Some very common things I’ve seen over 25 years of lobbying and what you can do about it.
You need a PhD to understand what they are trying to say.
This is common. Most experts find it hard to communicate with people who don’t speak their version of expert dialectic.
Most world-class experts can. If you want to see it done, read Discover magazine.
Communicating clearly is hard work. It is hard work that is quickly rewarded.
I’ve worked with world-class experts who could discuss their issue with fellow experts, officials, politicians and journalists.
You can coach an expert to communicate clearly, but they have to want to.
For those who don’t or think the idea is below them, lock them away in the lab.
They can’t communicate clearly in writing.
Most public policy writing in Brussels is gibberish.
My personal recommendation is to apply the recommendations of Barbara Minto.
One of the world’s most respected organisations in a technical and politically sensitive area has on board an excellent staff writer. Her job is to turn out clear, accurate and readable reports. Such people are worth their weight in gold and are near unicorn-like
.
Clear writing can be learned. It is not easy. If you realise your 44-page position paper, in font 10, is not working, I’ve got some posts that may help you.
They can’t communicate in meetings with officials and politicians.
I’ve seen so many meetings go to shreds quickly because people go in and offend or just don’t get to the point at the start.
I’ve written about things not to do, like talking about your cats for 15 minutes, insulting them, their friends and allies, and failing to get to the point.
If you have colleagues like that, my only advice is to schedule the meeting when your colleague is not available. It will save you a lot of pain.
They offer no viable solution.
You need to walk in with a viable public policy solution. You need data and evidence to support this.
If you are having a meeting to talk about the weather, complain about the proposal, but don’t offer a viable solution, you are wasting your audience’s time, and are likely going to guarantee they don’t meet you again.
They step in late, or Don’t step in at all.
Both are common.
I know of major interests who woke up several months after a proposal was tabled and on the day the Committee voted through a position. The major interest only was able to present their view to the Rapporteur on the day of the vote of the report.
As a rule of thumb, you’ll be active on the file from the day it is mentioned in the Mission Letter, and, if not, when it appears in the Work Programme.
You’ll present your solutions in the form of amendments, with data and evidence and explanatory explanations, about two weeks after a proposal goes out the door.
Provide no valid evidence to support their position.
If you base your position on faith alone, your chances are low to nill to influence outcomes.
Personally, I prefer to hire the technical experts the Commission and Member States use, to get the evidence and data.
The only exception to this is when your only point is procedural. Then you don’t have evidence.
If, like me, you seek absolutions of sins through reading public consultation submissions, you’ll see most are evidence and data-free. They are not used.
Have limited or no existing relations with the appropriate decision-makers and influencers.
On any given file, there are around 20-50 key people – officials, politicians and experts. Knowing most of them well and having a constructive working relationship with them is not so hard.
On some file, it is no more than 5-10 people.
A simple test is “Can you pick up the phone and speak with them and have a civil conversation?”
They are not trusted.
If your client is not trusted, you have a real problem. There is little you can do.
The only thing I know to work is to offer public contriteness and seek to build the working relationships up over the next 3-5 years.
If you are stepping into the shoes of someone who has burned bridges, you’ll be carrying the guilt of your forefathers for a few years, even if you embody the virtues of a living Saint. And, just as in Snakes and Ladders, if you, or one of your colleagues, slip, you can go back to start.
They don’t understand the decision-making or law-making process.
If you don’t know the road map for the decision-making procedure you are about to embark on and decide, even though you have never walked that journey, to go ahead. You are likely to turn up late or not at all.
I’d only recommend getting practical, not textbook, experience of the particular policy or legislative journey. If you don’t, hire a guide. If you ignore the guide, don’t be surprised if you get lost.
Don’t speak to the values of their audience.
I’ve written about this so much, and it has limited impact. I recommend reading and applying Chris Rose’s What Makes People Tick. If it works for Greenpeace in their successful campaigns, use it.
Many lobbyists act as a group of born-again evangelicals preaching the good word to a room full of atheists and act surprised that their message does not get through or convert the audience.
They are not good advocates.
Just because you work in Public Affairs or Communication does not mean you are a good advocate.
Most lobbyists have never gone through the training of advocacy that you get learning on the election campaign trail.
Just because a lawyer is a great tax lawyer does not mean you would have the same lawyer defending you before a jury on a non-tax matter.
I know a handful of lobbyists who are good advocates. They are few I’d use or recommend if I needed my case to stand the best chance of success.
They are associated with interests that the mainstream keeps away from.
There is a wonderful assortment of obscure, fetish, and some downright deranged interests promoting themselves.
I’d not recommend anyone unite with the Scientologists or Climate Change deniers. It will tarnish your interests.
They are not known beyond their fetish community.
I’ve discovered wonderful policy magazines and conference groups for amazingly obscure issues. Just because an issue is big for the readers of “Whips and Rubber” monthly does not mean it has any traction beyond the recesses of the policy dark web.
They only want to make their point and leave.
A lot of lobbying I’ve witnessed is llike “this is our position, we are right, and everyone else who does not agree with me, for the same reasons, is wrong”.
