Incentives and Task Performance Among Party Precinct Workers

• Author: M. Margaret Conway,Frank B. Feigert
• DOI: 10.1177/106591297402700409
• Published date: 01 December 1974
• Date: 01 December 1974
• Subject Matter: Articles

INCENTIVES AND TASK PERFORMANCE AMONG
PARTY PRECINCT WORKERS
M. MARGARET CONWAY, University of Maryland
and
FRANK B. FEIGERT, SUNY-Brockport
OLITIGAL
parties in the United States originated to serve as a link between
P
the newly created mass electorate and groups of politicians in the govern-
JL
ment. With the development of a mass electorate, a means of organizing
voters to support particular politicians or groups of politicians became necessary.
The lower level of the party organization evolved to perform organization, mobili-
zation, and service functions. If parties are to be an important linkage mechanism
in American politics, they must be more than convenient labels under which candi-
dates seek public office. One element of that more than label role is the effective
performance of various functions at the local level. However, the research focus-
ing on local level task performance has been limited.
Two questions must be considered. To what extent does the precinct worker
perform the requisite tasks? What factors influence the degree of task performance
which occurs? A simple model of party worker task performance is as follows:
Environmental factors determining task performance include majority-minority
status, which influences the level of performance that may be demanded of the
precinct leader or perceived by the precinct leader as necessary. If the precinct
leader operates in an environment in which the party usually wins by a large
margin, he or she might be less stimulated to work hard to mobilize precinct voters
on election day. Another factor is the nature of constituency in terms of the char-
acteristics of the electorate; individuals with higher levels of income and education
and with white-collar occupations generally are more likely to vote and are less
likely to demand or require traditional services. Precinct leaders in such constituen-
cies would probably perceive less need for performance of traditional precinct
tasks and perform them less frequently.
Party organizations at the local level may vary in a number of ways.’ Cer-
tainly they vary among the states in the nature of the local structure and the way
NOTE: Computer time for data analysis was provided by the Computer Science Center. Uni-
versity of Maryland, and is gratefully acknowledged. This is a revision of a paper
prepared for presentation at the American Political Science Association meeting, New
Orleans, La., September 4-8, 1973.
1
See, for example, Sonya Forthal, Cogwheels of Democracy: A Study of the Precinct Cap-
tain (New York: William-Frederick Press, 1946) ; Harold F. Gosnell, Machine Politics:
Chicago Model (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1937); Frank R. Kent, The
Great Game of Politics (New York: Doubleday Doran, 1923) ; J. T. Salter, Boss Rule:
693

---

694
in which local officials are selected. They also vary in the degree and quantity in
which different kinds of inducements for party work can be offered to the party’s
activists. These in turn, are influenced by the environmental characteristics, such as
majority-minority status in the locality and the state.
Personal characteristics of precinct leaders can also affect their perception of
the roles and the extent to which they perform the tasks involved. One such factor
is motivation for political activity. Involved in stimulating task performance are
the needs of the individual and the rewards perceived as obtainable from political
party activity.
The questions to be considered here are to what degree and in what patterns
is task performance by party leaders related to differences in incentives sustaining
political activism and to political and socioeconomic environments. We examine
differences in the tasks performed by precinct chairmen, the tasks they perceive
as most important, the amount of time they devote to party work, and their plans
for further party activity. Also considered are patterns of interaction with other
party leaders.
TASK PERFORMANCE AND INTERACTION
Unfortunately, few previous studies have systematically examined either the
task performance or the interaction patterns of precinct leaders. Such research as
has been done has taken one of two different approaches. One focus has been on
actual tasks performed by party leaders; a second has been on examining the
precinct leaders’ role definitions or on analyzing their self-perceived role behavior.
A variety of task definitions has been found by previous studies ranging from or-
ganizational work and campaign activities to communications within the party and
maintaining contacts with non-party groups. Findings about specific task orienta-
tions and level of performance have varied.
Portraits in City Politics (New York: McGraw Hill, 1935) ; James Q. Wilson, The
Amateur Democrat: Club Politics in Three Cities (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1962); Robert S. Hirshfield, Bert E. Swanson, and Blanche D. Blank, "A Profile
of Political Activists in Manhattan," Western Political Quarterly, 15 (September 1962),
489-506; Francis Carney, The Rise of the Democratic Clubs in California, Eagleton
Foundation Case Studies in Practical Politics (New York: Holt, 1958); M. Margaret
Conway and Frank B. Feigert, "Motivation, Incentive Systems, and the Political Party
Organization," American Political Science Review, 62 (December 1968), 1159-73;
Dennis Ippolito, "Political Perspectives of Suburban Party Leaders," Social Science
Quarterly, 49 (March 1969), 800-815; Lewis Bowman, Dennis Ippolito, and William
Donaldson, "Incentives and the Maintenance of Grassroots Political Activism," Mid-
west Journal of Political Science, 13 (February 1969), 126-38; Peter Gluck, "Incen-
tives and the Maintenance of Political Styles in Different Locales," Western Political
Quarterly, 25 (December 1972), 753-60. Glen Browder and Dennis Ippolito, "The
Suburban Activist," Social Science Quarterly, 53 (June 1972), 168-175; C. Richard
Hofstetter, "The Amateur Politician: A Problem in Construct Validation," Midwest
Journal of Political Science, 15 (February 1971), 31-56. In an elaborate path analysis
of initial and sustaining motivations as factors in participation in professional versus
amateur organizations, Hofstetter concludes that these variables do not distinguish
between members of amateur and professional organizations. See C. Richard Hofstetter,
"Organizational Activists: The Bases of Participation in Amateur and Professional
Groups," American Politics Quarterly, 1 (April 1973), 244-76. However, differences
in sustaining motivations may distinguish among activists in their task performance
and interaction patterns.

---

695
Suggesting that one of the three basic dimensions crucial to party organiza-
tion’s viability is task performance,2 Eldersveld specified four types of activity which
the ideal precinct leader should perform. These include organization work (main-
taining records on precinct residents, securing adequate numbers of competent
workers, and coordinating their efforts), campaign activities (organizing voter
registration, rallies, fund drives, and literature distribution, and canvassing poten-
tial voters), conducting non-election time activities in the precinct (holding social
and political meetings, training workers, and providing assistance to residents),
and maintaining relationships between the party and various leaders and groups
in the precinct.3 He concluded that a majority of Wayne County, Michigan, pre-
cinct leaders did not perform requisite campaign tasks to any significant degree,
and while the majority party leaders were more likely to perform on-going non-
campaign tasks, the level of performance was JOW.4 Other studies found that
Oklahoma county leaderS5 and Illinois majority party precinct leaders6 in a rural
county tended to be organization oriented; North Carolina Democratic precinct
leaders tended to be campaign oriented while Republicans tended to focus on
organizational activities, with neither recruitment of candidates nor development
of ideological positions emphasized by party leaders. In Massachusetts, Republi-
cans tended to focus more on organizational activities while the Democrats as a
group focused equally on campaign and organizational roles.7
7
Further analysis
led to the conclusions that those who plan to continue in the post are distinguished
from those who plan to quit by the relative importance they personally attribute
to their party post and the motivational importance of party loyalty.,,
What variables might be related to differences in role definition and role
behavior? In a North Carolina study of county chairpersons, a positive relation-
ship was found between the level of political competition and the degree of party
organization in each county. Degree of involvement in candidate recruitment
varied with party affiliation, the Republicans being more involved, perhaps due to
the lack of an extensive party...