Effectively handling objections is largely based on what we do before, rather than in, the moment the objection surfaces. Government relations professionals tend to fall into one of three groups along a dimension of increasing sophistication.
One way some prepare is to self-reference, rather than contemplate the perspective of our PAC prospects. Unsophisticated influencers do not reflect on the influence situation at all. They would rather do rather than investigate. They like to have a short list of PAC tactics handy for any PAC influence situation. “I already know how to drive a car, so why should I look at a map? I know what buttons to push and what knobs to turn to make this car work.”
When they do not get the PAC results that they want, they wonder why they have been unsuccessful. Many times we blame our audience for being unreasonable, obstinate, stupid, unaware, etc. (Sound familiar?)
More insightful agents ask themselves questions before proceeding. They ask, “What can I do so my request is accepted? How would I respond to this type of approach if I were the prospect receiving this approach?” Here, they use their own preferences, reactions, experiences and intuitions as a touchstone in their PAC appeals. This is better than the approach above, as it causes us to think of ingratiation strategies, which strengthen the bond of liking between us and our PAC prospects, and liking is integral to successful influence. This is a good place to start for successful and ethical PAC persuasion.
The problem here, however, is that we may be a very different person psychologically from our PAC audience members. And the more different we are, the less successful is our strategy of self-referencing. This is why we make horrid decisions and wildly inaccurate predictions about how our influence prospects, whether members, legislators, the public, etc. will react. We reference from ourselves instead of the audience and we do not think about problems the same way that laypeople do, so we are at the risk of misunderstanding their psychology by a large margin. (Which is why you and I must learn to suspect our own intuitions as we become more experienced influence agents.)
The third group of PAC recruiters are the truly sophisticated PAC influencers. They ask questions of their prospects as well as of themselves, and they ask the prospect questions first. They wonder, “How does my prospect think, feel, perceive? What constrains or encourages my prospect to act?” They forget about themselves and their own perspectives and attempt to understand the psychological processes that worked for the prospect. And they ask a fundamentally different type of question. Rather than starting with “What can I. . .” types of questions, they start with “What does the prospect…” types of questions in an attempt to determine the internal state of their audience member. Plus, they do this with each audience segment. Think of the various types of members you have in your association. Each are mini “voting blocks” who think differently from other association members.
That is a smart and very effective methodology. We can tell who the sophisticated and experienced PAC influence agents are. They aren’t the ones who arrogantly base their campaign on intuitive insights into the audience, tired patriotic quotes, or past experiences with other PAC audiences. They show a little humility because they know they cannot know everything about the particular audience. They start by collecting data, asking questions, handing out questionnaires, and talking to audience members. And, by the way, they continue to collect data throughout the PAC campaign, constantly modifying the approach to match the needs of the audience as the campaign unfolds.
So, instead of denigrating our audience for their lack of enlightenment, we should focus more on their perspective when developing our PAC pitch and responding to their sincere objections.
