This was written by Michigan State Representative David
Hollister, and is distributed with the permission of his office:
David C. Hollister
State Representative
57th District
Michigan House of Representatives
Lansing, MI 48909
Phone:  (517) 373-0826
A booklet is available with graphics.  Please give credit to Rep.
Hollister in any reproduction of this information.
On Organizing -- From The Kitchen of David C. Hollister
A Simple Recipe For Social Change
Ingredients:
credibility
assumptions
commitment
power
hope
courage
goals
strategy
Directions:
be there
be informed
be able to count
don't be intimidated
don't take "no" for an answer
follow through
A Definition:
"Organize" as defined by Webster means:  to provide with an
organic structure:  systematize; to arrange; establish;
institute; bring into being; to unify into a coordinated
functioning whole."
This booklet seeks to expand this definition to a more practical
level giving down-to-earth suggestions to individuals who want to
become involved and who want to learn and practice the simple
skills which are involved in organizing any group to achieve
specific goals.
Two Popular Myths
You need large numbers to be effective:  False.
Most groups revolve around a small core of individuals who have
the trust of the larger group.  The core group must learn how to
build coalitions and be able to draw on larger numbers at the
appropriate time.  Don't be discouraged if only a small group
shows up to key meetings.  The important thing is not to exclude
anyone from the core group and to learn when and how to involve
the less committed allies.  For those people who miss meetings,
keep them involved and up-to-date with phone calls and mailings.
The smallness of a group becomes a liability only if it remains
small and/or is unable to develop coalitions.
You must have special training to be able to organize a group:
False.
Some of the most savvy and effective organizers are grassroots
people who know the wishes of the community and can articulate
them.  The key to leadership is gaining and keeping  the trust of
the group, and this is accomplished by working with the group --
not for them.
The Bottom Line:  Your Credibility
To organize, you must identify and bring together a core group of
individuals.  The core group has basically two initial tasks:
(1) To clearly develop a focus or set of goals; and (2) To decide
how to expand the group to represent as many viewpoints as
possible so that the group's legitimacy and credibility cannot be
challenged.  The makeup of your group will, of course, help shape
your goals: a group's membership and its goals usually shift
somewhat over time.
Assumptions
Before the group can develop a focus or a set of goals, it is
important to state the assumptions the group might share.
First, when dealing with institutions (government agencies,
etc.), it is helpful to keep in mind the Peter Principle:  Large
organizations develop bureaucratic hierarchies or "pyramids of
power."  People are often promoted to positions of power beyond
their level of competence.  In other words, just because they
have impressive-sounding titles, don't assume they know what
theyare talking about!  (The Peter Principle, by Lawrence J.
Peter, W. Morrow Publishers, 1969)
Second, our society is organized into institutions which are
initially set up to achieve some special social goals.  It is
always a smart strategy to accept at face value the stated goal
of each institution as a legitimate ideal you can embrace, if
that goal is consistent with the social change your group wants
to achieve.
The key to your success in changing the real policies and
practices of that institution depends on how effectively you can
demonstrate the institution's failure to meet its own stated
goal, thereby destroying its legitimacy.  You then can
demonstrate how your group can do the job more effectively and,
hopefully, at a lower cost.
Legitimacy and Those Who Have It Are the Keys to Change
Once you have effectively exposed the institution for its
inability to achieve its own stated goals, the institution has
basically two alternatives:  (1) To make changes to achieve the
goal, or (2) To become defensive and attack your group.
Most institutions will initially change, especially if it is
initiated from within.  If they do begin to change, be on guard.
Your group could be co-opted or sandbagged when a policymaker
gives a superficial lip service to your suggestion but has no
intention of implementing the policy or change.  Your group,
thinking they have won, will become diffused and apathetic --
losing interest even though the critical work of implementing the
change will require continued oversight and pressure.  Quick
success is almost always fatal to a community group!
If the institution reacts defensively and begins to attack your
group, it means you have hit a sensitive point and are on the
right track.  You can be sure you have become a threat when the
institution begins to challenge your group's credibility.  You
must expect this kind of attack and not become defensive.  You
can judge the merit of your recommended change by the intensity
of the institutional attack.  The more defensive and hostile
their response to you and your group, the more on target you are.
You should move ahead aggressively.
Two Kinds of Commitment
It is always important to remember that there are two levels of
involvement and commitment to any movement for change.  On one
level is the emotional commitment -- the feeling that something
is wrong and the willingness to do something to change it.  There
is also the intellectual level personified by a well-read,
knowledgeable, thoughtful individual.  A group needs both levels
of commitment to be effective.
(a) Those with the emotional commitment are the traditional
activists.  They are highly motivated and are anxious "to get
involved" to try to change conditions.  They normally have little
historical perspective and are unable to articulate the group
goals.  They are often, but not always, hot heads and can be an
embarrassment to your group.  They are important to your group,
but must learn to subordinate their own interests to those of the
larger group.
(b) The intellectual level requires individuals who understand
the historical significance of the change being advocated.  These
people have a sophisticated understanding of the
interrelationships, the nuances and the subtleties of the
situation.  Unfortunately, many intellectuals are unable to
translate the thought into action and, therefore, are not helpful
to a group.
The ideal group leader has both an emotional and intellectual
commitment (i.e., Martin Luther King, Jr. and Caesar Chavez) and
can harness the energy of the emotions and the thoughtfulness of
the intellect to give direction to a group.  Unfortunately, few
groups have such unique individuals as leaders.  It is,
therefore, the leader's task to be sure that both the emotional
and intellectual commitment is present in the group.  An
overreliance on either will lead to a poorly thought out strategy
and subsequent clumsy attempts at change or what may be called
"paralysis by analysis" -- all thought and no action.  Either
result can be disastrous and counterproductive because it makes
future attempts to organize much more difficult.
Forms of Power
Now that you have identified a core group, goals and others who
share your interest, it is time to consider what kinds of power
you and your group can bring to the coming struggle.
It is important to recognize that when you advocate change, you
--- FMail/386 1.0g
(1:2629/124)
---------------