About Us

• Our Mission
• History
• Structure
• Directors
• Funders
• Staff
• Success Stories
• Feminist_Organizational_Evolution
  • Feminist Organizational Evolution

Feminist_Organizational_Evolution | Feminist Organizational Evolution

A Theory of Feminist Organizational Evolution:

How Organizational Success Occurs Along a Continuum between

Collectivity and Bureaucracy

Christina James

 

            The basic concern of this paper is to show how organizations with an expressed feminist ideology change their structure over time.  Feminism itself is not a unitary set of beliefs – it encompasses a range of ideologies that also change over time.  In feminist organizations, there has been a belief that hierarchy creates a system of dominance of superiors over subordinates that mirrors the dominance of men over women.  Similarly, there is a theory that collectivities and consensus-based groups have a tendency toward disorganization and less productivity.  Through an analysis of feminist organizational creation and development from a structural perspective, however, it can be shown that feminist ideology can survive and coexist within an organization – a balance between non-profit and collective achieves a hybrid structure of organization that both fosters growth, keeps the ideological framework alive, and distributes power equally.  I also want to show throughout this paper how Hard Hatted Women fits into the research I’ve done in order to normalize the structural changes the organization is going through, to shed light on past shifts in structure in both HHW in other organizations, and to give information on current changes and make suggestions for the future. 

            There is a common conception of feminist collectivist structures as being anti-hierarchical and empowering to women through creating an egalitarian workplace.  However, as Jo Freeman claimed in her essay “The Tyranny of Structurelessness”, collectivist structures merely hide hierarchies rather than eliminating them.  Other, such as Nancy Hart-sock, argued that the feminist movement was wrong in its condemnation of leadership because it saw those who desired to achieve as those who desired to oppress and control others.[1]  These negative components of feminist collectivity call for a different method of organizing, one that has mechanisms for keeping leadership accountable that still allows for feminist ideals to be in place. 

            One assumption that Stephanie Riger makes in her article “Challenges of success: Stages of growth in feminist organizations” is that decisions made by an organization’s members determine the pattern of growth of the organization, not predetermined factors, giving the members of the organization more agency in the path their organizations take.[2]  I think this is an important factor to keep in mind when assessing the evolution of feminist organizations and when considering the makeup of Hard Hatted Women, in particular. 

            In order to come up with a new structure for feminist organizations, a description of the components of grassroots associations is necessary.  According to Cheryl Hyde, grassroots organizations “recruit mainly peer members, involve members in face-to-face interactions, promote higher membership participation levels and mobilization, create high internal cohesion and solidarity, develop an effective ideology, and persist over time.”[3]  In my opinion, HHW fits these components well and is a good candidate for creating a hybrid structure that combines these components with feminist ideology.  Often, grassroots organizations exist between the two poles of organizational structures, putting them on a continuum of organizational definition, somewhere between the corporate/bureaucracy and the grassroots/collective. 

            In order to understand the evolution of a feminist organization, we must understand the life cycle it undergoes.  I will highlight parts of the cycle that, in my opinion, pertain more specifically to HHW.  The first part of the life cycle is the creation stage.  This is typically an idealistic stage for the organization and as such lacks structure.  Founders tend to seek “converts” to their cause, and are often risk takers that like to maintain personal control.[4]  Because their personal influence is what is driving the organization at this stage, a formal structure has yet to exist.  At this stage, the lack of formal mechanisms for decision-making means that the power is not equally distributed among members[5] – the transition to the next stage is usually fraught with structural upheaval and redefinition.  The idealism of this stage is key in the history making of the organization – if staff can even get a glimpse of what it was like to found the organization, they are more likely to also have a personal investment in it and to remember that founding idealism in times of structural and organizational strife. 

            The next stage is the collectivity stage, which occurs with the desire to produce results and have an impact on the surrounding community.  In this stage, members often feel familial connections to other members and desire connections on a personal level with other like-minded individuals.  This stage is marked by a relatively informal structure where jobs and authority are often shared among others and power is not centralized.[6]  The conditions of a collectivist organization are ones that foster group-decision making and inclusiveness, the structure of which is often hard to maintain after the creation period.  According to Stephanie Riger, these components include equal distribution of skills and knowledge among participants, the development of close personal ties among members, and dispersion of sources of power.  These components are ones that I feel specifically apply to HHW – others, such as dependence on members rather than outside sources of funding, and an emphasis on participation rather than efficiency[7], are the places in which HHW makes a compromise in order to exist as a non-profit.  These compromises are what lead an organization through the growth process.

