Order from Chaos: How Networked Activists Self-Organize by Creating a Participation Architecture

Abstract

Collectives attempting to self-organize without relying on managerial control can leverage open, digital networks to foster information exchange and agility. But, as collectives grow, the open boundaries that enable the mobilization of participants and rapid exchange of ideas can give rise to new organizing challenges that make collective action untenable. We examine this tension by exploring how networked activists self-organize through open, digital networks to achieve shared aims without belonging to a common organization that supports their cause. With a seven-year, inductive field and archival study, we capture how activists from the Anonymous collective organized 70 protest actions while struggling to integrate newcomers and coordinate increasingly complex activities. Rather than succumb to chaos or managerial control, Anonymous learned to self-organize, gradually abandoning normative forms of control in favor of forms of architectural control. By creating a participation architecture—a sociotechnical framework that empowered technical experts and unobtrusively channeled newcomers to designated forums—networked activists enhanced their collective ability to coordinate complex, interdependent actions at scale. Our grounded theoretical model reveals how the challenges of self-organizing emerge with rapid growth and how these can be overcome by configuring architectural control.

Scaling Migrant Worker Rights

“…Inclusive and loosely structured transnational immigrant rights networks benefit from open boundaries that enable the rapid mobilization of participants and the free exchange of ideas (Massa and O'Mahony 2021). Transnational labor advocates with "big tent" agendas (rather than those focused on singular issues) provide a broader platform for participation and do the important coalitional work of connecting different migrant rights struggles.…”

Navigating the promises and perils of researching emerging phenomena in strategy and organizations

“…Identifying contemporary analogous contexts or conditions that share underlying features can enhance the relevancy of the theory generated. For example, while Massa and O’Mahony’s (2021) research on networked activism was under review, the attack on the US capital unfolded using similar organizing methods which helped establish the relevance of networked activism in other settings.…”

“…For example, in their study of Innocentive, Jeppesen and Lakhani (2010) focused their analysis at the problem level—explaining the conditions that predicted problem resolution. Massa and O’Mahony’s (2021) study of networked activists initially examined all aspects of self-organization—but this proved untenable. By narrowing their examination to 70 raids, nested by phase, they took advantage of replication and comparison to pinpoint differences in control.…”

“…If phenomena attract significant attention from the public or from a large scholarly community they eventually become "hot" and new forums mobilize, often accompanied by competition and a rush for primacy. For example, recent novel phenomena might include air taxis (Zuzul and Tripsas, 2020), smart cities (Zuzul and Edmondson, 2016), drones (Bremner and Eisenhardt, 2022) or networked activists (Massa and O'Mahony, 2021); while recent hot topics include business models (Teece, 2010;Zott and Amit, 2008), lean startup methodology (Contigiani and Levinthal, 2019;Leatherbee and Katila, 2020), and machine learning and algorithmic controls (Kellogg et al, 2020;Leavitt et al, 2021).…”

A Research Agenda for Civil Society

“…First, the assumption that fluidly organized groups are ephemeral in nature and therefore unsuited as transmission belts to channel preferences of the group to formal authorities is challenged by the literature, illustrating that such groups can also exist over longer periods of time (e.g. Laamanen et al, 2020;Massa & O'Mahony, 2021). By seeking to explain their endurance, the lens of organizationality brings nuance to the debate rather than accepting assumptions about the fluid and the formal.…”