INFORMATION TO USERS

This was produced from a copy o f a document sent to us fo r microfilming. While the
most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality o f the material
submitted.
The following explanation o f techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.
1 .T h e sign or “ target” fo r pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is “ Missing Page(s)” . If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may

have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating

adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an
indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because o f
movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete
copyrighted materials that should not have been film ed, you will find a good
image of the page in the adjacent frame. I f copyrighted materials were
deleted you will find a target note listing the pages in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­
graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “ sectioning”
the material. It is customary to begin film ing at the upper left hand corner of
a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small
overlaps. I f necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the
first row and continuing on until complete.
4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography,
photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your
xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer
Services Department.
5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have
film ed the best available copy.

University
Microfilms
International
300 N. ZEEB RD.. ANN ARBO R, M l 48106

8126534

N a sta s , G e o r g e III

THE MICHIGAN BUSINESS LOBBYIST: CHANGING ENVIRONMENT,
CHANGING NEEDS

Ph.D. 1981

Michigan State University

University
Microfilms
International

300 N. Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, M I 48106

Copyright 1981
by
Nastas, George III
All Rights Reserved

PLEASE NOTE:

In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy.
Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V

.

1.

Glossy photographs or pages______

2.

Colored illustrations, paper or print______

3.

Photographs with dark background______

4.

Illustrations are poor copy______

5.

Pages with black marks, not original copy_____

6.

Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page

7.

Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages Is *

8.

Print exceeds margin requirements______

9.

Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine_____

10.

Computer printout pages with indistinct print______

11.

Page(s)___________ lacking when material received, and not available from school or
author.

12.

Page(s)___________ seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows.

13.

Two pages numbered___________ . Text follows.

14.

Curling and wrinkled pages______

15.

Other__________________________________________________________________

University
Microfilms
International

THE MICHIGAN BUSINESS LOBBYIST:

CHANGING

ENVIRONMENT, CHANGING NEEDS
By
George Nastas I I I

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in p a rtia l fu lfillm e n t of the requirements
fo r the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Marketing and Transportation
Administration
1981

© Copyright by
GEORGE NASTAS I I I

ABSTRACT
THE MICHIGAN BUSINESS LOBBYIST: CHANGING
ENVIRONMENT, CHANGING NEEDS
By

George Nastas I I I

Purpose
This study examines lobbyists who represent business
organizations to the Michigan State Legislature in order to learn
something o f th e ir personal characteristics, th e ir preparation fo r
lobbying, how they were recruited, th e ir business l i f e , and what they
perceive to be ideal business lobbyist preparation, based upon th e ir
experiences as business lobbyists.
Frame of Reference
While a number of em pirically based studies have been done on
the le g is la tiv e lobbyist at the federal and state levels of government,
none has focused on the state business lobbyist in th is way.

They have

looked instead a t the e n tire category of lobbyists representing a v a ri­
ety of types o f in te re s t groups.

Nevertheless, these studies have

served as a guide in planning this research study.
Collection of Data
In February 1980, a census was taken of 163 business in te re s t
lobbyists registered to lobby during the 1979-1980 Michigan Legislative

George Nastas I I I

Session.

Seventy-four of these lobbyists returned the mail survey

questionnaire, and th e ir responses form the basis of the study's
findings.
Major Findings
The Michigan business lobbyist is predominantly male, middleaged, married with children, born and reared in Michigan in an urban
se ttin g , and well educated.

The majority of the respondents have a t

least a college degree in one of the social sciences.

Many have had

p rio r government employment experience.
On the average, the study respondents began lobbying in th e ir
la te t h ir tie s .
organization.

The m ajority of them have worked fo r more than one
In general, the respondents possess at least six years

o f lobbying experience.
Results indicate that the survey respondents tend to have spent
l i t t l e time planning to become lobbyists.

For the most part, they

became lobbyists fo r th e ir organizations subsequent to working for
those organizations in some other capacity.

T yp ically, the lobbyists

appear to have obtained th e ir position as a consequence of having had
some p rio r "inside" contact with the lobbying organization or with
lobbying a c tiv itie s , rather than having entered the career from a
to ta lly unrelated f ie ld of work.

In general, respondents report having

had no formal trainin g fo r the position of business lobbyist.

Instead,

they c ite p rio r work experience in business, government, or p o litic s as
th e ir preparation fo r th is career.

George Nastas I I I

Factors which the respondents feel are most important in
determining whether an individual would be successful as a business
lobbyist include an a b ilit y to s e ll ideas, honesty, an in te re st in the
job, job knowledge, and a pleasant personality.

Consistent with these

factors, respondents would look fo r specific tr a its and personal char­
a c te ris tic s , as well as related employment and educational experiences,
in the background of a prospective business lobbyist when making a
hiring decision.

Education and experience in communication, p o litic s ,

government, and business are emphasized, with experience stressed over
education.

The respondents preferred a candidate with some college or

a college degree.

However, the lack of a degree would not be a barrier

to employment as a lobbyist, because possession of other characteristics
could resu lt in the candidate's being hired.

A bias against the hiring

of a new college graduate as a business lobbyist was found in the study
participants' responses.
Research findings indicate that there is a new state le g is la tiv e
environment requiring a business lobbyist with more than the trad itio n al
job preparation.

He must be fa m ilia r with the le g is la tiv e process and

the individuals involved, the business organization and its interests,
and a ll relevant issues.

He should ppssess e ffe c tiv e research, analy­

s is , and communication s k ills in order to be able to make and sell his
recommendations to both clien ts and le g is la to rs .

And his performance

should re fle c t advance preparation, good organization, good judgment,
a sense of timing, and a reputation fo r being well informed and honest.

To Ge.oH.ge. and. SteZJLa. Ucu>ta&

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Without the assistance of certain Michigan business lobbyists,
th is dissertation would not have been possible.

Let me here express

my appreciation to those individuals fo r th e ir participation in this
research e ffo rt.
I should also lik e to thank the members of my dissertation
committee who have provided guidance and support from the in it ia l
phases on through the completion of this work.

Special thanks are

due to Dr. Donald A. Taylor who served as chairperson of the dis­
sertation committee a t Michigan State University.

His role in this

capacity, as well as his support throughout my doctoral program is
g ra te fu lly acknowledged.

Drs. M. Bixby Cooper and Stoakley W. Swanson

also served on the dissertation committee.

Dr. Cooper provided guid­

ance at the s ta rt of this project and in its completion.

Dr. Swanson

provided assistance in the formulation and execution of the project.
Their advice was always constructive and is greatly appreciated.
F in a lly , fo r th e ir encouragement and support of my doctoral
program e ffo rts , I wish to acknowledge my family and especially my
parents, without whom th is program would have been much more
d iffic u l t.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................

v ii

Chapter
I.

II.

III.

............................................................................

1

Purpose ........................................................................................
Background of the S t u d y ........................................................
Scope of the S tu d y ....................................................................
Frame of R eference....................................................................
Significance of the Study ....................................................
Limitations of the S tu d y .......................................
The Organization of this R e p o r t ........................................

1
3
5
6
7
8
9

REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE............................................

10

Introductory Comment ................................................................
Need for a New Business L o b b y is t........................................
Empirically Based Studies of State Legislative
L o b b y is ts ................................................................................
The Michigan Lobbyist ....................................................
The Oklahoma Lobbyist ....................................................
The Illin o is Lobbyist ....................................................
Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oregon, and
Utah L o b b yis ts................................................................
The Nebraska Lobbyist ....................................................
The New England L o b b y is t................................................
Concluding Comment ....................................................................

10
10

INTRODUCTION .

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

15
16
21
23
27
31
34
38

............................................

39

Introductory Comment ................................................................
Research Design ........................................................................
The P o p u latio n ............................................................................
Research Methodology ................................................................
P r e t e s t ................................................................................
Survey P renotification Telephone Message ................
Survey Cover Letter ........................................................
Survey Questionnaire ........................................................
Survey Procedure ................................................................
Nonresponse Error ............................................................

39
39
40
43
45
49
50
50
53
55

v

Chapter

Page

Data Editing and C o d in g ........................................................
Data Analysis ............................................................................
Disposition of the D a t a ........................................................
Concluding Comment ....................................................................
IV.

RESULTS.......................

60

Introductory Comment ................................................................
"About Yourself" ........................................................................
"About Any Previous Government Experience" ....................
"About Your Job H is to r y " ........................................................
"About Your Business Life" ....................................................
"Ideal Recruitment and Preparation" ................................
About the Nonrespondent........................................................
Nonrespondent P ro file ....................................................
Concluding Comment ....................................................................
V.

56
57
58
59

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONSs AND RECOMMENDATIONS

. . . . . . .

Introductory Comment ................................................................
Review of the Study Objectives
........................................
Study Audience............................................................................
Summary........................................................................................
State Legislative Environment ....................................
Description of the Business Lobbyist ........................
Business Lobbyist's L ife ................................................
Recruitment of the Business Lobbyist ........................
Ideal Preparation of the Business Lobbyist . . . .
........................................................................
Conclusions .
Importance of the Role and Preparation o f the
Business Lobbyist ........................................................
Selection C rite ria fo r Business Lobbyists . . . .
Program of Preparation fo r the Business Lobbyist .
S ocialization ............................................................
Formal Education ........................................................
Work E x p e rie n c e ........................................................
Summary of the Program of Preparation . . . .
Role of the Business School ........................................
Recommendations ........................................................................
Concluding Comment ....................................................................

60
61
65
66
69
88
107
108
113
114
114
114
115
115
116
116
117
119
120
122
123
124
128
128
130
134
135
136
138
141

Appendix
A.

TELEPHONE PRENOTIFICATION STATEMENT

....................................

B.

REPRINT OF COVER LETTER AND QUESTIONNAIRE

C.

DATA RECORD FORMATS.......................................................

........................
. . .

LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................

vi

147
149
163
186

LIST OF TABLES

Table
3.1

Page
Comparison of the Id e n tifie d Respondents with the
Population by Location ............................................................

43

4.1

Age o f Respondents

...................................................................

61

4.2

M arital Status of Respondents ...............................................

62

4.3

Birthplace of Respondents .......................................................

62

4.4

State Where Respondents Were Reared ...................................

63

4.5

Urban/Rural Environment During Respondents' Youth . . .

63

4.6

Highest Level of Formal Education Attained

...................

64

4.7

College Undergraduate Major ...................................................

65

4.8

Prior Government Experience ...................................................

66

4.9

Years of Lobbying Experience

...............................................

67

4.10

Age o f Registration as a L o b b y is t.......................................

67

4.11

Number of Organizations fo r which the Respondent
Has W o rk e d ....................................................................................

68

4.12

Types of Jobs H e l d ...................................................................

69

4.13

Form of Compensation...............................................................

70

4.14

C lient Summary...........................................................................

71

4.15

Job Responsibility A r e a s .......................................................

72

4.16

Most Important Job Responsibility A r e a ...........................

73

4.17

Second Most Important Job Responsibility Area ...............

73

4.18

Third Most Important Job Responsibility Area

...............

74

4.19

Job Responsibility Areas, Totals

.......................................

74

vi i

Page

........................

75

Years Lobbying fo r Current Organization ........................

75

Years Employed by Current Organization

Time Spent

Lobbying

During Legislative Sessions . .

.

76

Time Spent

Lobbying

Between Legislative Sessions .

.

76

Time Spent

Planning

to Become a Lobbyist

..............

78

....................

79

Factors Influencing Career Decision ................................

82

Job Satisfaction Items

........................................................

83

Job Dissatisfaction Items ....................................................

84

Job Recruitment Methods ........................................................

89

Success Factors ........................................................................

90

Hiring Factors

........................................................................

92

New College Graduate as a Business Lobbyist ................

94

Greatest Educational Weaknesses ........................................

97

Formal Education Requirement

............................................

98

Educational Areas Important to Lobbyist
Effectiveness ............................................................................

100

Recommended College Major ....................................................

101

Department Responsible fo r Training ................................

102

Program of Study

....................................................................

103

F irs t Work Experience ............................................................

105

Evaluation of Experience Areas

106

How F irs t Lobbyist Position Was Obtained

........................................
............................

109

Nonrespondent College Major ................................................

110

Nonrespondent Time Spent Lobbying During
Legislative Sessions ............................................................

111

Nonrespondent Educational Background

vi i i

Table

4.44
5.1

Page

Nonrespondent Time Spent Lobbying Between
Legislative Sessions ......................................................................

Ill

Educational Areas .............................................................................

131

ix

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Purpose
The Michigan business lobbyist represents one or more business
professional groups, single businesses or corporations, and/or business
or trade associations to the Michigan State Legislature.

The lobbyist's

role varies according to his concept of how to achieve the goal o f
affecting le g is la tio n in order to benefit his client/employer.

The

lobbyist may be involved prim arily as a contact man who conceives of
his job as making and maintaining contacts, personal acquaintanceships,
and friendships with individual leg islato rs on behalf of his c lie n t;
as an informant who sees his job as e ffe c tiv e ly presenting his c lie n t's
case through prepared information directed to individual le g is la to rs ,
or through presentation before le g is la tiv e committees; or as a watchdog
who conceives o f his job as being aware of le g is la tiv e a c tiv it y , and
of how i t may a ffe c t his c lie n t group, and of signaling the group as
developments w arrant.1 Thus, the lobbyist may in it ia te and maintain
contacts w ith, educate, and influence state le g is la to rs , as well
as monitor and report le g is la tiv e a c tiv itie s and trends to the
organization(s) the lobbyist represents.
The success o f the business organization may be d ire c tly related
to the success of its lobbyist in carrying out these a c tiv itie s , since

1

2

business performance may be influenced by the state p o litic a l-le g a l
environment in which the organization operates.

The more favorable

this environment is to the business organization, the more successful
the organization may be in achieving its objectives.

Conversely, an

inhospitable le g is la tiv e climate may make i t more d if f ic u lt fo r the
s ta te 's businesses to achieve th e ir objectives and serve th e ir cus­
tomers.

Thus, those who have business interests should be concerned

about the business lobbyist and the preparation of the lobbyist fo r
representing a business organization to the state le g is latu re.
Since the business lobbyist plays an important role as a lin k
between the business organization and the Michigan State Legislature,
i t is important to have a p ro file of the lobbyist—what preparation he
has received for lobbying, how he was recruited, how his career has
developed, and in lig h t of his experience, what he now perceives as
ideal educational preparation fo r his career.

I t is the purpose of

this study to examine the Michigan business lobbyist with a view
toward gaining a better understanding of the lobbyist's characteristics
and preparation fo r lobbying a c tiv itie s .

In addition, lobbyists'

perceptions of ideal educational preparation, as well as any possible
role fo r the business school in that preparation, w ill be probed.
Thus, the goal of the study is f i r s t , to provide an understanding
of the Michigan business le g is la tiv e lobbyist, and second, to present
a prescription fo r future business lobbyist preparation.

3

Background of the Study
As mentioned e a r lie r , the success of the business organization
may be fa c ilita te d by a favorable p o litic a l-le g a l environment, or may
be impeded by an unfavorable environment,

This environment at the

state government level is shaped by the state le g is la tu re .

Indeed,

le g is la tiv e a c tiv ity in such areas as taxation, consumerism, and
environmental protection has already affected and continues to a ffe c t
the business organization.
In broad terms, there are a number of reasons why these laws
and regulations have increased in the past and may be expected to grow
in number, in areas of in te re s t, and in magnitude of influence on
business organizations in the future.
F ir s t, there is a growing public concern about how business
carries out its a c tiv itie s and the goals to which i t subscribes.

In

a report published by The Conference Board, one corporate spokesperson,
in speaking to his company's external rela tio n s , has said:
The heart of the matter is the future of our corporate
existence; the continuation of our economic system. Busi­
ness' argument is that the classic functions of business,
i f allowed to operate e ffic ie n tly , w ill permit benefits to
tr ic k le down. But there is serious and increasing concern
on the part of the public that the system is not working,
that business has too much power and too l i t t l e account­
a b ilit y . Many outside groups no longer tru st business.2
The report goes on, "From the deterioration of business c re d ib ility
flow, to a large extent, other key issues of major concern to top
executives:

government over-regulation of business; indeed, the future

v ia b ility of the free enterprise system."3 Thus public discontent may

4

manifest it s e l f in state le g is la tiv e a c tiv ity which, in turn, may
a ffe c t business performance.
For other reasons, to be elaborated upon in the i n it ia l portion
of Chapter Two, more business attention should be devoted to state
le g is la tiv e a c tiv ity :
• The increased in te res t group a c tiv ity at the state le g is la tiv e
le v e l, both pro and con to business interests.
• The growth of state government in size, areas of involvement,
and amount of le g is la tio n .
• The changes in the composition of the state legislature to
younger, more s o c ia lly conscious individuals who may not
be as pro-business as prior legislators may have been.
• The escalating level of government intervention in business
p ra c tic e s .11
Many of the resulting interventions by state government may be expected
to occur in the marketing domain, as well as in other business func­
tional areas.

An example of the serious ramifications for Michigan's

businesses of le g is la tiv e intervention in the marketing domain is the
"bottle b i l l . "

This law requires consumers to pay a container deposit

when purchasing beverages in order to reduce litt e r in g .

I t also

requires re ta ile rs to make a substantial investment to f a c ilit a t e
beverage container recycling.
Since government laws and regulations can profoundly a ffe c t the
environment within which the business organization operates, many busi­
nesses are ac tiv e ly concerned with this aspect of the environment, and

5

attempt to influence i t .

This influence seeks to enhance the business

organization's probability of success, and to support or counterbalance
the effects of other groups which may be attempting to influence the
business organization's operations through government.

According to

one source, "As a re s u lt, a number of companies are e ith er re v ita liz in g
th e ir state government relations e ffo rts or establishing whole new
programs."5
As a consequence, the state business le g is la tiv e lobbyist has
become more important.

Thus, i t is important not only to know more

about the "typical" lobbyist, but to assist in improving the lobbyist's
preparation to represent his organization.

Attempts to improve the

career preparation of the lobbyist by identifying educational require­
ments and proposing educational solutions may resu lt in a more effec­
tiv e business lobbyist.

As the business organization is more effec­

tiv e ly represented to the state le g is la tu re , a more favorable p o litic a llegal environment may develop.

This may f a c ilit a t e the achievement of

not only the firm 's objectives, but also the social and economic objec­
tives (such as the satisfaction of consumer wants and the e ffic ie n t use
of resources) which business organizations in sum achieve when function­
ing e ffe c tiv e ly .
Scope of the Study
This study is confined to those individuals whose names appear
on the l i s t of registered le g is la tiv e agents as file d with the Campaign
Finance Reporting O ffice of the Michigan Department of State fo r the
1979-1980 Michigan Legislative Session.6 Only those individuals who

6

indicated during registration that they represented business
professional groups, single businesses or corporations, and/or
business or trade associations were selected fo r the study.
The State o f Michigan represents an important state in which
to conduct such a study, in lig h t o f its sig n ific an t impact upon the
economic well-being of the nation.

In addition, Michigan is among

a handful of states which are generally conceded to be leaders in
innovative le g is la tio n affecting industry.7
I n i t i a l l y , in formulating th is study, a major concern was
whether the cooperation of Michigan business lobbyists could be
secured, inasmuch as they might consider themselves to be " p o litic a lly
sensitive," and thus prefer not to be studied.

However, discussions

with Senator William Sederberg and Representative Lynn Jondahl of the
Michigan State Legislature suggested that Michigan business lobbyists
would cooperate with the study.8 Also, p rio r studies indicated coop­
eration by lobbyists.

The timing of the survey and the length of the

study questionnaire were also of concern, since as the session pro­
gressed, business lobbyists would have less free time to participate
in the study.

With regard to questionnaire length, pretest results

led to changes in the questionnaire designed to increase the response
rfcte to the study questionnaire.
Frame of Reference
While a number of em pirically based studies have been done on
the le g is la tiv e lobbyist at the federal and state government le ve ls,
none has focused on the state business lobbyist.

They have instead

7

examined lobbyists in general representing a variety of interest groups.
Prior studies have considered such aspects as the background o f lobby­
is ts , th e ir role o rien tatio n , lobbying techniques, and lobbying per­
formance.

This study, while based on the design, methodology, and

findings of these previous surveys, seeks to move beyond them and
to probe in greater depth the state business lobbyist group.
Significance of the Study
This study extends the reader's knowledge and understanding
of the business lobbyist operating a t the Michigan State Legislature
in terms of the lobbyist's personal background, career preparation and
recruitment, and business l i f e .

In addition, a "profile" of what

business lobbyists perceive to be ideal educational preparation for
lobbying is developed.
For the individual contemplating, planning, or working toward
a career as a state le g is la tiv e lobbyist fo r a business organization,
the study results which follow describe the business lobbyist as well
as suggest educational training requirements.
For the individual business lobbyist, as well as the business
organization, the results o f this study provide a more complete under­
standing of the Michigan business lobbyist than has been available
heretofore.

The individual lobbyist may compare his own character­

is tic s , and/or the business organization may compare its lobbyists
with the population under study.

In addition, comparisons may be made

between the in d ivid u al's preparation and what the lobbyists studied
perceived to be ideal educational preparation to iden tify possible

8

educational weaknesses.

Once id e n tifie d , weaknesses can be overcome

through education and tra in in g .

These applications should resu lt in

a better prepared business lobbyist.
Assuming that a better prepared business lobbyist would do a
more e ffe c tiv e job of representing the business organization to the
state le g is la tu re , a more favorable state p o litic a l-le g a l environment
could evolve fo r the business organization—an environment in which
the business organization's performance may be improved.
Comparisons and contrasts are made, where appropriate, between
the results of this study and those of previous studies on the entire
population of lobbyists at various state legislatures.

Evolutionary

changes have been recognized.
F in a lly , this study may have the e ffe c t of encouraging other
business schools to examine th is and other aspects of the businessgovernment relation ship , and to highlight the importance of that
relationship.

I t also demonstrates the role of the business school

in educating business lobbyists, and others involved in the interaction
of business with government.
Limitations of the Study
The results o f this study are restricted to business lobbyists
registered with the State of Michigan for the 1979-1980 Michigan Legis­
la tiv e Session, and are not meant to be generalized beyond that popula­
tio n .

Thus, the results are qu alified by the types of business lobby­

is ts registered, the business organizations represented, and the issues
of interest at the Michigan State Legislature during the period of study.

9

The results are also lim ited by the representativeness of the
respondents ( i . e . , the study response rate and the characteristics of
the respondents).

To the extent that the respondents vary from the

population of Michigan business lobbyists as a whole, the results
represent to a lesser degree the en tire population studied.

A

contrast between the respondents and the whole population studied
is presented in Chapter Three.
F in a lly , the results may be lim ited by the methodology used.
S p e c ific a lly , there may be some response errors due to the m isinter­
pretation of survey questions by the respondents.

This has been

minimized, however, by the pretest of the questionnaire.

Also,

question m isinterpretation was not detected during the coding
of the data.
The Organization of this Report
This introductory chapter has served to acquaint the reader with
the purpose and significance of the study conducted, as well as with its
lim itatio n s .

Chapter Two provides the empirical basis fo r the study by

reviewing the relevant lite ra tu re on past lobbyist studies.

I t focuses

on each study's objectives, population, research design, methodology,
and resu lts, as they pertain to this study.
The research design and the methodology used to carry out the
study are presented in Chapter Three of this report.
study are presented and discussed in Chapter Four.

Results of the
F in a lly , in Chapter

Five conclusions are reached concerning the results of the study, and
recommendations made with regard to possible courses of future research
in the area under investigation.

CHAPTER I I

REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE

Introductory Comment
In this chapter, a review of lite ra tu re relevant to the study
of Michigan business lobbyists is presented.
into two major sections.

The chapter is divided

In the f i r s t section, the need fo r a more

e ffe c tiv e business lobbyist is developed.

Ideas introduced e a r lie r ,

which were linked to the purpose of this study, are expanded upon.
The second section

is devoted to a review of a number of em pirically

based studies of lobbyists--studies which have formed a foundation for
th is study.
Need for a New Business Lobbyist
As indicated in Chapter One, the state government environment
has become more important fo r the business organization.

This section

explores how that environment has changed, and how the lobbyist and his
preparation for lobbying should change in order fo r the business orga­
nization to successfully influence its state government environment.1
The vehicle fo r th is exploration is the a r t ic le , "Larger Stakes in
State-House Lobbying," by Martin Haley and James Kiss.2
According to these authors, "business has too often ignored the
altered composition of state government and the powerful new forces
working at that le v e l." 3

10

11

These same authors also state:
consumer and conservation groups aim to influence the
content of government decisions without organizing to
gain o ffic e . . . . Lumped under the loose heading of
"public interest advocates," and drawing th e ir manpower
and money from the middle class, these new interests
. . . provide more than e ffe c tiv e checks and balances
against business and industry.

To the consumer, public in terest advocacy looks more
wholesome and more legitim ate than the private in te re s t.
With a constituency larger than that of business and
industry and with noneconomic or nonmaterial objectives,
the public in terest advocates are accorded greater
attention in the press.1*
The seeds of public interest advocacy have found f e r t ile ground
and prospered in the changing nature of state government.

Part of this

changing nature is the "p lu ralizatio n of government—the spreading of
power in the decision-making process."5 There has been a rapid
increase, fo r instance, in the number of state adm inistrative and
regulatory agencies.

Public in teres t groups have shared in the devel­

opment of this p lu ra liz a tio n , and they have geared themselves to operate
e ffe c tiv e ly in this environment.
Most new state agencies and conanissions are created to f i t
today's social conditions and to serve the "public good."
When con flicts a ris e , this charter gives public in terest
advocates a decided advantage. Often appearing to share
the same goals and values, they and governmental units
form a natural a llia n c e .6
These agencies are also actively pursuing state le g is la tio n to achieve
th e ir goals.
The enormous increase in state agencies has created a need
fo r enabling le g is la tio n . Every agency brings to every
le g is la tiv e session its program, including a f i l e of
b ills to be introduced.7

12

Thus, powerful new forces are operating at state legislatures—forces
which advocate positions on issues and introduce an ever-mounting
volume of new ideas and proposals, many of which may be of interest
to or require a response from business organizations.
The nature of the state leg is la tu re is also changing:
Throughout most of U.S. history, at least up to the 1930s,
legislatures conducted th e ir business in a casual and
le is u re ly manner. The atmosphere, when they met fo r 30
to 90 days every other year, was lik e th a t o f a comfortable
c lu b .8
Now, however, with a heavier workload of le g is la tiv e proposals,
leg islato rs are meeting more often and for longer periods.

"In many

states, when sessions end, interim committees continue to work."9
Also, the law-making process has opened up to include more sources
and other influences, in ways "that reduce certainty of outcome and
d ilu te both external and internal c o n tro l." 10

F in a lly , there is a

new breed of le g is la to r attracted by:
the growing importance of law-making bodies, higher
salaries, and the opportunities that longer sessions
provide fo r meaningful work. . . .

The new leg islato rs tend to be a c tiv is ts , independent
thinkers, and strong individuals. They are consumer and
ecology minded. While not necessarily anti-business, they
are c ertain ly not business oriented. They share neither
the perspective nor value judgments th a t come from knowing
how to read a p&l statement and examining a balance sheet. .
Most have never been called on to weigh the cost and bene­
f i t s of economic a c tiv itie s in terms of the community's
livelihood. . . . They are prone to view w ith disfavor
proposals from old style lobbyists representing business.11
These new legislators have had th e ir influence on older legislators
who now:

13

feel obligated to give greater consideration than they
formerly did to the merits of any le g is la tiv e proposal.
Most wish to give a t least the appearance of careful
judgment and independent appraisal. This a ttitu d e helps
make o ld -style lobbying obsolete.12
This changed state government environment makes the job of
business more d if f ic u lt and more complex.

While the authors c a ll fo r

an enhanced and altered government relations program, they also stress
the need fo r a new kind of business lobbyist and better lobbying
preparation:
the older forms of special access and personal relations
are not very e ffe c tiv e in the new lobbying framework.
Lunches, small favors, and so forth are welcome as tokens
of c i v i l i t y . But as techniques of influence, they are
being overtaken and superseded by specialized knowledge,
integrative analysis, and planning.
The size and complexity of state government has
reached a scale in which sound research and professional
expertise rather than lay enlightment are the c r itic a l
ingredients in policy form ulation.13
The lobbyist can be an extremely important aid to state
legislators who want to do a good job,

but often lack w ell-staffe d

committees or a good research service.
For them the lobbyist can be a c r itic a l resource. Under
these circumstances, his effectiveness depends increas­
ingly on his degree of specialization and his a b ilit y to
impart precise information, even on technical matters.
These requirements resu lt in extra demandson the lobbyist
for his time and on the c lie n t fo r support in research and
staffin g .
The complexity of issues and the p ro life ra tio n of
structure dealing with them makes the job of assessing the
ram ifications of a problem very d if f ic u lt . The le g is la to r
wants to know how a p articu lar decision w ill a ffe c t sectors
across the policy spectrum. . . . The lobbyist must have,
f i r s t , a procedure'to gather and process information and,
second, the a b ilit y to make an integrative a n a ly s is .11*

14

Planning also takes on a greater role:
The lobbyist must be able to assist the legislators
occasionally in th e ir deliberations on long-range
future options, which should be oriented toward the
way things w ill be or should be rather than toward
the way things are. . . .
Both lawmaker and lobbyist must try to deal objec­
tiv e ly with complicated problems that have no easy or
even "right" answer. This task requires good judgment,
a sense of timing, advanced preparation, and good orga­
nization. What counts most fo r today's lobbyist is a
reputation fo r being well-informed and honest, being
able to gather, analyze, and impart information, and
being able to make sound recommendations to both c lie n t
and to le g is la to r s .15
The a r tic le reviewed highlights the changing state le g is la tiv e
environment of the business organization and the need fo r a "new"
lobbyist with d iffe re n t and enhanced preparation which w ill allow
the business organization to interface more e ffe c tiv e ly with the
state le g is la tu re .

I t points to the types of specialized s k ills

which lobbyists may need in the future to achieve th e ir objectives.
I t de-emphasizes the tra d itio n a l influence-oriented techniques which
once were prevalent, and emphasizes the expertise and research,
analysis, and communication s k ills now required.
Wow, in lig h t of this new environment, what about p rio r
lobbyist studies?

What kind o f preparation fo r the challenging job

of lobbying do p rio r studies document?

The following review of previous

empirical studies of state le g is la tiv e lobbyists provides some answers
to these questions.

15

Empirically Based Studies of State
Legislative Lobbyists
Several prior empirical studies of state le g is la tiv e lobbyists
form a foundation for this study.

