Lessons from Think Tankdom

I've worked at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) for over seven years. This is unusual for staff joining as entry-level RAs, who typically stay for two to three years before pursuing graduate school or a job in the U.S. government. However, I like to think that instead of pursuing an academic PhD in political science or public policy, I got a PhD in think tankdom. I don't get to call myself a doctor, but I learned a lot, worked on fun projects, hosted hundreds of events, and made (somewhat) more money than I would as a graduate student.

My ideal dissertation would explore how the best think tankers conduct research, manage teams, fundraise, and help push an idea into public policy. Maybe I'll write that book one day. But for now, I can summarize my findings in 10 key principles:

1. The best think tankers are good researchers. They constantly seek out new research sources, tools, and methods. They enjoy reading deeply on issues, but are diligent enough to know when it's time to start writing—and can shift back-and-forth between consumption and production modes. They ask good questions, talk frequently about their research, and welcome feedback and constructive criticism. They make clear, well-reasoned arguments with appropriate levels of nuance. And because they prioritize rigorous, policy-relevant research, they offer actionable recommendations in all major publications.
2. They're (fairly) plugged in. They present at conferences, converse with journalists, and read relevant magazines and journals. They know which members of Congress work on related issues, and regularly connect with their staff. They do not, however, need to tweet 10 times a day or mindlessly scroll social media.
3. They dedicate time for large research projects. They schedule blocks on their calendar for deep work on reports, peer-reviewed articles, or books. They discourage non-urgent taskers or breaking news from interfering with these blocks.
4. They value project management. They understand the importance of regular team communication, tag-ups with project sponsors, tracking budgets, and submitting work on time.
5. They value aesthetics. They carefully consider report design, layout, grammar, and readability. They know that policymakers have little patience or interest in reading ugly, jargon-filled reports.
6. They use events and media to fuel conversations. They host large, public rollout events for new reports, with keynotes by major government stakeholders to draw attention. They might also host smaller book talks and commemorations for historical events in their field. They advertise events well in advance. They also take time to prepare, drafting several pages of questions to ensure seamless conversations. To make the best use of event time, they can politely shutdown an audience question if the questioner is monologuing or rambling.
7. They monitor their competition. They know their competitive advantages, and build upon them. They also consider their competitors' advantages, and decide whether to catch up or avoid that lane. While they support a collaborative research community, they also recognize that they're often competing for limited project funding.
8. They build and use their network. In addition to leading their staff, they maintain a network of non-resident advisors willing to read, edit, and comment on papers before they're published. They host private workshops with their network to discuss and get feedback on ongoing projects. They may also use their network to assist in fundraising or to write short publications.
9. They collaborate with real thinkers, and avoid the phonies. Real thinkers publish novel ideas and present actionable policy recommendations. The phonies, on the other hand, will regurgitate those ideas but cannot develop their own. The phonies also tend to haphazardly connect the hot topic of the day (e.g., artificial intelligence or cyberwarfare) to their line of research. They're often confident and well-spoken—perhaps even more so than the real thinkers—but they are not good researchers. Collaborating with them is therefore a waste of time.
10. They build research materials to support their community. This might come in the form of a website like CSIS's Missile Threat, or Bellingcat's Discord connecting hundreds of analysts around the world, or otherwise. These resources support the wider research community and encourage others to make their own contributions. They may also expand a research team's name recognition and influence.

Any think tanker that follows these principles will be successful. It does not matter whether they work at a large and historic institution like RAND or with a smaller team that's just getting started.