The ideal lobbyist

Abstract

Purpose Lobbying and lobbyists have for some time been regarded with suspicion and even outright mistrust by journalists and the wider public. While to some extent, popular (mis)perceptions about lobbyists are understandable, they are also regrettable: lobbyists operate in every political system, and generally do so in an entirely proper fashion. This paper seeks to consider the personal characteristics which effective and successful lobbyists require. Design/methodology/approach The paper is based on 60 interviews with lobbyists in Washington, London and Brussels; the approach used here is simply to allow lobbyists themselves to discuss at some length their views about the issues they feel are important in a practical sense. Findings The paper examines a range of personal qualities including skills such as listening, observation, and relationship‐building, as well as issues surrounding gender/sexuality, courtesy, honesty, integrity and credibility. Research limitations/implications While it is unrealistic to claim that 60 interviews constitute a fully representative sample of the entire lobbying industry worldwide, it is true that they offer a first‐cut overview of key factors. This area does not yet feature prominently in academic research, but will increasingly. Practical implications This paper is a contribution to the discussion which the lobbying industry must engage in more explicitly as to the qualities required by lobbyists. In order to produce a reasonably definitive “person specification” for a lobbying position, the next step would be to involve those responsible for recruiting people to such posts, to establish which elements of the personal mix discussed (alongside other professional competencies) are of priority across a range of organisations and levels of seniority. Originality/value The paper helps to set an agenda for both academic and professional debate.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 54 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.