Blogs

The interns are returning to Washington, like so many khaki-wearing swallows to Capistrano. They fill the subways and bars, play softball (and kickball and bocce), and try to hook up. The intern system has its good and bad elements, and there are good and bad interns.

Below are some thoughts on the system, followed by unsolicited advice for the swallows of Longworth.

It is easy to mock interns, in part because so many bring the mocking on themselves – there’s even a blog devoted solely to that topic. But Washington couldn’t work without their energy, willingness to do whatever is asked, and money they spend.

There is a lot wrong with the intern system in DC (and elsewhere as well). We ask college students, and increasingly college graduates, to do scut work for no or little pay, which is likely in violation of all sorts of federal employment laws, in exchange for the promise of possibly maybe one day if they’re lucky getting paid very little to work even harder and get even less respect. This ethically and legally questionable system and also reinforces the elite that runs the country; it can be difficult to launch a career in D.C. without starting as an intern, which means those who cannot afford to spend a summer living in a relatively expensive city making little or no money have trouble ever getting on, let alone climbing, the rungs of power.

There is also a lot right with the intern system. Interns learn that most of politics is mostly boring most of the time, how to work in offices surrounded by people who are at least as smart and ambitious as they are, the little technical details of office work (newspaper is better than paper towels for cleaning the glass on a copier for example), and with luck they also learn a bit of humility. Interns learn the pace, rhythm, an expectations of political and policy offices. And many learn they would rather go into any field other than politics and policy.

With that, some unsolicited advice for interns.
I asked the interwebs for their advice for interns. Some was snarky, some was serious. The serious advice boiled down to: do what you’re asked then ask for more to do, dress and act professionally, and seek mentors. (The advice as given is at the end of this post).

To this input I would add a few of the best lines I’ve heard over the years, all of which are variations of the above:

When you’re asked to get a spoon for the Congressman, act as if the fate of the world rested on that spoon.

Always take your work, but never yourself seriously.

Avoid public drunkenness.

Washington isn’t a small town, it’s a big house.

If you think you’re the smartest person in the room, you’re either wrong or in the wrong room.

There is an inverse relationship between the visibility one’s staff I.D. and that person’s importance.

Listen more than you talk.

My lines out of the way (most of which were stolen from others), here is the advice from others:

From a development director at a non-profit:
Listen carefully. Sometimes people speak in cryptic brokered language to outline something, someone or, a situation where to actually talk about it blatantly would be impolite. Learning to study phrasing for nuance and subtlety helps one read between the lines and find hidden meanings. They do not know who you might know...

From an attorney specializing in military law:
Actively seek out work to do. If there is a lull in work, be proactive and go ask your supervisor(s) for projects instead of messing around on Facebook. If you're looking to land a job (or even just a good recommendation), they'll remember your work ethic.

Also, dress professionally because first impressions really matter. Also, if you don't, you drastically increase the possibility of ending up on http://dcinterns.blogspot.com

From another development director:
If you're stuck doing mundane tasks, see if you can figure out a better way for the company or org to do it... i.e., if you're stuck doing all the filing and copying, see if you can come up with a better filing system (perhaps something electronic?). Chances are they'd be open to it, but no one has ever had the time to think about it and do it.

From the Press Secretary at a national NGO:
Internships are more than another box to check before graduation. They are about growth. They are to teach you what it's like to be in a real office surrounded by real people doing real work. Actively engage in that process. Don't be content to wait for somebody to tell you what to do. Find a project that interests you and see it through with the help of a staff person you respect and admire. You're looking for mentors, professional contacts, and experience this summer. You're here because they thought you were good enough. Prove it.

From a communications specialist at a federal agency:
Find the person who's found you. That is, there will be one person who takes an active interest in you--not the work he or she thinks you'll be able to do for them, but in you, your interests, your life, your passion. If that individual has taken an interest in you, cultivate that relationship because you've found a mentor. No amount of "real world" experience will be as valuable as learning from a mentor who cares.

From the VP of Communications at a national advocacy organization:
Always stay late -- very late -- always. You'll get less pressured face time with the boss, and you'll get last-minute projects.

Federal policymaking results from a collection of local interests that happen to meet in the same room in Washington. Federal policymaking is not the result of national opinion or pressure. Further, policymakers are risk averse and are more concerned with their own short term losses (typically the next election or next Federal Elections Commission financial filing deadline) than they are with long term gains for their political party. That something is “good for America” or “good for the Republican/Democratic Party in the next presidential election” loses to “this could cost me money or votes in the next 18 months” every time.

Before taking a position or casting a vote, elected officials ask “will this make my re-election more difficult? Who is going to dislike this position/vote, and what will they do as a result of their disapproval?” This is very different than “how will this help me?” or “who will like this vote and how will they express their gratitude?” Like most of the rest of us most of the time, elected officials over-weight short term risks at the expense of possible long term gains.

In this light the argument that “a vast majority of Americans support….” is pretty meaningless. Support is nice, but doesn’t feed the captain's cat. The argument that “a majority of your supporters oppose…” has power (note that it’s “supporters” and not “constituents” – that people who won’t vote for you now won’t vote for you isn’t much of an argument; that people who do, or might, vote for you care is compelling).

