African American men: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Community Psychology, 28(4), 391-406.

Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Third Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal, 21(5), 603-609.

Middlebrooks, A., & Noghiu, A. (2010). Leadership and spiritual capital: Exploring the link between individual service disposition and organizational value. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(1), 67-85.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Third Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miller, K. D. (2002). Competitive strategies of religious organizations. Strategic Management Journal, 23(5), 435-456.

Minow, M. (2003). Public and private partnerships: Accounting for the new religion. Harvard Law Review, 116, 1229-1270.

Mitroff, I. I., & Denton, E. E. (1999). A spiritual audit of corporate America: A hard look at spirituality, religion, and values in the workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Monsma, S. V. (1996). When sacred and secular mix: Religious nonprofit organizations and public money. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

486

Moore, T. W., & Casper, W. J. (2006). An examination of proxy measure of workplace spirituality: A profile model of multidimensional constructs. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12(4), 109-118.

Monahan, S. C. (1999). Who controls church work? Organizational effects on jurisdictional boundaries and disputes in churches. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 38(3), 370-385.

Morgan, G. (1986). Images of Organization. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Mulder, M. (2004). Faith-based homeless shelters and “hyper-institutionalization”: A case study. Michigan Sociological Review, 18, 136-165.

Murnighan, J. K., & Conlon, D. E. (1991). The dynamics of intense work groups: A study of British strong quartets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 165- 186.

Musick, M. A., & Wilson, J. (2008). Volunteers: A social profile. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Muturi, N. (2007). The interpersonal communication approach to HIV/AIDS prevention: Strategies and challenges for faith-based organizations. Journal of Creative Communications, 2(3), 307-327.

National Center for Charitable Statistics (2015). Quick facts about nonprofits. Retrieved from http://nccs.urban.org/data-statistics/quick-facts-about- nonprofits

National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2017). Out of Reach 2017. Retrieved from http://nlihc.org/oor

National Philanthropic Trust. (2016). Charitable giving statistics. Retrieved from https://www.nptrust.org/philanthropic-resources/charitable-giving-statistics/

Netting, F. E. (1984). Church-related agencies and social welfare. Social Service Review, 58(3), 404-420.

Netting, F. E., Borders, K., Nelson, H. W., & Huber, R. (2004). Volunteer and paid staff relationships: Implications for social work administration. Administration in Social Work, 28(3-4), 69-89.

487

Netting, F. E., O’Connor, M. K., Thomas, M. L., & Yancey, G. (2005). Mixing and phasing of roles among volunteers, staff, and participants in faith-based organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34(2), 179-205.

Netting, F. E., O’Connor, M. K., & Yancey, G. (2006). Belief systems in faith-based human service programs. Journal of Religion & Spirituality in Social Work: Social Thought, 25(3-4), 261-286.

O’Connor, E. S. (1995). Paradoxes of participation: Textual analysis and organizational change. Organization Studies, 16(5), 769-803.

O’Mahony, S., & Bechky, B. A. (2006). Stretchwork: Managing the career progression paradox in external labor markets. Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 918-941.

O’Reilly, C. O. & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185-206.

Oman, R. C., Damours, S. L., Smith, T. A., & Uscher, A. R. (1992). Management analysis in public organizations: History, concepts, and techniques. New York: Quorum Books.

Ozcan, Y. A., & White, K. R. (1996). Church ownership and hospital efficiency. Hospital & Health Services Administration, 41(3), 297-310.

Paik, A., & Navarre-Jackson, L. (2011). Social networks, recruitment, and volunteering: Are social capital effects conditional on recruitment? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(3), 476-496.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Third Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Payne, R. K. (1998). A framework for understanding poverty. Aha! Process, Inc.

Payne, R. K. (2016). What information does a framework for understanding poverty have that cannot be obtained easily from other sources? Why do critics love to hate it and practitioners love to use it? Aha! Process, Inc. Retrieved from https://33igt8427g0w69zms33dqm48-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp- content/uploads/2016/01/What-Info-Does-Framework-Have-2.pdf

Perry, B. G. F. (1998). The relationship between faith and well-being. Journal of Religion and Health, 37(2), 125-136.

488

Pew Forum. (2009). Church state concerns persist: Faith-based programs still popular, less visible. Retrieved December 10, 2009, from http://pewforum.org/newassets/images/reports/faithbased09/faithbased09.pdf

Pew Research Center. (2015, May 12). America’s changing religious landscape. Pew Research Center: Religion & Public Life. Retrieved from http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/

Pfeffer, J. (2007). Human resources from and organizational behavior perspective: Some paradoxes explained. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(4), 115-134.

Pipes, P. F., & Ebaugh, H. R. (2002). Faith-based coalitions, social services, and government funding. Sociology of Religion, 63(1), 49-68.

Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 562-578.

Powers, B. P. (Ed.). (2008). Church administration handbook. Third Edition. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

Pratt, M. G., & Foreman, P. O. (2000). Classifying managerial responses to multiple organizational identities. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 18-42.

Queen, E. L. (Ed.). (2000). Serving those in need: A handbook for managing faith- based human services organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Raddle, T. (2015, June 29). Americans donated an estimated $358.38 billion to charity in 2014; highest total in report’s 60-year history. Retrieved from https://givingusa.org/giving-usa-2015-press-release-giving-usa-americans- donated-an-estimated-358-38-billion-to-charity-in-2014-highest-total-in- reports-60-year-history/

Rafaeli, A., & Pratt, M. G. (2006). Artifacts and organization: More than the tip of the cultural iceberg. In A. Rafaeli & M. G. Pratt (Eds.), Artifacts and organizations: Beyond mere symbolism (pp. 1-8). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375-409.

489

Ravasi, D., & Schultz, M. (2006). Responding to organizational identity threats: Exploring the role of organizational culture. The Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 433-458.

Reave, L. (2005). Spiritual values and practices related to leadership effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(5), 655-687.

Reingold, D. A., Pirog, M., & Brady, D. (2007). Empirical evidence on faith-based organizations in an era of welfare reform. Social Service Review, 81(2), 245- 283.

Romzek, B. S., & Johnston, J. M. (2005). State social services contracting: Exploring the determinants of effective contract accountability. Public Administration Review, 65(4), 436-449.

