There’s a big difference between wanting to win for your cause and wanting to beat the other guy.
Advocating for an issue important to us can be a deeply personal effort. It can motivate us to overcome a lot to labor toward a common goal. But it can also draw out some less desirable traits if we aren’t watchful in keeping ourselves in check.
Much of the work to do so revolves around the words we choose, and how we choose to use them.
While I’ve written about that theme previously, I’ve been thinking about it a bit differently over the last week. I’ve been reflecting on this idea ever since consuming a bit of content from Rory Vaden, an author and personal brand consultant. In a recording focused on writing copy, he said something like “clear is greater than clever.”
Rory was speaking in the marketing sense – how we bring our message to those able to listen in a way that they’re ready to hear. But since then, I’ve been thinking of that mantra in the context of advocacy. As I’ve mulled it over, I keep finding the statement holds true in both a similar, and an alternative way for successful advocates.
For sure clarity helps us deliver a message effectively. I regularly coach advocates on how to distill talking points into what really matters in their own stories and experiences around an issue. But I also find myself pulling them back from a tendency to come across as “the smartest in the room.”
Don’t get me wrong, expertise on an issue is incredibly valuable – it often places us in a posting to advance the debate. That is, until our own pride gets in the way.
When we muster the strength to enter the public debate we want to win. That’s good. That competitive edge is great. But when we have a moment to persuade others, too often many of us want to own them instead of win them to our cause. We want to have the one liner that moves them or catches them off guard. Our pride tells us we can accept both as equally good. They’re not.
Don’t believe me? Go search #politics on Twitter and let me know about your reader experience.
I have a good idea what it will be because we see the same in Presidential debate season. If you follow along on social media during a debate, rabid partisans only care about one thing: their guy landing more “gotcha” type body blows to embarrass the opponent. But the vast majority of folks aren’t rabid partisans, and when those verbal blows start flying, they’re just as likely to change the channel to literally anything else.
How can we possibly assume that those in the room with us will react any differently when we descend to the same tactics?
When we opt for clever over clear, we need to understand that anyone listening to us is doing so voluntarily. They owe us nothing. Even political staffers and especially if our words diminish or demean them. Those choices can wipe away any of the good we may otherwise accomplish toward our goals. Being too clever can shut the conversation down long before we ever finish talking.
Instead, we need to develop the tools necessary to remain clear in our communication, and focus on meeting a need the listener really has. It’s about far more than delivering a catchy talking point. It’s about checking our own competitive, partisan tendencies to open pathways to show up authentically and in a way that invites others into our cause.
It’s a tall order. We want to win. But learning when to hold our tongues can go a long way in building a reservoir of trust that helps us win more in the long run. After all, it’s only because of that trust that successful advocates compound their opportunities to participate in the iterative and cumulative process of successful advocacy.
And that’s really the bottom line isn’t it? If we’re truthful about the endurance needed to advance a cause then we know for a fact we will need more opportunities, not fewer, to engage with key decision makers. Choosing to be clear over clever, and checking our competitive pride at the door, gets us just a little bit closer to that goal.
Part of the Possible 