Activism vs. Advocacy

You’ve missed the moment.

Somehow, a confluence of events brought together a perfect opportunity. An event, crisis or otherwise, has brought your cause front and center in the minds of your community. You mobilized your network to take actions on your cause, trying to influence decision makers. And for one reason or another, the moment still slipped by.

I’ve been there – and so has everyone else who’s ever tried to move the ball downfield on their agenda. And just like you, we all take a moment to ask ourselves “what the hell?” Somehow, some piece of the puzzle just wasn’t in place. And if I’m a betting man, I’m putting my chips on a basic idea: in the moment, you had activists ready, but failed to develop advocates.

Here’s where our topic today is going to get murky. It seems that most folks confuse activism and advocacy (and based on most definitions, for good reason). Some try to oversimplify by saying activists are outside of the system, while advocates try to work within the system. Let’s break away from traditional mindsets and try to look at both groups in a new way.

Without getting too technical, let’s start with the similarities. Activists and advocates are both trying to accomplish some type of policy agenda item. In my view that’s the extent of the similarities. That’s it.  That’s all she wrote.

The differences, though, are extensive and reflected in their methodologies. But to understand methods, we have to understand the paradigm, or lens, through which both groups see the policy process. Activists see the policy process in a win-lose, defined and finite mindset. They see clear actors, known rules and a means to an end. By contrast, advocates are playing an infinite game. (If you haven’t heard about finite and infinite games, I’d recommend you pick up a copy of The Infinite Game by Simon Sinek.)

Advocates see the political and policy processes as fluid, with changing players, evolving rules and a need to perpetuate their participation in the game. Advocates are the ones you can trust to represent your organization in your absence because they are subject matter experts AND they’ve committed to your Just Cause.

With these two different paradigms in mind we can better understand the methods chosen by either group. Activists are great in a pinch. They volunteer to write letters, attend meetings, make phone calls, even donate significant financial and personal resources to a cause. But they are reacting to circumstances, not proactively advancing the agenda. These are the folks every politician wants in their camp in August. They’ll spend nearly every weekend knocking on doors to meet local voters and promote their candidate. But on the Wednesday after the election results are in, these people largely go home.

Candidates are rightfully grateful for the work of those volunteer activists. The same goes for managers of issue campaigns. Every association or non-profit needs these folks when volume becomes critical to winning or losing – these are the folks you know will show up when asked. By contrast, advocates work to create scenarios where volume never becomes a deciding factor. Advocates are the people the decision makers rely on as experts. They’re the folks who are still around in January long after the campaign has shut down until the next cycle.

Advocates do a few specific things that we’ll dive into in later posts. First: they actively maintain a strategic mindset. They understand the larger goals that aren’t dependent on a single vote. These are the folks who are willing to accept a relatively good policy even if it falls short of their perfect solution.

Secondly: they develop a plan for engagement that is non-partisan, and respects decision makers for what they are first – human beings. Advocates do not try to overwhelm the agenda of an elected official, but they do try to find ways to work within that agenda. Often times, it also means that advocates will trade quantity for quality in their interactions.

Lastly, advocates plan for the long term. In 2009, a member of congress was approached about a particular issue that was completely non-controversial: providing proper burials for deceased indigent veterans with no known next of kin. Prior to the Missing in America Act, those veterans’ remains would sit on shelves in funeral homes, with no final place to rest. The resolution would be non-controversial because A) the Department of Veterans Affairs already has resources for those burials, and B) the only requirement in the way was proving honorable service.

When I began working for that member of congress in 2011, he had already been working on this issue for two years. It would be another two years before his bill finally became law. But what got it across the goal line was a committed group of advocates from the American Legion who dedicated years to building trust between the department and non-governmental organizations. That trust allowed bureaucracy to modernize in a productive way. You see, the advocates established themselves as experts, were willing to make compromises, and maintained their infinite goal: provide dignified treatment to all veterans, regardless of their personal resources.

Little by little, you can foster a culture that leverages both activists and advocates. Both are necessary, but when push comes to shove, you’re going to wish you had invested in advocates.

So, develop leadership pipelines that help you identify those who have bought into your just cause and have an infinite mindset. Foster opportunities for those volunteers to grow into advisory roles for decision makers. Help them get in the room before a crisis, because when the moment comes, and seating in the room is limited, those seasoned advocates will be the ones called to the table.