 |
|||||||||||
|
A Few Words About Allan Let Allan Help You Communicate Contact Allan |
By Month By Topic |
OPML File for the Blogs I Read |
Code of Blogging Ethics Creative Commons Deed Subscribe! A Few Words About the Blog |
||||||||
March 08, 2005IABC's Kistle Should Let New Chairman Get a Head Start
Let the new IABC team start early! While IABC Chairman David Kistle lunches and gladhands all over Texas this week, perhaps he should give a thought to letting Warren Bickford and his team get a head start on their term. Why not? Kistle is, to be blunt, a double-lame duck, with only one more board meeting to go before the handover in June. Not only is 2005-2006 Chairman Warren Bickford tanned and ready to take over, the IABC nominating committee has already named the 2006-2007 Chairman (in true Oscar fashion, we ordinary members won't be told who for some weeks). So succession for the next 28 months is already assured. While succession is assured, success is not. IABC has lots of problems and lots of ambitions. Bickford and his Vice-Chairman have their work cut out for them, which is all the more reason to give them a running start. IABC's Strategic Plan (login required), largely written by Bickford, calls for 20,000 members by 2009. But membership numbers have stubbornly refused to budge from 12,000 for 15 -- make that 16 -- years. His plan also calls for diversifying revenues and retiring IABC's deficit: two areas of seemingly little interest to Kistle. The Strategic Plan also calls for IABC to be the "professional association of choice for communicators worldwide", another tall order that's going to require as much energy as Bickford can muster, and as much time as Kistle will give him. Some will argue that Kistle should have his full year to prove himeself. That would be a fair call if Kistle had been a fireball during the last 21 months (12 as Vice-Chair and nine as Chairman): one could hope, then, that he would be presenting us with important accomplishments between now and June. Instead, the Minnesota Fireball has been a damp squib, and I foresee results not very different from those self-reported by Kistle in December and further discussed here. While an excellent IABC Chairman's blog would not necessarily indicate great communication and management leadership, a poor one is certainly indicative of the malaise and uncertain drift of Kistle's administration. From the misprints (Reaching our my (sic) 2004-5 goals) to the bad grammar (Tsunami Affects (sic) Continue), to the lack of relevant content (Ketchum anyone? Insights from his near constant travel?), to the sheer paucity of posts, the IABC Chairman's blog has fallen flat. A public symptom of the lack of attention and energy in the Kistle administration. So as Kistle criss-crosses the Lone Star State, enjoying the travel perks of Chairmanship, let's hope he spares a thought to the duties of Chairmanship. Let's hope he lets Bickford assume those duties early -- to give all of IABC a head start on the future. Update 16 March: This post has generated many comments, which demonstrates how passionately IABC members care about the direction of the association. I've posted a challenge to readers in the comments area: Propose 3 initiatives Warren Bickford can take to move IABC in new directions. Posted by Allan Jenkins on March 8, 2005 at 08:10 AM in IABC | Permalink TrackBackTrackBack URL for this entry: Listed below are links to weblogs that reference IABC's Kistle Should Let New Chairman Get a Head Start:
» IABC Chair blog can succeed from NevOn Tracked on Mar 9, 2005 1:38:45 PM
» Get used to transparency, IABC from NevOn Tracked on Mar 15, 2005 7:29:18 PM
» IABC's Stunned Silence Brings Criticism from Mutually Inclusive Tracked on Mar 18, 2005 8:03:33 PM
» IABC Blog Speaks - 68 Days Later from Mutually Inclusive Tracked on Mar 30, 2005 8:57:43 PM
» IABC Blog Speaks - 68 Days Later from Mutually Inclusive Tracked on Mar 31, 2005 4:22:10 AM CommentsAllan - As a friend, I find this entry disturbing. You have a responsibility to inform readers about any conflict of interest. You recently resigned from IABC's Executive Board --- the very board David Kistle chairs. Surely that makes it difficult for you to remain objective. While I don't know the details, I am sure there are two sides. You should have titled your post "Sour Grapes." It's inappropriate to kiss-and-tell or attack those with whom you recently served. Geez, you're pointing out spelling and grammar while trampling all over journalistic standards! Regarding your opinion, you know as well as I do that staff starts the transition process toward the new chair months in advance, so why grandstand except to gain negative attention? Peace, cp Posted by: Charles Pizzo | Mar 8, 2005 10:57:35 PM Yikes! I don't know a lot about David Kistle, other than attending a workshop of his and reading his blog after a bunch of bloggers flamed him for not blogging more often. Does the poor guy get any points for being a volunteer board member? I can understand the desire to hold people accountable, but at some point it just becomes a personal attack. I don't think you're doing Warren B. any favours with your endorsement, either. Posted by: Eric Eggertson | Mar 9, 2005 