The first step: defining Advocacy
29th January 2007 by Michael Zimet
Oxford defines ăd’və-kə-sē as publicly supporting or recommending a particular cause or policy. Webster’s defines it as active support.
Our challenge: define Advocacy in the context of IABC and the communications profession.
The Advocacy Work Group has a few working definitions:
- Raise the profile of the communications profession(al) for business, HR and other publics. Promote greater understanding of effective communication as a critical business tool; highlight its benefits and the results it can achieve.
- Reach out to colleges/universities. Encourage business schools to incorporate communication skills and understanding in MBA and other curricula.
- Speak out (as “the voice” of communications professionals) on relevant issues and topics in such areas as ethics and business news or events.
- Take an active role in addressing social and/or economic issues. Perhaps even adopt one or more causes as IABC programs.
That’s already a broad spectrum, yet it’s just the tip of the iceberg. Our greater challenge will be to assess just how relevant these are to our association and our profession, whether they add value, and how to go about doing them.
But one step at a time. Let’s first focus on defining Advocacy for IABC, its members and the communications profession.
What do you think? Do you agree — or would you define Advocacy differently?
Be heard!
January 29th, 2007 at 11:30 am
Some questions/thoughts:
1. Is this “Advocacy for IABC” or “Advocacy by IABC”? The former speaks to raising the profile of the profession or encouraging b-schools to teach business communication while the latter speaks to…well…speaking out — as an association — on matters of import to the [business] world such as ethics or hunger or slave labor or ????
2. Define “active role.” That usually means “money.”
3. The “how” part seems, to me, to be the biggest challenge. “Nimble” isn’t a word often used with associations, especially global ones, and advocacy BY an association requires immediacy in order to be heard over the din.
Wilma
January 29th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
1. Is this Advocacy for or by IABC? The short answer may be “yes” — it could be both. That’s what we have to determine. In some cases, the latter begets the former — by demonstrating what we do, we’re promoting ourselves even as we promote a cause or issue.
2. “Active role” could also mean “time,” by encouraging members and colleagues to leverage their professional skills and time to support issues/causes they personally believe in.
3. You’re right, “how” is the biggest challenge. That’s why defining Advocacy is but the first step. Whether it’s Advocacy for or by IABC, any activity will require a clearly defined process that recognizes this is an organization made up almost entirely of volunteers. The ultimate test will be a reality check: can we do it, can we do it well, and will it add value?
January 30th, 2007 at 9:41 am
I’d suggest that advocacy for IABC is the place to start. An effort to build visibility for the association, the profession and its value to business has long been needed. Progress here would then strengthen efforts to advocate by IABC.
Two related comments:
There is a need for better integration/relationships/understanding between Human Resources and Communications. This might prove a fruitful area for advocacy.
Also, I have been surprised by the lack of awareness among those in agencies (advertising agencies in particular) of the role/value of internal communications. Another possible avenue for advocacy.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
This is certainly an interesting development–the notion of an “Advocacy” push by IABC.
I say it’s interesting for a number of reasons. First, there’s clearly a willingness to collect member input at a holistic level, from creating a working definition of “advocacy” and thus laying the foundation for the ensuing results.
Second, however, there is still a top-down, “Leadership”-driven flavor to the initiative–which if it persists could severely limit the ability of such an initiative to ignite the commitment of the membership and secure the magic that the surplus time and energy of 15,000-plus communicators can generate.
Third, there’s still a question about whether this should be IABC-centric–advocating for IABC for IABC’s sake.
Without yet being a full-on participant in this process, here’s what I’d really love to see:
1) IABC taking on the role as the advocate of the communicator–both in promoting the measured economic value of communications in organizations and of communicators to organizations. That may mean making free and distributing some statistics currently sold in the Research Foundation’s packages, and it may mean creating a volunteer-driven press effort in the mainstream and business media in IABC’s key regions.
2) IABC providing recognition and sponsorship for chapter-led and member-led advocacy efforts, ranging from internal comms blogs that promote the role of “communicator as strategist” to local efforts to convene chapters of other associations to promote a pro-communicator message in their communities.
3) Sponsoring special Gold Quill awards for members and chapters that produce extraordinary advocacy work on behalf of their chosen charities or social movements.
That’s what I’d like to see. And thanks for listening.
Mike Klein
Washington, DC
January 30th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Mike,
It’s great to hear your thoughts. They echo many of my own. By “leadership-driven flavor” I guess you mean that this effort is sanctioned by the IABC executive board. True. But I don’t think that’s a bad thing. In fact, it offers a lot of freedom — if we have the courage to take it.
I know that Michael has what it takes to move this initiative in the right direction. And it’s a good thing that he has the trust of the organization to let him do it.
Honestly, I’m still trying to wrap my brain around how to make this fit successfully within an organization like IABC where you have 14,500 members worldwide with different interests and needs.
It’s a complex issue and it will take a lot of minds to get a handle on it. And if we do it right (o.k., even if that means a few mistakes along the way) we will grow as a profession and as an organization.
It’s input from members and chapter/regional leaders like you that will really help pull this all together. Your thoughts resonated with me. I hope to hear more.
