Taking a position — update!
1st July 2007 by Michael Zimet
When I originally wrote about whether and how IABC should take positions on key issues, I cited our response to a press inquiry on the firing of Don Imus. And you responded — here and elsewhere — taking us to task for our weak, “middle of the road” statement.
You were right. That episode showed that we didn’t have a clearly defined approach for dealing with those kinds of issues and situations. You also scolded us for not being willing to step up to the plate and really take a position.
Well, we listened to you… and I’m pleased to report that we’re making some significant changes.
When the Executive Board met in New Orleans last week, it unanimously approved our proposal to create a “flying squad” — a select group of experienced, media-savvy communicators who will be empowered to help IABC Be Heard™ by responding to breaking events, situations and press inquiries.
We’ve started to identify and recruit members for the “flying squad,” which we hope to complete this summer. Once in place, they’ll develop their own guidelines and procedures, to help them be prepared to respond when needed. They’ll also study the current world we work in and identify issues and other topics that for IABC to address, with appropriate recommendations.
This is a big step forward for IABC. Overdue? Perhaps. But at the risk of sounding corny (so what’s new?), I’ll call it “one small step for man, one giant leap for IABC” because it is a significant step forward for our Advocacy initiative. It demonstrates that we’re open to constructive criticism and suggestions and willing to act on them.
We’re far from done. There’s lots more to do… lots more small steps and some big ones, too. But Advocacy has begun, and we’re determined to help make a difference.
We’ll be writing more soon about what’s next. And how you can help.
July 4th, 2007 at 8:28 am
One of the concerns that I had about the Advocacy initiative was that it essentially collapsed two questions together (whether IABC should take positions on issues and whether IABC should support and empower member initiatives to advocate the role of communicators and our positive impact on organizations and society), and that it failed to account for a third question (what structural and priority shifts IABC needs to make to reposition itself and its members as effective advocates).
I mention that because I think the appointment of a “flying squad” of IABC pundits seeking to “be heard” on issues for which there is no consensus among organization members is about the worst possible outcome that could emerge from this process.
It’s a bad outcome because it takes us “off message”–the message being the need to find more and more effective ways of promoting what our members bring to our clients and communities’ respective tables.
(And as an aside, the comment that ‘IABC people talking about the value of communications isn’t going to make news’ is more indicative of our lack of creativity in delivering that message than a genuine indictment of its salience).
But even worse, IABC holds no consensus on the issues of the day. Climate change is one issue held out as something IABC to get involved in, but the decision to hold the latest Convention in New Orleans, a city with limited air service (requiring the use by most of connecting flights), and limited public transport, hardly speaks to a rigorous commitment on the subject.
Moving beyond our own behavior, diverting leadership time to the formulation of positions on things like Affirmative Action, genetically modified food or the situation in the Gaza Strip so we can find excuses to “be heard”, only to find that the “official” opinion diverges from swaths of the membership would only make the organization’s credibility more shaky.
Finally, the notion of a board-selected “flying squad” of uber-pros is downright scary. Who will these folks be? Our most loyal folks? The ones who have been on the board ladder the longest? The best looking? The ones who speak the most languages?
Clearly, this idea is well intentioned. But what is paved with good intentions?
July 5th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Mike,
You make some good points and raise some good questions.
I do disagree with your suggestion that to be an advocacy organization we have to test the waters of every issue with our members. We’ll never advocate for anything if we have to spend time and energy gaining consensus of more than 14,000 members.
I don’t recall reading/hearing that the “flying squad” would be “IABC pundits” who are “’seeking’ to be heard” on issues. Call it what you will, it is my understanding that this group will do the fast-track ground work needed if IABC is to reactively or proactively make a statement on an issue. Before condemning this group, please make suggestions for how it can best meet the needs of its assignment.
You’re right on when it comes to IABC’s consistent message of “finding more effective ways of promoting what our members bring to our clients and communities respective tables.” I don’t think advocacy of that will ever go away as it is in the heart and soul of the organization.
However, I think there’s still room for the other advocacy — the type of advocacy that shows we are a global organization with a universal code of ethics that is purposefully adaptive and supportive in any cultural environment. There are basic wrongs and rights that, as an association, we have a right — and even a responsibility — to respond to.
Finally, as to your comments about holding the conference in New Orleans: conference sites are booked several years in advance. Immediately after Katrina, IABC leadership made a conscious decision to stay true to the plan to hold the 2007 conference in NO. The association received many accolades for keeping their commitment — when many other conferences had pulled out for fear of whatever — and for further assisting with a community project just before conference. Connecting climate change with the choice of a conference venue doesn’t hold much water (no pun intended). Connecting our reputation with commitment and a sense of social responsiblity does.
