Committees, chaos and (accusations of ) cliques: plus ca change

Committee missions were often unclear or even conflicting, meetings were numerous, and key individuals would drop out and reappear randomly. While meetings were very good at generating task proposals, they were far less effective at assigning volunteers and accountability. Key committee tasks were often not carried out due to lack of follow through or a lack of clear assignment of responsibilities.

Consequently, individuals at the mid-organizer level were often left holding the bag and were sometimes castigated by the leadership when they failed to deliver. On the other hand, informal leaders, frustrated that crucial tasks were not being accomplished in a timely manner, often ended up assuming the work and making decisions themselves. At times these two groups communicated poorly with one another.

The net result was escalating tension, with individuals in both groups ending up with huge workloads and responsibilities….

These tendencies proved quite destructive, heightening tension and conflict among the most active leaders and organizers, while generating lots of criticism but little support from the rest of the group. Many key activists became increasingly bitter and burnt out. While Mass Action’s informal leaders have managed to sustain themselves, a number of organizers and affinity groups have exited. This dynamic has likely damaged the groups’ ability to build a long-term activist base and to repeat large direct action mobilizations in the future.

Organising for the Long Haul: The View from Western Massachusetts by Frank Borgers

Page 124

The Global Activist’s Manual: Local Ways to Change the World