As such, Chris Cillizza’s analysis of why federal immigration efforts could fail is spot-on. As he writes:

“…when it comes to how Congressional members’ votes would actually affect their chances of reelection, it’s a total wash…

…there’s not much to be lost — individually and in the near term, at least — for congressional Republicans who oppose immigration reform, even as a strong majority of Americans support that goal.”

Strong national public support for a policy can help drive media and policymaker attention, and it may help persuade some policymakers at the margins, but what mostly matters to most policymakers (and to be honest, to most of us) is the risk of near-term pain. The good advocates talk about the benefits of a policy to the Congressional district, state, nation, or Party. The best advocates also point out the immediate and local risks to not supporting the policy. If a bill is good for the policymaker’s voters and not supporting the bill would hurt the next quarters fundraising numbers or next November’s election, you’re on track for success.

Arguments based in transcendent truths are more persuasive - and arguably ethically superior - to those based on circumstance. “Because it is just” beats “because all the kids are doing it” every time.

The Boy Scouts of America will soon vote on whether or not to let young gay men to be part of the organization. Setting aside the obvious that there are already gay Scouts, those who favor the change (a position I support) should argue denying gay Scouts runs counter to all that Scouting stands for.

Opponents of change argue that allowing gay Scouts violates a core tenant of Scouting because it is counter the religious principles of many groups that host Scout troops, goes against tradition, and (in the words of Texas Governor Rick Perry) is just “the flavor of the month.” Supporters of change use phrases like “society accepts gays” and "the world is changing," and note that if the U.S. military can make the change then Scouting should as well. There are other arguments on both sides, but in the main these are the two major points being argued in the popular press.

Those opposing change are making a better case than those supporting it.

In Language is Sermonic Richard Weaver, a mid-20th Century rhetorical scholar and conservative commentator, argued that rhetoric is an ethical art and that it should elevate the listener. Weaver wrote that the best arguments, those that both work the best and those that have the highest moral standing, are arguments from definition. These arguments rely on agreed upon truths – “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” for example. The worst arguments, those that stand on the weakest moral ground and are the least persuasive, are those from circumstance – “the times they are a changing….” for example.

Which brings us back to gay Scouts. A persuasively and ethically superior argument for those supporting allowing gay Scouts, would be rooted in core or basic values. For example, the Boy Scouts of America teaches young men a commitment to honor, loyalty, and duty. The Scouts are rooted in the idea that all boys, like all men, are imbued by their creator with certain inalienable rights, and all boys (like all men) owe a duty to their country. To exclude a young man who embodies these values because he thinks Justin Beiber is cuter than Kelly Clarkson, is as un-Scouting as one can get. Such a claim says that honor, respect, and duty matter less than who Billy takes to prom. Further, those opposing gay Scouts are arguing from circumstance, they don’t like what they see on television. Those opposing gay Scouts are embracing the distraction of the moment, just as divisions based on race or religion were before it. Passing fads of anger fade, and what remains is the core of what it means to be a Boy Scout of America: a person of honor committed to duty.

Recently I have had several conversations that begged the question of what “communication” is in the context of organizations and advocacy, and what, therefore, does a “communications director” do? Where do those tasks end and those of a lobbyist, social media expert, marketing director, grassroots organizer, or fundraiser begin? Most advocates understand that a communications director in 2013 is more than a press secretary with a title in lieu of a raise, but many aren’t sure where to draw the line.

That a good answer comes from Aristotle will not surprise regular readers of this blog, any of my former students, or even many of my clients. In Book One, Chapter Two of The Rhetoric, Aristotle defined rhetoric as "the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion." Aristotle further identified the audience as the most important part of a rhetorical appeal – the people who needed to be persuaded. The job of the rhetor – the persuader – is to figure out what who needs to hear what from whom and make sure it is said. (Aristotle then offered lots of lists of what works, many of which are still relevant).

Most of what most organizations do is persuasion. They persuade foundations and individuals to donate money, they persuade policymakers to appropriate funds or pass laws, they persuade the public that an issue matters or that some behavior is good or bad. Organizations get people to do things. In this context, and with Aristotle’s insight in mind, a communications director’s task is to make sure that the people who need to be persuaded get the right message(s) in whatever media mix will be effective. Much of this work is old-school public relations, writing releases and pitching stories. It is also integrating social media and online outreach, ideally echoing and advancing the stories being pitched. It also includes policymaker outreach, making sure legislators and regulators are getting the same messages one-on-one in their offices that they read in the papers and see online. It includes grassroots and grasstops organization and mobilization, so that key community members are advancing the same message, to same policymakers. It is also ensuring that the message – and the proof of the effectiveness of the message in creating change – reaches funders so the checks keep flowing to keep the organization succeeding. And it is overseeing research, so that the organization knows what its audiences need to hear about what the organization has to say.

In this light, the communications director’s task is ensuring that the right person hears the right message, from the right messenger, in the right medium, at the right time. Those in charge of press releases, online outreach, social media, grassroots and grasstops organizing, lobbying, and fundraising, fall under the purview of the communications director because they are the available means of persuasion.

