Horizontal Models for Social Movement Organizations

PAGE 1

HORIZONTAL MODELS FOR SOCIAL MOVEMENT ORGANIZATIONS: A CASE STUDY OF THE COALIT ION OF IMMOKALEE WORKERS BY JOLENE ELBERTH A Thesis Submitted to the Division of Social Sciences New College of Florida in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Bachelor of Arts in Sociology/Latin American Language and Culture Under the sponsorship of Dr. Chavella T. Pittman Sarasota, Florida May, 2009

PAGE 2

HORIZONT AL MODELS FOR SOCIAL MOVEMENT ORGANIZATIONS: A CASE STUDY OF THE COALIT ION OF IMMOKALEE WORKERS Jolene Elberth New College of Florida, 2009 ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to analyze how social movement organizations function when using a horizontal model of l eadership. This model of leadership employs direct democratic practices. These practices 1) do not have a hierar chy or leader and 2) vests authority in the organiza tion as a whole rather than in the individual. These models have been largely ignored in the social movements literature. Therefore, this study bridges the gap between work organization literature on direct ly democratic organizations and social movement literature. In order to analyze this alte rnative model of leadership, I conductive a qualitativ e analysis of a horizontally-ru n social movement organization using in-depth inte rviews and particip ant observation. The results of my study demonstrate that horizontal leadership is a viable option for successful social movement organizations. It also shows there are signifi cant factors which influence their ability to stay true to horizontal leaderships princi ples (e.g. external in fluences) while also achieving movement goals. Furthermore, this study encourages researchers to examine alternative leadership frameworks when an alyzing social movement organizations. ii

PAGE 3

Dr. Chavella T. Pittman _______________________________ Division of Social Sciences iii

PAGE 4

Table of Contents Page I. Introduction......................................................................................................................1 i. Introduction...........................................................................................................1 ii. Research Questions..............................................................................................4 II. Literature Review............................................................................................................5 i. What is Horizontalism?........................................................................................5 ii. Do Organizations Meet Their Goals While Using Horizontal Leadership?..........................................................................................................7 III. About the Coalition of Immokalee Workers................................................................12 i. The Campaign for Fair Food..............................................................................13 ii. A Brief History: Gr owing the Organization......................................................13 iii. A Unique Feature: Horizontal Leadership........................................................16 IV. Methods.......................................................................................................................21 i. Data Sources.......................................................................................................21 ii. Analytic Strategy...............................................................................................22 iii. Lim itations........................................................................................................23 iv. Description of Participants................................................................................23 v. Moving Forward................................................................................................24 V. Results...........................................................................................................................25 i. Organizational Structure.27 a) Members b) Central Committee c) Staff.. d) Board of Directors....29 ii. Basis of Authority..30 a) Equality b) Demystification...33 c) Authority and time in the organization d) Outside Influence.35 e) Equal participation in decision making...36 f) Consciousness..37 iii.Decision Making Procedures.38 a) Informal Pathways...38 b) Decision making proce ss and legitimization...38 c) Personal responsibility of members.39 d) Decision making process continued e) Discrepancies in decision making process..43 iv.Division of Labor..44 a) Teamwork b) Job type iv

PAGE 5

v VI. Discussion i. Internal Organization..47 ii. Internal Organizatio n and Basis of Authority48 iii. Decision Making Procedures iv. Division of Labor..50 v. Concessions to Bureaucratic Norms..52 vi. Challenges to Hori zontal Organizations...53 vii. Education for Democracy. viii. Differences between Social Movement Organizations and Business Cooperatives...54 ix. Viability of Horizontal Social Movement Organizations VII. Conclusion.57

PAGE 6

Within the social movements literature leadership is recognized as an integral component of social movement success. Leaders inspire commitment, mobilize resources, and recognize opportunities, devise strategies, frame demands, and influence outcomes (Morris and Staggenbor g, 2005). In short, the presen ce of effective and skilled leaders will largely determine the success of an emerging movement. However, in the social movements literature that I surveyed it is largely assumed that only one viable model of leadership exists. That is, it is assume d that leadership, or to have a leader in an organization means that there is only one person or a small group of people who make and decide on decisions for the entire move ment or group. While this may be necessary for large, national movements it would be in correct to assume that this method of hierarchically organized leadership is the on ly form of leadership present in successful social movements. Bureaucratic leadership is the dominant model of organization used in our society today. It is often assumed to be the only viab le model for the organization of institutions. It is characterized by formal rules and the division of power and labor, specialization of labor, and, in relation to lead ership, a clear hier archical structure of command. Formal rules for operation of the organi zation, along with clear respons ibilities and hierarchies of power, serve to maximize the organization's efficiency. However, others have challenged the superiority of bureaucratic institutions for the effect these models can have on those th at participate in them. Due to the impersonal nature of bureaucracies and the often excessive division of labor, workers in bureaucratic institutions often feel a sense of alienation from work and others and a lack of control over the work that they do. Fu rthermore, those making the d ecisions at the top of the

PAGE 7

hierarchy are usually com ple tely disconnected from those who the decisions effect. Therefore, since the ascendance of bureaucracy as the supreme organizational model many have attempted to create alternative m odels of organization which solve or avoid these problems of alienati on, impersonality, detachment, and lack of control. These models generally have one main f eature in common, a lack of hierarchy. Thereby all members of the organization participate equally in decisions and in directing the organization. In these organizations there is no hierarchy of lead ers who are able to make decisions for those below. Instead, power and authority is invested in the organization as a whole and decisions are made and legitimized only when all members are involved in the process. This type of leadership may be re ferred to by many names, from direct democracy, lateral organizing, nonbureaucratic, nonhierarchical, or hor izontal leadership. In large part it has been neglected within the social movements literature and in only some cases covered in the work organizati ons literature (Rothschild and Whitt, 1986; Fitzgerald and Rodgers, 2000). Regardless, many important social movements of the twentieth century have used th is style of leadership. Some of the most famous among them that have successfully implemented horizontalism in their movements are the Industrial Worker of the World, the Zapatist as of Chiapas, Mexico and the worker recuperated enterprises in Argentina in 2001 amongst many others th at have used this often ignored form of leadersh ip. Because it has shown itse lf as a successful model for social movement organizations it is ther efore deserving of study. Here, I hope to accomplish this task by undertaking a case study of one such organization that has 2

PAGE 8

successf ully used horizontal principles in th eir organization: The Co alition of Immokalee Workers. In the work organization literature it has been accepted that nonhierarchical or horizontal forms of leadership, such as t hose often present in cooperatives, may also function in business organizations (Joyce, McGee, and Slocum 1997; Sommer, et al. 1984). These organizations in th eir truest form lack a hier archical chain of command. Instead, power within the organization is in vested collectively in the members of the organization as a whole, rather than in one or a few individuals who hold strategic authority. In examining leadership and it's relati onship to movement success, the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW), a migrant farm worker organization based out of Immokalee, Florida, is an interesting case to study. The group, which fights for higher wages and better working and living conditions for farm workers, has developed a unique leadership model which differs from the majo rity of models used by contemporary social movements in the United States. Furthermore, the group has had an unexpectedly successful movement while at the same tim e overcoming many obstacles, such as lack financial resources and lack of political opportunities that many social movement theorists suggest are central to movement success (McA dam and Snow 1997; Walsh, 2005). Social movement literature on the CI W is sparse even though they have had numerous successes and publicity on the national level since their foundation in 1993. While an updated study of the organization as a whole could be usef ul, I plan to focus here on just one aspect of the CIW: th eir leadership. The CIW claim to employ a 3

PAGE 9

nonhierarchical leadership stru cture, which is exem plified in the phrase We are all leaders (http://ciw-online.org/a bout.html). The organization ne ver refers to a member as the president or a leader of the group in any of their pu blic events, speeches, media, interviews, or on their website For an organization with a nationwide network of allies and a campaign that has in the past successf ully won demands from mega corporations such as Yum! Brands, McDonalds, Burger King, and Subway, this non-hierarchical leadership style is surely unconve ntional although not unprecedented. Research Questions Therefore, I have focused my research on understand ing the exact structure of leadership within the CIW. How do they use horizontal leadership principles and what does this mean for how the organization operates? Namely I will be looking at three aspects of their organization to access how th eir organization is run and if they truly follow nonhierarchical principles. These three aspects are basis of authority, the type of division of labor, and the decision making procedures. Through examining the CIW as a specific case study I will show that horizontal leadership patterns ar e viable for social movement organizations, at least under the given conditions. Furthermore, in doing so I will help to create a cr itical space for the analysis of nonhi erarchical leadership within the social movement literature. 4

PAGE 10

LITERAT URE REVIEW What is Nonhierarchical Le adership or Horizontalism? The term nonhierarchical leadership of ten seems contradictory. How can one lead others without forming a hierarchy or power structure? Regardless, many groups manage to do just that and succeed in forming su ccessful organizations, from grocery stores, schools, electric companies, health clinic s or housing projects, just to name a few prominent examples. These organizations are built entirely on nonhier archical principles in which ideally no one person holds more power than any other within the organization. This type of leadership is known by many names. Most commonly it may be referred to as direct democracy, coopera tivism, nonbureaucratic leadership, or nonhierarchical leadership. Rega rdless, all of these terms re fer to the same basic idea: that power and decision making ability is, or sh ould be, invested collectively in the group as a whole, rather than the individua l (Rothschild and Whitt, 1986). In these organizations there is no legitimate hierarchy of power. Here there are no bosses and no one person who gives commands. Rather, only the group has the power and authority to make decisions which are seen as legitim ate by the members. A common misconception then arises in the assumption that such organi zations have no leaders, however, this is not the case. Leadership exists in a variety of forms and varies from organization to organization. In some cases elected staff memb ers put in the necessary work to keep the organization running smoothly. In other cases th ere is an open board of directors. In other, smaller organizations there are mandatory meetings where all members take part in the inner workings of the organization. Rega rdless, all of these organizations can be 5

PAGE 11

considered horizon tal because all members aff ected by decisions have an equal right to participate in the making of such decisions. Throughout this study I try to stick to the term horizontal leadership as much as possible, although, at times I use other terms when they are more appropriate for the situation at hand. I chose to primarily use th e term horizontalism or horizontal leadership for two reasons. Firstly, I use this term because it is the term by which I have most often heard members of the CIW refer to their organization. Secondly, I choose this term because it is derived fr om the powerful Latin American cultural context of horizontalidad. Horizontalidad, or horizontalism in English, has arisen as a popular term in social movement organizing in large part due to the Za patistas in Mexico and the Argentine uprising of 2001. At its basis it can be most fundamentally understood to mean nonhierarchical relationships, however in a cu ltural meaning it also implies much more. Horizontalidad does not just imply a flat plane of organizing, or nonhierarchical relationships in whic h people no longer make decisions for others. It is a positive word that implies the use of direct democracy and the striving for consensus, proce sses in which everyone is heard and new relationships are created. Horizontalidad is a new way of relating, based in affective politics, and against all implications of isms (Sitrin, 2006) Horizontalism carries a similar significance here in the U.S. It is more than just a word to describe a particular form of leadership; it is just as much a way of thinking and therefore carries much more significance than the other terms I considered. Those who are involved in or form horizontal organizations, in general, do so for reasons apart from economic or status reasons (Rothschild and Whitt,1986). Horizontalism is the striving for a new mode of human interactions and a diffe rent world, if you will. It is, in itself, a movement for social justice. 6