These studies have been helpful in

fashioning the research design and methodology, and in interpreting the
results of th is study.

They have also provided a basis for comparison

in some areas with the results of this study.

However, this review is

not meant to provide an exhaustive coverage of the "state of the art"
of organizational lobbying.

Furthermore, i t should be noted that these

studies:
1.

Cover le g is la tiv e lobbyists in general, representing a variety
of in te re s t groups at the state level of government.

As such,

they do not reveal much about the Michigan business lobbyist
in p a rtic u la r.
2.

Are oriented toward purposes other than examining lobbyist
preparation, recruitment, perceived ideal preparation, and
the role of the business school in th at preparation.

3.

Are a ll over ten years old.

As indicated before, much has

changed in the environment in which business lobbyists operate.
4.

Were conducted by researchers neither oriented, trained, nor
interested in business.

Thus, while these studies form a foundation fo r this study, these
lim ita tio n s must be recognized when comparing them and th e ir results
to this study and its resu lts.
Six studies of organization lobbyists are reviewed.

Each

description consists of the study's purpose, population, research

16

design and methodology, and findings, where relevant to this study.
The studies are reviewed in chronological order and research areas
are considered in the same order in every case.

The review of the

em pirically based lite r a tu re begins with the DeVries' study of the
Michigan lobbyist.
The Michigan Lobbyist
This study took place in the same setting as the current study,
the State of Michigan.

The purpose of the DeVries study was to examine

the individual Michigan lobbyist's s k ills , socioeconomic background,
career patterns, use o f lobbying techniques, perceptions of role
relationships to his organization and to the le g is la tu re , and his
and

others perceptions of his effectiveness as a lobbyist.
In 1958 and early

1959, the author used structured personal

interviews of th irty -th re e lobbyists, sixteen le g is la tiv e leaders,
and eleven news correspondents to gather his data.

A panel of experts,

selected on the basis of th e ir knowledge of Michigan lobbyists, was
used to determine which lobbyists would constitute the focus of the
study.

This panel was instructed to pick out (from a l i s t of the

three hundred sixty-seven individuals who were registered in 1958 as
le g is la tiv e agents) the lobbyists who could be considered as giving
the m ajority o f th e ir time to lobbying a c tiv ity .

Of the f i f t y - f i v e

le g is la tiv e agents selected as potential subjects, th irty -th re e (60%)
actually were interviewed

in the course of

The questionnaire

consisted mostly

the study.
of open-ended questions

with a few structured questions interspersed throughout.

The

17

confidential interviews generally lasted anywhere from one and one-half
to three hours, with two hours the average length.

The data gathered

from these interviews were both q u a lita tiv e and quantitative in nature.
Among the findings, a high degree of consensus was found among
the study participants concerning which of the f if t y - f iv e o rig in a lly
selected lobbyists were most e ffe c tiv e ly enacting th e ir role (ro le enactment being the dependent variable in the study).
was gathered on:

Next, information

(1) role-taking a b ilit y or p o ten tial, (2) the use of

role-associated techniques, and (3) role perceptions of the lobbyists.
These three independent variables were hypothesized to be related to
the role-enactment of the lo b b yists.16
Evaluation of role-taking a b ilit y or potential (composed of
certain socioeconomic, p o litic a l, and demographic variables) revealed
that of the th irty -th re e lobbyists actually interviewed in the study,
the m ajority of the sixteen most e ffe c tiv e lobbyists had these socio­
economic characteristics in common:
They were over f i f t y years of age; born and reared in
Michigan; brought up in a metropolitan area; did not
complete th e ir college educations; and had fathers
with white c o lla r occupations.
The m ajority o f the seventeen less e ffe c tiv e lobbyists
. . . had these background characteristics in common: they
were under f i f t y years of age; were born and reared in Mich­
igan; were raised in non-metropolitan areas; were college
graduates; and had fathers in non-white c o lla r occupations.
The m ajority o f lobbyists claimed Protestant church
a f f ilia t io n ; and were married with up to four c h ild re n .17
Analysis of the factors that influenced the lobbyists' interest
in p o litic a l and government a ffa irs revealed:

18

that 64% of the lobbyists perceived th at th e ir p o litic a l
awareness did not develop un til a fte r th e ir formal schooling
was over, and they were well into th e ir pre-lobbying occupa­
tional careers. P o litic a lly related nongovernmental occupa­
tions were cited most frequently by lobbyists as the major
source of influence on th e ir in terest in p o litic a l and gov­
ernmental a ffa ir s . In addition, family influence, p o litic a l
and governmental work, and news reporting were the other
important factors in the development of p o litic a l interests.
Pre-lobbying occupational career patters were hetero­
geneous, but prim arily white c o lla r. F o rty-five percent
of the lobbyists came from some sort of business adminis­
tra tio n background, and 39% had governmental occupational
backgrounds. 8
The majority o f the sixteen most effective lobbyists had certain
p o litic a l and governmental background characteristics in common: they
had a previous a f f ilia t io n

with the Republican party; they had more

years of p o litic a l experience than the less effective lobbyists; they
were more lik e ly to have previously held high positions in state and
local government; and they had more years o f governmental experience
than the less e ffe c tiv e lobbyists.

According to DeVries, "All of these

p o litic a l and governmental background variables were s ta tis tic a lly
related to lobbying effectiveness. . . , " 19
Regarding recruitment, "most (70%) of the lobbyists perceived
th e ir recruitment as the resu lt of being selected and approached by
the in terest group; 18% said they applied fo r the position; 9% f e lt
they had 'grown' into the position from within the organization; 12%
got th e ir job through friends and contacts; and one was elected to
the po st."20
The relationship between the lobbyists' use o f time and labor
and th e ir effectiveness was that the more e ffe c tiv e lobbyists spent
more of th e ir time c a llin g on le g is la to rs , doing research, in "grass

19

roots" tra v e l, c a llin g on state agencies, and entertaining than the
less e ffe c tiv e lobbyists "who spent more time [s ic ] , working in th e ir
own o ffices; ca llin g on others; and on preparing press releases and
speeches.1,21
Also, "the years of lobbying experience were highly correlated
with lobbying effectiveness.

That is , the more years of lobbying

experience, the greater the lobbyist's effectiven ss.1,22

In , addi­

tio n , the m ajority of the most e ffe c tiv e lobbyists maintained a
year-round Lansing residence.
Study participants agreed on the bases of lobbying
effectiveness.
Thirteen bases of effectiveness were perceived and they
were in order of th e ir perceived importance, as follows:
personality and s o c ia b ility factors; organizational factors;
background and experience; knowledge o f, confidence in , and
acceptance by le g is la to rs; knowledge of the le g is la tiv e
process; entertainment, favors, and assistance; a b ility
to communicate; personal in te g rity , honesty, and sincerity;
"hard work"; p o litic a l factors; and kind and acceptability
of the lobbying "product."23
The second major independent variable hypothesized to be
related to lobbying effectiveness was the use of role-associated,
group-approved lobbying techniques.
A ll o f the study participants were agreed on which tech­
niques were the most e ffe c tiv e , that is , personal presen­
ta tio n of arguments, presenting research resu lts, te stifyin g
at hearings, public relations campaigns, collaboration with
other groups, contact by constituents, and persons with
special access.21*
However, DeVries was unable to re la te the use of role-associated
lobbying techniques to e ffe c tiv e or noneffective role-enactment.25

20

The th ird major independent variable hypothesized to be related
to lobbying effectiveness was role perceptions.

Michigan lobbyists

perceived th e ir role functions prim arily in defensive and promotional
terms, although the data revealed fiv e d is tin c t lobbying roles to
DeVries.
The f i r s t primary role which became evident was that of
prom oter-strategist. The lobbyists (24%) who perceived
this function as th e ir primary role were those whose
organizations expected them to have beneficial le g is ­
latio n introduced to promote the in te re s t group; and
the lobbyist would then work out the strategy necessary
to secure its passage. Of a ll fiv e lobbying roles that
were ascertained, the role of prom oter-strategist was
the most d if f ic u lt to successfully enact. . . . The
lobbying role perceived by the m ajority (52%) of the
lobbyists as th e ir primary function was the role of
defender-advocate. . . . The hypothesis that lobbyists
in the role of defender-advocate tended to be more
e ffe c tiv e than those required to play the role of
prom oter-strategist was supported by a high s ta tis tic a l
correlation. . . . Fifteen percent of the lobbyists
perceived th e ir primary role as a liaison relationship
between the Legislators and th e ir in terest groups. Six
percent of the lobbyists perceived th e ir primary role
to be that of "service" to the leg islato rs and they
were placed in the role category called "serviceman."
One lobbyist .
. . perceived his primary function as
that of a general public relations man interpreting
the business of his clients to the society at la rg e .26
To summarize, considerable attention has been given to this
piece of lite r a tu r e , inasmuch as i t deals with one subgroup of Michigan
lobbyists practicing some twenty years ago.
in terest and its depth
Michigan lobbyist.
study.

In terms of its areas of

of inquiry, th is study sheds much lig h t on the

As such, i t forms part of the foundationfo r this

However, due to the lim ited number of lobbyists examined, the

method used fo r th e ir selection, and the data analysis employed,
DeVries' conclusions, while informative and interestin g , must be

21

4

considered to be relevant to the specific situation and the individuals
involved, rather than very generalizable.
The Oklahoma Lobbyist
In the summer of 1961, Samuel Patterson conducted an explora­
tory study of the Oklahoma lobbyist.

The purpose of his study was to

increase the available knowledge of lobbyists in terms of th e ir social
and p o litic a l backgrounds, the types of interests they represented,
and the kinds of roles they played.
A mail questionnaire was sent to the sixty-two individuals
registered to lobby the Oklahoma House of Representatives at that time.
Forty-three (69.4%) of the lobbyists returned the questionnaire.
The p ro file of the Oklahoma lobbyist that emerges
. . . reveals that he is usually a middle-aged, male,
w ell-train ed and w ell-p aid , fu ll-tim e in terest group
s ta ff member who resides in the capital c ity , and who
is , at least fo r part of his time, expected by his
principals to lobby the le g is la tu re .2"
Seventy-five percent had some college experience, and almost h alf had
a college degree.

The largest occupational group was that of profes­

sional association s ta ff (44%)—the executive secretary or le g is la tiv e
director employed by a private association.
the group of lobbyists.

Lawyers did not dominate

(Only four of the respondents indicated th e ir

occupation to be that of a lawyer.)

While most of the Oklahoma lobby­

is ts (60%) worked half-tim e or less lobbying during the le g is la tiv e
session, between sessions the vast m ajority spent less than h a lf of
th e ir time lobbying.

Thus, lobbyists were o rd in a rily engaged in

a c tiv itie s other than lobbying.28

22

While a very large proportion (77%) of the state's lobbyists
were Democrats, most of the lobbyists had not served in the state
le g is la tu re , nor held other party or p o litic a l o ffice s.
p o litic a l a c tiv ity by lobbyists was very s lig h t.

Partisan

Lobbying tended

to be a self-contained kind of p o litic a l a c tiv ity , recruiting few
individuals from other modes of p o litic a l a c tiv ity .

Also, forty-seven

percent of the lobbyists were newcomers, having registered fo r the
f i r s t time in 1961.29
The greatest proportion of lobbyists (39.6%) represented
business groups.

Business and professional lobbyists tended to be

better educated and better paid than lobbyists for other groups.

In

contrast, labor and government group lobbyists tended to have more
lobbying experience.

"At the same time, lobbying by business, pro­

fessional, and farm groups in Oklahoma is a part-tim e a c tiv ity , and
in this connection these groups are c le a rly distinguished from the
labor and governmental ones."30
Lobbyists tended to e xh ib it d iffe re n t role orientations which
could be characterized as:

(a) Contact Man ( i . e . , making and main­

taining contacts, personal acquaintanceships, and friendships with
individual le g is la to rs ), (b) Informant ( i . e . , presenting his c lie n t's
case by means of prepared information directed to legislators or by
presentation before le g is la tiv e corranittees), or (c) Watchdog ( i . e . ,
being aware of le g is la tiv e a c tiv ity and how i t may a ffe c t his c lie n t
group).31
selves.

Using this scheme, lobbyists were asked to classify them­
More than h a lf (53.3%) of those studied were contact men,

23

the next largest group (25.6%) were watchdogs, and the smallest group
(11.6%) were informants.

Contact men tended to be younger lobbyists,

informants were found to be in the middle range of ages, and watchdogs
were oldest in age.

A higher proportion of contact men were permanent

private association s ta ff members, while the largest single occupational
category among informants was the attorney-insurance category.

"The

Watchdog orientation contains the highest proportion of lobbyists with
a college, graduate, or law degree (64%). . . . Informants appear to
be paid less fo r th e ir work, and a higher proportion had served with
only one session of the le g is la tu re .1,32

Contact men tended to spend

the most time engaged in lobbying a c tiv itie s during the le g is la tiv e
session, watchdogs less time, and informants the least time.

F in a lly ,

business and labor groups were represented more often by contact men
than by watchdogs or informants.
To rec a p itu la te , Patterson's is a census study of lobbyists
in a d iffe re n t setting:

the State o f Oklahoma.

I t provides background

information on the e n tire body of lobbyists as well as th e ir role
orientations, in contrast to the DeVries' study, which describes a
select subgroup of lobbyists (those believed to be the most effe ctive
according to a panel of experts).

In characterizing the lobbyist (and

in a lim ited sense, the business lo b b yist), i t provides input and some
bases of comparison fo r this study.
The Illin o is Lobbyist
The th ird empirical study herein reviewed was carried out in
yet another s e ttin g , the State of Illin o is , by two researchers, one
of whom coauthored the preceding Oklahoma lobbyist study.

24

The purpose o f this descriptive study was to learn about the
background, a ttrib u te s , career perspectives, p o litic a l a c tiv itie s ,
and extent of p o litic a l experiences of those lobbyists who interacted
with the Illin o is State Legislature.
Questionnaires were mailed to each of the 398 lobbyists who
were registered with the Illin o is legislature in 1963.

The study

results were based on the 229 usable returns (57.5%).
According to the study, Illin o is lobbyists were:

"found to

be middle aged, re la tiv e ly well-educated, from professional occupations,
earning f a ir ly modest incomes, largely urban in background, and pre­
dominantly native Illin o is a n ." 33

S p e cifica lly , the median age of

lobbyists was fifty -o n e ; and regarding education, "only 16 percent
had received less than college train in g ; 37 percent had attended
college; 20 percent had completed at least some postgraduate train in g ;
and 28 percent had earned law degrees."34
Illin o is lobbyists came prim arily from professional occupations;
one-half held fu ll-tim e positions with th e ir c lie n t organizations,
e ith e r as le g is la tiv e agents, researchers, public relations men, or
executive o ffic e rs .

A substantial portion were association or labor

union executives, and only about 10 percent were fu ll-tim e lobbyists.
More than one-fourth of the lobbyists came to th e ir part-tim e lobbying
a c tiv itie s from professional and technical occupations, and most of them
were lawyers.

"An additional 14 percent were business and managerial

personnel, though nearly h a lf were corporation attorneys.1,35

25

Concerning th e ir p o litic a l experiences, fewer than 20% of the
lobbyists were recruited from p o litic a lly active fam ilies.

S lig h tly

less than 25% held offices in a p o litic a l party; however, a very large
proportion made financial contributions to p o litic a l campaigns.

Forty-

six percent o f the respondents had experience serving as appointed or
elected government o ffic ia ls , mostly a t the municipal or county level.
Only ten lobbyists had served in the state le g is la tu re .

Thus, "men

with experience in government a ffa irs constituted an important source
of lobbyist recruitment, though only a small proportion actu ally had
previous experience as le g is la to rs ." 35
An examination of lobbyist job s ta b ility revealed:
Eighty-six percent of the lobbyists had represented the
same organization during th e ir tenure and some had acquired
a number of years of experience as lobbyists. Only 11 per­
cent had less than two years experience, and 28 percent had
been lobbyists fo r more than ten years. But, lobbying is
not a fu ll-tim e a c tiv ity for most lobbyists, even during
the session of the le g islatu re. F ifty-n in e percent . . .
said they spent less than h alf th e ir time in lobbying
a c tiv itie s during a typical session.37
Breaking down lobbyist p o litic a l party a f f ilia t io n revealed
that more than one-half the Illin o is lobbyists were Republicans, and
approximately one-third were Democrats.
The predominance o f Republicans . . . was due larg ely to
the large number o f business and trade associations. . . .
Business, professional, educational, governmental, and
civic associations and groups tended to re c ru it Republican
lobbyists. . . . But business and professional groups did
rec ru it Democrats. . . , 38
Eighty-three percent of the lobbyists reported working "always"
or "frequently" with both Democratic and Republican le g is la to rs .

An

examination of the lobbyists' p o litic a l orientations suggested p o litic a l

26

interest groups in Illin o is recruited lobbyists whose ideological
positions were not extreme, though the lobbyist's party id e n t if i­
cations were reflected in th e ir ideological o rie n ta tio n s .39
On recruitment, 71% of the respondents indicated they became
lobbyists prim arily because the duties of th e ir jobs led them into the
fie ld .

The primary reason fo r entering lobbying a c tiv itie s cited second

most frequently was that of wanting to promote certain policies (13%).
So, on the whole, " Illin o is lobbyists tended to become involved in
lobbying as a p a r tia l, i f not a fu ll-tim e , occupation largely because
i t was required of the jobs they h e ld ."1*0

Few were attracted to lob­

bying because of the monetary or financial rewards i t held fo r them.
Once recruited, the Illin o is lobbyists reported th at the most
a ttra c tiv e feature of lobbying was the opportunity to present a case
or viewpoint.

The second most a ttra c tiv e aspect of the lobbyist's work

was that of interacting with people.

On the whole, the lobbyists found

th e ir work to be more appealing than unappealing.

The most disliked

aspect of th e ir work was having to be nice to people to curry favor
or garner support.1*1
To summarize, th is is a census study of lobbyists registered
in the State of Ill i n o is , a d iffe re n t setting from previous studies.
While i t makes some distinctions concerning business lobbyists, i t is
prim arily geared to perceptual data and a ttrib u te data on Illin o is
lobbyists as a whole.

I t also does not address the educational

background issue to any great extent.

27

Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oregon,
and Utah Lobbyists
This fourth lobbyist study is a very extensive comparative
study which took place in four d iffe re n t state le g is la tiv e settings.
In February and March 1966, Harmon Zeigler and Michael A. Baer con­
ducted a comparative study of the effects of environmental conditions
on lobbying at the state le g is la tiv e le v e l.

The states of Massachu­

s e tts , North Carolina, Oregon, and Utah were chosen to provide a max­
imum dispersion of socioeconomic conditions fo r the study.

Areas

examined by the authors included lobbyist background, the job of
lobbying, leg is la to r-lo b b yis t interaction , the personal styles of
lobbyists, the effects of lobbying, and lobbying tools.

Comparative

data in the areas appropriate to this study are presented and discussed
next.
U tiliz in g survey research methods, interviews with legislators
and lobbyists were conducted by a market research firm .
views lasted about one hour.

These in te r­

Efforts were made to interview every

le g is la to r and lobbyist in each state.
of lobbyist interviews completed was:

The number (and percentage)
Massachusetts, 185, 100%+;

North Carolina, 132, 100%+; Oregon, 193, 94%+; and Utah, 134, per­
centage unknown.

The percentage of lobbyists interviewed was d if ­

f ic u lt to determine since, "in Utah there was no l i s t of registered
lobbyists and in the other states i t was found that some lobbyists
do not re g is te r." 42
The p ro file of lobbyists which emerges from the study is as
follows.

For the most p a rt, the data re fle c t the census of a ll

28

lobbyists studied.

However, some statements are made concerning the

business lobbyist group.
Lobbyists were found to be re la tiv e ly well educated, w ith a
range from 73 percent in North Carolina to 59 percent in Oregon having
completed college.

"Furthermore, while the overwhelming majority of

business lobbyists have completed college, only a minority of labor
lobbyists in the states under consideration have achieved th is
educational le v e l.,,lt3
An analysis o f the occupational background of the lobbyists
revealed that:
Since in most cases the le g is la tiv e session lasts only
a few months. . . , lobbyists must have other sources o f
income. Some lobbyists, therefore, are association execu­
tives who devote a portion of th e ir time to lobbying; others
are public relatio n s consultants who spend the "off-season"
handling commercial and p o litic a l accounts; s t i l l others are
lawyers on retain er who maintain a normal practice when the
leg is la tu re is not in session; and a few, whose lobbying
experience is usually limited to a single session, have
occupations e s s en tially unrelated to th e ir lobbying
function.
A fu rth er finding was th a t:

"More than h a lf o f the lobbyists we

interviewed hold an o ffic e in the association they represent.

. . .

In Utah, 78 percent o f the lobbyists are association o ffic e r s , compared
to about 59 percent o f the lobbyists in other states .l,ltS
Answers to career mobil ity questions revealed that:
there is v ir tu a lly no evidence to suggest that lobbyists
begin th e ir careers with expectations o f advancing beyond
lobbying to a p o litic a l o ffic e or to a more lu c ra tiv e non­
p o litic a l occupation. On the other hand, the career of the
lobbyist is characterized by substantial horizontal m obility
. . . fu lly 85 percent o f the lobbyists had nonpolitical
occupations before being hi red to lobby. Lobbyists appear
to be able to move e a s ily from job to job, not necessarily

29

in a d riftin g fashion, but certainly with considerably
less commitment to a given occupation than is character­
is tic o f le g is la to rs. Their occupational pattern suggests
more f le x i b i l it y , perhaps more risk taking, than does the
pattern for le g is la to rs .1+6
In examining career motivations, many lobbyists were found
to have d rifte d into th e ir job, or at least to have been "prevailed
upon by friends and associates to assume the role of lobbyist.

While

not as indeterminate as those in the ' d r i f t ' category, lobbyists who
give this response are also indicating a lack of clear in te n tio n ."1*7
Although they are by fa r in the m inority, some lobby­
ists are s e lf-s ta rte rs . Though seldom general ideologues,
s e lf-s ta rtin g lobbyists are lik e ly to have sought th e ir
position prim arily to help a single cause. They are lik e ly
to be more committed to that cause than to the occupation
of lobbyist. 48
In contrasting labor lobbyists to business lobbyists in terms
of career motivations, Zieg ler and Baer reported that:
lobbyists tend to d r i f t into th e ir jobs without much pre­
vious consideration of the career. This is less true of
labor lobbyists than o f business lobbyists. When asked
why they became lobbyists, the majority of labor lobbyists
re la te th e ir decision to a desire to achieve an ideological
goal— the goal of helping organized labor—whereas the
m ajority of business lobbyists speak more in terms of
career opportunities with l i t t l e mention of ideology.1*9
R elatively few lobbyists recalled being interested in p o litic s
p rio r to the age of twenty ( i . e . , age of p o litic iz a tio n ).
conformed to the findings on career motivations.

This result

However, those few

s e lf-s ta rte rs found among lobbyists were found to have an early interest
in pol i t i c s . 50
The percentage o f lobbyists who had held previous governmental
positions ranged from 61 percent in North Carolina to 32 percent in
Massachusetts.

30

Most lobbyists who have held previous positions . . .
have held them at the state or even the national le v e l.
. . . For the lobbyist, a previous position is lik e ly
to have served as a socializatio n experience, a period
during which he became acquainted with the machinations
of interest groups or became aware of th e ir existence for
the f i r s t time. . . . Most lobbyists with governmental
experience are lik e ly to have held appointive p o sitio n s.51
Only a small proportion of lobbyists had ever been le g is la to rs.
Business lobbyists are also more lik e ly to have held
a previous governmental position than are labor lobbyists.
. . . There is a substantial difference in the kind of
governmental experience of business and labor lobbyists.
For example, substantially more business lobbyists have
held local or state o ffice s . The governmental experience
of labor lobbyists is more lik e ly to have been at the
federal le v e l. Further, in no state has a labor lobbyist
ever held an elective position, whereas the percentage of
business lobbyists who have done so ranges from 8 percent
in Oregon to 24 percent in Massachusetts. Thus, not only
have more business than labor lobbyists held public o ffic e ,
but more of them held offices sim ilar to the offices held
by le g is la to rs .52
Ziegler and Baer examined the s ta b ility of lobbyists in th e ir
occupation.

"Lobbyists tend to remain in the! occupation fo r f a ir ly

long periods of time, especially when compared to state le g is la to rs .1153
In a ll of the states studied, the mean fo r years of experience was at
least eight.
Drawing a distinction between time allocated to interaction
j
( i . e . , in the role of contact man) and time allocated to administrative
e ffo rts ( i . e . , in the roles of informant and watchdog), Ziegler and Baer
found that generally lobbyists spend more of th e ir time in administra­
tiv e work than in contact work.

However,

Patterson has noted that a greater amount of contact work
is typical of fu ll-tim e lobbyists. Our data support this
conclusion. In every s ta te , the more time a lobbyist
invests in the job, the lower is the percentage of time

31

he devotes to adm inistrative details and the greater is
the percentage of time he spends in contact with other
people. . . . The professional lobbyist is one who
conceives of his job as contacting other people. 5k
F in a lly , Ziegler and Baer report that in the case of the
experienced lobbyist, research services were prominent in his
relationship with the leg islato rs.
Me noted e a rlie r that experienced lobbyists are inclined
to define th e ir role as that of informant. Concurrently,
le g is la to rs indicate a substantial preference fo r the
services of experienced lobbyists, especially i f those
lobbyists have had previous governmental experience.
In a ll states, these kinds of lobbyists are sought out
for services fa r more often than are the inexperienced
lobbyists. The experienced lobbyists frequently engage
in e x p lic it attempts to portray themselves as informants.55
In summary, then, Ziegler and Baer describe the body of
lobbyists in the four states studied, and some of the conditions
contributing to successful interaction with le g is la to rs , such as
longevity and p rio r governmental experience.

These results provide

a p a rtia l basis fo r this study, as well as points of comparison with
the results of this study.
The Nebraska Lobbyist
In the summer and f a ll of 1967, Bernard Kolasa conducted a
study of lobbying a c tiv ity in the unicameral, nonpartisan Nebraska
Legislature.

His intent was to assess the a ffe c t of a non-party

environment on lobbying a c tiv ity and influence.

He hypothesized

that the lower level o f competition and cohesion in the Nebraska
Legislature would be accompanied by a greater level of in te re st
group (lobby) a c tiv ity and influence.

32

Questionnaires were sent to state Senators and lobbyists
registered fo r the 1967 session of the Nebraska Legislature.

The

questionnaire data were augmented by interviews with selected lobbyists
of that session.

Results of his study were based on 118 returned

questionnaires of 182 distributed (64.2%) and personal interviews
(3.8%) with lobbyists agreeing to personal interviews instead of
completing questionnaires.

Also 39 of 49 Senators returned completed

questionnaires.
The p ro file of the Nebraska lobbyist which emerged included:
In Nebraska's nonpartisan system, lobbyists seem to follow
the partisan as opposed to nonpartisan pattern in th e ir
p o litic a l a f f ilia t io n .

Just under 62 percent of the lobbyists . . . indicated
they personally participated in partisan p o litic s beyond
merely voting . . . 79.4 percent indicated financial help
in campaigns; non-financial campaign assistance was engaged
in by 84.9 percent; and 64.4 percent encouraged fellow party
members to run fo r o ffic e . Direct party a c tiv ity was less
pronounced though 31.5 percent held, at that time or in the
past, party o ffic e and 60.2 percent attended party conven­
tions or other party meetings.56
Concerning p o litic a l a f f i l i a t io n , 27 percent of the Nebraska lobbyists
id e n tifie d themselves as strong partisans, 55.1 percent as moderate
partisans, and 17.8 percent as weak partisans or nonpartisans.
explanation fo r th is , according to Kolasa was:

The

"Since partisanship

is absent in the le g is la tiv e decision-making process, lobbyists need
not appear nonpartisan so as to offend no one."57
An examination of lobbyists' occupational background found
that:

33

Of the lobbyists registered fo r the 1967 Nebraska
le g is la tiv e session, 22 percent were readily id en tifie d
as following law as th e ir overall career pattern, in­
cluding many of the most active lobbyists. . . . Thus,
Nebraska appears to re ly more heavily on lawyers than
many other states fo r lobbying ta le n t. . . . 58
Also, a sizable number of ex-legislators were found to go into
lobbying.

"In 1967, thirteen ex-senators served as lobbyists,

th e ir number including some o f the more active in terest group
representati ves. " 59
The role of the lobbyist from the le g is la to r's point of view
revealed that:
In Nebraska . . . most Senators noted during the in te r­
views that a m ajority of th e ir number use lobbyists as
informational and research tools. Not only do lobbyists
provide information in th e ir own area of competence, they
are also called upon at times to provide information in
areas outside th e ir own f i e l d . 60
This view corresponded with that of the lobbyists who "see themselves
used as informational or research tools quite heavily, at times
extending to serving as a general research assistant, and taking
great pains to supply requested inform ation."61
Personal contact and presentation were found to be the prime
vehicles for le g is la to r-lo b b y is t communication.

However, the lobbyists

did make use of many possible approaches at one time or another as the
situ atio n warranted.

The technique of socializing received strong

support among lobbyists as a means for building up friendships.

"The

lobbyists make least use of e le c to ria lly associated techniques and
rare ly resort to threats of electoral d e fe a t."62

34

Lobbyists also were reported to have evaluated themselves as
f a ir ly successful goal achievers:

"the m ajority f e l t they influenced

senatorial decisions in a positive manner from th e ir vantage p o in t."63
F in a lly , according to the author, "the Nebraska experience
would tend to substantiate the inverse strength relationship of
p o litic a l parties and in terest groups."6lt

Thus, Kolasa concluded

that the evidence he gathered supported his original hypothesis.
To summarize, this census study of Nebraska lobbyists
demonstrates the role of lobbyists as information providers.

It

also explores to a lesser degree, the p o litic a l a c tiv ity and
a f f ilia t io n and occupational background of lobbyists.
The New England Lobbyist
The sixth and fin a l study reviewed carried the quest for
information about lobbyists to s t i l l another state le g is la tiv e setting.
In January 1967, John Quinn began a study of New England lobbyists.
I t focused on describing who lobbyists were, and how they went about
th e ir work ( i . e . , work s ty le s ).

Specific inquiry was made into back­

ground, characteristics of successful lobbying, contact patterns, and
the impact of partisanship in lobbying.

A second objective was to

compare lobbyists in New England's northern and southern states to
see i f and how lobbyists d iffere d between sections of New England.
The northern t ie r included Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont, while
the southern t ie r consisted of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode
Island.

