In order to research leadership recruitment, I used three major indicators: specificity, turnover, and dominant leadership type. The first two refer to structural processes, while the third is more dynamic and involves the previous party experience of the leaders and the role this plays in their calculations over and against the requirements of the organization at any particular stage of development. The first indicator, specificity, refers to the extent to which occupants of national party posts are a distinct group within the party, and is measured by the length of time they have been in the organization prior to achieving top level leadership posts. Naturally, in Stage I, specificity will be low since the party has just
…show more content…
In the early stages, turnover is expected to be rapid, as party goals are in the process of being defined and no pattern of advancement is particularly clear. But over time, turnover rates should sharply decline, as organizational priorities become clearer and internal social structure is more firmly estab- lished. These developments permit aspirants to more accurately calculate their probabilities of successfully capturing party office. The dominant incentives of the organization are associated with particular leadership types. Here we consider three types of leaders differentiated by the amount of leadership experience in subunits of the party prior to gaining national party posts. Novices have held no offices in any subunits, transi- tionals have held offices in one or two subunits, while statesmen have held offices in all three of the …show more content…
Indeed, I have hypothesized that adequate explanations of party development must incorporate both institutional and recruitment processes. I formulated a number of propositions that specified relationships between the two. These propositions will be examined in the section which follows. In addition, the author Selznick described that “successful office seekers in the locals were those who could be counted on to deal roughly with management. Such men met the needs of a union more concerned with hewing out place for itself, and surviving, than with responsive management of a stable organization”
In the early stages, turnover is expected to be rapid, as party goals are in the process of being defined and no pattern of advancement is particularly clear. But over time, turnover rates should sharply decline, as organizational priorities become clearer and internal social structure is more firmly estab- lished. These developments permit aspirants to more accurately calculate their probabilities of successfully capturing party office. The dominant incentives of the organization are associated with particular leadership types. Here we consider three types of leaders differentiated by the amount of leadership experience in subunits of the party prior to gaining national party posts. Novices have held no offices in any subunits, transi- tionals have held offices in one or two subunits, while statesmen have held offices in all three of the …show more content…
Indeed, I have hypothesized that adequate explanations of party development must incorporate both institutional and recruitment processes. I formulated a number of propositions that specified relationships between the two. These propositions will be examined in the section which follows. In addition, the author Selznick described that “successful office seekers in the locals were those who could be counted on to deal roughly with management. Such men met the needs of a union more concerned with hewing out place for itself, and surviving, than with responsive management of a stable organization”