Just about everyone involved in leftist organizing in the last 5 years knows about Jane McAlevey. No Shortcuts became the go-to book for it. There’s a broader debate out there on how well McAlevey’s methods do in the real world. But I want to hone in on one idea from her book – the notion of the ‘organic leader.’
McAlevey advocates for an organizing model whereby the organizer – union organizer for McAlevey, but we could apply the model well beyond unions – starts by identifying organic leaders among workers. From there, the organic leader takes the lead in building support for the org.
There’s a lot I like about McAlevey’s approach. But I also think there’s a lot riding on the very organic leaders she appeals to. If we find problems with the very idea of an organic leader, it could put the org in trouble right from the start. So, let’s talk about that.
Organic Leader
So, the basic idea here is simple enough. An organic leader is someone who workers look up to within their existing social networks. They can influence and guide workers. McAlevey wants union organizers to identify these people. And then she wants the organic leader to use their influence and connections to build support for a union drive.
When most people think about potential ‘union leaders,’ they think about activists and promoters. But McAlevey points out that it doesn’t work this way. Activists in the workplace typically aren’t leaders. If anything, many of their coworkers find them obnoxious. It’s good to have activists on board, but they’re not the people who will build a majority.
By contrast, the organic leader usually begins from a place of reluctance to join. They’re a good worker whom their fellow workers like and follow. Going out on a limb to join a union represents a real risk for them. And so, if the union organizer gets them on board, they can land two wins at the same time: winning over a reluctant worker, and winning over a worker who can build support.
While McAlevey presents all this in the language of labor unions, it applies just as well to lots of leftist orgs. You build more support more effectively when you seek out already influential community members rather than activists.
And Their Problems?
The literature is full of potential problems for McAlevey’s model. Some critics, for example, point out that in a shop that already has a union, organic leaders will probably be people with deep ties to conservative union bureaucracies. This limits how far we can apply her model.
But that’s not the problem I want to address here. I think we should point out that many things might explain why a person becomes influential in workers’ social networks. McAlevey focuses on the positive ones. Many organic leaders get there by building trust, showing that they care, and doing other good deeds.
That’s all true, and it’s what McAlevey’s counting on. But sometimes biases and social problems interact with it. Racism, sexism, and other problems can also come to bear on why and how a person becomes an organic leader. They can also limit who becomes an organic leader. Social networks come laden with such problems. Indeed, they’re often the primary locus of those problems in everyday life.
And so, there’s a risk that organic leaders represent only a more powerful slice of rank-and-file workers (or community members). Underlying tensions or resentments in the workplace could then form a wedge the boss could use against workers.
Someone who wants to identify and rely on organic leaders must keep this in mind. They should retain a critical skepticism toward the leader. And they should make sure all workers feel represented, not merely a majority.
Not a Fatal Problem
None of this seems to me like a fatal problem for McAlevey. She even implicitly addresses some of these concerns in how she wants to test the organic leader. She says the test is to see whether they can put together a majority to take certain actions, e.g., sign a petition, attend a meeting, and so on. It seems to me that a good organic leader would be able to overcome divisions in the process of taking those actions.
But I suspect problems could remain ever after structure tests. More so if those problems relate to racism or sexism. There’s a need, I think, to keep an eye on how organic leaders play with some of these deeper forces.