I’ve never seen it work.
People will back you for a variety of reasons unlinked to agreeing to your position. They may dislike your opponents, they may like your allies and will give you the benefit of the doubt. Work out what is likely to persuade them in advance and use that point. Take the win for whatever reason.
They are unable to work with people who don’t have their worldview.
A surprising amount of lobbyists have an ideological/value worldview that means they find it hard to deal with people who disagree with that worldview.
This works if you only have to spend time with that community of fellow believers.
It is as if you can only work with fellow fans of My Little Pony. You find it hard to impossible to work with people who are not similarly obsessed with the Pink Horses.
You should only use those lobbyists to lobby that small set of my little Pony fans. You can’t use them anywhere else and if you do, you’ll lose votes.
If they are honest with themselves, they are not interested in persuasion.
If you don’t like trying to get other people on side and constructively persuading people, try something else. If your idea of lobbying, “it is my way or the highway”, get ready for a life of lobbying disappointment.
Don’t have the time to take the meetings and do the work that is necessary.
Getting a good case and campaign takes time and resources. If you are doing 25 other things simultaneously, you won’t deliver.
Windows of opportunity don’t present themselves around the schedule of your CEO/NGO leader/Expert. They either turn up at the right time or lose the opportunity to influence.
If you lack time, be honest and drop the issue.
I’ve found that getting one thing done over 12 weeks helps you focus.
They dedicate 80% + of their time to internal meetings rather than meeting decision-makers and influencers.
The best way to persuade people is to meet them. You won’t do that in internal meetings.
Most organisations spend too much time looking at their belly buttons and confirming their views.
That’s unless your internal meetings channeling telepathic thoughts to your target audience.
Just schedule a lot of time outside the office to meet the people who make or influence decisions.
They think that there is a silver bullet(s).
There is no silver bullet(s). It takes time, perseverance, and goodwill to get what you want. If you are hoping for a miracle/silver bullet to step in, you are likely going to be disappointed.
They have a Messiah complex
.They think that they have someone in their organization/company who is so persuasive that decision-makers and influencers will instantaneously meet and agree with this person.
I’ve met three people who had the charisma to persuade officials and politicians nearly instantly.
I can all but guarantee that your leader does not have instant rapport.
They don’t like officials and politicians.
A surprising amount of lobbyists don’t like officials and politicians. I find it comes across, and your voice is ignored.
I had a client who did not like officials or politicians. The best thing I could do was to sit down 5 minutes before each meeting to get him out of that mindset for the duration of the meeting. I asked him to become an actor for the meeting. He was a good actor. The meetings went well.
They would rather be anywhere else than trying to persuade an official or politician, often in the R&D lab, sales conference, or University research centre.
They provide information in the wrong form, e.g.the 44-page position paper, and amendments with no justifications.
Amazingly common. I know of a major interest who sends lots and lots of long letters and position papers and I know no-one beyond their small circle of natural allies who read them.
I’ve written extensively on what the right form is.
They turn up to meetings unprepared.
As a rule of thumb, spend two hours honing your case before every 30-minute meeting.
Send them pre-reads a week or two in advance.
Know what points will land well with your audience and highlight them. Don’t leave things to chance.
They turn up to meetings without rehearsing.
Every world-class lobbyist, CEO, NGO leader or politician I know puts in a lot of work preparing for and rehearsing for any meeting with officials and politicians. If you do it on the fly, it shows.
I’ve written about rehearsing here.
They assume your audience knows or cares about their issue.
I’ve taken this from Vaclav Smil. Most officials and politicians don’t care about what you care about.
Just because you are interested in fishing stock conservation or increasing the profitability of your company, do not assume your audience is.
Once you realise this, and work out how to present your issue in terms of what is important to the audience, you’ll get a lot better outcomes.
They are rude, aggressive, or offensive.
If you have a colleague who is any of the above, keep them locked away from officials or politicians.
I’ve seen so many near wins destroyed by the antics of someone thinking it would be smart to point score, be rude, aggressive or offensive.
They think that logic alone will persuade people.
When a file has come out the doors and is a legislative proposal, you are in the realm of politics. Logic has a limited role here.
I’ve seen technical files get diverted on emotional issues, and no amount of sober logic will help.
The only thing to realise is that people are not Spock and are driven by emotion.
They think that threatening officials and politicians with vexatious litigation will persuade them.
A very common tactic I’ve seen used over 25 years. I’ve never seen it work. It tends to see the people on the other side of the table go to great pains to avoid meeting you.
I’ve found it helpful to send legal opinions, prepared by experts in the field, to officials and politicians, asking for their opinion.
Threats and intimidation may work in some cultures, but I’ve not found it works in Brussels. Civility and basic human decency will get you a long way. And, just because you disagree with someone on an issue does not mean you have to ignore basic civility.
The political winds are not blowing in your direction.
Sometimes, the zeitgeist is against you. Whatever you do, the decisions are pre-ordained. There is nothing you can do. When this is happens, I recommend hibernation or a realisation that whatever you do won’t influence decisions.