< Back to blog

Advocacy vs. Ambassadorship (Hint…there’s a difference)

BY mikeklein Advocacy vs. Ambassadorship

Those of you who know me know that I am passionate about the role of advocacy within organisations—the extent to which people collect knowledge, form opinions and share them with their colleagues.

But when I talk about advocacy in organisations, I am met with this response, “Yes, Mike, we should start an ambassadors programme.”

A lot of people collapse the definitions of ambassadorship and advocacy.  On the one hand, they address a common need:  to generate positive word of mouth.  On the other, though, they represent profoundly different approaches.

In the larger world, the word “Ambassador” means an official representative of a formal entity, in most cases, a country. That means that ambassadorships are formal and official, and ambassadorial views to represent those of the country that employs them rather than their own opinions.

In contrast, advocacy reflects the committed expression of one’s own opinion, and the taking of visible actions on behalf of one’s own views to further one’s own causes.

Why is this relevant to communications pros?

In a world where brand transparency and consumer advocacy is increasingly driving buying and business behaviour (Trip Advisor and Net Promoter Score, anyone?), employee advocacy is seen as highly desirable.

But, employee advocacy is also seen as difficult to manage, particularly by managers.  Managers often see it as too important to be left to drivers other than management.

The formal, structured approach inherent in ambassadorship makes it much more attractive because it can be managed relatively easily, but produces a product very different from authentic advocacy.

Indeed, that which makes ambassadorship easy to manage makes it difficult to generate real advocacy.  The focus on standardization, manageability and consistency of messaging can stifle the sense of ownership required for employees to want to share opinions as their own.

A distinction, a spectrum

The challenge of generating and stimulating advocacy is one that few companies, once interested, are willing to leave to chance.  But viewing formal ambassadorship and self-generated advocacy as a spectrum, a communicator can have some leverage in balancing management’s desire for speed and consistency with the marketplace’s demand for transparency and authenticity.

Some questions to consider:

Who to involve:  usual suspects identified by managers vs informal leaders identified by peers

How to message to participants: common bullet points or stories rich in context and content

Which map to use:  tracking the org chart vs. loose demographic, cultural and functional balance

What tasks for participants to do:  Distribute information vs inspire actions and collect results

How participants should engage public:  Directing to company outlets or websites or sharing the love in their own terms on their own Facebook and LinkedIn pages

Not all advocacy efforts require the same approach—factors like regulation, national cultures, and compatibility with brand philosophies should certainly be considered.  But in recognizing that advocacy and ambassadorship are distinct concepts,  communicators have much more leverage in developing an approach that genuinely unleashes advocacy.

Notice: Undefined index: HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR in /home/customer/www/changingtheterms.com/public_html/wp-content/themes/dara-child/single.php on line 104

3 thoughts on “Advocacy vs. Ambassadorship (Hint…there’s a difference)”

  1. I was also reading your recent article on advocacy vs ambassadorship and clearly you have a grip on this. Was wondering though, why you state ambassadorship as an option but don’t seem to describe why it should even be on the ‘spectrum’ ready for communicators to ‘balance’. Are there any benefits? And with advocacy – how would answering your questions at the bottom of the article fire it up?

  2. The short answer: because the key feature of ambassadorship is the level of control, ambassadorship will be around for a while. Putting ambassadorship on the opposite end of the spectrum as advocacy gives the practitioner some leverage in moving towards a more empowered advocacy approach even if she can’t sell it in one go. The longer answer: if your main communication approach is cascading, an ambassadors programme is going to be an improvement simply by adding a feedback loop and some boots on the ground. There are more powerful ways to communicate and engage, for sure, but ambassadorship is not useless. It just isn’t the same thing as advocacy.

Comments are closed.


Four steps for avoiding the “Internal Communication measurement trap”


Will defeat in Australia finally light a fire under IABC’s “Advancing the Profession” talk?

See all