Interest Group Leadership as Political Networking

Leading and working in political organizations demands a distinct set of skills, including networking, negotiation, policy framing, strategic planning—both internally and externally—and navigating political procedures. Legislative politicians acquire these skills through experience, making them attractive to other political organizations, particularly interest groups. As a result, interest groups may find it advantageous to hire former politicians as lobby consultants or leaders, especially if they bring valuable networks and connections. However, interest groups must also satisfy their internal constituents, who are likely to prefer a leader from within their ranks rather than an outsider. Additionally, a party-politically ‘colored’ leader may divide the organization, and some of the political skills may not be relevant for the non-political parts of the work of interest groups such as service delivery. Why are some interest groups more likely to have a party-affiliated leader compared to other groups? Is this indeed associated with the magnitude of policy-related tasks as measured by the degree and breadth of legislative presence? And is there a difference between different types of groups? Furthermore, for those interest groups with a party-affiliated chairperson, does the extended ‘standard model’ for party-group relations explain the relation? Ie do groups tend to have chairs from parties that are (1) politically proximate and (2) centrist / mainstream (and not populist), (3) in government / high coalition-potential, and (4) with a large seat-share in parliament?