1:04:11 AM I know neither Kistle nor Jenkins beyond their blogs. And, full disclosure is that I belonged to IABC and never re-uped. Just didn't feel the value. But, where is the transparency that us PR bloggers are supposed to be clamoring for? I read enough PR blogs that I've noticed that more and more bloggers are slipping in information without full disclosure. This seems to be of those instances. How can we advise clients on blogging and the need for transparency if we ourselves cant be transparent? Or is it more a "do as we say, not as we do" practice? Posted by: Jeremy Pepper | Mar 9, 2005 1:50:31 AM Several thoughts, from someone who also wrote last week that it's time for Kistle to stop travelling and go home to the north woods. (www.BrianKilgore.com ,then go to BAK's Report) 1/ I see shooting the messenger in the above comments, but no arguments about the accuracy of Allan's commentary. 2/ No, there is no slack cut for a volunteer chairman. Don't take the job if 13,000 members have to suffer because you're a volunteer. They pay their money for leadership, and the board has chosen the non-leading Julie Freeman (apparently an excellent back-at-the-ranch administrator but a woman with no public leadership profile) to be the top paid official. She's made no public effort to lead, and that leaves Kistle the un-known world-traveller to do the leading. Besides, Mr. Eggerston, Kistle's devoting a lot of time to riding on airplanes and speaking to the converted. No one's arguing about the time he devotes; we are arguing about the skill he devotes to those hours. 3/ Yesterday, in Austin, Kistle gave a PD lecture, and an insider's update, instead of a earth-shaking, high octane, high-value, take it outside the room speech about how communications is the only way the people of the world can undetrstand each other, and it's the pros like IABC members who can reduce misunderstanding, build understanding, etc., etc. Instead, Austin IABC says, "...will walk us through four communication-related factors common among all successful companies and initiatives: clarity of purpose; effective interfaces, effective information sharing; and consistent leadership behavior. David will also update the chapter on developments at IABC internationally." This is leadership from the most important communicator in the world? For that's what the IABC leader should be. The local Austin daily paper did not think Kistle was worth covering. BAK Posted by: Brian Kilgore | Mar 9, 2005 9:49:05 PM For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure Allan has disclosed his former board position in previous posts on this blog. While new readers may not have that context, it is probably nevertheless an oversight (an assumption that his readers already knew that) rather than a trampling of ethics when he didn't mention his former board affiliation. Posted by: Shel Holtz | Mar 9, 2005 11:11:21 PM Allan Jenkins responds: My friend and former IABC board colleague Charles Pizzo asks for disclosure. Looking back on my blog, I can see that my IABC record may not be obvious, so let me disclose: I was a member of IABC's board from June 2001 to October 2004 and, at various times, served on its Executive, Audit, Finance, Investment and Regional Grants Committees -- the last three as chairman; moreover, I served as Finance Director. I've also served as Deputy Director for Europe, two stints as a Trustee of the Research Foundation, and once as RF Treasurer. I helped lead the team that reduced dues in Canada and many other countries, and led the team that adjusted dues to the Consumer Price Index. And I served with four chairmen at board level, and two others (including Charles) through chair-appointed committees. So I've been around the IABC block. My friend Charles argues that all that activity might hinder my objectivity. I'd argue that since I've worked with six chairmen and served on boards with four, I've learned to tell the difference between style and substance. Is it inappropriate to criticize those with whom one has recently served? We aren't talking about the corner lemonade stand, here. We're discussing a 12,000 (for 16 years) member association with a $6 million budget, whose liabilities exceed assets. An association in a troubling rut that David Kistle -- despite his undeniable skill as a PR practitioner -- is unable to jump. Hence my suggestion that the Bickford team get a head start. Note that I don't believe that requires a Kistle resignation or, in fact, any public announcement at all. It requires only an understanding, in the highest IABC councils, that Bickford, author of the strategic plan, should have a running start -- that he and his team can start making policy now, not in July, so that they can squeeze the most juice out of what is always an all-too-short year. Why? So that people like Jeremy Pepper, who joined IABC and left again -- and there are a 1000 Peppers a year -- will instead stay because they feel they can benefit from the association that I and Pizzo and Eggertson have benefited from. Posted by: Allan Jenkins | Mar 10, 2005 12:02:13 AM I'm all for a viable IABC. And I buy the argument that the chief spokesperson for an organization of communicators should exemplify