Organizational Charting 

for Member Control in Cooperatives

RB-CS Research Report 235

September 2020

Toward

An Assessment

Tool
Organizational Charting 

for Member Control in Cooperatives

Toward an Assessment Tool

ABSTRACT

A fundamental aspect of cooperative organizations is “member control” or member 

governance of the organization. Member control is facilitated through a series of 

member offices, elections to those offices, and organizational bylaws. When challenges 

to the legitimacy of cooperative organization occurs, those challenges often revolve 

around questions of member control. Do members actually control the cooperative? 

Our current era is of no exception given a context of acquisitions, mergers, and joint 

ventures in the cooperative community. This report presents a series of membership 

charts, from simple to complex, demonstrating various ways to depict a membership 

structure, with the explicit highlighting of mechanisms for member control. The 

report begins with simple depictions of macro-membership structures, e.g. local, 

centralized and federated. It culminates with a “containment” method that is able to 

illustrate appointed and elected positions, positions with and without decision-making 

authority, a basis of representation in geographic districts, flows and levels of authority, 

and whether authority is contained by the membership or outside of members’ control 

and oversight. 

Key Words: Agricultural Cooperatives, Member Democratic Control, Charting 

Methods, Assessment Tool 

Organizational Charting for Member Control in Cooperatives: Toward an Assessment Tool

Thomas W. Gray, Ph.D. 

Rural Sociologist/Agricultural Economist

Rural Business—Cooperative Service

RB-CS Research Report 235

September 2020

U.S. Department of Agriculture

1400 Independence Ave., SW, STOP 3254

Washington, D.C. 20250-3254

https://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/all-programs/cooperative-programs
Preface .......................................................................................................................................................................................02

Highlights...................................................................................................................................................................................03

Introduction............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 04

Macro Membership Structure............................................................................................................................................................................ 06

Authority from the Members or the Organization? ......................................................................................................................................... 08

Elected Positions................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10

Micro-Membership Structures .......................................................................................................................................................................... 12

The Containment Method of Charting ............................................................................................................................................................... 14

Containment Method Case 1............................................................................................................................................................................... 14

Containment Method Case 2............................................................................................................................................................................... 16

Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 18

References............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 18

List of Figures

Figure 1: Business and Operations Structure authored............................................................................................................................................ 04

Figure 2: Macro-membership Structure ...................................................................................................................................................................... 07

Figure 3: Local Cooperatives: Members Down........................................................................................................................................................... 08

Figure 4: Local Cooperatives: Members with Power................................................................................................................................................. 09

Figure 5: Centralized Cooperatives............................................................................................................................................................................... 09

Figure 6: Federated Cooperatives................................................................................................................................................................................. 10

Figure 7: Elected Positions............................................................................................................................................................................................. 11

Figure 8: Member Control Structure............................................................................................................................................................................. 12

Figure 9: Control Structure of a Supply Cooperative ................................................................................................................................................. 13

Figure 10: Control Structure of Supply Cooperative: Containment Method........................................................................................................... 15

Figure 11: Control Structure of Dairy Cooperative: Containment Method ............................................................................................................. 17

ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTING FOR MEMBER CONTROL IN COOPERATIVES | 2020 1

CONTENTS
When the legitimacy of cooperative organizations 

is challenged it often involves questions about 

“member control.” Do members actually control 

the cooperative? This question has become 

increasingly relevant as cooperatives have 

merged, acquired other organizations, developed 

joint ventures and generally increased their 

organizational complexity. Organizational charting 

is a methodology for depicting specialization 

and coordination in an organization as well as 

relationships of authority. Agriculture cooperatives 

typically use organizational charts to depict 

business and management structures. However, 

missing from many co-op organizational menus are 

figures specifically designed to depict membership 

structure. Membership charts ideally can provide 

such detail as the bases of representation, elected 

and/or appointed positions, sources of authority 

and delegations of authority, spans of internal 

committees, independent authorities or advisory 

functions, among many others. When sourced 

from cooperative bylaws, charting of membership 

structures can make visible, member control 

relationships in a cooperative, and potentially can 

address challenges to the question: “Do members 

control the cooperative?” This report illustrates 

development of charting techniques that can help 

answer this question. 