It’s beg week on WAMU, my local National Public Radio station. I am being asked to buy a $60 reusable shopping bag or $150 baseball cap advertising WAMU. At WAMU, I am told, the mind is their medium. I’m not sure what that means, and as such I don’t feel smart enough to spend $88.50 on two plastic cups with the WAMU logo. All of which got me thinking about fundraising.

Money exists in context. $100 is no money at all when buying a house, a ton of money for a baseball cap, or just about right for a nice dinner out with your spouse. As such, the best fundraisers don’t ask for money in the abstract, but rather put request in a context in which the amount asked for seems about right. In behavioral economics terms, they benchmark.

If a fundraiser says, “I have good cause, please donate $100,” you start thinking about causes – how much money do you typically give to charity? How much money do charities need? How much did you give the last charity that asked? In the context of charitable giving, $100 may be a stretch, it may be your default, or may not be much at all, depending on how much you earn, how much you typically donate, and whether or not you just gave to a different charity (and how large or small your donation was). Or maybe you don’t have a charitable-giving context handy and you just fixate on the number, and wow $100 seems like a lot (which is why so much sells for $99.99).

A challenge for fundraisers is that they may not know your context for charitable giving (the best fundraisers do know this for potential large donors, but most of us most of the time get caught in blanket pitches over the radio, through the mail, or at events). One solution is to take the donation out of the charitable context and put it in a different context entirely.

For example, shoes.

A friend in Phoenix used to raise money for Democratic candidates by talking about shoes. He would ask people to look at their shoes, think about how much they cost, and ask if the candidate in question was worth more or less than a pair of loafers. The candidate was usually worth more. (I’ve since successfully used this approach raising money for organizations).

When raising money around the anniversary of a group or cause, ask people to think about how much they spent on last year’s birthday gift to a friend and then to consider the donation a birthday present. Or ask people to think about what they spent on eating out last night and then to consider how much to give to provide water to a village (avoid the guilt-inducing “aren’t starving children worth the price of sushi?” let me do my own accounting).

By putting donations in a favorable context - by setting an appropriate, non-charitable, benchmark - successful fundraisers can more easily successfully raise funds.

The best steps advocates can take in response to the IRS apparently targeting conservative organizations and the Department of Justice apparently obtaining AP phone records are to: acknowledge the actions; demand immediate resignation of the people at the agencies who authorized the actions; publicly investigate the actions; further punish as appropriate; and advance legislation tightening rules and oversight if needed.

The worst steps all start with “Bush did it…” (or the variants: “Rumsfeld did it…”, “Nixon did it…”, “Reagan did it…” and so forth).

First, the worst. When was the last time your kid successfully defended bad behavior by saying “George did it first?” Did you say, “well, if that twit George threw rocks at cars from the overpass, then I guess it’s fine for you as well, here’s a chunk of granite, have at it.”? In addition to being a dumb reason, it undermines the philosophical foundation of a number of other policies progressives support. If neither President Obama nor President Bush are to be trusted with the reigns of federal power, then why should the public support expanded federal health care? Or federal standards for teaching science? Or federal support of anything for that matter? By saying “the guy who didn’t trust government did it too” proves that government isn’t to be trusted no matter the issue or who’s in charge. That’s not a position most of my progressive friends want to be in.

The better response does what you hope your kid who threw rocks at cars would do: own it. Admit the action, voluntarily turn over the Xbox for a week, and never invite George to anymore birthday parties (even if there is a moon-bounce).

The IRS should never single out any group for special scrutiny. The Department of Justice should not cast a broad net fishing for reporter’s records. Part of the point of America is that these sorts of things don’t happen here.

In addition to the better response being the ethically right one, it is also strategically prudent. It puts the two actions in specific boxes, alone, making it more difficult for Republicans to attach Fast and Furious, Benghazi, other fishing expeditions in the Department of Justice, and so on (Tom Perez’s difficult confirmation process just got harder). The line of reasoning is, “if we just learned about these secrets, what else are you hiding?” Again, how would you respond if your son’s defense to throwing rocks was justifying it by pointing to a kid you never liked anyway? I’m guessing “What else did that snot George do?” If Democrats lead with “George did it first…” the accusations – appropriate and otherwise – will continue. The accusations need to stop, some because they may be valid and need resolution, others because they’re dumb and need to go away. The only way to make the accusations stop is to say “these accusations should stop because they are right and have been dealt with” or “these accusations should stop because they are dumb.”

"It was wrong and we take responsibility" beats "he did it first" every time.

Below is the take-home final exam for the Spring 2013 edition of the political rhetoric course I teach in School of Media and Public Affairs at The George Washington University (the syllabus is here for those who need a refresher on the readings).

How would you answer?

Modern Political Communication and Rhetoric
Spring 2013
Final Exam
________________________________________

After four years at GW you launch into a successful career as a political strategist. The work is fun and financially rewarding. You help elect some good people, help advance some good policies, and generally carve out a good niche over a couple decades in D.C.