the best qualities we want to be known for. I'm just not sure that publicly kicking the crap out of the outgoing guy moves IABC any closer to its goals. Maybe I'm just too damn polite for my own good. ;-) If nothing else, Allan, you've spurred me to take a look at the strategic plan, which I haven't read yet. Posted by: Eric Eggertson | Mar 10, 2005 5:49:07 AM Well, Allan, I am now doing a series of PR interview for my blog, PR Face2Face (hey, I needed to name the series). Yesterday was Ronn Torrosian of 5WPR, and next week will be Howard Rubenstein. And, yes, I did send an email to David Kistle for an interview. I'll keep you in the loop if he responds. Heck, you can even send me questions. :-) Posted by: Jeremy Pepper | Mar 10, 2005 8:38:50 AM One of the reasons IABC is in the trouble it's in, I believe, is because too many people tried to be too polite in the past rather than asking tough questions and holding our volunteer leaders and staff to higher standards. Allan makes an excellent point -- there is too much at stake here for us to sit tight-lipped and to give David Kistle pats on the back and pretend he's been an outstanding chairman of our association. All of IABC's problems are not his fault, certainly, but neither has he done very much to elevate the profession and to help pull IABC out of the doldrums. Indeed, I see a lot of wasted opportunities like the blog (we might more accurately call it an "anti-blog") and speaking to IABC audiences about the basics of communication strategy. But the most disturbing thing I continue to see in our volunteer leadership is an unwillingness to lead. Instead, volunteer leaders appear to cave in to a staff that seem ever more reluctant to support local chapters, the lifeblood of our association. Instead, IABC seems content to cannibalize itself -- to more aggressively market seminars and products that often directly compete with chapters' efforts to reach members where they live. Perhaps it really is a good time to do some spring cleaning. Posted by: Robert J. Holland, ABC | Mar 10, 2005 2:46:15 PM Robert, you're the man! I couldn't agree more about the politeness issue. It reminds me of certain factions in the US who believe that any criticism of administration policy is unpatriotic. Mature people can criticize in the hopes of improving something they care deeply about. I found Allan's critique to be in that vein. (You don't see Allan dropping his membership, do you?) (Hey, Allan, sorry to talk about you like you're not here.) I'm going to respectfully disagree, however, that chapters are IABC's lifeblood. They were once, but that was a different time. Today, a chapter of 300 is lucky to draw 20 to a meeting. That's not because of any problems or issues with the chapter, it's just the reality of the marketplace. Interests are too varied (speaker topics don't meet the needs of most members from month to month), schedules are too chaotic, geographical distances too overwhelming. (I rarely attend a San Francisco chapter meeting because it would require nearly four hours for me to commute there and back.) Chapters should be supported; I'm not suggesting they be eliminated. But I also believe IABC needs to find a way to deliver services to the 80% of its members who don't participate at the chapter level, for whom chapters just aren't relevant. I talk to countless people who go to a chapter meeting, find that it doesn't provide the kind of benefits they want from a professional association, then have difficulty accessing services that justify the dues through any other channel. We need to expand our horizons beyond the chapter. Posted by: Shel Holtz | Mar 11, 2005 3:03:30 AM Shel, how can I be the man when YOU are the man? OK, seriously -- I agree with your point that IABC needs to adapt to the changing marketplace. I believe IABC needs to expand its horizons. However, I disagree that chapters are no longer the lifeblood of IABC. I believe the association needs an entirely new vision of what its chapters look like. Yes, attendance at traditional meetings has dropped. Yes, members have much more diverse interests and needs. Yes, many chapters no longer deliver what members want and expect. So, how does IABC reinvent chapters to be more responsive and relevant? IABC has an incredible infrastructure already in place for reaching its members around the world -- right where they live. But instead of working with (and FOR) those local bodies that can more swiftly respond to members' changing needs, IABC insists on more aggressively marketing products and services at the more bureaucratic international level -- which is, in my opinion, way out of touch with the realities facing IABC members. Chapter leaders understand what members want and need because they live and work with those members. If IABC no longer believes chapters are relevant, then why delay the inevitable? Why not close down the chapters and run everything from San Francisco? Of course, that would be foolish -- almost as foolish as the current game of giving lip-service to chapters while producing programs and services that compete with them. Posted by: Robert J. Holland, ABC | Mar 11, 2005 2:18:06 PM I forgot to add something in the interest of full disclosure. I'm