The formula for success in Public Affairs
Including three examples...
Is there a formula for success in Public Affairs? I have discussed this a bit with my network in the tailwinds of my last two blogs (pt I & pt II) about skill and luck in Public Affairs.
The interesting question is, if we assume that Public Affairs is mainly skill based, then you could also argue that it is possible to reduce success in to a formula. If so, what are the components of this formula?
Lets give it a stab, and look at a few examples. And lets do it with an open mind, as these formulas obviously aren’t perfect, but still can help us to understand what drives results (or value) in our profession. So the focus is not on “measuring” alone as this would include 10x more ways at least, but formulas that boils PA down to its essence, a bouillon cube of PA.
I will also end with a few words on my own model, The Performance Management Model, so make sure you to read to the end.
But before you read on, please remember to subscribe and support my work if you haven’t done so already.
Three examples
#1 - Counting stakeholder interactions
A basic but popular formula - which I underscored in my notebook late 2024 after I completed 93 interviews with Public Affairs Managers across 27 countries in Europe for the Public Affairs Manager Survey 2025 - is based on counting stakeholder interactions.
One section of my interview guide was dedicated to measuring, and a lot of answers sounded alike. Most PA managers reported that they didn’t measure (or got measured) a lot in quantitative ways, but still they mentioned certain quantitative indicators which they - and the PA team lead - followed closely. To put it in to a formula:
(Quantity of stakeholder engagements) x (Influence of stakeholders)
x (Quality of interactions) = Success (e.g. 2025 > 2024)
Very simple, right? Too simple? Probably. A lot of challenges of course; one-dimensional, too stakeholder-focused, how do you define influence or quality of interaction, what is success etc.
It is obvious that it has its limitations, and you can’t really track much by it alone. But it is, however, somewhat directional for the focus of the operational side of your PA team. You would have to do a lot of work with the definitions before you got started, but it could be done. And if your PA function is somewhat immature or maybe brand new, I understand why this approach or ingredients might seem appealing.
It is based on the notion that “Action > Inaction”. Or as one lobbyist said “You won’t catch any fish, if you don’t put the line in the water”. Which is also why I sense that many still use it or abide to it in some variation of it, in spite of all its shortcomings.
#2 - The “RAB-score”
I have previously in my career, when I worked in-house, built something similar along the lines of #1, maybe a tad more methodological, but still quite simple.
Back in 2015, I named it the “RAB-score” which stood for “Relation and Attitude Barometer Score”.
Plain and simple each stakeholder was rated on two variables: The relation (R) with a score from 1-5 (the higher the better) and Attitude of course referred to the attitude of the specific stakeholder from 1-5 (the higher the better) towards the issue, see below an excerpt from my book “The Public Affairs Engine” (which you can download here).
And thus, by conducting this exercise on each of your stakeholders, you would thereby quickly have created a more quantitative approach to your stakeholder management which you could then plot in a matrix, and divide it in to e.g. 2x2 quadrants, which you could then use to get and overview and visualize (to your team and to colleagues from other departments), how things looked among your KOLs and what to do.
You could set up certain logics or rules for this function - like if a stakeholder both does not like you and is negative towards the issue, then it is safe to say you probably won’t change the issue, and thereby you have created a numerical “bottom” of 3 points per stakeholder (1+2) for succeeding which you could then add up and put in the function. So the function, in my case for the certain issue I worked on, looked like this:
RAB ≥182
We then knew that we had to get our 28 stakeholders to get the total score above 182, 6,5 points per stakeholder on average was the minimum to get the backing. You had to conduct the exercise on each issue, so it could be quite a lot of work.
Of course this approach has all kinds of problems, similar to #1, which are obviously a challenge, and thus should limit how much trust to have in the model + how much you rate your performance on it. And you won’t succeed with anything in PA just by sitting behind your desk updating your excel spreadsheet.
But what I liked about it was, that it was just very transparent, its also very actionable, its very understandable to other departments, and it forces the organization to work more systematically with its stakeholders - which in my case was much needed, and therefore the outcome was overall successful.
PS: It also made it possible to integrate stakeholder objectives in to employee performance reviews of non-PA colleagues internally, which was another step in the overall professionalization of the organizations PA work. Thereby it actually also focused on internal processes and mechanics which is a big problem with formula #1.
#3 - van Schendelens EU-formula
The late professor van Schendelen has in the article “Public Affairs in the Uncommon European Union” (2017) put forward an interesting formula:
2E= MI²
According to van Schendelen the PA unit's first job is to collect sound information (symbol I), which then has to be critically analyzed, that is all information has to be turned into intelligence (symbol I²).
An interest group needs ‘critical mass’ (symbol M) in order to achieve greater effectiveness (symbol E1) and efficiency (symbol E2) of its own influence efforts.
So, as van Schendelen puts it, PA at the EU level requires the management of 2E= MI².
There are clearly a few extra layers to this function, making it more representative of what Public Affairs is about and not just stakeholder centered like #1 and #2. But it is a fine line, so by making it more advanced or including more variables, also makes it more abstract and difficult to translate in to action. The definition challenge is also very much an issue e.g. just try with the “2E”.
Of course van Schendelen didn’t intend for the formula to be written on every whiteboard in Brussels, but it is more of a description of what works in PA, again its directional. Interesting thought experiment nonetheless.
Conclusion: Are we getting anywhere?
Sometimes I wonder if we are getting anywhere in PA. If you read some of late professor John F. Mahons’ writings from the 80s about the challenges of our profession, it seems like they were written yesterday.
But I do, however, think that there is a new openness to working differently in PA. Some elements and factors are of course - and should continue to be - the same, as they relate to how democracy works. But on the internal side, PA pros need to adapt to how organizations work today. And that progression has not happened at the same pace. I am currently writing a longer piece on this exact topic and the implications it has for PA teams, which will be out sometime in Q2 "(Working title: “Public Affairs teams that work”).
PS: One last thing. I have developed a model for assessing a PA function, which I have previously written a bit about as well as the first preliminary results. As my model is more about the level of the PA function and thus not really a formula for success in PA, I haven’t included it here. But the outcome is of course related to success in PA, and also reflects my approach to success in PA, and why it should be more focused on the organizational factors. I will elaborate a bit more about the model here on the blog once I have a few more results as well as include it partly in the coming publication mentioned above.
Thx for reading, and feel free to chip in if you have other formulas for success in PA.
/Kopp