Last Thursday, I wrote about the hardest part of Political Action Planning to master: Timing. Timing is so nearly impossible to get right that it takes on the qualities of an art form, shrugging the conformity we’ve come to expect in so many other professional fields.
But this week, we need to talk about the hardest of the 4Ts to internalize: testing. Here’s a refresher from my introductory post on Political Action Plans:
Testing & Feedback Loops
This final pillar of advocacy planning is likely the toughest to internalize. Frankly, many organizations devote significant time and resources to developing policy positions and getting the conversation started only to let the momentum slowly fade away and a good plan thus earns its spot on a dust covered shelf.
And if I’m being honest, I’m still figuring out my own best practices on this part of planning. The reality is political advocacy planning is an ongoing process. You’ll never have a perfect product – but you can have one that helps you prepare for as much of the process as you can control. Making this shift will keep your team leaning forward in the process, and stand out as proactive instead of reactive.
I’m still more than happy to be completely honest about my shortcomings in this area. When you’re discussing a policy/program/project that hasn’t been created and enacted, how can you possibly measure success? How can you account for the degree to which you’re moving the needle in the mind of a decision maker?
I’m not sure there’s a right answer because, after all, we’re working in the arena of psychology until they take definitive action. But a decent answer is to foster relationships with people outside of your organization who can help serve as a check on your assumptions. Testing is not always about clear data sets, sometimes a simple feedback loop can help you pause, orient on the problem and decide if any new tactics need to be taken.
In my own work, I’ve leaned on former Hill staffers, folks who have lived the life to make sure I’m asking the right questions and offering clear enough solutions. We’ve held practice sessions to refine talking points and challenge each other’s positions. But, that’s not always enough.
Advocates must be prepared to hear that their proposal is dead on arrival – and for any litany of reasons. The clearest test of the soundness of your proposal is if your typical champions are willing to take up the sword once again. If you’ve done the real work of advocacy, building meaningful and honest relationships, your champions can be your earliest test. They won’t introduce a measure just because it will keep you happy, and in the best circumstances they’ll look you in the eye and tell you the reasons why your agenda can’t move forward in a given environment.
My final thought on testing is that there remains at least one clear metric by which you can judge how strong your action plan could be. As you are walking through your formal planning process, before implementation, go back to your stakeholder list and ask some targeted questions: at every phase of your plan, are you having frequent and impactful engagement with each category of target? Are your grassroots volunteers getting opportunities to learn the issue and express their stances to legislators? Are you building value-added events for decision makers that give them positive public exposure on your issue? If so, how often? Are you building in regular opportunities for media to engage with your agenda?
Again, it’s not perfect, but I’d say that going more than one quarter without hitting each of those targets would be detrimental, at least, to the pacing of your plan. So, turn the table around, try to poke holes in it. Determine if you’ve got too much downtime between highlight moments for your agenda. Then fill the gaps.
And that’s the hard part. That’s the aspect of testing that makes it difficult to internalize. There’s no doubt that working as an advocate, you have to carry a certain level of self-confidence, a self-assuredness that allows you to deliver. But with that sense of pride, can come a sense of rightness. It’s incredibly difficult to admit that your plan may not work, and then to try to figure out, in advance, why it wouldn’t. Checking your own assumptions and your own shortcomings is the work of any leader – and needs to become especially so for policy leaders.
If we consistently avoid challenging our plan and critiquing it, we will fall short. Period. End of story. You can spend all the resources at your disposal, engage in every tactic, but if those tactics aren’t working and you don’t know it, you’re toast.
So what do you think? Am I right on that assertion? If so, what methods are you using to evaluate your plans? If you’re not in the advocacy/lobbying field, how does this translate to your own industry? How do you check your plans for faults? Drop a comment below and let me know what you’re thinking!
No matter the field, we can all get better at developing plans that stand up to challenges.
Part of the Possible 
Luke,
I think anyone in any area of work could use your 4 T’s. Knowing stakeholders, knowing the focus of those who approve or negate an idea or practice change definitely affects the outcome. A few years ago when we were making changes in processes for central line placement, the committee denied the change from betadine to chlorhexidine for disinfectant scrub. When this occurred I researched the cost to the hospital for longer length of stay, mortality, and morbidity. They then approved the change as approximately $2 more for an item that could save the hospital $30-50,000 per occurrence was a good choice.
LikeLike
Marcia – thanks for the comment! Advocacy isn’t limited to politics! Obviously that’s where my mind always goes because it’s my field, but you’re absolutely right. Many of the same concepts that can make you successful in advocating for policy can translate to advocacy within a corporate structure or other industries. I appreciate you pointing that out!
LikeLike