This opinion article was written by Martin Stanley, editor of Understanding Policy Making and former UK civil servant. For more like this, see our government innovation newsfeed.

There is something uniquely difficult about communicating with powerful people.

It’s not that it is difficult to tell them the truth. It’s much more difficult to do so in a way that ensures that they will listen to you. Here is some valuable advice for how to do that well, which I have picked up over my years in the UK civil service

It is very unwise to begin your relationship with a new boss with any form of disagreement, let alone confrontation.

I confess that I got this badly wrong when I respectfully but unnecessarily appeared other than subservient in an initial meeting with a Minister who was known to dislike civil servants. I should have known that it is best to do everything you can to first convince a Minister that you are their loyal and devoted servant.

You need to forge the kind of bond that will later allow to be seen as a critical friend: someone who knows when (and when not) to be brutally honest.

Take your time if you can, and wait for the Minister or decision maker to accept that you know what you are talking about before you attempt to challenge their views.

The problem, of course, is that an initial failure to challenge a senior leader can set the tone for a relationship in which challenge becomes near impossible.  In the US, former head of the FBI James Comey has written eloquently about how failure to challenge President Trump led advisers to become trapped in submission:

“Of course, to stay, you must be seen as on his team, so you make further compromises. You use his language, praise his leadership, tout his commitment to values. And then you are lost. He has eaten your soul.”

Be aware, too, that personal chemistry or lack thereof might also doom your relationship with a decision maker.  A Minister or chief exec might (quite unfairly) react adversely to your age or educational background, or may feel patronised when you display your experience.

Hopefully, however, there will eventually be a moment when you are needed —  when you can crystallise that bond that should exist between a decision maker and trusted adviser. If you have first established their trust, have been respectful, and not undermined them, most powerful people will be grateful when you can help them overcome a problem, or find another better route to their policy objective.

Understanding What Is Important

Policy advisers need to understand how their decision maker defines policy success.

Is the decision maker entirely happy if the policy achieves its stated goals?  Or do they also want to achieve business, political or personal goals such as greater market share, votes or public/colleagues' acclamation — which might lead to promotion.

In thinking about this question, you must learn about, and assess the importance of, the decision maker's hinterland: their social circle, their political party, and so on.  Anyone, let alone a senior decision maker, will be very reluctant to take a decision that will be unwelcome in the society in which they move. This applies particularly to politicians who must work within the limits set by their constituency party and party leadership.

Once you have thought hard about these questions, you can if necessary frame your advice in a way that will help the decision maker achieve their personal goals.

Understanding the Problem

It is important, too, that you should understand the nature of the challenge that you face.

At the easy end of the spectrum, none of us like being told that we might be wrong, so tact is always called for, whoever we are advising.

You'll have to plan your approach more carefully if your decision maker might be constrained by established policies and/or corporate or public opinion.  Or they might have other priorities and insufficient political capital to do the right thing.

Your problem becomes more serious if your decision maker seems likely to succumb to the MacWhirr Syndrome in which Ministers or executives prefer to take uncertain and dangerous risks rather than face certain, if unjustified, criticism.

Last, but far from least, you may be faced with an arrogant and authoritarian boss who wouldn't recognise the truth if they had a head on collision with it.

Each of these increasingly difficult audiences are likely to need to be approached in different ways.

The Art of Persuasion

It is well worth reading and remembering expert advice on effective persuasion techniques —  advice more often directed at sales teams, but relevant nonetheless.

None of this advice is at all modern, of course.  Aristotle argued that an audience will more likely accept propositions put forward by a credible speaker.  To appear credible, he said a speaker must display (i) practical intelligence, (ii) a virtuous character, and (iii) goodwill. This is undoubtedly as true today as it as was in ancient Greece.

Almost all modern writers repeat Blaise Pascal's advice, written in the 1600s. In short, before disagreeing with someone, you should first point out the ways in which they are right before helping them discover a counter-point of their own accord and so persuading them to change their mind:

"When we wish to correct with advantage, and to show another that he errs, we must notice from what side he views the matter, for on that side it is usually true, and admit that truth to him, but reveal to him the side on which it is false. He is satisfied with that, for he sees that he was not mistaken, and that he only failed to see all sides. ... People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others."

Experienced policy advisers do this almost without thinking. They adopt their bosses' aims as their own, whilst gently — and a little later — suggesting that there might be better ways of reaching the desired objective.

There is an obvious need to be extremely careful when seeking to suggest that your boss's views may be mistaken, or his/her performance less than optimal. Luckily, the English language provides numerous ways of softening a critical message: 'I am afraid that ...'; I am not sure that ...'; 'I wonder'; I gather'; 'I imagine'; 'presumably'; possibly/probably'; and so on. The risk, of course, is that important advice and messages do not get understood by the recipient.

The Need for Thinking Time

We are all liable to react badly — and probably negatively — if presented with the need to take an urgent and unpopular decision.

