Are you with me? Three Reasons to Measure Relationship Strength in Washington

The Value of Using a Scorecard Framework

Washington, D.C. is a funny town. And by funny, I mean different. More than most cities, this town trades on relationships with and access to lawmakers and staff. And yet, when pressed, few of us in this city have any real way to gauge how strong those relationships are.

This is a problem.

To think through a possible solution, I pulled together a small group of government affairs professionals to discuss the topic over lunch. And while we may not have cracked the code, we did come away with a framework for thinking about relationship strength — a framework you can apply in a variety of settings.

As we all sat down, one member of the group kicked things off with a provocative question, “Why on earth would anyone do this?”

Why indeed? As the conversation progressed, there was general agreement that building a framework — a scorecard, really — was important for three reasons:

1. Communication — The most commonly cited reason for building out a scorecard, the group felt that having a common vocabulary for relationship strength could prevent misunderstandings and boost collaboration. After all, one lobbyist’s “she’s with us” is another lobbyist’s “not there yet.” Without a common understanding of what a strong relationship looks like, coordinating efforts within an organization or across a coalition becomes challenging at best.
2. Accountability — Also notable, the group felt that having a scorecard could solve the “accountability gap” between Government Affairs and the rest of the organization. The thinking here was that a scorecard could be used to show progress over time — relationships with key legislators strengthening, for example — and show that, like the rest of the organization, the Government Affairs team has hard targets, goals and objectives.
3. Transparency — The group also felt having a set of relationship metrics could be useful in bringing some “science” to the “art” that is lobbying and advocacy. This idea was popular with the more data-driven, engineering focused organizations at the table. “I can say ‘we’re good’ with an office all day long, and the guys at HQ won’t understand. But if I tell my boss ‘this guy is a 3.6 out of 5,’ he immediately understands where we sit,” one attendee mentioned.

Having firmly established “the why,” the conversation quickly turned to “the how.” How, exactly, does one go about building a scorecard to measure relationship strength?

It all starts by laying out what an ideal relationship looks like — the defining characteristics of a “champion” — and then breaking that down into discrete, observable behaviors. This sounds easier than it is, as each organization will have a different idea of what a “champion” looks like. For our purposes, the group agreed that a champion:

• Shows understanding of an organization and its issues
• Demonstrates a willingness to engage
• Actively collaborates with the organization
• Promotes awareness and starts conversations on an issue set
• Supports and incites action by drafting legislation or rallying colleagues’ support

We chose these categories over more conventional metrics — voting records, for example — not only because legislative activity is at an all-time low but because they provide a clearer, more accurate assessment of the relationship.

With the ideal relationship defined, we then laid out these characteristics on a spectrum from one to five. The one to five approach is valuable for a few reasons. It’s simple, intuitive and accessible. It also has context — if I tell you someone is a four on a scale of one to five, you can make a decision based on that information. You know the relationship is strong, but there’s some room for improvement.

We also sketched out what the actual scorecard itself might look like — take a look at the snapshot from the event.

The scorecard was kept broad for the sake of conversation, but you could imagine adding in organization-specific metrics such as a plant tour, an employee town hall meeting or other activity.

Of course, the first draft is rarely a final draft. Building the scorecard is an iterative process and you’ll want to refine it over time. Some behaviors may be difficult to measure, others might be too expensive — you’ll want to drop these out in favor of more accurate, less-resource intensive behaviors.

At this point, with a framework established and a sample scorecard laid out, the conversation turned to getting buy-in from stakeholders — a topic worthy of its own post and one best saved for another time. Suffice to say that, as with many things in life, it’s easy to build the tool. The tough part is getting people to use it.

For those of you thinking about creating your own scorecard, I’ve included some of the tips and tricks shared over lunch:

• Start with the “why” — Decide why you want to create a scorecard before diving in. It’s an important part of getting stakeholder buy-in. It also informs the design of the scorecard itself.
• Separate out the issues from the organization —Think about the relationship in two dimensions: the relationship between the lawmaker and your organization and the relationship between the lawmaker and your issues. Try to account for both.
• Leave room for experience —Relationships can be complicated, and it’s important to leave some amount of subjectivity in the scores. It’s a delicate balance to strike and it means you’ll have to pressure-test some scores to ensure accuracy.
• Provide context for your scores — Without a benchmark, it’s difficult to tell if a score is good or bad. Make sure you include context, such as where a score falls on the spectrum or how it compares to a goal, to make your scorecard more accessible.

Related Content: Exclusively available for National Journal Leadership Council Members

• Toolkit, with a Congressional Relationship Health Scorecard, designed to help Members build their own, customized scorecard.
• Recorded Webinar that walks Members through the four steps out­lined in the toolkit.

Interested in learning more? Contact David Hirsch, Executive Director, Business Development, at dhirsch@nationaljournal.com.