Co-option

In a 1979 article for Harvard Business Review, consultants John Kotter and Leonard Schlesinger presented co-optation as a "form of manipulation" for dealing with employees who are resistant to new management programs:

Co-opting an individual usually involves giving him or her a desirable role in the design or implementation of the change. Co-opting a group involves giving one of its leaders, or someone it respects, a key role in the design or implementation of a change. This is not a form of participation, however, because the initiators do not want the advice of the co-opted, merely his or her endorsement.[https://hbr.org/2008/07/choosing-strategies-for-change John P. Kotter and Leonard A. Schlesinger, "Choosing Strategies for Change" Harvard Business Review]

Two common uses of co-option are firstly, to recruit members who have specific skills or abilities needed by the group which are not available among existing members. Secondly, to fill vacancies which could not be filled by the usual process (normally election), e.g. if suitable candidates appear subsequently. Co-opted members may or may not have the same rights as the elected members of a group (such as the right to vote on motions), depending on the rules of the group. Sociologist William Gamson defined co-optation as "challengers gaining access to the public policy process but without achieving actual policy changes."{{Cite book|title=The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social and Political Movements|last=Coy|first=Patrick G.|date=2013|publisher=Blackwell Publishing Ltd|isbn=9780470674871|language=en|doi=10.1002/9780470674871.wbespm054|chapter = Co-Optation}}

If a group is elected or appointed based on its members representing specific constituencies, co-option to fill vacancies is inappropriate, as a member selected by existing members will not necessarily represent the interests of the group represented by the vacating member. In this case, vacancies may be filled via a mechanism specified in its rules, such as a by-election. Examples are:

• geographical constituencies (as used in legislatures in the United States and United Kingdom)
• constituencies of adherents to a political party, known as proportional representation (as used in legislatures in Israel and New Zealand)
• ethnic groups (as used in Māori constituencies in the New Zealand legislature)
• any other affinity group.

Sociologist Philip Selznick, in the context of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), described this form as "formal cooptation".{{cite book |last1=Selznick |first1=Philip |author-link = Philip Selznick|title= TVA and the Grass Roots: a Study in the Sociology of Formal Organization|url=https://archive.org/details/tvandgrassrootss00selzrich |year= 1949|publisher= University of California Press |location= Berkeley |oclc=2293803}}

This is arguably a derivation from the first sense. The outcome of such co-option will be specific to the individual case, and will depend on the relative strength of the co-opting and co-opted groups, the degree of alignment of their interests, and the vigour with which their members are prepared to pursue those interests. For example, when corporations greenwash their brands by co-opting the tone of environmentalism without any deep reform of their environmental impact, both environmental advocates and the general public must decide how to engage (or not) with the greenwashed result (accept it wholly, boycott it, apply pressure from another angle, ignore it, or some other path).

Selznick, again in the context of the Tennessee Valley Authority, described this form as "informal co-optation", although the process he describes is almost indistinguishable from the corrupt sale of political influence.

• Entryism
• Recuperation (politics)
• Interventions of political parties in Venezuela

{{Reflist}}

• {{Wiktionary-inline|co-option|co-opt}}
• {{Wiktionary-inline|cooptation}}

{{Authority control}}

Category:Elections

Category:Political terminology

Category:Group processes