When I went on active duty, the conflict in Iraq had reached its high point. The dominant tactic from enemy forces on the ground had shifted, employing a devastating tactic: improvised explosive devices. Accordingly, our training was geared toward preparing us to think about the battle space in a different way – a way that would prepare us to handle this exceedingly difficult form of asymmetrical warfare. And it showed up in our lingo.
Whether you were headed to that particular combat zone or not, a phrase edged its way into your lexicon. Suddenly, almost overnight, the training came to be summed up in a singular phrase: “get left of the explosion.”
That phrase helps encapsulate a dramatic shift that needed to happen for us to execute that different thinking as we headed to the fleet. Conventional, established training programs had focused generations on how to deal with “actions on the objective” in combat scenarios. Read that as training aimed toward preparing our teams on the expectations for their performance when we know we are going to face a point of friction.
The only problem with that is we don’t know when an ambush is going to happen. The enemy on the ground gets a vote on that. If your team encountered IEDs, the disruption to your actions could mean that your only recourse was to execute a rapid response on site. Say farewell to the actions on your previous objective. Now you’re in a different type of firefight.
So, how do we reclaim the initiative when an enemy force has found such an impactful asymmetrical approach? We needed to change the game. We needed to think differently about everything that happens before an enemy tries to ambush us.
Instead of crafting ideal actions on the objective, our briefings soon incorporated the steps we would take to mitigate the possibility of an IED attack and maximize our ability to react quickly in the worst case scenario. By thinking about all the steps taking us to our objective, we were zeroing in on the planning we could make to limit the enemy’s ability to impact our mission.
When we would say “get left of the explosion,” we were cuing our teams and ourselves to move deliberately through that thoughtful process. We were practicing a mindset shift in words that would help us do so in deed as well.
In my work as a professional advocate now, I think about the power of words often. I think about how simple changes like this one can set us up to perform better in the midst of unpredictable shifts of the political sands. I also spend a great deal of time contemplating how our words matter to the folks we’re trying to move on an issue. I try to think through how to match a common story to an individual listener, so that our policy initiatives are meeting them where they are in the moment.
Unfortunately, there are too many volunteer advocates thrust into the policy arena without being given the time to do the same. Because of the topsy-turvy nature of politics, a hot issue today can be a dead one tomorrow. And in the middle of that, it’s not hard to imagine volunteer advocates – who don’t spend all their time catching up on political gossip – feeling a bit unsure about how to take talking points from an advocacy team and turn them into something more personal, more valuable to the listener.
Because talking points box us in.
We don’t mean for it to happen, but it does nonetheless. We see a bulleted list and salivate over the prospect of not having to do the deep homework on our issues. After all – we have our script right there in front of us. But what happens when the other party in the discussion doesn’t follow the script? After all, they get a vote in how that interaction is going to unfold as well.
When your targets switch to their own form of verbal asymmetrical warfare – how do we react? Do we realize that we’re now in a different type of fight? Or are we stuck applying our typical “actions on the objective” to a moment that doesn’t quite make sense?
Sadly, I don’t think we’re doing enough in advocacy to get “left of the explosion.” We’re taking the easy way out when we hand our volunteers one-pagers and talking points memos. We’re not forcing the thoughtful action they can take to think through the pitfalls coming their way. We’re not helping them mitigate the risk of putting the wrong talking point in front of the wrong target.
In those moments, we’re diminishing their effectiveness. Because a great talking point at the wrong moment is always the wrong argument.
That’s why I’ve spent the last few years trying a different approach. Very rarely do I provide one-page briefing documents and talking points memos. And I take a little bit of heat for it. Volunteer advocates are pressed for time – and digging into the issues is challenging work. Crafting your personal narrative around an issue is daunting. And matching the key points of that narrative to diverse audiences on the Hill is even worse! That’s why I insist we lean into creating space for our teams to get left of the engagement.
Just like the language mindset shift in my training years ago, this practical mindset shift has begun to pay big dividends. Removing policy briefs, and adding time into our operations to facilitate deeper dives from our advocates is helping our advocacy teams come together and think through their own rapid responses. By equipping them with meeting management skills instead, advocacy leads can help them create a natural flow to react quickly in the moment and regain the initiative.
Is it perfect? No. But no advocacy meeting truly is. The opposition gets a vote after all. But we gain credibility in our work when we professionally respond to challenges in the moment. When we’re able to adjust how we speak about an issue to different audiences, we meet them where they are. And all of that places us in a position to get invited back to the table time and again, which is the end goal: gaining new opportunities to engage in the process.
We don’t get there without putting new methods to the test, without evolving. Our strategies in the divisive state of modern politics have to change. We have to accept that our volunteer advocates need the time and space to think through what they are about to do. We can’t script it out for them. That’s why we have to throw away the canned approaches of the past, and help them better react to the reality on the ground today. We do that through mindset shifts.
And I’m getting to that mindset shift faster by throwing away those talking point memos.
Part of the Possible 