“How do I convey the value of our government affairs team to the broader organization?”
This is, without question, the most frequent inquiry I receive from clients. The response I offer often surprises them: avoid relying solely on metrics.
In most business functions, metrics are indispensable. They clarify performance, ensure accountability, and provide a shared language across the enterprise. Organizations measure what they want to manage, and in areas like sales, operations, or compliance, metrics are effective because outcomes are clearly attributable and directly tied to performance.
Government affairs, however, is different. The function deals with ambiguity, long-term influence, and outcomes that are not always immediately visible. While metrics can support the narrative, they are rarely the narrative itself.
The Common Missteps
There are three patterns that consistently undermine the credibility of GA teams within organizations.
Measuring activity as a proxy for impact: GA functions often measure activity as a proxy for value. It might be great that the team hosted two Congressional visits, arranged for three meetings on the Hill and advocated for six separate legislative initiatives. On its face, this tells management absolutely nothing about the value actually added. (While GA professionals may understand the value, your audience – senior management – likely does not.) Many senior managers suspect that lobbyists spend too much time at cocktail parties; be sure your metrics don’t validate that suspicion.
Claiming disproportionate credit for wins: GA teams often take all the credit for big wins in which they played supporting roles. Did your trade association manage to effect a major policy change resulting in $50 million in benefit to your company? GA functions that take credit for that $50 million benefit will lose credibility within the company. (Sure, if your bespoke efforts resulted in tangible bottom-line benefits, by all means take credit. But if your involvement was tangential or part of a much larger effort, attributing the entire impact of the win to your team simply isn’t credible.)
Failing to claim meaningful credit when appropriate: On the flip side, GA teams often take little to no credit for big wins in which they played supporting roles. Just because your team wasn’t solely, or even primarily, responsible for a win doesn’t mean you didn’t add value. You certainly did – it’s just difficult to quantify.
A More Effective Approach
Let’s consider an example for illustration: The U.S. Senate Defense Appropriations subcommittee recently increased appropriations for the XYZ Fighter plane, a platform on which your company’s products are incorporated. This increase was included in the final bill which was passed and enacted into law, and will result in $12 million of additional product sales. You have a good relationship with Senator Smith, a member of the subcommittee, who represents your home state.
One way to publicize this: “Our Government Affairs team recently met with Senator Smith, who sits on the U.S. Senate Defense Appropriations subcommittee. We have a long relationship with Sen. Smith, who has visited our facility in the past. We conveyed to her the importance of increasing appropriations for the XYZ Fighter. We emphasized the value of the fighter to our national defense, and our role in supplying product for the platform. Last Wednesday, the subcommittee increased appropriations for the XYZ Fighter, which incorporates products we make.”
A better way to publicize this: “The recently enacted defense funding bill included an increase in appropriations for the XYZ Fighter. This increase will result in $12 million in incremental product sales for us. The GA team advocated for this increase with Sen. Smith, who sits on the Defense appropriations subcommittee and knows our company well.”
Why is the latter version better than the former? For one thing, the second version is shorter and clearer. More importantly, it focuses on impact, not how the impact was effected. The GA team might be proud of its efforts, but the rest of the organization wants to know the impact – that’s what you should lead with. It also demonstrates that the GA team is more concerned with that impact than with letting everyone else know how well connected they are. The business senses that the GA team is focused on results.
Where Metrics Belong
Despite my caution on the use of metrics, it’s perfectly fine to share high- level estimated impact, as long as you provide context for your conclusions. Each year, our team provided such estimates, but we grouped them into categories: areas where we had direct impact (e.g, getting a specific tariff exemption or site incentive), indirect impact (e.g., lobbying Sen. Smith for the approps increase), or tangential impact (e.g., active participation in a trade association that secured a big policy win.) We also provided, in an appendix, information related to the number of Congressional site visits, etc. Crucially, however, we didn’t lead with this information – it was provided for color, and always subordinate to the business objective we were focused on.
As you develop a process and cadence to convey your value to your company, remember that simply using data might not be the best way to tell your story. It might take a bit more time to develop a concise text summary, but in my experience, your readers will have a better understanding of what you’re contributing to the enterprise.
Telling the right story inside the organization matters. Government affairs functions that communicate with clarity and focus are more likely to secure trust, budget, and strategic alignment. Developing a concise, business-oriented narrative takes effort, but the results—internally and externally—are worth it.
For organizations seeking to better articulate and elevate the role of government affairs, TGS Advisory offers a structured, executive-minded approach. If this resonates, feel free to reach out directly.