Grassroots Community Organizing in Higher Education
An institution’s culture is composed of the various cultures within its units. Kezar and Eckel (2002) define institutional culture as “the myths and rituals of colleges, and student and faculty subcultures” (p. 280). These cultures are “the deeply embedded patterns of organizational behavior and the shared values, assumptions, beliefs, or ideologies that members have about their organization or its work” (as cited by Kezar & Eckel, 2002, p. 280).
Through a case study methodology focused on six institutions of different types, Kezar and Eckel (2002) found that administrators who utilized change strategies that aligned with the cultural norms of their institution were able to advance change and were less likely to have their efforts thwarted. The authors draw attention to often cited strategies, such as “achieving buy-in” or “communicating effectively” (p. 278), claiming that these “broad change strategies are presented as uniform, universal, and applicable” (p. 278) across various institutions of higher education in the change literature. This assumption, Kezar and Eckel explain, ignores the context within any given institution making the charge of institutional change agents almost insurmountable. Leaders should focus on understanding the relationship between their specific institution’s culture and the change strategies being utilized (Kezar & Eckel, 2002). This type of focus on an institution’s culture and the ways it can inform change strategies is consistent with Saul Alinsky’s (1969/2010) thoughts on community organizing principles discussed next.
A People’s Organization
Writing about what he called “a People’s Organization”, Alinsky stresses the importance of understanding community traditions as a first step toward effecting meaningful change (1969/2010). In order to organize people and obtain their buy-in to support a change initiative, the organizer must understand the community’s traditions, prejudices, habits, values, beliefs, objectives, and attitudes (Alinsky, 1969/2010). Alinsky emphasizes the importance of change efforts being “rooted in the experiences of the people themselves” (1969/2010, p. 78). The various agencies within a community including churches, labor unions, political parties, athletic groups, among others have a stake in the community. Democracy or the system of government in such a community is one in which the individuals are loyal to various agencies. A successful organizer would therefore build a People’s Organization with these agencies as the foundation. By working with the agencies, the organizers can build cooperative relationships across all agencies without pitting individual agencies against each other. Alinsky highlights the way by which such an organization breaks silos, strengthens the community, and builds the change from the inside out instead of “an outside movement coming into the community” (1969/2010, p. 87).
The Alinsky lens provides a unique tool to consider an institution of higher education as a community. Borrowing from a People’s Organization, change agents in positions without authority could benefit from building cooperative relationships across the decentralized units including the colleges, student and academic affairs, and various divisions within the institution. In this way, the various constituents within the different units that have a stake in the change initiative can work to understand and address underlying assumption and values to begin the work of institutional culture change.
Community organizing practices can lend lessons to change agents looking to overcome the barriers in implementing change within their institution-as-community. These community organizing practices, reviewed next, involve assessing interest among constituents, building a collective of leaders, analyzing power dynamics, and engaging in critical reflection. Such practices may inform leaders of strategies to implement institutional change in a higher education setting.
Key Community Organizing Practices
To create long-term sustainable change that grows beyond a single change agent, various grassroots leaders must actively invest and engage in the change process. In line with Alinsky (1969/2010) and Kezar and Eckel (2002), Maria Avila (2010) states that “people are more likely to engage in long-term movements to create social change if they are in touch with their stories, their roots, and the reasons behind their desire to create change” (p. 37). Connecting her organizing practices to academia, Avila (2010) stresses the importance of creating “relational foundations with all stakeholders” (p. 38) and utilizes community organizing practices to create sustainability in ownership creation among all stakeholders beyond a single change agent.
Assessing Interest
Any effort to understand an institution’s culture requires that the change agent grasp and appreciate the culture and traditions of those within it. Assessing interest is the first key practice in organizing for such change by identifying factors that motivate various members of the institution-as-community (Avila, 2010, 2018). Through one-to-one meetings focused on building public relationships (based on respect and accountability), the change agent can begin to learn about others’ stories, prior experiences, beliefs, and passions; that is, their self-interest. Identifying the self-interest of various constituents will provide the change agent with the ability to identify those with the power and resources to support and advance the change initiative sought by the change agent.
These one-to-one meetings are not transactional, in that the change agent does not make a request to the constituent. The purpose of these meetings is to learn the constituents’ story, and at its most basic, to determine if the two change makers can work together toward to build power to make change. This sometimes requires the use of probing or agitation, while suspending judgement, in an effort to find leaders best suited for the change initiative (Avila, 2010, 2018).
Building a Collective of Leaders
The second key practice is building a collective of leaders informed by a shared, or common, self-interest. Avila’s (2010, 2018) concept of a leader in the context of a collective is one who has the potential to lead and organize other constituents through their knowledge and resources. Such a leader is not one who is charismatic but rather one who can mobilize and lead efforts outside of a crisis. The primary purpose of building a collective of leaders is to ensure that sustained efforts on changemaking are not limited to a few within the team. By building a collective based on self-interest, each leader also develops a sense of ownership over the long-term goal and the initial change agent is not the leader leading from the top.
Analyzing Power Dynamics
The third key practice focuses on analyzing and mapping the power dynamics within the institution and community to identify “who has power to block or facilitate our organizing [or changemaking] efforts” (Avila, 2018, p. 29). This practice allows the change agent to develop relational power among the collective of leaders based on their self-interests instead of a charismatic leader with unilateral power. Relational power allows multiple people who possess power to come together to work on one plan. In this way, through the collective leadership, power mapping allows the group to build power that can be leveraged in their changemaking efforts across the institution (Avila, 2010).
