What Makes a Social Movement Successful : Leadership?

Social motions have a significant impact on our society and it is crucial that we understand how those movements are shaped. As people we are all part of a greater society and could be hired to defend human rights. Understanding how to form social movements so they have better possibilities of being successful could indicate the difference in between a society that guides enhanced human rights and one that loses sight. There is a good deal of literature on social movements and it has ended up being increasing popular given that the Vietnam Era of social demonstration.

The literature normally analyses social movements and looks for to classify various aspects of social movements, however very little exists on how to make social motions successful, how to shape them, and how to lead them. My research aims to reveal the causes of social movements and find leaders that make them occur. Through the analysis of charming tokens that acquire media attention, to the regional neighborhood members who decide to do something about it, this paper wants to define leadership characteristics and how they apply to social movement success.

Get quality help now

KarrieWrites

Verified writer

Proficient in: Case Study

5 (339)

“ KarrieWrites did such a phenomenal job on this assignment! He completed it prior to its deadline and was thorough and informative. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

Leaders definitely are available in numerous kinds and determining how they influence social movement success is a crucial step to better a much better understanding of how to shape our future.

What Makes a Social Movement Effective: Is Management the Deciding Element?

Research Concern: Does Leadership play a central function in figuring out if a social motion will be considered a successful one? Intro When taking a look at social movements it is necessary to understand what makes them successful.

Governments are in location to direct our communities in a direction of success, when those federal governments fail to listen to the will of the people; social movements are what society counts on for social change.

To better understand what makes social movements successful one should turn to historical social movements and look for clues to better understand the movements that have succeeded in achieving social change, and the movements that failed in the attempt. This paper sets out to better gauge the specifics of what causes success and to define what a successful movement is, what aspects are consistent among these movements and what characteristics do failed or less successful movements continuously lack.

The selected movements will be measured on such specifics, and then weighed against the actual successfulness of the movement to determine if there is a direct correlation between the two; success and leadership. This will help to display the results in a clear and concise format, allowing the variables to be compared and analyzed objectively.

What the Literature Says:
There is a saying in the Marine Corps that whenever there are two or Marines in the same room, someone is in charge. This is based on the idea that someone is either at a higher rank, or grade, and therefore responsible for whatever takes place. So it is in our society when more than one person is involved. Someone is more capable intellectually, spiritually, motivationally, strategically, or instinctively and therefore, responsible for the actions that take place to either start or lead social change. It is a well-known concept that history is written by the winners.

The truth of what has actually occurred in comparison with the facts that are recorded fall to those who have the power to document the events – so it is with the events that define social movements. Social movements are recognized as the tool of the masses to convert various ideas into action for social change, but the interpretation of those ideas falls into the hands of those who have the power to document the events. Thus, an analysis can be completed to determine what causes some social movements to be successful, while others fail. When searching for literature behind social movements, there is no shortage of classical as well as modern theories behind what causes the masses to take action.

Start by narrowing the historical literature down into three main schools of thought so you can take a closer look at how social movements are born, why some succeed, and others fail. (Clearly, using a broad brush to paint a simplified scope of the topic, but this will help to centralize the data in a more digestible context.) The main schools of thought in this paper have been grouped in the following types of action:
Collective Action, Economic/Political, and Leadership Centered. Collective Action

One would assume that in order to get a better understanding of the causes for “social movements” you would begin with motives derived purely from social factors. A majority of the early academic research on social movements are based on theories rooted around the concept that “groups” themselves drive the dynamics of social movements. Most of the early literature points to Collective Action Theory as the foundation of the academic study of social movements.

The Collective Action theory, as defined by Gustave Le Bon, in his book Psychologie des Foules states, that societies are formed by small groups of intellectuals who impose their will on the masses. Groups of individuals take on mental unity and lose the ability to think rationally and morally when they are part of the masses (Oberschall 4-5). According to Touraine, for a social movement to take place there are four factors that define the circumstances. First, you must have a committed population willing to take action. Second, the action must be organized and not just a general opinion of the group.

Third, there must be an adversary of the group who is in opposition to their will. Finally, the conflict must be a general problem for the group to take action and not a specific grievance of a select few (Touraine 85). Buechler does an excellent job breaking the Collective Behavior theory down in his book when he states, “panics, crazes, crowds, and movements are thus seen almost as interchangeable manifestations of collective behavior that can be analyzed in the same way” (Buechler 20).

