Most people see lobbyists like Nick Naylor. He is a persuasive lobbyist.
A good lobbyist will prepare. A lot of your work is done in face to face meetings. You have to be able to communicate clearly and persuade people. You should prepare like a lawyer going to trial. You will work out in advance every question you will get and your response. You’ll prepare the answers to the follow up questions. You prepare a few short words of introduction. You’ll do this all on paper.
If you are good, you’ll let the legislator or official in advance with more details of the issue. I find a 1 page max note sent 5 days in advance helpful for all sides. It helps you focus on the key issues during the meeting.
A good lobbyist is polite and civil. They’ll get to the point, find out the answer, answer any questions, and leave. There is no problem disagreeing but there is point picking a pointless argument.
A good lobbyist will be clear and avoid pointless jargon, but be able to get down into the details if needed. You are not an angry cheerleader brought along to wail against the injustices of the world.
A lot of people think face to face meetings are unecessary. I can only deduce they are telepaths who can communicate their thoughts through walls. I remain unconvinced.
Take a leaf out of NLP
NLP provides many inights into effective communication. Marilyne Woodsmall and Wyatt Woodsmall in ‘Personality Language’ puts it so:
“Just as you would translate a foreign language in order to communicate with someone who does not speak your language, the same applies to communicating with someone who does not share your Personality language….. Most people focus on what they are saying rather than on how they are saying it. It is not what you think you are communicating that matters. INstead, it is what the other person perceives you as saying or communicaitng that matters. Just as body language communivates on a subsconciou level, so does your Personality Language communication. In successful communication and persuasion, you have to be able to present your position and ideas in a way that makes sense to the other person or people. You have to be able to speak in the particular values that correspondens to that of the person or people you are engaged in a given communication exchange”
Marilyne Woodsmall and Wyatt Woodsmal contend that diferent groups of people use very language that reflects their “model of the world”. This is very similar to Value Communications and the different language used by settlers, pioneers and prospectors.
Degree of detail
Woodsmall makes a distincition beyween Global People and Specific People.
Global people are “comfortable with large chunks of information than not. They do into lesser and lesser details to consider more scope and less depth.
Spcific people preder details and all that is specific in their thinkining and communication. They like small chunks of infmation. They chunk down when they communicate. They get into greater and greater detail to consider more depth and less scope.
You will deal with both types. You have to be able to deal with both types of infomration. Often, you will be dealing with both types of people at the same time. You have to have the ability to chunk information up and down.
Settlers, Pioneers and Prospectors
Chris Rose and his colleagues at Cultural Dynamics Strategy and Marketing help map the values of settlers, prospectors, pioneers. Please see the diagram below. They have done it for many European countries.
When you read it, it’s really very obvious and intuitive that different groups of people look at the same thing in very different ways. To be honest it’s so bloody obvious that it is bewildering that most campaigns, whether by NGOs or firms, basically come down to “see the world as I do and support us, and if you don’t you should”.
This strategy amounts to little more than wishful thinking. It’s predicated on the hope that the people you are trying to persuade, whether they are 500 politicians and regulators, several thousand people see the world as you do.
I realised a long time ago that there are very few people in the world who share the same values and perspectives that I do. I learnt that trying to persuade 99% of any given audience that they are wrong and I am right is, in most cases, not going to work out for me.
http://www.cultdyn.co.uk/ART067736u/Beyond-Class.pdf, page 24
Jargon
It is important to avoid jargon. It is the default choice of mention. It usually leads to wandering minds and detailed examination of the cielings of those you are looking to persuade..
Over time, you will come across phrases that have lost their original meaning. Using them is a guaranteed way nullifying all good will in the meeting.
Do you sound like the Academy for Tobacco Studies
Nick Naylor, Christopher Buckley’s creation, is worth reading in his interview with USA Today:
“So you comment is the New England of Medicine does’t know what it’stalking about.
My comments is Buerger’s disease has only recently been diagnose. It has a complex, indeed, extremely complex pathology. One of the more complex pathologies in the field of circulatory medicine. With all respect, I think furter study is waaranted before the science goes looking, noose in hand, to lynch the usual suspects’. (Page 21)
One such phrase that has been contaminated is “ sound science”. It is understood by many officials and most politicaisns as meaning “ the only science that is valid is the science we agree with”. It is phrase so often used by the tobacco industry and climate change deniers that it has meaning.
Keep the angry mysgonistics away
Too many meetings go to hell because people are rude. If you face this, the best thing to do is close the meeting down immediately. To be honest, there are many people who should not be allowed out of the office, let alone into the offices of decision makers. Men – and it is usually men – think that getting into a pissing compeition is a smart thing to do. It never is. If they are on your team, keep them locked away.
In 1997 I worked for Anita Pollack MEP on the passage of the 1st Daughter Directive in Ambient Air Pollution. We were followed around by Channel 4 documentary team. They did not witness an opening of splendid ineptitude “Madame, we are here to explain some complex things to you”. That Anita has worked for the famous British Minister, Barbara Castle, a detaemined femnist, seemed to have never register. I sat there waiting for the fireworks to start. They did with a polite reminder that if they wanted the meeting to continue they should drop the patronising mysgonistic crap. The meeting re-started afresh.
Reference
Christopher Buckley, Thank you for Smoking
Mortimer J. Adler ‘ How to Speak and How to Listen’
Chris Rose, ‘What Makes People Tick’
Marilyne Woodsmall and Wyatt Woodsma, Personalty Language.