IABC Advocacy? Time To Consider IABC Democracy
23rd September 2007 by Michael Zimet
As I wrote recently, we want to open to Advocacy Commons to posts from others. Today’s “guest” post — our first — comes from Michael Klein in The Netherlands…
The concept of advocacy about, by, and for IABC is proving to be a tricky one, as the repartee in the Advocacy Commons has shown through the summer. Some think IABC and its officers should take official stands on external issues, some think IABC should focus its efforts on advocating for and leading the global communication industry, and still others want a focus on satisfying member desires and strengthening IABC as an institution.
It is clear that there is no consensus about which of these IABC advocacy roles should be emphasized. And, in my view, a key reason for this unclarity derives from the indirect manner in IABC’s officers are selected. For the advocacy potential of IABC to be unleashed, the subject of direct election of IABC officers is one that merits full and open consideration throughout the membership, centered around a bylaw change vote in 2008.
Direct election of IABC officers would allow members unprecedented impact not only in influencing the Association’s direction—but in actively determining its advocacy agenda. Those who seek leadership roles would not only have to propose their agenda alternatives, but advocate them with sufficient passion, clarity and lucidity to the membership.
There are some who may say that direct elections would be divisive and destabilising, and that the current system has successfully brought the IABC through some rough times. There are others, including myself, who think that the combination of advocacy and democracy would create a resurgent IABC that makes its message heard—and felt—as the leading voice for our industry in a fast-moving world.
But one thing is certain. The time for this discussion is now. Let it be open and thorough. And let it help us raise our game in the arena of advocacy.
September 28th, 2007 at 5:50 am
Mike,
Your suggestion to begin a conversation regarding changing IABC bylaws to alter the process for selecting its leaders is worth discussing–but I would separate it from this advocacy initiative.
While I agree that candidates for IABC leadership positions should be able to articulate and defend their views on matters affecting the association, advocacy is one of many such potential positions.
I could see your suggested conversation taking place on the IABC Cafe, within the IABC member group of MyRagan, or on our individual blogs. I’d like this Advocacy Commons blog to remain focused on moving that initiative forward–in whatever directions it is meant to go.
September 30th, 2007 at 5:30 am
Hi Tom…
Thanks for your reply… I get what you are saying–that you think advocacy is essentially one distinct part of the IABC agenda.
At the same time, I believe that the lack of a democratic electoral process that allows members to genuinely set the Association’s advocacy agenda is fair game.
Without such a process, the “consensus” that emerges will lead at best to watered-down changes, or a continuation of the status quo where IABC focuses on institutional stability instead of focusing its resources on leading the communications industries, channelling communicators to make a difference in our communities and the world, or generating explosive membership growth.
If IABC is to emerge as a credible advocate, it needs to embed advocacy–and democracy–deeply into its culture, and provide those who support advocacy agendas within the Association with a platform for transforming their advocacy into real world impact.
I can see no higher purpose for The Advocacy Initiative.
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:56 am
Mike,
Have you heard from any IABC members regarding your idea of changing the election bylaws?
October 4th, 2007 at 1:13 am
I’ve heard very little… I’m not one to assume that silence=agreement (either with the status quo or with me), and I figured this would elicit more response on either side of the equation…
It’s a valid question, Tom.
October 26th, 2007 at 1:50 am
I’ll jump in and disagree. In the world of association management, there is a general trend towards “competency-based boards”. The idea is that you identify the skills and strengths needed for the organization to achieve its goals and objectives, and then you identify people who are qualified. Every board needs to be a balanced group.
Composing competing slates of fully qualified boards would be a waste of precious resources. Fully democratic elections would tend to turn into popularity or celebrity (name recognition) contests and would probably result in boards with significant gaps in competencies.
What the association needs is a very conscious effort to develop leadership potential and ensure a vibrant talent pool from which the Nominating Committee can construct an optimal group every year. As a community, we need to make a concerted effort to fill our gaps. Efforts are being made in this direction. Most regions now have their own Leadership Institutes but also try to send people to the international edition. The Nominating Committee contacts a broad field of people to encourage them to apply for leadership positions.
But there is a lot more that could be done:
1) More transparency on what the different working groups are, who runs them, what they cover, how to get involved and the return on time invested.
2) A greater link between materials and speakers at the different Leadership Institutes (we need to eliminate the we-us mentality about which content is IABC’s.
3) Greater use of tools that allow people to work at a convenient time for their time zone. Conference calls can be really useful, but they are a challenge in a truly global organization. When the International Growth Grants Committee looked at this year’s applications, we had precisely two times of day when we could have the call (the Pacific night being our constraint), and it was 7 in the morning for one person and about midnight for another.