What do these commitments mean for the maintenance of a coalition?

So Hula has this nice Rousseau quote to articulate this concern on page 43 of his book. So he says when hunting those pursuing a deer will be willing to share, those pursuing a rabbit will not share. And this is kind of a sly reference to the core members who hunt the deer, and the players who hunt a rabbit. In the coalition, the core members want nothing less than a stag. And players will jump for a rabbit if they can. So, because of this coalition managers need to make sure the broader goal of accomplishing the, the collection of a, a stag on the route has all kinds of little rabbits all along the way to bring in players to sustain their commitment. So for example, when I run a large research project focused on a, on a big issue I try to encourage the methodologists and computer scientists, or specialists in this case, to send off papers to count those proceedings in methodology journals. Our larger research questions isn't methodological, but many of these specialists hope that collaboration on a new topic will help them innovate their methods along the way. So hence I'm in running these projects trying to point out rabbits along the way so that they can get off projects and sustain their commitment. It's feasible one can view this variation and commitment in another more machiavellian way. Though opponents can target less committed individuals, and pick them off as members of a coalition. I could show you alternative legislation where your issue, your specific issue, is subsumed, like an amendment, and pull you off this other coalition. And, of course, tagalongs are the least committed. And they won't commit much energy to a coalition. But they join to get selective benefits of information and symbolic clout. So tagalongs are the third group in the woods. They are kind of like the discount hunters along for the beer and the company. So members can have different goals. They have different levels of interest and

commitment to the coalition. And asymmetries are allowed at different levels, because different exchanges are had. Leaders must be able to welcome tagalongs and differentiate real players willing to go the distance from ones that will jump at that first rabbit and disappear. And the danger of the tagalongs is that they may feel betrayed in the end or used thereby enacting a revolt, like in Prop 187 in California. The 1994 passage of, of a bill on illegal aliens. Trust was had but it kind of had the result that, that they tried to bring in tagalongs and this resulted in a kind of a sense of betrayal in the end. So given all of this, how do you develop and manage a coalition? Earlier in this week I talked about managing exchange, now the concern is going outward and managing this larger fleeting group of exchanges and their alignments in some kind of consistent form that meets your kind of interest. So first, the thing as a coalition manager is you want to think about and identify all the interested actors and organizations in the environment, consider the related issues, who would be interested in this one. Second. Ask yourself why they would be interested and whose side they will be on friend and foe kind of stuff and keep in mind a friend of a friend is a friend and the foe of a foe may also be your friend. You don't want to mobilize opposition just support and you may want to consider possible responses to oppositions. For example targeting their specialists and tagalongs and pulling away support from oppositions that way. Third. Keep in mind that staff members have histories of intergroup linkages, you can draw upon. These can be effective conduits for coordination. For example, a former employer might be a better connection than a former employee. Upchain is better than downchain. Some people even belong to multiple coalitions. Use them as well for information, and history and wealth of contacts develop. They can identify potential partners and adversaries efficiently. And relations serve as points of action

and information collection, the receptacles. With more linkages, you need not develop lasting coalitions, because you always have access to new members and their resources. In the field of education, there are fewer links and developed networks, so long term coalitions are relied on more heavily. Nonetheless, the basic rule is one of immediate usage of ties and their cache is now. So, commitments fleeting, exaggerated and ambiguous in organizations, and your time window is short. Last, as the prior lecture made clear. Work exchange, work those kinds of bargaining and negotiation. Now that you know interests, options etcetera. You can begin a horse trade, log rolling. You can negotiate and work the coalition into what you need. Now that you have some overview of coalition views on organizations, we can begin to apply them to a variety of cases. The Hula reading was great for this in terms of an application to lobbying examples and Congress. But we also have some examples of our own that are offered in this course. For example, the Milwaukee voucher program. The case readings provided on the Milwaukee voucher program are quick. They're quick reads and they are available free of cost. In addition, some of you will read analyses of the Milwaukee voucher program in your peer evaluation training. You'll see papers that actually apply coalition theory to that case. Therefore, I, I think it's best to leave the discuss, discussion of the Milwaukee voucher program to the larger forum. It would be great to hear from students where they found the coalition views on exchange most salient and where it might not apply. It also would be great to hear how people think the coalition driving the Milwaukee voucher program could swing in the opposite direction if democrats retook the legislature and so on. Can liberal groups form coalitions which support the poor, or is this a biased view of liberal reforms becoming co-opted by business and private interests? Do coalitions always veer right in implementation?

What are some examples and where that doesn't happen? So thinking about alternatives and possible different trajectories of this coalition and its development. Where other examples or cases like it, would be a really helpful discussion for the use of our online forum this week. Thank you.