Comments on: What’s next… http://commons.iabc.com/advocacy/2007/07/18/whats-next/ A Blog Community for Business Communicators Wed, 07 Jan 2009 21:09:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Michael Zimet http://commons.iabc.com/advocacy/2007/07/18/whats-next/#comment-579 Michael Zimet Wed, 25 Jul 2007 02:38:11 +0000 http://commons.iabc.com/advocacy/2007/07/18/whats-next/#comment-579 You didn't miss anything, Wilma, but I did by leaving out a couple of key words, which I've inserted in my original post. The subcommittees (including Social Responsibility) all fall under the umbrella of the Advocacy initiative. Each, in essence, occupies its own little niche -- but I anticipate that they will eventually "cross-pollinate" by exchanging ideas and and more. Promoting Our Profession is indeed concerned with how we market ourselves, and your description of our ultimate goal is spot on. "Getting a seat at the table" is, to me, more figurative than literal, but if we are able to build understanding, credibility and respect for what we do, then we will indeed have earned a seat at the proverbial table. Education, like the other subcommittees, won't fall under SR, but under Advocacy in general. As for Building Bridges, it will be one of that group's first tasks to identify just how valid those horror stories are. What they discover will undoubtedly guide them to identifying what opportunities really exist and how we can best pursue them. And finally, the "right" people for Accreditation are the "right" people for all of these topics. They are, in essence, our targets, our customers -- the people each of our subcommittees decide we need to reach. All the more reason for that eventual cross-pollination between the subcommittees. I hope this (along with a few edits to my original post) clarifies these groups' objectives and roles. I also hope we'll soon hear from more people interested in serving on one of these subcommittees. You didn’t miss anything, Wilma, but I did by leaving out a couple of key words, which I’ve inserted in my original post. The subcommittees (including Social Responsibility) all fall under the umbrella of the Advocacy initiative. Each, in essence, occupies its own little niche — but I anticipate that they will eventually “cross-pollinate” by exchanging ideas and and more.

Promoting Our Profession is indeed concerned with how we market ourselves, and your description of our ultimate goal is spot on. “Getting a seat at the table” is, to me, more figurative than literal, but if we are able to build understanding, credibility and respect for what we do, then we will indeed have earned a seat at the proverbial table.

Education, like the other subcommittees, won’t fall under SR, but under Advocacy in general.

As for Building Bridges, it will be one of that group’s first tasks to identify just how valid those horror stories are. What they discover will undoubtedly guide them to identifying what opportunities really exist and how we can best pursue them.

And finally, the “right” people for Accreditation are the “right” people for all of these topics. They are, in essence, our targets, our customers — the people each of our subcommittees decide we need to reach. All the more reason for that eventual cross-pollination between the subcommittees.

I hope this (along with a few edits to my original post) clarifies these groups’ objectives and roles. I also hope we’ll soon hear from more people interested in serving on one of these subcommittees.

]]> By: Wilma Mathews http://commons.iabc.com/advocacy/2007/07/18/whats-next/#comment-578 Wilma Mathews Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:43:16 +0000 http://commons.iabc.com/advocacy/2007/07/18/whats-next/#comment-578 Mike, I think I might have missed a few discussions somewhere as I'm having a tough time connecting the dots of the various subcommittees, all under the umbrella of "Social Responsibility." Wouldn't "Promoting Our Profession" be a marketing responsibility? And is the ultimate goal really to "get a seat at the table?" Not everyone in communication will get to the table (nor should they) so shouldn't our ultimate goal be to understanding, credibility and respect for what we do? The whole issue of "Education" seems to have come full circle. Yes, we should be influencing business colleges to require communication in either/both undergraduate and graduate programs. And, yes, we should be doing more for students. Does this responsibility really belong under SR? "Building Bridges" has a true-hearted goal and, yet, I wonder just how many of those horror stories are valid. One bad encounter does not a nightmare make. Before we go off assuming these conflicts exist, shouldn't we find out for sure? As for "Accreditation," just who are the "right" people? Looking forward to your feedback. Thanks! Mike,

I think I might have missed a few discussions somewhere as I’m having a tough time connecting the dots of the various subcommittees, all under the umbrella of “Social Responsibility.”

Wouldn’t “Promoting Our Profession” be a marketing responsibility? And is the ultimate goal really to “get a seat at the table?” Not everyone in communication will get to the table (nor should they) so shouldn’t our ultimate goal be to understanding, credibility and respect for what we do?

The whole issue of “Education” seems to have come full circle. Yes, we should be influencing business colleges to require communication in either/both undergraduate and graduate programs. And, yes, we should be doing more for students. Does this responsibility really belong under SR?

“Building Bridges” has a true-hearted goal and, yet, I wonder just how many of those horror stories are valid. One bad encounter does not a nightmare make. Before we go off assuming these conflicts exist, shouldn’t we find out for sure?

As for “Accreditation,” just who are the “right” people?

Looking forward to your feedback.

Thanks!

]]>