Taking a position
23rd May 2007 by Michael Zimet
When we ask what people feel IABC should “do about advocacy,” one of the more frequent responses is “take a position on key issues.”
That’s a valid suggestion, but it’s difficult getting a consensus on just what some people have in mind. For example, should IABC limit itself to taking “official” positions on issues in business communications — or business in general? Ethics within our profession — or in general? Political events? Global current events? (BTW, this isn’t meant to be an inclusive list — just some starters.)
This is more than a question of relevancy — we also have to consider whether “taking a position” is in the best interests of IABC’s mission and values.
But that’s only part of our quandary. Assuming that we can define what, an even more important question becomes: who decides what our position is?
Maybe this will help…
Recently, we received a press inquiry: “What is the stand of IABC on the firing of Don Imus. Was it justified?”
An ad-hoc “flying squad” that included several Executive Board members, IABC staff and lay members developed a response in a little more than 24 hours. Here’s Glenda’s reply to the inquiry:
While I don’t think it’s appropriate for IABC to pass judgment on the business practices of CBS and MSNBC, this is a situation in which IABC’s Code of Ethics, which is the standard that guides business communicators, could help guide organizational responses, as well.
IABC created its blogs — the IABC Commons and the IABC CafĂ© — to provide a forum for lively discussions of current news stories and issues, without necessarily taking sides. Whether the topic has been Imus, Virginia Tech or any number of others, the opinions have been as diverse as our membership.
Nothing in the Imus controversy has changed our position: We will continue to promote IABC’s code of ethics as a “way of life” for communications professionals.
Is this how it should work?
Would this example fit within your overall view of Advocacy for an organization like IABC?
What do you think?

May 24th, 2007 at 7:08 am
IABC has a long history of finding ways to stay in the middle of the road. The reply to the Don Imus question is an example of that.
If the association seriously intends to enter the world of advocacy, it must decide — in general and in specific situations — where it stands.
IABC could have replied: “We are strongly supportive of the right of free speech — everywhere in the world. We are just as strongly opposed to character assasination and bigotry, especially as it is used in the guise of entertainment.”
May 24th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Nicely stated, Wilma. I came to the Advocacy Commons just now before commenting on MyRagan. The discussion there could be summarized by MyRagan member, Jane Greer, who asked, “What can we do besides bitch?”
As Wilma points out, we also need to leave the safety of the middle road–so that we actually get somewhere.
I want to roll up my sleeves and help. I’ll put some thoughts together and share them here, soon.
May 29th, 2007 at 6:47 am
Tom,
I look forward to seeing what you can pull together. And if I can help, please let me know.
May 29th, 2007 at 7:54 am
The day IABC leaves the comfort and safety of the middle of the road is the day it will have truly redefined itself.
May 30th, 2007 at 11:02 am
Anyone giving odds when or if that day will ever come?