One day you wake up and you realize that you’re done. You’re bitter or disillusioned, you’re just done. You know more former elected officials than current ones, the food in the Longworth cafeteria has finally lost its appeal, and you just can’t bring yourself to go to another dinner at the Washington Hilton. You’ve made a fair amount of money, never married, and never had kids (no GW tuition to worry about), and as a result have a pretty hefty amount in savings. Any work you do is out of habit or boredom rather than financial need.

In an effort to figure out what to do about the boredom you take a week off and just drive around. You turn off your electronic devices, put an autoreply on your phone, and tell your assistant you’ll check in from payphones once a day but are otherwise unavailable. In your wanderings you come across Middle Falls.

Middle Falls is a good place to be, but could use some help. The high school is need of some repairs and the athletic fields are a bit of a mess. The infrastructure is pretty old and the age is beginning to show. Nothing drastic, no bridges collapsing or anything, but things are getting frayed around the edges. You notice but don’t much care – sort of fits your mood.

You find the bed and breakfast in town, call your assistant, and say it will be a couple more days. The bed and breakfast is owned by a couple of British ex-pats named James and Ruby Bryce, which appeals to you. They also own a little shop in town that sells British stuff, and whenever important cricket or soccer games are being played they convince the local bar to show them (for reasons that aren’t immediately clear, other British ex-pats turn up to watch).

A couple blocks off Main Street you find a rambling house with a rambling barn that’s for sale. The house is being sold cheap by the grandchildren who inherited it, they live far from Middle Falls and would rather never return. You offer cash on the condition you get all the contents of the home, including the old British car under a tarp in the barn. They agree. You call your assistant and suggest now might be a good time to look for another job.

Within weeks you sell your place in DC, close your business, and put Washington in the rearview mirror.

You quickly become part of the Middle Falls landscape. You spend most of your time fixing up the house and car, with pretty leisurely breaks for coffee at the diner or walks with your dog.

One day the Bryce’s turn up at city hall with a proposal to renovate the main park in town and install cricket fields. They will secure all of the funding needed for the renovations, which will include replacing the old (and frankly dangerous) playground, fixing up the bandstand, and putting in new lights and fencing. The bulk of the area will be marked for cricket. Anyone will be able to use the field for anything (legal), but as a condition of their investment the Bryce’s demand first-dibs on reservations.

It turns out the Bryces aren’t some random British couple who stumbled into this little town. James was a top cricketer in his day and found Middle Falls the same way, and for the same reasons, you did. Unlike you, James is itching to get back into his game. With his connections he thinks he can make Middle Falls a British ex-pat community, attracting retirees as well as tourists, British officials working in Washington, and others. Cricket is the center of his vision, bringing people to Middle Falls for weekend tournaments and lessons led by the legendary James Bryce. James is clear that he wants the park to be used by everyone, and for all sports. He doesn’t want a cricket-only pitch that only those who drink warm beer can use. He just wants dibs for those who prefer their games to last a week and their beer at room temperature

The town is divided over the proposal.

Some see it as a terrific opportunity, at worst there’s a nice new park and at best there is a wave of economic investment (and from very civilized seeming people). Tourists, especially the sort the Bryces hope to attract, tend to have money. Some might even stay, meaning home values go up and there is more demand for retail. And those who visit will need to eat and sleep somewhere.

Others think it’s a terrible idea. Middle Falls, they say, doesn’t need a wave of outsiders making absurd demands, telling kids they can’t play baseball in the park because the cricketers were there first (the initial point of America was that England was bad – colonists left England and fought a war to get away from stuff like warm beer and cricket). People mean traffic, pollution, and disruption. Middle Falls is fine the way it is.

You don’t much care. Your mother is British, but she left England a long time ago. You drive a British car, but that’s for aesthetic reasons – certainly not for mechanical ones. And cricket baffles you. But the Bryces seem nice, and it would be nice to have a playground that wasn’t hazardous to the children who used it. Whatever, you have your dog and repairs to keep you occupied, political battles and all they entail are what you left behind.

One morning while sitting at the diner, drinking cheap coffee from a chipped mug, you overhear two locals debating the issue. When one starts hectoring people at neighboring tables, you quickly finish your coffee, tuck your Communicator under your arm (more on that in a moment), and duck out the door. The last thing you want to do is take a position, let alone articulate one.

But all good things must come to an end.

You turn right out of the diner, heading toward the hardware store, and literally bump into someone coming out of the Bryce’s store, “The Empire’s Emporium” (motto: The Sun Never Sets on Good Taste). The collision makes him spill his P.G. Tips and drop his digestive. You’re rescued from a scolding when recognizes you – turns out the guy you nearly leveled is a long-time political operative and British ex-pat who has built his career being the go-to guy for politicians and business leaders from the United Kingdom making the rounds in Washington. He’s in Middle Falls because he’s a backer of the cricket pitch proposal. He’s met some very nice people in town, many of whom see the merit of the proposal, welcome the new development and new opportunities, and even seem interested in cricket. After all if Americans can beat the English in soccer at the World Cup, why not tackle cricket next? You chat, you catch up, and you artfully avoid taking a position on the proposal.

