This survey is different from typical benchmarking surveys, as it goes several steps beyond the numbers to find out why certain political involvement outcomes are or are not prevalent.
Since the survey questions were largely open-ended, there is a lot of “word-crunching” to do, and we are thus releasing the results in phases, along with, where warranted, my commentary and “reality check” advice at the conclusion of each finding.
So, let’s get to the top of it!
Political Involvement Culture (“PIC”) Is Generally Strong
An organizational culture that is conducive to political involvement (PAC, grassroots, & lobbying) makes our lives easier, right? I look at it like this: values drive attitudes, attitudes drive behavior, and behavior drives culture. Each is dependent on the other.
We asked participants to rate, on a 1-7 scale, the degree of a positive political involvement culture in their organization. Sixty-eight percent rated it a 5-7, which is commendable. (Of note, we later asked about the degree of PAC and grassroots-specific C-executive level support, and those numbers vary from the overall culture question, but we’ll get to that in a following report.)
Now, for the important “why and how” behind the numbers. For those who rated the PIC a 5-7, we asked them two questions: 1) to what generally do they attribute that rating, and; 2) what specific behaviors and/or activities contribute to the positive PIC?
Lead Us or Regulate Us to a Positive PIC
“To what do you attribute your PIC rating?”
59% Senior executive/board leadership
21% Highly regulated profession/industry requires a PIC
14% Continuous stakeholder influence campaign (ok, in the spirit of full disclosure, this was referred to as generic “communications.” However, if it’s contributing to the culture, it’s influence and that’s different from communications, so we are taking that up a notch and calling it what it really is)
6% Other
Nothing terribly surprising here, except that “senior organization leadership” was not ranked more highly. This tells me that our I2M attendees rate their culture very positively without relying solely on senior management to drive the culture. They are helping to maintain the culture beyond looking to their senior organization leadership, which is a great indicator of their tenacity and know-how.
Also, it was interesting that, consistent with the advanced level of I2M conference attendees, not one respondent used the phrase “senior management support.”
There is a difference between “support” and “leadership,” the preferred word to describe the reason for the positive PIC. Leadership is active, and represents a set of behaviors. The more generic “support” is nebulous and can refer to the granting of budget money and nothing else. We’ll get to their definition of leadership behaviors later in this report.
The “highly regulated industry” response coincides with our knowledge that the influence context largely determines the success of an influence attempt. In this case, political and legislative engagement are more likely when the context demands it. This accounts for the history of political involvement, particularly grassroots, starting in the heavily regulated industries of chemicals, petroleum and insurance.
The “continuous stakeholder influence campaign” is notable for the operative word: continuous. These respondents know that we have to influence when “nothing is going on.” In fact, we are influencing by what we don’t do, as well as by what we do.
Amy’s Reality Check #1: You may be thinking, “Fine, Showalter, my organization is fortunate to operate under the radar, so how do we persuade our stakeholders to engage in political involvement activities when there is no apparent threat?” Groups who are not, or at least who think they will not be, under scrutiny have more challenges in keeping their stakeholders engaged. Every organization will sometime be under the watchful eye of the government, whether local, state or federal. Just ask Microsoft, Wal-Mart, Major League baseball, the restaurant industry, and (maybe soon) the horse racing industry. Everyone’s time is coming.
Do you know the real-world stories of other professions and industries that have fallen prey to onerous legislation and/or regulation? Noah didn’t build the ark when it was raining.
Amy’s Reality Check #2: Do you regularly scan the environment for political and social trends that would make your service, product, or offerings subject to increased scrutiny. Tie the social movement to the likely political reaction, and you’ll get your stakeholder’s attention.
Amy’s Reality Check #3: How do your communications contribute or detract from facilitating a viable political involvement culture? What are you and your team doing to move the PIC forward in terms of a continuous influence campaign? Many times we think of influence only in terms of getting our stakeholders to contact their lawmakers, but continuous influence campaigns must be conducted to create a positive culture of political involvement.
It Takes More Than Senior Management Leadership
Typically, when we ask government relations professionals what makes for a positive political engagement culture, we hear the ubiquitous “senior management support.” What is most interesting about the responses below is that the Innovate to Motivate attendees know not to rely solely on their leadership to get the job done. They take partial responsibility for the culture.
24% Senior executive leadership behaviors: consistent advocacy of the government relations function, attendance at events, regular dialogue between C-level exec’s and GR staff
24% Continuous influence campaign (also referred to as “communications”): transparency and candor about successes and failures, issue communications with no specific “ask.”
24% Events: exclusive events that provide access to legislators and/or board members and executives, “good government” events like GOTV, Town Hall meetings
10% Demonstrating the value of political involvement behaviors and events by connecting them to legislative outcomes
18% “Other”
Amy’s Reality Check #1: Do we tell our senior leaders what we need from them to move the PIC forward? In behavioral terms, can you cite what you want from them and why it’s needed?
Reality Check #2: Do you know what your legislative opponent’s leaders do to rev up their troops? Find out so you have a compelling contrast to present to your leaders when you need them to step up.
Amy’s Reality Check #3: Do you communicate the reasons for your successes, as well as shortcomings? Especially with our Gen-X and Y friends, they want to know the “story behind the story.” Candor matters, and the programs that are honest about their challenges will have more loyal followers than those who wallpaper the facts.