Natasha
February 1st, 2007 at 9:52 am
More you will hear, Natasha…
One point I wish to float is that even if the end result is something fairly modest and traditional, it would do IABC and its membership no harm to see this Advocacy initiative as an opportunity to rethink how the Association connects with its members as well as with the outside world–and how its members connect with each other and with the outside world as well.
And one thing worth keeping in mind: with the exception of the few true journalists who are members–we are all “business communicators”. In my language, that means we are all “professional advocates”. The real advocacy expertise and energy lies with the members–and with those who have yet to become members.
February 1st, 2007 at 11:07 am
Glad to see IABC spearhead this, but I believe we have to encourage the bottom-up process in a variety of ways. Michael, you are right –the ‘active role’ involves time, so how could we tap into that limited resource?
What if divide the strategies into a 3-year advocacy plan, and set some goals for chapters? One year we could focus on Mike Klein’s idea of chapter-led and member-led efforts. The next on something broader such as the curriculum idea –reaching out to colleges/schools. Then in the third phase, scale it out further with the research foundation -even partner with outfits such Annenberg school, Pew etc.
I am sure we could brainstorm with all sorts of ideas like this, but it’s a good way to get all moving parts in this huge machine to work toward this overall goal -advocacy.
February 1st, 2007 at 11:26 am
I agree with this effort. As a truly international organization with a solid mission, we are uniquely positioned to take a leadership role in the profession/industry.
The working definitions listed by Michael Zimet work within any member’s borders. I can see these working definitions as being appicable everywhere. Sure, they may need a little tweaking (when have IABCers NOT edited copy?, but in general, they sound good to me.
Good work!
Les
February 1st, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Returning to Michael Zimet’s four bullets above, let me propose a fifth:
- support, facilitate and empower advocacy among the international membership on behalf of professional specialties (such as internal communication) that IABC sees as part of its overall umbrella, and in helping to move these specialty areas forward.
Thoughts?
February 1st, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Point #1 of the “definitions” developed for this initiative by the Advocacy Work Group (from the original post, above):
- Raise the profile of the communications profession(al) for business, HR and other publics. Promote greater understanding of effective communication as a critical business tool; highlight its benefits and the results it can achieve.
————-
IABC should leverage its huge corps of Accredited Professionals to pursue this objective. Use as a foundation the fact that ABCs are already embedded in the structure of hundreds of organizations around the world and close to the ears of their leaders.
Specifically, IABC should equip and, if necessary, train, its ABCs to open a dialogue with their respective HR departments and managements to fill future communication positions in their organizations with accredited professionals.
With appropriate preparation, future job descriptions and announcements of job openings in this field will contain the words, “ABC certification required” or “Accredited professionals preferred.”
Not only will this raise the visiblity and status of professional communicators and provide opportunities for ABCs (and IABC) to educate HR specialists and management as to their value, it will also act as a powerful incentive for individuals not yet certified to become so.
Such a plan will jumpstart a bottom-up effort as suggested in a previous comment and provide tangible and immediate traction for this bold move forward.
February 2nd, 2007 at 6:33 am
As a non-ABC (albeit one contemplating accrediation within the next year or two), I can see some value in an ABC-oriented advocacy program as ONE of the range of initiatives that could sprout from this effort.
But unless IABC wishes to rebrand itself as the “Institute of ABCs” and solely focus its efforts on accreditation and serving the needs of the Accredited, the range of activities will need to be much broader, much deeper, much more inclusive and at least somewhat more devolved than this idea or the current approach.
February 2nd, 2007 at 10:38 am
Ron, thanks for your comments, particularly your suggestion to have our ABCs play a leading role in engaging their non-communications colleagues. An intriguing idea!
I especially agree that we’d be making real progress if more job openings included “ABC preferred.”
But I’m curious about your statement that “ABCs are already embedded in the structure of hundreds of organizations around the world and close to the ears of their leaders.” In many cases, that’s true — but don’t you think many non-accredited communicators have also advanced to that point?
Still, I think you’re spot-on that raising communicators’ visibility and status will ultimately help non-communicators understand the value we add as well as encourage more communicators (myself included) to seek accreditation.
I’d like to explore other roles that our Accredited colleagues could fill in an Advocacy initiative. Ideas, anyone?
February 2nd, 2007 at 11:40 am
Responding to Michael Zimet’s question, above:
My apologies if I misspoke. There are undoubtedly many, many non-accreedited communicators out there who are highly regarded by their CEOs and their management teams and “have their ears”, so to speak.
The point I was trying to make was that ABCs are probably better equipped to propose hiring policies favoring accredited professionals in filling future job openings. As living examples of such a campaign, their advocacy might gather momentum faster than similar recommendations from non-ABCs.
February 2nd, 2007 at 11:41 am
I would argue that there surely there is more than “some value” in an ABC-oriented advocacy program.
As I read through the previous postings, I see some great discussion about IABC building visibility of the communications profession and its value to business – now, that’s member service!