a past president of IABC/Richmond (twice) and served 3 years on the International board. I remain a member of IABC, but I'm entirely comfortable with publicly criticizing it because it is my association, too, and I want to see it succeed. If we don't model open and honest communication, then who will? Posted by: Robert J. Holland, ABC | Mar 11, 2005 2:22:00 PM Robert, could you be more specific? What is your vision of how chapters should be supported by IABC? And what's your criticism of how IABC handles chapters now? How would you like it to be different than it is now? Posted by: David Murray | Mar 11, 2005 3:01:46 PM Here we go again! What's up with disclosure and journalistic standards in the Blogosphere? And the topic shift? Murray is a reporter for The Ragan Report. He covers IABC and may quote any responses posted here. Those "in the know" already knew that; others might unwittingly get quoted by a reporter trolling here who did not disclose that fact. This topic has shifted from Jenkins' initial post to an all out discussion of IABC. So why don't we (members) offer that discussion, more appropriately, on IABC MemberSpeak? or to association leaders? As someone who still speaks at IABC chapters on a regular basis, I can attest to many happy members at numerous successful chapters - which continue to draw sizable crowds for face-to-face events. I can't help but wonder if some of the views here represent the people who post them, versus the actual IABC general membership. Among the participants are several people well known as early adopters of technology (the last vestiges of the PRSIG on CompuServe, if you will), who may or may not be pre-disposed to online forums. This feels like a free-for-all for the disenfranchised. Resigning and then suggesting that the current chair should step aside is, IMHO, conduct unbecoming. Kistle gets trashed, IABC gets trashed, and Jenkins gets no rap for bailing out and going public. Is that leadership? "He's our hero because he communicated on a blog!" Medium 10, Message 0. I am concerned about the pack mentality here. Look, I'm no apologist for IABC. The people who need to know my views are painfully aware of them, which is appropriate. Using the comment area of a blog to have a discussion about the pro's and con's of an association is, quite simply, mass debating. /cp DISCLOSURE: paid contributor to Ragan newsletters and events. Former chair of both IABC and its Research Foundation; currently active in several association roles. Posted by: Charles Pizzo | Mar 11, 2005 9:04:57 PM Charles-- You seem to be telling us how we ought to identify ourselves AND what we should talk about AND how we should talk about it. To your questions about my failure to disclose my status as a reporter: I did enter my URL as the Ragan Web site, www.speechwritercity.com, where my own blog resides and where it can be quickly ascertained that I'm a journalist covering the communications industry. I suppose I also I might have more aggressively identified myself as a reporter in my post. But I wasn't thinking of myself as a reporter when I asked my friend Robert Holland, out of pure and simple curiousity (rather than the sneaky and sinister intentions of the journalist who lurks within my dark and dirty heart!), to tell me more about his vision of a more chapter-friendly IABC. I was just participating in the conversation--as you were, in your first post, when you didn't offer a formal disclosure statement, either. David DISCLOSURE: RR contributing editor, Speechwriter's Newsletter editor, editor-in-chief, Journal of Employee Communication Management, freelance writer, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Magazine, Golf Magazine, father to Scout Murray, husband to Cristie Bosch, and longtime friend and friendly combatant of Charles Pizzo. Posted by: David Murray | Mar 11, 2005 11:25:25 PM Charles, you of all people should know that there's no putting this blog genie back in the bottle. It is what it is -- a free-for-all conversation on whatever topics the participants deem worthy. It seems to me that quite a few people deem this discussion of IABC's direction worthy of their time. So rather than attempt to shut it down because you don't agree with the views, why not contribute to the conversation? I, for one, no longer trust the forums provided by IABC to be truly open. I've been slapped on the wrist for trying to express unpopular views in IABC forums, so I welcome alternative venues like this. Having said that, I also believe each of us has a responsibility to be fair and honest and to conduct ourselves like reasonable adults. So far, I haven't read anything that crosses the line. If I do, I'll take my views elsewhere. To my friend David's comments -- and, by the way, I agree journalists should disclose their affiliations -- I have not invested time and energy into devising a new IABC organizational model. But many people have, the process of transitioning to a new model is under way, and I have some serious doubts that chapters will be any better off in the new IABC. I don't believe the reorganization plan was communicated effectively (and said so at the appropriate time), but the train has left the station. I believe