Activating a grass-roots lobbying network.

"We don't need to make any calls," the chapter president said. "Our senator is with us 100 percent." It was the morning of a crucial state senate committee vote. As contract lobbyist for this 8,000-member, 10-staff-person state association, I was working with the director of communications, calling members whose local senators would vote that day on a key legislative bill. This particular chapter president was convinced that his senator was a known advocate for our legislative agenda and needed no constituent calls to sway his vote. So no calls went to that senator, who later cast the deciding vote on the bill. We lost by one vote, and chapter members were stunned.

However, staff was not. "AFK" (not identified here because the legislative issue in question remains unsettled) knows the importance of grass-roots lobbying. We also know the difficulty of motivating members to participate in lobbying. The question is: How do you get chapter members to make phone calls to local legislators -- and like it?

For years, AFK staff worked to develop a grass-roots lobbying program to create dialogue between our members and local state legislators. The program relied on local chapters and chapter presidents' leadership to maintain a grass-roots telephone network. But once established, the network produced an average of fewer than three calls per legislator. According to our lobbyists, we were not providing the grass-roots support our legislative agenda demanded. What AFK needed was a new system to manage the telephone network.

An active grass-roots network can mean the difference between success and failure at every level of a legislative fight. Such a battle is not fought and won overnight. It is instead a series of small skirmishes that continue throughout the committee and subcommittee process. There are many stages at which association lobbying efforts -- or lack thereof -- can kill or revive an issue.

More than ever, legislators are listening to their constituents. Their staff members report the number of constituent calls on each side of an issue. A network that triggers calls from member constituents at the most critical moments of a legislative battle can make the difference between success and failure.

Developing a new plan

AFK's grass-roots network wasn't functioning as needed. We had originally estimated we needed 15-17 calls to a legislator to make a real difference in any single vote, but most chapters produced fewer than 6. The most common reason the existing network wasn't producing was neglect. It had been two years since AFK had activated the network. During this time, new chapter presidents were elected and membership had turned over.

Motivated by a hot legislative issue, staff quickly realized we had to jump-start the network and rebuild the volunteer base. We began with four new objectives: 1. Each legislator must receive a certain number of calls from constituents during any targeted time period. 2. AFK must be able to determine why members would or would not make telephone calls to legislators. 3. AFK must be able to determine how many calls were made, to which legislators the calls were made, and which AFK members made them. 4. Members had to place calls within the specified time frame that would most aid our lobbyists.

A pyramid network. Based on our own research, we determined that 43 designated phone callers were needed to yield the 30-35 calls necessary to have an impact on a vote. The next step was to make sure that no single volunteer or small group of volunteers would have to make an excessive number of calls. To accomplish this, we set up a pyramid-style telephone network of volunteers in each of AFK's 25 chapters to spread the work around.

Each chapter network included a regional chair (normally the chapter president) and six teams of six individuals plus a team captain. The resulting network distributed work among 43 people in each chapter.

Triggering the network. Each time AFK's staff sent word by fax to trigger the network, the chapter president had to make only seven phone calls -- one to each of the six team captains plus another to the designated legislator. Each team captain in turn was asked to make seven phone calls: one to each of the six team callers and another to the legislator. And each team caller was asked to call the legislator, ideally resulting in a total of 43 calls to a targeted legislator requesting his or her support.

Since most issues are decided in committee, we planned to target only those legislators voting on a specific issue at a particular time. Therefore, all 25 chapters seldom needed to act at the same time -- the exception being a crucial floor debate.

Why members don't call

As we set up the network, we also tried to determine why members would or would not be motivated to call their legislators. Through staff brainstorming sessions and conversations with members, we uncovered four reasons for not calling: 1. Members had vague instructions or unclear directives, or no one asked members to call. 2. Members forgot to make the call. 3. Members were unable to call (no personal calls allowed during business hours, for instance). 4. Members heard little feedback (some volunteers felt that calls had no effect, since staff did not let them know how a particular legislator voted and did not reward their efforts with even a simple thank-you).

Reasons for making calls included these: 1. feeling an intrinsic motivation (most volunteers joined AFK in the first place because they strongly identified with AFK's legislative agenda); 2. having clear and specific instructions about what to say and when to call; and 3. receiving regular communication about AFK's legislative agenda.

Refining objectives. To correct the adverse factors and expand on positive motivational factors, we identified eight additional objectives. 1. Draw up a list of clear, measurable performance standards and communicate them to all calling network members in a precise statement of action that clearly defines our expectations. 2. Clearly communicate staff directions to network volunteers. 3. Make sure all network members understand the consequences of their performance or lack of performance, and build individual accountability. Volunteers are responsible to the team, and the group's overall success depends on each individual's performance. We included this message in the performance standards piece and faxed it to chapter presidents to deliver to volunteers. 4. Follow up after the first set of calls to confirm that the fax network is operating correctly. 5. Provide feedback to each regional chair after every set of calls to give him or her a picture of how the team's network performed. For each effort, recognize at least one or two regions demonstrating exemplary performance. 6. Build early positive reinforcement of the desired performance by having each regional chair pass down the network a verbal thank-you and an update on legislative response. 7. Recognize all network callers in AFK's statewide newsletter. 8. Finally, determine the total number of calls to each legislator by asking the legislator's staff for a report on calls they received for or against the targeted issue.

