Reading the Room: Learnings for Leaders from The Voice Referendum
Seven Word Summary: Learnings for Leaders from The Voice Referendum.
Regardless of your views or even your vote, we can all agree that the recent Referendum on The Voice to Parliament provided valuable learnings for leaders and organisations, everywhere.
Here are just a few collective perspectives from our team, for engaging stakeholders around an initiative, idea, or change in your context.
MESSAGING
To state the obvious, messaging is of utmost importance. It sets the tone (literally) for any campaign and should be crafted in such a way that all stakeholders are considered, and perhaps even consulted. This can often mean that, once key messaging is established, it must then take different forms using different channels, to reach the right audience with the right message at the right time.
Clarity of message is vital. In the case of The Voice to Parliament, messaging was often not clear or presumed that people were across the detail. Rather than a consultative conversation, both sides presented a more combative approach, which brings us to the importance of METHOD.
METHOD
When seeking to engage stakeholders at any level, it is integral to bring people on the journey, as early as possible. Not only does this enable you to test and refine your messaging, but also increase the likelihood of a positive outcome.
History tells us that any proposed change to the Constitution requires bi-partisan support and a Constitutional Convention, of which neither formed part of the method behind engagement around this Referendum. As a result, the campaign became divisive and a lose-lose for both sides, and the groups of people they each represented.
MARKET RESEARCH
External relations should be grounded upon market research and informed by broader market conditions, particularly when there is potential for financial impacts. Political or advocacy support beyond a company’s traditional business remit is a decision not to be taken lightly. Ultimately any decision made by an organisation should enhance or protect profits.
While engagement with stakeholders such as Indigenous Australians might rightfully lead a business to conclude an investment in supporting the campaign is a right and proper business decision, it becomes a much more difficult position to defend when investment is on the basis of appearing like a “good corporate”. Customers and investors tend to see through this behaviour and don’t like it. A business exists to make money – when it makes decisions that have nothing to do with making money, shareholders rightly should be asking “what’s the point?”
MONEY TALKS
Where you invest tells us what you value. The Referendum saw large corporates donate to a campaign that ultimately represented a minority of the Australian community, and therefore most likely a minority of shareholders. In the case of a listed company, the perspectives of a broader sample of shareholders must be considered, and a degree of caution exercised, to effectively manage perceived organisational risk – and not simply optics.
For Corporate Australia to have been so openly generous to the ‘Yes’ campaign, lavishing millions into campaign coffers, it begs the question as to whether those funds could have been better targeted to effect real change. So much public corporate philanthropy can be easily construed as an optical exercise by the sceptical. To have funded entities on the ground actively trying to ‘Close the Gap’ would be better than that same money ending up, ultimately, in media companies and advertising agencies pockets.
THE SILENT MAJORITY
In any social grouping (be it a company or even across the broader population), there are typically a few very vocal people who have a strong position on issues and are happy to articulate them. But there is also a silent majority who may not make as much noise, but who as a group exercise considerable power. So, when it comes to reading the room, judgement should not simply be based on noise.
Around kitchen tables and inside cafes and pubs the discussion is often more free, unrestrained and authentic. It’s unburdened by current orthodoxies and fashions. It’s generally free from fear of ostracising. The language is therefore more resonating and impassioned, built from a person's genealogy, upbringing, culture, philosophy and religion.
As a result, to gauge the mood of a country by the clattering of its corporate town-criers (communications and media pundits etc) and activist loudmouths, means you make a grave mistake. It means you base decisions off outliers, rather than off a sturdier indicator. For now, there’s no surveillance for voters on polling day. That means they’ll put down, put forward, what they WANT to say not what they think they OUGHT to say.
CALL-TO-ACTION
Many hold a view that the ‘No’ camp appealed to ignorance with the “Don’t Know, Vote No” messaging. However, rather than promote ignorance, this slogan can also be seen to have encouraged many to personally investigate the object of the Referendum and prompted the seeking of information to make an informed choice. Nobody likes to sit in ignorance - most people when alerted to a gap in their knowledge will at least make some effort to remedy that. That’s why the ‘Don’t Know, Vote No’ call-to-action was effective in prompting people to ‘know’.
LEADERSHIP
Leaders need to walk a tightrope between effecting change within their organisation while also bringing all stakeholders along for the journey. Moving at a pace which is quicker than your customers or employees are ready for is a recipe for disaster.
Another clear lesson from The Voice is the importance of being ready and willing to provide information when it is requested. Obviously, there are times where confidentiality requirements make this difficult, however appearing evasive or unwilling to share details of any key initiative can lead to an erosion in support.
CONSENSUS
Leadership is about building consensus, which is derived from the ability to see, understand, and compromise between multiple perspectives. If our political leaders, on broad societal issues such as The Voice, cannot find common ground beyond partisanship, is it possible for other leaders to do so? If not, it is difficult to foster civil debate among all of us, on points of difference and points of agreement, with the aim of working through both for a mutually beneficial outcome. Without this, who is leading who, and to what end?
Ready to continue the conversation?
Seven Patterns has the experience and expertise to help you navigate external relations — unleashing your organisation’s potential and positioning your brand for influence.
Let’s talk — hello@sevenpatterns.com