From the just knowing level to the level of trust, usually technocratic style policymakers need to be convinced on these matters through:
- If this think tank provides recommendations for policy direction, to what extent are these recommendations based on accurate empirical evidence and properly analyzed?
- What other recommendations has this think tank put forward? What is the response from policy makers who receive it?
- To what extent are the people from this think tank competent in this area? What's the clue? What is his track record?
- What interests does this think tank promote ? What is the ideological bias, and who is the source of the funding?
Apart from direct face-to-face interactions, the media that can be used to answer these questions may be quite standard (websites, brochures,
policy briefs ). Unfortunately, often the execution in this media is not optimal because it is made based on a template mode or using what previously has been done before: without thinking long about the objective, let alone empathizing with the communication target, with long-winded writing, laid out in a haphazard design.
Another medium that is also quite often (mis)used in
think tank interactions with policy makers is presentations (presented in government language). Too often I see presentations become a
PowerPoint karaoke ”: the presenter reads text after text, cramming
the slides , while the audience is busy doing something more fun than enduring boredom. If you are interested in how to create presentation content (including design and visualization) and deliver it, you can explore
the training that we provide.
The second possibility, this new audience is related to the ultimate goal of changing behavior. Here the question is: to change, does the audience have to believe the party first before asking them to change?
If we assume that humans are 100% rational, the answer to this question is yes. This type of audience will have the same questions and considerations as technocratic policy makers.
But this answer expects too much from human rationality. Behavioral science is full of studies about how rarely we give in-depth consideration at length before deciding to change behavior. We are too lazy or busy to make these considerations (remember the elephant and driver metaphor for Systems 1 and 2?). In addition, our moral intuitions blind us and make us unable to let go of our tribal identity (remember Jonathan Haidt's moral foundations theory?).
In this case, I sadly hypothesize that the credibility of nonprofit organizations as inducers of new behavior is only relevant as a justification or justification of those who are already inclined to agree. In the eyes of naysayers, these nonprofits will never be relevant. If anyone has read a study about this, please comment.
Then what should I do? If you want to change the behavior of a group of people, you have to use a different approach. You should use approaches that do not assume the rationality of human behavior, such as
the Fogg behavior model,
behavior economics, and
moral foundation theory. We will discuss this further in
the communication strategy course for the non-profit sector.