McKinsey are taking a ‘snowball sampling’ approach to help identify hidden influencers within organisations. Maybe the same principles can be applied to political communications.
I saw a post on the Diary of a Communicator blog which provides a good outline of the McKinsey approach. The blog also took me to the full article, ‘Tapping The Power Of Hidden Influencers’, that goes into more detail.
The article describes the need to find ‘strong change leaders’ to help drive organisational change – those with ‘informal influence’. The challenge identified is finding these people and ‘snowball sampling’ is one suggested way. These work through brief surveys asking those taking part to identify acquaintances who should be asked to participate in research. On this basis, one name or a group of names, snowball into more.
In public affairs we often try to identify such informal networks, using unofficial information, media coverage and, sometimes, instinct. This type of survey offers the opportunity of putting things on a more formal basis. Identifying patterns and networks of influence are exactly what political communications can be about as well.
The identified influencers may, of course, not all want the same things. It is doubtful that they will be a single coherent group. There remains, therefore, a role for working on specific messages, tailoring the form of engagement and deciding when/if to engage with these people. The work could though be useful in making sure that stakeholder list is more robust. Once identified, ways to engage with the influencers or potentially working with them can then be explored.
This approach can be applied not just to Westminster or Whitehall, where some of the networks may be better understood, but also at a more local level as well where the network could be less clear. The ‘organisational chart’ of influence is rarely as obvious as people think it is and from McKinseys’ experience of organisations that appears to be borne out.
Another potential benefit of the ‘snowball sample’ process is that it can be repeated over time to see how and if patterns of influences are changing. This can then be used to update stakeholder lists. It may be most relevant at times of significant change, for instance elections, but could also offer great value in seeing if there are shifts in sentiment or changes taking place which could lead to changed policy outcomes. Some may be subtle, others may be more seismic.
At the very least, ‘snowball sampling’ could be a useful tool in taking stock and act as a useful double check on thinking, one with an evidence base.
‘Big data’ isn’t yet really being applied to lobbying and public affairs but fully considered maybe this method could help to change this.