This version of “Prime Fibs” is
an expanded version of an original article I co-authored years ago. Alas, the
“hits keep on coming,” so, in the spirit of the truth, I present to you “Prime
Fibs 2011.” We have so many Prime Fibs that we’ll tackle a few in this Roots of
Success, and a more in our next issues.
Do you ever wonder where certain “laws” of public affairs management and strategy are initiated, and how they are accepted into the mainstream thoughts and practices of paid professionals? Do you ever question why we take advice from certain “experts?”
A recent experience at a meeting of public affairs professionals reminded me of the following amendment that was proposed to a bill in the New Mexico State Legislature in 1997:
“When a psychologist or psychiatrist testifies, he shall wear a cone-shaped hat that is not less than two feet tall. The surface of the hat shall be
imprinted with stars and lightening bolts. Additionally, he shall be required to put on a white beard that is not less than 18 inches in length. He shall punctuate crucial elements of his testimony by stabbing the air with a wand. When a psychologist or psychiatrist provides
testimony, the bailiff shall contemporaneously dim the lights and administer
two strikes to a Chinese gong.”
Senator Duncan Scott left no doubt. He unequivocally
revealed his attitude towards
“experts” who testified in
criminal trials that defendants are insane and, therefore, are not legally responsible for their crimes. His colleagues shared Senator Scott’s views, as
they voted to approve the proposal!
It got as far as the House of
Representatives, which eventually blocked it from enactment.
Our
concern regarding bad advice went up a couple hundred degrees recently. The experience forced us to ask: To whom are we listening? Who are we using as our exemplars and role models? From whom have we decided to accept advice?
Listen with Discernment
At
a meeting conducted by an organization for public
affairs professionals, the group discussed grassroots
program development, from initiation to maintenance issues. Advice was being
given as the gospel truth, without consideration for organizational norms, company culture, etc. Also, there was no information on how the gospel truth
was revealed. An online survey? Focus
groups? Casual conversation? I became
really panicked when I saw the
participants frantically taking notes after each new claim was made.
(confirming my alarm, one veteran in the group looked at me and rolled her eyes
at the scene)
This experience caused me to remember all of the “Prime
Fibs” relative to government relations management
that we have heard extolled through the years. While this article does not permit me to enumerate all of them, here are some of my favorites.What makes them especially panic inducing is that they are from “experts” who get paid to advise public
affairs professionals.
“If you did
not contribute financially to your member of Congress, don’t expect to get a
meeting with him or her.”
Astonishingly, this was uttered by a
grassroots “motivational speaker” to a group of non-profit advocacy volunteers
at their national lobby day event --- I think he’s now risen to the rank of
four-star curmudgeon. This is so off-base it’s not even wrong. (If I was the
client, I’d pull the fire alarm to stop the meeting) Now, if this person has
evidence or research to prove this, I think we’d all be interested in that, but
I’ve not seen the evidence for such a sweeping statement.
“Conferences are great because you
can listen and steal your colleagues’ ideas” (And this was said by a consultant who I assume applies this advice to
his own practice)
As
a producer of the annual Innovate to Motivate conference, I obviously promote
best practices sharing and collaboration among political involvement
professionals. But I remind people to always “adapt, not adopt” any strategy or
tactic, and make sure they ask the right questions before implementing
something they heard at a conference.
Stay tuned for more Prime
Fibs in the next Roots of Success.
Thanks for reading!