To me, the ABC is a validation of IABC’s expertise in the field. The ABC is the only global certification program for communicators. When I see “ABC,” be it attached to the name of an American, a Canadian, Brazilian or Belgian – I know that these individuals have reached a superior level of experience and strategic competence in the field of communications. I know the criteria under which they have been thoroughly tested on their ability to analyze an opportunity or need, develop and execute a sound response, and measure the results in a viable, meaningful way. That their approach to media relations (my field) is not “more earned media” but rather “more earned media that will accomplish X, Y and Z objectives.” That I can hire that person. In other words, I believe the ABC is a source of credibility and value for the association, and for those communicators who hold it.
Christine Nyirjesy Bragale, ABC
February 2nd, 2007 at 1:36 pm
There are two basic issues that come up in assessing whether a focus on the ABC (and on the needs/talents of ABC-holders) inside of a context of IABC’s involvement in advocacy activities of any kind over the next two years:
1) Bigger pie/share of pie: Naturally, ABC-holders want to a higher percentage of “ABC-Preference” job postings in the range of industries we inhabit. This not necessarily a bad thing–but ABCs and non-ABCs alike may be much better off if there were more total opportunities available to business communicators as a result of outstanding advocacy work by members and by the Association. Do we want a bigger pie–or merely to give a larger share of the pie to those who can make a case that they are more deserving?
2) Elitism: ABC is a great credential–it’s indeed something I want to pursue within the next few years. But do we want to take what is essentially a certification of professional skills and aplomb to present to the marketplace and convert it into a “gold member” status within IABC? And if we do so, do we run the risk of turning IABC into an accreditation shop/club instead of a broadbased network and advocacy group making a compelling case for strategic communication in enterprises around the world?
Great conversation! And…GO BEARS!!!!!
February 4th, 2007 at 6:20 am
I think that advocating for ABCs to work with their HR departments to raise awareness of the designation in their organizations is an excellent idea. But I think looking at advocacy as a means to create “more total opportunities to business communicators” a bit too narrow a focus. Advocacy should be more than that.
I also don’t believe the ABC should be something that promotes elitism. Ever. It should never become “gold member” status.
But I am curious as to why the ABC is “something (you) want to pursue within the next few years.”
I say there’s no time like the present!
February 4th, 2007 at 8:29 am
Hi Eric…
I think creating “more total opportunities for business communicators” is a viable outcome from a more overarching advocacy effort that makes an economic, operational, and perhaps even moral case for organizations raising their game in the communication arena. I’m not saying it should be the focus–but it certainly could be one of those measurable outcomes we measurement fans love to measure.
Why not an ABC today? I’m seeking to re-establish my own “brand” in the marketplace (as an “advocate” for more strategic and interactive approaches to internal communication), move from a consulting to an in-house role, and perhaps move city and/or country again. Once I get my bags unpack from the current transition, an ABC would make sense for me.
My US $.02
February 4th, 2007 at 8:46 am
Oops: I meant to say…”once I get my bags unpacked”. Maybe an ABC will improve my Sunday morning editing.
Mike
March 9th, 2007 at 4:07 am
Can I add an extremely tardy contribution? I think we need to be very careful about distinguishing between advocacy and marketing. I work for a trade association. Advocacy is what we do to defend the interests of our members. Marketing is what we do to recruit, raise awareness of who we are, etc. The two are linked but not the same. Effective advocacy depends on credibility. A trade association needs to represent a critical mass of its sector; a professional society needs to represent a compelling share of its profession.
Developing advocacy positions is a very delicate art requiring lots of diplomacy, time, energy and a representative mandate. In my trade association, positions are adopted by our Council, which is kind of like a parliament. But they are elaborated by standing committees (one covering technology issues, one economic issues and one issues linked to product use). Every member company has the right to be represented on those committees and to potentially contribute to the elaboration of positions. It takes a minimum of a year for us to put together a position.
I don’t think IABC has a structure that is suitable for developing such positions. Personally I currently vote for the International Executive Board to run IABC, not to adopt position papers. (Understanding that they will voice their opinions as members of the board when interviewed, etc.) And I certainly don’t think that IABC’s current committee structure (appointed, non-transparent, reporting to the IEB but largely invisible to members on an ongoing basis) is well-suited to developing positions.
Yet I think that the advocacy initiative is a good idea. I think it should be about enabling communicators’s voices (Hey! Be Heard! (TM)). What about developing the press room to be more dynamic and including a List Serve or blog on current issues so that members can pitch in with pithy quotes that can be used by journalists, PROVIDED THAT THEY ARE CITED AS John Doe, Dircom XYZ Corp. and member of the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC).
To be credible, IABC needs to strengthen its brand, which takes us back to both the branding initiative and marketing. We listen to CEOs of major corporations because their brands have some importance in the world and some meaning, not because they put out a pretty brochure. We need to increase the appreciation of our value proposition, especially outside of North America, where our organization is growing fastest.
And we need to improve our communications, both internally and externally. We talk about chapters going for Gold Quills, but I would love to see IABC HQ’s own communications being held to this standard. It would help us evaluate the job staff are doing for members, it would add credibility to GQ (do as I do, not as I say)and it would be good advocacy for members’ also using Gold Quill as their measure.
That’s just some thinking out loud…