2 ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTING FOR MEMBER CONTROL IN COOPERATIVES | 2020

Organizational charting is 

a methodology for depicting 

specialization and coordination 

in an organization as well as 

relationships of authority.

PREFACE
ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTING FOR MEMBER CONTROL IN COOPERATIVES | 2020 3

n A central organizing principle of cooperatives is 

“member control.” 

n “Member control” considerations are part of the 

enabling legislation of agricultural cooperatives 

in the United States., i.e. the Capper-Volstead 

Act.

n When the legitimacy of cooperatives is 

challenged, it often involves questions 

concerning member control. Do members 

control the cooperative?

n These questions have become increasingly 

present as cooperatives have grown in size due to 

scale changes and to such organizational changes 

as mergers and acquisitions. 

n A methodology for assessing organizational 

characteristics is charting. Agricultural 

cooperatives typically use organizational charts 

to depict business and management structures. 

n Charting to depict member control structures is 

used less frequently. 

n The development of techniques for charting 

membership structures has waned since the 

1990s.

n Utilizing both conceptual and empirical 

examples, this report reviews various charting 

techniques, and highlights the development of 

a “member containment method” for assessing 

member control.

n Charts are presented from the simplest and 

most macro depictions, e.g., local, centralized, 

federated, to more complex charts focused on 

internal micro membership structures.

n These internal micro-structures are illustrated 

using various conventions to depict such factors 

as (1) the bases of member representation 

(geographic districts,), (2) the differences 

between elected positions and appointed 

positions, (3) the differences between positions 

and committees with independent authority 

and those with only an advisory role and 

without independent authority, (4) the spans 

of specializations of committees, (5) the flows 

of authority, and (6) charting conventions that 

indicate whether sub-structures are contained by 

member authorities or not. 

n A systematic charting protocol can “help 

make a membership system understandable 

to cooperative participants and enhance their 

ability to access and monitor a governance 

system” and make more informed decisions in 

elections. 

n Further work is left to better relate membership 

structure to business and management systems. 

n Ultimately emphasis on standardization of 

charting procedures may make it possible to 

compare structures of various cooperatives 

and to assess performance consequences of 

alternative structures. 

.

HIGHLIGHTS
4 ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTING FOR MEMBER CONTROL IN COOPERATIVES | 2020

Thomas W. Gray, Ph.D.

Rural Sociologist/Agricultural Economist

(Author’s editorial note: Reader comments are 

welcomed and can be submitted to thomas.gray@usda.

gov. Portions of this paper have appeared previously 

in an earlier wave of articles on membership structure 

and charting in the Journal of Agricultural Cooperation.

Little literature has evolved on the topic since that 

time, though agricultural cooperatives have continued 

to grow in size and scope. This article seeks to re-open 

some of this earlier literature on the topic of “member 

control charting” in agricultural cooperatives.) 

INTRODUCTION

Most people are familiar with 

organizational charts. Figure 1 details the 

business and operations structure of a supply 

cooperative. As complex as this chart may 

appear, its construction is only a matter of 

putting on paper the various specializations 

that exist in the organization and how these 

specializations are coordinated. Various 

regional and fertilizer specializations in Figure 

1 are shown to be coordinated by the “grove 

production manager.” “Packing supervisor” 

activities, “container foreman” activities and 

“grader supervisor” activities are ultimately 

Organizational Charting for Member Control in Cooperatives

Toward an Assessment Tool

(Butler 1988)
ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTING FOR MEMBER CONTROL IN COOPERATIVES | 2020 5

Figure 1: 

Business and 

Operations Structure
coordinated by the “packing house” foreman. 

Nearly all cooperatives (and all businesses for that 

matter) document management and operations 

structures in a similar fashion in order to 

clarify the various authority, specialization, and 

coordination relationships. 