(These sections were contrasted in terms of socioeconomic

and partisan fe atu res.)

35

A questionnaire was mailed to every lobbyist iri New England
who had registered under his state 's lobbying reg istratio n law for
the year 1965.

Of the 620 registered lobbyists in New England during

1965, 394 (or 64%) responded.

Besides the mail questionnaire, personal

interviews were also conducted with lobbyists from every New England
state.

These interviews were designed to f i l l information gaps that

appeared as the questionnaire data were analyzed.

At least six lob­

byists in each state were interviewed a fte r questionnaire data had
been compiled.

In a l l , 37 lobbyists were interviewed for supplementary

information.
New England lobbyists were found to be predominantly middleaged.

More s p e c ific a lly , "some fo u r-fifth s of the lobbyists were over

fo rty years of age."65

Most were New England residents.

"Few 'out­

siders' were found to lobby in New England."66 They were also well
educated:

"nearly three-quarters were college graduates and over half

claimed a graduate or professional degree."67

And at least three-

fourths of the lobbyists were associated with the white c o lla r,
business, and professional occupations, and fewer than one-quarter
had farm or blue c o lla r backgrounds.68
In addition, in terms of personal background, these lobbyists
were found to come from p o litic a lly active fam ilies.

"S lig htly less

than h a lf reported that members o f th e ir immediate fam ilies had been
active in party work, while one-quarter noted that members of th e ir
immediate family had held public o f f ic e ." 69

36

Lobbying was a part-tim e job fo r most of the respondents, and
was usually a part of some broader vocational relationship with the
c lie n t.

Attorneys comprised the dominant occupational category (57%),

a m ajority of whom lobbied as a part of th e ir service to regular
c lie n ts .
Association O fficers constituted the second most popuated
occupational category (14%). These persons, ty p ic a lly
directors or executive secretaries, performed lobbying
work in addition to adm inistrative functions for organi­
zations in which they are regular employees. . . . The
Public Relations and Consultants category comprised a
distant th ird largest occupational grouping (5%). These
people more closely represented the "gun-for-hire" approach
to lobbying than any other occupational groups, lobbying
fo r a variety of c lien ts on a short-term issue-by-issue
basis. With the exception of labor union o fficers and
re tire e s , the other occupations represented by lobbyists
were too diverse and expansive to permit c la s s ific a tio n .70
Examining the time each respondent spent lobbying revealed that:
Nearly three-quarters of the respondents spend less than
h a lf th e ir time lobbying when the leg is latu re is in session;
another twelve percent spend only about h a lf th e ir time.
When the leg islatu re is not in session, some nin ety-five
percent of New England respondents spend less than h a lf
th e ir time lobbying and about f i f t y percent of these spend
no time at a l l . 1
In terms of the number of clients represented, "respondents
divided f a ir ly evenly . . . with s lig h tly more than h a lf serving one
c lie n t, s lig h tly less than h a lf more than one c lie n t ." 72 Also, lobby­
is ts displayed an impressive amount of lobbying experience, "a sub­
stan tial m ajority (62%) have lobbied fo r more than fiv e years."73
The lobbyists also had some government and/or p o litic a l party
experience:

"nearly two-thirds have held at least one public o ffic e ,

e ith e r elective or appointive and nearly o n e -fifth have occupied public

37

o ffic e at more than one of the lo c a l, state, and national le v e ls ." 71*
However, "only a small portion of New England lobbyists have served
in the state le g is la tu re (15%).1,75 Examining p o litic a l partisanship
revealed that "over ninety percent id e n tifie d with one of the two
major p o litic a l p arties. . . . Over fo u r-fifth s were strong party
id e n tifie rs . . . . Some th r e e -fifth s , for example, were active in
p o litic a l party a ffa irs p rio r to lobbying and over one-third had
held party o f f ic e ." 76
Respondents a ttrib u ted th e ir lobbying success mainly to th e ir
own personal q u a litie s , such as personality and s o c ia b ility , with
vocational factors ( e .g ., knowledge of lobbying techniques) and c lie n t
factors (e .g ., power) of considerable importance also.

P o litic a l fac­

to rs , such as party a f f i l i a t io n , were less emphasized.

Furthermore,

"the New England lobbyist placed much greater emphasis on the basic
tools of hard work, credible information, and a mutual lobbyistle g is la to r rapport. . . . " 77
Concerning the comparative aspects of the study, on most
measured dimensions, Northern and Southern New England respondents
were found to be s im ila r.

"Among the several dimensions on which

respondents were found to d if f e r , most variations were modest, showing
not differences in kind, but differences in degree within a general
common p a tte rn ."70
In summarizing, this fin a l lobbyist study uses a mail ques­
tionnaire to take a census of the entire population of lobbyists in
the New England states.

I t provides comprehensive background data on

38

the population, as well as contrasts lobbyists of the northern and
southern states on certain variables.
Concluding Comment
These, then are some of the results of e ffo rts to examine
em pirically lobbyists and lobbying a c tiv ity .

Again note that a ll

of these studies are more than ten years old and were conducted by
nonbusiness oriented researchers.

With the exception of one, a ll of

the studies focus on the e n tire population of le g is la tiv e lobbyists
operating at the state level of government within certain states.
None is oriented toward examining the business lobbyist, his edu­
cational preparation, his perceived ideal educational preparation,
nor the possible role of the business school in th at preparation.
However, each of these exploratory studies contributes to the available
knowledge about and understanding of the lobbyist.

Thus, they provide

guidance for this study of the business lobbyist, as well as a base fo r
interpreting the results of this research e ffo rt.
Chapter Three, Research Design and Methodology, builds on the
foregoing lite ra tu re review by describing the specific research design,
the population studied, and how the research was conducted.

CHAPTER I I I

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Introductory Comment
While the purpose, scope, and lim itatio ns of this study have
been mentioned in Chapter One, some additional detail concerning the
research design, population, and methodology of this study should be
reviewed here, before proceeding with a presentation of the results of
this research e ffo rt.

The following c la rific a tio n s regarding the

research design put the results in perspective.
Research Design
The research design used may best be characterized as descrip­
tiv e research, inasmuch as its purpose was to gain knowledge about, and
an understanding o f, business lobbyists by collecting data describing
them.

S p e c ific a lly , they were asked about th e ir personal background,

preparation and recruitment, business l i f e , and career development.
Their perception of the ideal educational preparation fo r this career
fie ld was also examined.

Specific questions were designed to address

each of these areas, as w ill be discussed la te r in this chapter.

Prior

studies of lobbyists provided direction fo r the research design and
methodology of this study.
The results of this study about business lobbyists in Michigan
are based on input from the business lobbyists themselves, rather than

39

40

from any ind irect source.

"Questioning of respondents is v ir tu a lly a

necessity i f one wants to obtain information about level of knowledge,
a ttitu d es , opinions, and motivations, or intended behaviors."1 A
self-administered survey questionnaire mailed to lobbyists was used
to gather the information.

This approach involved a sig n ific an t

problem of nonresponse e rro r, which w ill be discussed la te r .
Considering the re la tiv e ly small population of Michigan
business lobbyists and a p o ten tia lly low response ra te , a census of
this population was taken.

"Under certain conditions . . .

may be preferable to a sample.

a census

When the population is small, . . .

sampling may not be u s e fu l."2 This approach was consistent with the
approach taken by previous researchers who had larger populations of
lobbyists with which to work.
The Population
A fin a l population frame was prepared using the June 12, 1979,
and February 1, 1980, lis ts of registered le g is la tiv e agents, on f i l e
with the Campaign Finance Reporting O ffice of the Michigan Department
of State.

Only those individuals who indicated that they represented

(or prim arily represented) business interests were included in the
population frame.
As o rig in a lly proposed, the population frame included only
those lobbyists whose business addresses were in the metropolitan
Lansing area.

This exclusiveness reflected the results of previous

studies of lobbyists, which indicated that the most active lobbyists
ty p ic a lly reside in state capitols.

However, since this would leave

41

only 98 possible subjects on the population frame, and because
there was a concern about the response ra te , the population frame
was subsequently expanded to include a ll registered business lobbyists
( i . e . , from the Lansing area, from out-state Michigan areas, and from
ou t-o f-state areas).

Thus, the fin a l population frame consisted of

172 business lobbyists.
The 172 ^business lobbyists on the reg istratio n lis ts included
98 with addresses in the metropolitan Lansing area, 49 in out-state
Michigan areas, and 25 located outside of Michigan.

Of these, 2 lob­

byists represented professional organizations; 60 lobbied on behalf of
single businesses or corporations; 86 worked fo r business or trade
associations; and 24 represented some combination of two or more of
the preceding categories.
appeared to be as follows:

The employment status of these lobbyists
125 were employees of th e ir organization;

32 were free lances or employees of p u b !ic-a ffairs -ty p e companies;
13 were engaged as attorneys; and 2 were volunteers.
Analysis of the responses to the questionnaire mailing (as
well as the pretest m ailing) revealed that of the 172 population
subjects surveyed:
• 74 returned the questionnaire, of which, 67 respondents could
be id e n tifie d , since th e ir number-coded id e n tific a tio n label
had not been removed, while 7 respondents had removed the
label and were thus anonymous;
• 5 subjects refused to p articip ate in this study fo r a variety
of reasons;

42

• 6 subjects indicated that they were no longer le g is la tiv e
agents and did not p articip ate;
• 3 were pretest subjects and thus were not included in the
study results presented in Chapter Four; and
• 84 subjects did not return the mail questionnaires.
Thus, when the 9 in e lig ib le subjects were subtracted, the fin a l
response rate fo r the study was 74 of a possible 163 or (45.4%).
This was a respectable figure given that according to Green and Tu l l ,
"even with added mailings, response to mail questionnaires is generally
a small percentage of those sent; the modal response rate is often only
20 to 40%.1,3
Analysis of the 67 id e n tifie d responses (of the 74 received)
revealed that 46 were from Lansing area business lobbyists; 17, from
out-state lobbyists; and 4, from o u t-o f-state lobbyists.

Comparing

these figures with the population frame indicates that 46 of the 98
Lansing business lobbyists, 17 of the 49 out-state lobbyists, and
4 of the 25 o u t-o f-s ta te lobbyists participated in the study (see
Table 3. 1).
Also, of the id e n tifie d respondents, 48 were employees of
th e ir organizations, while 19 represented th e ir employer in such
capacities as free lance, public a ffa irs counsellor, attorney, or
volunteer.
By type o f organization represented, one lobbyist represented
a professional organization, 17 represented single businesses or corpo­
rations, 44 represented business or trade associations, and 5 repre­
sented some combination of two or more of the preceding categories.

43

Table 3.1

Comparison by Location of the Id e n tifie d Respondents with the
Population
Percentage
of Lobbyists
Who Responded

Id e n tifie d
Respondents

Population
of Lobbyists

Lansing area

46

98

46.9

Out-state

17

49

34.6

4

25

16.0

Location

O ut-of-state

The 74 subjects who decided to particip ate in the survey by returning
the mailed questionnaire, were u tiliz e d in the tabulation of the results
discussed in Chapter Four.
To summarize, the results of this study prim arily re fle c t
the characteristics and perceptions of lobbyists employed by single
businesses or corporations and business or trade associations whose
business mailing addresses are in the Lansing metropolitan area.
But, at the same time, exceptions to the above generalization were
present in the fin a l results suggesting that a certain element of
d iv e rs ity also was to be found within the ranks of those business
lobbyist respondents with whom this study is concerned.
Research Methodology
In describing the methodology used to conduct this study,
the p retest, the development of the survey telephone prenotification
message, the cover le t t e r , the questionnaire, the survey procedure,
and the handling of nonresponse error w ill be discussed.

44

Many considerations went into the development of th is
study's fin a l methodology.

O rig in a lly , i t was decided to use a

self-administered mail survey questionnaire rather than personal
interviews of the business lobbyists.

Personal interviews formed

the basis of the methodology used in the DeVries study of a small
number o f Michigan lobbyists.

However, most of the other lobbyist

studies involving larger numbers of lobbyists used mail questionnaires.
Since the population frame for this study consisted of 172 subjects,
the mail survey questionnaire was deemed more p ra c tica l.

Also, as

business lobbyists tend to be very busy people, attempts to contact
a ll 172 through personal interviews could have proven d if f ic u lt — both
in terms of scheduling and maintaining the undivided attention of the
lobbyist fo r the duration of the interview.

For these reasons, a

self-administered mail questionnaire was favored.
A tentative w ritten questionnaire was developed refle c tin g
the purpose of the study, as was a tentative cover le t t e r .

O rig in a lly ,

i t was proposed that the subjects be mailed a preno tificatio n postcard
describing the study, as well as informing them that the study ques­
tionnaire would be forthcoming.

A fter mailing the questionnaire, a

reminder le tte r s o lic itin g cooperation with the study was to be sent
as a follow-up to each nonrespondent.

I f this reminder le tt e r fa ile d

to bring forth a completed questionnaire, then a fin a l le t t e r was to
be mailed, asking a few b rie f questions of the nonrespondent.

This

planned procedure was alte re d , however, as w ill be explained la te r .

45

Pretest
The ten tative cover le t t e r , questionnaire, and survey procedure
were pretested in order to refine and fin a liz e them.

The w rite r wished

to improve the survey response rate and to reduce potential response
errors by rewording ambiguous or poorly worded questions.
Two phases made up the pretest.

In the f i r s t phase, associates

o f the w rite r reviewed the pretest m aterials.

Changes were made in the

wording of the questionnaire based on th e ir comments.

In the second

phase, a lim ited number of members of the population were selected to
review the pretest m aterials.
Four pretest subjects were id e n tifie d , based on the original
interviews with members of the Michigan State Legislature described in
Chapter One.

These pretest subjects were believed by one le g is la to r to

be w illin g , cooperative, and interested subjects who would c r it ic a lly
assess the proposed cover le t t e r , questionnaire, and methodology, as
well as evaluate the need fo r a sponsoring le tte r from a well-known
source.

The four pretest subjects were a ll located in the Lansing area:

two represented trade associations, one represented a large u t i l i t y
company, and the fourth was employed by a public a ffa irs company which
represented c lie n t organizations to the Michigan State Legislature.
A telephone p reno tificatio n message was developed to explain
the study's purpose and to gain the pretest subject's participation
in the study p re te s t."
telephone.

Then, each pretest subject was prenotified by

Three of the subjects expressed interest in the study and

a willingness to p articip ate in the pretest; the fourth was out of
town and, thus, unable to p a rtic ip a te .

46

A copy of the ten tative cover le tt e r on Michigan State
University letterhead and the self-adm inistered questionnaire (along
with a stamped, self-addressed return envelope) was hand-delivered to
the business address o f each of the particip atin g pretest subjects, and
within a few days the completed questionnaires were received back from
the participants.
A review of the returned questionnaires indicated that they
had been completed s a tis fa c to rily .

None of the respondents had removed

the coded id e n tific a tio n label which allowed for the anonymity of the
respondent.

All of the respondents requested a copy of the study

resu lts, and each expressed a willingness to be interviewed concerning
the study.

F in a lly , a major problem appeared--the length of the ques­

tio nnaire.

A m ajority of the respondents indicated in w riting that

the questionnaire was too long.
As a result of this review, i t was decided to call each pretest
participant for additional information p rio r to completing the fin a l
revision of the cover le t t e r , questionnaire, and survey procedure.
Each respondent was called and thanked fo r his particip atio n in the
pretest.

Respondents were asked:

1.

the length of time required to complete the questionnaire;

2.

i f they had any comments or suggestions on how to improve
the cover le t t e r or questionnaire in terms of form,
wording, s ty le , and/or content;

3.

when, in th e ir opinion, would be a good time to conduct
this study, given th e ir knowledge of the schedule of
lobbyists and the varying flow of le g is la tiv e a c tiv ity ;

47

4.

th e ir opinion concerning the possible impact on the response
rate of postcard versus telephone prenotification of survey
subjects; and

5.

th e ir opinion on the need fo r a cosponsor le tt e r ; and, i f
they f e l t that a cosponsor would be necessary to improve
the response ra te , whom they would suggest.
The pretest respondents called and questioned again indicated

that the questionnaire was too long.

None of the respondents suggested

changes to the cover le t t e r or the questionnaire beyond what they had
w ritten on the questionnaires already completed and returned.

They

a ll indicated that the actual study should be done as early in the
le g is la tiv e session as possible because, as the le g is la tiv e session
progressed, the accelerating pace of le g is la tiv e a c tiv ity would sub­
s ta n tia lly lessen the rate of response to the study.

A ll encouraged

the use of telephone preno tificatio n prior to mailing out the ques­
tionnaire.

One respondent indicated that le g is la tiv e agents were

subjected to many surveys and that a prenotification postcard would
be ignored.

F in a lly , the subjects generally f e l t that a le g is la tiv e

agent should not be used as a cosponsor.
academic person.

One suggested the use of an

Another suggested that the tentative cover le tt e r on

Michigan State University letterhead was s u ffic ie n t (along with the
mention that the study was fo r a doctoral d issertatio n ).

A ll of the

subjects were cooperative and expressed interest in the project.
As a res u lt of the pretest, the length of the questionnaire
was reduced somewhat by eliminating less important questions,

48

consolidating other questions, and modifying the chronology section
to highlight only p rio r work experience which the respondent f e l t was
related to his subsequent employment as a le g is la tiv e agent.

Also,

since there was some concern that not every respondent might wish to
take the time necessary to complete the chronology section (as indeed
proved to be the case), i t was made the la s t section of the question­
naire.

However, only lim ited changes could be made due to the

descriptive nature of the study.
Based on the comments of the pretest particip ants, i t was
decided to conduct the study as early in the le g is la tiv e session as
possible.

For reasons such as the questionnaire's length, prior

unfavorable lobbyist p u b lic ity , the potential lack of cooperation
of the lobbyists, and the pretest res u lts , prenotification was needed.
Telephone pren o tificatio n was selected over the use o f a postcard, to
n o tify the subjects p rio r to mailing out the questionnaire.

I t in tro ­

duced a dimension of personal relationship between the subject and the
researcher, stressed the importance of the subject's role in the
research, e lic ite d a promise of cooperation from the subject, and
allowed the researcher an opportunity to emphasize the "brevity" and
"ease of completion" of the questionnaire.5

F in a lly , no cosponsor

le tte r was developed to accompany the mail survey.

Next, the telephone

p renotification message, cover le t t e r , and the questionnaire are
discussed.

49

Survey P renotification Telephone
Message
A standard prenotification telephone message was developed
(see Appendix A).

This message id e n tified the c a lle r, explained the

purpose of the study, and solicited the subject's particip atio n in the
study.

I t pointed out the c o n fid e n tia lity of the respondent's answers,

and described the mailing envelope so that the subject could id e n tify
i t when i t arrived.

The c all stressed the importance of the subject's

reply, and asked that the questionnaire be promptly returned.

F in a lly ,

the c a lle r thanked the subject fo r his participation in the study.
Time and cost constraints prevented telephone p reno tificatio n
of 100% of the population; however, 102 of the Lansing and out-state
Michigan business lobbyists were contacted by telephone.

In addition,

a message was l e f t fo r 13 subjects a fte r two unsuccessful attempts
to reach them by telephone.

This message b rie fly indicated that the

survey material would be arriving soon, and that the subject's par­
tic ip a tio n was sought.

Eleven of the subjects could not be reached

by telephone and 46 subjects were not prenotified.
The experience with telephone prenotification was such that
of the 102 subjects contacted by telephone, 97 agreed to p articip ate
in the study, while 5 declined, eith er because they were too busy,
or because they believed that they were not s u ffic ie n tly active as
le g is la tiv e agents to ju s tify th e ir participation in the study.
review of the 67 id e n tifie d questionnaires (of the 74 returned)
indicated that 55 of the 97 who had agreed to p a rtic ip a te , did
p a rtic ip a te , while 42 did not.

Two of the 13 subjects who were

A

50

l e f t a message returned the questionnaire, and two of the 11 subjects
who could not be reached by telephone also returned the questionnaire.
Of the 46 subjects who were not preno tified, 8 returned the
questionnaire.
Survey Cover Letter
A standard survey cover le tt e r on Michigan State University
letterhead was developed (see Appendix B).
personally.

The subject was addressed

The cover le tt e r stressed the importance of the business

lobbyist's role as part of the relationship between business and the
Michigan State Legislature.

The term le g is la tiv e liaison representa­

tiv e , rather than business lobbyist, was used in order to avoid the
possible negative connotations of the term "lobbyist," and to enhance
the prestige o f the subject.

(This terminology was also used through­

out the survey questionnaire.)

The purpose of the study was described,

and the subject's p articip atio n was sought.
subject's responses was assured.
entered on the cover le t t e r .

The c o n fid e n tia lity of the

A requested completion date was

Mention was made of the prepaid, s e lf-

addressed envelope fo r returning the completed questionnaire.
the subject was thanked fo r his particip atio n in the study.

F in a lly ,
The author's

signature appeared at the bottom of the cover le tte r .
Survey Questionnaire
A fin a l self-adm inistered, mail survey questionnaire was fin a lly
developed fo r data co llection (see Appendix B).
sisted of three basic parts:

The questionnaire con­

the instructions, the instrument divided

into a number of sections, and some concluding comments.

51

The instruction sheet t it le d the survey questionnaire,
id e n tifie d i t with Michigan State U niversity's graduate school, and
provided instructions fo r the completion of the various types of ques­
tions.

The subject was asked to complete each question.

Reference was

made also to the la s t page of the questionnaire, which contained the
procedure fo r providing respondent c o n fid e n tia lity .
The instrument consisted of six sections:

"About Your Business

L ife ," "About Recruitment and Ideal Preparation," "About Yourself,"
"About Any Previous Government Experience," "About Your Job History,"
and "Chronology of Occupational A c tiv ity Related to Legislative Liaison
Work."
section:

One note should be made concerning the "Ideal Preparation"
i t was assumed that the subjects were aware of th e ir job's

success standards, as well as th e ir colleagues' and th e ir own job
preparation weaknesses.

Therefore, a composite p ro file of th e ir

perceptions of the ideal preparation fo r lobbying was expected to
re fle c t th e ir job experience and th e ir awareness of current and future
career preparation needs, rather than merely reflec tin g the specific
h isto rical backgrounds of the study participants.
The questionnaire extended over ten typed pages and was
comprehensive in nature.

The questions were a mixture of several

fo r m a t s -- fill- in , dichotomous, m ultiple-choice, and open-ended, with
fiv e -p o in t scale questions for probing perceptions.
provided models fo r constructing these questions.

Prior studies
They also allowed

the researcher to establish response categories for many of the ques­
tions.

This answer precoding introduced a uniformity fo r responses,

52

and resulted in a reduction in the problems associated with data
compiling and coding.

The questionnaire was structured to make i t

as easy as possible fo r the subject to enter his responses.

I t also

provided space fo r comments on selected questions.
The fin a l page of the questionnaire stressed the co n fid en tia lity
of the individual's responses.

I t also contained a number-coded label

which could be removed by the respondent i f he wished to maintain
anonymity.

This coded label corresponded to the original population

frame entry fo r the individual, and was the only id e n tific a tio n of the
individual on the questionnaire.

I f i t were removed, the researcher

would have no way of iden tifying the respondent, and the privacy of
the respondent would be assured.

-However, the respondent was encouraged

to leave the coded label intact so that the researcher could contact him,
i f necessary, for c la rific a tio n of answers.

Having the label would

also help the researcher with the id e n tific a tio n of nonrespondents.
As an inducement to not remove the coded label (and to particip ate
in the study), a copy of the study results was offered.

F in a lly , the

respondent was asked i f he would be w illin g to be interviewed concerning
topics relevant to th is study.
As mentioned above, 67 of the 74 questionnaires returned
contained the coded labels while 7 were returned with the label
removed.

F ifty -e ig h t of the respondents expressed an in terest in

receiving a copy of the study resu lts, and 50 were w illin g to be
interviewed.
The package of materials mailed to each subject also included
a stamped, self-addressed Michigan State University return envelope.

53

Next, the survey procedure used to conduct the study w ill be
presented.
Survey Procedure
The actual survey, which was conducted in February of 1980,
consisted of a number of procedural steps.

F irs t, a f in a l, updated

business lobbyist population frame was prepared, and each lobbyist
was assigned a unique number.
subjects.

This l i s t excluded the three pretest

The two lis ts of registered le g is la tiv e agents mentioned

in Chapter One were used fo r this purpose.

They were screened to

id e n tify only those lobbyists who represented (or prim arily repre­
sented) business interests.

These lis ts of registered agents con­

tained fo r each subject his name, t i t l e , business mailing address,
and organization(s) represented.

In addition, the February 1, 1980

l i s t contained business telephone numbers.

A gummed, number-coded

label was prepared for each subject, bearing the same number as the
subject's number on the population frame.

This label would la te r be

placed on the subject's questionnaire fo r id e n tific a tio n purposes.
S u fficien t copies of the cover le t t e r , revised questionnaire,
mailing envelope, and stamped, self-addressed return envelope were
obtained, and the appropriate number-coded label was affixed to the
la s t page of each questionnaire.
By this time the Michigan State Legislature's 1980 session
had already begun.

Most subjects were contacted by telephone at this

point, and were given the standard prenotification message.

An attempt

was made to secure the subject's p artic ip atio n , and prompt completion

54

and return of the questionnaire.

The subject's mailing address was

v e rifie d .
Next, the mailing package was prepared.

This consisted of

the mailing envelope, cover le t t e r , questionnaire, and return envelope.
The subject's name, t i t l e , and business mailing address were entered on
the cover le tt e r and the mailing envelope.

The mailing day's date and

the desired return date were entered on the cover le t t e r .

The desired

return date was generally set at twelve days a fte r the mailing date.
The cover le tt e r was signed.

The cover le t t e r , questionnaire, and

return envelope were placed in the mailing envelope, and the materials
were mailed out.

A notation was made of the preno tificatio n status and

the mailing date on the population frame (subject e n try).

Subjects who

were not p ren o tified , or who could not be reached, were mailed question­
naires as time permitted during the month.

On a few occasions, the

subject was l e f t a message, and the questionnaire package was then
mailed.
As the completed questionnaires were received, a notation was
entered on the population frame, as was the date postmarked on the return
envelope.

Eventually, this l i s t was key-punched and computer processed

using a s ta tis tic a l package.

S ta tis tic s were prepared to compare the

respondents with the business lobbyist population frame, so as to keep
track of nonrespondents and to judge the e ffe c t of telephone
p reno tificatio n on the response rate.

55

Nonresponse Error
Many steps were taken to reduce any nonresponse error in
theresults due to lobbyists not

returning the questionnaire.

F ir s t, measures aimed at increasing the response rate were
taken.As a resu lt o f the pretest, telephone prenotification

was

selected to encourage the subjects' participation in the study.
Other steps included the emphasis in the personalized cover le tte r
on the importance of the study and the subject's participation in
i t , the o ffe r of the study results to those who participated, and
the inclusion of the stamped, self-addressed return envelope for
convenient reply.
Second, subsequent to the data collection e ffo r t, a random
sample of the nonrespondents was called in order to compare the non­
respondents with those who had responded to the questionnaire.

"Since

the people responding tend to do so because they have stronger feelings
about the subject than the nonrespondents, biased results are to be
expected.

To measure this bias, i t is necessary to contact a sample

of the nonrespondents by other means, usually by telephone interview s."6
The nonrespondents were asked to complete the questionnaire or to answer
a few b rie f questions.

These questions were:

1.

Are you s t i l l registered as a le g is la tiv e agent?

2.

For how many years have you been registered?

3.

What part of your time do you spend during and between
le g is la tiv e sessions working as a le g is la tiv e agent?

56

4.

How many c lien ts do you represent; what types of

clien ts do

you represent; and what is your relationship to your clients?
5.

What is your age?

6.

What is your attained educational level?

7.

Why did you not complete and return the surveyquestionnaire?
(Probe fo r a reason.)
A description of the nonrespondents and a comparison of them

to the respondents is presented in Chapter Four.
Data Editing and Coding
The completed questionnaires were reviewed by the researcher.
Precoding of many of the questions eased the task of editing and coding.
However, since some questions were open-ended, response categories had
to be established.

Also, some of the question responses had to be

edited and coded.
Editing, coding, and transcription of the responses to data
coding forms was done soon a fte r receipt of each completed question­
naire.

A single coder-editor was used fo r this process to provide

uniformity of in terp retatio n .
Two sets of data were coded and prepared fo r analysis.

The

f i r s t data set consisted of the population frame and was used for
monitoring the response to the survey.
the respondent data.

The second data set contained

Both data sets were created by entering the

appropriate codes fo r the data on the standard Michigan State University
data coding form.

This data coding form provided fo r 230 characters of

57

information.

A fter the data were entered onto these forms, they

were transferred onto magnetic tape fo r la te r punching into 80 column
cards.

A fte r punching, these cards were sorted into subject number

sequence.

Then, these cards were used with the appropriate computer

programs fo r the analysis o f the data.
The f i r s t data set, called the "Population Data Set," contained
each subject's unique id e n tific a tio n number, name, type of organization
represented, p ren o tificatio n status, participation status, response
status, mailing date, postmarked return date, and location.
contained a record for each of the three pretest subjects.

I t also
The computer

record layout fo r this data set, as well as a description of each data
fie ld and the various codes used, is presented in the f i r s t part of
Appendix C.
The second data set, called the "Response Data Set," contained
the results of the survey.

Each returned questionnaire ( i . e . , case)

consisted of four physical records ( i . e . , column cards).

The format

of the records is presented in the second part of Appendix C, along
with the data codes and th e ir description for the various fie ld s of
data.

These fie ld s are cross-referenced with the question numbers

of the survey questionnaire.
Data Analysis
This study of business lobbyists was essentially a descriptive
one.

Most of the data could best be characterized as nominal or ordinal,

and no d e fin itiv e statement could be made concerning the underlying
d is trib u tio n of each o f the variables characterizing the population.

58

Also, the research design u tiliz e d a census of a re la tiv e ly small
population rather than a sampling technique.

For these reasons, and

because of the researcher's preference fo r a conservative approach to
analysis (mindful of the many assumptions underlying many s ta tis tic a l
techniques), the analytical techniques used were best restric ted to
those providing descriptive s ta tis tic s .

Marginal and cross tabulations

(as appropriate) were employed fo r the summarization and analysis of the
survey responses.

In addition, reference was made to the respondent

comments on the questionnaires allowing fo r further interp retatio n of
the results.
The s ta tis tic a l data analysis took place at the Michigan State
University Computer Center using its Control Data Corporation Data
Processing System.