So it can make a lot of sense to raise an issue quite tentatively, for discussion next day or next week.  This gives time for the decision maker to get used to the idea of adopting an obviously correct — if unwelcome — way forward. It thus becomes their idea — not yours.

Equally, you shouldn't delay before bringing a difficult issue to the attention of the appropriate decision maker.  Don't wait for more information and analysis and don't spend time, too early on, wondering how an unpopular decision might be presented.   You should instead give your decision maker plenty of warning that a potentially unpopular decision will be needed.  They can then:

  • get over the shock,
  • assimilate the immediately available facts
  • begin to understand the arguments,
  • start thinking about how the decision might be presented,
  • consult their colleagues and other advisers, and
  • requisition further advice and information.

Your early warning will still make your unpopular, of course, but you would be much more unpopular if you were to wait until your decision maker had to make a potentially serious and personally damaging decision with little or no time to think about it.

Transactional Analysis

We all communicate with each other as social superiors, as equals or as inferiors and we frequently adopt different approaches to the same person at different times. Problems invariably arise, in work as well as at home, when one party’s approach does not meet the expectations of the other.

The usual starting point in any analysis of expectations is that we all expect to be treated with respect, and with due recognition of our different skills, experiences and perspectives.

Sometimes, however, you may need to signal clear subservience. You may, for instance, need to defer to your boss if time is short, or if he or she clearly has much more experience or knowledge than you, or if he or she has already heard enough and wants you to accept their decision. The need for you to back off is usually signalled pretty clearly. If you are slow to notice the signals then problems will certainly follow.

Equally, excessive use of deference can also cause problems. Decision makers, voters and customers expect to deal, most of the time, with your organisation's experienced and professional staff. Lengthy displays of deference will cause them to write you off as inferior in ability as well as status.

So, if your relationship with your boss seems fraught or distant, or if you suspect that they actively dislike you, consider carefully whether you are signalling superiority, equality or inferiority when they are expecting something else.

This analysis can also improve the effectiveness of your written advice.  I was always taught to make clear recommendations — 'I recommend that you should …' — but I have noticed that recently interviewed British Cabinet Secretaries say that they often suggested that 'The Prime Minister might …' a softer and probably more acceptable formulation at that level.

Enlist Support From A Source That Will Be Trusted

If your boss doubts your expertise, or your commitment to their cause, it can make a lot of sense to arrange for them to get independent advice from someone that they trust. Such sources might include:

  • professionals — such as health professionals — active in the relevant policy area,
  • lawyers — and in particular external lawyers,
  • other professionals such as economists, investment bankers, PR and communications specialists,
  • business people and trade unionists,
  • think tanks

Facilitated citizens assemblies of various sorts can also be a good way of demonstrating the likely reactions of real people to policy proposals — as long as they are run in a very professional way so as to eliminate deliberate or accidental nudging of participant reaction.

Are You Prepared To Be Blamed, Boss?

This can be a high risk strategy but ... most decision makers can be made to pause if you remind them that they will get the blame if their decision might lead to obvious damage such as injury and death.

The Grenfell Tower survivors forced the government to take action on combustible cladding on other high rise buildings by asking a Minister if he would take responsibility next morning "if something else happens tonight".

Less dramatically, it is vital that you get unambiguous sign off for possibly contentious decisions. And such decisions need to be clearly recorded especially if you had recommended another course of action.

Project Budgets and Timetables

It can sometimes be helpful to suggest to an enthusiastic boss that more haste generally equals less speed, even though they may feel that you are dragging your feet and/or seeing unnecessary obstacles. They may however recognise that there is a natural rhythm to a good project — nice, slow and cautious at the beginning, so that rapid pre-planned progress can be made at the end. It is a trite but accurate observation that a new building will be finished soon after its foundations have been laid. Ministers will still need to make those big bold announcements, if only to forestall the announcement of a similar ambition by a rival.  But such announcements should explicitly allow you time to research and plan the project in some detail.

It can also sometimes be worth quoting or paraphrasing the military doctrine that 'The first duty of a commander is reconnaissance.' The best laid schemes will certainly go badly awry unless preceded by decent research, consultation and planning.

Benchmarking can be a very useful tool.  Powerful people are more likely to listen to advice that "X achieved something similar within Y months after spending Z", and so recognise that it is unlikely that he or she could expect to do it in much less time and for much less money.

In short, successful policy advisers adapt their approach according to the character of, and incentives important to, their decision makers. And there are a range of strategies that can help you do this. But, at the end of the day, don't worry if even the best strategy fails to work.  You can't win them all, but it's good to know you tried. Good Luck! — Martin Stanley

Martin Stanley is a former UK civil servant, and today edits the Understanding Government and Understanding Policy-Making websites. He can be followed via LinkedIn and Twitter.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Pitch an article to us or send your comments to discussion@apolitical.co