Osterman claims that oligarchical leadership structures can tend to lead to negative consequences that include loss of membership commitment, “becalming,” or goal displacement. He goes on to claim that organizational culture, and particularly, one that enhances members’ senses of agency help to mitigate these outcomes. This is especially interesting in light of Su’s chapters contrasting organizations that primarily operate according to an Alinskian framework with those that follow the teachings of Paulo Freire. While this may be a consequence of the particular organizations studied, it seemed that those that followed the former’s philosophies appeared ultimately more concerned with growing organizational strength through numbers; in other words, it appeared that the priorities of the leadership were oriented more toward power than the issues of their base. Su seemed more critical of these organizations than the latter set, though it did seem that the practices (and schedules) of leaders in the organization support this. This is not necessarily surprising given the tendencies that Osterman writes about; however, it does call into question the goals of organization. The organizations that follow the Alinsky framework are not necessarily “bad,” and they should be praised for accomplishing victories (though the emphasis on pursuing “winnable” causes may perhaps diminish that, I personally think that that pragmatism is praiseworthy). Su is clear to point out that the Freirean organizations put some of these approaches into practice as well (and vice-versa), and though she does point out their victories, if these organizations reflect the dichotomy she attempts to draw out, they are perhaps less “effective,” if the metric is successful campaigns. Instead, she brings forth another way of understanding what a successfully-organized community looks like: one in which as much attention is paid to the notion of “community” as is the “organized” aspect of the equation. To me – and to be sure, I’m speaking from a perspective that is quite different from the communities that Su is writing about – this approach is much more appealing, because it seems to be grounded from a perspective where the goal is the of empowerment of individuals, rather than the organization. That said, I can see the appeal of the Alinsky model, which promises results in a short time frame, especially in matters that command a sense of urgency.
Ganz’s “Why David Sometimes Wins” credits organizations that embrace creativity and robust solutions to overcoming shortages of resources; however this is a very ends-oriented approach to the issue. After reading the Su chapters, I’m not sure what to make of this: while it isn’t necessarily advocating for a purely oligarchical approach, it doesn’t do much to dismantle this structure; is this leveling of hierarchy something that organizers should aim for, or is it simply an idealistic aim?