Workshops on EU Institutions: In Associations, We Learn Much More Than Just the Institutions

 Paul Shotton, PhD

Co-Founder Advocacy Academy, Advocacy Strategy and Owner at Paul Shotton Consulting

July 29, 2025

1. A Workshop That Went Beyond the Brief

This workshop started with a clear objective: build up the EU knowledge of the communications team. The head of communications commissioned it because, as is often the case, many team members came from professional backgrounds where they hadn’t been exposed to EU institutional structures or decision-making processes. That in itself is a perfec

tly valid training goal. But what made this particular workshop series more interesting was what happened once we got started.

From the very first session, participation grew—from 5 to over 20. Colleagues from public affairs, regulatory, and legal teams joined in. The four sessions took place over the course of a month, always at lunchtime, which worked well for both accessibility and energy. And very quickly it became clear that we weren’t just “learning about the institutions.” We were opening space for team reflection. How do different roles inside the association connect with the EU institutions? Where do teams intersect, and where are the gaps?

2. Designed for One Team, Valuable for All

The communications team remained the primary audience—and I made that clear from the outset. That helped keep the learning objectives focused. But the wider group benefited too. Several participants from technical or legal roles shared that they also had limited prior knowledge of EU institutional dynamics. Public affairs colleagues appreciated having a third party—me—present the landscape and, in doing so, indirectly highlight the function they lead, without needing to explain or promote their work themselves.

We were working with a lot of material. The usual overview of EU institutions, key actors, competences, and roles in decision-making formed the foundation. But we added two extra layers. First, a focus on engagement—how these institutions connect to real advocacy strategies using the association’s own issues and examples. Second, a more internal reflection on how different teams contribute to the policy process. Even with limited time, these two layers made the sessions far more relevant.

3. Framing the EU: From Institutions to Engagement

Most workshops on EU institutions tend to follow the same path—one session per institution, long lists of competences, and maybe a diagram of the Ordinary Legislative Procedure. That’s not wrong, but it can fall flat if the participants don’t see how it connects to their work. In this case, we took a different approach.

We still covered the fundamentals—who does what, how laws are made, what powers sit where—but we did so through the lens of public affairs. What matters isn’t just that the European Parliament amends legislation, but when and how you can engage with that process. What’s useful isn’t just knowing the Commission drafts proposals, but understanding how technical teams feed into consultations or influence the framing of future revisions. This shift made the content more practical, especially when we tied it to the association’s own issues.

The Secretary General and Head of Public Affairs were instrumental here. They brought in real examples and stories, grounding each institution in the association’s lived experience. It also helped reinforce the message that public affairs isn’t a separate world—it’s a strategic function that builds on the insights and outputs of every team, from communications to compliance.

4. The Policy Lifecycle and the Power of Reflection

I often use the policy lifecycle as a tool when it fits the topic—and here it really helped. Not just as a visual aid, but as a way to map how different teams show up at different stages. Technical colleagues often lead on the implementation of legislation, identifying problems or limitations in how rules land in practice. Those same insights, when shared early enough, can help shape the case for revision. That’s not just compliance—it’s advocacy, if framed well.

We didn’t have time for more hands-on exercises, which I would have liked. A proper stakeholder puzzle or team brainstorm would have helped them explore overlaps in more depth. Still, the examples we did use—anchored in high-priority issues the association is already working on—resonated strongly. And when senior leadership contributes directly to these discussions, it sends a clear message: this isn’t theoretical. It’s about how the organisation works, and how it could work better.

For me, one key takeaway is the importance of creating time for reflection—not just in workshops, but in the day-to-day rhythm of the organisation. These moments of shared learning and discussion are powerful. They reveal gaps, build understanding, and lay the groundwork for stronger collaboration. But they don’t happen by accident. They require leadership to make space for them.

5. The Role of the External Facilitator

My role in these workshops isn’t to hand down a verdict on how things are done. I’m not there to sing the praises of public affairs—or to critique other teams. Unless asked explicitly, I don’t audit or assess. Instead, I try to present options, frameworks, and examples that provoke discussion. It’s in those moments that people start to reflect on how they work—and how they work together.

In this case, the value of an external facilitator was also in drawing connections that may be obvious to some, but new to others. It’s easier for people to see the big picture when someone from outside maps it out without an internal agenda. For the public affairs team, this can also be helpful—they benefit from someone else framing their work in the broader policy process and highlighting the importance of coordination, without needing to take on a promotional role.

Next time, I’ll try to formalise the participation of the public affairs team and the Secretary General from the start. Their presence added weight and relevance, and their examples helped anchor the content. I’d also like to introduce a visual tool I often use: a circular diagram of the policy lifecycle, overlaid with contributions from different teams—their key tasks, deliverables, and handovers. It helps bring the process to life and shows how seemingly separate functions—communications, technical, legal—are in fact working on different parts of the same cycle.

6. What’s Next? From Learning to Embedding

Workshops like this one plant seeds. They create shared reference points, introduce concepts, and open conversations. But for that learning to stick—especially when it touches on cross-functional collaboration—you need follow-up. This can take different forms depending on the organisation’s needs, but the goal is always the same: helping teams move from understanding to application.

In this case, a natural next step would be to build on what we started by focusing on how to craft and communicate positions. This means going deeper into message development, understanding the link between technical insights and political narratives, and defining engagement strategies that connect both. These are areas where communications, technical, and public affairs teams need to coordinate—each bringing a different strength, but all working toward the same advocacy outcome.

You don’t need a fully-fledged curriculum to do this. Even a short, focused follow-up session can be enough to work through a priority issue together. The important thing is to treat it as a team process—not just a deliverable from one department.

7. Final Reflections

There’s always a tension between breadth and depth. In this case, we covered a lot: each EU institution, the basics of the policy process, internal roles, and real-world engagement. We sacrificed detail on things like comitology or delegated acts—but that’s a trade-off I’m happy to make when it’s the result of good discussion.

The bigger reflection for team leaders and secretaries general is this: how often do you create space for teams to step back and reflect together? These aren’t just training sessions. They’re moments to build understanding, trust, and innovation. That’s especially important in associations, where the impact of advocacy often depends on internal coordination as much as external strategy.

If you get the structure right—and give teams a chance to see how their work fits into the bigger picture—you don’t just improve knowledge. You improve the way people work together.