Larry D. Lauer

This week I have been thinking quite a bit about the relationship between leadership and advocacy. The question on my mind has been: When little progress is being made on influencing legislative policy, can an advocate’s efforts still result in the organization being seen by its constituents as a leader in its industry?

Last week I found myself in a discussion about this with students in the Schieffer School of Journalism at TCU.  The class was PR and Advocacy, and I was invited there to discuss my work with the legislatures in Texas and Washington, and to explain why I do it when the entire process seems to be dysfunctional.

To get the discussion started, I asked the students how they define the word “advocacy.” They said they thought it means arguing your point of view, or representing a point of view on behalf of your client. As with legal representation, we all agreed that when all points of view are represented, better decisions can more likely get made.  But with that said, we jumped right to the big question: Are legislators today influenced by anything but extreme ideology and money? And if not, how then can my advocacy work on behalf of TCU be worth the effort?

I admitted that this question is not only a good one, but it is the key one.  Indeed, advocacy is very close to debating, and debating alone can lead only to polarization. And since we seem to no longer have a viable mechanism for negotiating legislative solutions, the resulting gridlock can make all efforts seem like a waste of time.

In retrospect, however, I came out of my dialogue with these students, and my subsequent reflections on the situation,  very certain that our efforts have  indeed been worthwhile.  

Over time it has become clear to me that whenever an institution’s advocate is at the table with other industry leaders in an effort to shape the policy that will shape their future, the result will eventually be the public acknowledgement of industry leadership. And I also can now confidently argue that this result is a significant component in developing a consistent and powerful institutional brand.

Read Full Post »

This week was dominated by the president’s state of the union address.  And since then, I have been preoccupied with reflecting on it.  It certainly was an interesting hour-long lecture.  But when all is said and done,  just what  was really accomplished?  What wasn’t?  And what could be?  

As a speech, it certainly was comprehensive.  Many could easily see it as inspiring and visionary.  It was a complete list of initiatives that, if implemented,  could certainly move the country forward. But many no doubt were also wondering just how all this could ever be paid for, or why he  is proposing so many different ideas all at once. In short, the address might have sounded overwhelming and unrealistic– especially in today’s economic environment.

In public speaking 101 I remember learning that effective presentations generally begin with the speaker demonstrating an “insider’s empathy” with the needs of key audience segments. Then the content should explain no more than four or five doable initiatives, each supported by very practical sounding examples and stories. And each story should be selected to relate to the needs of the most important audience segments, so everyone wins something. The conclusion, then, should simply repeat the main points, followed by an inspirational rallying cry to help reshape the future together.

The state of the union address this week was a very interesting and comprehensive lecture about all we should be able to do to move America forward. It was enjoyable to hear, and I can support all of it.  But would it not have been possible to put forth a more focused, pragmatic and doable plan?

Read Full Post »