PAGE 12

Do Organizations Meet Their Goals While Usin g Horizontal Leadership? As mentioned earlier, horizontal leader ship has not been fully or thoroughly studied. However, it is fairly well-documented in the work organization literature in studies of democracy in the workplace. Findings within this area have been extremely mixed and likewise businesses have had va ried amounts of success in implementing democracy in the workplace. Where successes have been found researchers (Joyce, McGee and Slocum 1997; Sommer et al. 1984; Collins 1995; Schweizer 1995; Rothschild and Whitt 1986) have noted decreas ed alienation, higher worker satisfaction, and in some cases higher productivity. However, on the other hand these authors have found that democracy in the workplace leads to burdensome time investments, emotional investments, and increased stress among employees. Joyce, McGee, and Slocum's (1997) study on lateral organization in large businesses is one of the most comprehensive studies outlining the costs and benefits of democracy in the workplace as viewed by thos e participating in these systems. In their study they surveyed 512 employees in eight different organizations which had democratized a part of their business. They found that amongst work ers participating in organizations that had been partially demo cratized the costs slightly outweighed the benefits. The most common complaints were of role strain and intense emotional investments caused by increased interacti on between employees. Worker empowerment was cited by those being studied as the largest benefit. While this research is interesting, there are several weaknesses to this work which my thesis hopes to address. First, democratic control is often compartmentalized to one portion of the organization rather than impl emented holistically. S econd, it is often not 7

PAGE 13

horizon talism in its true sense, but rather only lateral organization to a certain degree. That is, where horizontalism is applied within large businesses it is most often applied for purely profit motives (by optimizing worker productivity) and hierarchical rule still exists. For these reasons I have chosen to focus on an organization which fits to a true sense of horizontalism. That is, an organizatio n which is which uses horizontal principles from its base organizational philosophy to its actual organization. Therefore organizations which still have a CEO or a hierarchy of bosses do not fit the sense of horizontalism I am studying. As mentioned previously, horizontalism ha s been largely ignored in the social movements literature. However, some authors have made significant contributions to the topic of horizontally-run en terprises which can be used as a foundation to study horizontal social movement organizations. Of these, Rothschild and Whitt's (1986) work titled The Cooperative Workplace has been by far the most comprehensive and important contribution towards developing a compre hensive framework for analyzing these alternative organizations. In The Cooperative Workplace, Rothschild and Whitt (1986) survey four horizontally run organizations: a food cooperative, a free school, a law firm, and a health clinic. In studying these orga nizations they draw important conclusions about the inner workings of hor izontally run organizations. Rothschild and Whitt (1986:2) define a collectivist organization as any enterprise in which control rests ultimately and ove rwhelmingly with the members-employeesowners, regardless of the particular legal framework through which this is achieved. Importantly, this definition suppor ts the idea that as in the case of the CIW, even if an 8

PAGE 14

organization is legally required to have a board of directors and president of the board on paper this does not necessarily exclude them from operating horizonta lly. Rothschild and Whitt (1986) argue that horizontally-run organi zations have been overlooked in much of the organizational analysis literature. Theref ore, in an attempt to create standards by which to judge these organizations they begin by defining their most important characteristics as the basis of authority, the type of division of labor, and the decision making procedures. This definition will serve as my guide as I investigate the CIW's own form of organization. Rothschild and Whitt (1986) also emphasi ze the importance of education and the nurturing of a democratic consciousness. To begin they believe that cooperative organizations are often misunderstood when seen through the norms and values of a bureaucratic society; norms which these organi zations often reject. Th ese include bias for large size, monetary success, financial resource s, and efficiency. Furthermore, in order for these organizations to be successful in maintaining worker control, a democratic consciousness must be present (Bernstein, 1976:99-107). Fitzgerald and Rodgers (2000) also make an important contributi on in their article Radical Social Movement Organizations: A Theoretical Model. They are the only authors I found who specifically connected horizontalism with social movements. Fitzgerald and Rodgers (2000) concur that the existing soci al movements literature is inadequate for understanding these types of organizations. Furthermore, they argue that these organizations should not be j udged by the same standards as typical social movement organizations. Although the authors do not study leadership in depth they agree that Radical Social Movement Or ganizations, as they call them, focus on developing 9

PAGE 15

grassroo ts leadership skills in all members a nd consciously reject a symbolic leader as a part of their organizational philosophy. The research on democracy in the wor kplace points to an inverse relationship between workplace size and the efficiency of democratic organization. That is, as workplace size increases the efficiency of democratic modes of operation decrease; thereby implying that horizontal models of ope ration are not feasible for large businesses. This relationship is due to the time consumi ng nature of democracy in organizations. Full participation by all members becomes burdens ome with increased size. Furthermore, other critics such as Robert Michels (1962) suggest that truly horizontal models often collapse under the pressure of bureaucratic influence as they grow. However, some important examples to the contrary of this fa lse consensus exist. So me of the best known of these are the Mondragon workers cooper atives in Spain, workers councils in Yugoslavia, and worker run recuperated enterprises in Arge ntina, as well as many other less known examples in the United States and all over the world. The significance of these organizations should not be underestimated. The Mondragon system in Spain, for example, has existed since 1956 and consists of a conglomerate of manufacturing, financial, retail, and edu cation cooperatives. Mondragon has been successful in maintaining and grow ing significantly democratic workplaces and is the 7th largest corporation in Spain (Gutierrez Johnson and Foote Whyte, 1977). Although more the exception than the rule, th ese organizations are significant economic enterprises which rival thei r capitalist cousins. 10

PAGE 16

Even though these important exam ples to the contrary exist, horizontal organizations are often written off as ineff ective and utopian. According to Rothschild and Whitt (1986 : 1), in The Cooperative Workplace : [o]rganizations with no bosses and no followers, organizations in which all members have an equal say in ru nning things, have largely escaped the notice of organizational analysts...T hough democratic organizations have long existed, detailed study of them has been displaced by the assumption that they are fragile, short-lived structur es, or that that they will eventually come under the control of a few lead ers, thus loosing their defining characteristics. This expectation has become a corner stone of twentiethcentury social science. This expectation makes the study of these or ganizations all the mo re difficult and has contributed to these organiza tions being largely ignored. Furthermore, studying these organizations becomes an uphill battle as res earchers, including myse lf, are asked to first defend and legitimize these organizations to ot hers even before th ey can begin studying them. 11

PAGE 17

ABOUT T HE COALITION OF IMMOKALEE WORKERS The Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW ) is a social justice organization based just outside of Ft. Myers, Florida in a sm all agricultural town called Immokalee. The group, comprised of mostly Latino, Haitian, and Mayan Indian farm workers, first began to organize in 1993 in response to the horrendous conditions they encountered in Florida's agricultural fields (http://ciw-onlin e.org/about.html). At inception they cited their main goals as to address low wages, violence in the work place, wage theft, and lack of respect by employees in Immokalee. However, since then they have turned their struggle into a nation wide Campaign for Fair Food. The CIW have two major successful com ponents of their campaign which make them a historic and significant social moveme nt organization. First, after being excluded as farmworkers from the National Labor Relations Actoften considered the magna carta of labor rightsand the Fair Labor Standards Act which provi de basic labor rights to all workers, the CIW has brought five corpor ate giants to the table to negotiate fair wages with the workers themselves1. Secondly, in just a little more than a decade the CIW have helped expose seven slavery rings in the Florida agricultural industry, freeing over one thousand enslaved workers over this peri od. The most recent slavery ring discovery by the CIW occurred in Decem ber of 2007. The CIW has since won worldwide recognition for their anti-slavery work. As an organization the CIW is also extremely involved locall y in the community, although they do not consider themselves a charity organization. In stead, the CIW works to raise consciousness within community of the conditions faced by farmworkers and to 1 For greater detail see Section IV of Oxfam America's Report Like Machines in the Fields: Workers without Rights in America. 12

PAGE 18

em power the workers to assert their rights. More concretely the CIW maintains a local radio station, hosts local community events and provides a meeti ng place for various groups. They also help workers recuperate wages when, all too frequently, a crew leader refuses to pay. The Campaign for Fair Food The Campaign for Fair Food is the name of the CIW's nationwide campaign to bring fairer wages to the workers who pick a nd harvest the food that eventually ends up on dinner tables in the U.S. and throughout the world. Alth ough spearheaded by the CIW, the campaign is a combined effort by nationwide allies with the largest, most organized allies being, in no particular order: the Student/Farmworker Alliance, the Fair Food Alliance, and Interfaith Action, all social movement organiza tions reaching out to diverse audiences. The campaign targets major nationa l tomato purchasers such as fast food restaurants and supermarkets who use their bulk buying power to artificially lower the piece rate paid for tomatoes. The CIW tries to work with these companies to draft agreements for better wages and working conditions for the work ers who pick their tomatoes, and in the past have used escala ting campaign tactics to put pressure on these companies in order to make the fair deci sion. Although currently focused on the tomato industry the Campaign has a broader hope for change within the entire agricultural industry in the U.S. A Brief History: Growing their Organization When juxtaposed with the current stat e of the organization, the CIW had a humble beginning. In 1993 the CIW starte d out as a small group of workers under the name the Southwest Florida Farmworker's Project. Th e group met weekly to discuss and address 13

PAGE 19

issues they saw in their community and pl aces of work. During their first year of organizing the workers formed a small food cooperative to bring affordable food into the city and managed to recoup over $100,000 of unpaid wages for workers. In 1995 the CIW organized their first strike in response to the Pacific Tomato Growers'--one of the largest growers in the region--announcement that they would lower tomato picker's hourly wage from $4.25 to $3.85. Over 3000 work ers refused to work for one week and the company was forced to concede. They instead raised the hourly wage to $5.25 per hour. In 1996 the organization gained non-profit status and changed its name from the Southwest Florida Farmworker's Project to the Coalition of Immokalee Workers. That same year a 16 year old Guatemalan worker came to the CIW after being beaten by his boss for stopping to take a drink of water. In response the CIW or ganized a 500 person march to the contractor's house. With th e boy's bloody shirt in hand, their message was simple, Golpear a uno es golpear a todos (An inju ry to one is an inju ry to all). After the march workers boycotted the contractor's company by refusing to work for them for two weeks. Because of this and other actions the CIW's influence within the community was steadily growing. In 1997, Julia Gabriel, who later became a member of the CIW, played an integral part in helping to uncover and prosecute the first slavery ring the CIW was to bust in Florida. In a federal prosecution two agricu ltural employers were charged with slavery, extortion, and illegal fi rearm possession with a 15 year prison sentence (US vs. Flores). The first of seven cases the CI W would help to uncover, this event helped catalyzed the government to start a Worker Exploitati on Task Force. Between 1997 and 2001 the CIW 14