Ruiter, S., & De Graaf, N. D. (2006). National context, religiosity, and volunteering: Results from 53 countries. American Sociological Review, 71(2), 191-210.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Third Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Safranski, S. R. (1985). Managing God’s organization: The Catholic Church in society. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press.

Sager, R. (2010). Faith, politics, and power: The politics of faith-based initiatives. New York: Oxford.

Salamon, L., & Anheier, H. K. (1996). The emerging nonprofit sector. New York: Manchester University Press.

Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Saperstein, D. (2003). Public accountability and faith-based organizations: A problem best avoided. Harvard Law Review, 116(5), 1353-1396.

Saxton, G. D., & Waters, R. D. (2014). What do stakeholders like on Facebook? Examining public reactions to nonprofit organizations’ informational, promotional, and community-building messages. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26, 208-299.

Schein, E. H. (1984). Coming to a new awareness of organization culture. Sloan Management Review, winter, 3-16.

490

Schein, E. H. (1996). Culture: The missing concept in organization studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(2), 229-240.

Scheitle, C. P. (2009a). Leadership compensation in Christian nonprofits. Sociology of Religion, 70(4), 384-408.

Scheitle, C. P. (2009b). Identity and government funding in Christian nonprofits. Social Science Quarterly, 90(4), 816-833.

Scheitle, C. P. (2010). Beyond the congregation: The world of Christian nonprofits. New York: Oxford.

Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437-453.

Schneider, J. A. (2013a). Introduction to the symposium: Faith-based organizations in context. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(3), 431-441.

Schneider, J. A. (2013b). Comparing stewardship across faith-based organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(3), 517-539.

Schneider, K. J. (1990). The paradoxical self: Toward an understanding of our contradictory nature. New York: Insight Books.

Schoenherr, R.A., & Young, L.A. (1993). Full pews and empty alters: Demographics of the priest shortage in the United States Catholic dioceses. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Schultz, M., Hatch, M. J., & Ciccolella, F. (2006). Brand life in symbols and artifacts: The LEGO company. In A. Rafaeli & M. G. Pratt (Eds.), Artifacts and organizations: Beyond mere symbolism (pp. 141-160). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Seidman, I. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. Fourth Edition. New York: Teachers College Press.

Selznick, P. (1996). Institutionalism “old” and “new”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(2), 270-277.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.

491

Skoglund, A. G. (2006). Do not forget about your volunteers: A qualitative analysis of factor influencing volunteer turnover. Health & Social Work, 31(3), 217-220.

Sider, R. J., & Unruh, H.R. (2004). Typology of religious characteristics of social service and educational organizations and programs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(1), 109-134.

Siggelkow, N. (2007). Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 20-24.

Siggelkow, N., & Levinthal, D. A. (2003). Temporarily divide to conquer: Centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaption. Organization Science, 14(6), 650-669.

Sinha, J. W. (2006). A faith-based alternative youth education program. Journal of Religion & Spirituality in Social Work: Social Thought, 25(3-4), 197-221.

Sinha, J. W. (2013). Unintended consequence of the faith-based initiative: Organizational practices and religious identity within faith-based human service organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(3), 563- 583.

Smith, D. H. (1983). Churches are generally ignored in contemporary voluntary action research: Causes and consequences. Review of Religious Research, 24(4), 295- 303.

Smith, D. H. (1997). The rest of the nonprofit sector: Grassroots associations as the dark matter ignored in prevailing “flat earth” maps of the sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary sector Quarterly, 26(2), 114-131.

Smith, D. H. (2000). Grassroots organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Smith, K. K., & Berg, D. N. (1987). Paradoxes of group life. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

Smith, S. R., & Sosin, M. R. (2001). The varieties of faith-related agencies. Public Administration Review, 61(6), 651-670.

Smith, W. K. (2014). Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1592-1623.

492

Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381-403.

Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 522-536.

Smith, W. K., Besharov, M. L., Wessels, A. K., & Certok, M. (2012). A paradoxical leadership model for social entrepreneurs: Challenges, leadership skills, and pedagogical tools for managing social and commercial demands. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(3), 463-478.

Sowa, J. E., Selden, S. C., & Sandfort, J. R. (2004). No longer unmeasurable? A multidimensional integrated model of nonprofit organizational effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(4), 711-728.

Speckbacher, G. (2003). The economics of performance management in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 13(3), 267-281.

Stritt, S. B. (2008). Estimating the value of social services provided by faith-based organizations in the United States. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37(4), 730-742.

Sundaramurthy, C., & Lewis, C. (2003). Control and collaboration: Paradoxes of governance. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 397-415.

Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371-384.

Taylor, K. (2017, September 20). These five companies are subtly spreading religious messages – and many customers have no idea. Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/religious-messages-bible-verses-hidden- on-company-packaging-2017- 9?utm_content=buffer154ee&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.co m&utm_campaign=buffer-bi/#forever-21-1

Teece, D., & Pisano, G. (1994). The dynamic capabilities of firms: An introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3(3), 537-556.

493

Tighe, S. (2015, October 1). Berks nonprofit groups reeling due to state budget impasse. Reading Eagle. Retrieved from http://www.readingeagle.com/news/article/berks-nonprofit-groups-reeling-due- to-state-budget-impasse

Thyer, B. A. (2006). Faith-based programs and the role of empirical research. Journal of Religion & Spirituality in Social Work: Social Thought, 25(3-4), 63-82.

Toepler, S. (2003). Grassroots associations versus larger nonprofits: New evidence from a community case study in arts and culture. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(2), 236-251.

Torry, M. (2005). Managing God’s business: Religious and faith-based organizations and their management. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Tracey, P. (2012). Religion and the organization: A critical review of current trends and future directions. The Academy of Management Annuals, 6(1), 87-134.

Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. O. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8-30.

Tushman, M. L., Smith, W. K., Wood, R. C., Westerman, G., & O’Reilly, C. (2010). Organizational designs and innovation streams. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(5), 1331-1366.

Twombly, E. C. (2002). Religious versus secular human service organizations: Implications for public policy. Social Science Quarterly, 83(4), 947-961.