You duck into the hardware store for a few lag shields (and to keep out of sight while your old friend gets a new tea and biscuit gets on his way). The ducking the Brit part of the plan worked. But at the expense of getting cornered by the guy from the diner. He saw you talking to your old friend and wants to know how you know him and whether or not you support the plan and what you’re going to do to help stop it because he knows who you are he did some research and the people of Middle Falls need you to stand up for them and help defeat the British (again).

You see no choice but to get involved – better to have half the town hate you than all of it.

The town has one paper, The Communicator, a weekly run by M.E. Sprengelmeyer. M.E. is a former reporter in DC who you know from your time in politics. Like most reporters he got laid off, and like some he found a little town with a little paper that needed running. He writes about school sports and town events (when the Middle Falls FHA team won the state title, it was a very big deal), but mostly uses the paper as an excuse to write a weekly column about whatever occurs to him. M.E. also collects accordions (he describes himself as a self-taught rock and roll accordion player – tells people he found, and played, an accordion in one of Saddam Hussein’s palaces when he was embedded with the Marines during the Gulf War) and he is a hilarious poker player.

There are four members of the town council. The mayor votes to break ties. That means votes can be 4-0, 3-1, or 3-2 because a 2-2 vote would force the mayor to decide the winner.

The Council
Jeff Miller owns the one bar in town. It’s a local place, not fancy but mostly clean. The kind of place you can sit at the bar, have a burger and beer and watch whatever is on ESPN without anyone bothering you. There is a small stage for the occasional band or show, typically friends of Jeff’s or whoever M.E. can get to join an accordion-led jam session. Jeff sponsors a local little league team, does his part in the community, and is generally a low-key guy. He’s on the council because civic participation is a good thing to do, and to keep the rules from either getting too restrictive (he does sell booze for a living) or too weird. It’s the perfect local bar. No one is sure where Jeff’s from, he’s not an obvious urban refugee like you are, but he’s also not a local who traces his roots back however many generations this town goes.

John Philip is one of those guys who traces his family roots back to the founding of the town. John owns the hardware store, and holds forth on all that is wrong with modern society to anyone who’ll listen. He’s the lead organizer of the Memorial Day events, he’s a veteran and his dad was among the first people in Hiroshima after the US dropped the bomb in WW II. He is the guy for whom the phrase “cut off your nose to spite your face” was invented.

Kim Deal is one of those people Philip can’t stand. She owns a “craft emporium” on Main Street that sells artsy teapots, wind chimes, dream catchers, and her own awful water color paintings of Middle Falls. She was a successful real estate agent in Washington, specializing in high end condos and luxury buildings; she tells people that she got tired of the money chase and the endlessly pointless small talk and pretense that is Washington (“people in Washington wear masks to hide their masks, it’s worse than a lack of depth or soul, Washington lacks even any meaningful surface…”). That her departure from DC coincided with the collapse of the condo market there is, from her telling, coincidental (“it was a sign, a blessing really…”) She calls herself spiritual but has a hard time explaining exactly she believes in or what that even means. She has also maintained her real estate license and does a pretty good business selling and renting homes in Middle Falls.

Meghan Olsen is a history teacher at Middle Falls High School. Her son grew up in Middle Falls and graduated from Middle Falls High. Olsen got involved in politics as an outgrowth of being an involved parent and because she thinks it is the sort of thing that history teachers ought to do. She was active in the PTA because her son was a student, she ran for the local school board to ensure that books weren’t banned from the school library and that “intelligent design” wasn’t taught in science classes. Serving on the City Council was the next logical step. To the extent she has a political ideology it is best described as “pragmatic progressive” (or in the eyes of some, “limousine liberal”).

Harry Mitchell is the mayor. He’s a good guy, runs the diner, and likes being called The Mayor. He likes the town and the folks who live there, likes throwing out the ceremonial first pitch of the little league season, and running the grill at the Memorial Day celebration. He likes to govern by consensus and is good at getting people around a table and affably working things out – “what this debate needs is a little pie, why don’t we move this meeting to a booth at the diner and we can figure something out” is his preferred (and often successful) approach. Mitchell likes being the mayor of a town in which that solution can work; Middle Falls is a big enough place to have problems, but small enough that they can usually be talked through to an amicable solution. As you might expect, he dislikes voting to break ties, he prefers to either support something early in the hopes the decision will be a near-consensus, or when the outcome is a foregone conclusion. He likes to be the reconciler, not the decider.
________________________________________

What are you going to do, and why are you going to do it?

In your answer be sure to indicate: which side of the debate you’re taking; who your audience is, and why; how you intend to approach the campaign, and why; and how you are going to frame the debate and why.

Focus on strategy and approach rather than tactics and tools – for example, if you are going to hand out fliers describe their tone, but you don’t have to write them.

Your ideas must be feasible and reasonable.

I will be looking for evidence that you have read and understood the semester’s readings, and absorbed our class discussions – I’m not looking for footnotes or citations, but rather application of the course. Your presentation must be clear and clearly articulated.