chapters do not receive enough support and attention from IABC. The level of support, the degree to which IABC really cares about its chapters, has significantly declined in the last few years, from my point of view. The health of chapters is all over the place -- some thrive, some are on the brink, and it has always been so. But it seems to me if IABC truly wanted chapters to succeed, it would focus more on supporting them, focus less on the success of IABC as almost a separate entity, and it would not push forward a plan that effectively shuts chapters out. Hey, it's just my opinion, but that's what blogs are for. Posted by: Robert J. Holland, ABC | Mar 11, 2005 11:29:21 PM I'm perfectly happy with everyone's disclosures & if I wasn't, I'd let you know. Friend Charles Pizzo suggests that discussion about IABC would be more appropriate in a purely-IABC forum. I believe as more IABC members create blogs and podcasts (and I predict we will soon see chapter blogs), you're going to see a lot more extramural discussion, not less. Future IABC leaders, both staff and volunteer, need to get used to that and adapt their communication and leadership accordingly. As for Shel and Robert's comments on the "international -- chapter" relationship, I find myself with a foot in both friends camps. IABC hasn't, in my memory, ever properly studied how it might draw far-flung members together into communities of practice. Yet all members-at-large and, I would imagine, many members in small chapters, and senior members in large chapters would find more value through a community-of-practice structure. As an example, the group discussing here is an unofficial IABC community-of-practice. As Charles points out, many of us -- Charles, Shel, Robert, Neville Hobson and, I believe, Eric -- were active in the IABC area of the old CompuServe PRSIG. Our little community of practice has lasted 12 years, and I still gain great value from it (and, I hope, give some back). But I agree with Robert that chapters do not receive enough support from "international". In the dozen or more board meetings, and countless conference calls, I've attended at the international level, chapter health and chapter promotion has accounted for -- let me be generous -- not more than 3% discussion. I don't believe this is intentional. I am sure if you asked board members, they would agree that chapters are "where it happens" in IABC. But, as a board, the group simply isn't geared to think about it. I've argued in other forums that marketing, recruitment, and retention might be conducted to more advantage by chapters (it would seem to be marketing 101). But it's not a discussion I was able to excite. Not because of opposition, but because the problem, when you examine it, is so difficult that no one has an incentive to solve it. Posted by: Allan Jenkins | Mar 12, 2005 2:33:07 PM Allan, I believe you hit two important nails on their respective heads. One is your comment about the prevalence of "extramural" discussion. This blog discussion and others like it are meeting a need of members that IABC clearly is not meeting. You would think an association of communication professionals would get the message, but alas.... The other good point is that supporting chapters has not been a priority for IABC's leadership for many years. In my years on the Executive Board, now a decade ago, I also remember very little discussion about how to support chapters (I, too, tried to initiate such discussions but they usually got nowhere). And remember, this was the time of the "InterAct" fiasco, in which the Board felt that the answer to improving relations with chapters was to embark on an expensive and ultimately fruitless "road show." In retrospect, that time and money would have been much more wisely spent finding ways to help chapters better meet their members' needs. But the Executive Board does not deserve all the blame for IABC's lack of support for chapters. In my opinion, it is more of a staff issue. Even a successful chapter like the one to which I belong has a difficult time getting appropriate support and response from IABC Headquarters. The message, whether intentional or not, is that IABC is too busy with its own stuff to spend much time helping chapters succeed. Yes, you would think if IABC's goal is to increase membership around the world, it would start with the incredible chapter infrastructure already in place. You would think. I agree that most Executive Board members understand the importance of chapters. But, having been there myself, I also understand the influence of Staff on setting IABC's agenda -- and it is more true now than ever before, from what I see. I believe it's time for IABC member volunteers to exert more influence in the direction of our association -- and if Executive Board members look deep inside themselves, they know that means putting chapters first. Posted by: Robert J. Holland, ABC | Mar 12, 2005 3:24:47 PM Wow, you don't check a blog for a day or two and look what you miss! Okay, first off, full disclosure. I served on the IABC executive board from 1990-1996. I was chapter president in Los Angeles in 1986. I was an IABC paid consultant for about 10 months a couple years back, helping manage the