            The next stage is formalization of procedures, which highlights the development of feminist organizations and shows the many paths their progress can take.  The centralization of authority in the position of a leader or a director can create tensions within feminist organizations and may reduce the opportunity for some members to exert influence.[8]  There is something called the “founder’s trap” that is derived from the reluctance of founders to institutionalize leadership by establishing procedures and policies that do not require their personal judgment.[9]  The founder or director must loosen their control over their organization and accept change as it comes to their organization. Another concern here is the expansion of the organization.  With more members and larger priorities, the organization’s members can feel less valuable as an individual and the essence of the organization can be lost.

            Funding also dictates the direction an organization will go in as well and is often one of the things that bureaucratizes an organization that has a more collectivist structure to begin with or one that desires to keep some autonomy from outside influences.  In order to attract potential funds, an organization often must adopt conventional bureaucratic practices in order to convince people outside the organization that is it both successful in its mission and fiscally responsible.[10]  This tends to have a more formalizing and corporate effect on the organization.  Funding puts restraints on what an organization can accomplish and what its goals are and can alter the mission on which the organization originally was founded.  In my opinion, however, it seems that HHW has found ways to increase the strength of their organization through looking at foundations that support the entire mission of their organization and being very selective about whom they ask for funds.

            I will now articulate and describe different structures organizations can take once they are formed.  These structures can be described as collective action frames, which are an action oriented set of beliefs that inspire social movement activities.[11]  This method of looking at organizations takes the ideology of the organization and links it to practice.  Ideologies of organizations can be broken down into three different groups.  Liberation feminism viewed either gendered relations alone (radical) or the intersection of gender and class (socialist) within a patriarchal system as the root of women’s oppression.  Liberal feminism focused on the lack of equal opportunity or access as the cause of women’s inequality.  Cultural feminism cited the subordination of an essential female nature and the devaluation of female attributes as the reason for women’s oppression.[12]  I feel that HHW is a combination of all three of these classifications, with emphasis on the first two, given its dedication to diminish women’s inequality in the workplace and to foster a feminist ideal within the organization itself.

            There is another rubric that HHW can be compared to – that of the “non-feminist” frames.  These frames are divided into three as well.  The localized frame examines grassroots and community approaches to movement representation and development; the agency frame examines organizational values and actions that are contingent upon membership; and the entrepreneurial frame, which examines values and approaches harmonious with the internal operation of the organization’s relationship to the marketing externally of the organization.[13]  I feel that HHW fits into the first two, given its proximity and approachability to the women of Cleveland and the fact that it is a local organization rather than a national one, and given its attention to organizational values and how those values are so present in the services they offer. 

            Given the ways that structures can shift and the volatility of organizations that adhere so strongly to feminist values such as HHW, there can often be conflict and resulting shifts in structure within them.  It is ingrained in feminist ideology that “sisterhood is powerful”, and that conflict between women was adverse to feminist ideals.  Yet competition and conflict are inherent in sisterly relationships, in relationships that feel familial and quite personal.  As Stephanie Riger puts it, “There is a fundamental paradox in the idea of empowering others: the institutional structure that puts some people in the position to empower undermines the act of empowerment.”[14]  Differences within organizations can hurt the cause, but often lead to discussions that can prompt the evolution of the organization.  In HHW’s situation as well as others, depersonalizing the issue is difficult, but can bring members back to the original ideals and goals of the organization, which is empowering all women. 

            The most important part of determining a hybrid structure of non-profit and feminist organization is to look at the governance of other feminist organizations within a collective action framework over time that also embody the grassroots association components we talked about earlier.  In a study discussed in Hyde’s article, liberation traditions of organizations embraced collectivist styles of governance, whereas liberal and cultural feminist organizations were arranged hierarchically, with attention paid to leadership development rather than the prosperity of the group.  In reality, a range of governance structures exist – a participatory democracy, for example, has 3 to 4 different hierarchical levels, and organizational members are represented in an open decision making process, but final authority rests in the hands of an executive system, such as a board and/or director.[15]  In the study that was done in Hyde’s article, however, all of the feminist social movement organizations became more bureaucratic, formal and dependent on paid staff. 