You can discuss the situation with your colleagues, but your essay must be yours and yours alone. The final is due electronically by 9:40pm on Wednesday May 8th to me at ploge@milopublicaffairs.com. NO LATE EXAMS WILL BE ACCEPTED. If you can’t email it, please arrange with me to drop off a hard copy. Getting it in earlier is, of course, fine. Most answers will probably run about five to eight pages – shorter and longer are fine, the object is to be complete without going nuts. I’ll answer clarifying questions to a point, but may also decline to answer and leave you to your own devices.

I look forward to your solutions.

Elected officials are more concerned about decreasing their popularity than they are interested in increasing it. Advocates who credibly argue that votes in Congress could cost votes at home are more successful than advocates who argue that votes in Congress are popular.

Like most of the rest of us, elected officials are more concerned about losing what they’ve got than they are interested in getting something new. Once an elected official is elected, she has what she needs, there’s not a lot of incentive to act in ways to increase popularity; you can’t get more elected, and those who are loved have the same say in Congress as those who are merely tolerated. If you’ve run and won there is no reason to take a new position that can help you win, you’ve already done that, and every issue has a potential downside and people who don’t like it. There is only political risk in supporting new positions, no matter how popular.

The flip side is that credible claims that failure to support something will result in risk of losing can be very persuasive. Instead of promising to give elected officials more of what they’ve already got, credibly argue you will take away what they need: votes.

The critical word here is credibly. Elected officials have already been elected. If you didn’t vote for them in the last election, a threat to not vote for them in the next election doesn’t mean anything. Saying “all my friends agree with me” isn't a credible threat either – if you’re like most of the rest of us, most of your friends didn't vote for the guy last time and won’t vote for him next no matter what he does. Similarly, threatening to vote against elected officials in other states or districts is somewhat pointless. As an advocate you have to take away votes the elected official needs and would otherwise get. Further, the shift has to be when it matters, on election day. A drop in support in May 2013 matters only if that drop remains until November 2014 (or ’16 or ’18 if a U.S. Senator is in question); if support drops now but returns over the next 15 months, it doesn't matter. The drop in support also needs to be clearly the result of a specific legislative action.

A good signal that electoral support will be permanently lost is to take away money before the next Federal Elections Commission filing deadline; money pays for the machine that gets votes, take away the money you take away the machine and the votes. If major donors and Political Action Committee directors say “we’re not giving because of your vote on XX” you have credibly demonstrated political power.

Saying an idea is popular is half the battle (at most) – it says “you can do this and it will be fine,” which can help persuade someone to do what he or she wants to do anyway. Winning requires persuasively arguing “support is popular and will not hurt you, but a lack of support may cost you your job.”

A lot of smart advocates do careful analysis of external audiences, and craft specific messages to be delivered by strategically chosen messengers to critical decision makers. But sometimes these same smart advocates fail to persuade their own organizations to run their campaigns (the typical response to this failure is to spend time with other strategists drinking and saying ‘they just don’t get it’).

The best advocates recognize that campaigns aren’t limited to getting policymakers to take action, but rather cover the waterfront of human behavior. Successful external advocacy campaigns have a clear goal, know who can realize or block that goal, learn what those people find persuasive (and from whom), and then deliver the right message, from the right messenger, in the right medium, to the right audience, at the right time. These campaigns work because they are specific applications of a general approach to human behavior. Policy campaigns succeed precisely because they aren’t unique, they take advantage of how most of us behave most of the time. Issue campaigns work because they recognize that decision makers are people, and treat them as such.

In this light, issue campaigns have an external component focused on policymakers and an internal component focused on institutional decision makers. The best campaigns figure out which committee chair or commissioner has the final say, how that person views the world, to which local leaders they listen and which newspapers they read, and so forth and which internal, institutional, organizational decision maker has the final say over an approach or idea, how that person views the world, and to whom that person listens. Saying “look, you don’t get it, I’ve been doing this for a long time and this is how it goes” is as effective with clients (or managers, or vice presidents, or board members) as it is with members of Congress. “You’re an idiot, I’m right” just isn’t persuasive, no matter who you’re talking to.

The best advocates design both an internal and an external campaign. They account for both internal and external decision makers, identify both internal and external opportunities and obstacles, and generally treat those inside and outside of an organization as if they behaved like people.

I was recently asked to lead a webinar on networking for Emerson College alumni. I should say that I hate networking, and can use all the help I can get on that front.

Having agreed to lead the session I couldn't back out, so I asked friends and colleagues (which is to say my network) for their advice. What I learned from those conversations is here, followed by specific advice from friends in a variety of fields.

The short version is "network unto others as you would have them network unto you."

The best networkers view the networks themselves as the point – they like to meet new people, learn about new things, and connect people worth connecting. Those who like networking the least, and ultimately who are the worst at it, are those who view people in networks as means to a personal end (a job, a sale) rather than as an ends in themselves that can result in lots of good things (including jobs or sales).

Here are also two pieces that you may find interesting – the New York Times Magazine on Prof. Andrew Grant’s approach to “giving to get ahead,” and a slide deck from The Start-Up of You, a book by the founder of LinkedIn on networks.

