|
Video: 6 Timebombs in your Grassroots or PAC Program
Want to Excel? Trust the Evidence, Not Your Gut
If your doctor prescribed a treatment that studies found was ineffective, yet he preferred it because it was easy to administer, or because his peers recommended it, would you believe he was engaging in malpractice? I would. Evidence-based medicine reduces errors.
Unfortunately, in many workplaces, and this includes our government relations functions, failure to consider evidence-based approaches results in poor performance, unmet goals, and lower grassroots volunteer and PAC contributor morale.
Even the venerable Google is now moving toward evidence based management. For most of its life, Google’s management believed that a high level of technical smarts was the most important managerial quality. When they surveyed employees to find out what they wanted from their managers, technical know-how was rated last among eight characteristics! What did they want? Attributes like being even-tempered, caring about employees’ non-work lives, and asking good questions.
Google drilled down and found that the managers who indeed exhibited those behaviors had the best-performing teams and the least turnover. Google has heeded the evidence and is changing how it selects and coaches managers.
Here are my favorite examples.
Social Networks vs. Social Capitol
We now know from the Congressional Management Foundation’s research (http://www.congressfoundation.org/storage/documents/CMF_Pubs/cmf-social-congress.pdf) that when congressional staffers were asked to rate what types of communications are “very important” to understanding constituent views and opinions, 8% ranked Facebook as “very important” and 4% said Twitter was “very important.” In contrast, district meetings were deemed “very important” by 77% of those surveyed. Yet, most organizations focus more time and money teaching their volunteers how to engage legislators with social media than how to interact with them in the district.
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."
Volunteer Burnout
When I ask GR professionals why they believe volunteers burn out, the answer is inevitably “lack of recognition.” Therefore, if we recognize them more (and that is a good practice regardless of your program status, by the way) they will engage more. But the evidence tells us something else.
We know that the number one reason top-shelf volunteers drop out of your programs is due to what I call “legislators behaving badly." Research we conducted over a four-year period with active (those who attend your lobby days, town hall meetings, annual conventions, etc.) volunteers showed that they become discouraged that legislators "respond to me via a form letter," "won't change their mind," or "talk at us and not with us." Those of us in the government relations profession know that these are common legislator behaviors. However, our top volunteers think that they should be able to quickly influence a lawmaker based on one personal visit, one email, etc. Where did they get that impression? Most likely from us. We aren't being honest about what it takes to influence their lawmaker.
Applying the evidence to our daily work, we need to educate our advocates more about the legislative process being a long-term influence campaign, rather than touting the "make your voice heard and we'll win" theme.
Senior Mangement PAC Involvement = Increased PAC Contributions
Another article of faith in the PAC profession is to "You cannot ask others for PAC funds until you have high percent of your senior managers contributing to the PAC.” Dr. Steven Billet of GWU’s Graduate School of Political Management conducted research with top-performing PACs which showed no clear correlation between senior management PAC contributions and increased PAC funds (And his research contained rigorous correlations of different variables). As he stated in his report:
“It should be emphasized that correlation is not causality. While we assume that high levels of executive engagement precede PAC revenue growth, it is entirely possible that organizational executives might become engaged with the PAC in a sort of ‘bandwagon effect,’ after the PAC as grown---when it seems more like ‘the thing to do.’ “
What was correlated? Less lobbyist involvement in PAC contribution decisions. We all have seen the employee engagement literature which tell us that “Gen Y”, “The Millenials,” etc. (name your preferred generational group) all want more of a voice in organizational decision making. Your PAC is not immune from that belief.
And as a footnote, in all of the PAC client research I have conducted, I have never, ever, seen “senior management PAC involvement” as a motivator for PAC contributions. The reason it does not motivate PAC contributions varies by organization; we take the particular reasons, the evidence, into consideration when developing new persuasive messages.
Show the Personal Impact and They Will Follow
A common mantra for grassroots involvement, particularly on “calls to action” and grassroots mobilizations, is to “show the personal impact,” or, “how it affects their pocketbook” and you’ll get their commitment.
The influence literature tells us that there are modifiers around this approach. Generally, when times are good, the “personal impact” argument doesn’t convincingly resonate, because people know others are less fortunate. However, in the current economic climate, it’s more compelling.
Again, when you do the research, the evidence shows that people are engaged for a variety of reasons. I’ve seen reasons ranging from the admiration of the organization’s ethics as a motivator, to deceptive opponents, to frustration with how their profession is perceived by members of Congress. And it should be noted that the reasons for involvement change frequently, so regular evidence-gathering is required.
The bottom line? Trust the evidence, not your gut. Do you really know what motivates your stakeholders? Do you know the conversion factors that influence their behavior? When you make decisions based on the evidence, not your gut, you can accurately motivate, persuade, and excel. |