While it is possible for people to form into small social networks without being organized, a communication network must already be available if they are to respond to a specific crisis (Freeman 7-8). Basically, Collective Action theorizes that social movements are masses of individuals acting outside of normal motivating factors in order to respond collectively to stress that has been applied to the group from an outside source.

The problem with looking at social movements through this lens is that you disempower the individual by assuming individual choices take a backseat to collective momentum. Individuals have autonomous motives, then you must progress past Collective Action theories to find an answer to how social movements are formed, why some succeed, and others fail. Economic/

PoliticalThis takes us to the school of thought that focuses on the domination of power by the state over the collective people, which over time accumulate grievances, then require social action in order to obtain resolution. Most of the literature on economic and political social movements originates in one form or another around the theory of the “State”.

The idea of the “State” is defined early on by Marxism, including elements of Leninism, whereas the state is either “an instrument of class domination or else it was the result of a new stage of capitalism (or of a new mode of production)” (Castells 298). Meyer gives us a solid definition of the state centered theories when he wrote, “the state centered research treats the state structures and polices as constraints, then runs various movements though them, comparing the different outcomes” (Meyer 25).

The literature seems to evolve around state centered theories into a consensus of Resource Mobilization where social movements then become defined as, “an extension of politics by other means, and can be analyzed in terms of conflicts of interest” between the people and the state (Buechler 34). Social change begins in the context of organizational action and not with the individual, then weighs out the costs versus the benefits of taking a stance for social equalities (Eyerman 25). In short, the economic and political theories assume that the masses are moved as a reaction to an authoritative figure, typically the state, and only take action as a response to resist the powers of the state.

Again, the problem with this looking at social movements through this lens is the notion of the “individual” is lost to the concept of the masses, taking action merely as a reaction to an existing structure. We would have to assume that economies, states, and politics are anomalies of culture and not formed by the will of historic figures, and that somehow these structures organically form in our societies, as opposed to being placed there by individuals who made rational choices to create them. Given this omission, these theories cannot properly rationalize the cause for social movements or clearly define why some succeed and others fail. Leadership Centered

The leadership centered theory of social movements defines the individual
psychological and leadership centered factors that impact social movements. The leadership centered classification is rooted in the theory of individuals at the center of social change and assumes society is formed by autonomous actors (Eyerman 30). This theory is heavily backed by research done by Hadley Cantril and documented in his book, The Psychology of Social Movements, where Cantril states, “Social movements are formulated at the roots by individuals. Individual psychology drives the individuals that in a social atmosphere drive social change” (Cantril 8).

Cantril goes on to use five historical case studies: The Lunching Mob, The Kingdom of Father Divine, The Oxford Group, The Townsend Plan, and The Nazi Party, to uncover the rise of leaders in various forms, from the emergence of mob leaders to leadership within social and political movements, illustrating how the individual becomes the center of the “collective”. As Catherine Ingram demonstrates to us in her book, In the Footsteps of Gandhi, a single man can be responsible for the uprising of the Palestinians in Israel during the “Intifada”, Mubarak Awad, merely by his dedication and leadership towards a non-violent social movement (Ingram 28-36).

When it comes to social movements, the actors in the movement can be placed in one of two categories, “the leaders and the led, the organizers and the individual members” (Eyerman 94). Knowledge of the world is determined by the lens through which individuals view reality and their place in it (Eyerman 30). Thus, leaders have the power to alter world views and shape the momentum of the masses to take action towards social change.

One of the problems, with other social movement theories is they fail to focus on the impact of the individual and the importance of leadership for the success or failure of the movement (Ganz 178). When stress is applied to a group, leaders begin to take control of the masses and “talented leaders may also be transformed into symbols of a new community of identity, a source of their charisma (Ganz 180). Numerous cases demonstrate how “an ordinary person becomes the hero (leader) if he can express the common needs of the group” (Cantril 114).

Leadership strategy is equally important, as is the importance of leaders to be able to implement their ideas into effective action. Someone must take specific steps to attempt to organize a social movement (Freeman 8). Those steps require a strategy, which is given particular focus when Ganz states, “Strategy is how we turn what we have into what we need to get what we want” (Ganz 181).

