If No One Came to Work Could the Movement Run Itself?

July 22, 2022      Roger Craver

This tongue-in-cheek headline raises the question of just how effective progressive advocacy and social change organizations can be when a good part of their staff energy is focused on battling each other rather than advancing the group’s mission at this critical moment in history.

This is particularly true when it comes to reproductive rights organizations in light of the Roe v. Wade reversal.  Or environmental and conservation organizations in the existential battle to save the planet from climate change.  Or civil liberties and civil rights groups faced with the rise of white supremacist and authoritarian extremism.

There couldn’t be a worse time to form internal firing squads.

One of the most frequent descriptors in US politics these days is “tribalism”. For the cable pundits tribalism is the blind group loyalty tearing our country apart. Mindless tribal affiliations, they say, drives polarization and prevents us from finding common ground. The greatest danger of tribalism, they claim, is that it changes political leanings into social identities, creating political morass, gridlock, and decay.

But what if the more serious issue is a lack of shared tribalism within some progressive organizations?  How so?  Tribes exist for lots of positive reasons: to make rules together, to develop consensus, to work out difficult problems and avoid forming a circular firing squad. Real tribes provide a great deal of shared identity, meaning, community and connection in advancing the central values and objectives of the tribe.

Despite the burning need for all hands on deck and a laser like focus on external threats too many women’s health groups – Planned Parenthood, NARAL, Choice America-  are facing drag out fights between competing factions within their organizations.  Sometimes as staff vs. management over efforts to unionize, sometimes over diversity and equity issues, sometimes over policy disputes and sometimes simply because of lousy management or leadership.

One former executive director says, “”So much energy has been devoted to the internal strife and bullshit that this has had a real impact on the ability for groups to deliver.”

The infection of internal conflict has also come home to roost in environmental and conservation groups.  Among them, the Sierra Club, the National Audubon Society and Defenders of Wildlife.

As Politico reported last August,  “following a botched diversity meeting, a highly critical employee survey,  resignations of two top diversity and inclusion officials, the 600,000-member National Audubon Society is confronting allegations that maintains a culture of retaliation, fear and antagonism toward women and people of color, according to interviews with 13 current and former staff members.”

Last month the environmental newsletter Greenwire,quoting a source within the Defenders of Wildlife employee union, reported 123 people have quit or been fired from since 2019.  This includes 30 people who have already left in 2022 with another four planning to depart in the coming weeks.

According to Greenwire, “the environmental group – – widely known for its work to protect wolves and other wild animals – –has a reputation as a terrible place to work. Staffers referred to it as a “nightmare” workplace and a “motorized revolving door.”  Nearly all of them said the organizations management issues are affecting its ability to function.

Current and former staff interviewed by Greenwire broadly described a workplace where turnover is rampant, questioning leadership isn’t tolerated, staff don’t feel like they’re paid fairly, and employees worry they might be fired without notice. Nearly all of them said the organizations management issues are affecting its ability to function.

The reason?  According to Greenwire,  “current and former staff blame Defenders CEO Jamie Rappaport Clark for setting the tone in establishing a “culture of fear” within the organization. Upsetting Clark over even minor issues, they say, can result in getting fired.”

“Clark, 64, has been at the groups helm since 2011. Previously she worked for the National Guard Bureau in the U.S. Army as a wildlife biologist before she was picked by Pres. Bill Clinton to lead the Fish and Wildlife Service’s service in 1997. One former Defenders employee who worked in leadership had considered Clark a mentor and thought they had a close relationship. But “she will turn on a dime on you,” that person said you go from having reviews that are spectacular to being out the door.”

Over in the civil liberties and civil rights sector,  the American Civil Liberties Union, Color of Change, the Movement for Black Lives, Human Rights Campaign, Time’s Up, the Sunrise Movement, and many other organizations have seen wrenching and debilitating turmoil in the past couple years.

As The Intercept, a pro-progressive news organization noted last week in its must-read Elephant In The Zoom  , “…it’s hard to find a Washington-based progressive organization that hasn’t been in tumult, or isn’t currently in tumult.”

Why is this happening?

Of course, there’s no single reason why internal conflict is arising at this critical moment for progressive movements.  Among the reasons offered.

  • “Generations coming up or expecting progressive values to be reflected in what they consider to be a progressive organization, and I think that’s forcing generational conflicts”, said a former Defenders Staffer.
  • When it comes to unionization the folks I’ve talked to with first-hand experience at several progressive groups tell me it seems the organizations running into the most problems are those with leadership unable to adapt or transform because of unwillingness or inability to listen or share power.
  • According to Loretta Ross, author and founder of the reproductive justice collective Sister Song “we’re dealing with a workforce that’s younger, more female, more people of color, more politically woke – – I hate to use that term in a way it shouldn’t be used – – and less loyal in the traditional way to a job, because the whole economic rationale for keeping a job or having a job is change.” That lack of loyalty is not the fault of employees, Ross said, but was foisted on them by a precarious economy that broke.”
  • One executive director says it’s all things: “a lot of staff that work for me, they expect the organization to be all things: a movement, OK. Get out the vote, OK. Healing, OK. Take care of you when you’re sick, “ Can you get your loving, healing at home please?”   But I can’t say that, they would crucify me.”