July 6th, 2007 at 7:56 am
Mike, you raise some interesting points that require a response…
Your comments about the “flying squad” are premature, considering that we’ve only just started assembling the group. However, in addition to addressing specific issues, the “flying squad” may also choose to address consensus and its role in taking positions. But please don’t forget that IABC has frequently been criticized for being too consensus-oriented. (Does “paradox” come to mind?) I anticipate some spirited exchanges when that topic comes up for discussion.
More importantly, though, please don’t mistake the “flying squad” or anything else we’re doing as a deviation — or distraction — from what we agree is our greatest challenge (and your own words capture it well): the need to find…more effective ways of promoting what our members bring to our clients’ and communities’ respective tables.
Contrary to your first point, taking positions and supporting/empowering member initiatives are not mutually exclusive — nor do they preclude any structural or priority shifts. All three are necessary to achieve Advocacy’s goals.
In fact, you’re looking at a great example: The Advocacy initiative is definitely a member initiative supported by IABC. It was created to give IABC a platform for leveraging opportunities to promote our profession and our members — and we may well come to view it as a priority shift.
Our objective now is to address that challenge — which you and others have articulated so well — in everything we do. Including creating the “flying squad.” Our vision is clear. But for the Advocacy initiative to succeed, we need constructive input and suggestions.
A final point: we could debate whether IABC’s selection of New Orleans had any meaningful impact on climate change, which is indeed a critical issue. But in choosing New Orleans, we responded in a way that had more immediate, tangible impact… such as the 100+ attendees who joined with Habitat for Humanity to build new homes for those in greatest need… or the 1000+ attendees who added millions of dollars to the battered New Orleans economy.
I think most attendees recognized that this was more than professional development and networking. Coming to New Orleans was also a clear statement of our commitment to people, principle and social responsibility — a commitment that is also reflected in our Advocacy initiative.
July 6th, 2007 at 8:28 am
I work for a global trade association with 450 member organizations in 84 countries, so I have a first-hand understanding of the importance of consensus in an organization like IABC. And there is a big difference between “speaking out” and “taking positions”. Our official positions are few and far between. They are drafted by a working group, vetted by senior representatives from around the globe and then formally adopted by our representative governance body. This process takes at least a year.
You’ll never be able to adopt positions on the daily news in an association like IABC. I don’t want anyone in the organization, whether it the president, the chair, the IEB, a flying squad or flying squirrels taking positions on headlines in my name.
But I do think we can be more vocal. We have key messages. We have our commitment to the Code of ethics, to strategic communications and to high professional standards. Our spokespeople (see above list) can build on those key messages to react without taking positions. For example, imagine the quote “Glenda Holmes, Chair of IABC, said ‘If NBC/Dom Imus/whoever were my client, I would have advised them to do X. This is inline with IABC’s commitment to strategic communications that contribute to business success while respecting high ethical standards.’”
With regard to the selection process, who is making the decision about whether people are “experienced, media-savvy communicators”? And if this is to be a global effort, what about adding in international experience (i.e. actually have lived and breathed in more than one culture, preferably on a multilingual basis) so that responses can also address our increasing diversity as an organization?
July 6th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
An excellent post, Kristen!
You’re correct: it would be inappropriate for IABC to adopt positions on daily news events, nor is that our intention. And your distinction about “speaking out” versus “taking a position” is spot-on.
I should have been clearer in defining this. It makes little sense for IABC (or any member association) to speak out on topics that are irrelevant to its mission and objectives. The only headlines I can see IABC responding to are those relevant to the work we do as business communicators.
This underscores the need for our “flying squad”** to develop working guidelines and procedures ensuring that whenever IABC speaks out, it meaningfully represents our association and members and reflects our values, ethics and professionalism.
As for the makeup of the group, the Executive Board agreed that the group must have truly global representation to be effective, and it will. Although the selection process may appear subjective, we are reaching out to communicators with strong media expertise as well as extensive international experience and perspective. As I’ve stated before, I welcome nominations of potential members (send them to iabc.advocacy at gmail dot com).
** “Flying squad” is colorful but probably not the proper name for this group of professionals. The floor is open for more descriptive, professional-sounding titles (offline, please, to iabc.advocacy at gmail dot com).
July 7th, 2007 at 8:13 am
My Opinion On Mike Klein’s Comments About The IABC’s Flying Squad…
In this interesting post from Michael Zimet from the IABC Advocacy Commons, Michael describes how the IABC has created a flying squad within the International Association of Business Communicators who will respond to current issues around communication…
July 7th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
[...] dividing the subject into three distinct parts, two of which have been discussed in Mike’s most recent post and all of the subsequent comments. I personally feel compelled to support the third part of [...]