PAGE 20

continued to grow their organization. During this tim e they began to gain strong religious, student, and citizen al lies as well as draw attent ion from both local and national government. The beginning of 2001 marked a stark cha nge in the CIW's campaign tactics and what many consider to be the beginning of their Campaign for Fair Food. In January of 2001 the CIW officially threat ened a national boycott of Taco Bell, a major buyer of tomatoes from Immokalee. By April of the same year the boycott was a reality. The CIW had made a significant shift; from focusing directly on growers in Florida, to launching a national campaign against a fast food giant. Af ter many attempts to force growers to raise wages they strategically decide d that the growers actually had little power to effect real changes in Immokalee. Instead, the companie s who purchase the tomatoes were actually the ones with the ability to change the price paid for the crops they purchased. These companies, who artificially lowered the pr ice of tomatoes they bought through bulk buying power, to a large extent dictated how much the growers could afford to pay their workers. The Taco Bell boycott lasted for 4 years. In the spring of 2005, with the help of more than 50 boycott comm unities across the U.S. and many successful student led campaigns to kick Taco Bell off college and university campuses, Taco Bell finally reached an agreement with the CIW. Yum! Bran ds Inc., the parent company of Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, Long John Silvers, A&W, and KFC, agreed to the CIW's demands for all of their companies. These demands consisted of : 1) beginning a three part dialogue between Taco Bell, it's Florida growers, and the CIW, 2) enacting an immediate one penny per pound increase in the piece rate paid for tomatoes, and 3) drafting with the CIW and 15

PAGE 21

tom ato industry representatives a wage and working conditions sta ndards to be followed by all Taco Bell restaurants and their growers (http://ciw-online.org/). Remarkably, what started out as a small group of poor, mostly immigrant farm workers, had grown into a powerful organization that had radically changed a small but significant part of the fast food and agricultural industry. Since the Taco Bell victory the CIW has continued to build their campaign. They have successfully won sim ilar deals with McDonald's, Burger King, Whole Foods and Subway. Where as it to ok a four-year national boycott to bring Taco Bell to the table as they say, the McDonald's, Burger King, W hole Foods, and Subway victories were all collectively achieved in less than four years, all without boycotts. This attests to the momentum the movement has and continues to build as it moves forw ard in its struggle. Since these victories th e CIW has left behind the world of fast food and started to focus on supermarkets and food service providers. Seemingly, the CIW does not plan to stop until they have radically transformed the en tire agricultural industry. A Unique Organizational Feature: Horizontal Leadership The CIW openly advocates their horizontal leadership style as a central part of their organization. As mentioned, they claim no president, chair, or leader of the organization, opting instead to use the phrase We are all leaders. John Bowe writes in his book Nobodies: Modern American Slave Labor and the Dark Side of the New Global Economy, that the group stresses that they ar e above antiquated notions such as hierarchy (2007:25). He quotes Lucas Benit ez, a co-founder of th e organization and a frequent spokesperson for the group, to say: I f I need a title I use co-director. But we don't have-we are members of the organiza tion (Ibid). Other nonleaders as Bowe 16

PAGE 22

calls them are elected into their positions w ithin the CIW. They work 7 days a week, often for long hours, and are paid around $300 a week; a figure that was estimated to approximate the average farm workers earn ings. Staff members ar e furthermore required to work in the fields for part of the year and menial tasks around the office are shared by all staff members (Ibid). As an organization, the CIW offici ally meets once a week on Wednesday evenings to give updates on campaigns, make d ecisions and plan future actions nationally and in the community. These meetings are open to all of the community. To be a member an individual simply must hold a membership card which costs $10. According to the CIW decisions are made on a consensus basis where all members have an equal say in what is decided. As mentioned, much of the groups work is in raising the consciousness of its members to the conditions farmworkers face They do this through a process they call popular education. Popular educa tion is a sort of crude form of education aimed at poor, undereducated, and often illiterate audiences, th at uses images, skits, and occasionally video, to provoke discussions on important and sensitive subjects (2007:32). Among many more common educational topics the CIW holds monthly leadership training classes designed to empower new members to become more involved. As a philosophical basis of the organization the CIW believe th at true, lasting change comes when you change the consciousness of the individual, so they incorporate education as an important part of their work. 17

PAGE 23

In Nobodies Bowe admits his sk epticism to the point of empowering workers especially in the context of one small town in Southwest Florida. However he later realizes, as Greg Asbed, a co-founder of the CIW points out, that Popular education is designed precisel y to encourage people to participate in group discussions and community problems... not every meeting's a perfect jewel of participation. But wh en it works, it can move people like nothing else and allow farmworkers to deal with issues they'd never even think of confronting on their ow n, including slavery (Bowe : 32). The use of popular education, and especially leadership training marks a significant divergence between the CIW and bureaucratic organizations. It show s that, even though not all members participate fully or even e qually, and further that some members who are naturally prone to lead do so, the CIW makes a concerted effort to get people involved. They give members every opportunity to rise to the top of the orga nization. This is an important distinction between the CIW and how hierarchies work. Here no invisible boundaries exist in order to rise to the top and all members are encouraged to participate. The CIW also practices a process Rothschild and Whitt (1986) call demystificationthe process by which specializ ed tasks or skills are disseminated to all members of an organization. They do this, as we will see in the next section, by building movement leaders and equipping all members with the skills to lead. Rothschild and Whitt emphasize that this sort of demys tification of expertise is an important characteristic of horizontal institutions and one that separates th em significantly from other bureaucratic institutions. The purpose of demystification, they say, is the breakdown of the division of la bor and the pretense of expe rtise, both of which create hierarchies within organizations (Rothschild and Whitt, 1986:114). In effect, demystification reinforces egal itarian, democratic control ov er the organization, just as the subdivision of labor enhances manageri al control over the workplace (Ibid). 18

PAGE 24

However, this still leaves many questi ons as to how exactly horizontal control plays out within the organization. How are re sponsibilities delegated? How is consensus reached? What takes place when members are di vided on an issue? These are the type of questions I will need to answer to decide ju st how deep horizontal principals run through this organization. Another interesting aspect of the CIW is its nonprofit status. As a nonprofit the CIW must have a Board of Directors, Presid ent of the board, Co-President, Secretary and so on. Democratically run organizations often find that bureaucratic practices are thrust upon them without consideration and that th ey have no choice but to navigate through them (Rothschild and Whitt 1986; Fitzgerald and Rodgers, 2000). Furthermore, the lack of these titled positions may deny an orga nization legitimacy when outsiders accustomed to bureaucratic customs come to expect that these positions must exist. These titles obviously note positions of some power and in fluence. In a horizontally run organization how does the CIW navigate around these bur eaucratic standards which are forced upon them? Do these positions only exist on paper? How is it decided who fills them? While the president may not have any legitimate power, could it be that the title lends him this power anyway? The fact that the CIW has a Board of Directors and a president of the board, amongst other positions that are at the least ack nowledged on paper, will be something to which I will have to pay close attention to. For example, in the case of the Board of Directors, in the usual meaning of the term a Board of Directors is understood as a committee of appointed or elec ted officials who meet to ma ke final important decisions for a particular organization. This method of decision making seems to automatically 19

PAGE 25

im ply, and often does mean that a small group of people is in char ge of or hold power over the entire organizationthe antit hesis of horizontal leadership. However, Rothschild and Whitt's (1986) study shows that this is not always true and that a Board of Directors does not necessarily prohibit horizontal leadership. Two of the four organizations they su rveyed had an official Board of Directors and still managed to operate non-hierarchically. The organiza tion which was able to navigate this imposition the best was the food cooperative Board members of the food co-op were elected for a one year term to the board by a vote of all co-op members. Although these board members were required to attend weekly board meetings and vote on important decisions, any member of the co-op who at tended a meeting was allowed a full vote there. Furthermore, when very important deci sions needed to be made, such as in one instance of capping the number of member s in the co-op, voting on the issue was postponed so that all members could be notif ied and have the chance to participate. Obviously if members were eager to usurp power a Board of Directors could easily prevent an organization from operating horizont ally. This is one example of why I claim that for an organization to tr uly function horizontally, nonhierar chical principles must run throughout the entire organization and must not be in place for profit motives. 20

PAGE 26

METHODS Data Sources Apart from data collected from the few studies that have been done on the CIW, interviews and newspapers served as my primary data sources. Because none of the studies or theses found on the CIW investigate their leadersh ip in-depth, they were only useful as sources of background information. In person interviews served as my primary source of information. In order to conduct interviews I visited Immokalee for a three day period in January of 2009. During this trip to Immokalee I conducted interviews in the morning and spent the after noons as a volunteer in the CIW's community center. I attended one weekly general member's meeti ng as a participant observer. These meetings take place every Wednesday and last for an average of one hour. The meeting that I attended lasted a litt le over an hour and was attended by approximately 60 plus members which is average attendance for the time of year. Detailed field notes were recorded during the meeting and special attention wa s paid to how the meeting was led, who spoke, perceived power dynamics, and decisi on making processes. I had also visited Immokalee on two previous occasi ons in the two years prior to my research. These visits were related to my work with the Student/F armworker Alliance which is also based in Immokalee and works side by side with the CIW. Because of th is I was able to enter my interview site with a certain level of familia rity with my interviewees. Even though I had only met a small handful of those I interviewed before, I believed this allowed me to be viewed as an ally to the orga nization rather than solely a researcher. As this population is generally apprehensive of welcoming outside rs into their community and organization, 21

PAGE 27

my previou s experience with the CIW a llowed for a certain level of comfort and openness in the interview process. News sources were used as a secondary source of information on the CIW. Whereas little information exists in the acad emic literature on th e CIW an abundance of news articles are availabl e on the group. From these arti cles, past interviews and background research was used to confirm data and dates on past events. An effort was made to use only the most reputable news sources and data was crossed checked with numerous news sources whenever possible. All interviews were conduc ted in the interviewee's native language and lasted between 45 minutes and an hour. Although sensitiv e issues such as immigration status were avoided entirely, interviewees were given the opportunity to remain anonymous throughout the interview process and consent was taken orally. All participants are identified by pseudonyms. A key matching participants with their pseudonyms was kept during the interview process to allow for fo llow-up questions and was later destroyed at the completion of the research process. Interv iews were tape recorded to avoid any major errors while translating and were later tr anscribed, translated, and stored in NVIVO. After the conclusion of the analysis process all interview data was moved to a personal computer and stored under password. Participants were approached for interviews based on their position on staff. All participants had been CIW members for a minimum of six months and spoke either English or Spanish fluently. No staff me mbers were excluded based on time in the organization however one Haitian staff member was not interviewed due to the language barrier. 22