Unruh, H., Sinha, J., & Belcher, J. (2010, May). Mainline protestant strategies to maintain connections between faith communities and their nonprofits: Findings from the faith and organizations project. Faith and Organizations Project. University of Maryland. Retrieved from http://www.faithandorganizations.umd.edu/reports-religion.html

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2016, April). BLS Reports: A profile of the working poor, 2014. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/working- poor/2014/home.htm

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2013). Use of federal funds for religious activities – FAQs. Retrieved August 1, 2103, from http://answers.hhs.gov/categories/264

494

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2002, December 12). News release: HHS proposes new regulations for fair treatment of religious grantee organizations and their clients. Retrieved December 01, 2011, from http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2002pres/20021212a.html

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2006). Faith-based and community initiative: Improvements in monitoring and measuring how performance could enhance accountability. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Van Slyke, D. M. (2003). The mythology of privatization in contracting for social services. Public Administration Review, 63(3), 296-315.

Van Slyke, D. M. (2007). Agents or stewards: Using theory to understand the government-nonprofit social service contracting relationship. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(2), 157-187.

Vanderwoerd, J. (2000). How faith-based social service organizations manage secular pressures associated with government funding. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 14(3), 239-262.

Vince, R., & Broussine, M. (1996). Paradox, defense and attachment: Accessing and working with emotions and relations underlying organizational change. Organization Studies, 17(1), 1-21.

Vita, C. J. D., & Wilson, S. (2001, May 10). Faith-based initiatives: Scared deeds and secular dollars. Emerging Issues in Philanthropy. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. von Furstenberg, G. M. (2006). Detecting and decomposing the “faith factor” in social-service provision and absorption. Journal of Religion & Spirituality in Social Work: Social Thought, 25(3-4), 39-61.

Wallace, T. J. (2000). We are called: The principal as faith leader in the Catholic school. In T. C. Hunt, T. E. Oldenski, & T. J. Wallace (Eds.), Catholic school leadership: An invitation to lead (pp. 193-206). New York: Garland

Weick, K. R., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 361-386.

Weisbrod, B. A. (1997). The future of the nonprofit sector: Its entwining with private enterprise and government. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 16(4), 541-555.

495

Welch, R. H. (2005). Church administration: Creating efficiency for effective ministry. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

Weisbrod, B. (1997). The future of the non-profit sector: Its entwining with private enterprise and government. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 16(4), 541-555.

Wertz., F. J., Charmaz, K., McMullen, L. M., Josselson, R., Anderson, R., & McSpadden, E. (2011). Five ways of doing qualitative analysis: Phenomenological Psychology, Grounded Theory, Discourse Analysis, Narrative Research, and Intuitive Inquiry. New York: The Gilford Press.

Whetten, D. A. (2006). Albert and Whetten revisited: Strengthening the concept of organizational identity. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15(3), 219-234.

White, H. C. (1992). Identity and control: A structural theory of action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

White House. (2001). Unlevel playing field: Barriers to participation by faith-based and community organizations in Federal Social Service programs. Washington, DC: White House.

White House Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives. (2003). President Bush’s faith-based & community initiative. Washington, DC: White House Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives.

White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships. (2009a). Preserving our constitutional commitments and values. Washington, DC: White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships. http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ofbnp/values

White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships. (2009b). Federal centers for faith-based and neighborhood partnerships. Washington, DC: White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships. http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ofbnp/offices/federal

Whitt-Glover, M. C., Hogan, P. E., Lang, W., & Heil, D. P. (2008). Pilot study of a faith-based physical activity program among sedentary blacks. Preventing Chronic Disease, 5(2), 1-8.

Williams, R. H. (1994). Organizational change in theological schools: Dilemmas of ideology and resources. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 23(2), 123- 137.

496

Wilson, J., & Janoski, T. (1995). The contribution of religion to volunteer work. Sociology of Religion, 56(2), 137-152.

Wilson, J. & Musick, M. (1997). Who cares? Toward an integrated theory of volunteer work. American Sociological Review, 62, 694-713.

Wilson, J. (2000). Volunteering. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 215-240.

Wilson, P. A. (2003). Faith-based organizations, charitable choice, and government. Administration & Society, 35(1), 29-51.

Wineburg, B. (2007). Faith-based inefficiency: The follies of Bush’s initiatives. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Wing, N., & Schwartz, C. (2014, May 19). Here’s the painful truth about what it Means to be ‘working poor’ in America. Huffington Post. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/19/working-poor- stories_n_5297694.html

Wittberg, P. A. (2013). Faith-based umbrella organizations: Implications for religious identity. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(3), 540-562.

Woodrick, A. C. (2006). Preparing the way: Hispanic ministry and community transformation in Marshalltown, Iowa. Urban Anthropology and Studies of Cultural Systems and World Economic Development, 35(2), 265-294.

Working Group on Human Needs and Faith-based and Community Initiatives. (2002). Finding common ground: 29 recommendations of the working group on human needs and faith-based and community initiative. Washington, D.C.: Search for Common Ground.

Working Group on Human Needs and Faith-based and Community Initiatives. (2003). Harnessing civic and faith-based power to fight poverty. Washington, D.C.: Search for Common Ground.

Wuthnow, R. (1988). The restructuring of American religion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Wuthnow, R. (1990). Religion and the voluntary spirit in the United States: Mapping the terrain. In R. Wuthnow, V.A. Hodgkinson, & Associates, Faith and Philanthropy in America: Exploring the role of religion in America’s voluntary sector (pp. 3-21). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

497

Wuthnow, R. (2004). Saving America?: Faith-based services and the future of civil society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Wuthnow, R., Hackett, C., & Hsu, B. Y. (2004). The effectiveness and trustworthiness of faith-based and other service organizations: A study of recipients’ perceptions. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 43(1), 1-17.

Wymer, W. W. (1997). A religious motivation to volunteer? Exploring the linkage between volunteering and religious values. Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, 5(3), 3-18.

Yanow, D. (2006). Studying physical artifacts: An interpretive approach. In A. Rafaeli & M. G. Pratt (Eds.), Artifacts and organizations: Beyond mere symbolism (pp. 41-60). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Yin, R. K. (1981a). The case study crisis: Some answers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(March), 58-65.

Yin, R. K. (1981b). The case study as a serious research strategy. Knowledge: Creation, diffusion, utilization, 3(1), 97-114.

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. Fifth Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yip, J., Twohill, E., Ernst, C., & Munusamy, V. P. (2010). Leadership in faith-based nonprofits: The power of identity boundaries to bin and blind. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 20(4), 461-472.

