The decision of the National Organization of Women not to pursue a hierarchically organized, centrally managed program of support for the ERA was instrumental in the defeat of the amendment. The organization was faced with a dilemma regarding organizational styles when Phyllis Schlafly's organized opposition to the ERA emerged. If NOW chose to adhere to its preferred style of decentralized, participatory management in the pursuit of ERA passage, while it was being opposed by a tightly managed campaign, then its chances were considerably diminished. If the organization elected to structure its approach in a manner similar to Schlafly's then its chances of success would have been greatly enhanced, but the ideals of the organization would have been sacrificed. NOW chose to stand by its accustomed methods and the ERA was defeated, largely through the efforts of the well-organized Schlafly campaign. Basically, the ERA controversy came down to questions of organization and influence. Though the two organizations (NOW and Schlafly's group) shared many problems, the ability of Schlafly to present a coherent and consistent message defeated the more dispersed efforts of the pro-ERA forces.
Among supporters of the ERA, "the decision not to organize hierarchically was explicit, conscious, and almost unanimous" (Mansbridge 133). The organization adhered to its position that the empowerment of the women who took part in the ERA campaign was as important as passage of the amendmen
7 
)
= 876
= 4 (250 words per page)