PAGE 28

Analysis Strategy I f ramed the analysis of my data using the work of Rothschild and Whitt. Their comprehensive work, The Cooperative Workplace, is the most acknowledged study on how alternative organizations function. In it, Rothschild and Whitt argue that three main aspects differentiate horizontal organizations from bureaucratic organizations. First, authority in bureaucratic organi zations is largely based on position or title and a hierarchy of command. I can expect such a power structure to be opposed in horizontal organizations. Instead, authority is based on commitment and experience. Furthermore, no one persons opinion is more important th an another. Therefore, authority in horizontal organizations is based in the gr oup as a whole rather than individuals. Second, in bureaucratic organizations the decision making process is usually based along a chain of comma nd. Horizontal organizations use a more consensus based decision process. Here, decisions are legitimiz ed only when all who are affected by those decision have a chance to participat e in the decision making process. Finally, the there is less division of la bor in horizontal or ganizations. Members share or rotate responsibilities. Members share even the most menial of jobs rather than delegating the most menial jobs to the botto m of the pay scale. While each organization can have different variations of these thr ee features, the genera l pattern described by Rothschild and Whitt for alternative organizations is assumed. I will examine Rothschild and Whitts th ree aspects to determine if horizontal leadership functions in an expected manner in the Coalition of Immokalee Workers. Data was analyzed in a three part process using both thematic and relati onal coding in a crosscase analysis of leadership as conceptuali zed by Rothschild and Whitt. To begin, I first 23

PAGE 29

looked for data related to the th ree themes laid out by Rothschild and Whitt. I read through each interview one by one to identify relevant text and grouped the relevant information by theme as I went along. As I did this process I made notes on possible relational themes that had developed during the interviews. These were issues that participants seemed to stress as highly impor tant or recurring themes that developed organically in many of the interviews. Sec ond, I considered the in formation grouped into thematic codes from a critical perspective and analyzed where it met the standards developed by Rothschild and Whitt and where it did not. My last analysis step was to choose wh ich relational themes to include in my study. Interviews with CIW staff produced an abundance of data and many new themes developed during the process. These themes were given special consideration since the participants in my study are those with expe rt knowledge on the subject. I chose which themes to include based on which themes my participants seemed to give the most importance and by selecting those which we re most frequently brought up during interviews. Once I had decided on which themes to include I went back through my notes and interview transcripts and grouped the rele vant parts of the in terviews into these themes. Lastly I analyzed these themes as before by looking to how they informed the themes developed by Rothschild and Whitt. Limitations While methods used in this study were carefully planned, ther e were nonetheless some set backs to the research design that have become evident throughout the research process. First, due to constraints of time and distance I was not able to conduct follow-up interviews with any of my interviewees. Secondly observa tion of the organization was 24

PAGE 30

only able to take pla ce over this three day period that I was in Imm okalee and at one other event sponsored by the CIW in Tallahassee. This was perhaps the largest handicap of this study especially since division of labor in particular is somewhat difficult to judge through interviews. A longer stay at the CI W office in Immokalee would have likely provided more insight into actu al division of labor practi ces in the organization. While neither of these factors necessa rily prohibited the study, they would be important to take into account in further research. Description of Participants During my trip to Immokalee I was ab le to conduct a total of 9 interviews. Interviews were only conducted with staff members of the orga nization. All other members of the organization were excluded fr om the study. Of the total staff there are three women and eight men. Two of the women are of Latin American descent and one is of Anglo American descent. Of the men there was one man of Haitian decent, one Anglo American and the rest were of Latin Americ an heritage. The average age of the staff which I interviewed was 30 years old. The average length of membership in the organization differed greatly w ith the shortest being a littl e over a year and the longest being 12 years (since the founding of the organi zation). The average length of time in the organization among all interviewees was a li ttle more than five and a half years. The CIW employed a total of 11 staff memb ers all of whom worked full time in the CIW's community center. Staff members serv ed an indefinite term and were chosen by the current staff. All of the staff that I interviewed reported working as a farmworker prior to being elected to their staff position w ith the exception of the Anglo ally. All staff 25

PAGE 31

were required to spend the summer working in the fields alongside the other CI W members. The average education level of my populat ion was very low. While I attempted to gauge the exact education levels of my participants, interviewees were reluctant to answer this question. After two interviewees declined to answer the question with much uncomfort, I decided to exclude it from the list of questions so as not to alienate or make uncomfortable any of my other interview ees. Generally the population of the CIW is estimated to have less then a high school educ ation with many having left school to begin farm work under the age of ten. Moving Forward In the next section I will analyze my data us ing the three themes (i.e. basis of authority, division of labor, deci sion making procedures) as th ey relate to my research questions. Following this section I will discus s these themes at further length in my discussion section. Finally, I will summarize th e findings of this study and present areas for future research in the final section of this study. 26

PAGE 32

RESULTS The following section highlights the themes resulting from my interviews with the staff of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers. I analyzed the interviews to asses how horizontal leadership was implemented within the organization. As stated earlier this was done through the analysis of three themes: basis of authority, division of labor, and decision making procedures. From that analysis further themes arose which are included here. In the following sections these findi ngs will be discussed in more detail Organizational Structure After conducting interviews I obtained a much clearer sense of the different groups that make up the CIW. My analysis de termined that the CIW has four operational participatory bodies: members, the Central Comm ittee, Staff, and the Board of Directors. Some of these bodies, such as the Cent ral Committee and Board of Directors had previously been obscure to me. Therefore here I will first elaborate on these bodies and their roles in the organization. These findings on the groupings with in this horizontal leadership organization will also inform later analyses. Members. Members refers to the general members of the CIW. This is a broad term because it may include everyone from someone who came to a meeting twice and took out a membership card but never came bac k, to someone who participates regularly, to the staff who are technically considered members of the organization. In all there are approximately 4000 people who hold membership cards with the CIW. However, of these only a tiny percent are active within the orga nization. Therefore, when a staff member referred to members in interviews, it was almost always in reference to those members who actively participated. Active participa tion was consider to be, at a minimum, 27

PAGE 33

attend ance at the weekly meetings on Wedne sdays when possible. When I use the term members in the analysis that follows I will be using the later definition: referring to the between 50-100 members who regularly attend th e Wednesday meetings. However, it is worth noting that the CIW staff themselv es made no strong differentiation between members and the community. All of the comm unity, agricultural workers or not, are consider a part of the CIW. Therefore a pe rson who has never attended and does not hold a membership card could come to a meeting a nd still participate. So, although I use the word members to refer to the more active members it is not meant to be exclusionary. Central Committee. The Central Committee consists of the most active members in the CIW. This committee meets once a month apart from the weekly Wednesday meetings and serves as a sort of steer ing committee for the staff members. These members hear report-backs from the CIW on current events, projects, and campaigns and give feedback. They are also an important part in the pl anning process and help with campaign development. Above and beyond this they assist with community events and campaigns. They are available for staff to call on when help is needed. There are no formal rules for being on the committee although the staff has higher expectations of these members than others. However, following the ideology of the organization, these members are expected to participate based on their own motivation and desire to do so. Members of the Central Committee are sel ected by the staff and invited to join based on their prior participation as member s. Staff held that the Central Committee, although by invitation, is open to everyone because anyone can join who shows by their participation that they have the time and desire to be more involved in organization. 28

PAGE 34

Staff. Staff m embers are employees of the CIW who worked full time developing the CIW's campaigns and various community projects. These members work daily in the office and community and play a large role in developing future campaign strategies and deciding future directions for the organization. Important in understanding the staff is that, according to interviewees, they were al l paid equivalent wages no matter their time in the organization or responsibil ities. Staff were selected as needed by the current staff out of the most active members. The process is informal as older staff members simply invite new members to join after the curre nt staff decides to take on a new member. Board of Directors The Board of Directors was formed as part of a requirement of being a 501c3 non-profit organization. Sin ce having a governing board is conflicting with the philosophy of the organi zation the CIW was forced to compromise in the interest of gaining non-profit status and all of the bene fits that come with it. To solve this conflict they took a pragmatic approach. The or ganization decided that it would be principled first but also meet those requirements as neces sary (Kelly); it would, and did, define its base philosophy first, making clear how the organization would operate, however, if it were necessary to have a president or vice president on paper to gain important privileges, then it would do so. Some defini ng characteristics for example are that, with the exception of two brand new positions which have been added to include ally organizations on the board, all board member s come from within the community and work as staff. Also, although positions like president or secretary exist on paper, these positions have no formal power within the organization. Decisions regarding the campaign do get pa ssed through the board but as one staff member point out, since nearly everyone on the board is already a staff member, the 29

PAGE 35

board m embers have for the most part been involved in the enti re decision making process. Whereas the Central Committee fulfills the task of overseeing the work of the staff, the Board of Directors makes sure that final decisions go al ong with the mission of the organization. Basis of Authority Perhaps more than anything else, the characteristic that differentiates the horizontal organization from the bureaucratic one is the basis of authority. Horizontallyrun organizations leave behind the bureaucr atic chain of command. There is no one person or small group of people who can make decisions for all. In stead, decisions are only given authority when they are made w ith the participation of the whole group and when all members are granted full and equal pa rticipation in the decision making process. All important issues must be discussed until a form of consensus is reached. For this reason no vote or majority opinion can premat urely end a discussion; issues are fleshed out until a group consensus is reached. Equality. The one theme relating to basis of authority which was consistent through each of the interviews was the princi ple of equality. This theme was displayed through various combinations of phrases, from the common, Were all leaders, to the claim that all opinions are important. The sen timent in each was the same, that within the CIW, no one person is worth more than another. This idea came up at many different point s in the interviews and no one question in particular caused it to surface. One in teresting way in which many members brought up this theme was in relation to time in th e organization. In this regard both Pablo and Miguel stated that no matter a members tim e in the organization their opinions and 30