Zohar, D., & Marshall, I. (2004). Spiritual capital: Wealth we can live by. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishing.

498

Appendix A

NATIONAL & STATE SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL CONTEXTS

Although a detailed report on the background in which these five organizations offered services is beyond the scope of this study, it is nonetheless helpful to provide a basic context for the environment in which these organizations operated during the data collection year of 2014. As it pertains to faith-based organizations, the Pew Forum (2009), notes that the separation of church and state remain an issue in the public’s perception of FBOs. Moreover, the Pew Research Center (2015) reports that America’s changing religious landscape has resulted in a younger population being more apt to volunteer and work at religious nonprofits, but they themselves are less affiliated with a particular religion overall. In 2014, the general existence of nonprofit organizations in the United States was stable and growing. The National Philanthropic Trust (2016) estimates that there were approximately 1,521,052 charitable organizations and 316,532 religious congregations in the United States. The Atlas of Giving (2015) claimed the number of nonprofit organizations has grown by 50% over the past decade. According to the National Center for Charitable Statistics (2015), 25.3% of Americans over the age of 16 volunteered at a nonprofit organization; and this rate has largely remained stable since 2003. As far as national trends, according to Giving USA’s annual report (Raddle, 2015), 2014 represented the highest total number in giving to American charities in the report’s 60-year history at $358.38 billion. The report also highlighted how an improving economy emerging from the Great Recession of 2008-2010, allowed the fifth consecutive year of giving increases. However, the report noted that giving to religious charities continues to decline as a percentage of total giving, while giving to human services has increased annually over the past decade. The report places the impetus on the changing trends in younger age groups attending religious houses of worship less frequently, while the baby boomer generation enters retirement and is able to donate both “treasure and talents” to nonprofit organizations. The Atlas of Giving (2015) seemed to confirm this trend as 2014 giving to the religion sector only increased 6.4%, the lowest of all sectors, compared to human services at 12.7%, the highest among all sectors. However, the religion sector still represented the largest sector concerning total giving at 33% or $152.6 billion, compared to human services at 12% or $56.09 billion. The report also noted stability in individuals continuing to produce the largest percentage and aggregate amount of giving in 2014 at 74% or $339.24 billion, followed by foundations (14% or 65.45

499 billion), bequests (7% or $30.22 billion), and perhaps surprisingly the smallest portion was from corporations (5% or $21.82 billion). Of particular interest in this study was also the state findings that saw Pennsylvania increase its cumulative year to date giving by 13.6%, beating the national average among all 50 states at 9.3%. The state of Pennsylvania during the time of data collection was also embroiled in a political battle over the state’s budget. Since a budget was not passed, many nonprofit organizations across the state were held “in limbo” for grants and cost-sharing programs, and were not able to collect payments for the services they provided on behalf of the government (Langley, 2016). The state budget impasse drastically reduced the ability of some of the participating organizations in this study to purchase bulk food at a reduced price through the Central Pennsylvania Food Bank, and left many organizational stakeholders feeling as though they were “leverage” for both political parties (Tighe, 2015). Turning to the context of the recipients the organization’s serve, those who are in need of services have not necessarily seen their economic conditions improve significantly since the Great Recession. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2016), about 14.8% of Americans, or approximately 46.7 million people, lived below the government’s poverty line. Also, 9.5 million people were classified as the “working poor” in 2014, by still living below the poverty line despite securing full- time or part-time employment. 4.1% of full-time workers in America in 2014 were classified as the “working poor” with 13.5% of part-time employees receiving the designation. In addition, African Americans and Hispanics were more than twice as likely as whites to be working and below the poverty level, while 5.1 million women were more likely to be the “working poor” than men at 4.4 million. Although there are many contributing factors to this complex dynamic, the Center for Poverty Research (2016) noted that stagnation of lower-income wages was a major culprit. In fact, the Center for Poverty Research (2016) argued that even with a full-time minimum wage income of $7.25, a worker would have to work over 70 hours in order to not qualify for federal safety net programs such as SNAP, which sets assistance qualifications at 130% below the federal poverty level. Essentially, Wing and Schwartz (2014) argued for what this study witnessed in the five organizations included in this study, when they claimed, “being working poor means toiling through ‘pure hell’ for next to nothing.” Indeed, just as an example of the perilous situation recipients and the organizations who serve them find themselves in, the National Low Income Housing Coalition (2017) notes that a 40 hour per week employee in the state of Pennsylvania would have to earn $18.68 just to afford a two- bedroom rental home. So when a multitude of organizational tensions, contradictions, oppositions, and paradoxes occurred as detailed in this study, they should not come as a surprise given the drastic living conditions many of their recipients face every day.

500

Appendix B

INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD PROJECT APPROVAL LETTER

501

Appendix C

ORGANIZATIONAL RECRUITMENT LETTER

March 7, 2014

Name, Title Organization Address City, State Zip Code

RE: Request for organizational access

Dear Ms. Name,

My name is Roger Huston, and I am a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Delaware. I am a former minister and former director of a religious education faith- based organization. I have a Master of Arts in Religion degree with a specialization in the Christian faith. I also possess a Master of Public Administration degree with a specialization in nonprofit management. As part of my doctoral work, I am studying the role of faith in nonprofit Christian faith-based organizations. I am sending this letter to you today requesting your consideration in allowing me access to your organization. Providing me access to your organization will help me complete my doctoral work. The information that I collect as part of my study will be provided to you and your organization in the form of an executive report. This report could provide you with information that could be utilized to determine future goals and objectives for the organization. I am also willing to tailor any professional feedback to meet the needs of your organization. I selected your organization for its commitment to faith and service to those in need in your community. If you would be willing to discuss this request further, please do not hesitate to contact me. My contact information is listed below. I greatly appreciate your consideration of this project, and I look forward to discussing this opportunity with you!

