Social Activism in and Around Organizations

Abstract

Organizations are frequent targets for social activists aiming to influence society by first altering organizational policies and practices. Reflecting a steady rise in research on this topic, we review recent literature and advance an insider-outsider framework to help explicate the diverse mechanisms and pathways involved. Our framework distinguishes between different types of activists based on their relationship with targeted organizations. For example, “insider” activists who are employees of the target organization have certain advantages and disadvantages when compared with “outsider” activists who are members of independent social movement organizations. We also distinguish between the direct and indirect (or spillover) effects of social activism. Much research has focused on the direct effects of activism on targeted organizations, but often the effects on non-targeted organizations matter more for activists goals of achieving widespread change. Drawing on this framework, we identify and discuss eight specific areas that are in need of further scholarly attention.

Notes

1. Indeed, variation around that central tendency also exists and can be studied. For example, under some conditions, employees can shore up their bargaining power, reducing dependence on a target organization. When employees can credibly threaten to withhold their collective labor, and if substitutes for their labor inputs to the organization are limited, their relative dependence is greatly reduced (Commons, 1934). This should expand tactical repertoire options and increase the odds of success for employee activists.

2. Movement spillover effects can be viewed through an ecological lens, as the rise and fall of SMO populations affects their legitimacy, and the intensity of competition for resources (McCarthy & Zald, 1977; Minkoff, 1997).

3. The other off-diagonal condition, involving low knowledge and high dependence, might be found to hold for members of coercive organizations or “total institutions” such as prisons, asylums, cults, militias, nursing homes, work camps, and so on (Goffman, 1961).