PAGE 36

participa tion were as important as those of anyone else. Speaking on how the CIWs organizing model is different then that of other organiza tions Pablo touches on this point: [T]he difference in the Coalition is that were all workers and here theres not a person who is wort h more than anotherHere we work together and we respect ev eryones ideasNo one is more than anyone else. Instead, if someone has an idea they share it and the others consider it to see if its g ood or not, but its considered. So were almost a littleNo one is more than anyone else!! One important theme that Pablo employs here is the common identity that is shared by everyone in the CIW, that of being agri cultural workers. As Rothschild and Whitt (1986:54) point out homogeneity, or at least a common frame, is an important factor for a horizontal, consensus based organization. They argue that if a certain level of homogeneity were lacking, at the least in the form of a clear, common goal, then consensus based decision making w ould be rendered impossible. Another way in which egalitarian pr inciples were show n was through staff salaries. Again, speaking about the difference between the CIW and other organizations Miguel states In some parts the decisions are always correct, but here, if a staff member is here 10 years and another is only he re a week theyre going to earn the same amount and they have to do the same things. Staff salaries in the CIW are set to mimic what the average agricultural worker would make in Immokalee in a year. This is a clear case where the structure of the organization is made to reflect the organizations ideology. The theme of time in the organization was also brought up by Pablo in a completely unrelated part of his interview. He says, 31

PAGE 37

Well, we s ay were all leaders because, like I mentioned, we take everyones ideas. No one, well, for ex ample, maybe you just entered with a position on staff but your opinions are equal to anyone elses. Interestingly, the two quotes above come fr om members with very different amounts of time in the organization. Miguel having been a part of the CIW since nearly the beginning, for over ten years, and the other onl y having a little over three years on staff. This sentiment was echoed equally as strong by Lissi, one of the newest staff members with only three months in the organization: We value everyone, were all worth the same, one that has less time here as one thats been here for longer. Having been strongly echoed and also accepted by members at varying amounts of time in the organization, we can presume that the idea of equal status is actually executed within the organizati on and does not only ex ist as rhetoric. It makes sense to reason that we would not see the level of co mmitment and attachment to this idea if members believed that it were not true. Whether simply rhetoric or not, the propa gation of this idea clearly differentiates the CIW from other social movement orga nizations (SMO). In any bureaucratic institution authority is gran ted based on the very idea that some members are more capable, more intelligent, and more know ledgeable than others. Furthermore, bureaucracies often prize specialized knowledge and skill sets which make individuals indispensable to the organization. Many SMOs ar e no different in that leaders or leading figures within the organization often posse ss a disproportionate amount of knowledge, resources, and contacts which are essentia l to the continuation and the life of the movement. CIW members on the other hand seem ed to have a clear sense that no one member is indispensable to their organization. 32

PAGE 38

Demystifica tion. This general consciousness that no one is more than anyone else is not something that occurs completely naturally in the organization, but rather is something that is achieved and constantly worked for to maintain. Rothschild and Whitt (1986: 114) call this process where knowledge and skills are transmitted through members of the organization, demystificati on. They assert that it is a common and frequent aspect of non-bureaucr atic organizations. As Rothschild and Whitt (1986: 114) point out, This word perhaps more than any other distinguishes the ethos of collectivist organizations from that of bureaucratic organizationsIn its essence, demystification is th e opposite of specialization and professionalism. Where experts and prof essionals seek licenses to hoard or at least get paid for their knowledge, collectivists would give it away. Central to their purpose is the brea kdown of the division of labor and pretense of expertise. In effect, de mystification reinforces egalitarian, democratic control over the organizati on, just as the subdivision of labor enhances managerial control over the workplace. In the case of the CIW demystification is pr acticed in various wa ys, most obviously in that all members, new and old, pa rticipate in the same activities as the oldest members. In this way new members learn as they go to be able to do the same tasks as member who have been there for perhaps ten years. One clear exampl e of this would be with cobros or debt collections from farm owners or shif t bosses who refuse to pay workers. When a worker comes in with a complaint any staff member who is around can help them. However, as one staff member poi nts out, if the debt collection is particularly difficult or the staff doesnt know what to do in the situation they then sit down with an older member and go through it with them, but no one person has that task or responsibility. It is something that any staff person can do. 33

PAGE 39

Furthermore, demystification is an im portant part of the CIWs organizing philosophy and something that makes them stand out from other social movement organizations. As Ella Baker, a prominent ci vil rights leader, often pointed out, having one leader is a detriment to a social movement because in time, that one person begins to become the movement and the movement ceases to be a movement of the people (Charles, 2007). As well as this critique the CIW add the concept of sustainability. Lus, a founding member of the CIW points out that if one member is the leader, if one member does the networking for the organi zation or learns the skills it takes to lead a movement then if that person dies or leaves ,the movement leaves with them. Authority and time in the organization. Returning to the concept of time in the organization, we can see throughout the in terviews that on so me level authority is vested in members based on their length of time in the organization, however, only in the sense that those with more time in the organiza tion also had more e xperience and understood the CIW and its history more fully. Newer members seemed especially ready to use time in the organization as an explanation for why some members were seen more often in the press than others. A ccording to Jorge, Its just that here, there are some compaeros that have more experience, more time in the CIW, so they know a little more of the history, but they share with us and we try to understand whats happe ning [and] whats happened, but the leadership is the whole community. So here, even though Jorge admits to disp arities in knowledge and experience in the organization he denies that th is one person is any more of a leader than anyone else. Interestingly, this same admission was made by many of the same members who made statements about time in the organizations not being important. At one point Lorgio contributes that in the case of speaki ng to the press and making negotiations, 34

PAGE 40

[P]eople have to understand that there ar e a lot of people that have been in the organization for m any years and we understand a little more about certain things. Not everything. No on e can understand everything. But we understand certain things that need to be brought clearly to a negotiation. So when someone is negotiating, the person has to know what to say and how, and you have to prepare your messa ge well, because the future of the community is in danger. Its not about you. So it is that when referring to time in the or ganization members are actually referring to other member's compiled experiences, part icipation, knowledge, and to some degree natural talent, rather than arbitrary power and authority. Furthermore members make it clear that this does not translate into more power for the individual. Rothschild and Whitt (1986) point out that some interpersonal power is always unavoidable based on a persons natural charisma, talent, and wit, wh ich I believe interviewees are getting at here. Some members may be more apt to speak in front of groups of people or argue with CEOs of corporations but they are still equals with their peers and each member is given the opportunity and encouraged to do the sa me. Nonetheless it is natural that these responsibilities will continually fall on th e shoulders of those who feel capable of interacting in such settings. Outside Influence. Members make it clear that this does not translate into more power for the individual but rath er that this situation arises out of necessity to achieve common goals set forth by the organizati on. Often this necessity comes from bureaucratic practices which are thrust onto th e CIW from outsiders. In the case of the media for example Miguel points out that it is a little difficult for the press to under stand [the way they organize]. So if you change every second the face of the person giving the message, each person giving their own commentary, it doesn't seem very official. To seem official we say, 'you're going to be the spokesperson, you're going to do it all the time. 35

PAGE 41

In another example Lorgio points out that of ten, when a corporation is a target of their campaign, the corporation will respond and they have to identify who it is that is putt ing those messages out the most, mobilizing the people and all that. So sometime the same corporation comments about the person and they begin to identify those people as their opponents and when th ey arrive at an agreement it's important to send a powerful message to other corporations; that the person that is closing an agreement is the same person that was involved in a way before in the debate. This has more impact for others, for other corporations. For us, really, it's the sa me if one person does it or another. So we can see that in order to be successful the CIW concedes on some levels to practices that may in some ways go against their principles. Equal participation in decision making. Another important theme that came across in the interviews is that authority was given to decisions usually only if all members have equal opportunity to particip ate in the decision-making process. While decision-making processes will be covered more extensively in a following section here it is important to note that onl y decisions made with the possi bility for all to give input were lasting and legitimate. Emphasis was part icularly put on the co mmunity being a part of these decisions, especially those regard ing the campaign. Here we can find evidence that the staff do not see themselves as individu als in a position of authority for, even if they should have a major part in imagining and proposing future actions for the campaign, the community has to agree with any final decision. For example, Jorge states that even as a staff member, I can't say to the people, 'This is what we're going to do', if the people don't want to do it, so we have to alwa ys be in agreemen t. This idea and the process in which decisions are made will be expanded upon shortly. 36

PAGE 42

The same sort of process is implemented to give staff authority within the organization. When staff have to represen t the organization, for example in a press conference or a presentation it is important that the individual speaking is representing the organization and not themselves. In relation to this Pablo stated: Well, that's why we all have to have the same idea. For example, which ever one of us could go to a place [to present]...but we all have to have the idea that we have here. He has to say the same thing we decided here [in Immokalee]. So we see that the CIW has developed a process whereby they collectively decided before hand exactly what message a particular representative will deliver, thereby assuring that this person truly represents the organization. Two things are evident here. First that power is vested to an individual only by and as far as they deliver a message that represents the entire organization and the wishes put forth by members. Secondly, that while one or two members may play the role of spokesperson for the organization a somewhat formal process takes place where it is made sure that everyone's voices are heard. Consciousness. Lastly, among the interviewees there was a clear consciousness that no one was in a position to give orders within the organization. Rather, in the place of someone who would direct or serve as a boss the CIW emphasized each member's personal will or desire to be a part of the organization. Lissi perhaps put it most clearly when she said that, [H]ere you don't have an obligation so you don' t have anyone that can make you be here, no. It's your own choice. If you don't want to co me, as a member of the Coalition you're responsible, you're going to decide for yourself 'I want to go, I want to attend.' You'll make the responsibility for yourself. 37

PAGE 43

Decision Making Procedures Informal p athways. Probably the most fundamenta l aspect of a horizontal organization is that power and authority must be invested in the group as a whole. Thus the decision making-processes must reflect this structure. Furthermore, as is expected in non-bureaucratic organizations, there is no fo rmalized decision making process. Rather there is often an unspoken system or pathwa y for making decisions that exists and is passed through the consciousness of the member s. This informal pathway can often be confusing or ambiguous to outsiders, especially when socialized to expect bureaucratic relationships. Likewise, the d ecision making process within the CIW is complex simply because it lacks formality. To provide a contrast we may look at an idyllic situation in a bureaucracy where efficiency and formal rules are highly value d. In bureaucratic, hierar chical organizations there exists a clear pathway for how decisions are made. This pathway is usually legitimized through official documents or ru les and often formalized by being put into writing. More importantly, there is a clea r understanding of which person in the organization has the power and authority to make the decision in question. Decision making process and legitimization. In the CIW there are various levels on which decisions are made. There are decisions which only affect staff and therefore are made with only the input of staff member s and there are also decisions which, as per the ethos of the organization, require the input of the whole community. Within each decision making stage, however, there are two main aspects which merit further attention: who participates in the decisions and how they are made or given legitimacy. As stated above, decisions that only con cern staff are made within the small inner circle of staff members. These are decisi ons which have little or no effect on the 38

