Strategy Workshop
Home | Members | History | Proposals | QPA | Archives | Links

A Series of Questions

Question #1

If you can, please tell me what you think about the following, which someone else wrote:

NOTE: This statememt was taken from New Info about Organizing for America and its Plans by Al Giordano. I excerpted those elements that present general organizing principles.

RESPONSES:

I'd say it's not bad, though I think it confuses leaders (people with a following) with reliable volunteer workers (people who do what they say they're going to do, though they may or may not also be leaders or even potential leaders.

Obama's trying to establish something that, in the long run, will have some kind of a bottom-up life. But in the very nature of its origins it has to be set up from the top down. That creates inherent tensions. But I would rely on their knowing what they're doing and wouldn't be one to make complaints about it for quite some time. Down the road, maybe even a couple of years away, there might be some kind of deliberative process within the organization. But I'm not even sure about that. It might be that a pure "mobilization" effort to back Obama's agenda when it faces obstacles in Congress is the best we should hope for. If deliberation is to take place, it ought to be when Congress is adjourned.

I read in something that there's some debate about whether OFA should al so have a local agenda. My off-the-top-of-my-head reaction is, I hope not. If people want to do things locally, they should join SFOP or ACORN or their local Democratic Club or get active in their union local, professional association or...whatever. It's going to be hard enough to move Congress. And it's going to become more difficult as the initial halo around Obama begins to dim.

--Anon

While it all makes sense at one logical level - - i wonder who is going to design + to administer + to assess each test & its taker/s.

I expect i would - if/when faced with such a battery/maze of qualifying tests - - spontaneously, imnmediately, turn around & walk out.

I'm not an automaton willing to submit & subject myself to such an adjudging process.

--John Vasconcellos

I think that it makes sense to test people before you really need them, but it might not be the first task. I think that the first tasks are to 1) listen to people to find out why they are interested, and 2) build on that by pointing out the benefits to them of a successful group or program. In other words, you need to make a strong "sexy" case, for why I ought to get involved in OFA or whatever you want to call it. What benefits will I get? Why will I get more benefits than if I just volunteer for someone else?

I bought this book that seems excellent. (I read about 50 pages so far) I don't buy too many books. The author has spent a lifetime doing community organizing. I highly recommend it to you. Building Powerful Community Organizations by Michael Jacoby Brown.

One thing he writes is that asking for money soon after you paint the vision is acid test for whether people are really on board.

--Anon

I think it is 'right on.' Each person who wants to work for change has a reason and what he or she will or will not do. What needs to be done must be matched with somebody to do it. Often, people don't know, themselves, the level of their commitment. Some people just want to be a member of the group, but they, too, can play a role, even if it is bringing refreshments or staying to clean up.

--Anon

I agree that this is a technique for organizing, but it seems to me to be more appropriate for a business context than a political context. People need to know that their contributions are valued, even if they don't "preform" up to someone else's standards. If you have an endless supply of volunteers, and a limited number of slots, you can peel away those who do not perform and let them be replaced by people who do. But in political organizing it's much more likely to have a limited number of volunteers, and a nearly unlimited number of jobs that need to be done. You have to control the scope of what you are doing, to match the number of jobs to the number of people, then be clear from the start that everyone needs to chip in to the best of their ability. Give important jobs to people who will do the work, and give less important jobs to people you think might not be able to do as much, and when reviewing the results praise both equally. The people who do the most will understand what you are doing, and the people who don't do as much will appreciate the praise.

Feeling empowered and supported is more important than performance. In my opinion.

--Chad Lupkes

That builds legions of soldiers committed to going hoorah. It is necessary.

We also need thoughtful people who are good at logical reasoning, systems thinking and analysis involved in this so we will be hoorahing at a fine level of detail about the things that are key. Some of them would not pass that test. It can take a while to prepare a thoughtful position paper and some can't do it on command. They too are valuable.

Besides we want to include everyone not just organization men and women.

--David Marshak

I agree that a core is necessary for success. But, I would not agree to a closed system of core building. The core changes because life happens if nothing else. You have to be prepared for unforeseen events that impinge on the core at any point. I do think at a certain point you have to ask for "core" commitment and be able to describe the mission and what it means related to responsibility, accountability and tasks and timeline for renewal/transition when committing to "core". No matter what, core or not, there is always manipulations, people not knowing, life events....

--Anon

amen.

--Anon

i think of it more as calibration, and it's important both in terms of individuals and aggregate percentages. for Get FISA Right for example we now have pretty decent estimates for how many people are likely to respond to different kinds of information and requests for help via our different channels. this is vital for planning - and also for improving things over time.

one thing to highlight though is the strong power bias in this writeup: the organizer issues calls to action, and judges people on whether they respond, with those who don't "failing". attitudes like this are an obstacle to meaningful empowerment -- and may mask deeper problems. for example, if there's any failure here, it's far more likely to be the organizer in not crafting a clearer or more compelling message.

--Jon Pincus

The criteria listed below can be true, but isn't always applicable. Is the test reasonable - level of participation required; timing, etc. A person can be genuinely moved and not participate for legitimate reasons. I spend a lot of time at work, so much so, that I use my work email much more than my personal email. One of the few events I've actually gotten to was the economic discussion this weekend because there was a mtg near where I live and the time required wasn't too extensive. In short, don't give up on those of us whose heart is in the right place but may not be contributing as much on a community level.

I try to comment from my point of view:

I fully understand the urge to find those who are really committed.\\ "Test-Operations" put a special note in the relationship between me and them. In my work I try to avoid the impression that I am the teacher or a general whom they have to please.\\ I use existing obstacles or standand tasks to see how committed and how able people are to take part: Do they react when I write an email to the group? Do they show initiative, when I put open tasks to the group? How do they react, when I ask them personally to do something?

--Anon

I don’t know Wade, seems like someone’s definition...coming from a very specific experience or context i guess. It’s honest and limited.

--Anon

Comments: To give feedback or make a suggestion concerning this page, click here.