The computer programming package, "The S ta tis tic a l

Package fo r the Social Sciences" (SPSS, version 8.0 ) was used fo r the
analysis of the data.
Disposition of the Data
Subsequent to the acceptance of this project by the Graduate
School of Business, the following materials were destroyed (in keeping
with the commitment to preserve the anonymity of the study particip an ts):
• The Population Data Set and the materials used for its
preparation (e .g , a ll population frames and coding forms).
• The respondent questionnaires and the coding forms used to
prepare the Response Data Set.

59

The only data set which was kept was the Response Data Set.

There

was no cross-referencing or indexing technique to id e n tify the
respondent records in the Response Data Set.
Concluding Conment
While more could be said concerning the research design and
methodology of th is study, i t is hoped that this review has been suf­
fic ie n t to indicate the basic approach taken, as well as to demonstrate
some of the more obvious lim itatio ns of the study--lim itations which
should be kept in mind when reviewing the results of the researcher's
e ffo rts which are presented in Chapter Four.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

Introductory Comment
As stated in Chapter One, the purpose of th is study is to
increase the reader's knowledge about, and understanding o f, the
Michigan business lobbyist.

The following is a presentation of the

results of this research e ffo rt.
The f i r s t topic to be considered is the lobbyist as an in d i­
vidual, what his background is , and how he became a business interest
lobbyist.

Then, th is study examines the job of lobbying and what each

respondent finds satisfying and dissatisfying about i t .

F in a lly , the

research explores what the business lobbyist has to say about re c ru it­
ment and ideal educational preparation fo r the career of business lob­
bying, given his experience in this f ie ld .

During the course of this

presentation, comparisons w ill be made as appropriate between what the.
lobbyist has done to prepare and what he considers to be ideal career
preparation.

Additional components w ill be made between the results

of th is study and the results of previous studies, as summarized in
the lite ra tu re review (Chapter Two).
Here, then, in the aforementioned order is what has been
ascertained about the group of seventy-four Michigan business lobbyists
who have participated in d ivid u ally in th is study (see Chapter Three),

60

61

and who comprise the basis fo r the results and conclusions which
follow.

Note that the results are keyed to the structure of the

survey questionnaire.
“About Yourself"
The p ro file which emerges of the Michigan business lobbyist
is based on the majority of answers to each question on the survey.
F irs t, the business lobbyist is predominantly male.

Seventy-three

of the respondents are male, while only one is female.

Because the

vast m ajority of respondents are male, "the Michigan lobbyist" is
referred to in masculine terms {he, his, him) throughout this report.
The average respondent is 48.3 years of age, with the youngest being
26 and the oldest being 68 years old (see Table 4 .1 ).

Thus, the

business lobbyist respondent brings some years of experience to
the job of lobbying fo r his organization.

Table 4.1

Age
26-35
36-45
46-55
56-65
Over 65

Age of Respondents

Number of
Respondents
17
13
15
24
5

Percentage of
Respondents
23.0
17.6
20.2
32.4
6.8

Most of the respondents are married and have children.

Sixty

respondents f a ll into this category, with the rest being eith er single,

62

married with no children, or divorced or separated (see Table 4 .2 ).
Thus, these respondents would appear to be typical of other Americans
th e ir age, as fa r as fam ily l i f e is concerned.

Table 4.2

M arital Status of Respondents

M arital Status

Number of
Respondents

Single
Married, no children
Married, children
Divorced or separated

Percentage of
Respondents
8.1
2.7
81.1
8.1

6
2
60
6

The next item concerns the birthplace of the respondents.
Forty-six of them are natives of Michigan, with most of the remaining
respondents having been born in the states surrounding Michigan (see
Table 4 .3 ).

As one might expect, most of the Michigan business lobby­

is ts responding also report having grown up in the State of Michigan

Table 4.3

State of Birth
Michigan
Ohio
Indiana
Illin o is
Wisconsin
Other U.S. state
Outside U.S.

Birthplace of Respondents
Number of
Respondents

Percentage of
Respondents

46
7
4
4
3
9
1

62.2
9.5
5.4
5.4
4.1
12.2
1.4

63

(see Table 4 .4 ).

Thus, most of the respondents report having been born

and reared in Michigan.

Most, also, report having grown up in an urban

area, as opposed to a rural setting (see Table 4 .5 ).

Table 4.4

State Where Respondents Were Reared

State Where Reared

Number of
Respondents

Percentage of
Respondents

52
5
4
3
9
1

70.3
6.8
5.4
4.1
12.2
1.4

Michigan
Ohio
Illin o is
Wisconsin
Other U.S. state
Outside U.S.

Table 4.5

Urban/Rural Environment During Respondents'
Youth

Urban/Rural

Number of
Respondents

Percentage of
Respondents

Urban
Rural
No response

52
20
2

70.3
27.0
2.8

The Michigan business lobbyists who responded have had many
years of formal education.

As indicated in Table 4 .6 , 62 of the

respondents have at least a college degree.

These results are

consistent with other studies, such as Patterson's study of Oklahoma
lobbyists ( i . e . , 75 percent of the respondents had taken some college
courses, and almost h a lf had a college degree).

64

Table 4 .6

Highest Level o f Formal Education A ttained

Educational Level
High school graduate
Some college
College graduate
Some graduate school
Master's degree
Professional degree
Some post-graduate study
Doctoral degree
No response

Number of
Respondents

Percentage of
Respondents

2
9
16
18
4
19
4
1
1

2.7
12.2
21.6
24.3
5.4
25.7
5.4
1.4
1.4

As one might expect, the undergraduate major most represented
in the respondent's educational background is business administration.
The next most frequently represented majors are journalism, history,
p o litic a l science, lib e ra l a rts , and psychology/sociology.

The

remaining lobbyists have had diverse undergraduate majors.

Table 4.7

indicates this variety of undergraduate backgrounds.

Thus, the

respondents do not exh ib it a homogeneous undergraduate educational
background, though there is a strong representation of the social
sciences.

This college educational background, as well as having

been reared in Michigan, has probably contributed to the respondent's
a b ilit y to secure relevant work experience fo r th e ir present careers
as business lobbyists in the State of Michigan.

65

Table 4 .7

C ollege Undergraduate Major

Number of
Respondents

Major
Business Administration
Journalism
History
P o litic a l Science
Liberal Arts
Psychology/Soci ol ogy
Engineering
Education
Communication
Economics
Other majors
No response

18
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
2
2
10
5

Percentage of
Respondents
24.3
9.5
8.1
8.1
6.8
6.8
5.4
5.4
2.7
2.7
13.5
6.8

"About Any Previous Government Experience"
Since business lobbyists are continually interacting with
state le g is la to rs , they were asked what type of previous government
experience, i f any, they have in th e ir employment history.

T h irty -

one of the 74 respondents reported having held an elective or appoin­
tiv e position in government (see Table 4 .8 ).

Regarding le g is la tiv e

experience, fiv e respondents report having served in the Michigan
State Legislature, four of them as representatives, and one of them
as a senator.

Thus, a diverse government service experience is to be

found among the respondents.

In some cases, a common bond may exist

between state legislators and business lobbyists because of th e ir
common experience of working in government.

66

Table 4 .8

P rio r Government Experience

Office

Number of
Respondents

Percentage of
Respondents

2
6
3
1
2

2.7
8.1
4.1
1.4
2.7

1
3
1
3

1.4
4.1
1.4
4.1

9
1
42

12.2
1.4
56.8

Appointed:
Executive, federal
Executive, state
Executive, county
J u d ic ia l, county
Leg islative, state
Elective:
J u d ic ia l, municipal
Leg islative, state
L eg islative, county
Leg islative, municipal
More than one position
No response
No government position

"About Your Job History"
In this section of the report, an inquiry is made into the
business lobbyist's work experience prior to becoming a lobbyist and
his job longevity.

The business lobbyists who responded possess a

mean of almost 9 years of registered lobbying experience (with 6.5
median years qf lobbying experience).

This lobbying experience ranges

from a minimum of one year to a maximum of 42 years (see Table 4 .9 ).
Thus, the lobbyists' responses presented in this study are based on
considerable lobbying experience.

67

Table 4 .9

Years o f Lobbying Experience

Number of
Respondents

Years
1-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
26-30
Over 30

Percentage of
Respondents

36
16
10
4
2
3
3

48.6
21.6
13.5
5.4
2.7
4.1
4.1

As Table 4.10 indicates, the respondents also bring other work
experience to the job of lobbying.

According to the data, the average

respondent became registered fo r the job of lobbying at the age of
39.5 years (median age of 38.7 years).
worked in other capacities.

Before th is , they probably

This nonlobbying experience also has

provided a base fo r the respondent's subsequent performance as a
business lobbyist.

Table 4.10

Age
23-30
31-40
41-50
Over 50

Age of Registration as a Lobbyist
Number of
Respondents
18
24
19
13

Percentage of
Respondents
24.3
32.4
25.7
17.6

68

When asked how many organizations the subject has worked fo r
fu ll-tim e during his business career (including his present employer),
10 respondents report working fo r one organization, 19 fo r two orga­
nizations, 13 fo r three organizations, and 8 fo r four organizations
(see Table 4 .1 1 ).

So 42 of the 74 respondents have worked fo r three

or fewer organizations during th e ir business careers.

Table 4.11

Number of Organizations fo r which the
Respondent Has Worked

Number of
Organizations

Number of
Respondents

Percentage of
Respondents

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
No response

10
19
13
8
8
5
2
1
1
1
6

13.5
25.7
17.6
10.8
10.8
6.8
2.7
1.4
1.4
1.4
8.2

When asked about the types of jobs they held during th e ir
years of fu ll-tim e work, 23 respondents report having held a number
of d iffe re n t kinds of jobs.

Fifteen have held a number of d iffe re n t

jobs, but mostly w ithin one career f ie ld , while 36 have, fo r the most
p art, held a few jobs w ithin one given career fie ld (see Table 4 .1 2 ).
Thus, the largest number of respondents would appear to have
held other positions p rio r to obtaining the current one.

Furthermore,

69

Table 4 .1 2

Types o f Jobs Held

Number of
Respondents

Types of Jobs

Percentage of
Respondents

Held a number of d iffe re n t kinds
of jobs

23

31.1

Held a number of d iffe re n t jobs,
but mostly within one given
career fie ld

15

20.3

For the most p a rt, have held a
few jobs within one given
career fie ld

36

48.6

many of these individuals have had experience related to th e ir current
position (e .g ., government experience).

The majority of the respondents

appear to have changed jobs but not career fie ld s prior to assuming
th e ir current position, however, having once become lobbyists, they
have stayed in this position fo r some time.
"About Your Business Life"
A myriad of occupational t it le s are offered by respondents when
asked about th e ir present job t i t l e .

Forty-three have management t it le s

such as president, vice president, d ire c to r, manager, or partner.
have the t i t l e of attorney.

Ten

Eleven indicate that th e ir t i t l e is

le g is la tiv e counsel, consultant, analyst, or agent.

A dditionally,

8 have t it le s such as government a ffa irs s p e c ia lis t, government
relations coordinator, adm inistrative assistant, or small businessman.
Thus, the bulk of the respondents appear to be individuals with t it le s
indicating managerial or legal resp o n sib ilities.

70

F ifty -fo u r of the respondents indicate that they are salaried
employees, 9 are self-employed, and 8 are attorneys representing th e ir
clients on a professional fee basis (see Table 4 .1 3 ).

Of the remaining

respondents, one is appointed to the position of lobbyist, while one is
a volunteer.

Thus, most of the respondents appear to have an ongoing

salaried position representing th e ir organization to the Legislature.

Table 4.13

Form of Compensation

Form
Salaried
Self-employed
Attorney (fee basis)
Miscellaneous

Number of
Respondents

Percentage of
Respondents

54
9
8
3

73.0
12.2
10.8
4.3

In terms of organizations represented, 2 individuals rep­
resent professional organizations, 17 represent single businesses or
corporations, and 44 represent business or trade associations.

The

remaining 11 represent some combination of two or more of the above
categories (see Table 4 .1 4 ).

Most respondents, then, represent only

one organization; however, there are some m ulti-organization lobbyists
among the respondents.
Next, the respondents were asked about the three areas of
lobbyist job resp on sibility most important to the organizations that
they represent to the state le g islatu re.
and are summarized in Table 4.15.

Their responses were analyzed

A review of them in the order of

71

Table 4 .1 4

C lient
Professional
organization

C lie n t Summary

Number of
Respondents

Percentage of
Respondents

2

2.7

Single business
or corporation

17

23.0

Business or trade
association

44

59.5

Combination of
c lie n t types

11

15.0

th e ir importance ( i . e . , most important job resp onsibility area, second
most important, and th ird most important) is followed by a summary
statement on the respondents' job resp onsibility areas.
one q u a lific a tio n is in order:

But f i r s t ,

these results may not represent an

exhaustive lis tin g by the respondents of a ll th e ir re s p o n s ib ilitie s ,
but instead, may be the f i r s t ones to have entered th e ir thoughts as
they completed the survey questionnaire.
An examination of the responses in the category of the lobby­
is t 's most important job responsibility reveals the most frequently
mentioned area to be le g is la tiv e liaison work.

Second in number of

responses is monitoring le g is la tio n , followed by association management,
influencing le g is la tio n , and lobbying (see Table 4.1 6 ).
The job resp on sibility areas mentioned by the respondents as
second most important are le g is la tiv e liaison work, influencing le g is ­
la tio n , monitoring le g is la tio n , and communication and information
programs (see Table 4 .1 7 ).

72

Table 4 .1 5

Job R e s p o n s ib ility Areas

Frequency Mentioned

Area of Job Responsibility
Membership development
Legislative liaison work
Public relations
Influencing le g is la tio n
Monitoring le g is la tio n
Reporting le g islatio n
Knowledge of issues
Member relations
Legislative analysis and
research
Writing position papers
Lobbyi ng
Educating and informing
management
Association management
S ta ff work
Communication and
information programs
Keeping c lie n t informed
Working with grass roots
Passage of needed
leg islatio n
Legal opinion and analysis
Drafting le g islatio n
Understanding le g is la tiv e
procedure
Education programs
Contact with administration
Compliance with law and
regulation
Counseling
Working with other
lobbyists
Policy development
Working with government
Trade and marketing problems
Relations with trade
association
No response

Most
Important
1
13
7
11

Second
Most
Important

16
2
11
6
2

2
2
2
5

2
1
2

2
8

Third
Most
Important
1
5
3
4
2
6
1
3

1

2

1
2
3

3
12
3

3

1

4
1
2

1

2

2
2
2

1
2

1
1
4

2
1

1

1
2

2
1

2
1

1

1
1
1
1

1

1

1
1
1

14

2
34
5
22
19
8
3
5
5
1
8

1
1

1

.

Total

21

30

Rank

1
7
2
3
5
8
9
6
4

73

Table 4 .1 6

Most Im portant Job R e s p o n s ib ility Area

Area of Responsibility
Legislative liaiso n work
Monitoring le g is la tio n
Association management
Influencing le g is la tio n
Lobbyi ng
Other
No response

Table 4.17

Number of
Respondents

Percentage of
Respondents

13
11
8
7
5
16
14

17.6
14.9
10.3
9.5
6.8
21.6
18.9

Second Most Important Job Responsibility
Area
Number of
Respondents

Area of Responsibility
Legislative liaison work
Influencing le g is la tio n
Monitoring le g is la tio n
Communication and
information programs
Other
No response

Percentage of
Respondents

16
11
6

21.6
14.9
8.1

3
17
21

4.1
23.0
28.4

The job resp on sibility areas mentioned as th ird most important
by the respondents are:

reporting on le g is la tio n , le g is la tiv e liaison

work, and influencing le g is la tio n (see Table 4.18).
Table 4.19 summarizes to ta l figures for the responses regarding
the job responsibility areas.
ju s t mentioned is revealed.

An overall result sim ilar to the three
That is , the respondents' most important

job resp o n sib ilities involve relations with state le g is la to rs , including

74

Table 4 .1 8

T h ird Most Im portant Job R e s p o n s ib ility Area

Area o f Responsibility

Number of
Respondents

Reporting on le g is la tio n
Legislative liaison work
Influencing le g is la tio n
S ta ff work
Other
No response

Table 4.19

6
5
4
3
26
30

Percentage of
Respondents
8.1
6.8
5.4
4.1
35.1
40.5

Job Responsibility Areas, Totals

Area o f Responsibility
Legislative liaiso n work
Influencing le g is la tio n
Monitoring le g is la tio n
Association management
Reporting on le g is latio n
Lobbyi ng
Public relations
Member relations
Legislative analysis and research

Frequency
of Mention
34
22
19
12
8
8
5
5
5

le g is la tiv e lia is o n , influencing le g is la tio n , and monitoring leg is­
la tio n ; these are followed by association related tasks, such as
association management and public relations.
As indicated e a r lie r , the respondents have spent a number of
years engaged in lobbying, in most cases on behalf of th e ir current
employer.

Tables 4.-20 and 4.21 show, respectively, the respondents'

years of employment with and lobbying fo r th e ir current organization.
The respondents

report having spent an average of 10 years in the

employ of th e ir present organization (median of 8.25 years).

Table 4 .2 0

Number of
Years
1-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
Over 20
No response

Table 4.21
Number of
Years
1-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
Over 20
No response

Years Employed by C urrent O rganization

Number of
Respondents

Percentage of
Respondents

30
13
11
9
8
3

40.5
17.6
14.9
12.2
10.8
4.1

Years Lobbying fo r Current Organization
Number of
Respondents

Percentage of
Respondents

37
18
9
4
4
2

50.0
24.3
12.2
5.4
5.4
2.7

The respondents report having spent fewer years (median
5.0 years) in lobbying fo r the current organization than in other
unspecified work fo r that organization.

Thus, many business lobby­

is ts appear to have become lobbyists subsequent to working fo r th e ir
organizations in some other capacity.
The respondents were asked to indicate the fractio n of
time spent on th e ir lobbying a c tiv itie s , both during and between
le g is la tiv e sessions, and those results are presented in Tables 4.22

76

Table 4.22

Time Spent Lobbying During Legislative
Sessions
Number of
Respondents

Time Spent
Full-tim e
Three-quarter-time
One-haIf-time
One-quarter-time
Less than one-quarter­
time

Table 4.23

26
9
15
8

35.1
12.2
20.3
10.8

16

21.6

Time Spent Lobbying Between Legislative
Sessions

Time Spent
Full-tim e
Three-quarter-time
One-half-time
One-quarter-time
Less than one-quartertime

and 4.23.

Percentage of
Respondents

Number of
Respondents

Percentage of
Respondents

19
5
9
14

25.7
6.8
12.2
18.9

27

36.5

In both cases there are more part-tim e than fu ll-tim e

lobbyists among the respondents.

Furthermore, between le g is la tiv e

sessions, even less time is spent lobbying.

This resu lt is consistent

with previously reviewed studies (e .g ., Patterson's study in Oklahoma),
which demonstrated the part-tim e nature of many subjects' lobbying
e ffo rts .

Results indicate that Michigan lobbyists are often involved

in work other than lobbying, with association work or the practice of

77

law being the most frequently cited a c tiv itie s outside the area
of lobbying.
Each business lobbyist was asked fo r the t i t l e of his
supervisor in the organization represented.

Associated with this item

was an inquiry into the functional area(s) fo r which the supervisor is
responsible.

The purpose of these questions was to determine the gen­

eral level at which the business lobbyist functions in the organization
and to consider th is as an indication of the lobbyist's importance to
the organization.

Forty-three of the respondents report to an in d i­

vidual holding the t i t l e of chairman, president, or executive directo r;
with the remaining respondents reporting to individuals with more
diverse organizational t i t l e s , such as executive committee, vice
president, d ire c to r, or manager.

Fo rty-five of the respondents' super­

visors have resp o n sib ility fo r a ll areas of th e ir organization, while
most of the remainder are responsible prim arily for the government
relations or le g is la tiv e a ffa irs function.

While these results indicate

th at many of the respondents report to a high level o ffic ia l in th e ir
organization, th is must bequalified by noting that most of the respond­
ents work fo r business or trade associations, rather than fo r single
businesses or corporations, and that associations probably spend more
of th e ir time on lobbying and related a c tiv itie s , than regular
businesses do.
Prior studies have indicated that lobbyists, in general, have
d rifte d into the job o f lobbying, or have been prevailed upon by friends
or associates to assume the role of lobbyist.

Table 4.24 reports the

time the respondents to this study spent in planning to become lobbyists.

78

Table 4 .2 4

Time Spent Planning to Become a Lobbyist

Time Spent

Number of
Respondents

Percentage of
Respondents

34
15
2
8
9
6

45.9
20.3
2.7
10.8
12.2
8.2

Less than 2 months
3-6 months
7-12 months
1-2 years
More than 2 years
No response

These results indicate that many of the respondents moved into the role
of lobbyist a fte r a re la tiv e ly short planning period.
The business lobbyists responding to this survey were asked
next about how they secured th e ir f i r s t position as a lobbyist.

The

results appear to indicate a relationship between the entry mechanism
and the short planning period ju s t mentioned.

The means by which the

respondents report having f i r s t become lobbyists are indicated in
Table 4.25.

The most frequently reported entry vehicle is the in d i­

vidual's other job resp o n sib ilities with his company or association.
This entry method is confirmed by other studies which found that many
business lobbyists were trade association employees who devoted a
portion of th e ir time to lobbying a c tiv itie s .

Other vehicles of

entry into the business lobbyist role mentioned by the respondents
are grapevine re fe rra l; through the influence of an employee of the
company or association by whom they were hired; as a resu lt of th e ir
own job campaign; or as a consequence of an internal transfer or
promotion.

None of the respondents reports having obtained his

79

Table 4 .25

How F ir s t Lobbyist P o s itio n Was Obtained

Means

Number of
Respondents

Percentage of
Respondents

23
15

31.1
20.3

10
10

13.5
13.5

9
6
1

12.2
8.2
1.4

Other job resp on sibilities
Grapevine re fe rra l
Influence of current
employee
Own job campaign
Internal transfer or
promotion
Other
No response

position through an employment agency, or as a result of a college
interview.

Thus, i t seems that most of the lobbyists had some "inside"

contact with lobbying a c tiv ity , or prior connection with the business
organization which afforded them the opportunity to become a lobbyist,
as opposed to entering the position d ire c tly from another career f ie ld .
Furthermore, this experience seems to have reduced the time required
by the individual to consider the o ffe r of a lobbying job before
taking i t .
When asked i f they received training fo r the position of
lobbyist, 54 respondents indicate that they did not.

Regarding th e ir

trainin g fo r the position of lobbyist, the respondents' additional
comments center on th e ir p rio r experience in such areas as government,
industry, and p o litic s :
• "Previous government experience."
• "In a previous job in state government."

80

• "Industry experience and exposure to federal and
state government."
• "Other than legal tra in in g , experience in state
administration and p o litic a l party experience."
• " I have been a State Representative."
• "Worked in conjunction with other lobbyists, other
association executives, and industry representatives."
• "Always active in p o litic a l a c tiv itie s ."
Representative of more specific comments on training are the
following:
• "Our organization has no pre-training program."
• "Training was 'on the job' as part of another position"
• "No formal tra in in g , but extensive apprenticeship."
• "Self-taught."
• " F irs t year (p rio r job) spent learning organization
and le g is la tio n . Phased into le g is la tiv e contact
under direction of other agents."
• " I t was part of the job and I learned i t from the
ground up."
• "No formal tra in in g . Long experience in p o litic s
and government as an elected o ffic e r. Long time
experience as board member and o ffic e r of association."
One respondent stresses the importance of personal contact in lobbying
work:

"There can be no substitute fo r the actual work.

contact is everything and you can't tra in fo r th at."

Personal

Thus, the

respondents' say th e ir training fo r the position of lobbyist emphasized
prior experience rather than formal tra in in g .
way the respondents entered the position:

This follows from the

most had been out of school

and working fo r a number of years prior to becoming business lobbyists,

81

t

and they made the tra n sitio n to lobbying from another position in the
organization.
The study respondents were asked to evaluate the influences
of various factors on the decision to become a business lobbyist.
The factors and th e ir importance on a scale of importance from not
important (1) to very important (5) are reported in Table 4.26.
factors which were in flu e n tia l (in descending order) are:

The

enjoyment

of this type of work, a general in te re st in p o litic s and the c lie n t,
a desire to promote c lie n t in te re s ts , the duties of the job which
led them into the f ie ld , enhancement of the business, and financial
benefits.

Lesser influences on the decision to become a business

lobbyist include urging by friends or the in te re st group, p o litic a l
aspirations, and the enhancement of th e ir law practice.

Thus, the

respondents appear to have been motivated by a variety of factors.
Respondents' comments on factors which influenced th e ir
decision to become lobbyists include:
• "The opportunity represented a s ig n ifican t
advancement w ithin the company."
• "I love the challenge of influencing new
opportunities fo r the members of our
association. I intend to never lose one
b ill."
• "My industry had l i t t l e i f anyone [s ic ]
representing th e ir in te re s t."
• "Prior a c tiv itie s established that I did this
work well and I liked i t and f e l t i t s a tisfie d
my desire fo r achievement. Allowed me to go from
a company management role to a more individual
enterprise."

82

Table 4 .2 6

Factors In flu e n c in g Career Decision

Factor
A general in te re s t in p o litic s and c lie n t
To promote c lie n t interests
Power, prestige, and influence
Enhancement of business
Enhancement of law practice
Urged by friends or in terest group
To promote an idea
To work fo r social change
Next step in job
Next step in career
The duties of your job led you into the
fie ld
To promote certain policies
Your boss f e l t that you were especially
qua!ified
Best way to move up
P o litic a l aspirations
Meet important people
Financial benefits
Just enjoy this type of work

Mean
Importance

Number of
Respondents

3.930
3.824
2.333
3.090
1.585
2.016
2.567
2.046
2.492
3.000

71
68
66
67
53
63
67
65
61
64

3.750
.2.409

68
66

2.923
2.563
1.615
2.000
3.074
4.029

65
64
65
65
68
70

Next, the survey subjects were asked to id e n tify and rank the
three most satisfying aspects of th e ir work as business lobbyists and
the three most dissatisfying aspects.

Table 4.27 lis ts the job s atis­

faction items in terms of the number of times each was mentioned as the
most, second most, or th ird most satisfying .

O verall, the most sa tis ­

fying aspects of the respondents' jobs as business lobbyists appear to
be observing and particip atin g in lawmaking, followed by the opportunity
to present th e ir side of the case, and the variety of the work.

Of the

job aspects mentioned, the opportunity to be close to important people
proved to be the least important in contributing to the respondents'
job satisfactio n.

83

Table 4.27

Job S a tis fa c tio n Items

Number of Times Mentioned
as Satisfying
Most
Satisfying

Second Most
Satisfying

/

13

6

36

Opportunity to be close
to important people

—

2

5

7

Variety of the work

13

19

15

47

The freedom of the
schedule you enjoy

7

11

15

33

The monetary reward

4

10

8

22

25

15

11

51

Item

Third Most
Satisfying

Total

Opportunity to present
I f A I I M

yyjui

^

3 iu c

A

ui

4» I*

u iic

Observing and
p articip atin g in
lawmaking

^ ^

«

i

Table 4.28 reports the respondents' evaluation of the job dissat­
isfaction items as the most, second most, or third most dissatisfying.
The item most frequently mentioned as most dissatisfying is the public
image of the job of lobbying, followed by the working conditions and
long hours and the moral level and a c tiv itie s of leg islato rs.
dissatisfying aspect of the job is preparing a case to present.

The least
Note

th a t, o v e ra ll, the respondents are more evenly divided among these job
dissatisfactio n items than they are among the job satisfaction items.
So, the respondents tend to agree on what they lik e more than what they
d is lik e about th e ir lobbying job.

84

Table 4 .2 8

Job D is s a tis fa c tio n Items

Number of Times Mentioned
as Dissatisfying
Most dis­
satisfying

Second
Most dis­
satisfying

Public image o f your job

21

10

8

39

The necessity of being
nice to people to get
th e ir help

8

12

7

27

The working conditions
and long hours

10

7

10

27

Entertaining and giving
parties

6

10

7

23

10

5

8

23

2

4

3

9

Item

Moral level and a c tiv ­
itie s of legislators
Preparing a case to
present

Third
Most dis­
satisfying

Total

E a rlie r i t was stated that the subjects were asked to indicate
the t i t l e of the person to whom they report in order to get some
indication of the lobbyist's re la tiv e importance in the business
organization.

That inquiry was followed up with furth er questions which

probe the e ffe c t of state leg isla tio n on the lobbyist's organization,
the p rio rity of lobbying work with the organization, the issues of
current in terest to the organization, and the lobbyist's influence on
the organization's le g is la tiv e policy and his freedom to determine
tactics fo r resolving le g is la tiv e problems.
in the rest of this section.

The results are summarized

85

S ixty-four of the respondents indicate that the e ffe c t of state
le g islatio n on the organization(s) they represent has increased compared
with ten years ago.

Sixty-two of the respondents also indicate that

fo r the same time period, lobbyist work now has a higher p rio rity with
th e ir c lie n t(s ).

These results are consistent with the Haley and Kiss

a rtic le on the growing importance of the business lobbyist, quoted in
the lite ra tu re review .1
Respondents' comments on the p rio rity of lobbying work with
th e ir organization or c lie n t include the following:
• "Our department, and budget have grown over the
past three years."
• "There are more b ills considered each year--hence,
more p rio rity must be given."
• "Powers of our members to act are derived from
good or bad le g is la tio n or regulation."
• "Full-tim e le g is la tu re = more le g islatio n = more
le g is la tiv e work!"
• "Ten years ago, we had no d irect le g is la tiv e
program."
• "The business today is inundated with government
paperwork and he turns to his association fo r
r e l i e f or advice on how to cope."
• "Clients are more aware of and frightened a t the
impact of le g is la tio n and government regulation
and control."
• "Government's a c tiv ity in business has risen,
therefore, i f you represent business, your
le g is la tiv e a c tiv ity must also ris e ."
When asked i f th e ir clien ts are activ ely interested in the same
or considerably d iffe re n t types of issues now as they were 10 years ago,

86

the respondents are approximately evenly divided.

That is , 38

respondents say that th e ir organizations are activ ely interested
in about the same categories of issues now as 10 years ago, while
35 respondents report that th e ir organizations are interested in
considerably d iffe re n t categories o f issues now.