PAGE 44

community such as de legating daily or weekly tasks or deciding who will travel to give a presentation. No formal decision-making pr ocess exists for making even the most mundane of decisions such as who will clean the office. Instead, it seems that for all decisions made within the organization, the fi rst step is coming toge ther to discuss the issue or idea. In his interview Miguel expre ssed the general pattern that seemed to arise throughout the interviews: [T]he way that we make decisions is that the personnel have to get together, and if its a big decision we all have to be there and put the topic on th e table, and if its a problem we have to decide what our response will be. To decide daily decisions a similar process was used: We organize meetings. We organize m eetings to say, We have this thing that we need to get done today. We ge t together and talk about who wants to do which thing. We divide the task s and each person grabs what they want to do, so no one tells you what you have to do because theres no boss. [Lissi] Personal responsibilities of members. Throughout the interv iew participants emphasized the individuals pe rsonal will or motivation to be part of the organization. This also came through in the decision maki ng process. Whereas decisions were made communally and no boss existed to force a task or responsibility onto a person, staff expected members to step up and volunteer for work. Speaking of how menial tasks or responsibilities are allo cated Jorge explains: For example, on Mondays we have our meeting where we have our whole schedule and everything were going to do for the week. Sometimes a lot of people are busy with other thingsso we ask who wants to do the task. Its a way that we ask and also, if someone wants to do it they can do it and if not we have to name someone to do it. The staff expects a certain amount of volunteerism from other staff to pick up responsibilities for the week. From an outsiders perspective one might ask how this 39

PAGE 45

could possibly work. Why would people volunt ar ily make more work for themselves, especially when much of it might be meni al labor? I believe the consideration of few factors may help to answer this doubt. First, in another organization this labor would be delegated to them rather than chosen in th e first place. Second, we must not overlook the pressure that can be created by working in a team where each member feels the responsibility to pull th eir own weight. Due to this pressure it is us ually not necessary for it to get to a point where someone has to be delegated a task. Instead someone will eventually step up for the job. Last, it is important to keep in mind that the organization in question is a social movement organizati on. Hence, members of this organization share a common goal and are not simply working for money. Rather they are personally motivated to participate. Due to this nature it is unlikely for a situat ion to arise in which work had to be delegated to an indi vidual completely against her will. Decision making process, continued. On the other hand, decisions which could possibly affect the whole community, such as future campaign actions, have to be decided with everyones input. This is a mu ch more complicated process which is not reached by any particular pathway. Instead, if an important decision has to be made then it has to, in one way or another, be passed through all four b odies of the organization: the staff, the Central Committee, the general me mbers, and the Board of Directors. For example, if the staff comes up with an idea for a future campaign action then they would, upon collectively deciding that it was a good idea, propose the idea to the Central Committee and general assembly. It is not cl ear if the Central Committee always heard the idea first or if sometimes the idea was ju st proposed straight to the general assembly since it can be assumed that Central Committ ee members would be in attendance. There, 40

PAGE 46

the decision would be discusse d un til a final agreement was made as to whether to go through with the idea or not. Then, technicall y, the decision would be passed through the Board of Directors, although as stated earl ier board members are part of staff and therefore already had a hand in th e decisions as they developed. The entirety of this process was made to seem quite informal and involves a lot of discussion. Key themes employed for staff deci sions were also pres ent for decisions on which everyone needed to agree, namely th at everyone be present and decide together, and that all opinions to be h eard and considered. Obviously it is not expected that every person in the community participate in these decisions but, importantly, each person has an opportunity to participate. As one member put it, there is a defin ite ebb and flow of ideas between staff, Central Committee members, and community members. However, as expected most ideas tend to come from the staff or Cent ral Committee--those who are putting the most thought and time into the campaign. For example, Miguel, one of the oldest members and one who was around during the development of the Campaign for Fair Food recounted how the decision was made to Boycott Taco Bell: Interviewer: To use Taco Bell as an example, how did you all arrive at the decision to boycott Taco Bell? Miguel: Long. Well, the campaign resu lted from a meeting with the most active members, analyzing, after the strikes were over. They asked, Now what are we going to do. And someone said, Why dont we make a campaign against those buying the tomatoes? To say that the companies that we work for are companies that dont [operate] with the basic rights that workers should receive. From there the idea arose and the campaign developed. It was from a member. Interviewer: From a member of the community? Miguel: Yeah, a member of the community, a member from here. 41

PAGE 47

Interviewer: And then did they offer the idea to the other m embers? Miguel: Well, after developing the id ea. The way the idea came about was because it was a brainstorm between everyone. We all gave good ideas, ideas that werent feasible but, it wa s already developed and we proposed it to the community of course. What ever decision, befo re going to the public, we have to communicate here with the community. Other members confirmed that this was th e general method to make major decisions within the organization: first the idea was suggested in which ever of the many forums, developed, and then later proposed again for all members approval. No formal process existed for coming to consensus either. Gene rally, voting was not used by the CIW. More than anything, what we do is ta ke a moment where we all consider the possibilities. More then anything we come to an agreement between everyone. What do we have to do? But it has to come from ourselves. We have to discuss first, this part, that part, and af ter we leave it alone. Its not a way of voting but its a way to decide always. For everyone to be in agreement for what we want to do. [Pablo] As illustrated above, ideas or issues we re discussed until everyone more or less understood and was satisfied with the decision on the idea or issue. Although there is a high amount of homogeneity within the CIW there have been and always will be occasions when not all members are in agreement and this informal consensus process cannot function properl y. In these cases members stressed the importance of keeping in mind the path in front of them and moving forward towards their common goals. Speaking on the subject Pablo added, Yeah of course therell be the pers on who thinks differently but we have to make that person understand that there are things we all have to do together. So we try first idea by idea, This is fine, thats fine, but than theres this. So we all have to be on the same page. Even though one person might have a different opinion, we take that into account to and then we see what it is we have to do to arrive at a decision even if theres a person thats in disagreement. We have toso Im not saying that everyone, there are things that happen, but we have the discussions and 42

PAGE 48

well, we have to concentrate on what we need to do. W e see that we have to keep moving forward, because we can t start to argue for one person that disagrees. So, while each individual's opinion is considered, staff emphasized that what is most important is the collective decision of the group and to keep moving forward. Discrepancies in the decision making process On a couple of occasions staff admitted that they broke from their ethos of including all in the decisions and made decisions without full consensus. However, when this happened it was generally over minor decisions and always because the deci sion was either obvious or needed to be made quickly, or both. For example, in recounting the McDonalds campaign Miguel tells of how many decisions had to be made quickly and without everyones input. For example, when McDonalds decided to sign an agreement with the CIW it was only days before a major national action was to occu r. The many hours of plans that go into planning a national action had al ready been put together leav ing everything to be changed at the last minute. One decision that had to be made was not to use the 4000 T-shirts with Boycott McDonalds printed on them. We had to make the decision that we werent going to use the shirt and it wasnt necessary to make the deci sion between everyone because there were only two days left. And, between using the T-shirt and making the agreement, its better not to use the shirtIt was fast and there few people understand because, to work in a team is great but also when there are decisions that you have to make in the instance you have to use your power of decision.Everything with the proposition to not mess up the agreement. Whether this last statement regarding power of decision is reflective of other members in the organization or not is not clear. Of course, one large way that social movement organizations differ from other organizations is just this: that they come up against decisions which are imperative to their campaign that often need to be made quickly, 43

PAGE 49

thereby making it momentarily hard to mainta in core philosophies. Furthermore, we must acknowledge that this will especially be the case when there are bureaucratic pressures working against an organization. Although the decision above is a minor one, the concern over the fact that not everyone could be invol ved is telling. The staff member is aware that this breaks from the philosophy of the organization but also justifies the action by pointing out that it was in everyones best interest. Division of Labor The division of labor in a horizontal institution is an essential area of critique in analyzing whether or not the organization follo ws a true horizontal model. In horizontal organizations labor, including the most menial tasks, is usually di stributed equally among all members. As part of an organizing philosophy no one person, no matter what their role in the organization, is above tasks such as sweeping the floors or cleaning the bathrooms. Additionally, no one person can forc e a task or responsibility on another. Of the three main themes taken from Rothschild and Whitt (1986), division of labor was the most difficult to observe and analyze. It was n early impossible to ascertain division of labor practices solely through interviews. I found that any questions I had developed to determine this division of labor only addressed the theme on a superficial level. Rather, I found through th e interview process that division of labor is something that would need to be observed over a period of time in order to gain a complete sense of how labor is divided in the organization. One of the specific questions that I asked my participants in order to understand division of labor in the organization was wh ether or not different positions or titles existed within the staff. All participants an swer that no different positions existed and 44

PAGE 50

most common response was that all staff m embers had equal responsibilities which they shared amongst themselves. We all share in the same responsibilitie s. No one is the boss; no one is the leader of the coalition. So we al l work together and have the same responsibilities and we all participate in creating one concept, and we all communicate and decide ideas. And if someone wants to do something its always with everyone el ses support. [Lissi] As stated above there was a clear consciousness among staff that there was no boss or leader who could give orders. Therefore, just as before the staff also emphasized a high level of personal responsibility. Teamwork. Also common was the emphasis on teamwork. Whereas in other bureaucratic SMOs we may expect to find a hi ghly specialized division of labor, the CIW did not see different staff me mbers as having individual responsibilities or positions, but rather that all staff worked together as a team. As the interviews have shown, all work done in the CIW begins by the staff getting t ogether as a group and deciding collectively what needs to be done. Job type. I did find that there existed some division of labor within the CIW based on job type. One member put it like this: Here, the Coalition is formed by worker s and staff that are laborers. There are only a few that work administeri ng things that were not going to do. But in general the organization is formed and directed by [farm]workers. Theres no president. There also aren t different salaries between one person and another. We see that some labor was divided based on the technical nature of the work. For the most part it seemed that the work that th ese two employees did were things that other members of the CIW simply couldnt do based on the nature of the work. For example, Lus points out that when the CIW is working towards agreements with corporations or other groups they often first talk to David, one of the two Anglo Amer ican allies. This is, 45

PAGE 51

accord ing to Lus, simply because of the language barrier. These two staff members also worked doing so called administrative work, which seemed to mean specialized tasks that staff couldnt do either because of a la nguage barrier or for lack of specialized knowledge or skill as most had less than a high school education. These tasks might be things like filing paperwor k, applying for grants, or crunching numbers. However, it seemed very clear that these staff worked for the CIW, or, at least that they were responsible to the CIW as a whole. That is, for example, although th ese staff did specific work they did not have the power to make decisions with out the backing of the organization. It is interesting however that these positio ns were so differentiated in the first place. As Rothschild and Whitt (1986:114) point out, demystification is a core principle of many collectives. The law office that they studied for example took great pains to rotate menial tasks but also made attempts to diffuse knowledge and expertise to those who were less experienced or new to the profession. Here I did not witness, the latter part of this ideal. While menial tasks were shared I did not witness or hear of attempts to diffuse specialized skills. However, whether or not this occurred I could not say for sure as three days is hardly enough time to find a definitive answer. 46