Respectfully yours,

Roger J. Huston C/O Dr. John McNutt University of Delaware 298D Graham Hall Newark, DE 19716

484-667-0766 [email protected]

502

Appendix D

ORGANIZATIONAL INFORMED CONSENT FORM

503

504

505

Appendix E

INDIVIDUAL INFORMED CONSENT FORM

506

507

508

Appendix F

PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Name:

Organization:

Pseudonym:

Age:

Gender:

Religion:

509

Appendix G

INTERVIEW GUIDE

Organization:______Date:______

Pseudonym:______Time:______

1. Could you please tell me about your background?

2. Describe your role in the organization.

3. What led you to work here?

4. Describe the mission of the organization.

5. Describe how the organization aims to achieve that mission.

6. What are the major current goals for the organization?

7. Describe the values and culture of the organization (what does it feel like to work here)?

8. What role do you feel faith plays in the organization?

9. Where do you feel faith is most prominent in the organization?

10. Where do you feel faith is lacking in the organization?

11. How does faith enable the organization, if at all, to complete its mission, vision, and goals?

510

12. How does faith hinder the organization, if at all, from completing its mission, vision, and goals?

13. What role does faith play in your job-related tasks, if at all?

14. Describe how faith enters into your decision making process, if at all?

15. What aspects of your job do you enjoy the most and why?

16. What aspects of your job do you enjoy the least and why?

17. What projects are you currently working on for the organization?

18. How are those projects progressing?

19. What changes, if any, have occurred recently in the organization?

20. How do you feel about those changes?

21. How would you describe your relationships with your coworkers?

22. Are you personally experiencing any recurring problems with your coworkers?

23. What do you think are the greatest strengths of the organization?

24. What do you think are the greatest weaknesses of the organization?

25. What do you think are the greatest opportunities of the organization?

26. What do you think are the greatest threats to the organization?

27. If you could change anything about the organization, what would it be and why?

511

Appendix H

OBSERVATION GUIDE

Organization:______Date:______Time:______

Observations Description

Physical Setting / Environment:

Activities / Behavior:

Formal / Informal Communication:

Nonverbal Communication:

Reflections Interpretation

Concepts / Themes:

Potential Impact:

512

Appendix I

INTERVIEW CHECKLIST

Prior to the interview:

 Interview protocol  Demographic information form  Individual consent form (2 copies – one for participant to keep, one for file)  Digital Voice Recorder  Clipboard with paper and pen  Supplies: extra batteries, water, Kleenex, mints

During the interview:

 Explain what will happen in the interview  Go over individual consent form  Initial and sign individual consent form  Complete demographic information form (choose fictitious name)  Ask if participant has any questions  Turn on digital voice recorder (with participants consent)  Conduct interview  Thank participant  Remind participant of contact information for any questions

After the interview:

 Download MP3 audio file to computer.  Save audio file as first five letters of the title of the organization in caps, underscore, followed by the number of the interview, underscore, followed by the participant’s pseudonym in caps. For example: SAMAR_03_JULIA  Transcribe interview  Add interview notes to transcription file

513

Appendix J

ORGANIZATIONAL DOCUMENTS OBTAINED

ORGANIZATION & ALPHA BETA DELTA EPSILON OMEGA DOCUMENT(S) ARTICLES OF YES [1] YES [1] YES [1] YES [1] YES [1] INCORPORATION BYLAWS YES [2] YES [2] YES [2] YES [2] YES [2] STATEMENTS OF MISSION / FAITH / FAITH / FAITH / MISSION / FAITH / MISSION / VALUES / MISSION / MISSION MISSION / VALUES / VALUES / VISION VISION [3] VISION [3] [3] VALUES [3] VISION [3] IRS FORM 1023 YES [4] YES [4] YES [4] YES [4] YES [4] 2010 [5] 2010 [5] 2010 [5] 2010 [5] 2010 [5] 2011 [6] 2011 [6] 2011 [6] 2011 [6] 2011 [6] IRS FORM 990 2012 [7] 2012 [7] 2012 [7] 2012 [7] 2012 [7] 2013 [8] 2013 [8] 2013 [8] 2013 [8] 2013 [8] 2014 [9] 2014 [9] 2014 [9] 2014 [9] 2014 [9] 2012 [10] 2013 [10] 2014 [10] 2013 [10] 2013 [10] BUDGET 2013 [11] 2014 [11] 2015 [11] 2014 [11] 2014 [11] EXECUTIVE YES [12] YES [12] YES [12] N/A YES [12] REPORTS ANNUAL REPORTS YES [13] YES [13] YES [13] N/A YES [13] SUCCESSION PLAN N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A STRATEGIC PLAN N/A YES [14] YES [14] YES [12] YES [14] BOARD MEETING YES [14] YES [15] YES [15] YES [13] YES [15] MINUTES STAFF MEETING YES [15] YES [16] N/A N/A N/A AGENDAS MEMOS N/A N/A YES [16] N/A N/A CLIENT N/A YES [17] YES [17] N/A YES [16] DEMOGRAPHICS JOB DESCRIPTIONS YES [16] YES [18] YES [18] N/A YES [17] ORGANIZATIONAL YES [17] N/A YES [19] N/A YES [18] CHART NEWSLETTERS YES [18] YES [19] YES [20] YES [14] YES [19] PRESS RELEASES YES [19] YES [20] YES [21] YES [15] YES [20] ADVERTISING / MARKETING YES [20] YES [21] YES [22] YES [16] YES [21] MATERIAL BROCHURES YES [21] YES [22] YES [23] YES [17] YES [22] SOCIAL MEDIA YES [22] YES [23] YES [24] YES [18] YES [23] BIBLE STUDY N/A YES [24] N/A N/A N/A

514

Appendix K

CODES – CATEGORIES – CONCEPTS

ASSUMPTIONS

FAITH  1. Faith is important to the organization.  2. Staff and volunteers proselytize to recipients.  3. Faith is relevant to job-related tasks and decision making.  4. People see faith-based organizations as good and trust they will do the right thing because they are guided by God.  5. Faith is most prominent in the organization through: . 5.A. Public prayer. . 5.B. Servant attitude of staff and volunteers. . 5.C. Sharing God’s love to the recipients. . 5.D. Conversations. . 5.E. Public scripture reading.  6. Organizations are NOT hindered by faith.  7. Faith plays an important role in society.  8. Staff are NOT hired based on their faith.  9. Staff and volunteers who are religious now as an adult were also raised in a religious environment as youth.

IDENTITY  10. The organization is a representation of faith, spirituality, and/or religion for the people in the organization.  11. The religious identity of the organization depends on the religious identity of the staff and volunteers.  12. People who volunteer are mostly retired, religious and white and feel they need a purpose at this stage of their life.  13. Staff and volunteers at FBOs try to find jobs similar to their hobbies or previous work experiences.