Included among

the new categories of issues, according to the comments of those
respondents who indicated a difference in areas of concern, are these:
• Consumer-oriented issues
• Discrimination
• Dominant position in the market
• Equal protection issues
• Equal rights
• Energy and fuel usage
• Environmentalism
• Hazardous and solid waste le g is la tio n
• Increased le g is la tiv e dictatio n of pricing and other
business practices
• Marketing controls
• Power to u t iliz e new and developing technology
• Social reform
Estimates as to how important these new issues are to business
lobbyist education and trainin g vary.
• "They require increasing sophistication and a b ilit y
to a rtic u la te ."
• "Positive and urgent influence to broaden le g is la tiv e
liaison base and become more sophisticated in overall
liaison functions."

87

• "Increased specialized knowledge needed."
• "Will require more technical and s c ie n tific
trainin g as well as legal and le g is la tiv e
background—communication s k ills must be
b e tte r, also."
• "More fie ld trainin g and work experience w ill be
required— less emphasis on academic credentials."
• "Wrong question: Issues lik e consumerism cannot
be learned in the classroom. They are a function
of the players as much as an issue unto themselves."
• "Requires broad base of business understanding."
Many of these comments echo those of Haley and Kiss quoted in Chapter Two.
They c all fo r a new kind of business lobbyist and lobbying preparation.
They emphasize the need fo r business lobbyists with specialized knowl­
edge, and integrative analysis and planning s k i l l s . 2
Consistent with the greater importance to the business orga­
nization of lobbyists' e ffo rts , 58 of the respondents indicate that
th e ir personal recommendations on le g is la tiv e policy frequently have
been adopted by th e ir c lie n t, while 15 respondents indicate that this
has occasionally been the case.

Also, 66 of the respondents indicate

that they have had freedom to determine th e ir tactics on most
le g is la tiv e problems.
Thus, according to the respondents, state leg islatio n is having
a greater e ffe c t on the c lie n t, and i t is being afforded a higher
p rio rity within the business organization.

Also, the business lobbyist

has an in flu e n tia l role to play in the development of le g is la tiv e policy
to deal with the increasingly important le g is la tiv e environment, as well
as the freedom to determine tactics fo r dealing with most le g is la tiv e
problems.

88

Since an important aspect of the business lobbyists' job is
public rela tio n s , another question asked the business lobbyists i f they
belong to the Public Relations Society of America.
ents indicate that they are members.

Only three respond­

However, when asked about the

number of years of public relations experience they had prior to
becoming a business lobbyist, the 45 respondents to this question
report an average of 13 years of experience (median of 11 years).
Thus, while some respondents claim some public relations experience,
few have chosen to become a member of a professional organization which
supports that a c tiv ity .
"Ideal Recruitment and Preparation"
This phase of the research e ffo rt examines the Michigan business
lobbyist's experience and probes his perceptions of what constitutes
ideal preparation fo r the role of business lobbyist.

I t also probes

how people are recruited into the f ie ld , and what the respondents
consider to be success characteristics and educational weaknesses of
business lobbyists.
The survey respondents were asked to indicate the frequency
with which various means have been used in th e ir organization to f i l l
job openings fo r the position of business lobbyist.
indicates the results of th is inquiry.

Table 4.29

In general, the most fr e ­

quently mentioned method o f f i l l i n g job openings fo r business lobbyists
today is through grapevine re fe rra ls .
are f il l e d include:

Other means by which job openings

as a consequence of other job responsibilities

within the organization, as a res u lt of the ind ividu al's own job

89

Table 4 .2 9

Job Recruitment Methods

Number of Respondents
Whose Organizations
Use the Method

Method
Grapevine referrals
Employers circu late job openings among
themselves
Through the influence of an employee of the
organization doing the hiring
Internal transfer or promotion
As a consequence of other job resp on sibilities
within the organization
As a result of the individual's own job campaign
Employment agencies
Campus interviews
Advertisements in various publications
Contact with former student interns
Resumes received

42
17
8
16
29
20
3
0
11
1
6

campaign, through employers circu latin g job openings among themselves,
and by means of internal transfers or promotions.
methods are:
agencies.
at a l l .

The least used

contact with former student interns, and employment

And, apparently, campus interviews are not used in hiring
Thus, to become a business lobbyist, i t appears that one must

already be a part of the system which u tiliz e s business lobbyists.

The

recruitment methods used today do not leave much opportunity fo r the
"outsider" to become a business lobbyist.

These results are also

consistent with the respondents' comments on how they were recruited
into business lobbying.
Next, respondents were asked to assess the importance of various
personal factors to the success of an individual as a business lobbyist.
Table 4.30 indicates the various factors and th e ir re la tiv e importance

90

Table 4 .3 0

Factor
A b ility to compromise
A b ility to s e ll his ideas
Aggressiveness
Cooperativeness
Formal education
General intellig en ce
Pleasant personality
Honesty
In terest in job
Job knowledge
Prior work experience

Success Factors

Mean
Importance

Number of
Respondents

4.029
4.597
3.676
4.209
2.779
4.197
4.260
4.514
4.408
4.384
3.300

70
72
68
67
68
71
73
72
71
73
70

as evaluated by the lobbyists surveyed on a scale from not important (1)
to very important (5 ).
most important are:

Factors which the respondents consider to be the

the a b ilit y to sell ideas, honesty, interest in the

job, job knowledge, and a pleasant personality.

As noted in previous

studies, a lobbyist is involved in the education and persuasion of
le g is la to rs , so i t is not surprising that the primary success factor
flows from this important aspect of the job.

Prior studies also have

stressed the importance of experience and honesty in the lobbyists'
successful interaction with state leg islato rs.
The three factors least important in determining whether or
not a given individual would be successful as a lobbyist, according
to the respondents, are:
formal education.

aggressiveness, prior work experience, and

Thus, i t appears that the respondents expect in d i­

viduals with job -sp ecific s k ills and characteristics, rather than those
with general backgrounds, however strong, to succeed.

91

Next, the importance of various factors to the hiring of an
individual as a business lobbyist today was assessed.

The respondents'

evaluation of each of these items is reported in Table 4.31.
used runs from not important (1) to very important (5 ).

The scale

Factors within

the fiv e categories of h irin g , "Personal," "Experience," "Backing,"
"T ra its ," and "Education," have been ranked in terms of the mean
importance of each characteristic in each category, and they are
reported in that order.
The characteristics in the category called "Traits" received
the highest average rating by respondents in terms of th e ir importance
in the hiring of a person as a business lobbyist.

In fa c t, except fo r

three personal ch aracteristics, each of the t r a i t characteristics
exceeds a ll of the other characteristics in a ll of the other categories.3
S p e c ific a lly , the tr a it s ranked, in decreasing order, are:

honesty,

positive a ttitu d e , professional a ttitu d e , cooperativeness, speaking
a b ilit y , general in te llig e n c e , poise, and w riting a b ilit y .

Thus, the

respondents place the highest importance on facto rs, which at least
i n i t i a l l y , would allow the prospective lobbyist to be perceived posi­
tiv e ly by the individual doing the h irin g , and would probably also
help the candidate to be accepted and function successfully la te r
with state le g is la to rs.
The second category of characteristics considered to be
important

in lobbyist hiring decisions is that termed "Personal."

The most important characteristics are:

pleasant personality, ambition,

appearance, and desire to work s p e c ific ally fo r the respondent's

92

Table 4.31

H irin g Factors

Mean
Importance

Number of
Respondents

4.324
4.247

71
73

3.789
2.141
4.329

71
71
73

Experience:
business
corronunication
government
journalism
law
p o litic s
public relations

3.718
3.847
3.746
2.710
2.986
3.761
3.343

71
72
71
69
70
71
70

Backing:
family or friend
grapevine re fe rra l
references

2.215
2.908
3.855

65
65
69

T raits
positive a ttitu d e
cooperativeness
general intelligen ce
honesty
poise
professional attitu d e
speaking a b ilit y
w riting a b ilit y

4.500
4.465
4.250
4.753
4.219
4.486
4.370
4.096

72
71
72
73
73
70
73
73

Education:
business
communication
economics
government
journalism
law
p o litic s
public relations

3.466
3.417
3.114
3.740
2.662
3.155
3.648
3.197

73
72
70
73
68
71
71
71

Factor
Personal:
ambition
appearance
desire to work s p e c ific a lly
for your firm
native of area
pleasant personality

93

organization.

The least important personal characteristic is being

a native of the area.
The th ird category of significance in hiring decisions is
experience.

The leading experience area is communication, followed

(in decreasing order) by p o litic a l, government, business, public
relatio n s, law, and journalism.

Thus, these respondents stress the

importance of experience, prim arily in communication, which relates
to the lobbyist's a b ilit y to educate and influence the state le g is la to r.
Fourth in importance is the educational background of the
business lobbyist candidate.
is government, followed by:

The most important educational area
p o litic a l, business, and communication.

While these areas are in d iffe re n t order than those id e n tifie d as
important areas of experience for the candidate, overall the same
fie ld s are considered to be important in both cases.
The least important category of characteristics fo r the hiring
of an individual as a business lobbyist is that termed, "Backing."
Within this category, the backing of references is the most important
ch a ra c te ristic , while the backing of fam ily or friends is the least
important.
Thus, when making a hiring decision on a candidate fo r the
position of business in te re st lobbyist, the respondents place importance
on the ind ividu al's tr a its and personal characteristics, followed by
experience, education, and backing.

I t may be concluded then that the

most important characteristics are those which have taken the longest
time to develop, but which are somewhat amenable to training e ffo rts .

94

They are characteristics which provide confidence in the individual as
a p o ten tia lly successful business lobbyist.

The experience and educa­

tion areas r e fle c t the nature of the job which the lobbyist carries
out:

communication with state legislators and business c lien ts in a

p o litic a l and governmental setting.
The respondents were next asked i f
a business lobbyist whorecently graduated

they would hire someone as
from college.

This question

was asked to get some insight into the necessity of p rio r work experi­
ence, as well as the d if f ic u lty of moving from college into business
lobbying.

Two other questions have already revealed that work expe­

rience is the th ird most important category out of fiv e of character­
is tic s important in the hiring of a person

as a business lobbyist, and

that the least used methods of recruiting include contact with former
student interns and campus interviews.

The response to the question

concerning the p o s s ib ility of a person "fresh" from college being
hired as a business lobbyist is reported in Table 4.32.
the respondents indicate

So, 47 of

that they would not hire a new college

graduate as a business lobbyist, while 24 indicate that they would.

Table 4.32

New College Graduate as a Business Lobbyist

Hiring Response
Would hire
Would not hire
No response

Number of
Respondents

Percentage of
Respondents

24
47
3

32.4
63.5
4.1

95

The subjects were also asked to provide comments on th e ir
response to this question.

Among the comments of those respondents

who said they would not hire a new college graduate as a business
lobbyist are these:
• " I t is necessary to: (1) know the c lie n t's business
and learn the le g is la tiv e process, or (2) know the
process and learn the c lie n t's business."
• "But would hire someone as a trainee."
• "Need some 're a l world' experience f ir s t ."
• "Mere academics w ill not a successful liaison repre­
sentative make. Some business world exposure needed."
• "Unless he/she has been active p o litic a lly within the
party system or state government."
• "Normally in our company the lobbyists in the f ie ld
work alone. I'd consider a recent college grad i f
he or she could work with an experienced person fo r
two or three years."
• "You c an 't learn government solely from a textbook."
• "Probably no—too inexperienced generally."
• "The pragmatics of the work are such that actual
background 'experience' is essential."
• "Experience with the association is necessary before
doing le g is la tiv e work."
• " I don't feel he would have any first-hand knowledge
of how the le g is la tu re works and he would not have
any contacts."
Among the comments of those who said they would hire a person "fresh"
from college are these:
• "A 'fre s h ' person without experience, but who has the
in te re s t and appropriate t r a it s would be a good ris k ."
• "Only on the condition th at the person would work
under an experienced le g is la tiv e agent."

96

•

"That's how I was

hired."

•

"Many legislators
are now28 years and younger— thenew
college graduate relates well to the le g is la to rs ."

•

"All things being
period.

equal, a fte r

an

on-the-job training

• "But not a young graduate—a lobbyist needs some
experience in the real world before moving into
this work."
Thus, the respondents favor hiring a recent college graduate only i f
there is some on-the-job training prior to actual lobbying work and/
or the new graduate brings with him maturity and experience.
Before asking the subjects of this survey about what they
perceive to be ideal preparation fo r the job of lobbying, they were
asked, based on th e ir observations, what educational weaknesses are
most common among th e ir fellow lobbyists.

A fter identifying the three

areas of greatest educational weakness, the respondents were asked to
comment on th e ir answers.
question.

Table 4.33 reports the results to this

Communication is the most frequently mentioned subject

area in the category of greatest educational weakness, followed by
business administration and law.

However, upon totalin g the responses

in each of the three columns—f i r s t , second, and th ird greatest weak­
ness—a somewhat d iffe re n t pattern emerges:

coiranunication is followed

by business adm inistration, p o litic s , and the workings of government.
These areas of educational weakness are sim ilar to the areas of edu­
cation and experience deemed to be important in the hiring of a person
as a business lobbyist.

Representative of the respondents' comments

on th e ir fellow lobbyists' educational weaknesses are these:

97

Table 4 .3 3

G reatest Educational Weaknesses

Frequency of Mention

Area
Business administration
Communication
Economi cs
Government relations
Journalism
Law
P o litic s
Public relations
Workings of government

F irs t
Educational
Weakness

Second
Educational
Weakness

Third
Educational
Weakness

8
15
5
1
1
8
4
5
5

5
12
9
5
4
3
7
2
5

6
4
2
6
2
3
8
7
8

Total
19
31
16
12
7
14
19
14
18

• " A b ility to communicate (verb ally, as well as in
w ritin g ) and establishing good relations with key
people are fundamental."
• "More things are lo st because the issue is poorly
communicated. Give me someone who can w rite or
rec ite a clear concise paragraph."
• "The biggest lack is knowledge of the 're a l'
business world and the 're a l' economic system."
• "Too many do not know how to present th e ir ideas
and have fuzzy thinking."
• "Those I work with are bright enough to mask
th e ir weaknesses and seek help from others
i f they need i t . "
• "Have not found them to be educationally
d e fic ie n t."
The subjects' opinion on the level of formal education required
by the job of lobbying was probed next.

E a rlie r i t was reported that

the respondents consider formal education the least important factor

98

in determining whether or not a given individual would be successful
as a business lobbyist.

Table 4.34 reports the amount of formal

education required to be an e ffe c tiv e lobbyist, according to the
respondents.

Nineteen of the respondents believe at least some

college education would provide the business lobbyist with a ll of
the formal education needed fo r business lobbying work, while 36
believe that a college degree is necessary.

Respondents are divided

approximately evenly between the need fo r e ith e r more or less formal
education than that of some college and a college degree.

So, while

the respondents would not, in general, hire someone d ire c tly from
college, they do believe that a person should have at least some
college experience in his or her background.

Table 4.34

Education Level
High school degree
Some colleae
College degree
Some graduate study
Master's degree
Professional degree
Some post graduate
study
No response

Formal Education Requirement
Number of
Respondents
7
19
36
2
3
4

Percentage of
Respondents
9.5
25.7
48.6
2.7
4.1
5.4

aa

3

4.1

99

When asked i f they would hire as a business lobbyist a person
who does not have a college degree, however, 45 of the respondents say
that they would, while 27 say that they would not.

Thus, i t appears

that while more than h a lf of the respondents would lik e the new
lobbyist candidate to possess some college experience or a college
degree, the lack of a college degree is not a b a rrie r to employment.
Furthermore, possession of other positive recruitment factors such as
t r a its and personal characteristics and experience would be enough to
induce the business organization to employ the degreeless candidate.
Next, the respondents were asked to rank a number of
disciplines in terms of th e ir importance in making the business
lobbyist more e ffe c tiv e on the job.

Table 4.35 indicates the fre ­

quency of mention of each educational area in the categories of most
important, second most important, and th ird most important in making
the lobbyist more e ffe c tiv e .

The most frequently mentioned educational

area in the category of most important to lobbyist effectiveness is
th at of workings of government, followed by communication, p o litic s ,
and then business administration.

Upon to ta lin g the number of

responses in the f i r s t , second, and th ird most important areas,
the most important educational area overall appears to be p o litic s ,
closely followed by the workings of government, communication, and
government rela tio n s .

In both cases, responses are approximately evenly

divided among these educational areas.

These areas are essentially the

same, though in d iffe re n t order, as those id e n tifie d as th e ir fellow
lobbyists' educational weaknesses ( i . e . , communication, government

100

Table 4 .3 5

Educational Areas Im portant to Lobbyist E ffectiven ess

Frequency of Mention
Area
Business administration
Communication
Economi cs
Government relations
Journalism
Law
P o litics
Public relations
Workings of government

Most
Important

Second Most
Important

Third Most
Important

8
11
5
7

4
13
5
9

—

—

6
9
4
13

5
14
4
9

7
6
4
8
2
4
12
8
9

Total
19
30
14
24
2
15
35
16
31

relations and the workings of government, business administration,
p o litic s , and law ).
As reported e a r lie r , some college experience or a college
degree

is the preferred formal educational preparation for business

lobbying work according to the respondents to this survey.

Continuing

along th is lin e , the subjects were asked what major fie ld they would
recommend studying in college to prepare fo r a career as a business
lobbyist.

Table 4.36 reports the number of respondents choosing each

of the various majors.

Corresponding to the respondents' views (stated

above) that education in p o litic s and the workings of government are the
most important areas of study to make the business lobbyist more effec­
tiv e , the preferred major most frequently mentioned by respondents is
p o litic a l science.

Next in preference as college majors are:

cation, law, and business adm inistration.

communi­

Note that there is much more

101

Table 4 .3 6

Recommended College Major

Major
Business administration
Business law
Communication
Economics
History
Journalism
Law
Liberal arts
P o litic a l science
Psychology
Public administration
Public relations
No response

Number of
Respondents

Percentage of
Respondents

8
4
9
1
3
2
9
4
16
1
3
5
9

10.8
5.4
12.2
1.4
4.1
2.7
12.2
5.4
21.6
1.4
4.1
6.8
12.2

d iversity reflected in the choice of college major than in other
educational questions considered thus fa r.
The respondents were also asked in which department at an
educational f a c i l i t y a program of training fo r business lobbyists
should be centered.

Table 4.37 reports on the frequency of mention

of the various p o s s ib ilitie s by the respondents.

Thus, the respondents

most prefer a department of p o litic a l science, followed by a department
of business adm inistration, and f in a lly a department of communication
as a starting place fo r the training of future business lobbyists.
F in a lly , in constructing a program of study fo r the training
of business lobbyists, the participants were asked to evaluate the
contribution of a variety of subjects to the preparation of e ffe c tiv e
business lobbyists.

Table 4.38 shows the respondents' evaluation of

102

Table 4 .3 7

Department Responsible f o r T ra in in g

Department
Business administration
Communication
Journalism
P o litic a l science
Public administration
Public relations
Law
Liberal arts
Psychology
No response

each of the subjects.

Number of
Respondents

Percentage of
Respondents

13
11
2
25
5
3
2 .
1
1
11

17.6
14.9
2.7
33.8
6.8
4.1
2.7
1.4
1.4
14.9

The scale used to rate the subjects varied from

"of l i t t l e use" (1) to "very useful" (5 ).
For reporting purposes, each subject was placed in one of four
broad areas.

Then each area was rated in terms of the evaluation of the

subjects within that area.

From these four areas of courses, a program

of study could be constructed fo r the business lobbyist which would
consist of:

"the government area," "the communication area," "the

business area," and a "miscellaneous area."

The sequence of these

subject areas represents the decreasing importance of the various
areas fo r the would-be business lobbyist's program of study.

This

program of study is here presented with the subjects within each general
area lis te d in order of importance (as evaluated by the respondents).
is a program of study based on courses which the respondents believe
would contribute to the trainin g of an e ffec tive business lobbyist.

It

103

Table 4 .3 0

Program o f Study

Mean
Usefulness

Number of
Respondents

Accounting and finance
Advertising
Behavioral science
Business law
Business administration

2.705
2.067
2.984
3.391
3.344

61
60
62
64
64

Coranunication
Creative w riting
Economi cs
Engineering
English

4.212
3.344
3.439
1.855
3.703

66
64
66
62
64

Government
History
Journalism
Law
Management

4.258
2.953
2.806
3.773
3.206

66
64
62
66
63

Marketing
Mass media
Personnel and human
relations
P o litic a l science
Psychology

2.710
3.127

62
63

3.619
3.873
3.242

63
63
62

Public administration
Public a ffa irs
Public relations
Public speaking
Social sciences and
humanities

3.222
3.766
3.646
4.119

63
64
65
67

2.770

61

Academic Subject

104

The f i r s t area, "the government area," consists of such
subjects as government, p o litic a l science, public a ffa ir s , and public
administration.

The second area, "the communication area," consists of

communication, public speaking, English, public relatio n s , creative
w ritin g , and mass media courses.

The third area, "the business area,"

consists of courses in economics, business law, business adm inistration,
management, and personnel and human relatio n s.

The fourth area, "the

miscellaneous area," consists of two discip lin es, law and psychology.
These areas represent subjects which received a rating of three or
higher on a scale of one ("o f l i t t l e use") to fiv e ("very useful")
by the respondents who evaluated the subjects above.

The ratings

of areas and the individual subjects in them agree with the results of
other questions in this study, namely, those on educational weaknesses
observed in Michigan lobbyists and areas of study which would make the
business lobbyist more e ffe c tiv e .

The results also re fle c t the under­

standing of the nature of the lobbyist and his job given in the
lite ra tu re review.
Having outlined some general guidelines fo r subject areas to
be studied by the prospective business interest lobbyist, the subjects
were asked where the newly trained , prospective business in te re s t lob­
byist should f i r s t work a fte r graduating from college to better prepare
fo r a career as a business in terest lobbyist.

(Note that a m ajority of

the respondents already indicated that they would not hire a person who
has ju s t graduated from college, and that th e ir recruitment methods also
reflected this view ).

105

Twenty-one of the respondents indicate that they would
reconmend entering government i n i t i a l l y , while 19 respondents would
reconmend entering a business fie ld f i r s t to prepare fo r th e ir lobbying
career (see Table 4 .3 9 ).

The remaining lobbyists are s p lit among other

alternatives such as p o litic s , entering lobbying work i n i t i a l l y , law,
public rela tio n s , and journalism.

So, i t seems that i f the respondents

were entering the work force as recent college graduates, they would
attempt to acquire job knowledge through experience p rio r to becoming
a business lobbyist.

Table 4.39

F irs t Work Experience
Number of •
Respondents

Area
Business
Enter lobbying work
in itia lly
Government
Journali sm
Law
P o litic s
Public relations
No response

Percentage of
Respondents

19

25.7

7
21
2
5
9
4
7

9.5
28.4
2.7
6.8
12.2
5.4
9.5

The respondents were also asked to rank the significance of work
experience in the various areas to the lobbyist's having a successful
and e ffe c tiv e career.
Table 4.40.

The results of this inquiry are presented in

Upon to talin g for each area, the frequency of its mention as

f i r s t , second, or third most s ig n ific a n t, i t appears that the respond­
ents place an equal value on experience in the areas of p o litic s ,

106

Table 4 .4 0

E valuation o f Experience Areas

Frequency of Mention
Area of Experience

Most
Significant

Second Most
Significant

Third Most
S ig nificant

18
7
19

12
5
12
4
8
19
7

9
7
9
3
15
11
10

Business
Formal education
Government
Journalism
Legal
P o litic a l
Public relations

- -

3
18
5

government, and business.

Thus, these results are consistent with

e a rlie r results regarding the education of the business lobbyist.
F in a lly , the subjects were asked i f they would care to make
any additional comments concerning preparing fo r a position as a
business interest lobbyist.

Representative of the respondents'

comments are these:
•

“The best of these come upthrough other routes than
specific trainin g fo r such a job. They are experts
in a fie ld through years of experience."

• "In te re s t, education, experience."
• "Exposure to the business world would be invaluable;
also open communication s k ills . Some public re la ­
tions work would be help fu l."
• "Being active in p o litic a l and governmental process."
• "Being an e ffe c tiv e lobbyist takes a practical
understanding of how government and p o litic s
rela te to each other."
• "Knowi ig how to deal with people = most important.
Knowing your facts and how to present them = next
most important."

Total
39
19
40
7
26
48
22

107

• "The 'in te re s t group' being served by the lobbyist
dictates the type of person, the tra in in g , and the
q u a litie s required. A lobbyist for a business group
would be in e ffe c tiv e fo r some other type of 'in te re s t
group' and vice versa. Some groups are best served
by a multi-purpose lobbying firm . So, specific
trainin g is very d if f ic u lt to id e n tify and organize."
• "Preparation not as important as personality."
• "Knowing le g is la tiv e process, people involved, history
of fie ld involved, parliamentary procedure, research
methods—where to find data, and means of communieating
with your group."
• "Communication is key—must have background from which
to communicate."
• "Two main avenues: (1) d ire c tly from inside the company,
or (2) d ire c tly from an elected position or appointed
governmental position— both work."
• "People don't prepare to be lobbyists.
through circumstance."

They enter

• "There is no way to prepare!"
This, then, concludes a review and discussion of the results
of this study.

Next, some comments are made about those individuals

who did not respond to the survey questionnaire.
About the Nonrespondent
As indicated in Chapter Three, a random sample of nonrespondents
was telephoned and asked a series of questions.

This was done in order

to gather some basic data which would allow the comparison of the non­
respondents with those individuals who did respond to the survey
questionnaire (and whose responses comprised the results of this study).
The nonrespondents to be surveyed were selected as follows:
from the Population Data Set, an alphabetized l i s t of Lansing area

108

business lobbyists who had not returned the survey questionnaire was
compiled.

(Note that e a r lie r studies have indicated that lobbyists

residing in the capitol c ity of a state are the most active lobbyists
of a ll those registered in the s ta te .)

Every other individual on this

l i s t (a fte r eliminating those who had declined to p articip ate in the
study, or who were no longer business interest lob byists), was selec­
ted as a nonrespondent subject.

Thus, a l i s t of 23 nonrespondents

was developed to use in a comparison with the survey respondents.
A fter repeated telephone c a lls , 17 of the 23 selected
nonrespondent subjects were personally contacted and data were gathered
about them.

Of the remaining 6, 4 were unavailable, one had retire d and

moved away, and the sixth said he had returned the survey questionnaire.
Upon a review of the data collected from these 17 individuals, the
following p ro file emerges.
Nonrespondent P ro file
A ll 17 nonrespondents contacted indicated that they are s t i l l
registered lobbyists, and that they have been so registered fo r an
average of 8.74 years.

S p e c ific a lly , 8 have been registered fo r

1-5 years, 4 for 6-10 years, 2 fo r 11-20 years, and 3 fo r more than
20 years.

This compares well with the respondents' reported average

of almost 9 years of registered lobbying experience.
The nonrespondents report an average age of 47.06 years, with
the youngest being 27 years old and the oldest being 75 years of age.
Again, this compares favorably with the survey respondents who report
an average age of 48.3 years.

109

Exploring the nonrespondents' highest attained educational
level reveals that they are well educated.
results.

Table 4.41 reports these

As Table 4.6 indicates, the study respondents also are well

educated.

Table 4.41

Nonrespondent Educational Background

Educational Level

Number of
Nonrespondents

Percentage of
Nonrespondents

4
6
3
4

23.5
35.3
17.6
23.5

Some college
College degree
Master's degree
Professional degree

Table 4.42 reports the undergraduate majors of the nonrespond­
ents who are college graduates.

Coincidentally, the most frequently

reported undergraduate major for the respondents is business
administration (see Table 4 .7 ).
In terms of c lien ts whom they represent to the state le g is la tu re ,
4 nonrespondents represent single businesses or corporations, 7 repre­
sent business or trade associations, and 6 represent some combination
of professional organizations, single businesses or corporations,
and business or trade associations.

In addition, 9 nonrespondents

could be c la s s ifie d as single c lie n t lobbyists, while 8 are m u lti­
c lie n t lobbyists.

Of the 8 m u lti-c lie n t lobbyists, 3 represent 2-5

c lie n ts , 2 represent 6-10 c lie n ts , and 3 represent more than 10 c lie n ts .
Thus, a heavier representation of the m u lti-c lie n t lobbyist is to be

no
Table 4 .4 2

Nonrespondent C ollege Major

Major
Business Administration
P o litic a l Science
Biology
Engineering
Forestry
Journalism
Liberal Arts

Number of
Nonrespondents

Percentage of
Nonrespondents

6
2
1
1
1
1
1

46.2
15.4
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7

found among the nonrespondents than was found among the survey
respondents.
When asked about th e ir relationship to th e ir c lie n t (s ) , 8 report
that they are employees, 5 work "free lance," 2 work fo r public a ffa irs
type companies, and 2 represent th e ir clie n ts on an atto rn ey-clien t
fee basis.
A report of the nonrespondents' time spent lobbying during and
between le g is la tiv e sessions is reported in Tables 4.43 and 4.44,
respectively.

One nonrespondent indicates th at his lobbying a c tiv itie s

vary so much during the year that he does not care to attempt to cate­
gorize his lobbying a c tiv itie s in terms of time spent.

A comparison of

the results shown in Tables 4.43 and 4.44 to those reported fo r the
survey respondents indicates that these nonrespondents spend more time
both during and between le g is la tiv e sessions lobbying.

There is also

less of a difference in the allocation of the nonrespondent's time
during le g is la tiv e sessions and between them than there is fo r the

Ill

Table 4.43

Nonrespondent Time Spent Lobbying During
Legislative Sessions

Time Spent
Full-tim e
Three-quarter-time
One-half-time
One-quarter-time
Less than onequarter-time

Table 4.44

Percentage of
Nonrespondents

7
2
4
1

43.8
12.5
25.0
6.3

2

12.5

Nonrespondent Time Spent Lobbying Between
Legislative Sessions

Time Spent
Full-tim e
Three-quarter-time
One-half-time
One-quarter-time
Less than onequarter- time

respondents.

Number of
Nonrespondents

Number of
Nonrespondents

Percentage of
Nonrespondents

6
2
3
3

37.5
12.5
18.8
18.8

2

12.5

This is probably due to the higher representation among

nonrespondents of the m u lti-c lie n t lobbyists.
So fa r , then, the nonrespondents and the respondents appear,
on the bases of comparison mentioned, to be s im ila r, except fo r the
higher representation of the m u lti-c lie n t lobbyist among the
nonrespondents ju s t reported.