            The following is a comparative analysis of three feminist social movement organizations (FSMOs) from different regions of the country and how they underwent structural changes.  I will compare their evolution to that of HHW, and then make recommendations for the future of HHW, and end with some final questions. 

            The Domestic Violence Project naturally progressed from a participatory democracy to a bureaucracy through the hiring of more professional staff and the lack of volunteers/non-paid staff in decision-making processes and organizational governance.  The Executive Director gradually assumed more responsibility for day-to-day decisions and created positions of Assistant Directors, putting herself at an even greater distance from staff.  Its board became more professional and mainstream, and its policies emphasized organizational efficiency through marketing plans.[16]  In this way, the organization became more hierarchical and farther away from its feminist founding ideals. 

            The Self-Help Clinic underwent a huge structural evolution, moving from a collective to a bureaucracy in a period of five years, which coincided with its shift from liberation to cultural feminism.  The founders and leaders of the clinic argued that the center had to become more mainstream to appeal to a middle class clientele and fend off right wing attacks.  It also eliminated volunteer positions because they were considered too unreliable.  Interestingly, their board was almost non-functioning, and only served to approve the actions of the management.  This is demonstrative of the oligarchy that was controlling the Self-Help Clinic.  The women who became leaders and part of the management of the organization falsely assumed that women could not oppress other women, and therefore justified the hierarchy within the organization.  The staff, like HHW, pursued unionization possibilities.[17]

            The Cooperative Health Project was consumed in debates as they moved from a pure collective to a modified one.  Of all the FSMOs featured here, this one was the most committed to feminist ideals.  Members, who did not refer to themselves as staff, received the same pay regardless of seniority or experience, rotated jobs, and made all decisions through consensus.  Its board existed only on paper, and was only in place to meet requirements and placate funders.  Collectivist ideals proved inefficient in meeting service goals, and so through financial stress, the presence of doctors who professionalized the clinic, and high staff turnover caused the shift to a modified collective.  The board began functioning as an advisory group, but is rarely involved in decision-making; there are now paid staff positions, though the directorship rotates regularly, and there are pay differentials.[18] 

            Hard Hatted Women began as a modified collective tending towards participatory democracy and has recently become a participatory democracy tending towards a hierarchy.  It tends towards liberation-radical feminism and liberal feminism and is localized and agency oriented.  Founded by three tradeswomen, the organization underwent a large structural change after the founding director left and became more hierarchical.  The organization has paid staff, and then adopted a directorship and a board.  Volunteers are still a huge part of their organization.  They are very active in the local community and strive to reach women in the immediate area of Cleveland.  Recently, the organization had a structural upheaval, in which the director resigned and was replaced and the staff formed a union, and they are in the process of constructing a new way of organizing that works for their individual organization.  One of the things the organization is struggling with is attempting to find a balance between specializing in certain areas and sharing tasks with all members, which requires sharing knowledge between staff members and between the staff and the board.  Sharing information in an organizational setting means sharing power and distributing responsibility equally.  HHW is looking to attract new board members who are knowledgeable about feminist values and can therefore represent the organization as a feminist one.  They are also thinking of giving the staff a vote on the board to check its power or have a committee of staff present at board meetings.  HHW is looking into redefining their organization as a model that has aspects of a membership model and is somewhat hierarchical for the sake of distributing power, but that embodies feminist ideals and components of collectivity and equal representation for both staff and board members. 

              All of the FSMOs described above fit the components of non-profit and grassroots associations on some levels – the localized aspect of some projects, the high internal cohesion (members caring for one another) and the connection among members, high membership participation levels, and their persistence over time are just some of the qualities that exist in common between feminist ideal organizations and their more hierarchical counterparts.  Hard Hatted Women seems to fit right along that continuum and will continue to evolve and thrive as long as members remember the ideal of the founding of the organization, while at the same time realizing that compromise must happen somewhere and steps must be taken backwards sometimes in order to progress.  Hard Hatted Women is incredibly committed to the community, to its members and to engaging volunteers in their work, while at the same time gaining funding from outside sources and having a hierarchical structure in the form of a board and a director – they might be considered a participatory democracy, according to the rubrics outlined before.  A continuum exists between the extremes of collective and bureaucracy, and from the examples above and from my experience with Hard Hatted Women, it seems that most feminist organizations fall somewhere in between and can exist productively in a hybrid structure.