PAGE 52

DISCUSSION This study found that while the Coaliti on of Immokalee Workers have been successful in employing and practicing a horizon tal organizational model it has been with important concessions to bureaucratic practices These allowances were necessary for the success of their social movement in achievi ng its external goals. The success of the CIWs model as a whole is evidenced by the achievement of their movement goals over the last 15 years, as well as by their succes s in maintenance of horizontal principles throughout the various layers of their or ganization. This study not only analyzes a particular model set forth by the CIW but also provides significant insights into the particulars of how horizontalism might be ex ecuted in a social movement organization (SMO) rather than a business model where the majority of the current research exists. Since legislation protecting the rights of farmworkers in the same way rights of other workers are protected does not exist, th e CIW has created an alternative path for creating the necessary change needed in the agricultural indus try. Very much the renegades within the worker's rights movement, the CIW have created a campaign which focuses on the corporations that hold power within the market rather than lobbying for legislation over these corporations. The CIW' s past successes using this radical tactic testify to the fact that their organizi ng model has not hindered them from making significant accomplishments. Internal Organization In the beginning of this study I set out to determine whether or not the CIW truly followed horizontal principles. By doing so I hoped to determine whether or not their case provided an example of a successful social movement organization employing 47

PAGE 53

horizontalism. In order to do so I analyzed the three m ajor components of their organization which are the most fundamental to making a horizontal organization. These three areas of analysis, basis of authority division of labor, and decision making procedures, allow us a perspective from wh ich we can analyze the totality of the organizational model employed by the CIW and the degree to which hor izontal principles function in practicebeyond rhetoric. Internal organization an d basis of authority. The particular model put forth by the CIW is in many ways unique to their or ganization. One unique aspect of the CIW's organization is their four-tiered system of participation. Within the CIW there are four areas which allow for different levels of involvement: the ge neral member's assembly, the Central Committee, the staff, and the Board of Directors. These groups are fluid and nonexclusionary, meaning an individual might par ticipate in more than one group. What is interesting about these groups is that they are hierarchi cal in some aspects while still basing authority in the collective. That is, we see throughout the in terviews that these different groups are divided along levels of participation and commitment. The Board of Directors is a bit of an anomaly in that, although members to the board are chosen by commitment to the organization, it is the onl y body of the organization which is imposed by outside forces rather than created by the organization its elf. Through the interviews, and as suggested by Rothschild and Whitt, we see that members are given some degree of authority, at least on a private or personal le vel, based on their commitment and time in the organization. It is not a far jump to a ssume that these different groups within the organization do have varying amounts of authority, although it may not be recognized. However, although there may exist this official ly unrecognized division of authority it 48

PAGE 54

does not necessarily m ean that the organizat ion does not stil l hold to the fundam ental principle of horizontalism: that authority is i nvested in the collective as a whole, not in the individual or groups within the organization. Here we find one of the CIW's most applause worthy successes in that, although some groups in the organization do arguably have more unrecognized authority they are neverthe less responsible in their decisions to the collective group. In other words, legitimate authorit y and the power of final decision are still in the hands of the organization as a whole, no matter the individual's personal involvement. I would suggest that these different le vels of involvement are a necessity particularly unique to social movement orga nizations using horizonta l models. It is well recognized in the literature (Benello and Roussopoulo 1971; Rothschild and Whitt 1986) that size is a significant barri er to horizontal organizations and it is well agreed upon that this type of democracy can only function w ith small numbers of people. Hence we see that the average coopera tive is much smaller than comparable organizations which leads to the common critique that small size is one of the most significant prohibitions to large scale replacement of bureaucratic institutions by cooperatives. If a SMO is to represent its constituency, which is usually large and often even larger than the CIW's which, is around 4000 members, it seems that it will be necessary to divide the organization in some way. Here the CIW seems to have found it necessary to separate the more active and interested members from those who are less involved. However, as noted above, no matter the involvement or intere st level of a member the or ganization is still accountable to its constituency as a whole. 49

PAGE 55

Decision making procedures Decision m aking procedures also differed slightly due to this four tiered system. Whereas othe r horizontally-run orga nizations are normally small enough and cohesive enough to have a single process where all group members meet to make decisions between all, the larg e size and nature of the membership in the CIW prohibited this type of process. Instead ideas flowed through different layers of the organization, usually from staff or the Cent ral Committee to the general membership, and were discussed and approved or denied as they passed through each of these layers. One important consideration here is that the base membership of the CIW changes significantly from growing seas on to growing season as memb ers migrate to other parts of the country to work, or to return home to their native countries. Because of this the CIW often finds itself with a large percenta ge of new members each year with varying levels of knowledge pertaining to the work th at the CIW does. This might be one of the reasons why the CIW found it useful to divide the organization into general members, more active members, and staff. Even though there exists these different layers where decisions may be made the organization still re tains horizontal principles in their decision making process in that staff and the Central Committee ca nnot make decisions without the approval and consensus of the general membership. Although it is possible for the staff and Board of Directors to veto positions it is highly unlikely that this ever occurred without the understanding and suppor t of the general membership. Division of labor. Division of labor was one area within the CIW's organization that did not differ significantly from the practices generally employed by other horizontal organizations. As per the norm in the coopera tive businesses studied by Rothschild and Whitt (1986) even the most menial of task s are divided up among all staff members. 50

PAGE 56

There was, however, som e division of labor ba sed on the technical natu re of some tasks. For example, administrative work, mundane financial work, and communication in English with campaign targets were primarily jobs of the Anglo-sta ff allies. As noted, this division of labor was based on the fact that these were tasks other staff members could not complete based on lack of educatio n or language barriers Often in steadfast horizontal organizations there will be a concerted effort to demystify and teach these tasks to other members however during my research with the CIW there was neither confirmation nor refutation of any attempts towards a demystification of this knowledge. However, the long term job re sponsibilities of thes e staff members seem to confirm that there were either not attempts or the a ttempts had not yet been fully successful. In addition some division of labor was based on members personal talents and experience within the organization. For example, members who knew the most about the organization and were well spoken were fre quently made to be spokespersons when nationally important events occurred. In other moments, for example in lower consequence speaking events it was emphasized that anyone could speak for the organization. This was in a way confirmed in that, during my interviews these spokespeople were some of the last to be interviewed. Howe ver, by the time they were interviewed the other less experienced st aff members had thoroughly covered many of the same points they were to later make. In sum, after analyzing all of my interviews together I would have obtained much of th e same information from the other staff members as I ended up getting from these more well known members. 51

PAGE 57

Concessions to Bureaucratic Norms According to the CI W some concessions to bureaucratic norms were necessary in order to conform to the exp ectations of the media and the public and to maintain legitimacy and support. If the organization were to allow less elegant speakers to speak at national press events they would certainly be judged negatively for it, never mind the fact that the farmworker in question has the same experiences and the same analysis of the situation. This is another interesting way in which horizontal SMOs differ from work organizations. In order to maintain legitimacy and thereby achieve goals they must deny their ideal of egalitarian lead ership under some circumstances. Here the CIW was forced to conform to bureaucratic practices and norms because that is the reality in which they are operating. However, while externally they may seem to be br eaking their horizontal principles, internally the orga nization is still maintaining th e principles philosophically. As Pablo aptly stated for this case: What we believe is what we believe. If there are prerequisites that you have to have, you have to have them ...but the idea we have is inside the organization. As we have seen the CIW's model is not utopian, nor do they intend it to be. In this model there are leaders. This is a common myth or misconception about horizontalism that severely prohibits unprejudiced study of horizontal organizations. Members of bureaucratic societies are quick to make the situation black and white. Either there are leaders in formally defined positions of power or there are no leaders at all. These individuals are equally as quick to tr y and dismiss horizonta l organizations when they encounter leadership situations like th at of the CIW. As we have seen some members of the organization, for a combination of reasons, play more of the role of the 52

PAGE 58

leade r, instigator, or initiative taker in the or ganization. However, as is clear in the CIW, in any horizontal organization this coul d be anybody and everybody; there are equal opportunities to rise to any position. Therefore, although so me individuals may play leadership roles within the organization this does not exclude them from being horizontally run organi zations. Furthermore, we must understand that these models may not be perfect, however, they still provide a va stly different and important alternative to bureaucratic organization. Challenges of Horizontal Organizations Likewise, horizontal organizations f ace unique challenges within bureaucratic environments. Nearly every part of our society from the family, to the education system, to the government is bureaucratic. On one hand this creates the difficulty that horizontal organizations have to maneuver through bureaucr atic institutions. As we have seen with the CIW this often leads to strain on horizon tal principles within the organization. Even more problematic to horizontal organizing however is the mindset that is created within the people who live in a bureaucratic society. Ma ny, although not all, of the individuals in such a society tend to have a frame for organizations which in cludes bureaucratic operations as the only way to operate. In th e CIW, for example, this frame caused even young, left-leaning college students to challenge the legitimacy of the CIW because of the organizations rejections of bureaucratic norms. Most commonly their lack of an official leader caused this skepticism. Accordingly, these organizations have significant pressures working against their success from the beginning. 53

PAGE 59

Education f or Democracy As a result of the tendency for individuals within bureaucratic societies to expect all organizations to function bureaucratically, authors (Kanter 1972; Bowles and Gintis 1976) have argued that in order for horizon tal organization to work people must be educated on how to pa rticipate in direct democracies. Furthermore, they argue that this type of education is completely lacking since from childhood we as individuals learn almost exclusively to operate under hierarchical structures. Within the CIW there was a consciousness in regards to this necessity to educate people on how to fully participate in democratic or horizontal organizations. One member related it to teaching a person how to recycle. They might not get the use of it at first but after time it begins to become a custom or a norm. The CIW claims that this form of partic ipation is in many ways normal to their population as the majority of the members come from small, rural towns in Latin America which operate under more traditionally indigenous (i.e. cooperative, communal) life ways. Therefore it seems that a lack of direct democrat ic experience and education might be prohibitory to more wide spr ead success of horizontal organizations. Differences between Social Movement Organizations and Business Cooperatives Due to these outside pressures we have seen that one major difference between SMOs and cooperative businesses is that soci al movements may sometimes be forced to make compromises in their principles in or der to achieve their external goals. For the most part businesses seem to have more c ontrol over their environm ent and situation. It seems that once a business is set up there are few outside pressures which can force them into situations which compromise their princi ples. SMOs on the other hand are constantly 54