112

Two other questions were asked of these nonresponden't subjects.
The f i r s t was, "What educational preparation do you believe is appro­
p riate for a le g is la tiv e agent to perform successfully?"

In response

to this question, replies sim ilar to those of the survey respondents
reported e a rlie r res u lt.

That is , there is an emphasis on background

in the fie ld ( i . e . , the c lie n t's business or industry), communication
s k ills , knowledge of the le g is la tiv e process (e .g ., how the system
works) and government background, knowledge of the people involved,
and legal knowledge.

The emphasis is on practical "on the job"

knowledge and experience, as opposed to formal, academic tra in in g .
Comments on formal training ranged from the value of "the maturity
gained from a college education" to the need fo r trainin g in specific
fie ld s , such as business administration, communication, government,
law, p o litic a l science, and public administration.

The second question

was, "Are you aware of any specific educational weaknesses of le g is la ­
tiv e agents?"

Seven o f the nonrespondents reply that they are not

aware of any specific educational weaknesses.

Among the areas men­

tioned by those who feel there are weaknesses are communication s k ills ,
knowledge of how the p o litic a l process works, knowledge and understand­
ing of law, the nature of the work, the process of getting the job done,
and research and analytical a b ilit y .

(Note, however, that these

responses were made over the telephone, and that these nonrespondent
participants did not have much time to re fle c t before responding to
the questions.)

Generally, many of these nonrespondents1 comments are

sim ilar to those described previously fo r the survey respondents.

113

To summarize, in comparing and contrasting the survey
respondents with a sample of the nonrespondents, they appear to be
more a lik e than dissim ilar (based on the areas in which questions were
asked, and presumably fo r the e n tire study).
Concluding Comment
The foregoing findings of the research e ffo rt have been based
on the Michigan business lobbyist as he has described himself.

This

chapter has reported on how the business lobbyist was recruited, how
persons are generally recruited fo r business lobbying, and how the
lobbyist would recommend preparing fo r a career as a business lobbyist,
based on his own experiences and his observations of other lobbyists.
A summary, the conclusions of this study, and recommendations for
further study may be found in Chapter Five.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introductory Comment
This study was conducted fo r a diverse audience and fo r a
variety of reasons.

This chapter begins by b rie fly reviewing the

study objectives and the audience fo r whom the study was conducted.
Next, the sig n ific a n t results previously reported are summarized.

Then,

based upon the resu lts, certain conclusions are made which may be o f use
to the study audience.

F in a lly , in consideration of the study findings

and the approach taken in conducting this study, recommendations are
made concerning further research.
Review of the Study Objectives
This study began with a discussion of a changed and more
important state le g is la tiv e environment fo r the business organization,
and the significance of this new environment fo r the business lobbyist.
To study th is , the population of business lobbyists registered in the
State of Michigan to lobby the House of Representatives and the Senate
was examined.
The major objectives of the study are to describe the Michigan
business lobbyist, his business l i f e , and his opinions on the best
recruitment methods for and ideal preparation of the business lobbyist
based upon his experiences as a business lobbyist.

114

While other

115

approaches might have been taken, by focusing on the Michigan business
lobbyist, the objectives established fo r this study have been achieved.
Study Audience
This study has been conducted to provide knowledge about and
an understanding of business lobbyists to its primary audience— the
academic, research, and p ractitio n er communities.

In addition, for

the prospective business lobbyist, the practicing business lobbyist,
the business organization employing lobbyists, and the educational
in s titu tio n providing train in g for the future business lobbyist, i t
is meant to be of managerial significance.

That is , i t is intended to

have practical application to the operational decision making within
these groups.

Each of these groups should be able to u t iliz e this

report e ith e r to understand th e ir own situation better or to improve
it.

For instance, the generalized program of preparation which is

suggested as a conclusion to this research report could be used to
aid in the education of the lobbyist.

I t could serve to a le rt the

prospective lobbyist to areas in which he should study and obtain
experience.

The practicing lobbyist may be able to use i t to id e n tify

his own educational weaknesses and formulate an individualized program
of train in g .

The educational in s titu tio n may be able to use i t to

develop a program of preparation fo r business lobbyists or to improve
an already existing program.
Summary
The study results are reviewed and summarized in the following
order:

the state le g is la tiv e environment, a description of the business

116

lobbyist, and the business lobbyist's l i f e , recruitment, and comments
on ideal preparation.
State Legislative Environment
According to the respondents to this study, the state le g is la ­
tiv e environment has become more important fo r business organizations,
and consequently, the role of the business lobbyist has become more
important to these organizations.
The study respondents indicate th a t, compared with ten years
ago, the e ffe c t of state le g is la tio n on the business organization(s)
which they represent has increased, and that th e ir work now has a
higher p rio rity within these organizations.

Consistent with th is ,

the respondents also report that th e ir personal recorranendations on
le g is la tiv e policy are frequently adopted, and that they have the
freedom to determine ta ctic s on most le g is la tiv e problems.

Further­

more, many of the respondents carry a management t i t l e , and most
report to an individual in a high-level position who has responsibility
fo r a ll functional areas of the organization (or at le a s t, fo r the
government relations function).
Description of the Business Lobbyist
Based on the study resu lts, the Michigan business lobbyist can
be described as predominantly male, middle-aged, married with children,
born and reared in Michigan in an urban s ettin g , and well educated.
The m ajority of the respondents have earned at least a college degree
in one of the social sciences, as opposed to the natural sciences.
Many of them have had p rio r government employment experience.

117

The respondents began lobbying in th e ir la te th ir tie s on the
average and generally possess at least six years of lobbying experience.
The m ajority of them also have worked fo r more than one organization.
So they have brought a number of years of other work experience to
the lobbying ro le , and now possess several years of experience as
lobbyists.
Business Lobbyist's L ife
The respondents tend to have spent l i t t l e time planning to
become lobbyists; and they tend to have become lobbyists for th e ir
organizations subsequent to joining the organization in some other
capacity.

Also, most of the respondents would appear to have had

some "inside" contact with the lobbying organization or lobbying
a c tiv ity which afforded them the opportunity to become a lobbyist,
rather than entering the position d ire c tly from another f ie ld .

This

contact apparently reduced the time required fo r the individual to
consider the o ffe r of a lobbying position before taking i t .
Primary factors which have influenced these individuals
to become lobbyists include th e ir enjoyment of this type of work,
th e ir interest in p o litic s , th e ir concern fo r the c lie n t's welfare
and desire to promote c lie n t's in teres ts , and th e ir other job
re s p o n s ib ilitie s .
Most of the respondents say that they did not tra in formally
for the position of business lobbyist.

Instead, they c ite th e ir work

experience (in business, government, or p o litic s ) as th e ir preparation
fo r th is career.

They also indicate that th e ir organizations do not

118

have a formal lobbyist trainin g program, but that they may have some'
on-the-job training fo r the individual lacking hands-on experience,
p rio r to assumption o f f u ll lobbying resp o n sib ilities.

Concerning the

e ffe c t of increased state le g is la tio n and new categories of issues on
business lobbyist education and tra in in g , a number of respondents men­
tion the need fo r increased, specialized knowledge, more sophistication,
more technical and s c ie n tific tra in in g , greater effectiveness in tra d i­
tional s k ills such as communication, legal and le g is la tiv e background,
knowing the people involved, and knowing the c lie n t's business and the
issues.
Most respondents work for only one c lie n t (the m ajority of
these work fo r trade associations); however, some work fo r more than
one organization.

Also, these individuals report an average of ten

years of employment with th e ir present organizations, but fewer years
representing th e ir organizations as business lobbyists.

Michigan lob­

byists tend to spend only part of th e ir time on lobbying a c tiv itie s ,
and the remaining time on other a c tiv itie s for the c lie n t (e .g .,
association or legal work).
O verall, the most important job responsibility area fo r the
respondents is working in some fashion with the state leg islatu re
on behalf of th e ir employers by maintaining le g is la tiv e contacts,
influencing le g is la tio n , and monitoring le g is la tiv e a c tiv itie s .

Less

important are trade association tasks, such as association management,
membership relatio n s, and communication and information programs.

119

Recruitment o f the Business Lobbyist

Consistent with the way in which the respondents were recruited
into th e ir business organizations, candidates fo r a lobbying position
need to have contacts with lobbying a c tiv itie s or the lobbying
organization in order to become lobbyists.
Characteristics which the respondents feel are most important
to possess in order to be successful as a business lobbyist include:
an a b ilit y to sell ideas, honesty, in terest in the job, job knowledge,
and a pleasant personality.
When hiring a person as a business lobbyist, the most important
characteristics considered by the respondents are the candidate's per­
sonal tr a its and a b ilit ie s , such as honesty, positive a ttitu d e , pro­
fessional a ttitu d e , cooperativeness, speaking and w riting a b ilit y ,
general in te llig e n c e , and poise.

The candidate must be able to make

a good f i r s t impression, not only on the interviewer but on the leg is ­
la to r as w ell.

The t r a it s ju s t lis te d assist in th is .

Also help fu l,

though rated second in importance, are such personal characteristics
as pleasant personality, ambition, appearance, and the desire to work
s p e c ific a lly fo r the respondent's organization.
Rated less important than tr a its and personal characteristics
are experience and education.

The respondents point out that the

lobbyist needs to accomplish goals in a dynamic, m ulti-faceted
environment, and that while education is important, a track record
of proven experience is more s ig n ific a n t.

Areas of experience which

are important fo r the would-be lobbyist to have are those in which

120

candidates gain experiences sim ilar to those of a business lobbyist.
Such experience can a ttra c t attention within an organization and gain
entry fo r the candidate into the lobbying system.

So communication,

p o litic s , government, and business are p rio r experience areas preferred
by respondents in that these areas give the candidate not only a "real
world" knowledge base, but also practical experiences sim ilar to those
of the working lobbyist.

Education in government, p o litic s , business,

and communication are rated fourth in importance in the hiring of the
candidate as a business lobbyist.
Echoing these hiring specifications, survey results re fle c t a
bias against hiring the new college graduate unless he is older, more
mature, has had some experience, and could be trained on the job prior
to assuming fu ll lobbying res p o n sib ilitie s.
Ideal Preparation of the Business
Lobbyist
While education is not the most important factor to be con­
sidered in the hiring o f a person to be a business lobbyist, some
educational preferences are expressed by the respondents.

Regarding

the amount of education, the m ajority prefer a candidate with some
college or a college degree.

However, the lack of a college degree

is not a b arrier to employment, since possession of other character­
is tic s could result in the ind ivid u al's being hired.
As one would expect, based upon the nature of the job, the
respondents also id e n tifie d the areas in which study would make the
business lobbyist more e ffe c tiv e on the job.

These areas include the

121

workings of government, communication s k ills , p o litic s , business, and
government relations.

Consistent with these areas, college majors

which would be appropriate are p o litic a l science, communication, law,
and business administration.
I f a program o f study were designed especially fo r the business
lobbyist, i t would stress courses in these areas also.

Governmental

courses would include government, p o litic a l science, public a ffa ir s ,
and public administration.

Communication courses would include general

communication, public speaking, English, public rela tio n s , creative
w ritin g , and mass media courses.

Business courses would include

economics, business law, business administration, management, and
personnel and human relatio n s.

These courses would be supplemented

with courses in law and psychology.

Thus, based on the respondents'

recommendations, an outline of educational preparation emerges which
would enhance the business lobbyist's background and his a b ilit y to
i

perform successfully among the state le g islato rs.
The respondents place clear emphasis, however, upon practical
application with respect to accomplishing objectives—what to do, how
to do i t , when, and so fo rth .

This is not to say that theory has no

relevance, but that i t must be operationalized so that the lobbyist
can use the knowledge to function e ffe c tiv e ly in a set of complex
relationships and thereby achieve the c lie n t's objectives.
A fter formal educational preparation, the respondents again
emphasize the need fo r practical work experience to prepare fo r a
lobbying career.

Preparation might consist of government or business

122

experience, or perhaps p o litic s , entry into lobbying work i n i t i a l l y ,
law, public rela tio n s , or journalism.
Based on the respondents' comments, a fin a l caveat must be
entered with respect to education and experience as qu alification s
fo r lobbying:

they do not substitute fo r the proper tr a its and per­

sonality characteristics which the respondents rate as very important
in obtaining a job as a lobbyist and successfully performing in that
capacity.
Conclusions
Moving beyond the study's immediate objectives ju s t addressed,
many conclusions, or rather im plications, may be drawn from the results
of this research that have managerial significance fo r the audience of
this study.

The conclusions offered concern the growing importance

of the business lob byist's role and its implications for the business
organization; general selection c r ite r ia which may be applied by the
business organization to evaluate business lobbyist candidates; a
generalized program of preparation for business lobbyists; and f in a lly ,
the role of the business school in the trainin g of students to become
business lobbyists and/or in the educational upgrading of practicing
business lobbyists who wish to improve th e ir s k ills for lobbying work.
Each of these conclusions suggests actions which may be taken by the
audience fo r whom this study has relevance, including those with
managerial re s p o n s ib ilitie s .

123

Importance of the Role and Preparation
of the Business Lobbyist
The state le g is la tiv e environment has become more important to
the business organizations which are operating in the State of Michigan.
By passing laws and making provision fo r the establishment of regula­
tions, the Michigan State Legislature has affected and can continue to
a ffe c t the operations and success of these business organizations.

It

would appear that more groups, representing more diverse interests are
seeking to influence state le g is la tio n in many areas which may even­
tu a lly a ffe c t the business organization.

Furthermore, i t seems that

there are and w ill continue to be more laws which a ffe c t and there are
more laws being enacted which may a ffe c t business organizations.

Conse­

quently, the business organization must provide input into the le g is la ­
tiv e process in order to bring about more favorable state le g is la tio n .
One way of providing input is through the use of business lobbyists who
in teract with state leg is la to rs on behalf of the business organization.
So, given that the state le g is la tiv e environment has become more impor­
ta n t, more dynamic, and more complex, the role of the business lobbyist
has become more important.

At the same time, since the number and

variety of issues of concern to the business organization has increased
and more parties are involved in the le g is la tiv e process, business
organizations must also pay more attention to the business lobbyist's
preparation.

Training which is in-depth and more extensive is required

in order fo r the business lobbyist to be e ffe c tiv e and e ffic ie n t in
carrying out his role.

124

In responding to the increased importance of the le g is la tiv e
environment, business organizations ought to:
1.

Develop measures fo r themselves of the actual or potential
impact of state le g is la tio n on th e ir operations and
performance;

2.

Devise, based on the magnitude of the le g is la tiv e impact, the
appropriate strategy and allocate the necessary resources in
order to in teract successfully with the state legislature
(including funds to hire business lobbyists and to support
th e ir e ffo rts ); and

3.

Insure that th e ir business lobbyists are prepared to carry
out th e ir role.
F in a lly , while the business organization may be tempted to

remain le g is la tiv e ly uninvolved, believing in a separation of business
and government, lack of representation a t the state legislature may
prove injurious to the business organization in terms of its operations
and performance against objectives.

Thus, this conclusion argues fo r

strong business organization representation at the state le g is la tiv e
level of government.
Selection C rite ria fo r Business Lobbyists
In lig h t.o f the nature of the environment in which the business
lobbyist practices his or her trade, generalized selection c r ite r ia
have been derived from the results of this research e ffo rt which the
business organization could use to select individuals to represent i t

125

to the state le g is la tu re.

Furthermore, these same c r ite r ia suggest

fo r the business lobbyist candidate, the characteristics which the
candidate should display in order to enhance the likelihood of his
being hired as a business lobbyist.
However, before these c r ite r ia are elaborated upon, i t must
be reiterated that p rio r to the selection process, the prospective
candiate must get into the lobbying system, because entering into
lobbying work from "outside" the lobbying system is d if f ic u lt .
Getting into an organization's lobbying system involves establishing
contact with the organization or with lobbying a c tiv itie s .

This may

be accomplished, fo r instance, by obtaining work in some other capacity
within the lobbying organization, or by working in a government position
where one is exposed to the lobbying system.

Later, fo r the young

prospective business lobbyist, an entry vehicle into lobbying w ill
be proposed.
Returning to the general selection c r ite r ia fo r business
lobbyists, they may be divided into four main categories:

personal

t r a it s , personal characteristics, experience, and education.
Personal tr a its of the business lobbyist candidate should be
examined f i r s t .

The most important ones are:

honesty, a positive

a ttitu d e , a professional a ttitu d e , cooperativeness, speaking a b ilit y ,
general in te llig e n c e , poise, and w riting a b ility .

Personal charac­

te r is tic s , which include a pleasant personality, ambition, appearance,
and a desire to work s p e c ific a lly fo r the organization should be con­
sidered second.

Some of the candidate's tr a its and characteristics

126

may be assessed during the interview process by those individuals
involved in recruiting and hiring .

Others should be assessed by

talking with the candidate's p rio r employers and other references.
The organization's current lobbyists, as well as the management
responsible for the lobbying a c tiv ity , should be involved in the
selection process.
The.third category of selection c r ite r ia is p rio r work expe­
rience relevant to the job of lobbying.

Experience in communcation,

p o litic s , government, business, public rela tio n s , law, and/or jour­
nalism is lik e ly to have provided the candidate with the job knowledge
which w ill enhance his productivity as a lobbyist.

In a hiring deci­

sion, the preference would be fo r the candidate who has at least
several years of employment experience.
Fourth in importance as a selection c r it e r ia , is the educational
background of the candidate.

Education in government, p o litic s , busi­

ness, and/or communication, would be preferred to education in other
fie ld s .

Also, the preferred candidate would have at least taken some

college or earned a college degree in one of these areas (with course
work in the others).
In addition, in the process of screening, the candidates
references should be checked in order to v e rify his past performance,
as well as to check the prior employer's perceptions o f the candidate
in regard to the selection c r ite r ia .
Besides the selection c r ite r ia ju s t mentioned, evaluation of
how the candidate w ill " f i t in" with the organization and his motivation

127

fo r becoming a lobbyist should be considered.

The candidate should

be interested in p o litic s and the business organization, interested
in promoting the organization's in te re sts, and he should feel that he
would enjoy lobbying work.

Observing and participating in lawmaking,

presenting a case to le g is la to rs , and enjoying a variety of job tasks
(as opposed to doing routine work) should be a ttra c tiv e to the
business lobbyist candidate.
F in a lly , each o f the selection c r ite r ia categories mentioned
above should be expanded upon by the business organization seeking to
hire additional business lobbyists.

The tasks which the organization

expects to be carried out, as well as the specific environment affec­
ting the execution of those tasks should be defined.

Based on this

d e fin itio n , specific values with regard to the categories discussed
above, should be id e n tifie d .

Then, as a prelude to formal screening,

the organization should seek out a pool of candidates lik e ly to have
those characteristics.

This pool could be developed by looking fo r

lik e ly candidates f i r s t , within the business organization; second, in
other s im ila r business organizations; th ird , in other organizations
involved in the lobbying process, such as state government agencies
or the state le g is la tu re ; and f in a lly , in other government, communi­
cation, p o litic a l, business, le g a l, or public relations organizations.
Then, i t would be a matter of comparing the pool of candidates with
the selection c r ite r ia to id e n tify the best candidate fo r the
organization.

128

Program of Preparation fo r the
Business Lobbyist
Another conclusion which may be drawn from the study results
is that a specially designed program of study can help prepare an
individual to be a better business lobbyist.

An outline of this

proposed study program, which may be of use to the prospective busi­
ness lobbyist, the practicing business lobbyist, and the educational
f a c i l i t y involved in the training of business lobbyists, follows.
The program of study is in te rd is c ip lin a ry in scope, incorpo­
rating education in government, p o litic s , business, and communication.
However, i t is not solely academic in its orientation since in addition
to building theoretical knowledge i t also aims at the "proper" social­
izatio n of the prospective business lobbyist (student) and providing
work experience to allow the student to be a successful p ractition er
o f the lobbying trade.

So, so c ia lizatio n , theory, and practical

experience are a ll included and they are designed to dovetail in
the proposed program of preparation fo r the business lobbyist (see
Figure 5 .1 ).
Socialization
As reported e a r lie r , lobbyist recruiters look fo r certain
personal characteristics in the business lobbyist candidate when
making a hiring decision.

The program of preparation, then, should

be designed to "so cialize," that is , develop the desired character­
is tic s and behaviors in , the candidate accordingly.

I t should seek

to inculcate in the candidate those personal characteristics of

129

Socialization

Business
Lobbyi st

Education

Figure 5.1

Experience

Program of Preparation.

honesty, a positive a ttitu d e , professionalism, cooperativeness, poise,
good appearance, pleasant personality, and ambition which w ill enhance
the s u ita b ility of the candidate for a job as a business lobbyist, as
well as the candidate's a b ilit y to actually perform the role of lobby­
is t once he is hired.

How socialization can be achieved in a program

of preparation follows.
F irs t, a facu lty which provides by example appropriate models
fo r the prospective lobbyist is essential.

Observing role models who

e xh ib it the desired characteristics (e .g ., honesty, good appearance)
fa c ilita te s the development of those characteristics in the student.
Exposing the student to successful business lobbyists acting as guest

130

lecturers in the classroom should also transmit those characteristics
to the student.

Work experience with business organizations or trade

associations on a summer job or a work/study program basis would also
be helpful in the so cializatio n process.
I t is not enough, however, ju s t to repeatedly expose the
student to these characteristics.

The student should be taught why

these characteristics are needed to successfully perform the business
lobbyist ro le.

For example, the reasons why the business lobbist must

be perceived as honest by the state le g is la to r (in order to fa c ilit a te
a good working relationship and to have ideas believed in) should be
emphasized.

The problems of the lobbyist who does not possess these

characteristics should also be explained and demonstrated.
F in a lly , the student should be provided with the opportunity
to develop and demonstrate these characteristics in actual situations.
Role-playing exercise, class presentations, team projects, work/study
programs, and summer internships should be part of the program of
preparation and should allow fo r the student's "intern alizatio n"
of these characteristics.
Formal Education
The formal education process and the p a rtic u lar subjects
studied should stress both the theory and application of those func­
tional areas (and th e ir integration) which f a c ilit a t e the students'
knowledge about and understanding of the lobbying environment and
the role of the business lobbyist.

The student should also develop

some causal understanding of the relationship among the lobbying

131

variables in order to develop a predictive a b ilit y .

The. end

product should be a student who can apply the appropriate theory
to a given lobbying situation in order to develop a strategy to achieve
the objectives of the employing business organization and successfully
implement that strategy.
The theory which the business lobbyist needs in order to perform
successfully may be found in the following areas and th e ir integration.
These areas and the subjects making up each area are based on the
results of th is study (see Table 5 .1 ).

Table 5.1

Educational Areas

Area

Subject

Government

Government
P o litic a l Science
Public A ffa irs
Public Administration

Communication

Communication
Public Speaking
English
Public Relations
Creative Writing
Mass Media

Business

Economics
Business Administration
Business Law
Management
Personnel and Human Relations

Miscellaneous

Law
Psychology

132

The most important educational area is government and p o litic s .
The business lobbyist must understand the le g is la tiv e process.

Knowl­

edge of how b ills are created, how they move through the system, and
how th e ir passage may be fa c ilita te d or impeded is required.

The

importance of knowing the agents in the system and how they a ffe c t
the movement of b ills is also essential.

The business lobbyist must

be able to work with the various agents and speak th e ir language.
Understanding the role of the p o litic a l process in shaping le g is la tio n
is also necessary.

Courses in government and p o litic a l science can

provide this understanding or knowledge.
Next, education in communication is required.

The business

lobbyist must be able to communicate with diverse audiences.

Of course

he must be able to successfully educate and influence state leg islato rs
concerning d if f ic u lt issues related to complex systems such as economics
and business operations.

Also, the lobbyist must be able to success­

f u lly communicate with his business organization; fo r example, he must
be able to communicate to the business organization the pressures on
the state le g is la to r which influence the le g is la to r's decision making
process.

In addition, the business lobbyist must be able to communicate

with a ll the other relevant publics which may impinge upon the success
of the lobbyist's strategy.

Other interest groups may be involved--some

supportive, some in adversary roles.

The media may also be involved,

so some knowledge of public relations and sophisticated communications
may be useful.

Courses such as public speaking and creative w riting

can contribute to the lobbyists a b ilit y to express himself e ffe c tiv e ly .

133

Since the business lobbyist represents a business organization,
a grounding in the principles of business is essential.

He must com­

municate with his organization in the language of business.

He must

understand the role of business in a complex economic system, as well
as the issues affecting the success of business organizations.

He must

be prepared to explain the role of the business organization in the
economic system to other individuals who may be unfam iliar with how
the economic system, operates.

He must understand the implications of

various laws and regulations (and proposed laws or regulations) on the
performance of the business organization and on the economic system as
a whole.

Courses such as economics and business law can provide a

strong theoretical and practical education in business.
Among the miscellaneous subjects in which education is useful
are law and psychology.

Some legal education can be helpful to the

lobbyist who is particip atin g in the drafting of leg isla tio n (or in
modifying le g is la tio n ).

I t is especially helpful in understanding

how s lig h t changes in the wording of a p articu lar piece of legislatio n
can ra d ic a lly change its e ffe c t.

Also education in psychology would

be useful in understanding the motivations of other individuals and
how those motivations influence the le g is la tiv e and p o litic a l processes.
Formal education in the above functional areas, then, would
provide a theoretical background for the business lobbyist.

Some

additional comments should be made, however, regarding this formal
education.
F ir s t, none of these functional areas is s u ffic ie n t in it s e lf
to serve as the basis fo r a study program fo r the business lobbyist.

134

The lobbyist environment incorporates many elements ( e .g ., the business
organization and le g is la tu re ) and many processes (e .g ., p o litic a l,
le g is la tiv e , and communication) which may be in a state of change.
Thus, an in te rd is c ip lin a ry approach is needed which welds these
functional areas together in a cohesive body of knowledge tailo red
to meet the business lobbyist's needs.
Second, formal education must extend beyond the textbook,
lecture note, and term paper to case studies and role-playing exercises.
The student must develop s k ill in applying the appropriate theory to
specific situations to achieve stated objectives.

The more " life - lik e "

the situ atio n , the better.
Third, this formal education should dovetail with the social­
ization process which the student is put through as a part of this
program.
Work Experience
"Proper" socializatio n and formal education are not enough
to prepare the student fo r business lobbying work.

The student must

have practical experience in the application of theory to real situa­
tions.

Part-time employment in a lobbying support capacity through

work/study programs or summer internships with a business organization
or a trade association would be most useful.

Another p o s s ib ility

would be working on the other side of the lo b b y is t-le g isla to r interface;
this would give the student the le g is la to r's perspective on the lobbyist.
Any work experience, however, should involve "hands-on"
experience for the student, as well as the assumption of responsibility

135

fo r some meaningful outcomes.

The student w ill learn more about the

role of the business lobbyist by putting theory into practice and
learning from mistakes, than he w ill from observing others.

This

practical work experience should also reinforce the socializatio n
process and the formal education process.

F in a lly , the work expe­

rience should allow the student to learn who the players are in a
le g is la tiv e environment, and also open doors to employment
opportunities.
Summary of the Program of Preparation
A program of preparation fo r the business lobbyist has been
developed which consists of these main elements:
formal education, and work experience.

s o c ia liza tio n ,

Bringing these three elements

together in a business environment fo r the business lobbyist student
should resu lt in an individual who would be recruited by a business
organization to work in a lobbying capacity, and who would be able
to function successfully in that capacity.
U ltim ately, the preparation program should y ie ld the type of
business lobbyist a business organization would be eager to h ire—a
business lobbyist who is fa m ilia r with the le g is la tiv e process and
the individuals involved, as well as with the business organization
and its interests, and the relevant public policy issues; a lobbyist
who is able to gather, analyze, and impart information; a lobbyist who
is able to make sound recommendations to both the business organization
and le g is la to rs , and to sell those recommendations; and a lobbyist whose
performance refle c ts good judgment, a sense of tim ing, advanced

136

preparation, good organization, and a reputation fo r being well
informed and honest.

By providing this type of generalized study

program, the business lobbyist should meet the needs of the business
organization by successfully operating in the new state le g is la tiv e
environment.
Role of the Business School
The la s t area in which conclusions may be drawn from the study
results concerns the role of the business school in the training of
business lobbyists.

The business school has a role to play in the

education of business lobbyists whether i t be the trainin g of new
lobbyists or the retrain in g o f experienced business lobbyists.

This

role derives from what the business lobbyist does, and the nature of
the organization which the business lobbyist represents, and the issues
on which the business lobbyist must be knowledgeable.
This does not necessarily mean, however, that the business
school should take a leadership role.

F irs t of a l l , the business

lobbyist requires a m u lti-d is c ip lin a ry background.

In addition, in

the context of a college or un iversity, the study respondents prefer
the p o litic a l science department as a "home" fo r the training of
business lobbyists.

F in a lly , the number of students seeking this

type of trainin g may not be s u ffic ie n t to ju s tify a leadership role
fo r the business school.
Nonetheless, the role of the business school in business
lobbyist trainin g is apparent, based on the outline of the program
of preparation.

The business school's ro le , then, includes the

137

s o c ia liza tio n , education, and work experience of the business lobbyist.
In this regard, the business school might well be involved as part of
a jo in t program with the p o litic a l science or government department
of a college or university.
With respect to general tra in in g , the business lobbyist needs
to be able to establish objectives, devise a strategy fo r achieving
objectives, and implement the strategy in a complex environment.
lobbyist must get the job done.
ing in this area.

The

The business school can provide tra in ­

I t can also provide training in business law, often

a subject of concern fo r the lobbyist who may be recommending le g is la ­
tio n , or proposing amendments to the law.
in how the economic system operates.

Also valuable is training

The business lobbyist must be

prepared to discuss with the le g is la to r, fo r instance, the ram ifica­
tions of le g is la tio n proposed e ith e r by the lobbyist's organization,
or by other in te re s t groups.

The business school could be involved in

i n it ia l training fo r the prospective lobbyist and/or in the on-going
training of current lobbyists, through an appropriate program of study
developed s p e c ific a lly fo r them.
The business school could also be involved in arranging for
work experiences fo r the student business lobbyist in the form of
internships or work/study programs, as well as in th e ir supervision.
Student internships in business organizations would provide the student
working in a lobbying support capacity with insights into lobbying;
they could also provide s o c ia liza tio n , education, and experience
available nowhere else which could enhance the likelihood of the
student making lobbying his career choice.

138

E a rlie r in this report, i t was mentioned that business
lobbyists prefer job candidates with certain personal characteristics
and real world experiences, and that this study's results indicate
that no lobbyist candidates were selected by campus interviews, or
as a resu lt of having been student interns.