2008 I2M Survey Results
This survey is different from typical benchmarking surveys, as it goes several steps beyond the numbers to find out why certain political involvement outcomes are or are not prevalent.
Since the survey questions were largely open-ended, there is a lot of “word-crunching” to do, and we are thus releasing the results in phases, along with, where warranted, my commentary and “reality check” advice at the conclusion of each finding.
So, let’s get to the top of it!
Political Involvement Culture (“PIC”) Is Generally Strong
An organizational culture that is conducive to political involvement (PAC, grassroots, & lobbying) makes our lives easier, right? I look at it like this: values drive attitudes, attitudes drive behavior, and behavior drives culture. Each is dependent on the other.
We asked participants to rate, on a 1-7 scale, the degree of a positive political involvement culture in their organization. Sixty-eight percent rated it a 5-7, which is commendable. (Of note, we later asked about the degree of PAC and grassroots-specific C-executive level support, and those numbers vary from the overall culture question, but we’ll get to that in a following report.)
Now, for the important “why and how” behind the numbers. For those who rated the PIC a 5-7, we asked them two questions: 1) to what generally do they attribute that rating, and; 2) what specific behaviors and/or activities contribute to the positive PIC?
Lead Us or Regulate Us to a Positive PIC
“To what do you attribute your PIC rating?”
59% Senior executive/board leadership
21% Highly regulated profession/industry requires a PIC
14% Continuous stakeholder influence campaign (ok, in the spirit of full disclosure, this was referred to as generic “communications.” However, if it’s contributing to the culture, it’s influence and that’s different from communications, so we are taking that up a notch and calling it what it really is)
6% Other
Nothing terribly surprising here, except that “senior organization leadership” was not ranked more highly. This tells me that our I2M attendees rate their culture very positively without relying solely on senior management to drive the culture. They are helping to maintain the culture beyond looking to their senior organization leadership, which is a great indicator of their tenacity and know-how.
Also, it was interesting that, consistent with the advanced level of I2M conference attendees, not one respondent used the phrase “senior management support.”
There is a difference between “support” and “leadership,” the preferred word to describe the reason for the positive PIC. Leadership is active, and represents a set of behaviors. The more generic “support” is nebulous and can refer to the granting of budget money and nothing else. We’ll get to their definition of leadership behaviors later in this report.
The “highly regulated industry” response coincides with our knowledge that the influence context largely determines the success of an influence attempt. In this case, political and legislative engagement are more likely when the context demands it. This accounts for the history of political involvement, particularly grassroots, starting in the heavily regulated industries of chemicals, petroleum and insurance.
The “continuous stakeholder influence campaign” is notable for the operative word: continuous. These respondents know that we have to influence when “nothing is going on.” In fact, we are influencing by what we don’t do, as well as by what we do.
Amy’s Reality Check #1: You may be thinking, “Fine, Showalter, my organization is fortunate to operate under the radar, so how do we persuade our stakeholders to engage in political involvement activities when there is no apparent threat?” Groups who are not, or at least who think they will not be, under scrutiny have more challenges in keeping their stakeholders engaged. Every organization will sometime be under the watchful eye of the government, whether local, state or federal. Just ask Microsoft, Wal-Mart, Major League baseball, the restaurant industry, and (maybe soon) the horse racing industry. Everyone’s time is coming.
Do you know the real-world stories of other professions and industries that have fallen prey to onerous legislation and/or regulation? Noah didn’t build the ark when it was raining.
Amy’s Reality Check #2: Do you regularly scan the environment for political and social trends that would make your service, product, or offerings subject to increased scrutiny. Tie the social movement to the likely political reaction, and you’ll get your stakeholder’s attention.
Amy’s Reality Check #3: How do your communications contribute or detract from facilitating a viable political involvement culture? What are you and your team doing to move the PIC forward in terms of a continuous influence campaign? Many times we think of influence only in terms of getting our stakeholders to contact their lawmakers, but continuous influence campaigns must be conducted to create a positive culture of political involvement.
It Takes More Than Senior Management Leadership
Typically, when we ask government relations professionals what makes for a positive political engagement culture, we hear the ubiquitous “senior management support.” What is most interesting about the responses below is that the Innovate to Motivate attendees know not to rely solely on their leadership to get the job done. They take partial responsibility for the culture.
24% Senior executive leadership behaviors: consistent advocacy of the government relations function, attendance at events, regular dialogue between C-level exec’s and GR staff
24% Continuous influence campaign (also referred to as “communications”): transparency and candor about successes and failures, issue communications with no specific “ask.”
24% Events: exclusive events that provide access to legislators and/or board members and executives, “good government” events like GOTV, Town Hall meetings
10% Demonstrating the value of political involvement behaviors and events by connecting them to legislative outcomes
18% “Other”
Amy’s Reality Check #1: Do we tell our senior leaders what we need from them to move the PIC forward? In behavioral terms, can you cite what you want from them and why it’s needed?
Reality Check #2: Do you know what your legislative opponent’s leaders do to rev up their troops? Find out so you have a compelling contrast to present to your leaders when you need them to step up.
Amy’s Reality Check #3: Do you communicate the reasons for your successes, as well as shortcomings? Especially with our Gen-X and Y friends, they want to know the “story behind the story.” Candor matters, and the programs that are honest about their challenges will have more loyal followers than those who wallpaper the facts.