PAGE 60

faced with confrontation s, some of which ch allenge their very mode of operation. While the CIW fought to hang on to their principles, such as when they were forced to create a board of directors, they also on other occasions were ma de to compromise as when quick decisions needed to be made or in the pr esentation to outsiders of a figurehead or spokesperson. The CIW especially faces these types of challenges as a non-hierarchical organization operating in a bureaucratic society. Viability of Horizontal Social Movement Organizations In totality, the CIW's model is a comp licated mixture of give and take, of philosophy and rhetoric versus operation. Over all they can be c onsidered horizontal organizations because authority is firmly based in the collectivethe most important criteria for an organization to be consider ed horizontal in practice. This study also confirms the importance of a philosophical ba se as a foundation to practice of horizontal organizing. Horizontalism is much more than a method of organizing but also a philosophy behind the organization. While in the CIW the model was not always followed precisely, the conceptual essence remains in effect at all times. One of the most common critiques of democratic organizations is that they are inefficient and inferior to bureaucratic models This is especially true the larger the organization. However, it is possible to argue that this is not the case for the CIW. Based on their ability to achieve movement goals and function in times of pressure, the CIW operates as, if not more, efficiently than a hierarchical social movement organization might. We see that there are necessary factor s which make this possible. Most of all horizontal SMOs must be flexible and willing to conform to some bureaucratic principles while maintaining horizontal philosophy. Al though this is just one of successful 55

PAGE 61

horizon talism, it is significant in that it manages to be efficient and effective despite large size and often severe outside pressures. 56

PAGE 62

Conclusion While bureaucratic leadership models are generally more efficient and profitable then horizontal models of leadership, they often cause alienation and a sense of detachment or lack of contro l on behalf of workers. In particular, in social movement organizations which usually lack profit motiv ations, bureaucratic leadership causes a disconnect between those being represented and those representi ng. Because of these negative consequences of bureaucratic organization attempts to create alternative models have emerged. My research shows that horizontal models can be successfully employed in social movement organizations under certain conditions. In the case of the CIW there was a vital need for flexibility while at the same time striving to maintain organizational principles. While the organization maintain ed horizontal principles at its core it occasionally had to operate in un-ideal ways such as making quick decisions that did not involve all members. This flexibility was essential in order to ach ieve movement goals. The organization also had to concede to some bureaucratic practices such as identifying spokespeople in order to further their organi zation. However, even in executing these acts which conflicted with their attempt to achieve a nonhierarchical structure, they continued to maintain a consciousness of the horizont al principles they sought to achieve. The significance of the CIW as a specific example is complex. Their example in itself is important as an al ternative model which is infr equently studied. Beyond this however we have an example of a grassroot s organization that has faced significant odds in organizing. The CIW is comprised of a vulnerable population th at has many factors working against them, such as racial discri mination, lack of legisl ation protecting their 57

PAGE 63

rights as workers, lack of education, language barriers, and immigra tion issues. However, with m inimal help from outsiders they have been able to surmount a powerful movement which has made significant progress in th e agricultural industry while employing a horizontal model. Most importantly the CI W is, in comparison to most horizontal cooperative businesses, a larg e social movement organization with over 4000 members and a national campaign. Perhaps their most important contribution towards showing the viability of horizontal models is their ability to maintain th eir model within the structure of such a large SMO. The Coalition of Immokalee Workers is not flawless in their attempt to execute horizontal leadership, however, they still present a successful alternative model. To group an organization such as the CIW in with the study of all other soci al movements is to deny the accomplishments they have made and veil the significance of the success of this alternative model. While many parts of the Work Organizati on literature are useful in analyzing these alternative models, as a whole it is insufficient. The majority of the literature dealing with horizontalism in th is body looks at horizontalism applied, often only in part, to normally bureaucratic business models. In these cases horizontal models were applied only partially, meaning that impor tant bureaucratic structures continued to exist. Furthermore, the ideology behind horiz ontal organizing is extremely fundamental to any assessment of the organization and is typically lacking in a bureaucratic organization. The work organization literature dealing with true cooperatives is much more useful for the study of horizont al social movement organizations, however, this literature is also insufficient in that it overlooks im portant differences betw een work organizations 58

PAGE 64

and SMOs. Social movem ent organizations differ significantly from cooperative businesses in that they face powerful outside pressures which make it far harder for them to maintain horizontal practi ces, especially in ideal form Although these pressures exist in work organizations, work organizations are much less vulnerable to them. This is because in work organizations the same po wers applying bureaucratic pressure are usually not those with the power to help or hinder the goals of the organization, for example as is the case in SMOs. Apart from if and how they meet their goals, horizontal SMOs should be judged on how authentically democratic they ar e and how accountable they are to their constituency. Furthermore, when judging th ese organizations we must take into consideration that they are ope rating within a larger bureau cratic system and very often feel the pressure to conform to that position in order to achieve goals. Therefore, instead of considering this organization a failure b ecause they concede some of their horizontal principles we must always recognize the situation under which th ey are operating. We should judge them equally by the philosophy behind the organization as we do by how they operate in the public sphere. One way to do this is to clearly define internal versus external operations of these horizontal organizations in future study. This study provided an in-depth analysis of the ways in which one organization employed nonhierarchical principles in thei r organization. Through this example we are not only given concrete evidence of the viabilit y and feasibility of these organizations but are provided a model to use as a starting poi nt for further study or as an example for future organizations. Not only does the CIW's case show that non-hierarchical SMOs can function, but it shows that they can do so outside of the highl y structured environments of 59

PAGE 65

work organizations. There is still a great de al of opportunity for research to be done on the special confrontation between horizont al SMOs and bureaucratic practices or principles. These organizati ons, although viable as we have seen, are often quickly written off as hopeless u topian dreams based on inaccurate and biased assessments of the organizations. Furthering this body of resear ch could help to counterbalance this tendency and clarify the rubric by which thes e organizations should be judged. For this reason it is especially important that we continue to develop within our discipline appropriate measures by which to ju dge these alternative organizations. 60

PAGE 66

References: Bates, F.L. 1970. Power Behavi or and Decentralization in Power in organizations. Vanderbilt University Pre ss. Nashville, Tennessee. Benello, George C. and Dimitrios Roussopoulos. 1971. The Case for Participatory Democracy. Grossman Publishers. New York, New York. Bookchin, Murray. 2004. Post Scarcity Anarchism. AK Press. Oakland, California. Bowe, John. 2007. Nobodies: Modern American Slave L abor and the Dark Side of the New Global Economy. Random House. New York, New York. Bowe, John. 2003. Nobodies: Does Slavery Exist in America? The New Yorker, April 21 & 28. Bowles, Samuel and Herbert Gintis. 1976. Schooling in Capitalist America: Educational Reform and the Contradictions of Economic Life. Basic Books. New York. Blummer, Robyn. 2007. At a Penny Per Pound, a Little Adds Up to A Lot. St. Petersburg Times, November 25. Retrieved October 18th, 2008. http://www.sptimes.com/2007/11/25 /Opinion/At_a_penny_per_pound_.shtml Charles, Joan. 2007. Ella Baker and the SNCC: Grassr oots Leadership and Political Activism in a Nonhierarchical Organization. University of Oklahoma. Norman, Oklahoma. Collins, Denis. 1995. A Socio-Political Theory of Workplace Democracy: Class Conflict, Constituent Reactions and Organizational Outcomes at a Gainsharing Facility. Organization Science 6:628-644 Fitzgerald, Kathleen and Diane Rodge rs. 2000. Radical Social Movement 61

PAGE 67

Organizations: A Theoretical Model. The Sociological Quarterly, 41: 573-592 Ferree, Myra Marx and Beth B. Hess. 1985. Controvers y and Coalition: The New Feminist Movement. Twayne Publishers. Boston, Massachusetts. Gutierrez Johnson, Ana and William Foote Whyte. 1977. The Mondragon System of Worker Production Cooperatives. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 31:18-30 Jones, Derek C. 1987. The Productivity Eff ects of Worker Directors and Financial Participation by Employees in the Firm: The Case of British Retail Cooperatives Industrial and Labor Relations Review 41:79-92. Joyce, Williame and Victor McGee. 1997. Designing Lateral Organizations: An Analysis of the Benefits, Costs, and Enab lers of Nonhierarchical Organizational Forms. Decision Sciences 28:1. Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. 1972. Commitment and Community; Communes and Utopias in Sociological Perspective. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Koller, Fred. 1947. Cooperative s in a Capitalist Economy. Journal of Farm Economics, 29:1133-1144 Lens, Sidney. The Road to Power and Beyond in The Case for Participatory Democracy. Grossman Publishers. New York, New York. Matsusaka, John G. 2005. The Eclipse of Legi slatures: Direct Democracy in the 21st Century. Public Choice 124: 157-177 McAdam, Doug and David A. Snow. 1997. Social Movements: Readings on Their Emergence, Mobilization, and Dynamic. Roxbury Publishing Company. Las Angeles, California. 62

PAGE 68

Michels, Robert. 1962. Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchic Tendencies of Modern Democracy. The Free Press. New York, New York. Miller, Jam es. 1987. Democracy is in the Streets Simon and Schuster. New York, New York. Noonan, Rita K. (1995) Women Against th e State: Political Opportunities and Collections Action Frames in Chil e's Transition to Democracy in Social Movements: Readings on Their Emergence, Mobilization, and Dynamic. Roxbury Publishing Company. Las Angeles, California. Rothschild, Joyce and J. Allen Whitt. 1986. The Cooperative Workplace: Potentials and Dilemmas of Organizational Democracy and Participation. Cambridge University Press. New York. Schweizer, Steven. 1995. Participation, Workplace Demo cracy, and the Problem of Representative Government. Polity, 27: 359-377 Sitrin, Marina. 2006. Horizontalism: Voices of Popular Power in Argentina. AK Press. Canada Solnit, Rebecca. 2006. More Perfect Unions. Orion Magazine, November/December Issue Retrieved April 5, 2009 (http://www.orionmagazine.org /index.php/articles/ article181) Solnit, Rebecca. 2008. The Revolution Has Already Occurred The Nation March 23.. Retrieved April 5, 2009 (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090323/so lnit/print?rel=nofollow) Sommer, Robert; Deborah Schlanger; Robert Hackman; and Steven Smith. 1984. Consumer Cooperatives and Work er Collectives: A Comparison Sociological 63

PAGE 69

64 Perspectives, 27:139-157 Walsh, Jane. 2006. Migrant Mobilization: Factors Cont ributing to the Success of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers. Masters Thesis Presented at Duquesne University. Woodcock, George. Democracy, Heretical and Radical in The Case for Participatory Democracy. Grossman Publishers. New York, New York. Zald, Mayer N. 1970. Power in Organizations. Vanderbilt University Press. Nashville, Tennessee.