Ganz goes on to explain that a successful social movement can be attributed to the “strategic capacity of the leader” and how the lack of an effective strategy will result in a failed attempt towards social change (Ganz 181). When people realize there is a time for change it originates as individuals perceive an “imperfection” in the current state of things.

Then, early leaders strive to correct the state of things and look for a more “perfect” solution. As a growing number of people begin to voice their concerns on the same issue, and a meeting is called to organize the group towards taking action (Stewart 129). Clearly, we can see the influence of leadership in the steps between taking action and the formation of the masses to take action. Leadership creates a change in the world view by the individual through which social change begins to take place, and the world view shifts can be attributed to “attitudinal or mental change” driven by the concepts of leaders who decided to take action (Eyerman 30).

The leadership hypothesis presents the most accurate classification of the cause of social movements, as this school embodies the organizational and individual leadership strategies needed to start, and sustain any successful social movement. Literature Review Conclusion

Social movements are defined by the actors involved, the frames through which they view the world, the motivating factors that drive them to take action, and the resources used to form and perpetuate their activities. It may be seen as oversimplifying to view social movements through the point of view of the “individual” but without individuals, there are no social movements. By developing our understanding of the principles of a leadership based theory we will better understand how to change the world. The ability of leaders to inspire others and drive actions of change towards a centralized vision is the essential element of a successful social movement.

In my paper, I will argue the thesis that social movements are not only formed by individual leaders, but the survival and success of a social movement depend on them. Ganz summarizes it best when he stated, “although learning about how the environment influences actors is important, learning more about how actors influence the environment is the first step not only to understanding the world, but changing it” (Ganz 197).

The Research:

Is there truly a recipe for success? Is it based on main ingredients or more on the way it is played out? In regard to social movements there are several instances in which this can be analyzed. The literature categorizes social movements by how they begin and the factors that drive the movements towards creating social change. This information gives a broad view of social movements, but does not help determine the variation between the successful movements and the ones that fail. To help gain a better understanding of social movements and how they impact society, one can start by looking more closely at the correlation between the concepts of leadership and success.

This research ultimately analyzes the following theory: since all groups are comprised of individuals, then successful social movements can be contributed to leaders that take action towards social change. A leader can be defined or thought of as an individual willing to take charge, responsibility, and initiative; someone, who will be the voice of the masses and constructively carry forward an ideal towards social change. Hypothesis: Successful Social Movements Are Dependent on Centralized Leadership The selected case studies will be further analyzed to answer the following question: Was the leadership a determining factor in the social movement being a success?

In order to answer these questions, the data will be analyzed assuming that each of the following case studies can be placed into a school of thought as discussed in the literature review. To be examined are the following: Nazi Germany, The Farmworkers’ Movement which is divided into three separate time frames (spanning1946 to 1972) to be evaluated independently, and the First Intifada.

Three case studies were selected to provide a broad base of data spanning across various decades of history, different demographics, political initiatives, and human rights causes. While similar in their capacity of importance, they tend to vary drastically when looked at on the scale of effectiveness by a leader. Independent Variables

The first independent variable to be analyzed is Leadership Success. As a leader, there should be specific personality traits that are consistent among the successful social movements; inspiration of others and charisma.
These leadership attributes of the specified case studies will be assigned a value of either 1 point if demonstrated or 0 points if not. The leadership success has been broken down into two sections to help allow potential variations across the case studies, and to also look for variations in leadership for analysis. The First Leadership Success (LS1) score, an analysis will be made as to whether there was evidence that a leader(s) was able to inspire others.

For the Second Leadership Success (LS2) score, the analysis will be done to determination whether or not there was involvement by a “charismatic” leader, e.g., eloquent, energetic, and/or able to make the masses feel as though, he the leader, carries the same ideals as they do (Bob 358). The emphasis for LS2 will be to look for a leader the meets the definition of a “charismatic” leader. The second independent variable to be analyzed is the Movement Classification (MC) of the movement. The case studies are identified with the corresponding school of thought from the literature review: Collective Action = 0, Economical/Political = 0, and Leadership Centered = 1.

The values have been determined to help measure the impact of leadership as an independent variable. The case studies will be reviewed to determine which Movement Classification they fall into. This may prove to be somewhat difficult as each movement could be categorized by each classification, but analysis will be applied to determine which classification the case study “best” fits. There is quantitative value in factoring in this variable to determine how it plays out in the final evaluation of the impact of leadership as a cause of social movement success. Dependent Variables

The success or failure of a social movement will be determined by analyzing the following dependent variables when reviewing the case studies: 1) Level of Participation in the movement > 500 people successfully =1 point. Should the participation of the movement be below 500 participants the score would result in 0 points.