515

CULTURE  14. People who work and volunteer at FBOs do so because they want to help people.  15. Staff who get jobs in FBOs do so through organizational connections.  16. Staff members who work at nonprofit FBOs now also worked at for-profit organizations.  17. Staff members who have worked at the organization the longest are both mentors and team players.  18. Religious symbols exist in the organization as a reflection of the “culture of faith” of the individuals in the organization.  19. Nonprofits are different than for-profit organizations.  20. Local nonprofits are different than national nonprofits.  21. FBOs are different than non-faith-based nonprofits.  22. Artifacts and objects play an important role in the organization.

MANAGEMENT  23. Women want work/life balance. . 23.A. Women prioritize family in employment decision making. . 23.B. Women calculate what jobs will provide them with the most benefit (financial, religious, rewarding).

FINANCIAL  24. People are likely to give to organizations that are successful and conversely are not likely to give to organizations that are not successful.

TENSIONS

MANAGEMENT  1. Human Resources: . 1.A. Staff turnover. . 1.B. Evolving and changing staff roles and duties. . 1.C. Staff job expectations . 1.D. Volunteers and staff get pulled in multiple directions. . 1.E. The personnel is not ideally balanced or sustainable. . 1.F. HR policy and personnel cause problems in the organization. . 1.G. External organizational personnel turnover makes it harder to maintain long-standing relationships and strategic partnerships. . 1.H. Personnel accreditation standards.  2. Leadership: . 2.A. Board oversight and organizational leadership. . 2.B. The Executive Director micro-manages the organization.

516

. 2.C. The Executive Director macro-manages the organization.  3. Strategic planning: . 3.A. There is a lack of organizational strategy. . 3.B. No succession plan for the Executive Director. . 3.C. There are too many meetings or inefficient/ineffective meetings.  4. Program implementation: . 4.A. Overextending organizational mission to areas and programs not ideally suited for sustainability. . 4.B. Public health concerns cause organizational problems for staff and volunteers. . 4.C. Providing and maintaining a healthy lifestyle. . 4.D. Organizational accreditation standards. . 4.E. Logistical service challenges.

CULTURE  5. Volunteering: . 5.A. Reliance on volunteers. . 5.B. Volunteers get pulled in multiple directions. . 5.C. Volunteers are not asked about their working skills and preferences. . 5.D. Volunteers are critical of the how the organization is operated. . 5.E. Not being able to help more as a volunteer or give more money to the organization. . 5.F. Volunteers are incapable.  6. Communication: . 6.A. Organizational or program information is mostly spread by word of mouth. . 6.B. Chain-of-command procedures are not followed by all staff. . 6.C. Staff are afraid to confront and have honest communication with the Executive Director. . 6.D. Organizational events and news are poorly communicated.  7. Recipients: . 7.A. Recipients cause problems for others. . 7.B. Serving recipients who don’t want to help themselves or the organization. . 7.C. Recipients who don’t “fit the mold” who may be taking advantage of the organization. . 7.D. Serving recipients is very labor intensive. . 7.E. Serving recipients is emotionally challenging.  8. Issues relating to co-worker relationships: . 8.A. Trust . 8.B. Treatment

517

. 8.C. Grouping . 8.D. Boundaries  9. External threats causing internal problems.  10. People in the organization are resistant to change.

FINANCIAL  11. Budget: . 11.A. Over budget. . 11.B. Keeping the organization solvent. . 11.C. Limited budget for the projected growth in number of recipients needing assistance.  12. There is a lack of resources to get to the next level: . 12.A. Inadequate technology. . 12.B. Inadequate marketing: Poor strategy to and targeting of donors. . 12.C. Inadequate personnel: Limited time frame for volunteers and lack of staff.

FAITH  13. There are faith disagreements in the organization: . 13.A. There is a lack of faith and trust that the team produces. . 13.B. There are disagreements over doctrine as it relates to the recipients.

IDENTITY  14. Issues relating to personal identifiers: . 14.A. Race. . 14.B. Gender. . 14.C. Age. . 14.D. Religion.

CONTRADICTIONS

FAITH  1. Faith is NOT part of the job related tasks of individuals.  2. Faith is NOT the most important aspect of the organization.  3. Faith is NOT part of the decision making process of individuals.  4. Faith is lacking in relationships.  5. Faith is lacking in programming.

518

CULTURE  6. Board commitment to role as board members.  7. Structured or unstructured work environment.

MANAGEMENT  8. The board fails to fulfill its management duties.  9. Board’s lack of knowledge of information and operations at the staff-level of the organization.  10. The board has to fulfill roles ideally suited for staff members.  11. Primarily concerned with recipients now, not in the future.  12. Not serving those who need the most help.

FINANCIAL  13. Donors prefer organizations serving more people despite the potential for less quality service or the reality that more people are then in need of service.  14. Fundraising depends more on donor preferences for giving than faith.

OPPOSITIONS

CULTURE  1. The board is a loose collection of personalities.  2. Board burnout.

IDENTITY  3. The board has not given much thought or discussion to what type of faith the organization represents or how the organization could be characterized as Christian, Judeo-Christian, or interfaith.

MANAGEMENT  4. Long-tenured volunteers serve as guide for newer staff and often perform without their guidance.

FAITH  5. There is too much faith in faith-based organizations: . 5.A. Recipients do not want to be exposed to faith to receive goods and services. . 5.B. Some in the community find the organization hypocritical for exposing recipients to faith to receive goods and services. . 5.C. There is too much faith represented in decision making.  6. Faith is most prominent at the top-level of the organization, not the bottom level.