Critical Reflection
The final key practice, critical reflection, is necessary for the continued success of the collective leadership in effecting change. Pausing consistently to reflect allows for the evaluation of goals, checking in with the leaders and their feelings (Avila, 2018). It serves as a power check and prompts any need to update the analysis or re-strategize. Critical reflection also increases accountability at the individual and collective level of leadership, and allows for a self-interest check to ensure that individuals within the collective can revisit and realign with the values of the collective (Avila, 2018).
Engaging in Avila’s key practices in community organizing can serve to advance institutional culture change that supports various initiatives for diverse transfer student populations. Change agents can utilize the key practices from community organizing to effect transformational change. Transformational culture change at an institution that is steeped in tradition, values, belief systems, and attitudes “is a slow, intentional, and strategic process” (Avila, 2018, p. 55). Building relationships and engaging with other constituents through one-on-one meetings take time. Building power through a collective of leaders and identifying and implementing strategies is a slow process. However, these key practices can help identify and build relational power across dividing lines within institutions. In the decentralized context of higher education, building such relationships and developing power at the grassroots level can support institutional culture change.
One of the limitations of an institution-as-community framework and borrowing directly from grassroots community organizing principles as delineated is the cost to grassroots leaders in the institution for effecting change. Upper administrators may view such grassroots bottom-up organizing leaders as troublemakers. Grassroots change agents in higher education could risk losing their position within the institution as a form of retaliation among other costs. Kezar and Lester (2011) raise these concerns and offer a version of Meyerson’s (2003) tempered radical framework adapted to the higher education context.
Tempered Radicals
Meyerson (2003) introduced the tempered radicals framework to describe those individuals who wish to create change, but do not have the formal authority to enact it. These tempered radicals then challenge the status quo using tempered strategies to minimize resistance and retaliation. They are not charismatic leaders but rather everyday people in positions without authority seeking to effect change from the bottom up (Meyerson, 2003). Tempered radicals use five distinct change strategies that vary based on the scope of impact of the change initiative and the underlying intent of the change agent. These strategies include: (a) resisting quietly and staying true to one’s self; (b) turning personal threats into opportunities; (c) broadening the impact through negotiation; (d) leveraging small wins; and (e) organizing collective action. These approaches exist on a continuum with resisting quietly being the most tempered and organizing collective action being the least tempered approach. The resulting changes from negotiating and being strategic using these approaches are incremental and cumulative.
Tempered radicals can use community organizing practices, such as those previously outlined, to advance change efforts from individuals to a broader collective of tempered radicals or leaders to have a larger impact. Such a collective of bottom-up leaders who lack authority can help create second-order deep change using their collective power. Kezar and Lester (2011) stress that bottom-up leaders should modify community organizing practices for the higher education context in two critical ways—connecting strategies back to the academic mission of the institution and tempering their tactics to be successful. Unlike grassroots organizing, the tempered radicals framework does not address the power conditions that exist within higher education institutions (Kezar & Lester, 2011).
Navigating Challenges
Kezar and Lester (2011) identified obstacles faced by grassroots leaders in higher education in engaging in long-term deep change. Grassroots leaders typically are not in upper-level administrative positions with authority and therefore do not “have access to resources, can[not] mandate action, [or] oversee human and technical resources, and set institutional priorities and planning” (Kezar & Lester, 2011, p. 55). Their tactics must focus on community organizing principles such as “consciousness raising, creation of a vision, or influencing others” (Kezar & Lester, 2011, p. 98) tailored to the educational context. Existing power conditions within the higher education institution presents grassroots leaders with multiple obstacles like resistance and oppression.
Kezar and Lester (2011) identified five types of power dynamics that affect change work by grassroots leaders in higher education—oppression, silencing, controlling, stalling tactics, and microaggressions. These operate on a spectrum with oppression being most severe and overt to microaggressions being less severe and overt. These power dynamics work to disempower and stop the changemaking efforts of these leaders in various ways. Some of the most prevalent approaches to navigate these power dynamics include “(a) flying under the radar; (b) creating internal and external networks; (c) developing coalitions and networks; (d) building bridges and obtaining allies in positions of power; (e) recognizing and naming power; (f) making modest changes; and (g) reframing issues” (Kezar & Lester, 2011, p. 165). These approaches are strengthened by using Avila’s key practices for building power through coalitions or a leadership collective (Avila, 2010, 2018). Grassroots leaders using these approaches to navigate oppression are better able to engage in second-order change such as institutional culture change (Kezar & Lester, 2011). This type of change is slow and incremental, and grassroots leaders must be intentional and strategic with their efforts and ways they navigate power dynamics within their institution to increase their resilience (Avila, 2018; Meyerson, 2003).
To reiterate, grassroots organizing practices offer valuable lessons for bottom-up leaders who are not in positions of authority. However, applying these principles directly to the higher education context may result in retaliation and negative consequences for grassroots leaders from upper-level administrators. To effectively apply community organizing practices to create deep change in higher education, grassroots leaders can use tempered versions of these approaches to navigate the power dynamics within their institutions. In this way, these leaders continue to build power from the bottom to counter the power held by those in positions of authority, so they may work to change the institutional culture from within. The next section serves to present implications for practice and strategies for deep change, informed by community organizing practices, towards creating a transfer-receptive culture.