The 500 person breakpoint was chosen to classify if the movement was a small group of individuals with specific grievances without a large following, or if the movement gained a substantial following towards social change. 2) Continued Growth of the movement being longer than six months of growing participation = 1 point. Six months or less of constructive growth would result in 0 points.

The six months of growth was chosen to measure if the movement was a “flash in the pan” social following, like seen in response to news events such as local protests or flash riots, or if the movement was able to sustain growing membership over a significant period of time. 3) Scope of the Movement and the direct impact beyond 300 miles from its origins = 1 point. If the movement does not show direct impact beyond 300 miles results in 0 points.

The 300 mile breakpoint was chosen to analyze the geographical impact of the movement and determine if it was a regional issue or more of a widespread global issue. This will also be used to determine the leadership’s ability to “spread the word” and sell their ideology outside of their local influence. 4) Accomplished Goals of the movement, written or verbally documented = 1 point, Not obtaining a majority of the goals or primary goal results in 0 points. This measurement was selected to determine if the leadership of the movement was able to not only articulate the goals of their actions; but also, if they were able to accomplish the goals they set out to achieve.

Each factor will be determined by analyzing the case study and narrowing down a yes or a no answer, whereby: Yes = 1 and No = 0. The cumulative Success Score of a movement will determine the level of success or failure. Obviously, a movement with all “0’s” would be considered a relative failure, whereas one with a higher score would be considered more of a success, by this scale. Some of the breakpoints could be argued to be arbitrary, however they were chosen with particular consideration to help pull applicable data from the case studies to determine if the movements were considered successful.

That being said, a complication that could still be faced and may need to be reevaluated is if a case study falls somewhere in the middle ground of the 4 factors with a score of a 2 or 3. Is something not marked at the top still considered a success since it has some of the factors needed? Or is it considered a failure due to lack of 1 or more determining factors? This is a potential roadblock that may be encountered and would require more evaluation. But, the ultimate goal here is to look at the successfulness of the movement in order to measure the correlation of the impact of leadership to the success of social movements. Case Studies and Methodology

While the Nazi regime is known world-wide for its devastating consequences on humanity, it must be looked at objectively, as a demonstration of the start of a powerful entity from the rubble of a lost society. A small group of disgruntled men, holding weekly meetings, eventually started their own political party in post WWI Germany. Following this they found their “voice”, if you will, to push their ideas forward.

The effects following carried their hopes of a different way of living forward and ultimately into a position of world power - for better or for worse. Probably the least known of the three selected social movements is the Farmworkers’ movement. This was a social movement that spanned almost three decades.

It had several small victories and large setbacks, through the course of various leaders. Though there were three specific phases of this movement the objectives remained the same; fairness to American farmworkers. This movement is unique in the fact it, in itself, is three small movements that have different qualities creating different results.

In the grand scheme of this social movement all the phases were necessary to form the eventual outcome. The Israeli intent to suppress the Palestinians in the late 1980’s was counteracted by an uprising of the Palestinian youth. The movement came after years of tension in the Gaza strip over the rightful possession of the land in that region.

As military and political leadership reigned over the issues at hand many Palestinians looked to outside assistance to help alleviate their grievances. Unfortunately, that assistance came in the form of military power that consumed even more of the land in the territory and drove the local population to action.

What started in the 1970’s as a more intellectual struggle with negotiations to settle the conflict, exploded into chaos as the children of a suppressed generation found they were no longer afraid of Israeli militant forces. Although violence is at the center of the Intifada, there have since been significant efforts to use non-violent civil disobedience as a form of protest. Plotting the Data

Looking at the above synopses, it can be seen that not all strong and impactful social movements follow any sort of specific criteria. There are several angles in which they can be assessed and must continue to be looked at objectively. Thus, we analyze the information on a point system to keep the approach to determination of success unbiased. By cross analyzing the data – correlations can be determined between the origins of the movement and how the success indicators of the movement can be tied to the impact by
leadership.

