Your Words Have Meaning

We’re getting it wrong from the very beginning. We’ve eroded the definition of advocacy. Until we recognize that fact, we can’t begin to improve. What do I mean?

I was listening to a presentation on advocacy for a non-profit organization last week. In the hopes of illuminating the field to aspiring volunteers, the well-intentioned trainer began – as many do – with a definition. Here’s what they said:

“Advocacy is applying pressure to influence people who can get us what we want.”

If you’ve been reading my posts, you’re probably seeing the steam shooting out of my ears. This kind of street definition, unfortunately, is how many people perceive advocacy. But skilled advocates know it falls apart in three key ways.

Applying Pressure

This is a doozy of a place to start. The word choice alone pushes would-be advocates into an offensive posture. When we think of applying pressure, we internalize a mindset inclined toward conflict. And it cripples our decision-making.

Just yesterday I met with an elected official and exchanged stories of bad encounters with protesters. Folks seeking to “make him feel the heat” had badgered his family in public stores, interrupted his church service, and stalked him on a vacation. We cannot bemoan the quality of public service we receive if this is how we choose to engage with volunteer public servants.

Let’s start re-writing the definition by shifting focus back on the role of advocates. Let’s start here: Advocacy is supporting a public cause…

To Influence People

What does this even mean? It’s far too vague. Advocacy is in the public realm, but our targets aren’t the entire public. And even if they were, what do we mean by influence? By being too loose with our words here, we’re making an already frustrating and demanding field something worse: an incomprehensible one.

There are many ways to influence people – some are even legal like educating and asking for specific actions. But coupled with the offensive posture described above, I fear the trainer of this organization is a few steps away from encouraging volunteers to follow senators into bathrooms and record them.

Let’s keep building our definition with an eye toward accuracy: Advocacy is supporting a public cause…by informing key decision-makers…

Who can get us what we want

This is the piece that most effectively irked me. By describing the goals of advocacy in this selfish light, we’re misleading our teams in two key ways.

First, the give and take of public discourse means we rarely “get what we want.” Public debate in our political process allows us to balance competing interests – and balance inherently means someone else probably gets some of what they want too. Secondly, it establishes a litmus test approach to qualifying success in advocacy. In this mindset, if we don’t get all of what we want, we’ve failed in our mission. That’s not quite an inspiring way to lead volunteers.

I’d also argue this description lends itself to an acute level of selfishness. That type of thinking is counterproductive in a field that requires constant tending. We have to shift the focus from us, to something greater than us. Successful advocates make gains because they understand they are in service to a cause – one bigger than just “getting what we want.”

Here’s how we can shift that mindset: Advocacy is supporting a public cause…by informing key decision-makers…and calling on them to implement policy to further that cause.

The bottom line: words have meaning, and so does the way we use them.

How we frame this work for our prospective advocates will help determine our success in the field. We can help them engage an infinite mindset, or push them to see politics through the lens of winners and losers. The definitions we choose, and how we convey them both carry tremendous weight.

Advocacy is supporting a public cause by informing key decision-makers, and calling on them to implement policy to further that cause. The sooner we recognize this the better, because when we change our advocacy mindset from winning debates to winning people, we’ll win more of both.