However, missing from many co-op 

organizational menus are figures or charts on 

“membership” structures. Ideally charting of the 

membership will depict not only specializations 

and coordinations but more importantly, “member 

control” relationships. Member control is a 

central cooperative principle as articulated in 

various sets of principles, including those as stated 

by the International Cooperative Alliance: 

“Democratic Member Control: Cooperatives 

are democratic organizations controlled 

by their members, who actively participate 

in setting policies and making decisions. 

Elected representatives (directors/trustees) are 

elected from among the membership and are 

accountable to the membership (ICA).” 

Unfortunately, little literature has evolved to 

address these issues in a charting methodology. 

When the legitimacy of cooperative organizations 

has been challenged, it is often around 

demonstrating “member control” is an actual 

empirical reality. Do members actually control the 

cooperative? 

The purpose of this report is to renew some 

of the older literature on the topic of “member 

control charting” to re-surface techniques used to 

make such assessments. The report will progress 

with a presentation of simpler techniques to 

more complex and comprehensive depictions of 

membership control structures.

MACRO-MEMBERSHIP STRUCTURE

Figure 2 presents membership relationships 

in differing cooperative types. For example, in a 

federated cooperative, farmers may be members of 

locals and locals in turn are members of a regional 

of a federated organization. In a centralized 

cooperative, farmers can be members of the 

overhead organization (the regional,) but are not 

members of a local outlet or local service facility. 

In a mixed-cooperative, some farmers may hold 

membership in a local, others in the regional, 

and the local in turn may hold membership in 

the regional (Abrahamson 1976; Zueli and Cropp 

2004). 

These types of charts, as developed by 

Abrahamson (1976), are excellent for representing 

member relations among differing cooperative 

types, e.g., local, centralized, and federated. They 

say very little about the internal representative, 

authority, and micro-control structures of a 

cooperative.

 

AUTHORITY FROM THE MEMBERS 

OR THE ORGANIZATION?

Figure 3 presents local cooperatives and their 

respective memberships as aggregated up into 

an organization. This schema depicts a frequent 

6 ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTING FOR MEMBER CONTROL IN COOPERATIVES | 2020
ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTING FOR MEMBER CONTROL IN COOPERATIVES | 2020 7

Figure 2: 

Macro-membership Structure

(Gray 1991, Abrahamson 1976)
8 ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTING FOR MEMBER CONTROL IN COOPERATIVES | 2020

representation of membership, with members 

placed at the bottom of a chart and underneath 

an organization. However, if we understand 

membership as controlling the organization and 

delegating authority to the organization (to a 

board of directors), then placement of members 

above the organization is a more appropriate 

placement (as in Figure 4). 

Figures 4, 5, and 6 show the major macromembership structures of agricultural 

cooperatives—local, centralized, federated—as 

in Figure 2, but more simply, and with members 

shown in a position delegating authority down 

to an organizational body. These figures are an 

improvement over Figure 2, though they say 

very little about election relations, i.e., flows of 

authority from elections, delegation of authority, 

and internal micro membership structures. 

Figure 3: 

Local Cooperatives: 

Members Down

(Schaars 1980, Gray 2008)
ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTING FOR MEMBER CONTROL IN COOPERATIVES | 2020 9

Figure 4: 

Local Cooperatives: 

Members With Power

Figure 5: 

Centralized Cooperatives

(Gray 2008, Schaars 1980)

(Gray 2008, Schaars 1980)
10 ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTING FOR MEMBER CONTROL IN COOPERATIVES | 2020

ELECTED POSITIONS 

Figure 7 begins to describe the internal 

governance structure of a cooperative by 

displaying elected positions within a co-op. 

Shown is a representation system based on 

geographic districting with members placed at 

the top of the page—indicating delegations of 

authority downward through an election process. 

Election provides the basis for authority and 

in-turn the legitimacy for delegations to other 

bodies. 