519

PARADOXES

MANAGEMENT  1. Leadership: . 1.A. The leadership is a weakness of, and an opportunity for, the organization. . 1.B. Being picked by the Executive Director to be on the Board and simultaneously feeling conflicted to go against the Executive Director’s wishes while governing on the board. . 1.C. The organization is successful because of, and in spite of, the Executive Director. . 1.D. Leadership from the top down is needed but not supported from the bottom up in the organization. . 1.E. Providing freedom for volunteers and/or staff to make decisions but then those volunteers and/or staff who don’t reach consensus in decision making among their peers creates animosity and/or feelings of favoritism.  2. Turnover: . 2.A. Turnover coupled with high staff job expectations and changing organizational goals yet turnover can be good for the organization. . 2.B. Staff turnover is high but there is also a high supply of potential staff in the labor market. The helps to continue current management and culture. . 2.C. Staff with good qualifications for their job resign due to being targeted while new staff with little or no qualifications are hired in their place.  3. Human Resources: . 3.A. The nonprofit field has too many highly passionate but relatively naïve professionals entering the labor pool. . 3.B. The nonprofit field has too many highly educated but relatively inexperienced professionals entering the labor pool. . 3.C. FBOs exist because as an institute of faith, churches are ill- equipped and need FBOs to fulfill their service mission (ministry) and FBOs as an institute of service need churches to fulfill their faith mission (ministry). . 3.D. There is little opportunity to advance to higher level positions in individual FBOs while the staff expectations remain high even at lower level positions. . 3.E. Expectations of staff remain high with low compensation that contrasts between doing religious good works versus more personal time. FBOs view themselves as a ministry and set expectations of work and pay accordingly.

520

. 3.F. Staff expectations remain diverse but organizational work is expected to be fluid in order to be effective despite high demands and potential inefficiency.  4. Infrastructure.  5. Programming: . 5.A. Multiple goals and projects creates multiple problems and diversions. . 5.B. Attempting to expand services for recipients that are needed but then are not utilized by the recipients. . 5.C. Quantity of recipients served by programming is favored by the organization for fundraising purposes over the quality of programming options for the recipients. . 5.D. Needing to expand services to recipients to provide better care but being unable to do so due to lack of organizational mission and strategy. . 5.E. Providing programming for short-term recipient needs that are not sustainable versus long-term recipient programming focused on education and skills to prevent future needs. . 5.F. Trends in lifestyle changes in the culture of society over time causes necessary changes in the organization without necessarily receiving financial support for those changes. . 5.G. Some special events are designed more for “friend-raising” rather than “fundraising” due to their high output of human resources and low input of financial resources.  6. Stakeholder authority: . 6.A. Volunteers: The organization relies mostly on volunteers but the board overrides volunteer authority and does not offer staff support. . 6.B. Board members: Board members are needed for to help guide the direction of the organization but failure to reach consensus can hurt relationships on the board and delay important organizational goals.

IDENTITY  7. Public perception versus private persona: . 7. A. As the “public face” of the organization the executive director is “the demonstration of faith” or the exemplar but some staff and volunteers question that authority. . 7. B. Although privately seen as a Christian organization, the faith of the organization is publically generic to all faiths.  8. The individual versus collective religious identity of the organization.

521

FAITH  9. Faith both enables and hinders the organization: . 9.A. Some in the organization desire more religiosity to be represented organizationally while others desire less. . 9.B. Religiosity is encouraged within the organization sometimes at the sacrifice for work inefficiency. . 9.C. Staff and volunteers say they do not want to proselytize to the clients as it is secondary to their mission and is a boundary the FBO does not want to cross as an esteemed nonprofit human service organization; however, proselytization to the clients is encouraged as an essential conviction among those with Christian faith.  10. Faith becomes less important to the organization as it matures: . 10.A. Some organizational programs are becoming more secularized and less religious as more partnerships are made throughout the community. . 10.B. Personnel selection takes priority over religious beliefs. . 10.C. More religiosity is desired but it would then conflict with the organization’s mission. . 10.D. Some stakeholders become concerned about forming community partnerships that they need because those partnerships could then restrict or try to change the religious identity of the organization. . 10.E. There are disagreements over the role of the church and its relationship to the organization as it relates to the recipients. . 10.F. There are disagreements over the role of the church and its relationship to biblical doctrine as it is practiced in the organization as it relates to the recipients.

FINANCIAL  11. Budget: . 11.A. Faith that God will provide funds and fear over not being financially sound or having to solicit funds. . 11.B. External events relating to human service, ministry, and fundraising can ultimately negatively affect the organization’s budget. (Other charities sometimes receive donor priority and there is only so much money in the pot and the donor pie does not grow instantly.) . 11.C. Internal actions by board, staff, and volunteers can ultimately negatively affect the organization’s budget. (Carelessness and lack of strategic thinking can cause the organization to lose money.)  12. Fundraising: . 12.A. There is a lack of fundraising and thus not enough money to improve services. . 12.B. Sustained growth makes fundraising more complicated and contributes to changes in the organization.

522

. 12.C. Fundraising can both be harder and easier to come by because of the faith identity of the organization. . 12.D. Navigating donor relationships in regards to donor faith and donor giving holds many challenges. . 12.E. Navigating donor relationships in regards to other charitable organizations and donor giving holds many challenges. . 12.F. Special events are labor intensive and require numerous volunteers to be successful but special events that are successful are needed to financially maintain the organization.

CULTURE  13. Communication: . 13.A. Can be both good and bad depending on what is being communicated. . 13.B. Organizations want to grow but as they do grow, staff and volunteers feel they lose a personal relationship and communication with the recipients.  14. It feels both good and bad to work as a staff member in faith-based organizations.  15. Issues relating to wanting and needing to grow the organization but concerns over the changes and challenges it will bring: . 15.A. More personnel. . 15.B. Loss of familiarity. . 15.C. Losing focus on the ministry.  16. The organization relies on upper and middle class financial and volunteer resources to be sustainable but those resources come from a culture that does not sometimes understand or empathize with those in poverty.  17. Rules are a problem for staff, volunteers, and recipients who are in survival mode.

SUSTAINABILITY

MANAGEMENT  1. Community: Affiliations, connections, collaborations, and partnerships are made in the community and help make the organization reputable, trustable, and sustainable.  2. Expansion and growth through mergers with similar organizations and acquisitions of additional resources help keep the organization sustainable.  3. Unique programs: . 3.A. Diversity of programs. . 3.B. Amount of food, choice in food, importance of food.

523

. 3.C. Targeting of resources to those who need it most.  4. Technology is used to help manage individual recipients and their needs.  5. Annual program reviews and periotic needs assessments are made to help improve the organization: . 5.A. Information sharing across the organization leads to program innovation and community fundraising for new programing. . 5.B. Information sharing to employees regarding financial compensation helps to mitigate human resource issues.  6. Personnel and their abilities and resources are an area of strength for the organization: . 6.A. Compassion and empathy help sustain the recipients through crisis. . 6.B. Executive leadership through vision and strategic focus help sustain the organization.

