Grassroots Political Change - A Success With Performance Management

Two characteristics set non-profit membership associations apart from other businesses and for-profit associations. One has to do with their organizational hierarchy and the other with cash flow. In nonprofits, the organizational hierarchy is inverted. They are organized, run and directed by volunteers, and are typically managed from the ground up. Paid staff members such as executive directors become the employees, while the volunteers are the employers. Therefore, association staffers cannot rely on upper-management pressure to mobilize volunteers since the volunteer member is the manager. Collectively, volunteers set the rules and hire and fire. Because volunteers are essentially the bosses, staffers cannot "twist their arms," so to speak. Secondly, nonprofit membership associations are typically cash-poor but rich in human resources. Frequently, their success or failure depends on their ability to mobilize their members as volunteers. Because they frequently lack financial incentives, these organizations need management methods that provide a way for them to compete with their better-funded competitors, such as professional and business associations. Through the integration of Performance Management (PM) and public relations methods, nonprofits can compensate for inequalities in fund raising, in media coverage, in access to expertise, and in countering other commercial strategies of better-funded associations.

Recently, a 10,000-member nonprofit association, whose mission is to protect and preserve Florida's environmental resources, became involved in a legislative battle with its chief adversary-a better-funded 300-member business association. The nonprofit association (hereinafter referred to as FAN) is financed by a $25-per-year membership fee and fund-raising banquets. Its competition is funded by business members. When dealing with legislative matters, FAN depends on a part-time lobbyist working with two pro-bono lobbyists and no political action committee (PAC). Their opponents depend on three full-time lobbyists and a well organized PAC. The equilibrium, though, was maintained during the 1993 Florida legislative session by mobilizing FAN's 10,000-member volunteers using Performance Management and public-relations methods. Florida's annual legislative session runs for two months, February and March. Over 2,000 bills are heard during this 11-week period. Due to the number of bills and the short time frame, the pace is fast and tense. Any grassroots or volunteer effort working within this legislative process must be set and ready to produce overnight results; or as in the case of the final two weeks of the session, the network of volunteers must trigger results within two hours' notice. (The final two weeks allows for a "two-hour rule" with notification of meetings allowed within two hours of the actual meeting time.)

When initially asked to lead the grassroots effort, we discovered that FAN had utilized a telephoning network to mobilize volunteers a few years before for another legislative purpose; however, the network, when called on again, had disappeared or was practically nonexistent. It produced an average of less than three calls to each legislator, which was certainly not enough to make a difference in the legislative process. Also, by the second week of the legislative session, FAN was in hot water. Its members were faced with the possibility of losing a state regulatory agency-the only agency in state government that protects those environmental resources that FAN struggles to maintain. The timing was unfortunate because FAN also realized that its telephone grassroots network, which was needed to fight the important battle of retaining that agency, was weak at best. FAN wasted no time, immediately formulating a plan using Performance Management and public relations methods to jump-start the network. Realizing PM's potential application in this effort, we made a quick study to analyze the existing network with an eye on which behaviors were expected, which behaviors were actually being received, how we could apply the antecedents and reinforcers necessary to reach the set goals, and which modes of interaction existed between volunteers and FAN's staff. At the same time we set a goal for each legislator to receive a possible 43 phone calls from his or her constituents, which would be made by FAN volunteers in each district. Of course, to meet this goal, FAN volunteers had to complete certain pinpointed behaviors.

Pinpointing Behaviors

In determining which pinpointed behavior fit the overall objective of FAN's legislative battle, we decided that FAN's primary goal was to encourage members to make phone calls to their local legislators. This behavior was easy to count, was an accomplishment, passed the dead man's test (as a dead man would have been unable to perform this behavior), was mostly in the control of the caller, and was reconcilable with other behaviors needed for the smooth operation of FAN.The desired behavior was defined in terms of volunteers making phone calls to their local legislator at key moments during the session. Key moments were defined as those times immediately before a committee meeting or immediately before a full-floor fight.ABC ANALYSISWe applied an Antecedent Behavior Consequence (ABC) analysis to both the desired behavior (volunteers making phone calls) and to the undesired behavior (volunteers not making phone calls). For the undesired behavior, antecedents included-vague instructions, no directives (no one asked them to make the call), lapse of memory (they forgot to call), unable to call (can't make calls during business hours), and so on. Under consequences we found that there was no follow-up, there was no way to know whether the calls were being made or not, and volunteers believed that no one would ever know whether they called or not.For the targeted behavior, antecedents included the intrinsic motivation of the issue itself (the volunteers join FAN in the first place because they feel strongly about this issue) and clear, specific instructions. The analysis also showed that positive, immediate, and certain reinforcement for making calls was missing. Volunteers received no feedback that related to the targeted behavior, except in future and infrequent ways. There were no meaningful incentives nor was there any real recognition for exemplary work.