The data will be placed in two main categories: The Leadership Score and the Success Score. The Leadership Score will include the Leadership Success LS1 and LS2, as well as the MC scores and will be an accumulation of adding together each of the scores. The total of the Leadership Score will range from 0, meaning that none of the leadership factors were found in the case studies, up to a possible 3, meaning that all the leadership factors were found. A score of 0 or 1 will indicate the social movement in the case study had relatively low leadership, while a score of 2 or 3 will indicate the social movement had relatively high leadership.

Therefore; a 0 or 1 score will be considered “Low”, and a 2 or 3 score will be considered “High”. The Success Score will include each of the Success Scores SS1 thru SS4 and will be an accumulation of adding together each of the scores. The total of the Success Score will range from 0, meaning that none of the success factors were found in the case studies, up to a possible 4, meaning that all the success factors were found. A score of 0, 1, or 2 will indicate that the social movement in the case study was a relatively low success, while a score of 3 or 4 will indicate the social movement had a relatively high success. Therefore; a 0, 1, or 2 score will be considered “Low”, and a 3 or 4 score will be considered “High”.

Once the relative success of the movement has been determined as High or Low it can be compared to the correlation to the leadership of the movement as High or Low. The correlation to high or low success in comparison to high or low leadership should provide the data to prove or disprove the hypothesis: Successful Social Movements Are Dependent on Centralized Leadership.

The Results
Nazi Movement: The first area of observation will be to apply the Leadership Score. In the Nazi movement Adolf Hitler was identified as the “silver lining to the clouds” and a solution to the needs of the German people (Cantril 232). The German people quickly identified with Hitler and began to see his vision as their own personal goals (Cantril 236). This clearly demonstrates an inspirational leader who was able to inspire the masses. LS1 = 1.

When looking for a charismatic basis behind Hitler’s leadership there is evidence that he “shouted certainty” and was able to rouse the emotions of the German people to where one observed, “His appeal to German manhood was like a call to arms, the gospel he preached a sacred truth. He seemed another Luther. I forgot everything but the man; then, glancing around, I saw that his magnetism was holding these thousands as one” (Cantril 236). Solid evidence of a charismatic leader and a LS2 = 1.

The second area of observation will be the Movement Classification. During the early 1920’s Germany was struggling to find political stability. The Weimar constitution divided power equally amongst each political party and made it nearly impossible for any one party to take hold and create any consistently effective government (Cantril 219). Also, the post Versailles treaty economy of Germany had caused inflation to become such a problem that, “the mark fell to a ridiculous figure.

An American dollar in 1923 could buy three to four billion marks” (Cantril 221). Although there is evidence this could be considered an economic/political motivated movement, the involvement of the extremely charismatic leader, Adolf Hitler, as arguably the greatest impact to the Nazi social movement, places this more as a leadership centered movement. Therefore the Movement Classification would be a MC3 = 1.

Third area of observation is the Success Score. The Nazi movement started in a local pub in Munich, Germany by a small group of politically unsatisfied men, including Adolf Hitler, in 1919 (Cantril 210). The movement spread to over 8,000 people who attended the meeting in March of 1921 at Zirkus Krone, over two years later (Cantril 243). The movement grew to over 850,000 by Jan 1933 (Cantril 264). This shows the participation in the movement was over 500 people and sustained growth over six months: SS1 = 1 and SS2 = 1. Common historical knowledge notes the Nazi movement spread across all of Eastern Europe, and some would argue, the entire world: SS3 = 1.

The Nazi movement had extensive and ever changing goals throughout their reign and to try to narrow down specific goals may extend past the scope of this paper; however, it was clear that Hitler sought to gain power over the Political system of Germany. Hitler did become one of the most influential leaders in history: SS4 = 1.

Therefore, the Total Leadership Score = 3 and the Total Success Score = 4. The Nazi Social Movement supports the argument, leadership is the defining factor in the success of social movements, since the movement had clear evidence of leadership centered success as demonstrated by a LS = 2, a Leadership Total of 3, and an overall Success Total of 4. These combined scores show that leadership is a central part of the ultimate success of this social movement and supports the overall hypothesis.

Farmworkers’ Movement: The Farmworkers’ Movement is broken down into three periods: Period 1: The NFLU Conflict (1946-1955), Period 2: Elite Reform and Realignment (1956-1964), and Period 3: The UFW Success (1965-1972). In order to provide a thorough analysis of this movement the observation will be broken down by each period of the movement in order to compare the variables. Period 1: The NFLU Conflict (1946-1955): The first area of observation will be to apply the Leadership Score. The Farmworkers’ Union, led by the National Farm Labor Union (NFLU), was considered an arbitrary movement as well as a failure even though the leadership was considered “experienced and resourceful” (Jenkins 321).