communication function on staff. I agree that chapters should be reinvented. They are an important means of service delivery and should be supported. I just don't believe the should be the sole, or even the primary, focus. At least on equal footing should be an approach to address those people for whom chapters simply won't meet their needs or expectations. Think about the more senior communicators whose need for networking is lower and who don't believe they can learn much from the more basic talks given by speakers at the chapter level. Again, I'm not suggesting a diminished role for chapters as much as an elevated focus on alternative delivery methods. I'm not sure how much effort or expense goes into the products IABC is currently delivering. Teleseminars are cheap and easy, and the "webinars" are all handled by Jim Lukaszewski without much effort from staff (one of the reasons, I think, they got in bed with Lukaszewski). The other stuff seems to be marketing relationships with other conference organizers like Ragan and Melcrum. I suppose if these serve member needs, they're fine. But they're certainly not enough. So why not take all this up on MemberSpeak? First of all, MemberSpeak sucks. The chairman has a blog that would be the ideal venue for this kind of discussion, if only the chairman embraced it for what it could be (as it stands, it STILL hasn't been updated since January 16). I've spoken to at least half a dozen members who have e-mailed the current chairman (including the chair of an IABC international task force) who have never gotten a reply. The leadership isn't listening. And Robert's exactly right: It is in these community discussions that such issues are addressed these days. Rather than force us to direct our comments in an old-world fashion, IABC should learn the new realities of communication -- the same models on which so many of us advise our clients -- and start participating in these conversations. And while we're at it, allow me throw a new topic (an old topic, actually, but new to this conversation) into the mix: IABC needs to establish an advocacy role now more than ever before. Public relations is under assault and the premier association representing communicators needs to take action to help rehabilitate our image. Where was IABC during the Armstrong Williams controversy? Missing in action. I love IABC. The association is the reason I've been able to achieve any of the success I've had in my career. I'm a loyal and dedicated IABC member, as are all the others who have raised their voices here. (Okay, maybe not Brian.) We're discussing these issues because we want the best for IABC and we want IABC to be the best it can be for its members. I'm just wondering when the association will start paying attention. And no, Robert, YOU'RE the man. Posted by: Shel Holtz | Mar 12, 2005 5:40:39 PM Amen, Shel. Except that I still believe chapters should be IABC's priority. You are thinking about chapters in the traditional sense, (the "old-world fashion," to use your phrase) which helps to illustrate my point. There is so much that could be done through the chapters to reach members at all levels and to meet their needs, no matter where they are in their careers. But IABC has not given any thought to this because chapters are not a priority and have not been for some time. Posted by: Robert J. Holland, ABC | Mar 12, 2005 7:36:21 PM Amen, Shel. Except that I still believe chapters should be IABC's priority. You are thinking about chapters in the traditional sense, (the "old-world fashion," to use your phrase) which helps to illustrate my point. There is so much that could be done through the chapters to reach members at all levels and to meet their needs, no matter where they are in their careers. But IABC has not given any thought to this because chapters are not a priority and have not been for some time. Posted by: Robert J. Holland, ABC | Mar 12, 2005 7:37:34 PM Chapters, regardless of what we do to revitalize and leverage them, are still a geographical construct. Why do we have to be geographically focused? Again, I'm not suggestion any minimizing of chapters, but why can't we add resources to deliver services to members regardless of where they happen to live and work? Posted by: Shel Holtz | Mar 13, 2005 9:10:33 PM I have to agree with Shel that communities of practice are as important to IABC's future as are chapters. I participate at the chapter level, and get a lot out of meeting people in my region. However, I've probably had 10 times as many discussions about issues that interest me and affect me with people who I meet online (and only see in person once every few years, if I'm lucky). I also totally agree that someone, somewhere, should be stepping up to the plate in an advocacy role. IABC would be a logical leader to play that role. Posted by: Eric Eggertson | Mar 14, 2005 7:57:22 PM So what's to be done? Shel, Robert, Charles, Eric, David, Jeremy, Brian.... and other observers reading this.. you 're smart people: What 3, let's not be too ambitious, steps would you suggest Warren Bickford take? And let's assume, for now, that they are initiatives he can start, do on his own hook (i.e. not "get five board members accredited") and