Testing the network

The first test of the network was a vote in a state house subcommittee. Staff identified the 12 legislators voting on the bill, then contacted AFK's corresponding regional chairs. They were to call their six team captains to trigger network callers into action. Calls to legislators had to come during the two-hour period preceding the committee meeting. AFK came away with an unexpected victory, and the network produced an average of 17 calls per legislator.

However, 17 calls didn't quite meet our expectations. We continued to apply the program and focused on chapters that had produced the fewest calls. AFK had to trigger the network six times that session. Each time AFK's staff provided feedback to the regional chairs, letting them know how their networks performed (number of calls per region) and how legislators voted.

Did the plan work? You know your volunteer mobilization plan is working when volunteers' enthusiasm levels rise. However, the only objective way to verify the effectiveness of the plan is through measurement.

By the fourth set of calls, most legislators reported that their offices were receiving more than 30 calls before each vote. By the fifth set of calls, we were unable to keep an accurate count because legislative staffers became irritated by the extra work the flood of calls created. Since eventually that could be counterproductive, we recommend that associations use their calling networks sparingly. While we asked legislative staffers to tell us about calls received, you can also have your volunteer leaders report how many, calls their teams made.

Calling influences votes

If the network functions well, the next question is, do member calls make a difference; AFK had help from other sources, too. At about this time, most of Florida's major newspapers editorialized in support of AFK's position. A number of articles also indicated how people could contact their legislators. At one point late in the process, a legislator announced during a committee meeting that, although he had committed to voting against the bill, he was unable to do so because he had received more than 115 phone calls in favor of the legislation.

A publisher of a prominent statewide magazine, not directly affiliated with AFK but supportive of our cause, wrote that "grass-roots members throughout the state were called to arms and told to contact their legislators, especially the key committee people .... Phones rang and rang, and ... the message got through. Some lawmakers said they'd never heard such a response."

At this writing, AFK has won several skirmishes, but the battle is not over.

AFK's new program did improve grass-roots lobbying performance. Equally important was the sense of pride within the organization, which became the main reinforcer for both AFK staff and volunteers. Staff realized that volunteers felt good about what they accomplished and clearly understood that their participation made a difference. Our lobbyists soon learned to rely on calls coming in on schedule and worked in a team effort with network volunteers.

HIGHLIGHTS

* In AFK's experience, no fewer than 30 constituent calls make a significant difference in how a legislator votes. * A pyramid structure makes a phone-call network simple to activate. * You don't need to activate every part of your calling network for each call to action -- conserve member interest by rotating your call by chapters.

Using Performance Management

AFK's grass-roots volunteer network and program exemplify performance management in practice. Performance management is a systematic, data-oriented approach to managing people. It relies heavily on positive reinforcement and measurement.

Performance management is a recognized tool among such industrial giants as Kodak, Honeywell, Goodyear, and Alcoa. Performance management is also ideal for associations, because they are often cash poor but human resource rich.

Performance management capitalizes on procedures that do not require added costs, such as positive reinforcement of volunteers. The cost of triggering AFK's calling network was minimal -- only one staffer's time, outgoing phone charges, and fax costs. Long distance calls to legislators were paid for by network volunteers.

Performance management calls for targeting an observable and measurable behavior needed to achieve specific goals and objectives. A behavior is simply what a person does or does not do. The behavior we targeted here was "volunteers making phone calls."

Next, we studied the events that led to volunteers making phone calls, such as who did the asking, what type of information was communicated, and so on. We examined the consequences (to the volunteer) of making or not making the calls. This information helped us determine how best to communicate with volunteers.

After each set of phone calls, we evaluated each chapter network's performance by how many calls were made, and provided that feedback to regional chairs. If we determined that a regional chair was still unable to perform after receiving this feedback, we stepped in to provide more direct assistance. Specifically we worked with the chair to determine if a problem had occurred before or after the calls were made. We then helped him or her establish a system to correct the difficulty.

This application of performance management is derived from Introduction to Performance Management, by Aubrey C. Daniels, third edition, revised, Performance Management Publications, Tucker, Georgia. The publication provides a clear conceptual basis and numerous examples that show how to apply the principles of performance management.

Other applications. AFK also used its pyramid network to generate letters and postcards two weeks prior to a legislative session and to turn out volunteers to attend public hearings on a proposed regulation. You can also use the plan to mobilize volunteers for new member recruitment, fund-raising, gathering petition signatures, and other association campaigns that need grass-roots volunteer action.

Cindy Roe Littlejohn was a contract lobbyist AFK. Daniel J. Montgomery is professor of business communication at Florida State University, Tallahassee. Both authors are organizational management consultants.