When the Leadership Score is applied to this data there is a LS1 = 1. The text continues to elaborate on the extensive prior experience that the leadership had. “The leadership cadre was experienced and resourceful.” (Jenkins 321) However, at no point does it elude to the leaders being engaging or captivating to the NFLU, therefore LS2 = 0. The second area of observation will be the Movement Classification. The NFLU was formed at a time when there were several constraints being placed on farmworkers by the government.

The government was in conflict on several levels when it came to the rights of deprived groups, such as farmworkers, in comparison to those such as growers (Jenkins 321). The braceros program, a group of government imported contract workers, caused even more turmoil for the NFLU. It was stated that the braceros were not to be employed unless there was a shortage of labor and never in the same field as domestic workers (Jenkins 323). When this didn’t follow through the NFLU presented with several strikes to gain ground, if you will, with the government.

While Collective Action may have been the most evident way that the NFLU communicated their goals and frustrations it is clearly based upon a political/economical foundation. Therefore the Movement Classification would be a MC3 = 0. Third area of observation is the Success Score. The Farmworkers’ movement started in California and eventually spanned all of South west America in its first phase that lasted from 1946-1955, clearly SS1 =1, SS2=1, and SS3=1.

However, as this large political group that is staging major labor strikes, such as the DiGiorgio strike of 1948 and the Imperial Valley strike of 1951 (Jenkins 322) there was no evidence of the NFLU gaining any ground with government powers or with diminishing the braceros program as they had so intended, giving them and SS4=0. Therefore, the Total Leadership Score = 1 and the Total Success Score = 3. Thus, this demonstrates that a lack of leadership can cause for a disadvantage when attempting to meet a goal within a social movement. Period 2: Elite Reform and Realignment (1956-1964): The first area of observation will be to apply the Leadership Score.

Throughout the second stage of the Farmworkers’ movement, the NFLU began to lose momentum and focus. Their participation in insurgents digressed. The current changes in the political structure seemed to leave them without a party to support or back them. They were in a period of confusion and decline from the small progress made in the first period. With very little guidance to be found the second period is easily determined to score LS1=0 and LS2=0. The second area of observation will be the Movement Classification. Continuing to follow the original structure from the earlier period, the movement remains a political/economic driven movement giving this period a MC3=0.

Third area of observation is the Success Score. During the second period, the progress of the NFLU seemed to stagnate. Having only one full time cadre in organization and activity by insurgents dropping drastically to only 11% from their 16% at the end of the first period (Jenkins 325), there was definite regression in progress. The amount of farmworkers involved didn’t waiver, their active participation may have decreased but not been eliminated. SS1=1.

With a continuous effort to keep the NFLU alive being about the capacity of the organization at the time there was little ability to establish growth in support. There was not a complete failure during this period but there was no significant positive growth to report, giving the second period a SS2=0. The Farmworkers’ Movement did continue to affect farmworkers across the entire country so they were still covering mass amounts of territory allowing them a SS3=1.

A decline in progress and stagnation in advancement did not allow goals to be met or accomplished at all, leaving this phase with a SS4=0. Therefore, the Total Leadership Score = 0 and the Total Success Score = 2. This score would insinuate that with a lack of any leadership, in an already tumultuous time, that should you have begun to see success earlier, that you will lose ground without a strong front man to continue pushing forward.

Period 3: The NFLU Conflict (1965-1972): The first area of observation will be to apply the Leadership Score. The backing of the Community Service Organization director Cesar Chavez allowed for outside support and guidance (Jenkins 328). This is something that after the second period the movement was in dire need of; support. Chavez actively sought out support from the liberal groups he had established connections to help back the movement, convincing groups, such as California Migrant Ministry to help in support of the NFLU.(Jenkins 328) Hence, giving this period of the movement a LS1=1 and LS2=1. The second area of observation will be the Movement Classification.