CULTURE  7. Communication: . 7.A. Being transparent and telling a story about the organization and how it uses funds helps to secure donations. . 7.B. Being in constant dialogue with partners about the needs of the organization or the needs of the recipients is essential to program stability and sustainability.  8. Volunteers and staff enjoy their working relationships: . 8.A. Staff and volunteers enjoy working with the recipients. . 8.B. Staff have good communication and follow chain of command procedures. . 8.C. Volunteers are asked about their working skills and preferences. . 8.D. Staff and volunteers enjoy working with each other.  9. Staff favorite job aspects.  10. Ministerial support: . 10.A. Family: Supportive atmosphere and encouraging environment inside the organization. . 10.B. Community: Supportive relationships and encouraging environment outside the organization.

FAITH  11. The combination of faith and mission create a ‘rally around the flag’ mentality of togetherness, teamwork, hospitality, hope, Christian family and Christian service. This is what ministry is for the people and the organizations.  12. Faith/Spirituality/Religion present in every facet of the organization (organizational goals, programming, and management).

524

 13. God’s perceived involvement is an area of comfort and reassurance for the personnel in the organization.  14. The absence of faith in community relationships helps to keep the organization’s programs sustainable.

FINANCIAL  15. Fundraising is successful because it is: . 15.A. Enjoyed by the staff and volunteers. . 15.B. Meeting basic needs. . 15.C. The organization has immediate tangible needs (for example: a new roof or a new truck). . 15.D. The organization has special events (for example: walk-a-thons or golf tournaments). . 15.E. The organization has unique programs (for example: nurse assistant training certificates, GED classes, or job fairs). . 15.F. The organization is local to the community of donors.

IDENTITY  16. Individual donors and volunteers identifying with the faith elements of the organization allows the organization to remain sustainable through continued financial and volunteer support.

525

Appendix L

FAITH-BASED PARADOX LIST: EXHIBITED ELEMENTS & MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES

Exhibited Elements: Management Techniques: Tensions, Contradictions, or Oppositions Balance, Equilibrium, Optimization, or Synergy Administrative Facets Accepting Failure Alleviating Poverty All Personnel Authoritarian Rule Autonomy Board Commitment Board of Directors Board Control Board Members Board Involvement Board Policy Changes Board Members Christian Dominance Board of Directors Christian Ethos Board Passivity Christian Experience Chaotic Environment Christian Faith Christian Faith Christian Ministry Christian Programming Christian Programing Christian Service Christian Service Christian Social Service Christian Social Service Church Delegates Committees Community Community Community Collaboration Community Collaboration Community Resources Community Partners Congregational Support Community Resources Constant Conflict Coordination Control Cross-Training Control Vacuum Devotionals Cultural Development Direct Negotiation Differing Personalities Empowered Volunteer Economic Conditions Established Employee Established History Employee Productivity Established Local Market Employee Versatility Evolving Roles Established Evolving Staff Roles Evolving Expectations Executive Director Evolving Programming Executive Management Executive Management Faith Executive Management Control Faith-Based Faith-Based Action Faith-Based Nonprofit Faith-Based Nonprofit Full Essential Services

526

Faith Commitment Fundraising Events Faith Deficiency Fundraising Focus Financial Constraints Government Collaboration Financial Growth Grouping Financial Stability Helping People Fluctuating Environment Human Service Food Distribution Identity Strategies Food Pantry Improvements Improve Skillsets Food Pantry Service Improvement Desire Fundraising Duty Abdication Infrastructure Improvements Fundraising Events Interfaith Acceptance Fundraising Projects Interfaith Service Fundraising Weakness Interfaith Vision Gender Bias Leadership Savvy Group Decision Making Leadership Support Grouping Local Market Government Collaboration Loving kids Helping Recipients Loving Neighbors Human Service Middle Managers Human Service Nonprofit Ministry Experience Human Social Service Mission Idealistic Work Goals Mission Focus Individual Education New Employees Infrastructure Development New Tasks Interfaith Ideals Next Level Vision Interfaith Nonprofit Non-Christian Ethos Interfaith Service Nonprofit Local Market Nonprofit Ethos Love Office Assistant Middle Managers Organizational Assessments Mission Organizational Growth Mission Implementation Organizational Meetings Multiple Community Partners Organizational Size Multiple Programs Partnerships Non-Employee Past Volunteering History Nonprofit Parachurch Identity Nonprofit Ethos Parachurch Ministry Operational Governance Patient Discipline Operational Development Performance Impression Operational Improvement Periodic Reviews Organizational Christian Values Personal Boundaries Organizational Development Personal Conversations Organizational Growth Personal Faith Values Organizational Financial Condition Personal Values Organizational Parachurch Vision Personality Traits Organizational Stability Personnel Committee Organizational Values Policy Overwhelming Environment Poverty Certainties

527

Parachurch Ministry Preferring Compromise Personal Values Prior Work Experience Personalized Service Professional Social Service Pervasive Mistrust Program Development Poverty Misconceptions Program Director Power Programming Improvements Power Vacuum Recipient Advocates Program Development Recipient Mindset Programming Rules Recipient Programming Racial Bias Recipient Self-Sufficiency Recipient Demands Recipient Stability Recipient Engagement Recipient Stability Programs Recipient Programming Relationships Recipient Self-Sufficiency Reliable Reviews Recipient Stability Resource Management Recipient Stigmatization Rhetorical Strategies Recipient Survival Role Imitation Secular Nonprofit Seeking Consensus Secular Service Service Dependence Secularized Culture Service Independence Service Shared Boundaries Service Delivery Shared Commitment Social Service Dedication Shared Values Social Structures Sharing Leadership Spiritual Features Social Work Experience Staff Burnout Solving Poverty Staff Commitment Spiritual Development Staff Expectations Staff Coordination Staff Freedom Staff Meetings Staff Grouping Staff Members Staff Reorganization Strategic Plan Staff Restructuring Strategic Planning Staff Turnover Support Staff Support Staff Teamwork Survival Help Unique Collaboration Teamwork Vision Task Freedom Vision Focus Trust Vision Implementation Process Unstructured Environment Vision Refinements Vision Implementation Volunteer Stability Volunteer Commitment Volunteers Volunteer Control Volunteer Dependence Volunteer Freedom Volunteer Recruitment Volunteering Declines

528