The benefits of a Systemised Approach in Lobbying

by
I’ve slowly been systemising my lobbying work for the last few years.
Some of you have seen the by-products at Florence. Process charts of key decisions to influence a proposal, who is making the decisions, and what you need to bring to the table to make a positive difference.
Usually, when I present the visuals and case studies, more than a few people in the room go into a fetal position and cry under the table. They learn they have missed a vital chance to influence political events and often realise that they did not even know the step existed.
I’ve just finished a batch of case studies/checklists/charts that  I wanted to share some observations with the few lobbyists who believe in a systemised approach.
Some Observations
  1. Most legislation and regulations do not happen as a surprise. There are flashing lights many years before to indicate change is moving. Most people choose to ignore the signs.
  2. If you know the path in the legislative/regulatory journey, you can prepare the necessary evidence, materials and trust ahead of time.
  3. I sense that most bad outcomes result from denialism and people thinking that external change happens while sitting in internal meetings (it does not, in case you were wondering).
  4. The actions you must take for each step in an Ordinary Legislative Procedure, Delegated Act, Implementing Act, RPS Measure, or Special Legislative Procedure are consistent and repeatable. I checked 10 other examples for each, and more or less the same steps happen every time.
  5. Most key decisions that last to the law being published in the OJ happen early on, taken by people in set-piece events that 99% of lobbyists don’t even know exist.
Most lobbyists will reject systemisation. They do so for some ‘rational’ reasons:
  1.  They think their issue is unique, understood only by a blessed few.
  2. They are creative artists. The muse guides their recommendations.
  3. They know they can, just once, defy the laws of political gravity and procedure and deliver a solution.
  4. They don’t know how the decision impacting their client is made. There is no certificate on YouTube University. And they don’t want to spend time learning their craft.
  5. They are concerned they won’t know where to spend their time if they can do their work in half the time.
There are some downsides, including:
  1. It takes time to develop specific case studies, checklists, process charts, and supporting materials for the areas you work in.
  2. You get your first drafts wrong a lot of the time. I have them reviewed by people who worked closely on the case study/process. Every time, I learn something important from their generous feedback.
  3. There are better ways to spend hundreds of hours of your own time.
  4. It closes down a lot of options you now know can never work.
  5. The process charts and checklists evolve slightly over time. Nothing is static. I even think ISC exists some days.
  6. Law-making is messy. If you need perfect flow and logic, you’ll be upset.

    Some charts will come up in the 3rd Edition of ‘How to Work with the EU Institutions’, Editor: Alan Hardacre, or my EUI or Maastricht University teaching projects.

Leave a comment