The Showalter Group - March 2010 Newsletter

We've Been Thinking...

...about the grassroots ethics discussion among public affairs professionals. We had a lively discussion on this topic at Innovate to Motivate led by Dr. Kelton Rhoads, I2M sponsor Liz Welsh of Executive Communications www.executive-com.com , and me.

Here's our take on the draft of ethics as created by Stephanie Vance, Anne Darconte, Les Francis, Chris Arterton (GWU Graduate School of Political Management), Tim Hysom (Congressional Management Foundation) and others.

Stephanie kindly asked us for our input, so here it is!

Proposed Grassroots Code of Ethics

Legitimacy. The communications sent as a result of any advocacy campaign should always be delivered either directly from the citizen or with the express permission of the citizen. The role of the grassroots advocacy practitioner should be to provide citizens with the tools they need to deliver their own communications (whether based on sample messages or not) to policymakers.

Unambiguous and good.

Authenticity. Messages delivered from citizens to policymakers should be authentic representations of those individuals' views on a specific policy issue. In circumstances where communications are being sent based on templates and talking points, practitioners should always provide tools for personalizing the message. At a minimum, grassroots advocacy practitioners should ensure that citizens sending the communications agree, without coercion, with each specific message as developed by the organizer.

Authenticity is "wobbly" because it's hard to determine who had the "agenda" first, the elites or the roots. Seems this one speaks mostly to influence, which should be allowed. Notice coercion gets a sideways glance in this one, but it's not the core.

Plus, it's really hard to "ensure" that citizens agree with the organizer. Any grassroots professional that's been doing this for awhile has had advocates use the skills gleaned from their organizations to rally against the organization's position, and there's nothing the grassroots practitioner can do about that.

Relevance. Grassroots advocacy practitioners have a responsibility to ensure that the communications coming from citizens are relevant to policymakers. This means that tools should be in place to establish a constituency relationship between the citizens and the policymaker. Note that this does not apply to circumstances where a citizen has a personal, non-constituent relationship with a legislator's office.

We believe this is very problematic, exceedingly problematic, because it implies that the legislator's agenda is the agenda, and that grassroots must play only a responsive role, not a proactive role, in setting agendas. Further, it adds an ethical premium on the "legislator sets the agenda" idea. Pull grassroots out of the agenda-setting formula, and you're left with a larger role for ruling elite and media elite to play. It's undemocratic. The people should be able to set agendas, even if that agenda is "not relevant" as the ruler sees it. It's a cornerstone of our democracy.

Transparency. Grassroots advocacy practitioners working on behalf of organizations should not take steps to hide those organizations' involvement in an advocacy effort. Likewise, communications from citizens that are generated as a result of an advocacy campaign should not be given less weight than those developed spontaneously.

Good to avoid deception.

Civility. Grassroots advocacy practitioners should encourage civility in communications between citizens and policymakers. At a minimum, template communications and talking points should be drafted to reflect the opinions of the writer without resorting to excessive negativity or misrepresentations of the other side.

This one will be unenforceable because what's "excessive negativity and misrepresentation" to one side will be "truth and education" to the other side.

If nothing else, change the negative words to positive words, so it reads "...to reflect the opinions of the writer while adhering to the truth." You'll have to jettison the opprobrium of 'negativity' altogether; negative information is the coin of the realm in the influence world. Negative emotions are the ones that keep us alive. Positive emotions are slackers compared to negative ones. It's a human universal.

Honesty. Grassroots advocacy practitioners should never knowingly provide false, misleading, inflammatory, or inaccurate information in an effort to persuade citizens. At a minimum, practitioners should have due diligence programs in place to check the veracity of template messages developed for use in a campaign.

Problematic. This will allow the people in power to determine what is "inflammatory." I regularly tell my classes (Dr. Rhoads here) that "honest" is a very low moral standard. I can tell you half of what you need to know (as is regularly done by those in power) and tell you it's the truth. It's just not the whole story; and that's my moral "get out of jail free" card. I only told you about supporting information, no contraindications, and so left you with a distorted idea of what the truth is. Of course, to the speaker, there is no truth in what the opposition says.

Also there is the judgment call on "inflammatory," which allows someone to call foul for phraseology. I could call "death panels" inflammatory or deceptive (they're not actively putting people to death), or "living wage" inflammatory (minimum wage is overwhelmingly a supplemental income for teenagers), depending on which side of the aisle I'm on, in an effort to stifle debate and shut the other side up.

