When the policy and political future is unknowable, is it possible for a policy reformer to plan for success? How can a free-market organization expect to beat well-funded, entrenched special interests at their own game?
Institute leaders interviewed in this article say those are the wrong questions. They say we should change the game. In others words, be prepared to see and seize opportunities that exist and move into a position as quickly as possible to create opportunities where necessary. (In a future edition, we’ll explore how to help create the future rather than just responding to it.)
Enormous infrastructures exist to protect the current policy status quo. How can a think tank expect to have enough influence to turn this around?
Justin Owen, Beacon Center of Tennessee
Infrastructure doesn’t equal influence. In fact, being big, bulky, and bureaucratic can make you slow. Beacon has grown substantially in influence over the past few years, far outpacing our physical growth in terms of dollars and people. We’ve remained agile, which I think is a more powerful tool to wield than size. That agility allowed us to act and react quickly when we took on our governor’s Medicaid expansion plan, for example. We went up against a very popular governor, a massive hospital industry, and hundreds of lobbyists and special interest groups. The other side had nearly a dozen groups testify in support of Medicaid expansion; we were the only group to testify against it. They outspent us 50-1. But we beat them. Twice.
Brooke Rollins, Texas Public Policy Foundation
Policy in any sphere tends toward two things: the status quo and the interests of the powerholders and bureaucracies that made and likely benefit from it.
For a policy institution—and any civil-society institution—to break through the defenses that perpetuate and abet these tendencies is a tall order. An effective think tank is one that generates ideas and then develops a pathway to enacting them—and sees that process through to its end.
Influence in this light is not a function of size or accuracy: it is institutional mastery of all the elements of strategy, from a thorough understanding of the opponent, to an appreciation of the policy landscape, to a grasp of the formal mechanisms of policy change, to the development of a supportive coalition, to the promulgation of a media narrative. As has been said, there is no limit to what you can achieve if you don’t mind who gets the credit. At the Texas Public Policy Foundation, we work hard to craft and execute these holistic solutions to our policy challenges—because given the forces stacked against us, there is no other way that we, as an insurgent-type institution working on behalf of the people, can get things done.
Joe Lehman, Mackinac Center
We don’t attack a stronger opponent at its strongest point. We can’t yet match the advantages of the status quo strength for strength. So we find the chinks in the other side’s armor and focus our resources there. When we created the environment for Right to Work in Michigan we didn’t have to match the unions’ enormous advantages of guaranteed revenue streams and virtual ownership of a major political party. We worked where they were weak. We helped the victims of union abuse tell their stories, and we shined Klieg lights where unions revealed their true natures of bullying, compulsion, and disregard of the public good.
Brenda Talent,
Show-Me Institute
At the Show-Me Institute, we believe that ideas have tremendous power.
But ideas can’t exist in isolation. They must be linked effectively to the mechanisms of government to translate into action. So a good think tank must do sound basic research, translate the research into a workable agenda, and constantly and compellingly communicate the agenda, both to convince decision makers and to show them that the public can be convinced—that the right thing to do is also the best thing to do politically.
It takes “strategic patience” to make progress in public policy; we push all the time, and at the same time, on key pressure points. We have built credibility with the press and the public as a thoughtful institution dedicated to the welfare of the people so our voice is not dismissed. And while we endure our failures with grace, we take our successes as starting points for even greater effort.
Many important reform options exist. How do you decide which ones to pursue?
Brooke Rollins,
Texas Public Policy Foundation
Issue prioritization is a matter of foundational importance: a policy institution must protect its brand—which is indistinguishable from protecting its efficacy—and also assess where it is most likely to be effective given the resources at its disposal.
At the Foundation, we have several levels of strategic, operational, and tactical planning in our policy spheres. At the strategic level, we operate on the same biennial calendar as the Texas Legislature, with our biennial Liberty Action Agenda setting forth our goals and agenda. At the operational level, we carefully assess, quarterly or so, our coalitions and progress, with input and counsel solicited from across the organization and key allies. At the tactical level, we conduct formal weekly and informal daily assessments in looking at progress and opportunities.