This period, like the first two, is driven by economic and political forces. While there were influences by leaders that had an impact on determining the outcome of the Farmworkers’ movement, it can’t be determined that this is social movement could be anything but political/economic based resulting in the MC3=0. Third area of observation is the Success Score. The movement grew to its largest and most influential through this period (Jenkins 330). The movement had become a national issue. It was more prominent than ever and attracting the attention of President Nixon’s opinion at one point (Jenkins 330). These points substantiating the SS1=1, SS2=1, and SS3=1.

The Farmworkers’ Movement had finally been able to accomplish their goal; they were able to be treated fairly and to drive the growers down to a manageable and fair scope. With the growers losing their political power and the UFW (United Farm Workers), as they were now titled, they would no longer be in constant need to cause for social disruption through strikes and riots, they had achieved their mission of fair treatment. SS4=1.

Therefore, the Total Leadership Score = 2 and the Total Success Score = 4. Given the very high scores in leadership as well as success the correlation seems to demonstrate itself. A social movement so large and inconsistent it had to be broken down into three separate time frames, still capable of succeeding when it had a strong and charismatic leadership demonstrates the importance of a leader.
This movement started as a strained and somewhat unfocused group, transformed into a stagnant and rather lost group, and finally transitioned into an accomplished and notable social movement, which indicates that with proper leadership even a weak movement can be turned around into a success.

The Intifada: The first area of observation will be to apply the Leadership Score. The leadership of the Intifada was unsurprisingly kept secret, since many attempts were made on their lives, but the United National Leadership of the Uprising (UNLU) was formed to give direction to the movement (Peretz 89). “By the end of 1988 it had become clear that an organized leadership had taken control” (Peretz 87). According to reliable sources, the UNLU consisted of 15 members (Peretz 89). The leadership group communicated with the other members of the movement using “bayanat”, or leaflets, giving orders and information on their primary interests (Peretz 91).

The directives and orders were carried out by the participants of the Intifada and supports that leadership was able to inspire others to take action. The leadership of the uprising succeeded in mobilizing mass support for their tactics” (Sahliyeh 3). LS1 = 1. The case study does not show or disclose any evidence of a “charismatic” leader and specifically sights the movement was originated by spontaneous youths (Sahliyeh 125). LS2 = 0. The second area of observation will be the Movement Classification. The literature shows every element of the uprising to be politically motivated, as local governments fought over the land surrounding Gaza.

“These new social forces invoked Palestinian nationalism, Marxism-Leninism, and Islamic fundamentalism” (Sahliyeh 5). These political motives also inspired many of the activists to solicit for outside help to further their political agendas (Sahliyeh 5). This provides evidence to support the Intifada as an economic/political movement. MC2 = 0. Third area of observation is the Success Score. The movement spread from small groups of youth rebellion at the end of 1987 and spread to rebellions large enough where, “18,000 Palestinians were arrested during the first year” (Peretz 64). Clearly the movement had spread to over 500 participants in over a six month span.

LS1 = 1 and LS2 = 1. Geographically Israel is 290 miles long and 85 miles wide, so this eliminates the possibility that the local movement spread beyond 300 miles, even though the impact of the movement did spread to affect other areas of the region, the direct movement was less than 300 miles. LS3 = 0. The Intifada leadership did present “The Fourteen Demands” to a press group shortly after the formation of the UNLU, but later reduced the demand down to seven (Peretz 106-8). Many of the demands were not met; however, in 1988 when King Hussein turned the occupied territories over to the Palestinians it was viewed as a “tremendous victory” (Peretz 109).

However, based on the criteria for reviewing the case studies there was not a significant accomplishment of the original goals of the movement. LS4 = 0. Therefore, the Total Leadership Score = 1 and the Total Success Score = 2. Although this movement had evidence of influential leaders it did not have leadership that was in direct contact with the people; therefore, it was difficult to directly impact the motivation of the people they were leading. The limitation of the size of Israel limited the score of the Success Movement and could be taken into account given more time.

The main cause of a low success score was not accomplishing the set goals (the fourteen demands), but could have been viewed as more successful had they established more concise goals during their origins. Overall, the Intifada was not a failure, but did fail to meet the requirements for a high success score. This does support the hypothesis of centralized leadership being a key element in the success of a social movement. Results Conclusion

By looking at the case studies and analyzing the data there appeared to be a direct correlation between the success of social movements and the influence of leadership. While there are obvious limitations in this paper for defining both leadership and success, as this paper needed to limit the scope of definitions; there is still compelling evidence to support successful leadership has a direct correlation to successful movements.