Networking to an end
This is what most of us think of when we hear “networking” and most of us hate it. It’s the chamber of commerce breakfast or industry dinner (there’s a reason so many networking disaster stories involve booze – people have to drink to get through them). And most of us have to do it from time to time. The steps are the same as in a campaign: have a clear goal, determine who has power over that goal, learn what they find persuasive and from whom they find it persuasive, do that. Determine the outcome you want and work backwards through every decision maker until you get to where you are now. Don’t decide you want to drive west and hope you wind up at Disneyland; decide you want to go on Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride and figure out the most efficient route from the front of the line back to your front door.

A lot of the networking advice out there fits this category, and most of it you know: be polite; do basic research on the person ahead of time; have a clear question to ask; know what you want out of the conversation before you go into it; ask for two (or three or one or whatever) more people to talk to; send a handwritten thank you note; avoid public drunkenness; and so forth.

In addition to asking people who network a lot for their advice, I also asked people who get networked at for their thoughts. The answer from all of them can be summed up in the words of a friend who could spend all day, every day, having coffee with people who want something from him: Be someone worth talking to. Be interesting, have something to say, ask good questions, make a personal and professional connection. Don’t view a conversation as an opportunity to beg and whine for 15 minutes, don’t ask for a job if the person starts by saying ‘I can’t give you a job’, basically don’t be that guy. Be someone the person you’re talking to would want to have as a part of their network. Talk to the person you’re talking to as if they were, you know, a person.

Networking as an end
Before using a network, one of course has to have a network. Some of the best networkers don’t “network” at all – the best networkers look for interesting intersections, share and solicit ideas, they develop and maintain both loose ties (people you only see at college reunions or who are “Facebook friends”) and lasting relationships.

This is the more important and more effective strategy. People are social, it’s what we do. We value relationships when it comes to choosing everything from contractors to accountants, and buying everything from art to food. In many ways developing and maintaining relationships, which is to say networking, is the point of being human. As human beings we create and maintain social, familial, and professional relationships. We build and feed networks.

Viewed in this light, networking isn’t about how you get what you want out of pathway of people between where you are and the chair in which you want to sit, rather it is about building relationships. Relationships mean you give without expectation of getting, you look for opportunities to help others succeed, and you say ‘yes’ when asked. If you do this, the network will be there for you when you’re looking for a job, a lead, a client, or a contractor. If all you do is ask, if all you do is promote your own stuff, if you keep score, you’re probably going to fail in the long run, and more importantly you’re dropping your end of the human bargain.

There are as many ways to accomplish build and maintain relationships as there are people. Here are some ideas:

Make helping people in your network like brushing your teeth: do it daily, do it without being asked, and do it without expectation of applause. Do it because it’s the right thing to do.

Talk to anyone who asks – get coffee, have a call, whatever. Your relatively minor investment of even 15 minutes can mean the world to someone.

Keep running lists of your friends looking for jobs and keep your eye out for opportunities for them.

Plug the work of your friends online – if someone in your Facebook universe writes a book, plug in your timeline, it takes less than a minute and is the right thing to do.

If you can, donate to friend’s causes. If a cause or project is worth time and effort to someone in your network, it’s probably worth the cost of a six pack of beer or a couple cups of coffee to you.

Have coffee or lunch once a week with someone whom you haven’t seen in three months.

Put yourself in a position to meet people – events, dinners, whatever.

Recommend or endorse people on LinkedIn without being asked.

Retweet.

Networking can be like exercise or quitting smoking – easier if you’ve got a buddy to do it with, and against whom you have to measure yourself. Find a networking partner, set goals for each other, and push each other to meet those goals.

Networking Advice From My Network
Below are some replies to a request for networking advice that I posted online. A common theme that emerges from all the advice is that good networking is about making connections and building relationships – it’s not about checking boxes or keeping score. Networking is an opportunity to meet new people and learn about new things, and in turn to introduce yourself to others and offer new perspectives. What emerges from these conversations and relationships is a network of people, ideas and opportunities.

Dennis Blader
Dennis Blader
Editor’s note – While Dennis’ advice is focused on his Emerson College connection, the ideas aren’t limited to Emerson. Any alma mater, hometown, or shared experience, can work as a platform on which to build a relationship.

I was recently very impressed by the contact made with me by a current Emerson student (Elizabeth, I think her name was) who was making calls to alumni to get donations. We spoke at length and I never got the sense that she was in any hurry to get to the next person on her list. I was made to feel that she was truly concerned with my college memories and whatever else we talked about. Days later, I received a thank you note and a pledge reminder (although I had not committed to any dollar amount at the time) in the form of a handwritten, personalized note commenting on some of the information I shared with her about my years at Emerson and that REALLY made me think that this was going above and beyond the typical "Please donate" shpiel. This very impressive personalized approach resonated strongly with me and made me feel my money was actually making a difference. More of that "individualized attention" might go a long way in increasing favorable responses.