The Bottom Line: We would submit that it would be unfair to impose ethical standards for lobbyists that are higher than the people they work with: the media and legislators. Any time you enforce ethical standards on one side and not the other, you take an extreme risk of giving the advantage to the people with the looser ethics. This is captured in the well-worn phrase "nice guys finish last" and has been proven out on a million influence battlefields. Occasionally the person with the higher ethics* (as defined by someone!) wins. But often the person who breaks the rules, and lies, cheats, and deceives, wins. There is a dictum that "Any law that punishes people for being honest, is a corrupt law, because it corrupts people."

We would hate to see ethical lobbyists lose influence battles because they were unarmed, and their opponents were not.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I didn't know you did that!" is a refrain we don't like to hear, because we want to keep people apprised of our wonderful client results.

Do you know...

That through our Crossfire Research methodology, we can find out what messages resonate (in the real world of competitive messages, not just inside your organization) with your PAC prospects, grassroots advocates and the public? http://www.showaltergroup.com/what-we-do/influence.php

I coach government relations professionals who want to accelerate their career development? http://www.showaltergroup.com/services/coaching.php

We teach persuasive presentation skills to government relations professionals?

What people are saying about our newest workshop offering?

From Online Chatters to Doing What Matters: Getting Your Advocates Off Their Computers and On the Streets

The proliferation of online advocacy tools has leveled the grassroots advocacy playing field. Savvy political involvement professionals are now admitting that online activity can fall short of what’s needed for effective grassroots persuasion. Ironically, the popularity of computer communication has diluted its impact. Lasting influence requires doing what your opponents are not doing: prying advocates away from the computer, and getting them in front of their legislators.

Learning outcomes include:

How to gauge which online advocates have offline potential
Understanding relative persuasive strength of online vs. face-to-face contact
The psychological tools that motivate volunteers to interpersonal interaction
How increased volunteer commitment leads to increased legislator contact
The ideal offline structure for maximum volunteer engagement and ownership

This workshop may also be delivered by or with Dr. Kelton Rhoads.

“All parts of Amy's workshop were valuable, but the social capital piece was very informative and interesting. Amy is a wealth of information, such a joy to listen to and learn from.”

Stephanie Wentz, Member Services Manager, NFIB – Colorado

"Dr. Rhoads' 'Online Chatters to Doing What Matters' workshop rocked!"

Terri Broussard, Vice President of Advocacy, South Central Affiliate, American Heart Association

“I got some good ideas on how to consolidate some information we distribute, and ways to move members from meeting with us as staff to getting them to transfer that time to our legislators at the state level. It helped me mentally build a bridge between what we are doing and where we should go.”

Andy Patterson, Member Services Manager, NFIB – Ohio

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Amyisms

Amyism #57
Grassroots Training Rigor: "Teaching people how a bill becomes law or the structure of a Congressional office doesn't get to the end result, which should be grassroots persuasion, rather than just grassroots advocacy. Your training should be rigorous, challenging, and fun. The more we sweat in training, the less we bleed in battle."

Amyism #58
Social Media vs. Social Capitol: "Despite the fascination with social networks, they aren't a secret grassroots weapon. The groups that have social capital among their members will have the edge. That was the case prior to online networks, and it's true today. In a world of hyper - abundant social networks, social capitol is the "killer app."

Amyism #59
Astroturf Lobbying: "When you can’t convince your own stakeholders to support your issues, and you have to pay someone else to gin up grassroots support, wouldn’t that be one of many red flags about your message, messenger, or culture?"

Amyism #60
Grassroots Ethics: "When people in power call for ethical standards...odds are, those ethical standards are designed to keep them in power." -Kelton Rhoads, Ph.D.

Amy's insights featured in the Cincinnati Business Courier

What are the biggest lessons learned from veteran (11-30 years of experience) political involvement professionals? Find out from my "Winning Hearts and Minds 2009" survey.

In 2006, we conducted a comprehensive survey of political involvement professionals to uncover your biggest challenges and accomplishments. Among over 15 major findings, we found that over a third of PAC eligible employees and association members give money to political causes, but not to your PAC. We also learned that there is a "commitment gap" between how grassroots volunteers talk about grassroots and what they are willing to do.

Always in hot pursuit of the truth, we revised the survey last fall with new questions. I presented the comprehensive results at the annual Innovate to Motivate conference last month. As promised, I am providing you as a survey respondent a top line result report.

