I’ll never forget this one very particular experience as a junior congressional staffer – it was the day the doctors came in. (DISCLAIMER UP FRONT: I’M TALKING ABOUT PhDs, NOT MDs.)
This was maybe my second year on the job working in the district office for a sitting member of congress. I wasn’t working on policy issues, but I was on the front line in dealing with constituent interest groups. Those groups came in all forms. From well prepared veterans of the advocacy world to the most novice. In that district office, we got a taste for them all. And from time to time, they landed in a meeting with yours truly.
But the distinction between successful and not-so-successful advocacy teams almost never had to do with their experience level. In my interactions, the less experienced crews often out-performed the pros! The distinction didn’t even boil down to those who had practiced their pitches the best. I think the most successful of the teams stood out more often because of one common thread: they didn’t ask a lot, but they asked it well.
Getting volunteer advocates over the barriers they face to participate in person is tremendously difficult for any advocacy organization. It’s a real challenge to pluck someone from their daily lives and drop them into the world of political activism. It’s not comfortable. It takes time. And they will always doubt themselves and their effectiveness.
What makes it worse is that many advocacy organizations compound the problem by immediately asking too much of their volunteer teams. Cue the memorable group of PhDs!
I won’t say WHERE they were from, WHAT they were discussing, or WHO they represented. Don’t try to press me for it. But HOW they approached a day of advocacy in our office stood out for all the wrong reasons, and we can learn from their mistake (even though at face value, it may not even seem like a mistake to you).
They did what many researchers do in their daily lives. They came in to speak to a really important issue. It was one affecting a lot of people. And they came with a ton of data to back up their stance. They brought ample leave-behind materials, pamphlets, and even some video resources. From an “education” standpoint, they really crushed it. But then they also brought a shopping list of asks. More than a dozen of them. A whole list of solutions, all right there at their target’s fingertips.
And on the surface, that may seem ok to most people. But it’s part of our job as advocates to make the solutions to problems so unbelievably obvious that people want to champion them. It’s also a part of our job to remember that absolutely none of our targets owe us a damn thing.
That’s largely why showing up with a long list of action items causes a couple of key points of friction for your cause.
First, it creates confusion about your priorities. A laundry list of asks prompts predictable questions like “what’s really most important here?” That kind of question has no place in a successful meeting for your cause. There should be no ambiguity for your target. Your ask has to be clear, related to their work, actionable and measurable. And there should be as few of them as possible to focus on that day. The more educational materials, and the more asks presented, the less your target – a generalist who lacks your experience in a given field – can really hone in on what really matters.
Second, I think overwhelming your target with information to analyze and internalize runs counter to your goal of enrolling them as a champion in your cause. Remember, they don’t owe any of us a damn thing. Even if we voted for them. Especially if we contributed to them (insert here a friendly reminder that quid pro quo is illegal). They don’t owe us as constituents anything other than an ethical commitment to their oath of office. Unfortunately for those of you with a slightly less humane streak, that means they won’t be chaining themselves to a desk to learn every nook and cranny of the issues you put in front of them.
The PhDs failed to face the hard reality on both of these fronts. By giving too much information, they overdid it on education materials. A harried and overworked staffer just won’t have it in them to dive deep. And by offering such an extensive list of asks, they confused what really mattered in the moment: an upcoming vote. Their ask for action on that vote got buried in the muck of everything else they brought to the table – and it’s incredibly easy to fall into that trap.
Advocacy organizations only have you, their volunteer representatives, in front of decision makers so often. The natural temptation is to have you lay it all on the line. But my recommendation to you as an individual is to run counter to that impulse. I want you to get small.
When I train advocates, I take them through a progression of exercises. We move from the really big concepts that shape national politics down to smaller and smaller segments. I do this because I want them to land on one to three highly targeted, narrow asks for each of their respective targets. By stepping down to those atomic units over a progression of training sessions and experiences, they come to a natural understanding that yes, your asks and your approach can be – and often are – far too big.
It’s not on a volunteer advocate to deliver the entire agenda for a cause. That’s not fair, and it’s also not possible. Agendas, priorities, and political climates all change. Citizen advocates need to be in a position to be additive to a cause’s evolving response to those changes. They need to understand how a targeted ask today builds into a strategic advocacy plan that takes place over years. And that’s no small task for advocacy teams.
Getting small, getting narrow on your list of asks helps take the guesswork out of political advocacy. Crafting one to three really clean, unmistakable asks is better for everyone involved. If they are clearly worded, related to the work of the target, actionable in the moment, and measurable in any way they will help you gauge how effective your advocacy really is.
This is why it’s a really good idea to get small. Advocacy organizations and individuals alike need to see progress in their work. Narrowing the scope of our informational materials and asks alike can really help improve the feedback loop. And here’s the kicker to that…when feedback loops are positive, and people see real movement, they’re even more likely to come back and go after the next target again. That’s how we’ll eat this elephant. One bite at a time.
Part of the Possible 