Building Accountability

Building accountability among all levels of membership, including Core, Activists, Supporters, and Disengaged members is crucial to the success of any organization. In this section, we broadly outline multiple benefits (as well as possible negatives) of building accountability within an organization. 

For one, having a strong organizational foundation requires certain skill sets and habits that need to be fostered and developed over time- in each individual. Core members, or those who focus on creating and elaborating strategies to get a broader membership involved, have learned their skills as mobilizers (or organizers) in a few methods, ranked low to high by relative learning speed: 

(i) Trial-By-Fire Method, where future Core members simply learn gradually by experience through a smaller leadership role. There is usually little mentorship and advisory settings in this method, individuals lack well-research tactics and strategies for organizing, and this method demonstrates a lack of urgency to develop foundational leadership in an organization.

(ii) Self-Taught Method, where future Core members have sought out their information regarding organizing/mobilizing out of a sense of urgency. Much like (i), this method lacks mentorship and advisory strategies, hindering an individual’s self-interest in political organizing (which tends to be far and few between), and this method demonstrates a lack of urgency to develop foundational leadership in an organization. For all intents and purposes, (i) and (ii) are two sides of the same coin; if an organization has (i), they most definitely have (ii) in place.

(iii) Mentorship/Advisor Method; (1) future Core members are identified by current Core members, (2) future Core members are recruited by current Core members, (3) current Core members create opportunities to develop relationships and trust with future Core members and (4) simultaneously coaching and guiding future Core members up a “leadership ladder” (more on this later), (5) eventually replacing and out-growing current Core members. This model includes mentorship and advisory elements, while also expressing urgency to efficiently and effectively.

In method (iii) we can see the fundamental difference between the former two methods, in the fact that (iii) actively contributes to building a stronger, longer-lasting, organization. But don’t be fooled by its simplicity; this method requires a complete overhaul of any organization to implement it effectively. The main idea is that an organization can be created bottom-up rather than top-down, with tasks and skills equally distributed among all members; rather than staying insulated in a smaller group of activists (or even within single individuals). By broadening the scope of leadership development, it requires that we hold everyone (who wants to contribute) accountable for their tasks and skills. Simply put, most members aren’t going to be like (ii); they might have reservations or doubts about their abilities to be “leaders” or even “do-ers”, most will not get involved until an opportunity is given to contribute (even if their beliefs are based more in anxiety rather than real skill). (iii) in this way, (a) contributes to confidence within members, (b) provides opportunities to develop organizing skills, (c) gives a sense of investment in an organization, (d) builds relationships and mentorship needed for trust, (e) and uproots isolation within our community.