Performance Improvement Plan

Based on an analysis of these consequences, the following objectives were identified: To draw up a list of clear, measurable performance standards and to communicate these standards to all members of the calling network, and to prepare a short, precise statement of action that clearly defines what is expected of each volunteer. To clearly communicate the instructions to be used by staff to direct network volunteers. To make sure that all members of the network understand the consequences of their performance or nonperformance and to build individual self-control and accountability. To communicate the overall picture so each member of the network understands his or her responsibility to the team effort and also how the group's overall success depends on each individual's performance. To follow up after the first set of calls to make sure the fax network is operating correctly. To give feedback to the regional chairpersons after every set of calls to show them how their team's network performed. From each effort, to recognize at least one or two regions which have demonstrated exemplary performance. To build into the program early positive reinforcement for the desired behavior. To have regional chairpersons provide verbal thanks to team leaders and to all network callers. Also, to update the callers on how their legislator responded. To follow up with recognition of all callers in the statewide newsletter.

Intervention

Once the objectives, antecedents, and consequences were in place, a pyramid-style telephone network was organized consisting of a regional chairperson and six teams, each having a team captain and six callers. The total possible calls from each of the 25 regions was 43. However, unless involved in a full floor fight, not all 25 regions operated at the same time.For example, the first vote took place in the house in the Natural Resources Sub Committee on Fish and Wildlife, which met to vote specifically on a FAN issue. We identified these eight legislators and the districts they represented. Then we called the regional chairpersons for those districts. By fax, these regional chairpersons were asked to call their network callers and ask them to phone their local legislators. These calls to the legislators were to be made on a specified date during a certain time period. If 100 percent participation had been received, each legislator on this committee would have received 43 phone calls within a two- to three-hour period before the committee meeting and before the subsequent vote. The network produced 43 percent for an average of 17 calls per legislator; and FAN came away from this battle with an unexpected victory!FAN was able to trigger the various networks six times during the session. After every network function, FAN provided feedback to the regional chairpersons by letting them know how their network performed (how many calls were made by their region to their legislator) and how their legislator responded (how they voted).Another example verified the network effectiveness. One region decided to trigger no phone calls because they felt their legislator was a known advocate of FAN's legislative agenda and that, therefore, their calls weren't necessary. FAN advised them to make the calls anyway, but the advice was not taken. On the day of the crucial vote, that same region's legislator received pressure from the senate leadership and voted against FAN's position. FAN used this incident as an antecedent for future behavior, when faced with a chapter that thought its calls were unneeded. By retelling the story to these uncooperative regions, we were able to convince them that the phone calls were needed to influence unexpected, last-minute changes in votes. Also, the chapter that initially did not take FAN's advice was informed about its legislator's vote against its position. The chapter, in turn, provided consequences for this legislator by making calls to his office to express displeasure in his vote and by sending letters about his duplicitous behavior to the editor of the local news-paper. The local newspaper followed with a column about the incident, which was also unfavorable for the legislator. In future votes, he supported FAN's position. Initially, the networks were set up by placing a personal call to each chairperson explaining how the networks would operate. The calls were followed by a memo faxed to each chairperson. This memo was very specific in describing what was expected from the chairperson and the team captains. Each time, the calls were triggered by sending a fax to each regional chairperson in the form of a memo entitled LEGISLATIVE ALERT.

Legislative Alert

Every fax was designed to look alike, and it specifically instructed the chairpersons on how to trigger their callers. This information included a specific time and date for the calls to be made, information on what to say, and so on. We decided on a fixed-ratio feedback schedule to provide reinforcement by bringing the regional chairpersons up-to-date on how their legislator voted, as well as how many calls were received by their legislator. We then passed this information on to the other callers in the network (via the regional chairperson) when we triggered the next set of calls. We also used the results to set up recognition for those who exhibited exemplary performance. The participants were positively reinforced when they saw the results of their behavior (in this case the phone calls made and the result of a positive vote from their legislator). This will increase the desired behavior in the future. The next time we request their help, they are more likely to make the calls because of the intrinsic reinforcement of this action. We planned a final fax for the end of the session to thank everyone for his or her leadership and to update each person on the final results. FAN also published a LEGISLATIVE ALERT in the next newsletter after the session for the entire 10,000-member association to recognize those who made calls on behalf of everyone.