As for networking in other ways, I've found that the Alumni Office has a wonderful database to connect people but it is always better to be "introduced" to someone by a middle party. If I get contacted by someone I don't know, I'm not as quick to respond as if I get a notice that so-and-so is going to contact me for the following reasons. Then, when I hear from the person, I feel there's a little more of a connection and knowledge of why they're calling and what they need. My own story of getting my dream job happened when I followed up on a job lead and discovered the person hiring was someone who graduated Emerson a couple of years ahead of me. When I cold-called about the job, I made sure to introduce myself and ask if he remembered me. He did, invited me down for an interview, and hired me pretty much on the spot. Friendship notwithstanding, Emerson alumni need to know what Emerson grads are capable of doing and need to keep being reminded that, while the decades and equipment may have changed, the desire to work in whatever field the student pursued is still palpable and just as real as it was when we were in school.

I do temper that bit of idealism with the knowledge that some students don't know how to interact with people on a professional business level. Too often, a student appears insensitive, unimpressive, or just unaware of how their body language, appearance, and critical communication skills fail them. I don't know if it's too much social media, too much video game playing, or not enough common sense, but I've seen some intelligent and capable students get caught up in the "I need/deserve a job" or "You owe me a job" thinking. These students must understand that they have to convince the employer (or alumni) that they cannot just do the job, but that they bring a skill set forward that makes them more valuable to the employer than any of the other applicants. Whether that's an Emerson degree or Emerson experience, it's important to make that connection and everything else will follow. Conversely, if you don't exhibit professional communication skills, it won't matter where you graduated from, nobody will take a chance on you if they think you won't fit into the employment culture of that organization. Good spelling, good grooming and language skills, organizational awareness, being observant and not making your mark right away are always good tips. Be modest, be yourself, and stay focused. The individual you are speaking with, especially if they are an alum, wants to perceive you in the best light - it's their decision to hire you and they don't want to make a mistake especially one based on an emotional tie. Don't come in thinking you're a hot-shot, those in the organization will resent you and your "better than them" attitude. Instead, get to know and develop friendships and courtesy with those you come in contact with. And remember to always use the secret words: "Please" and "Thank you". They help you go further than any directive from management.
________________________________________

Max Felder
Emerson '82, Director, National Events and Partnerships, Macy's Parade & Entertainment Group

Looking for work is an investment both in time, but also a financial commitment.

Subscribing to trade publications/websites is a great investment, but I know it can be pricey. Still it provides instant networking opportunities in that you can start collecting names and titles of the industry players you read about. These names help you develop a database of people you can then begin to reach out to.

Hand in hand with the subscriptions to the trades would be joining LinkedIn at the Business Plus level. Again, while pricey, it allows you "x" number of Inmail's (an email of introduction directly to the contact).

From reading the trades and capturing the names and titles of industry insiders, you can leverage LinkedIn as a means to send them an "Inmail" introduction requesting either an informational interview or to comment on a recent article you read about them.

The LinkedIn recipient may end up providing you with another contact within the company to speak with (hopefully their email address too!). You can then email that person with "At the suggestion of...." in the Subject header, giving it preference to be opened and read.

Yes, it gets expensive. But it’s a worthwhile investment if you want to kick-start your networking efforts.

Another networking opportunity would be to try and attend industry seminars and conferences. Now again, there's a bit of an investment, but what better way than to personally be in the same room in order to connect and introduce yourself in person. Maximize your time at these affairs by always Immediately approaching the speaker/panel afterwards and start networking. Don't be shy!

Always have professionally printed business cards to hand out. And if you're not yet employed, present yourself as the sole proprietor of your own firm or agency.

Remember, perception is reality. Present yourself in a way that shows you are an industry colleague, as opposed to someone simply looking for work.

I know for many students the cost of this tips will be prohibitive, but they are worthwhile in the end. Check in with Alumni Career Services, perhaps they already subscribe to these industry trade pubs, or perhaps can provide you with discounted pricing to attend conferences?

Finally, always keep a finger on the pulse of industry news. Become a fountain of information, for as they say, knowledge is power! Use this power to seek out the people at companies who are best in class, or investing in gaining marketshare. Those are the people you want to get to know and connect with.
________________________________________

Craig Vachon
Some attributes of success networking: Connections [relationships] enable you to find solutions more efficiently; Connections enable you to call on a wealth of experience/learning/advice outside of your own learning; Connections enable you to be entertained by cute cat memes [laughter is good]… my wife keeps trying to put some more polish on me, but hasn't worked to date…I think that we need to be real careful about being "more polished than we really are." As most folks can smell BS from a mile and a half away - and the quickest way to squash a burgeoning relationship is to be perceived as insincere... I am a chowdahead, so I named my most recent venture the same. Keeps expectations in check –
________________________________________

Robin Marcato
Writer/Editor, Office of Inspector General, Agency for International Development

Two things my friends and I have pet peeves about: 1) People who drink heavily at networking events. Slurring while trying to get info on a company or job? Fail. 2) Following up with someone you met - shocking how many folks can't write a decent follow up email. Spelling errors, grammar mistakes, etc.

________________________________________

Kathy Murphy Schaeffer
Director of Student Development, Quincy College

I think one of the most important things in networking is based on developing a relationship with someone, not just a "what can you do for me" stance...to often I see people forget this.

________________________________________

Via Adam Conner
Be someone worth talking to…Best Advice from a Facebook star, “Postcards”, Fortune