Perhaps, i t is now time

to make this a p o s s ib ility , especially given the increasing importance
of state government to the business organization and its performance.
Business school involvement in the future business lobbyist's work
experience could be c r it ic a l.
F in a lly , as a part of the socializatio n process, the business
school, through its fa c u lty , could provide good role models fo r the
student.
Recommendations
I t is possible, based on the results and the conclusions of
this research report, to make recommendations with regard to possible
directions fo r future research in this area.
This study has dealt with one component ( i . e . , the state
business lobbyist) of a system involving the state leg is la tu re and
its members, business organization(s), and other in teres t groups and
th e ir representatives, as well as other concerned p arties.

Other

approaches could have been taken, and other elements, relationships,
and systems in d iffe re n t settings could have been studied.

Some of

these "roads not taken" suggest further research projects, as described
below.

139

F ir s t, the business lobbyist might be studied in other settings
( i . e . , other states) and at d iffe re n t levels of government (e .g ., fed­
e ra l) in order to see i f the findings reported here are relevant to a
broader population of business lobbyists or i f these results are unique
to those lobbyists practicing in the State of Michigan.
Second, a comparison also might be made of the d iffe re n t lob­
byist types ( i . e . , professional organization, single business or corpo­
ratio n , business or trade association, or m u lti-c lie n t lobbyists) to
discover th e ir s im ila ritie s or differences on the questions studied
here.

In t o t a l, these lobbyist types probably do not form a homogeneous

group.
Third, one might u t iliz e a d iffe re n t technique of study--the
personal interview , as opposed to the mail questiorinaire--as a means
of gathering data.

Personal interviews require more time of the subject

and the researcher, but they would allow fo r in-depth discussion of the
questions pursued here and might uncover findings or new insights which
were not revealed by this research e ffo rt in the questionnaire format.
Another p o s s ib ility would be to focus on the relationships
between the business lobbyist, the state le g is la to rs , and/or the
business organizations in Michigan or in other settings.

One might

describe these relationships and seek a greater understanding of
them.

One might also extend the scope of inquiry to determine the

environmental variables which influence these interactions.
While this study has concentrated on description, further
steps could be taken toward greater explanation and prediction,

140

answering questions such as:

What are the interpersonal factors

between business lobbyists and state leg islato rs which resu lt in
a successful business lobbyist (based on his c lie n t's objectives)?
Are these the same as or d iffe re n t from those uncovered in.previous
studies of the e n tire lobbyist population?

One might also test

various theories of interpersonal behavior in the context of the
state le g is la to r— business lobbyist— business organization relation
in order to determine th e ir v a lid ity .
The success of the business organization in creating a more
favorable state environment in which to do business is another possible
area of study.
not, and why?

On specific issues, have businesses been successful or
What specific actions might the business organization

take, both within the context of the state legislature and outside of
i t , in order to e ffe c t a more favorable state environment in which to
operate?
Thus, there are a host of areas s t i l l to be studied, and a
number of questions s t i l l to be answered.

The problems of a changed

and more important state le g is la tiv e environment fo r the business
organization provide many challenges and opportunities fo r both the
business organization and fo r the researcher.

These challenges and

opportunities require a response and in responding, the information
gathered and the knowledge gained may provide both a better understood
and an improved business-government relationship.

141

Concluding Comment
A long road has been traveled to complete th is research study
from the i n it ia l investigation of its merits and f e a s ib ilit y , through
the research design and execution, and the compilation and analysis of
data, to the reporting of results.

In carrying out th is study, this

researcher is fortunate to have had the cooperation of each of the
seventy-four business organization lobbyists who have been examined
as a group and reported on in this research study.

Only by conducting

a study such as this one, does one appreciate the importance of having
subjects who are w illin g to cooperate in a research e ffo r t.

I t is

hoped that th e ir input and the e ffo rts of this researcher have resulted
in a study which helps to provide worthwhile insights into a facet of
business-government relation s.

NOTES

NOTES

CHAPTER I :

INTRODUCTION

^ e e Samuel Patternson, "The Role of the Lobbyist: The Case
of Oklahoma," The Journal of P o litic s 25 (February 1963): 83-84; and
John S. McClenahen, "Is Business Ready fo r New State Power?" Industry
Week 179 (November 12, 1973): 58.
2Phyllis S. McGrath, Managing Corporate External Relations:
Changing Perspectives and Responses (New York: The Conference Board,
In c ., 1976), p. 2.
3Ib id ., p. 3.
‘‘Martin R. Haley and James M. Kiss, "Larger Stakes in Statehouse
Lobbying," Harvard Business Review 52 (January 1974): 126-129; and Arlene
Hershman, "The States Move in on Business," Dun's Review 111 (January
1978): 33.
5McClenahen, "Is Business Ready?" p. 56.
6Michigan, Department of State, Campaign Finance Reporting
O ffic e , Legislative Agents Registered as of June 12, 1979 and
Legislative Agents Registered as of February 1, 198(h
7Hershman, "States Move in on Business," p. 34; and Gary T.
Ford, "Adoption of Consumer Policies by States: Some Empirical
Perspectives," Journal of Marketing Research 15 (February 1978): 54.
8Senator William Sederberg, Michigan State Senate, Lansing,
Michigan, interview on 7 August 1979; and Representative Lynn Jondahl,
Michigan House of Representatives, Lansing, Michigan, interview on
27 August 1979.
CHAPTER I I :

REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE

*See Arlene Hershman, "The States Move in on Business," Dun1s
Review 111 (January 1978): 33-38; John S. McClenahen, "Is Business
Ready for New State Power?" Industry Week 179 (November 12, 1973):
55-60; and Robert Brakeman and Debbie Del V a lle , "The Power Brokers—
Unmasking Those Mysterious People Who Influence Your Legislature,"
Lansing Magazine 2 (September 1978): 19-25.

142

143

2Martin R. Haley and James M. Kiss, "Larger Stakes in Statehouse
Lobbying," Harvard Business Review 52 (January 1974): 125-135.
3I b i d . , p. 126.
“I b i d . , pp. 126-127.
5I b id ., p. 127.
6Ib id .
7I b i d . , p. 128
8Ib id .
9Ibi d.
10 Ib id ., pp. 128-129.
11 I b id ., p. 129.
12 Ib id ., p. 130.
13 Ibid .
14 Ib id .
15 Ib id ., pp. 130-131.
16Walter D. DeVries, "The Michigan Lobbyist: A Study in the
Bases and Perceptions of Effectiveness" (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan
State U niversity, 1960), p. 276.
17 Ib id ., pp. 54-55.
18 Ib id ., p. 81.
19 Ib id ., pp. 81-82.
20 Ib id ., p. 139
21 Ib id ., p. 292.
22 Ib id .
23 Ib id ., p. 279.
2“ I b i d . , pp. 207-208.
25 Ib id ., p. 208.
26 Ib id ., pp. 289-290.

144

27Samuel Patterson, "The Role of the Lobbyist: The Case of
Oklahoma," The Journal of P o litic s 25 (February 1963): 76.
28Ib id ., pp. 75-79
29 Ib id ., pp. 78-79.
30 Ib id ., pp. 80-81.
31 Ib id ., pp. 83-84.
32 Ib id ., pp. 85-86.
33Ronald D. Hedlund and Samuel C. Patterson, "Personal A ttribu tes,
P o litic a l Orientations, and Occupational Perspectives of Lobbyists: The
Case of Illin o is ," Iowa Business Digest 37 (November 1966): 5.
311Ibid.
35 Ibid .
36 I b id ., pp. 6-7.
37 Ibid .
38 Ib id ., p. 7.
39 Ib id ., pp. 7-8.
^ Ib id ., pp. 9-10.
111 Ib id ., p. 10.
42Harmon Zeigler and Michael A. Baer, Lobbying: Interaction and
Influence in American State Legislatures (Belmont, C a lif.: Wadswroth
Publishing Company, 1969), p. 7.
43 Ib id ., p. 54.
-‘♦ Ib id ., p. 43.
45 Ib id ., pp. 64-65.
46 Ib id ., p. 46.
1+7Ib id ., p. 47.
If8 Ib id ., p. 48.
119Ib id ., p. 56

145

50 Ib id ., pp., 49-50.
51 I b id ., PP. 52-53.
52 Ib id ., P- 55.
53 Ib id ., P. 61.
5,1 Ib id ., P- 79.
55 Ib id ., P. 105.
56Bernard D. Kolasa, "Lobbying in the Nonpartisan Environment:
e of Nebraska," The Western P o litic a l Quarterly 24 (March 1971
67-68.
57 Ib id ., P- 68.
58 Ib id ., P- 69.
59 Ibid .
60 Ib id ., P- 70.
61 Ib id ., P- 71.
62 Ib id ., P- 74.
63 Ib id ., P* 75.
611 Ib id ., P- 77.
65John C. Quinn I I I , "New England Lobbyists: A Comparative
Study" (Ph.D. dissertatio n , University o f Massachusetts, 1971), p. 31.
66 Ib id ., p. 33.
67Ib id ., p. 36.
60 I b id ., p. 38.
69 Ib id ., p. 61.
70Ib id ., p. 44.
71 Ib id ., pp. 45-46.
72Ib id ., p. 47.
73 I b id ., p. 50.
71tIb id ., p. 54.

146

75 Ib id ., p. 55.
76 Ib id ., p. 57.
77Ib id ., pp. 187-188.
78Ib id ., p. 196.
CHAPTER I I I :

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

*Paul E. Green and Donald S. T u ll, Research fo r Marketing
Decisions (Englewood C lif f s , N .J.: P ren tice -H a ll, In c ., 1978),
pp. 79-80.
2Ib id . , pp. 207-208.
3I b i d . , p. 150.
'‘Marvin A. Jolson, "How to Double or T rip le Mail-Survey Response
Rates," Journal of Marketing 41 (October 1977): 79. See sample
pren o tificatio n message.
5Ib id ., p. 81.
6Green and T u ll, Research, p. 150.
CHAPTER IV:

RESULTS

^ e e pp. 10-14 of this report.
2 Ib id .
3See p. 156 in Appendix B of th is report.

APPENDIX A
TELEPHONE PRENOTIFICATION STATEMENT

APPENDIX A
TELEPHONE PRENOTIFICATION STATEMENT

Contained in th is appendix is a reproduction of the standard
presentation used in the telephone prenotification of the survey
subjects.

147

148

Survey Telephone Prenotification:

Standard Presentation

Hello Mr. _____________.
I'm George Nastas, a Ph.D. student in the College of Business
Administration at Michigan State University.

I'm studying the career

background and preparation of business and professional organization
le g is la tiv e agents.

This study is fo r my doctoral dissertation.

I would lik e to s o lic it your assistance in this study by
completing my survey questionnaire.

Would you be able to help me,

Mr. _______________ ?
Your name is not on the questionnaire and y o u 'll be asked to
read a cover le tt e r describing the study and then to respond to a series
of questions.

I ' l l mail the questionnaire today and i t w ill arrive in a

Michigan State University envelope.

Is this okay?

I ' ve called you in advance to describe the study.
is very important.

Your reply

Will you try to return the questionnaire soon

a fte r you receive it?
Thank you, Mr. ____________.

I appreciate your help.

APPENDIX B
REPRINT OF COVER LETTER AND QUESTIONNAIRE

APPENDIX B
REPRINT OF COVER LETTER AND QUESTIONNAIRE

Reprinted in this appendix is the survey cover le tte r and the
Legislative Liaison Representative Questionnaire sent to each of the
Michigan business lobbyists whose particip atio n was sought in this
survey.

The cover le t t e r and questionnaire which were mailed out to

each subject were xerographic reproductions on white paper of the
o rig in a ls .

149

150

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE SCHOOL OP BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

EAST LANSING• MICHIGAN ■48824

DEPARTMENT OF MARKETING AND
TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION

Dear S ir:
C ertainly no one is in a b e tte r position than you to recognize the growing impor­
tance o f state government on business a c tiv itie s 1n the State o f Michigan. You,
as a le g is la tiv e lia is o n representative, play a key role in shaping le g is la tio n
which may a ffe c t business organizations. Yet few hard facts are known about those
o f you who do represent business and professional groups to the Michigan State
Legislature - who you are, how your career evolved, how you view your work, and
how one might prepare fo r a career as a le g is la tiv e lia is o n representative.
You are the sole source o f such inform ation. That is why I am seeking your assis­
tance in th is study o f le g is la tiv e lia is o n representatives.
The enclosed self-addressed questionnaire is a f i r s t step toward what I hope w ill
lead to a f u lle r study o f business-state government relations and the role o f the
le g is la tiv e lia is o n representative in th a t re la tio n sh ip . I cannot assure you that
i t w ill take only a few minutes o f your time to complete th is questionnaire. But
i f you agree th a t the findings would be useful to you, to the organizations you
represent, to b e tte r business-state government re la tio n s , and to persons contem­
p la tin g your f ie ld as a career, then I hope that you w ill e le ct to p a rtic ip a te in
th is study. The q u a lity and completeness o f the findings w ill be dependent upon
your p a rtic ip a tio n .
You w ill be asked a number o f questions pertaining to both fa c t and opinion. I
assure you th a t th is inform ation w ill be treated in absolute confidence. No grant
or other funds support th is p ro je c t, and only I shall see your responses. This
questionnaire is going to le g is la tiv e lia is o n representatives registered w ith the
Michigan Department o f State who represent business and professional organizations.
A ll data w ill be coded and sunmarized before being used or shown to any other person,
o r reported in any w ritte n o r published analysis. In other words, the focus 1s on
patterns o f response, and not on the responses o f any one in d iv id u a l. The fin d ­
ings w ill be used fo r my doctoral d isse rta tio n a t Michigan State U n ive rsity, as well
as in subsequent publications to the public and research coranunities.
I f you have any questions concerning th is study o r the questionnaire, please contact
me at 353-6381. I would appreciate i t i f you would return the completed question­
naire in the prepaid self-addressed envelope by not la te r than
Thank you fo r p a rtic ip a tin g in th is study.
Sincerely,
George Nastas I I I
GN/nb

151
LEGISLATIVE LIAISON REPRESENTATIVE QUESTIONNAIRE

Graduate School of Business Administration
Michigan State University

Subject:

Survey of Legislative Liaison Representatives

Instructions for completing the questionnaire:

Most of the questions may be answered by placing
an "X" beside the response which you think affords
the best reply to the question at hand (in certain
instances, more than one response may be permitted,
with this fact noted in the question wording.). A
few questions will ask that you rank your responses
in order of significance, while a number of other
questions will ask you to evaluate certain factors
in terms of their importance. Please answer all of
the questions.
There are no inappropriate answers to any of the
questions in the survey. For this reason, you
should feel free to choose any response you believe
does the best job of depicting the answer most suit­
able for you. For this same reason, you should try
to avoid spending too much time on any single item,
since the first answer that you select will very
often be the one which comes closest to represen­
ting the position that you wish to take.
Again rest assured that your answers will be regard­
ed as confidential, and that any report made of the
results will be presented in summary form only. In
short, no individual answers will be reported.
A final comment on confidentiality is made on page
11 of this questionnaire.
Thank you again for completing this survey question­
naire.

152

ABOUT YOUR BUSINESS LIFE...
I.

What is your present job title?
A.

2.

7

Title:

Do you practice legislative liaison
work:

Please identify your three most
important areas of job respon­
sibility (in priority order) for
the organization that you repre­
sent to the state legislature.
Most important:

_

3.

A.
B.
C.

on a salaried basis.
on a self-employed basis.
other:
___________
(please specify)

Second most important:

How many clients do you represent
in your legislative liaison work?
A.

Number:

_____

4.

Which client group(a) do you repre­
sent?
(Indicate one or more).

_
_
_
_

A. Professional organizations
B. Single businesses or corporations
C. Trade or business associations
D. Other: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
(please specify)

5.

Are you a:

_

A. multi-issue or a
B. single-issue

Third most important:

3.

A. Year:
(please specify)
B. Do not know
9.

... legislative liaison repre­
sentative.
For Questions 6 - 10, if you repre­
sent more than one client, please
select the response which is most
representative of your legislative
liaison situation.
6.

What is the nature of the organiza­
tion that you represent to the state
legislature.
A.

_

B.

C.

organization employing its own
legislative liaison represen­
tative.
organization represented by an
independent legislative liaison
firm.
other: _________________
(please specify)

In what year did theorganization
which you now represent begin to
represent itself to the state leg­
islature through the use of legis­
lative liaison representatives?

Fc>r how many yearshave
you been
a legislative liaison representa­
tive for your present organization?
A.

10.

For how many years have you been
employed by your present organiza­
tion?
A.

11.

Years:_______

How would you characterize your leg­
islative liaison work?
A.
B.

12.

Years:_______

Full-time occupation
Part-time occupation

On the average, about how many hours
per week do you work?
A.

Hours:

153

13.

%
»
t
*
*

Generally speaking, about what per­
centage of your tine do you spend
on each of the following:
Legislative liaison work
A. working with clients or con­
stituents.
B. working with legislators.
C. working with other legislative
liaison representatives.
D. working with state executive
branch employees.
E. working on other legislative
liaison activities (e.g., staff):

17.

_

A. Association work
B. Attorney
C. Other professional:

* D.

%

Don-legislative liaison work
F. working on non-legislative
liaison work: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
(please specify)
G. other:
.
(please specify)

18.

What is the title of the person to
whom you report (in the organization
that you represent to the state
legislature)?
A.

14.

_
_
_
_

How would you characterize your
legislative liaison activities
during legislative sessions?
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.

19.

Full-time occupation
Three-quarter-time occupation
One-half-time occupation
One-quarter-time occupation
Less than one-quarter-tima
occupation

_
_

16.

How would you characterize your
legislative liaison activities
between legislative sessions?
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.

Full-time occupation
Three-quarter-time occupation
One-half-time occupation
One-quarter-time occupation
Less than one-quarter-time
occupation

Are
you currently engaged in any
work other than as a legislative
liaison representative?
A.

a.

Yes
no

Title:

_____________
(please specify)

What is the area of responsibility
of the person to whom you report
(in the organization that you repre­
sent to the state legislature)?
A. Area:

20.
15.

(please specify)
Other: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
(please specify)

For Questions 18 - 19, if you repre­
sent more than one client, please
respond in a manner which is most
representative of your legislative
liaison situation.

(please specify)

*

If your answer to Question 16 was
"Yes", in what typo of work are you
involved?
(Indicate one or more).

___________
(please specify)

For how long, prior to becoming a
legislative liaison representative,
did you plan to become one?
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.

Less than two months
Three-to-six months
Seven-to-twelve months
Qne-to-two years
More than two years
Other:
________________
(please specify)

154

21.

Through, what means did you secure
your first position as a legislative
liaison representative?

23.

not

A.
B.

__
_

__
_

22.

Grapevine referral
Through the influence of an
employee of the company or
association by whom you were
hired
C. Internal transfer or promotion
D. As a consequence of other job
responsibilities with your
company or association
E. As a result of your own job
campaign
F. Through an employment agency
G. Through an interview at college
H. Other:
____________
(please specify)

G.

H.
I.
J.

K.
L.

M.
N.

0.

Did you train for the position of
legislative liaison representative?
A.
B.

continued.

P.

2-

Yes
No

R.

To promote an idea
1
To work for social
1
change
Next step in job
1
Next step in career 1
The duties of your
1
job led you into the
field
You wanted to pro1
mote certain policies
Your boss felt that 1
you were especially
qualified
You felt this was
1
best way to move up
Political aspira1
tions
Meet important
1
people
Financial benefits
1
You just enjoy this 1
type of work

very
important

2

2

3 4
3 4

5
5

2
2
2

3 4
3 4
3 4

5
5
5

2

3 4

5

2

3 4

5

2

3 4

5

2

3 4

5

2

3 4

5

2
2

3 4,5
3 4
5

Please comment.
Please comment:

23.

Please circle the importance you
attach to each of the following in
terms of its influence on your
decision to become a legislative
liaison representative. The impor­
tance scale runs from one (not impor­
tant) to five (very important).
not
A.

B.
C.
□.
E.
F.

A general interest
in politics and
client
Promote client
interests
Power> prestige,
and influence
Enhancement of
business
Enhancement of
law practice
Urged by friends
or interest group

very
important

1 2

3

24.

Please identify and rank the three
most satisfying aspects of your work
as a legislative liaison representa­
tive.
(Let 1 = most satisfying, 2 =
second most satisfying, and so on).

_

A.

_

B.

__
_

C.
D.

__

E.
F.

_

G.

4 5

1 2

3

4 5

1 2

3

4 5

1 2

3

4 5

1 2

3

4 5

1 2

3

4

5

Opportunity to present your side
of the case
Opportunity to be close to
important people
Variety of the work
The freedom of the schedule you
enjoy
The monetary reward
Observing and participating in
lawmaking
Other: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
(please specify)

155

25.

_

Please identify and rank the three
most dissatisfying aspects of your
work as a legislative liaison repre­
sentative.
(Let 1 = most dissatisfy­
ing, 2 * second most dissatisfying,
and so on).
A.
B.

_

C.

__

D.
E.
F.
G.

26.

__
_
27.

_

The public image of your job
The necessity of being nice to
people in order to get their
help
The working conditions and
long hours
Entertaining and giving
parties
Moral level and activities of
legislators
Preparing a case to present
Other:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
(please specify)

29.

if your response to Question 28 was
"B", what new categories of issues
is your organization or client now
interested in?

30.

If your response to Question 28 was
"B", what influence do you believe
these new issues will have on leg­
islative liaison education and
training?

31.

About how frequently are your personal
recommendations on legislative policy
adopted by your organization or client?

Compared with ten years ago, has the
affect of state legislation upon the
organization(s) that you represent:
A. decreased
B. remained about the same
C. increased
Compared with ten years ago, does
legislative liaison work have a:
A. higher
B. about the same
C. lower

_
__
32.

... priority with your organization
or clients?
Please comment:

A.
B.
C.
D.

Do you have the freedom to determine
your tactics on most legislative
problems?
A.
B.

____________ _______
33.

Is your organization or client actively 34.
interested in:

___ A.
B.

about the same or
considerably different

... categories of issues now as it was
ten years ago?

__

Yes
NO

How many years of public relations
experience did you have before going
into legislative liaison work?
A.

23.

Frequently
Occasionally
Seldom
Never

Years: ______

Are you a member of the Public
Relations Society of America?
A.
B.

Yes
NO

156

ABOUT RECRUITMENT AND IDEAL PREPARATION..
35.

In general, how are job openings
filled for legislative liaison
representative positions.
(Indicate
one or more).
A.
S.
C.

D.
E.

F.
G.
H.
I.

J.
K.
L.

36.

Grapevine referrals
Employers circulate job openings
among themselves
Through the influence of an
employee of the company doing
the hiring
Internal transfers or promotions
As a consequence of other job
responsibilities within the
organization
As a result of the individual's
own job campaign
Employment agencies
Campus interviews
Advertisements in various
publications: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
(please specify)
Contact with former student
interns
Resumes received
Other: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
(please specify)

Please indicate the importance you
attach to each of the following in
determining whether or not a given
individual will be successful as a
legislative liaison representative
by circling the appropriate number.
The scale runs from one (not impor­
tant) to five (very important).

B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.

Ability to com­
promise
Ability to sell
his ideas
Aggressiveness
Cooperativeness
Formal education
General intelli­
gence
Pleasant personal­
ity
Honesty
Interest in job
Job knowledge
Prior work experience

please indicate the importance you
attach to each of the following items
in terms of the hiring of a person as
a legislative liaison representative
by circling the appropriate number.
The importance scale runs from one
(not important) to five (very impor­
tant) .
not
very
important
A.

Personal
a. ambition
b. appearance
c. desire to work
specifically for
your firm
d. native of area
e. pleasant person­
ality
Experience in
a
business
b. communication
c. government
d. journalism
e. law
f. politics
g- public relations
Backing
a. family or friend
b. grapevine refer­
ral
c. references

not
very
important
A.

37.

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5

1

2

3

4

5

1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5

1
1
1

2
2
2

3
3
3

4
4
4

5
5
5

1
1

2
2

3
3

4
4

5
5

1
1
1
1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5
5
5
5

1
1

2
2

3
3

4
4

5
5

1

2

3

4

5

1
1
1

2
2
2

3
3
3

4
4
4

5
5
5

Traits
a. positive attitude
b. cooperativeness
c. general intelli­
gence
d. honesty
e. poise
f. professional
attitude
g. speaking ability
h. writing ability

1
1
1

2
2
2

3
3
3

4
4
4

5
5
5

1
1

2
2

3
3

4
4

5
5

Education in
a. business
b. communication
c. economics
d. government
e. journalism
f. law
g. politics
h. public relations

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

157

38.

Would you hire someone for a position
as a legislative liaison representative
who is "fresh." from college?
A.
B.

Yes
No

Please comment:

39.

_

42.

In your observations of fellow legis­
lative liaison representatives, what
educational weaknesses are most
apparent? Please rank in order of
significance as many of the following
as you think represent weaknesses.
(Let 1 = greatest weakness, 2 =» second
greatest weakness, and so on).
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.

Business administration
Communication skills
Economics
Government relations
Journalism
Law
Politics
Public relations
Workings of government
Other:
(please specify)

Please comment:

40.

41.

On the average, about how much formal
education would you say that legis­
lative liaison work requires?
A.
B.
C.
0.
E.
F.
G.

High school degree
Same college
College degree
Some graduate study
Master's degree
Professional degree (e.g.. Law)
Some post graduate study

Would you hire a person as a legis­
lative liaison representative who
did not have a college degree?
A.
B.

Yes
No

Please rank the following in terms of
their importance in making the legis­
lative liaison representative more
effective.
(Let 1 « most important,
2 =» second most important, and so on).
Education in:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.

43.

Business administration
Communication
Economics
Government relations
Journalism
Law
Politics
Public relations
Workings of government
Other: ________
(please specify)

In preparing for a career as a legis­
lative liaison representative, in
which one of the following fields
would you major in college?
A.
B.
C.
0.
E.
F.
G.
H.
1.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
0.
P.
Q.
R.
S.
T.

Accounting and finance
Advertising
Business administration
Business law
Communication
Economics
English
History
Journalism
Law
Liberal arts
Management
Marketing
Personnel and human relations
Political science
Psychology
Public administration
Public relations
Sociology
Other:
(please specify)

158

44.

In which one of the following
do you believe a program of train­
ing for legislative liaison repre­
sentatives should be centered?

46.

A. Business administration
B. - Communication
C. Journalism
D. Political science
E. Public administration
F. Public relations
G. Other:
(please specify)

_

In constructing a program of study,
please evaluate the contribution of
the following subjects in creating
an effective legislative liaison
representative.
(Let 5 = very useful,
3 =* some use, and 1 » little use).
little
use

47.

very
useful

Subject:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
0.
P.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
0.
V.
w.
X.
Y.
Z.

Accounting and
finance
Advertising
Behavioral science
Business law
Business adminis­
tration
Communication
Creative writing
Economics
Engineering
English
Government
History
Journalism
Law
Management
Marketing
Mass media
Personnel and
human relations
Political science
Psychology
Public administra­
tion
Public affairs
Public relations
Public speaking
Social sciences
and humanities
Other:
(please specify)

A.

Business

B-

Enter legislative liaison
work initially
Government

C-

D . Journalism

_
45.

After college graduation, in which
one of the following would you
first work in preparing for a career
as a legislative liaison representa­
tive?

1

2

3

4

5

1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

1
1
1

2
2
2

3
3
3

4
4
4

5
5
5

1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5

1

2

3

4

5

_

48.

E.
F.
G.
H.

Law
Politics
Public relations
O th e r: __________________
(please specify)

Please rank the following in terms
of their contribution to a success­
ful and effective career as a legis­
lative liaison representative.
(Let
1 = most important, 7 = least impor­
tant) .
A.
BC.
D.
E.
F.
G.

Business experience
Formal education
Government experience
Journalism experience
Legal experience
Political experience
Public relations experience

What other comments would you like to
make concerning preparation for a
person preparing for a position as a
legislative liaison representative.

159

ABOUT YOURSELF...
49.

What is your present age?
A.

50.

—

51.

—

52.

A.
B.

A.
B.
C.
D.
E.

Male
Female

Single
Married, no children
Married, children
Divorced or separated
Widowed

In what state were you born?

If the field in which you majored
was a subset of a field identified
above, please specify your specific
major;

Birthplace;

Location:

Was the place where you were reared
primarily;

ABOUT ANY PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT EXPERIENCE...
57.

If "No", please go to Question 62.

58.

__
__

Less than high school
Some high school
High school graduate
Some college
College graduate
Soma graduate study
Master's degree
Professional degree (e.g.. Law)
Some post graduate study

Yes
NO

If "Yes", please continue with the
next question.

What is the extent of your formal
education?
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.

Have you ever held an elective or
appointive government position?
A.
B.

rural or
urban

... while you were growing up?

__
__
__
__
__

Business administration
Communication
Economics
English
History
Journalism
Liberal arts
Political science
Psychology
Public administration
Public relations
Sociology
Other:
(please specify)

In what state were you reared?

A.
B.

55.

If you attended college, in which
field did you major as an under­
graduate?
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.

What is your present marital status?

A.
54.

Age:

Are you?

A.
53.

56.

Please indicate if the position was
elective or appointive and in what
branch of government it was in by
circling the appropriate letter.
If you held more than one position,
please circle all appropriate letters.

Appointive
Elective

Exec­
utive

Judi­
cial

Legis­
lative

(A)
(D)

(B)
(E)

(C)
(F)

At what level of government did
you serve?
Federal
State
County
Municipal

(G)
(J)
(M)
(P)

(H)
(K)
(N)
«2 >

(I)
(L)
(0 )
(R)

160

59.

If you have 3 srved in a state
legislature, £or how many terms
have you served?
A.

60.

;__

61.

Number of terms:

66.

_____

If you have served in a state
legislature, in what capacity did
you serve?
A. Representative
B. Senator
C. Both Representative and Senator
If you have served ir a state legis­
lature, in which 3 tat 3 legislature
did you serve?

_
.....

__

67.

Throughout your formal work exper­
ience, have you held a number of
different kinds of jobs, or have
you mostly worked within one given
career field?
A. Have held a number of different
kinds of jobs
B. Have held a number of different
jobs, but mostly within one
given career field
C. For the most part, have held a
few jobs within one given
career field
what was your first full-time job?
Job description:

______________

A. Michigan
B. Other: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
(please specify)
ABOUT YOUR JOB HISTORY...
68.

62.