Members are also shown electing a district 

director and a member (or members) to a delegate 

body. The district director is shown as sitting on 

the cooperative board of directors, representing 

respective district members on the board. The 

Figure 6: 

Federated Cooperatives

(Gray 2008, Schaars 1980)
ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTING FOR MEMBER CONTROL IN COOPERATIVES | 2020 11

delegate body in turn elects directors at large 

to the board of directors. At large directors 

represent district members but are also freer to 

speak to larger organizational concerns. As an 

abstract model, the figure does well in depicting 

delegations and flows of authority via election 

processes, and member representativeness as 

based in geographic districts. 

However membership structures involve 

both appointed and elected positions as well 

as committees and bodies with and without 

independent authorities. A further absence in 

Figure 7 is the absence of any indicators for 

reading breaches in member control. 

Figure 7: 

Elected Positions

(Garoyan & Mohn 1976, Gray 1991)
12 ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTING FOR MEMBER CONTROL IN COOPERATIVES | 2020

MICRO-MEMBERSHIP STRUCTURES

Butler (1988) was the first to represent micromembership structures of member control visually 

with the use of specific diagrammatic conventions 

(figure 8). She suggests depicting: 

“(1) elected positions be represented by solid 

outlines, 

(2) appointed positions by broken lines, 

(3) bodies with independent decision-making 

authority by rectangles, and 

(4) bodies with no independent authority 

(advisory) by circles.”

Of course, the actual shapes themselves are not 

important, but consistency of shapes within and 

across diagrams is important.

Figure 9 displays the membership structure 

Figure 8: 

Member Control 

Structure 

(Butler 1988)
ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTING FOR MEMBER CONTROL IN COOPERATIVES | 2020 13

of a supply cooperative. Following Butler’s 

conventions, six committees are depicted as 

appointed and as such are drawn with broken 

borders. Five are drawn as circles and therefore 

are understood as advisory—in this case, advisory 

to the board. 

One of these appointed committees, the 

improvements committee, has independent 

authority and is therefore drawn as a rectangle. 

This committee’s decisions stand on their own, 

and do not need to be taken back to the board of 

directors nor to the general membership for final 

approval. It is an appointed committee, appointed 

by the board, but its decisions are independent of 

board approval. 

Four committees are elected--the board of 

directors, a redistricting committee, a resolutions 

committee, and an executive committee—and, 

Figure 9: 

Control Structure 

of Supply Cooperative

(Butler 1988)
14 ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTING FOR MEMBER CONTROL IN COOPERATIVES | 2020

as elected, are shown with solid borders. Of 

these four, two have independent authority, and 

therefore are drawn as rectangles. One is elected 

out of the board, the executive committee, but is 

advisory to it, requiring approval of its decisions 

by the full board. The resolutions committee is 

elected, but does not have independent authority. 

Its decisions have to go back to the general 

membership for approval, likely at the annual 

meeting of the cooperative. The basis of member 

representation throughout most of the cooperative 

is the geographic district, and ultimately the 

members. Farmers are members of a district 

by virtue of joining the cooperative and are 

districted into the organization depending on the 

geographic location of their farm. 

This methodology provides much greater 

information than the previous charts above. 

It shows the basis of representation, i.e., 

the geographic district, the span of internal 

committees, elected and appointed differences, 

sources of authority and delegations, and 

independent and advisory roles. Some 

improvement might be made conceptually by 

showing members at the top of the chart as 

the source of authority; authority that is then 

delegated down to other positions in the structure, 

this delegation occurring via election processes as 

well as by appointments. 

THE CONTAINMENT METHOD OF CHARTING 

An important purpose of membership charts is 

to display member control structures in a manner 

that reveals questionable structuring and problem 

areas. 

As such a member control chart ideally 

suggests a sense of containment, i.e., cooperative 

governance is derivative from its members, 

members contain the governance, with various 

roles specified with delegations via elections 

and appointments. Of course, a chart cannot 

show all aspects of member control. Complete 

specifications for an entire structure are generally 

made in cooperative bylaws, and charting then 

follows from bylaw specifications as much as 

possible. 

