Credibility. Credibility is the foundation of becoming a more effective spokesperson for any cause. How we pursue credibility is a fundamental trait that separates advocates from activists. Effective advocates hunt for opportunities to build their credibility.
Yet finding ways to develop credibility is also one of the most common challenges I hear from the prospective issue champions I train. So many of them have one common desire: to be just a little bit better, have just a little sharper edge so their solution to a problem can stand out above the rest.
So how do you get even just 1% better? How do you become even just 1% more credible? Would you believe me if I told you it’s as easy as eliminating one word from your vocabulary?
Through my late twenties and early thirties I worked for members of Congress. I can’t even begin to count the number of regular folks I met with over the course of that near decade of service. Even though the vast majority of them were NOT professional lobbyists, there they were showing up time and time again for the cause.
That, in and of itself, is commendable. But it’s just the first half of the battle. The rest of the battle centers on how we demonstrate our value as a partner to our targeted decision-makers. We do that by striving to earn credibility in their eyes.
But that can seem…well…a bit daunting. It doesn’t have to be. You can absolutely begin building your credibility with small changes. And where I like to train advocates to start is very simple. We ban the word ‘should’.
‘Should’ may not seem all that harmful to you. After all, how often do you use it in your daily conversations? I’m betting there’s a chance it slips into your dialogue fairly regularly. So why would it be holding advocates back as they weigh in on their issues?
‘Should’ is a cornerstone of normative statements and normative thinking. If you’re not familiar with that term, here’s the gist: normative statements make value judgments – and value judgments, held in the opinion of the speaker, cannot be tested or verified as ‘true’ or ‘false’. They are, in essence, statements about how we individually perceive a perfect world. Here’s an example – “interest rates are too high and they should be brought down.”
If I’m a congressional staffer listening to you utter that line, I’ll undoubtedly have some follow-up questions. Too high compared to what? How far should they be brought down? What’s the value added if they are brought down? I may agree with you, but to be a credible advocate for action, I need more. I need verifiable, credible information that can support the argument. I need to know that you as an advocate can provide it to me. And if you can’t do that in the moment, I need a reason to believe you’ll follow through on delivering it to me later.
It’s our natural inclination to try and capture moments. We want to use powerful language. We want to win the moment. Winning feels good. But we also need to re-think what that win really means.
Credible trumps clever. When we take a longer view of advocacy, it becomes easier for us to realize that winning the moment may lose us an opportunity to bring a new champion to our cause. Speaking in powerful, normative statements of how we think the world should work can actually engage our listeners in an unforeseen way. It can back them away from our issue.
Normative statements declare to the listener: this is the way I think works best, and if you don’t agree you are wrong. We are unconsciously backing our targets into a corner. We’re limiting their choices, and not in a positive way that could drive them to our side of an issue. We’re likely putting them into a defensive posture. By banning the concept of normative statements when engaging in advocacy, we can instead force ourselves to take on a posture of compromise. We open the door to collaborate instead of dictate.
That is a much harder route to follow emotionally, but it’s a much more fulfilling route to take when we are seeking credibility. By looking at our default language, and challenging how we deliver our message we can flip the script. Instead of backing others into a corner, we can begin inviting them into a coalition.
I know it works because I’ve seen it work in myself. I used to speak boldly in normative tones. It was really helpful in partisan politics when motivating members of a base. It didn’t serve me well when I first moved into professional advocacy. On the other side of the table I was able to observe the reaction of colleagues to those normative assertions. It wasn’t good.
As I did the work on knowing my issues better, learning this one approach altered how I digested information and how I engaged with differing views. It’s made showing up for my causes easier – and that’s kept me energized in campaigns that drag into year after year. That kind of stamina is what you’ll need to start banking credibility. And after all, credibility is the name of the game.
Part of the Possible 