Of your total working years, about
how many have been spent as a regis­
tered legislative liaison represen­
tative?
A.

63.

_ _ _

For how many legislative sessions
have you been registered as a leg­
islative liaison representative?
A.

65.

Age:

Number:

_____

For how many organizations have you
worked full-time during your business
career (including your present
employer)?
•
A.

Job description:

______________

_____

At what age did you become a regis­
tered legislative liaison represen­
tative?
A.

64.

Years:

What was your last full-time job
prior to becoming registered as a
legislative liaison representative?

Number of organizations:

_____

CHRONOLOGY OF OCCUPATIONAL ACTIVITY
RELATED TO LEGISLATIVE LIAISON WORK...
In completing this section of the ques­
tionnaire, please begin with your current
position, and then proceed back through
time in chronological order identifying
those jobs which you believe significantly
contributed to your assuming your current
position as a legislative liaison repre­
sentative.
Please continue at the top of the next
page.

161

69A. 1.

Oates of employment (mo, yr)
Prom
To Present

690.1.

Dates of employment (mo, yr)
From
To _ _ _

2.

Nature of employer's business:

2.

Nature of employer ' 3 business:

3.

Your job title:

3.

Your job title:

4.

Brief job

4.

Brief job description:

5.

Reason ts) for leaving:
not applicable

5.

Reason(s)

B. 1.

___________

description: _ _ _ _ _

_____

Dates of employment (mo, yr)
From
To _____

e

. 1.

_____

for leaving:

Dates of employment (mo, yr)
From _ _ _ To ____

2.

Nature of employer's business:

2 .

Nature of employer ' 3 business:

3.

Your job title: ____________

3.

Your job title:

4.

Brief job description:

______

4 .

Brief job description:

5.

Reason(s) for leaving:

_____

5.

Reason(s)

C. 1.

Dates of employment (mo, yr)
From
To ____

p.

l

.

_____

for leaving:

Dates of employment (mo, yr)
From
T o ____

2.

Nature of employer's business:

2.

Nature of employer's business:

3.

Your job title: ____________

3.

Your job title:

4.

Brief job description: _ _ _ _ _

4.

Brief job description:

5.

Reason(s) for leaving:

5.

Reason(s) for leaving:

____

162

A COMMENT ABOUT CONFIDENTIALITY...
All responses on this questionnaire are absolutely confidential.
However, in order for me to monitor the response to the questionnaire, this page
contains a removable label containing a code.

This coda will enable me to contact you in case:
a.

any

answers need follow-up clarification.

b.

youwould like a copy of the study results.
Just place an 'X' here _____ if you
would like a copy of the study results.

c.

you would be willing to be interviewed on
topics relevant to this study.
Just place an 'X' here _____ if you
are willing to be interviewed.

However, if you are at all concerned about anonymity, just tear off the coded label.
BUT please be certain to return the questionnaire to:
Mr. George Nastas III
Department of Marketing
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan 48824
in the enclosed self-addressed, prepaid envelope.
THANK YOU for your participation in this study.

APPENDIX C
DATA RECORD FORMATS

APPENDIX C

DATA RECORD FORMATS

Reprinted in th is appendix are the data record formats fo r the
Population Data Set and fo r the Response Data Set.

The Population Data

Set contains a data record for each population subject and fo r the
three pretest subjects.

The Response Data Set contains four data

records fo r each respondent to this survey.

These record formats

indicate the contents of the data records by specifying the location
of the data fie ld s w ithin the records, a b rie f description of each
f ie ld , a b rie f d e fin itio n of the various codes associated with each
f ie ld as appropriate, and the length o f each fie ld .

In addition, the

Response Data Set record fie ld s are cross-referenced to the questions
on the survey questionnaire, and the format of the questionnaire is
carried over to the Response Data Set record format.

163

164
Population Data Set Record Format

Field Number

Card Column

Field Description & Codes

Field Length

Name, Last

10

11-11

Name, F irs t I n i t i a l

01

21-23

Case (Record) Number

03

1

1-10

2
3

001-172, Subject
301-303, Pretest subject
35-36

Number of Clients

02

00-99
37-37

Organization Summary

01

1 Professional organization
2 Single business or corporation
3 Business or trade association
4 2 &3
5 1, 2 , & 3
38-38

Issues

01

1 M ulti-issue lobbyist
2 Single-issue lobbyist
39-39

Lobbyist Relation to Client
1 Employee
2 Free lance
3 Public a ffa irs company
5 Attorney-client
6

40-40

Volunteer

Mailing Address

01

1 Lansing area
2 Out-state
3 O ut-of-state
9

41-43

Mailing Date, MDD

03

10

44-46

Return Date (Postmark), MDD

03

165

Field Number
11

Card Column
47-47

Field Description & Codes

Field Length

P renotification Status

01

1 Spokle with on phone
2 Did not c all
3 C alled, le f t message
4 C alled, but not reached
12

48-48

P articipation Status

01

1 Subject agreed
2 Subject refused
3 N/A, not called or not reached
13

49-52

Type of Organization Representing

49-49

1 Professional organization

50-50

2 Single business or corporation

51-51

3 Business or trade association

52-52

4 Other organization

04

(Indicate one or more)
14

53-53

P articipation (Return) Status

01

1 Returned questionnaire
2 Refused to participate
(on telephone)
3 Did not participate
(out of population)
4 Pretest subject
ft Did not return questionnaire
or returned unlabeled
15

55-60

Pretest Delivery Date, MMDDYY

06

16

61-66

Pretest Return Date (Postmark),
MMDDYY

06

17

68-69

Pretest Subject Id e n tific a tio n
Code (P2-P4)

02

166
Response Data Set Record Format
Record Number

F ie ld P o sitio n

Field Description & Codes

Question

ABOUT YOUR BUSINESSS LIFE.
1

1-03

Case (Record) Number

4-04

Card Number, 1

5-06

Present job t i t l e , code
01,
02 ,
03,
04,
10 ,
11,

12,

13,
14,
15,
16,
17,
18,
19,
20 ,
21,

22,
23,
24,
7-07

Form of Employment
1,
2,
4,
5,
6,

8-09
10-13
10-10

11-11
12-12

Legislative counsel
Legislative analyst
Legislative agent
Partner
President
Executive director
or secretary
Director-public a ffa irs
Executive or senior
vice president
Vice president
Employee
A ffairs specialist-govt.
Attorney
Coordinator-govt. relations
Manager-govemment
relatio n s , public a ffa irs
Executive-government
a ffa irs
Manager-natural resources
Manager-community
a c tiv itie s
Administrative assistant
Small businessman

Salaried
Self-employed
Attorney-client
Volunteer
Appointed

Number of C lients, XX
Type of Clients
1, Professional organization
2 , Single business or
corporation
3 , Business or trade
association

167
Record Number

F ie ld P o s itio n

13-13

14-14

F ie ld D escrip tio n & Codes

Client summary
1 -3, as above
4, 2 & 3
5 , 1, 2 , & 3

Question

6,

1 &3
7, 1 & 2

Issues

5

1, M ulti-issue lobbyist
2 , Single-issue lobbyist
15-15

Organization-liobbyist Relation

6

1, Employee lobbyist
2, Independent lobbyist
4, 1 & 2
16-21

Job Responsibility Areas

16-17

Most important job responsibility area
01,
02,
03,
04,
05,
06,
07,
09,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15,
16,
17,
18,
19,
20,
21-,
22,
23,
24,
25,

Membership development
Legislative liaison
Public relations
Influencing leg islatio n
Monitoring legislatio n
Reporting on legislatio n
Knowledge of issues,
research
Member re la tio n s ,
communi cation
Legislation analysis,
research
Writing position papers
Lobbying
Educating & informing
management
Association management
S ta ff work
Communication & information
programs
Keep c lie n t informed
Work with grass roots
Passage of needed leg is­
lation
Legal opinion, analysis
Draft legislatio n
Understand le g is la tiv e
process, rela te to c lie n t
Education programs
Contact with administration
Compliance with laws & reg­
ulation s, attorney

7

168

Record Number

Field Position

1

16-17

Field Description & Codes

Question

Most important area
26,
27,
28,
29,
30,
31,

7

Counsel
Work with other lobbyists
Policy development
Work with government
Trade, marketing problems
Relations with trade
association

18-19

Second most important job responsibility
area
See codes above

20-21

Third most important job responsibility
area
See codes above

22-25

Year C lient F irs t Represented
By A Lobbyist, XX

8

26-27

Number of Years the Lobbyist has
Represented Present C lie n t, XX

9

28-29

Number of Years the Lobbyist has 10
Been Employed by Present C lient,
XX

30-30

Time Spent Lobbying

11

1, Full-tim e occupation
2, Part-time occupation
31-32

Number of Hours Worked Per Week, 12
XX

33-53

Allocation of Work Time (XX.X%)

33-35

A. Working with clients or
constituents
B. Working with legislators
C. Working with other
lobbyists
D. Working with state
executive branch
E. Working on other lobbyist
work
F. Working on non-lobbyist
work
G. Other

36-38
39-41
42-44
45-47
48-50
51-53

13

169

Record Number

F ie ld P osition

1

54-54

F ie ld D escription & Codes

Time Spent Lobbying,
During Legislative Session
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,

55-55

Question

14

Full-tim e
Three-quarter-time
One-half-time
One-quarter-time
Less than one-quarter-time

Time Spent Lobbying, Between
Legislative Sessions

15

See codes above
56-56

Current Work Other Than As
A Lobbyist

16

1, Yes
2, No
57-60
57-57
58-58
5 9 -5 9

60-60
61-62

Other Work
1,
1»
1,
1>

17

Association work
Attorney
Other professional
Other

C lient Supervisor's T it le

18

01, Association chairman,
president, executive
director
02, Executive committee,
board of directors
03, Director, state or
government relations
05, Vice president, government
relatio n s, a ffa ir s ,
public a ffa irs
06, Chairman, steering committee
07, Vice president
08, Regional or fie ld manager
09, Assistant general manager
10, Self
13, General counsel
14, Division director
63-64

C lient Supervisor's Area of
Responsibility
01, All areas
02, State relations

19

170
Record Number

F ie ld P o s itio n

1

63-64

F.ield D escrip tio n & Codes

Question

Client Supervisor's Area of
Responsibility continued.
03, Government relatio n s ,
a f f ai rs
04, Legislative a ffa ir s ,
liaison
05, Law department
06, Administration

65-65

Time Planned to Become
Lobbyist-

20

1, Less than two months, or
not planned
2, Three to six months
3 , Seven to twelve months
4, One to two years
5, More than two years
6 , Other
66-67

How F irs t Became Lobbyist

21

01, Grapevine re fe rra l
02, Influence of employee of
c lie n t
03, Internal tran sfer or
promotion
04, Your other job responsi­
b ilit ie s
05, Your own job campaign
06, Employment agency
07, College interview
08, Other
09, Friend
10, A former le g is la to r
68-69
6 8 -6 8

69-69

Trained fo r Lobbyist Job

22

1, Yes, formally trained
2, No
Respondent comment on training
1, Yes
2 , No

70-11

Influence of Various Factors
on Decision to Become Lobbyist
Scale:

A

23

171
Record Number

F ie ld P osition

70-11

F ie ld D es c rip tio n & Codes

Question

Influence of Various Factors
on Decision to Become Lobbyist

70-70

A.

71-71
72-72

B.
C.

73-73
74-74
75-75

D.
E.
F.

76-76
77-77

G.
H.

78-78
79-79
80-80

I.
J.
K.

In te re st in p o litic s &
c lie n t
Promote c lien t interests
Power, prestige, &
influence
Enhance business
Enhance law practice
Urged by friends or
in te re st group
To promote an idea
To work fo r social
change
Next step in job
Next step in career
Duties of job led you
into fie ld

Record 2
01-03

Case (Record) Number

04-04

Card Number, 2

05-05

L.

06-06

M.

07-07

N.

08-08
09-09
10-10
11-11

0.
P.
Q.
R.

12-12

You wanted to promote
certain policies
Your boss f e l t you were
especially qu alified
You f e l t this was the best
way to move up
P o litic a l aspirations
Meet important people
Financial benefits
You ju s t enjoy this
type of work

Respondent Comment onInfluence
Factors
1, Yes
2, No

13-19

Most Satisfying Aspects of Work
as a Lobbyist, Ranking
Scale:

13-13

A.

14-14

B.

B

Opportunity to presentyour
side of the case
Opportunity to be close to
important people

24

172
Record Number

F ie ld P o sitio n

F ie ld D escrip tio n & Codes

Question

/

2

15-15
16-16
17-17
18-18

C.
D.
E.
F.

19-19

G.

20-26

Variety of the work
Freedom of your schedule
Monetary reward
Observing and p articip a ­
ting in law-making
Other

Most Dissatisfying Aspects
. 25
of Work as a Lobbyist, Ranking
Scale:

20-20

21-21
22-22

23-23
24-24
25-25
26-26
27-27

C

A. Public image of job
B. Necessity of being nice
to people in order to get
th e ir help
C. Working conditions and
long hours
D. Entertaining and giving
parties
E. Moral level and a c tiv itie s
of legislators
F. Preparing a case to present
G. Other
Affect of State Legislation on
Your C lient (vs. ten years ago)

26

1, Decreased
2, About the same
3, Increased
28-29

28-28

29-29

P rio rity of Lobbyist's work in
C lient's Organization (vs. ten
years ago)

27

1, Higher
2, About the same
3, Lower
Respondent comment
1, Yes
2, No

30-30

Categories of Issues the C lient
is Interested in (vs. ten years
ago)
1, About the same
2, Considerably d iffe re n t

28

173
Record Number

F ie ld P o s itio n

31-32

F ie ld D es c rip tio n & Codes

Question

New Categories of Issues,
Respondent Comment

29

00, No comment
01, Comment
33-34

Influence of New Issues on
Lobbyist Education & Training,
Respondent Comment

30

00, No comment
01, Comment
35-35

Frequency by which Lobbyist's
Policy Recommendations are
Adopted by C lient
1,
2,
3,
4,

36-36

31

Frequently
Occasionally
Seldom
Never

Lobbyist's Freedom to Determine
Tactics on most Legislative
Problems

32

1, Yes
2, No
37-38

Years of Public Relations Exper- 33
ience Prior to Becoming a Lobby­
is t , XX

39-39

Member in the Public Relations
Society of America
1, Yes

34

2 , No

ABOUT RECRUITMENT AND IDEAL PREPARATION.
40-51

Means by which Job Openings fo r
Lobbyists are F ille d
Scale:

40-40
41-41
42-42
43-43

D

A. Grapevine refe rra ls
B. Employers circu late
job openings
C. Through influence of
employee of c lie n t doing
hiring
D. Internal tran sfer or
promotion

35

174

Record Number

F ie ld P o s itio n

2

44-44

E.

Consequence of other
job resp o n sib ilities
within the organiza­
tion

45-45

F.

46-46
47-47
48-48
49-49

G.
H.
I.
J.

50-50
51-51

K.
L.

Result of ind ivid u al's
job campaign
Employment agencies
Campus interviews
Advertisements
Contact with former
student interns
Resumes received
Other

52-62

F ie ld D es c rip tio n & Codes

Importance of Various Items
on the Success of Lobbyist
Scale:

52-52
53-53
54-54
55-55
56-56
57-57
58-58
59-59
60-60
61-61
62-62
63-17

A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.

A.

6 6 -6 6

67-67
B.
69-69
70-70
71-71
72-72

A

Importance of Various Items
on the Decision to Hire a
Person as a Lobbyist

63-63
64-64
65-65

36

A b ility to compromise
A b ility to s e ll ideas
Aggressiveness
Cooperativeness
Formal education
General intelligen ce
Pleasant personality
Honesty
Interest in job
Job knowledge
Prior work experience

Scale:

6 8 -6 8

Question

A

Personal
a. Ambition
b. Appearance
c. Desire to work
s p e c ific a lly fo r your
firm
d. Native of area
e. Pleasant personality
Experience
a. Business
b. Communication
c. Government
d. Journalism
e. Law

37

175
Record Number

F ie ld P o s itio n

2

73-73
74-74

F ie ld D escription & Codes

C.
75-75
76-76
77-77
D.
78-78
79-79
80-80

Question

f. P o litic s
g. Public relations
Backing
a. Family or friend
b. Grapevine refe rra l
c. References
Traits
a. Positive attitu d e
b. Cooperativeness
c. General intelligen ce

Record 3
01-03

Case (Record) Number

04-04

Card Number, 3

05-05
06-06
07-07

d.
e.
f.

08-08
09-09
E.
10-10

11-11
12-12

13-13
14-14
15-15
16-16
17-17
18-19
18-18
19-19

Honesty
Poise
Professional
a ttitu d e
g. Speaking a b ility
h. Writing a b ility
Education
a. Business
b. Cornmunication
c. Economics
d. Government
e. Journalism
f . Law
g. P o litic s
h. Public relations

Hiring a New College Graduate
as a Lobbyist

38

1, Yes
2, No
Respondent comment
1, Yes
2, No

20-30

Educational Weaknesses, Ranking
Scale:

20-20
21-21

22-22
23-23
24-24

A.
B.
C.
D.
E.

E
Business administration
Cornmunication s k ills
Economics
Government relations
Journalism

39

176
Record Number

Field Position
25-25
26-26
27-27
28-28
29-29
30-30

Field Description & Codes
F.
G.
H.
I.

Law
P o litic s
Public relations
Workings of govern­
ment
J. Other

Respondent comment
1,
2,

31-31

Yes
No

Formal Education Requirement fo r Lobbyists
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,

32-32

Question

40

High school degree
Seme college
College degree
Some graduate study
Master's degree
Professional degree
Some post graduate study

Hiring a Person who did not
have a College Degree

41

1, Yes
2, No
33-42

Education Areas which would make 42
the Lobbyist More Effective
Scale:

F

33-33
34-34
35-35
36-36
37-37
38-38
39-39
40-40
41441
42-42

A:\ Business administration
B. Communication
C. Economi cs
D. Government relations
E. Journalism
F. Law
G. P o litic s
H. Public relations
I . Workings of government
J. Other

43-44

College Major Preparation fo r
Career as a Lobbyist
01,
02,
03,
04,
05,

Accounting and finance
Advertising
Business administration
Business law
Communication

43

177
Record Number

Field Position
43-44

fie ld Description & Codes
06,
07,
08,
09,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,

Economics
English
History
Journalism
Law
Liberal arts
Management
Marketing
Personel and human
relations
P o litic a l science
Psychology
Public administration
Public relations
Sociology
Other

15,
16,
17,
18,
19,
20,
45-46

Location of a Program of Trail
ing fo r Lobbyists
Business administration
Cornmuni cati on
Journalism
P o litic a l science
Public administration
Public relations
Other
Law
Liberal arts
Psychology

01,
02,

03,
04,
05,
06,
07,
08,
09,
10,
47-06

Contribution of Various Subje
to an Effective Program of St 1
Scale :

47-47
48-48
49-49
50-50
51-51
52-52
53-53
54-54
55-55
56-56
57-57
58-58
59-59
60-60
61-61
62-62
63-63

A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
0.
P.
Q.

G

Accounting and finance
Advertising
Behavioral science
Business law
Business administration
Communication
Creative writing
Economics
Engineering
English
Government
History
Journalism
Law
Management
Marketing
Mass media

Question
43

178
Record Number

Field Position

Field Description & Codes

64-04

R.

65-65

S.
T.
U.
V.
W.
X.

6 6 -6 6

67-67
6 8 -6 8

69-69
70-70

Question

Personnel and human
relations
P o litic a l science
Psychology
Public administration
Public a ffa irs
Public relations
Public speaking

45

Record 4
01-03

Case (Record) Number

04-04

Card Number, 4

05-05

Y.

06-06

Z.

07-08

F irs t Field Work in Post College
to Prepare fo r Lobbyist Position
01,
02,

03,
04,
05,
06,
07,
08,
09-15

1 0 -1 0
1 1 -1 1
1 2 -1 2

13-13
14-14
15-15
16-16

Business
Enter lobbyist work
in itia lly
Government
Journalism
Law
P o litic s
Public relations
Other

Experience Areas Which Would
47
Make the Lobbyist More Effective
Scale :

09-09

Social sciences and
humanities
Other

A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.

F
Business experience
Formal education
Government experience
Journalism experience
Legal experience
P o litic a l experience
Public relations
experience

Additional Respondent Comments
on Preparation
1,
2,

Yes
No

48

179

Record Number

Field Position

Field Description & Codes

Question

ABOUT YOURSELF...
17-18

Present Age, XX

49

19-19

Sex

50

1, Male
20-20

M arital Status
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,

21-22

2 , Female
51

Single
Married, no children
Married, children
Divorced or separated
Widowed

Birthplace

52

See state oode table
23-24

Growing Up Location

53

See state code table
25-25

Rural/Urban Placewhere
Raised

54

1, Rural
2 , Urban
26-26

Formal Education
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6 ,
7,
8,
9,

27-28

Less than high school
Some high school
High school graduate
Sane college
College graduate
Some graduate study
Master's degree
Professional degree
Some post graduate study

UndergraduateMajor
01,
02,
03,
04,
05,
06,
07,
08,
09,

55

Business administration
Cormiunication
Economi cs
English
History
Journalism
Liberal arts
P o litic a l science
Psychology

56

180
7

Record Number

Field Position

4

27-28

Field Description & Codes
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15,
16,
17,
18,
19,
20,
21,
22,
23,
24,
27,

Question

Public administration
Public relations
Sociology
Other
Science
A griculture, fo re stry,
biology
Engineering
Education
Sociology & psychology
Social science
Natural resource manage­
ment
P o litic a l science &
economics
Mathematics
Business administration &
lib e ra l arts
Business administration &
economics
Police administration

56

ABOUT ANY PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT
EXPERIENCE...
29-29

Prior Government Experience
1, Yes

30-31

2 , No

General Areas of Prior Government Experience
01,
02,
03,
04,
05,
06,
07,
08,
09,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15,
16,
17,
18,
19,
20,

Appt
Appt
Appt
Appt
Appt
Appt
Appt
Appt
Appt
Appt
Appt
Appt
Elec
Elec
Elec
Elec
Elec
Elec
Elec
Elec

57

Exec
Exec
Exec
Exec
Jude
Jude
Jude
Jude
Leg
Leg
Leg
Leg
Exec
Exec
Exec
Exec
Jude
Jude
Jude
Jude

Federal
State
County
City
Federal
State
County
City
Federal
State
County
City
Federal
State
County
City
Federal
State
County
City

58

Record Number
4

Field Position
30-31

Field Description & Codes
21,
22,
23,
24,
25,
26,

Question

Elec Leg Federal
Elec Leg State
Elec Leg County
Elec Leg City
More than one position
Aid to leg islato r

58

32-33

Number of Years Served in
State Legislature, XX

59

34-34

Capacity Served in State
Legislature

60

1, Representative
2 , Senator
3, 1 & 2
35-36

State in which Served in
State Legislature

61

See state codes
ABOUT YOUR JOB HISTORY...
37-38

Number of Years Spent as
Lobbyist, XX

39-40

Age at which became Registered,
XX

63

41-42

See question 62

64

a

62

43-44

Number of Organizations worked
fo r Full-Time during Career, XX

65

45-45

Types of Positions Held

66

1, Held a number of d iffe re n t
kinds of jobs
2, Held a number of d iffe re n t
jobs, mostly within one
career fie ld
3, Held a few jobs within one
career fie ld
46-47

Description of F irst Full-Time
Job
01, Described

00, Not described

67

182

Record Number

Field Position

4

48-49

Field Description & Codes
Description of Last Full-Time
Job Prior to becoming Lobbyist

Question
68

01, Described
00, Not described
CHRONOLOGY OF OCCUPATIONAL ACTIVITY
RELATED TO LOBBYIST WORK...
50-50

Job History Completed
01, Yes

69

02, No

Population List and Study Information
61-61

Employee Status
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,

Employee
Free lance
Public a ffa irs
Other
Attorney-client
Appointed
Volunteer

62-67

Date Questionnaire Mailed Out,
MMDDYY

68-73

Date Questionnaire Returned
(Postmark), MMDDYY

74-74

Prenotification Status
1,
2,
3,
4,

75-75

Yes
Did not c a ll
Left message
Not reached

Participation Status
1, Agreed on telephone
2, Refused on telephone
3, Not reached or not called

76-76

Return Status
1, Questionnaire returned

183
Record Number

Field Position

4

77-77

Field Description & Codes
Location
1,
2,
3,
4,

78-78

Lansing area
Out-state Michigan area
Out-of-state area
Unknown, unlabeled
questionnaire

Respondent Id en tified
1, Yes
2, No

,79-79

Respondent Wants Copy of
Study Results
1, Yes
2, No

80-80

Respondent W illing to be
Interviewed
1, Yes
2, No

Question

184

Scales Used in the Questionnaire
A.

Not Important (1) to Very Important (5)

B.

Most Satisfying (1) to Third Most Satisfying ( 3 ) , Ranking

C.

Most Dissatisfying (1) to Third Most Dissatisfying ( 3 ), Ranking

D.

Means Used ( 1 ), Means Not Used (0)

E.

Greatest Weakness (1) to Third Greatest Weakness ( 3 ), Ranking

F.

Most E ffective (1) to Ninth Most Effective ( 9 ), Ranking

G.

L it t le Use ( 1 ), Of Some Use ( 3 ), Very Useful (5)

185
State Codes Used fo r Questionnaire
Code

State

Code

State

01
02
03
04
05

A1abama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
C alifornia

31
32
33
34
35

Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York

06
07
08
09
10

Canal Zone
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
D is tric t of
Columbia

36
37
38
39
40

North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon

11
12
13
14
15

Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho

41
42
43
44
45

Pennyslvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota

16
17
18
19
20

Illin o is
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky

46
47
48
49
50

Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virgin Islands

21
22
23
24
25

Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan

51
52
53
54
55

V irgin ia
Washington
West V irgin ia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

26
27
28
29
30

Mi nnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska

60

Non USA

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Brakeman, Robert, and Del V a lle , Debbie. "The Power Brokers—Unmasking
Those Mysterious People Who Influence Your Legislature." Lansing
Magazine 2 (September 1978): 19-25.
Costello, Daniel E ., and S e ife rt, Walter W. "National Survey Finds
Practitioners Favoring Increased Study." Public Relations
Journal 20 (May 1964): 20-21.
DeVries, Walter D. "The Michigan Lobbyist: A Study in the Bases and
Perceptions of Effectiveness." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan
State U niversity, 1960.
Ford, Gary T. "Adoption of Consumer Policies by States: Some Empirical
Perspectives." Journal of Marketing Research 15 (February 1978):
49-57.
Green, Paul E ., and T u ll, Donald S. Research fo r Marketing Decisions.
Englewood C lif f s , N .J.: P ren tice -H a ll, In c ., 1978.
Haley, Martin R ., and Kiss, James M. "Larger Stakes in Statehouse
Lobbying." Harvard Business Review 52 (January 1974): 125-135.
Hedlund, Ronald D ., and Patterson, Samuel C. "Personal A ttrib u te s,
P o litic a l Orientations, and Occupational Perspectives of
Lobbyists: The Case of Illin o is ." Iowa Business Digest
37 (November 1966): 3-11.
Henry, Kenneth. "The Large Corporation Public Relations Manager:
Emerging Professional in a Bureaucracy?" Ph.D. dissertatio n ,
New York U niversity, 1969.
Hershman, Arlene. "The States Move in on Business."
111 (January 1978): 33-38.

Dun's Review

Hjelm, Victor S ., and P is c io tte , Joseph P. "Profiles and Careers of
Colorado State Legislators." The Western P o litic a l Quarterly
21 (December 1968): 698-722.
Johnson, J. D. "The Washington Representative."
Review 23 (May 1971): 6-26.

Michigan Business

Jolson, Marvin A. "How to Double or T rip le Mail-Survey Response Rates."
Journal of Marketing 41 (October 1977): 78-81.

186

187

Jondahl, Lynn. Michigan House o f Representatives, Lansing, Michigan.
Interview , 27 August 1979.
Kolasa, Bernard D. "Lobbying in the Nonpartisan Environment: The
Case of Nebraska." The Western P o litic a l Quarterly 24 (March
1971): 65-78.
McClenahen, John S. "Is Business Ready fo r New State Power?"
Week 179 (November 12, 1973): 56-60.

Industry

McGrath, Phyllis S. Managing Corporate External Relations: Changing
Perspectives and Responses. New York: The Conference Board,
In c ., 1976.
Michigan, Department o f State, Campaign Finance Reporting O ffice.
Legislative Agents Registered as of June 12, 1979.
Michigan, Department o f State, Campaign Finance Reporting O ffice.
Legislative Agents Registered as of February 1, 1980.
Patterson, Samuel. "The Role of the Lobbyist: The Case of Oklahoma."
The Jour nal of P o litic s 25 (February 1963): 72-92.
Presthus, Robert. "In te re s t Group Lobbying: Canada and the United
States." The Annals of the American Academy of P o litic a l and
Social Sciences 413 (May 1974): 44-57.
Quinn, John C. I I I .
"New England Lobbyists: A Comparative Study."
Ph.D. dissertation , University of Massachusetts, 1971.
Sederberg, William. Michigan State Senate, Lansing, Michigan.
Interview, 7 August 1979.
Skinner, Richard W., and Shank!in, William L. "The Changing Role of
Public Relations in Business Firms." Public Relations Review
4 (Summer 1978): 40-45.
Soslow, Neil G. "A Comparison of the Origins and Orientations of
True Entrepreneurs, Other Owners, and Business Hierarchs."
Ph.D. dissertation , Michigan State University, 1966.
Swanson, Stoakley W. "P ro file o f the Automobile R etailer: An
Exploratory Study of the Origins, Growth, and Outlook of
Selected Michigan Automobile Dealers." Ph.D. dissertation,
Michigan State U niversity, 1973.
"Time Opinion Survey Reveals PR Professionals' Views."
Relations Journal 32 (January 1976): 42-43.

Public

188

Vocino, Thomas. "Three Variables in Stimulating Responses to Mailed
Questionnaires." Journal of Marketing 41 (October 1977): 76-77.
Walker, A lbert. "Education Survey: Few Changes, Much Growth."
Public Relations Review 2 (Spring 1976): 22-30.
Wright, Donald K. "Professionalism and the Public Relations Counselor:
An Empirical Analysis." Public Relations Quarterly 23 (Winter
1978): 26-29.
Zeig ler, Harmon, and Baer, Michael A. Lobbying: Interaction and
Influence in American State Legislatures. Belmont, C a lif .:
Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1969.

4