At every level, the questions we ask ourselves are the same: Where can we make a real difference? What is the most pressing danger to liberty? Where do forces align for meaningful change? And of course, where can the Texas Public Policy Foundation make a unique contribution that no other organization can match?
Justin Owen,
Beacon Center of Tennessee
We ask three key questions when selecting our priorities. First, will it truly empower Tennesseans to reclaim control of their lives? If not, then it doesn’t advance our mission, so we won’t take it on. Second, is it politically feasible to achieve this now? If not, then we need to spend more time making the environment ripe for reform in this area before pursuing it. And third, is failure an option? If we fail and can just move on to something else, then it is not a bold enough initiative to devote resources to it.
How do you describe the kind of people you hire today versus five years ago?
Joe Lehman, Mackinac Center
We hire the kind of people who arouse an emotional response in us—we are excited by the prospect of working with them. We hire those we expect to learn from and raise our game by listening to them.
Michael Carnuccio,
Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs
Unlike five years ago, today we hire for talent and potential more than we hire for concrete experience in a particular area. Obviously, if you’re hiring someone to work in operations, accounting, or any other business-related facet, they need experience. But foremost we hire for talent, passion, and potential. OCPA’s new president, Jonathan Small, has grown from a fiscal policy researcher to one of the best development staff members we’ve seen in Oklahoma’s freedom movement. Until a year ago he was never in that role, but he always had that potential.
We also hire more people outside the movement, bringing them in from broadcast media or Fortune 500 companies. A think tank can suffer from being too insular, so an outside perspective is valuable. Their fresh perspective can help you evolve to stay ahead of the competition and outflank your opponents.
Hires like these challenge you as a leader to constantly cast that bigger vision and drive toward it. These employees are not motivated principally by money. They’ve come to do hard things and have lasting impact.
Has an increase in revenue accompanied your shift to creating opportunities where they didn’t exist before?
Joe Lehman, Mackinac Center
Yes, but the vision for opportunity comes before the revenue. Smart supporters don’t give because we have a good track record. They give more when we articulate a vivid vision for closing the gap between where we are now and where we need to be. We only raise support on the gap between where we are now and the vision of the preferred future.
If we followed you around for a week, how would we notice that you spend your time that’s different from most people?
Michael Carnuccio,
Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs
I am constantly probing, recruiting, and meeting with folks to get intel all over the place. I spend a considerable amount of my time just with my team, getting to know them personally and making sure they’re connected to the mission.
My time spent is strategic in nature: decisions around the meetings I take, the places I go, and the people I spend time with. In every discussion I have with someone, I’m testing concepts and picking their mind to iterate, build, and maximize our potential. I may not know what new idea will emerge, but I plan my time with the intent of something new or strategic happening.
Joe Lehman, Mackinac Center
My super assistant Amy Kellogg handles everything that I don’t need to. If it’s not on my electronic calendar, it’s not happening. Every meal is with my family unless I’m at the office or on the road. No TV at home. I listen to audio books while driving and exercising. Sundays are restful. And when I’m home I’m getting my hands dirty chopping wood, gardening, pruning fruit trees, maintaining engines, putting venison in the freezer, making maple syrup, and basically subduing the earth. No neckties in sight. I don’t know if that’s different from most people, but it might be different from what people might guess.
The habits of successful leaders are different from most people. What habits have you adopted to help you become an opportunity leader?
Joe Lehman, Mackinac Center
The most important concept is whatever got you to where you are probably isn’t enough to take you where you need to go next. For me, this translated into habits of making fewer decisions (letting others make more), thinking big, and devoting much more time to talent and timing.
Stay tuned for a future edition of SPN News where think tank leaders will discuss what it means to be an opportunity leader and to help create the future rather than just respond to it.
