Our brain can only hold a certain amount of information .
You may have come across the idea from Cognitive Overload Theory. It suggests that our working memory can only hold a small amount of information at any one time.
I think this has two important implications for a lobbyist.
- Don’t Raise Too Many Points
When you are making your case, either in writing or in speaking, you should limit the number of points you should raise.
How many points should you raise? For a long time, Miller’s Law, suggested 7, plus or minus 2, was the ideal amount of information to present at anyone time.
Influenced by Barbara Minto, and her excellent the Pyramid Principle, I go lower, about 1 main point and 3 supporting points. This is a good number to avoid cognitive overload. See this link for more information. And, the higher one goes in an organisation, the number goes down.
A lot of position papers and letters to officials/politicians seem like they’ve been drafted by someone on too much coke telling some unspecting grad student about their Ph.D thesis that’s been read by 1 person. I’ve seen it for real. It is not a pretty sight. They do a deep down into the weeds very fast, usually in a language understood by 5 people. They need to understand that all the weeds kill off the useful parts.
I know this is sacrilege for many in Brussels where the 55 page position paper reins supreme. I just don’t find this policy wonk form of water boarding the innocents effective. If it is, please let me know, and I’ll recant.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————–
2. Don’t Do Too Many Things
The second is that as a lobbyist you are going to find it hard to work on several different areas at once. Your brain won’t be able to process it all.
I stick to three things: chemicals, procedural (ordinary legislaion and secondary legislation) and a focused area of political communication. I used to do fish and air pollution, but the market demand is too low.
What does that mean?
For every chemical process I have visual process charts, checklists, SOPs, and case studies.
The same again for ordinary legislation and secondary legislation – a set of prcess charts, checklists, SOPs and case studies.
Added to this, I use some reliable mental models.
So far, I’ve been able to slot in any issue that’s come across my desk with one of those charts, checklists, SOPs and mental models and often found a good solution for a client.
I’ve avoided the tempetataion to develop an issue expertise in new areas – even when the temptetaion is high. The amount of time you need to invest to garner a requisite degree of expertise would take 5 years at the minimium.
Having met some of the world’s top issue experts in fisheries, air pollution, and chemistry, I realised I could never compete with their issue expertise. I’m not that stupid. So, I just work in a small niche of dealing with a limited regulatory area and navigating through ordinary and secondary legislation, and helping make an issue make sense to politicians and officials. That is it.
If I were a client, I’d like my lobbyist as I like my oncologists. A specialised and respected expert on the ailment/issue at hand. I would not have wanted a GP performing my stem cell transplant, let alone a trainee, or faith healer.
It does mean I leave lots of things alone. I don’t do impact assessments, technical reports, scientific assessments, legal opinions, or life cycle assessments. I have a very short list of excellent experts whose work I admire and whose opinions are respected by authorities. I simply recommend any client to use them.
And, I find a limited number of matters taxing enough on my brain.
If you can work on 20 different issues at once, to a high standard, please let me know. You are amazing. I know some people who’d like to model how you do it.
https://set.et-foundation.co.uk/resources/the-importance-of-cognitive-load-theory#:~:text=Cognitive%20Load%20Theory%20(CLT)%20%2D,learning%20(Sweller%2C%201988).
The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information