Assessing Major Grass Roots Groups And Their Leadership

Commentary by Xelan Bonn, MBA (What follows are my personal opinions and not the official position of the PUA). Feedback: xelanbonn@patriotunion.org

Here’s a simple way to gather public information and assess the professionalism of each major grass root or activist group and its leadership:

What is their level of funding after 3-5 years of operations? Poorly funded groups = poor managers / leaders. Tens of millions of dollars in funding is available for this cause to any major group or large coalition of groups willing and able to conduct themselves on a professional level. This money can be obtained within months, not years, so any organization that is not capable of major fund raising efforts is generally being operated by amateurs if they are still poorly funded after 3-5 years of operations.

What funding drives have they accomplished? Groups with leaders who do not know how to organize on-the-ground fund raising drives are simply not qualified to be anything more than followers. All grass roots change groups must be good at fund raising basics if they hope to succeed. Internet funding raising is only one of many ways to raise funds and for this cause. It has proven to an suboptimal fund raising method for this cause when compared to traditional forms of fund raising. Groups unable to conduct on-the-ground fund raising efforts are not going to be successful.

Who are the people in charge and what are their credentials that qualify them to manage and lead? Political passion is not a qualifier for leading a major group or coalition (but it certainly helps). Experience or a demonstrated know-how and a well rounded understanding of the issues, concepts, aspects, etc. must be demonstrated. And, of course, education level and type should be another major consideration, but not the only determining factor. For example, groups lead by Ph.D.s are often extremely conservative and establishment-oriented - they often make for terrible grass roots changers because they overly fear offending anyone and often feel grass roots mobilization is beneath them. The reverse may be applied to those with little or inappropriate education levels, as they often have little or no understanding of the executive tools of office and leadership or particularly how grass root change systems work and how to affect political change using them. Hence such leader will be unable to grasp or apply all the competency tools needed to effectively lead the group to grass roots success.

What have the groups done in the way of grass roots mobilization? Grass roots change happens in the streets, not in the sheets. To affect grass roots change, you must be able to mobilize supporters and get them out in the streets. E-mailing, faxing and phoning are good tools, but nothing has proven itself more effective than ground-work mobilization when it comes to grass roots change systems. Leaders who can't mobilize their followers and get them into the streets lack a key, basic essential for being strong, well rounded grass roots leaders able to make a difference. Mobilization is the key to grass root change success and leaders who do not understand this or apply it are simply unqualified for their post.

What have they done in the form of communications and getting in front to the local and national news media? Grassroots is a war of communications and public opinion making. It is won with voter mobilization. If a leader cannot get its group's message out to the public clearly and consistently and often so that the public will be drawn in toward aiding the cause, then they are simply not organizations worth following (as grass root changers). Political change takes time to develop when started from scratch: first there is awareness building for the issues; then comes detail study and education; next comes the catalyst examples - the three dead family members slaughtered by a felony-immigrant - that inflame and impassion the masses to join the cause; then comes the enlarging of the expansion of the cause and its members with large demonstrations and marches; and then the pressure on law makers to create political change. It all begins with a good communications plan and system that executes well and only good qualified leaders and managers achieve this skill level.

What are the short-term and long-term strategies of the group and does it fit with the over-all cause? If the leader has no clue where he/she is going, where will he/she take their followers? And if they are not playing well with other groups, working on the larger cause, they are simply just another part of the problem and not the solution. Professional group leaders seek out allies and team up with other groups and their leaders to support their own weaknesses, and in turn, support the weaknesses of others where they have strength. Grass roots depends on large amounts of voter-supporters and being able to utilize them effectively to ensure change. Pooling resources is a sign of strength, showing that groups understand that there is greater leverage of resources and safety by working with other groups as part of a larger effort to ensure a victory for the cause. Groups that refuse to work with other groups (with no clear reason) display poor leadership and management and should not be followed.

What is the vision? Only true leaders have vision that they can clearly articulate to others. They must see the end results they are targeting and be willing to stop at nothing to help their group achieve its overriding goal. Vision is the driving force and ship’s rudder, all in one, and if a leader has no vision, the group will surely be lost at sea.

Is the leader a teamwork facilitator? Strong leaders are able to assess their people and are not afraid to delegate, as well as create a teamwork atmosphere of trust and motivation that gets the productivity and progress needed to ensure steady forward movement toward success, even when using volunteers. If leaders refuse to communicate with other leaders or with people on their team, etc. then they are outmoded and should be discarded in lieu of new leaders. For grass roots depends on a strong, team approach to getting goals and objectives met and only leaders who know how to handle teams effectively will be successful.

Has the underlying volunteer management team been given an opportunity to learn and enhance their skill sets toward helping the organization act and work on a professional level, or are they already professionals who can move the ball forward? Not every organization is going to have the benefit of being able to hire professional level managers and personnel, however, there are usually a few key positions that must be filled by professionals no matter what (the key is to find professional volunteers instead of hiring them when funds are short). Having said that, many positions throughout most grass roots change organizations can be easily and effectively operated by amateurs who are willing to learn and who are given help and guidance from the group's core advisor team or leader or both. A good leader knows how to keep his/her volunteers involved, learning new skills, and moving forward on behalf of the group and its ultimate goals. Volunteers are at their best when continually learning new things and fully engaged in duties that new concrete results.

Is the leader pursuing the effort on a full time basis? Only activist leaders who have the time and energy and ability to focus their entire being on the group and its projects and goals are successful with grass roots change. Supporters should not give up on part-timers, but when it comes to grass roots change, they should be looking for groups that maintain a core staff of key volunteers lead by a full time grass roots change leader. Part time efforts usually only produce part-time results. There is nothing wrong with hiring a full time leader or key managers with the skills needed to ensure the group's ultimate success.

###

Related

Felony-Immigration / Open Borders / NAU (Part I, II, III)

Past Articles

Independent Coalition Forming