We segmented the results by years of service, as I suspected that there would be a difference in the responses of those who have been in the profession 10 years or less, and those who have been in the profession for over 11 years. Here are the most interesting findings:

Key Contact Challenges

The top three challenges relative to working with Key Contacts (to review, Key Contacts are typically your most loyal and connected grassroots volunteers):

1.     Mobilization
2.     Metrics
3.     Recruitment

I was shocked that mobilization is #1. With the proliferation of social networks, I thought this would be less cumbersome. Obviously online commitment is not translating to offline commitment. (Look for an upcoming webinar on this very topic later this year) Online activity and offline commitment are two different things, each with their own strengths and challenges.

Bottom line: Do you know the psychology of commitment that moves people from online to offline activity? Once they go offline, what path have you carved for them?

PAC, Grassroots and Lobbying Stature

Associations and corporations rate the internal stature of their lobbying activities far higher than PAC or grassroots. Over 56% rated lobbying on an 8-10 scale, while the range of grassroots and PAC functions rated as having "high internal stature" landed in the 8%-18% range.

Corporate PAC administrators tended to rate the internal stature of their PAC almost twice as high as association PAC professionals. They also rate the internal stature of their grassroots program higher than their association counterparts, but only by about five percentage points. However, lobbying trumps all.

Bottom line: Persuade others of your function's value. What are your results? What do they mean for the organization?

Who Do You Envy and Why?

The groups that are most envied include:

1. AARP
2. Non-profits (those mentioned specifically were the American Cancer Society, Komen Foundation, American Heart Association)
3. Realtor associations (national and state associations)
4. The National Rifle Association and Labor Unions were virtually tied for the fourth most envied groups.

When asked why these groups were envied, it's because they have:

1. Visibility
2. Volume
3. Balance (good lobbying, big PAC, effective grassroots, political credibility)
4. Large PAC

Lessons Learned from the Veterans

Those with 11-30 years of experience (52% of respondents) learned these lessons along their journey. In order of mention:

1.     Tend to your troops
2.     Have a process for all functions
3.     Share the dream
4.     "Can you hear me now?"
5.     Get some grit
6.     Lift the veil
7.     Money matters
8.     It's not about you

You can access the lessons learned here with participant verbatims: (pages 1-3 of the document below also contains lessons learned from those with fewer than 11 years experience)

http://www.box.net/shared/ludrf76ybl

We offer staff development workshops and retreats with these and other proprietary research findings. Rather than a data dump, all workshops include my insights for changing the culture in your organization and accelerating your results.

http://www.showaltergroup.com/services/workshops.php

Here's what people are saying about I2M 2010.

Those who escaped the blizzard and made it to New Orleans, where we, at no additional charge, arranged for the Saints to win the Super Bowl, thus adding to the festivities during another challenging Innovate to Motivate® Conference.

Thanks to our fantastic, gritty, and smart I2M Co-Chairs for making the I2M 2010 conference an inclusive, fun, and motivating experience:

Leann Fox, American Osteopathic Association
Christopher Kemm, Colorado and Wyoming Credit Union Association
Bruce Carroll CentorOrtho Biotech (Bruce had an internal corporate commitment, but was with us in spirit)
Betsy Vetter, American Heart Association

Welcome new I2M Advisory Committee Members!

Ben LaRocco, Proctor & Gamble
Dakotah Smith, Bayer
Heather Falen, American Academy of Opthamology
Amber Stoner, HCA Healthcare

Read about the Innovation Award Winners: Nationwide Insurance, American Heart Association and Genworth Financial

There are "official "awards presented at I2M, and there are the unofficial awards, which are the most revealing...This year's "Unsung Heroes" awards:

The BMW Snowcross Challenge Award Winner: Leann Fox, for driving her car through the DC snow at 4:00 am to make her flight.

The Planes, Trains and Automobiles Award: faculty member Yvette Williams, for making it to New Orleans via a train from DC to Philly, and flight from Philly to New Orleans.

The Walking in Memphis Award: Betsy Vetter, for coming to New Orleans (from Raleigh, remember that) via Memphis, then Minneapolis, then to New Orleans.

The Franchise Player Award: Kelly Knowles, for co-presenting a workshop on 12 hours notice.

The Efficiency Award: Carrie Schneider, for her innovative moves to sand a house at high levels without a ladder.

The "I Can't Believe She Said That" Award: To me, and I can't even write what I said. Thanks to Chris Kemm and Carrie Schneider for the save.

Lisa Cates, of Executive Communications, our Beacon of Hope project sponsor, plays on the horse swing while Paul Cantrell and Liz Welsh prepare to call 911.