What's the Difference? - Organizer, Field Organizer, Canvasser

The 2020 Democratic Presidential primary season has already started, which means that candidates will start hiring staff. Most of the on-the-ground staff will be in the states that are early in the primary calendar, such as Iowa and New Hampshire. Given the number of candidates, it is likely that the titles for positions that are roughly the same will vary considerably.

We’ve seen some overlapping of titles, however, in recent years. The Obama presidential campaigns, especially, made use of the title “organizer” for the people on the ground working most directly with volunteers. This is likely given President Obama’s history as a community organizer, as well as the background of folks who helped President Obama’s campaigns develop their field and training plans, folks like Marshall Ganz and Joy Cushman. These individuals have decades of experience with long-term community organizing.

The title of “organizer” has since been used by more and more candidate’s campaigns, with varying levels of fidelity to the idea of an organizer that Ganz and Cushman had in mind. That idea came from unions, the Civil Rights movement, and other long-term community organizing groups like Faith in Action (formerly PICO). So in order to develop some clear distinctions, I offer the following definitions:

Organizer - This role focuses on building community and developing leaders. This is done through 1:1 conversations, house meetings, trainings, and coaching. The goal is to develop long-lasting organizations, centered around shared values and identity, that can use their growing power for a wide variety of purposes. These purposes can include legislative advocacy, direct action, and elections/civic engagement. The organizer is a thought-partner, agitator, teacher, pastor.

Field Organizer - The field organizer role is more limited than that of an organizer. They are given a plan, a geographic or demographic turf, specific skills, and told to execute the plan. They recruit volunteers to accomplish the plan. They may build up structures that look like those created by an organizer, but the key distinction is that the structures themselves do not determine priorities or goals. The field organizer is an doer and volunteer coordinator.

Canvasser - These folks have one job, which is simply to talk to people at the doors. These conversations are generally of two types: persuasion or Get Out the Vote. There is no true relational component to their work, which is driven purely by numbers. These folks can be truly effective for their given part in a strategy, but that part is very narrow and not up for debate or discussion.

Field organizers and canvassers are key parts of a candidates’ campaigns, but they shouldn’t be confused with the role of organizer as it exists in organizations that build long-term power. Indeed, it is not uncommon for organizations founded by staff from candidate campaigns to use the term organizer, when in fact they do not completely understand its breadth and depth.

Conflating these titles causes confusion within the larger progressive movement. I’ve seen individuals with several campaigns cycles of experience as an “organizer” (field organizer) on candidate campaigns try to move over to long-term community organizing groups, and be completely unequipped for their new role.

So let’s call a spade a spade.

Data and its Usefulness

It is not unusual for me to hear people say that they don't feel like they need to have data, or quantitative information generally, inform their decisions.

Most of me thinks that is unwise. But I also understand their perspective, even if I don't agree with it. Sometimes the evangelists of "big data" promise things they can't deliver. Sometimes they have a misplaced idea of where data should be placed in their decision-making processes. Sometimes they just have a very narrow definition of data that prevents them from preaching its true worth.

My definition of data is "Information, mostly quantitative but sometimes qualitative, that can be organized in a way to see trends, judge performance, increase efficiency, and otherwise aid decision-making."

This is a fairly broad definition. Survey and polling results fall within this definition. So do results of experiments of varying levels of complexity. Self-reported data from employees qualifies. So does website and social media data, fundraising and other financial data, and field contact data. Publicaly available data, of course, qualifies.

I could go on and on.

There are pieces of information, though, that cannot fit easily into this definition, if at all. Some aspects of relationships are not easily categorized or quantified. There is no replacement for expertise or a wide network of contacts. Also, the general zeitgeist is almost impossible to measure.

However, deciding not to use data because it can't give you everything you want is "letting the perfect be the enemy of the good." This is especially true when it comes to tracking, and using, data to manage people and improve organizational effectiveness.

For example, tracking one-to-one conversations held by members of the sales team can allow a manager to coach her employees to make the most of potential leads, while halting or limiting time spent on leads that aren't producing sales. 

The manager would be wrong, though, to only look at the numbers and then order the sales rep to halt all work with a lead. It might be that the lead wants to switch suppliers, but has the wait until the current contract runs its course. In this situation, the sales rep is doing the wise thing; maintaining a relationship that will produce sales down the road. The quantitative information prompts the manager to ask questions. It isn't the end of the decision-making process, but the beginning.

This type of process is also useful in community organizing. Managers can see how many one-to-one conversations organizers are having per week. They can see who those people are, and if they have taken any actions (house meetings, legislative visits, phone banks/door-to-door canvassing, etc.) If an organizer if spending a significant amount of time with an individual who is not taking next steps, the manager can ask the organizer what is going on. 

It might be that the potential leader is going through a divorce/death/job transition/etc. They could have all the characteristics of someone who will be great, but life is just getting in the way. In that situation, it might be worth it for the organizer to continue working with the individual even though s/he isn't currently taking action.

However, it could also be that the two have become friends, but that the individual will never do more, and the organizer is blind to it. The manager can then challenge the organizer to spend less time on that relationship.

Regardless of your situation, if you aren't tracking your organizational activities in comprehensive and meaningful ways, you are robbing yourself of valuable information that can be used to make your work more efficient. On the flip side, data can't save you. If you don't know your field, stakeholders, clients, constituents, or customers deeply, or if your organization is deeply dysfunctional, then terabytes of data won't make you successful.