Containment Method Case 1: Figure 10 presents 

a second supply cooperative with modifications 

from the previous chart. Three bodies are 

represented with rectangles, i.e., each has 

independent decision-making authority. The 

board of directors is elected by members out 

of geographic districts. The director rectangle 

“contains” five committees, i.e., the executive, 

annual meeting, and the finance, long-range 

planning and inventory committees. Only the 

executive committee is elected (shown with a solid 

boundary) and is elected out of the board. None 

of these committees have independent decisionmaking authority. Each must take decisions back 

to the full board for approval of their decisions. 

Their actions are contained by the larger board. 

Both the resolutions and redistricting 

committees are elected, though only the 

redistricting committee has independent decisionmaking authority. Neither require approval 

by the elected board, though the “resolutions 

committee” is required to take its decisions 

back to the larger membership for approval, 

likely at the annual meeting. The improvements 

committee is appointed out of the board, but 

is not shown within the board rectangle due to 

having independent decision-making authority. 

The reader will note the membership surrounds, 

or contains, the entire governance structure. 
ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTING FOR MEMBER CONTROL IN COOPERATIVES | 2020 15

Figure 10: 

Control Structure of Supply 

Cooperative: Containment Method 

(Gray 1991)
16 ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTING FOR MEMBER CONTROL IN COOPERATIVES | 2020

Containment Method Case 2: Figure 11 

represents a deepening of the charting 

conventions introduced above. This writer 

acknowledges the chart reads with a degree 

of complexity in appearance; however, the 

conventions allow for an improved technique for 

member control assessment—particularly with 

reference to members containing the system. 

Following the conventions as specified, 

members have a basis of representation in 

geographic districts, and through these districts, 

they elect a delegate body. This delegate body, 

with its independent decision-making authority, 

elects the “association board” of the cooperative. 

The “association board” in turn appoints four 

committees and elects an executive committee. All 

five of these committees are charted within the 

“association board” rectangle and must take their 

decisions to the full board for approval. 

Members also elect from their respective 

districts eight division boards. These division 

boards in turn appoint four committees and 

elect an executive committee. And as with the 

“association board,” the decisions of committees 

of the “division boards” must return to the larger 

division board for approval. Accordingly, they are 

charted within the board rectangle. 

Labeling the committees on the figure, for 

example, at the division board level, gives the 

reader an indication of board roles. The lower 

division boards, placed on the chart below the 

over-head association board, deal with functions 

closest to the members—hauling, quality 

premium, auditing, ballot counting and executive 

committees. The association board is much more 

concerned with various larger corporate functions, 

i.e., finance, marketing, member and public 

relations, as well as management evaluation. 

Members also elect re-districting committees 

at the division level (for eight division boards). 

They have independent authority and hence are 

drawn as rectangles. Resolutions committees are 

also elected at the division and association levels—

though they are advisory to the board and are 

drawn as circles. 

Perhaps of most significance, the reader 

can observe the association board rectangle 

cuts through the membership circle. In this 

cooperative, the association board of directors has 

the power to change the bylaws. From a “member 

containment” perspective of charting, since the 

board cuts through the member circle, members 

are shown as lacking an oversight function over 

the board. Since the board has power to change 

the bylaws, it has the power to make fundamental 

changes to the structures and rules of the 

cooperative, i.e., the bylaw specifications. 

Similarly, the finance, dairy products 

promotion, and cooperative relations subsidiaries 

have independent authorities separate from 

member oversight and approval/disapproval 

of their decisions. They are positions (broken 

boundary in the chart) appointed by the Board; 

drawn outside the membership circle showing 

independent authority outside of the larger 

membership. 

An assessment for member control might then 

raise questions concerning the accountability of 

these subsidiaries to the Association Board and 

ultimately to the larger cooperative membership. 