expect his successor to carry on with. I'm talking steps that might not bear fruit for 2-5 years, but that will have far-reaching effects. Any takers? Posted by: Allan Jenkins | Mar 15, 2005 6:05:08 PM OK, Allan, I'll bite (and I'm sure quite a few people feel that I do!). ;-) But this is just "thinking out loud" -- a few top-of-mind thoughts to get the ball rolling. Admittedly, I have not spent hours and hours mulling this, but here goes: Since I believe IABC has abandoned its lifeblood -- the chapters -- I would start with a hard look at the relationship between IABC International and its local bodies. And that means taking a hard look at the (already approved, though some might say "railroaded") restructuring plan that effectively eliminates a direct voice by chapters. I understand the point Shel and others make about not confining ourselves to a model based purely on geography. There's something to be said for "communities of practice." However, the fact is that if IABC wants to reach people _where they live_, it has to provide much more support to the chapters. That should be a priority. As for the specifics of what that means and how it is implemented, that remains to be seen. But as it stands now, chapters seem not to be a priority for IABC at all. Second, I would insist that IABC become THE model for organizational communication. As it is, IABC stands as a very poor example of how to communicate within an organization and to external audiences. The marketing machine is humming along, but IABC is fast becoming a laughingstock when it comes to practicing strategic communication -- and without it, the marketing is not likely to help in the long term. This blog is a perfect example of how a healthy, productive conversation about the association has occurred completely outside of IABC. Why isn't the volunteer leadership, or even the staff, driving this discussion? Because IABC's channels of communication with members are ineffective and fast becoming outdated. In addition, IABC stands for nothing in the "outside world." I'm going to limit the suggestions to those two because it would be quite an accomplishment if even one of them happened. I offer these thoughts to get the discussion going, not because I believe I have all the answers. Let's see where it goes from here. Posted by: Robert J. Holland, ABC | Mar 15, 2005 7:45:15 PM To start, regarding Shel's comment: "I'm a loyal and dedicated IABC member, as are all the others who have raised their voices here. (Okay, maybe not Brian.)" For those who do not know me: I'm not and never have been an IABC member. Once upon a time many years ago I told an audience at a CPRS meeting in Regina., Saskatchewan, the home of IABC's own Warren Bickford, that the juniors in the audience would be better off in IABC, because IABC had better training. CPRS tried to block my accreditation exam because of this, and we came very, very close to court. So, once, a long time ago, I said something nice about IABC. I've said some nice things since. Currently I have three business cards. One says I an a "Communications-Based Management Counsel" and one says I'm a photographer and one says I am editor and publisher of BAK's Report, Opinion and Commentary on Public Relations and Corporate Communications. I treat this latter avocation as serious,highly opinionated, journalism, and I strive for accuracy and fairness, but I am often vicious, too. I make no money from BAK's Report. In BAK's Report I called for Kistle to quit and be replaced by Bickford several days before Allen started this thread. I pushed for Elizabeth Allen to be fired years ago. Further to an earlier posting by me further up this thread: Not only did Kistle's visit not get covered in Austin, to the best of my knowledge he did not get covered in Houston, either. I was told by Joesph Ugalde, IABC's vice-president of marketing, that business editors were invited, so it shows to go you that neither IABC headquarters nor IABC Houston are any good at media relations. Several months after Heidi Upton quit, IABC hired a new PR woman to replace Heidi, and the new woman, Amanda Vaughn, quit almost immediately. IABC's taken the link to Kistle's blog off the front page of the IABC web site. He's scurried away, without even saying goodbye. Charles suggests Memberspeak as a forum for this discussion. Since I'm not an IABC member, that would, of course, close me out of the discussion. Memberspeak is a huge failure by any intelligent measure, to the extent my sources tell me about it. Were there, from 13,000 members, more that 25 postings in a week? And are these postings any more sophisticated that questions like "how do I teach engineers to write memos?" Wow. To the implied question of "why does Kilgore care at all about IABC if he's not a member?" the answer is two-fold. Since I've decided to spend a lot of time writing about PR, and since IABC is a PR organization even if it does not have a clue what PR is, it's just a natural subject. And secondly, my readers and/or friends (some readers are not friends, I gather)want to join a decent association and so I'm leaning on PRSA, CPRS and IABC to become worth joining. Turnover rates at all three suggest vast numbers of people don't