ILPC 2026

Over the past four decades, the system of worker representation based on trade unionism and collective bargaining has been eroding and new forms of worker representation, such as community-based organizations and worker centers have emerged (Fine 2006; Osterman 2001; Wills and Simms 2004). Community organizations are considered critical in revitalizing civic participation and engagement and key to their success lies exactly in their ability to mobilize and engage thousands of people (Holgate and Wills 2007; ed. Orr 2007; Osterman 2002; Swarts 2008; Warren 2001).

In this paper I compare a similar model of community organizations in the US, UK, and Germany, and try to identify the underlying processes that explain the organizations’ mobilization capacity. More specifically, I focus on three community organizations in Boston, London, and Berlin - the Greater Boston Interfaith Organization (GBIO), London Citizens (LC), and the German Institute for Community Organizing (DICO) - all affiliated with the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), a network of community organizations that started under Saul Alinsky in 1930s Chicago.

My data has been collected between 2008-2012 and is structured around three different methods: participant observation, semi-structured interviews, and archival analysis. During the process of data collection and analysis, I adopted the “grounded theory” approach developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967) and refined by Corbin and Strauss (2008). My data analysis occurs at two levels: Since my research design is based on a small-N case study approach, I combine cross-case comparisons and within-case analysis. Through systematic case study analysis (Yin 2003) and process-tracing (George and Bennett 2005), I try to identify the underlying causal processes that explain the mobilization capacity and development of these three organizations.

While academic interest usually lies in explaining variance between cases, the puzzle here is the similarity of outcomes.  Why are these organizations so similar in their mobilization capacity, even though they function in very different institutional and socio-economic contexts?

To explain the striking similarity among my cases, I emphasize the importance of the organizations’ adopting a similar “hybrid logic of organizing,” combining the logics of bureaucracy and social movements in both their organizational structure and culture. First, organizations have a hybrid organizational structure with offices and paid professional staff on the one hand, but on the other, they rely on volunteers and membership dues. In line with social movement theory, while hierarchical organizations tend to become overly conservative, locked-in, bureaucratic structures, lacking any mobilizing capacity, the anarchist counter model, based on extremely loose ties, often lacks the necessary coordination to act (Tarrow 2011).  These hybrid organizations, however, have a sufficiently robust structure, providing legitimacy and resources, while they are also able to take advantage of the informal networks connecting people and organizations. Second, in terms of organizational culture, the organizations combine a “relational” culture based on values and trust, fostering a sense of commitment, with a more pragmatic culture based on strategic decision-making and negotiations, fostering a sense of accountability (Kanter 1968, 1972; Lawler et al. 2009). Again, in line with social movement theory, cultural dimensions, which in turn produce solidarity, motivate participants, and thus spur collective action (e.g., Goffman 1974; Snow et al. 1986; Polletta 2006; Valocchi 2008).

Differences, however, come to the forefront as well, as organizers need to adapt each model to fit within a specific context. Indeed, while these organizations adhere to the same model of organizing, at the same time, they try to be dynamic enough to work in different landscapes. As a result, a process of creative borrowing occurs within the boundaries of the external context and differences in strategies regarding organizing and membership come to the forefront.

With this cross-national comparison I contribute to the theoretical debates on the role of alternative forms of collective representation, the development of organizations, and the factors affecting their mobilization capacity. By bridging different theoretical approaches from industrial relations, social movement, and organizational studies, I emphasize the importance of the interaction between structure and agency, or, more specifically, the external environment, the internal organizational structure, as well as the organizational culture and the strategic capacities of the organizers to explain the success of the organizations.