Do the members control the cooperative? 
ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTING FOR MEMBER CONTROL IN COOPERATIVES | 2020 17

Figure 11: 

Control Structure of Dairy 

Cooperative—Containment Method

(Gray 1991)
18 ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTING FOR MEMBER CONTROL IN COOPERATIVES | 2020

CONCLUSION 

The subtitle of this article is “Toward an 

assessment tool.” The word “Toward” was chosen 

to suggest the conventions employed here are 

a first step to graphically and visually depict a 

member control structure. Needed as well is a 

detailed review of cooperative bylaws keyed to 

various boxes in the chart to flesh out the various 

authorities, mandates and position roles; and 

ultimately to make explicit the membershipstructure relationships to the management and 

operations structure. 

A systematic charting protocol can “help make a 

membership system understandable to cooperative 

participants and enhance their ability to access 

and monitor a governance system. If members 

are aware of who is responsible for particular 

decisions, they will be better prepared to express 

their approval (or lack thereof at election time. 

And with further work, standardization of charting 

procedures may make it possible to compare 

structures of various cooperatives and begin 

to research the performance consequences of 

alternative structures” (Gray 1988; Butler 1988).

REFERENCES

Abrahamsen, Martin A. Cooperative Business Enterprise. New 

York: McGraw Hill. 1976

Butler, Gillian. Designing Membership Structures for 

Agricultural Cooperatives. Washington, DC: USDA ACS 

Research Report 75. 1988.

Cobia, David. Cooperatives in Agriculture. Englewood Cliffs, 

New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 1989.

Garoyan, Leon and Paul Mohn. The Board of Directors of 

Cooperatives. The Division of Agricultural Sciences. Davis: 

The University of California. 1976. 

Gray, Thomas. “Historical Tensions, Institutionalization, 

and the Need for Multi-stakeholder Cooperatives,” Journal 

of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development. Vol. 

4, No.3, 2014. 

Gray, Thomas W. Selecting a Cooperative Membership 

Structure for the Agriculture of the Middle Initiative. USDA, 

Cooperative Services Research Report 216, March 2009. 

Gray, Thomas W. “Cooperative Structure for the Middle,” 

in Lyson, Thomas A, G.W. Stevenson, Rick Welsh. (eds) 

Food and the Mid-Level Farm. Cambridge: MIT Press. 2008.

Gray, Thomas W. “Toward an Organizational Theory of 

Membership Structural Design,” Journal of Agricultural 

Cooperatives. Vol. 19. 1994.

Gray, Thomas W. Membership Structural Design.

Washington, DC: USDA, Rural Development, Cooperative 

Services Research Report 131. 1994.

Gray, Thomas W. and Gillian Butler. “Charting From 

Within a Grounded Concept of Member Control,” Journal 

of Agricultural Cooperatives. Vol. 6. 1991.

Gray, Thomas W. Structuring for Member Control in Large 

Cooperatives. Washington, DC: USDA ACS Research 

Report.72. July. 1988.

International Cooperative Alliance. Proceedings of the 

International Cooperative Alliance. Review of International 

Cooperation. 1967. 

Schaars, Marvin. Cooperative Principles and Practices. Madison: 

U. of Wisconsin Extension. 1980.

Zueli, Kimberly and Robert Cropp. Cooperatives: Principles 

and Practices in the 21st Century. Madison: University of 

Wisconsin Extension. 2004.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department 

of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the 

USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions 

participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited 

from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, 

sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual 

orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, 

income derived from a public assistance program, political 

beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any 

program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases 

apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines 

vary by program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of 

communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, 

audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the 

responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 

(voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay 

Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may 

be made available in languages other than English. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA 

Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at 

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any 

USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in 

the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request 

a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your 

completed form or letter to USDA by: 

mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, 

Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; 

fax: (202) 690-7442; or 

e-mail: program.intake@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
USDA Rural Development

Research Report 234

Toward

An Assessment

Tool

Organizational Charting for Member Control in Cooperatives