The more influential a leader and more leadership focused a movement is seems to directly relate to the successfulness of the movement, spreading their word as well as accomplishing their goals. As displayed in the results below you can clearly see a relationship between leadership and success in movements throughout history:

Movement
LS1
LS2
MC
Leadership Total

SS1
SS2
SS3
SS4
Success Total
Nazi Movement
1
1
1
3

1
1
1
1
4
The NFLU Conflict
1
1
0
2

1
1
1
0
3
Elite Reform and Realignment
0
0
0
0

1
0
1
0
2
The UFW Success
1
1
0
2

1
1
1
1
4
Intifada
1
0
0
1

1
1
0
0
2

Movement
Leadership Total
Leadership

Success Total
Success
Nazi Movement
3
HIGH

4
HIGH
The NFLU Conflict
2
HIGH

3
HIGH
Elite Reform and Realignment
0
LOW

2
LOW
The UFW Success
2
HIGH

4
HIGH
Intifada
1
LOW

2
LOW

Conclusion/Implications:
History has proven through wars, social movements, politics, and even events such as sports and entertainment; that leaders help win the battles, drive social change, win the elections, and even win the game. We are an accumulation of followers to those who are willing to stand up and lead – and we need leaders to help us fight the battle for human rights.

It is important that we take it as a serious matter to find and appoint qualified leaders to help make the world a better place. Democracy is a wonderful thing, but in many cases the desires of the masses are not always what are best for the masses. Strong leadership helps us to focus those desires into what is truly best for our society. And if we are going to reach for a better world we need to identify who the leaders of that better world are going to be.

As demonstrated through the research of the case studies, as well as their outcomes, it is clear that strong leadership can either “make or break” a social movement. There will always be a need for change and it is important to remember there is someone that is best designed to guide and direct us to that change.

Works Cited
Bob, Clifford. “The Quest for International Allies.” The Social Movements Reader: Cases and Concepts. Ed. Goodwin, Jeff, and Jasper, James M.. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. 353-61. Print. Buechler, Steven M.. Social movements in advanced capitalism: the political economy and cultural construction of social activism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Print. Cantril, Hadley. The Psychology of Social Movements,. New York: J. Wiley & Sons, 1941. Print. Castells, Manuel.

The City and the Grassroots: a Cross-cultural Theory of Urban Social Movements. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983. Print. Eyerman, Ron, and Andrew Jamison. Social Movements: A Cognitive Approach. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State UP, 1991. Print. Freeman, Jo. "On the Origins of Social Movements." Waves of Protest: Social Movements Since the Sixties. Ed. Jo Freeman and Victoria L. Johnson. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1999. 7-24. Print. Ganz, Marshall. "Why David Sometimes Wins: Strategic Capacity in Social Movements."

Rethinking Social Movements: Structure, Meaning, and Emotion. Ed. Jeff Goodwin and James M. Jasper. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2004. 177-198. Print. Ingram, Catherine. In the Footsteps of Gandhi: Conversations with Spiritual Social Activists. Berkeley, CA: Parallax, 1990. Print. Jenkins, J. Craig, and Perrow, Charles. "Farmworkers' Movements in Changing Political Contexts." The Social Movements Reader: Cases and Concepts. Ed. Goodwin, Jeff, and Jasper, James M.. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. 317-31. Print. Meyer, David S., Nancy Whittier, and Belinda Robnett. Social movements: identity, culture, and the state. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Print.

McAdam, Doug. "Culture and Social Movements." New Social Movements: from Ideology to Identity. Ed. Enrique Larana, Hank Johnston, and Joseph R. Gusfield. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1994. 36-57. Print. Oberschall, Anthony. Social movements: ideologies, interests, and identities. New Brunswick (U.S.A.): Transaction, 1993. Print. Peretz, Don. Intifada: The Palestinian Uprising. Boulder: Westview, 1990.

Print. Sahliyeh, Emile F. In Search of Leadership: West Bank Politics since 1967. Washington (D.C.): Brookings Institution, 1988. Print. Stewart, Charles J., Craig Allen Smith, and Robert E. Denton. Persuasion and Social Movements. Prospect Heights, Ill.: Waveland Press, 1984. Print. Touraine, Alain. The Voice and the Eye: An Analysis of Social Movements. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Print.