I have reflected on that question over the last year or so as I have moved into retirement after more than 40 years in the lobbying business.

There is no formula to answer the question, but the following thoughts have come to mind – and these represent a bit of an update after I first posted this blog many months ago. My long-time partner, Pat McCormick, reminded me the other day that this had first been posted a long-time ago, so I thought that, now with full retirement, it was time to re-post it.

1.  A PERSONAL COMMITMENT:  A “YOUR WORD IS YOUR BOND” ETHIC

There is no more critical trait than this one. At a Wall Street Journal CEO Forum, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, a probable Republican presidential candidate next time around, put it this way:  “No one in this city (Washington, D.C.) talks to each other anymore.  Or, if they do, they don’t speak to each civilly.  They don’t develop relationships.  They won’t develop trust between each other.”

Governor Christie could have added that, when officials talk, they don’t believe what each other says because there is no “your word is your bond” ethic.

If you say something, mean it. Stick by it.  If you have to change your perspective, alert all those to whom you previously spoke that you’ve had to change.  That, alone, will enhance your credibility.

2.  A PERSONAL STYLE:  PERSEVERANCE

Over my 40+ years at the State Capitol in Salem, I saw that those who arrived early, remained active during the day and stayed late often got things done.  In the sometimes-awkward nature of lobbying, finding legislators early and late often translated to an important minute or two – a minute or two to make a positive impression on behalf of a client.

Because lobbying is the business of making a series of positive impressions, finding time to make the first one is critical. Then, the others can follow – early, mid-day or late.

3.  A PERSONAL COMMITMENT:  CLIENT EXPERTISE INVOKES LOBBYING

In the lobbying business, I used to say that it didn’t matter what I thought or whether I agreed with a client. What mattered was what the client thought.

I had the good fortune to represent clients over the years with whom I generally agreed. Moreover, they often allowed me to react to their point of view, caring what I thought as I prepared to carry their views to the Capitol.

I also was fond of saying that, with regard to a client’s interests, I was “an inch deep and a mile wide,” while the client was a mile deep in its understanding of its issues.  The point?  It is that a client’s perspectives, words and deeds are critical to representing that client’s interests, more critical that a lobbyist’s perspectives, words and deeds.  What a client wants or does not want from the legislative process should dictate what the lobbyist wants or does not want.

My approach was, first, to listen carefully to a client’s perspective, then apply my experience — how to get things done in a public policy environment — honed over my years in the process.

If a client wanted just a message carrier, I wasn’t particularly interested, as immodest as that sounds. I wanted to work with client to hone the message, then use the client’s expertise to achieve results.

4.  A PROFESSIONAL COMMITMENT:  FIND THE SMART MIDDLE

Getting back to the Wall Street Journal’s report of what Governor Christie said at the CEO forum, he issued a clear call for the benefits of compromise, which, after all, is the definition of politics…the art of compromise.

“When I’ve developed relationships with Democratic legislators (in New Jersey), it means you have to compromise at times; you don’t walk away with everything you want.  But, man, if I walk away with 70 per cent of my agenda, New Jersey’s 70 per cent better than it would have been otherwise.”

Well, you could quarrel with elements of that quote, but the point is clear:  Finding the smart middle is better than imposing an idea from either the right or left extremes.  Look no farther these days than the federal “Affordable Care Act,” which doesn’t appear to be so affordable.  It was imposed without any attempt to find the middle; only Democrats in Congress voted for President Obama’s proposal and it appears he alone is implementing it – or trying to implement it. Further, drafting errors in the rush to judgment are compounding implementation problems, as well as setting up the context for a U.S. Supreme Court challenge.

Fault Republicans, if you will, for putting up roadblocks. But my wish is that smart Republicans would have been asked to work with smart Democrats to find the smart middle and, thus, make smart health care reform really work.

As a lobbyist, my goal was to get clients, first, to explain what they wanted and why, and, second, to be open to finding the smart middle.  That’s the way to get things done — in Salem or in Washington, D.C.

So, what it takes to an effective lobbyist relies, I contend, on the four qualities outlined above. It also takes a willingness to work with others to achieve results, for nothing ever happens in the lobbying world unless it revolves around a team.

For me, helping legislators draft good law was a purposeful pursuit.