What’s the effect on hiring and management?

Of course, our nonprofit sector isn’t alone.  We all –whether in the for profit or nonprofit worlds –are tangled up with the current society-wide debates about speech, power, race,  sexuality, and gender that have shaken institutions in recent years.

In many ways these battles are forcing organizations to deal with long overdue and persistent problems including equity and poor management. The climate is forcing the question most movement leaders would rather avoid than answer.  One result is that it’s become harder to hire leaders for what may be perceived as an unmanageable organization. A recent article in the Chronicle of Philanthropy noted that nonprofits were having an extraordinarily hard time finding new leaders amidst unprecedented levels departures among senior officials. “We’ve been around for 26 years and I haven’t seen anything like this.” says the CEO of an executive search firm.

On a more hopeful note,  Dan Cardinali, the outgoing CEO of Independent Sector, told the Chronicle, “It is disruptive and, in the short term, inefficient. In the middle and long term, I’m hopeful that it will be actually a profound accelerator in our ability to be a force for the common good, for a thriving and healthy country.”

Of one thing I’m certain, given 50+ years building and growing progressive organizations, without a strong sense of group identity and shared feeling that everyone in the organization is in it together that group will be going nowhere fast.

What are you seeing or experiencing?

Roger

P.S.  I have not dug into how this disarray is affecting donors.  For now, given the high response rates and contributions to most progressive groups involved in front-line advocacy and political battles these internal conflicts seem to have little effect on mass fundraising.   Since none of the watchdog groups like the BBB Wise Giving Alliance or Charity Navigator report on staff morale or internal strife my assumption is most donors are unaware of internal issues for the groups and causes they support.  Of course, should the internal strife turn into external defeats on critical issues like reproductive rights, civil liberties and climate change, a financial reckoning may follow.

For readers –job seekers among you or just the curious –who want to get a sense of internal staff morale and management practices in many nonprofits check out Glass Door.

8 responses to “If No One Came to Work Could the Movement Run Itself?”

  1. Harvey McKinnon says:

    A timely and valuable post. “Let’s unite against the common enemy: The People’s Front of Judea”.

    If progressives don’t get their act together, the fascists will win. That’s the fight we have to focus on, because if you feel the person next to you in the office is a little irritating, you’ll find losing your job and losing your human rights a lot worse.

    And yes, there are a lot of problems of injustice, bullying, and more, as you acknowledge, but the big fight is something we need to unite on. And donors will catch on soon. I know a few non-profits that I’ve supported for years who are having massive internal fights. They aren’t focusing on their missions. and that’s’ the reason people donate. There will be a reckoning.

    • I agree, Harvey. But of course, a good leader will pull the staff together around their issue. That means leadership has to keep a sharp eye on the mission, too.

  2. Tiffany Reed says:

    Hi, it’s Loretta Ross, not Beretta Ross. Please update, thank you. https://lorettajross.com/

  3. Gail Perry says:

    Wow, thank you Roger, and you too ,Harvey. The movements are eating themselves alive. I am seeing it too. Thank you for pointing this out so thoroughly Roger!
    I agree that the younger generation expects a very different work environment (supportive, nurturing and DEI) than we experienced 20-30 years ago. We have all got to find common ground if we are going to move our causes – and the country – forward.

  4. I think there’s a bit of a tendency to conflate a good working atmosphere with some sort of… parenting? But some of the things younger people are pushing for are essential: an end to even casual racism, an end to sexism, acceptance of people across gender and sexual orientations.

    I was tossed into managing people in my mid-20s. Suddenly, 25 people reported to me. I learned a few things: not to expect staff to do anything I wasn’t willing to do. To model the behavior I expected from them. To treat them fairly and kindly.

    And I’ve had two bad experiences as an employee, too. One new boss caused the loss of all 4 senior women staff within months. The other used (fake) emotional caring as a weapon.

    We need people willing to take on these important causes but also who see caring for their staff as part of pushing their cause forward. And it’s never been more important!

  5. Pamela Grow says:

    Thank you for this, Roger. I’ve spoken with many of my colleagues lately about this issue, but never as succinctly as you frame it here. This lack of focus we’re seeing will be the final nail in the coffin for democracy. Like Cardinali says, I’m hopeful that all this will be an accelerator for healthier workplaces. But in the meantime, we’re losing the war. Harvey said it: if we don’t get our shit together, the fascists will win.