Measurement

We identified and measured the number of calls made to legislators over time to provide a baseline for each region against which changes in numbers could be evaluated. To substantiate independently the number of calls, we set up a system to gather from legislative offices the total number of calls they received about a particular bill. To keep our phone calls separate from other calls, we placed a code after the bill number [example, SB951(f)]. The (f) was added to enable legislative staffers to keep count of these specific callers. The legislative staffers received a special form for keeping track and were asked to list only those callers who used the code (f) with the bill number. The forms used for tracking calls were hand- delivered and explained personally to each staffer. Immediately after the targeted time period, we picked up the forms and compiled the data.

Did the Plan Work?

One way to tell when a volunteer mobilization plan is working is when the enthusiasm level of the volunteers rises. But the true results are in the numbers. By the fourth set of phone calls, most legislators reported their offices were receiving in excess of 30 calls before each vote. However, by the fifth set of calls, we were unable to keep an accurate count because legislative staffers became irritated by the extra work created by the flood of calls. Also skewing the count was a subsequent editorial campaign that produced over 20 editorials and columns from most of Florida's major newspapers, such as the Miami Herald, the St. Petersburg Times, and the Orlando Sentinel. Many of these articles suggested that people call their legislator to complain, and some of these articles contained information gleaned from our LEGISLATIVE ALERT memos. The network was so effective that one legislator stood up during a committee meeting and announced that he was unable to vote against FAN's position on this issue because his constituents had spoken loudly; he had received over 115 phone calls from individuals letting him know they supported FAN's position. At this point we were unable to assess accurately the behavioral interventions of the network, but we felt sure that the behavioral interventions led to FAN's ultimate success in this legislative controversy. A publisher of a prominent conservation magazine wrote in his column about the success of the grassroots effort: Grassroots 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.Thanks to Performance Management, FAN provided a vehicle for better performance and then recognized that performance. Most participants, however, felt the true success was the aspect of "pride" that became the main reinforcer for both FAN staff and volunteers. Staff sensed that volunteers truly felt good about what they were doing and that their participation did make a difference.Since there was no time at the beginning of the project to do a more thorough assessment of the network, a second intervention had been planned for halfway through the session. This called for a telephone survey to analyze further what specific feedback and reinforcement was needed to generate increased performance. However, due to the overwhelming performance from the first intervention, this survey was never performed.The cost involved in triggering the network was minimal with monetary requirements needed only for staff time, phone calls, and fax costs. Network volunteers paid the expenses for calls made to the legislators.

Future PM Applications

FAN will most certainly continue using PM when mobilizing volunteers. We suggest that in future efforts, posted feedback should be used to show the performance of the different teams and to provide feedback for increased performance. However, in the case of this particular legislative project, the chart would have been difficult to use because of time restraints.Another future legislative project could be to use the network to generate even more calls by taking the network down one more level, asking each of the 36 callers to contact 3 to 5 more members. This would increase the network by over 100 callers. A postcard campaign could be triggered by this larger network to make legislators aware that their constituents are watching. Such a campaign could be effectively used during the two weeks prior to the opening of session.Future PM tests are planned for FAX PM techniques will be used to turn out volunteers to attend a public hearing on an environmental rule challenge. Also, we will soon once again test Performance Management by mobilizing volunteers for a campaign to produce new members.

Summary

The systematic approach of PM had a tremendous effect on the success of FANs legislative campaign. Our lobbyists were able to rely on the calls coming in on schedule as requested. The entire group of both lobbyists and network volunteers worked in tandem as a team. Having measurable goals and clear instructions gave everyone something to strive for and helped each region to become a team while allowing the entire group to work together as well. FAN created an environment that empowered the regional chairpersons, team captains, individual volunteers, and staff. Effectively communicated antecedents and positive consequences worked together to achieve an increase in involvement. This was seen as the real key to success. Volunteer support made the critical difference between average and excellent performance.