Occam’s Razor

by
Keep it Simple
Over the decades, I’ve heard lobbyists come up with the most elaborate and complex reasons why a proposal was made, or a vote went the wrong way. A conspiracy and intrigue are often thrown in. And, dark forces of this realm or metaphysical are often close by. I’m sure many put outcomes down to elves.
Decades ago, I learned about Occam’s Razor. It comes down to making decisions on the simple explanations, those with the fewest moving parts, instead of complex explanations.
It is a useful rule of thumb in lobbying.
Why did someone get the outcome they wanted? It often comes down to this:
  • They are trusted by the decision makers.
  • They come in early with a smile.
  • They presented credible and robust evidence to support their policy preference.
  • Their ask is clear.
  • They provide a workable solution.
  • Their ask is within the realms of political reality/sanity.
  • They understand the process.
  • They are quiet.
  • They use people with a track record of delivering success (public policy/regulatory/legislative).
This is not a complex explanation of why success happens. That it does not happen that often is the remarkable thing.
A simple reason for interests not getting the public policy, legislative, or regulatory decision they wanted can usually be found to be:
  • They are not trusted.
  • They turn up late, and with a scowl.
  • They provide no or little credible evidence.
  • They don’t offer workable solutions.
  • Their case is complex to understand.
  • They apply the wrong rules of the game for the particular process.
  • They step in late, the decision was already taken (e.g. it is in the political guidelines).
  • Most of the time is spent in internal meetings.
  • They use the inexperienced/the wrong people.
The complex reasons for failing are often more exciting, bearing the hallmarks of a Robert Ludlum novel. But, they are usually wrong.
Why is something going to happen
If you want to influence a decision/proposal/vote, you’ll need to know the key people involved in that decision/drafting the proposal/vote. And, you’ll need to know the windows of opportunity when key decisions are taken. And then you will need to speak with a handful of the people involved to get a realistic picture of when and why.
I prefer this old-fashioned approach to the more popular sources:
  • Gossip.
  • Intel discovered at 2 am on Place Luxembourg.
  • Intel from internal meetings.
When I hear these extraordinary claims, I’ll ask for extraordinary proof.
I do so for two simple reasons.
First, if someone has messed up, they’ll look to cover themselves by making extraordinary claims on why something happened. Every time I’ve heard such extraordinary claims – and I’ve heard many – a quick call to people close to the file has revealed the vacuousness of the extraordinary claims.
Second, it is a waste of scarce time, resources and energy to chase dead ends or wild figments of people’s imagination.
There will be some complex files. They are not the majority (less than 5%). They may seem complex if you don’t know the process. But, if you don’t know how to tie your own shoelaces, many things are going seem complex and mysterious.