Picking your tactics: Balancing being visible with being effective

For a lot of organisations, there is a perpetual tension in their policy influencing work between the desire to be visible and the need to be effective. This is particularly true for charities, who have to be able to show easily and clearly how they are using their fundraised income to improve the lives of their beneficiaries through their policy influencing work. It is also true for membership bodies (such as trade bodies and unions) who need to show their members that they are on their side, and out there championing their interests. What better way to demonstrate that than to have a few good photos of activists holding up placards on Parliament Square?

What this often comes down to is the balance between being visible and effective.  And this is a constant challenge for those involved in policy influencing work.

Of course, it’s not as simple as saying that tactics which are ‘loud and noisy’ are inherently less effective than those that are not.  There is a time and a place for different tactics for different purposes.  

I’ve lost track of how many times during my career I’ve had to explain to people that organising a mass rally or protest march probably isn’t going to be the most effective way to influence a complex policy issue.  But I’ve also lost track of how many times I’ve had to persuade people to take bolder steps than they might otherwise have chosen.  

In a week when direct action campaigns have been in the headlines, in this post, I take a look at the balance between visibility and effectiveness in policy influencing, and offer  some tips and tricks to help you pick the best tactics for what you are trying to achieve. 

#1:  What are you trying to achieve?

The first and most important question that you have to ask yourself is ‘what are you trying to achieve’?  For example, are you trying to raise awareness of a particular issue, or influence a somewhat technical piece of policy or legislation?  

Generally speaking, the louder and noisier your tactics are, the closer to the awareness raising end of the spectrum you are likely to be.  That is not to suggest that is somehow less important – awareness raising is certainly a part of the policy influencing cycle (after all you first have to make sure that people know that there is a problem that needs to be solved).

Organising a protest in Parliament Square might get you some helpful media headlines, but is unlikely, on its own, to be a particularly efficient route to policy influence in the short to medium term.  Parliamentary tactics, such as organising a mass lobby of parliament (where supporters and activists contact their MPs as constituents and organise to meet them in Parliament all on the same day) can be effective in both raising awareness and useful as a policy influencing tool in its own right.  

#2:  The relationship between policy influencing and campaigning

In my opinion, the relationship between policy influencing and campaigning can best be characterised as a Venn diagram.  There are elements of both which are distinct and unique, but there is also an element of overlap between the two.  For example, getting supporters or stakeholders to write to their MP about a bill before parliament is both a policy influencing activity (i.e. trying to change something about the bill), and also a campaigning activity (i.e. mobilising a supporter or activist base).  The two are not mutually exclusive, but are also not the same thing. 

This is one of the reasons that in some organisations, policy influencing and campaigning functions might be combined in the same team.  

#3:  Don’t underestimate the power of behind-the-scenes work

As I mentioned in a previous post, influencing policy is largely about building and nurturing relationships, and using powers of persuasion to build support for your case.  It’s a world where logic, evidence and well-structed arguments normally win the day.  The most powerful tool that I have ever had in my influencing toolbox is actually the relationship that I have with the officials and civil servants who do the real work on policy development and implementation.  Those relationships are critical to getting things done – and often involve the informal phone calls, helpful emails and quiet conversations. 

#4:  Influencing policy is a bit like international diplomacy

Influencing policy can be a little bit like international diplomacy.  What you say in private and behind closed doors is often quite different to what you might say (or how you might frame it) in public.  Politicians and officials also understand this.  In many ways, this means that it can be possible to balance public and private messaging quite effectively. 

This becomes particularly important if you plan to use the media as a policy influencing tool where distilling potentially complex messages down to something really simple to understand and to communicate is vital. 

#5:  ‘Loud and noisy’ has its place

The ‘loud and noisy’ influencing and campaign tactics definitely have their place.  In my opinion, they can be particularly effective if your primary objective is to raise awareness of a particular problem, and also if every usual channel for policy influence has been tried and exhausted.  I’ve been on more than my fair share of marches and protests over the years (with varying degrees of success).  These tactics are rarely my ‘go to’ options when thinking about how to influence the policy agenda.  But there are many examples in British political history of how effective ‘loud and noisy’ tactics can sometimes be.   

What is your experience of balancing visibility and effectiveness in influencing policy?  Let me know your thoughts in the comments section below. 

If you or your organisation are looking to do more policy influencing work, and would like some pro bono advice, I’d be happy to have a chat. Just drop me a line via the ‘Contact’ link above, or email me at hello@thepolicycoach.co.uk