think membership is worth continuing, othrrs think the associations are worth joining, and many members seem just plain bored and indifferent. In regard to Mr. Pizzo's comment about well-attended meetings: I covered his most recent presentation in Toronto, writing for BAK's Report and for O'Dwyer's PR Daily web site. There were about 80 members in the audience for an excellent presentation, using PowerPoint slides that were readable (Kistle's slides in Houston last week were packed with unreadable text -- he can't even make a decent slide and yet got elected to chair a world-wide association). That leat about one thousand nine hunded and twenty -- give or take -- members who did not receive adequate promotion and/ or don't care enough about their profession to attend an excellent seminar. That's 80 out of 1200 who showed up. That's not well-attended. Mr. Holtz passed through the hall that evening, but did not stay 'cuz he had a plane to catch. IABC is a somewhat small world. A Californian meets a Cajun on the top floor of a Great White North office tower, and we all meet again in a Danish blog. To the "3 things" question (What 3, let's not be too ambitious, steps would you suggest Warren Bickford take? ) 1/ Bickford ahould think of himself as, and behave like, the most important communicator is the world. If he's the elected chairman of a group of communicators is many dozen countries, no one is more important than him. In an upcoming Journal of Employee Communications Management (David Murray, prop.) I write the firist few paragraphs and the last few paragraphs of the speech Bickford should be giving to broad business, governemnt and other "external" audiences all over the world. This is a complete reversal of IABC's record of speaking to the converted. 2/ Bickford must stop thinking of himself as the figurehead chairman of a publishing company and seminar presenting company, which is what IABC's leaders seem to think IABC is. Instead, he needs to realize he represents a profession of commuicators, and communicators make the whole world understand it, or not, dep4ending on how good we are. Regardless, COMMUNICATORS ARE IMPORTANT, and his job is to convince the world to take actions to the benefit of the members. Up until now, IABC "leadership" has concentrated on how to continually draw more and more money from the members' pockets. Go to the IABC web site and see how much of the site is dedicated to getting increased money, and how much is devoted to promoting the profession. 90-10? Just look at the news releases. They're all about paying money to IABC. 3/ Create and oversee and insist on the flawless execution of a public relations prgram for IABC. Now that Amanda Vaughn came and went, I've been told by IABC vice-president Joseph Ugalde, IABC is finally going to think about hiring a good PR person instead of a junior. I put the world's best definition of PR into BAK's Report last hight and told Joseph how to find it. I probably should have sent it to Warren too, and I will later tonight. They can use this as the starting point for discussions on how to hire a high-octane, $100,000- $150,000 per year internationally-experienced PR pro, who should report to Warren. (Freeman's shown she can't manage a PR pro-- go the the IABC web site and review all pr related content, including readability and more than anything, Kistle's failed blog, and see if you disagree) This might be one of the hardest jobs in PR -- imagine working as a communicator on behalf of some of the best communicators in the world, country after country. It won't be easy. BAK's Report is at www.BrianKilgore.com There's a link there to BAK's Report, and a link to the PR definition, for the curious. Sorry this is so long -- like Shel, I turned my head and came back to a lot worth commenting on. BAK Posted by: Brian Kilgore | Mar 16, 2005 2:31:27 AM Okay, here goes... 1. Advocacy. This may be a subset of the PR campaign Brian is seeking, but I think it deserves to stand on its own. IABC needs to be out in front on issues that emerge. We should not only eagerly take reporters' calls when they're seeking comment about PR activities and behaviors, we should be sending those comments even when we're not asked. We should take a stand on ethics that goes well beyond merely having a policy. We should advocate for what is right and ethical, along with what the best practices are. 2. Delivery. In addition to finding the best means to support chapters, IABC needs to find a way (or ways) to accommodate the majority of members for whom chapters are not the most viable means of service delivery. 3. Engagement. Warren needs to engage the communications community, and not just members. Reinvigorate the Chair's blog; turn it into a real blog with real participation from the community on real issues. Jump into discussions like this one. When speaking, address the real issues and concerns communicators share. Posted by: Shel Holtz | Mar 16, 2005 6:39:33 PM The primary thing I want to see Warren Bickford doing as the incoming chair is exercising some actual leadership on behalf of the membership and the profession and planting IABC's stake in the ground as the association of choice for organizational communicators, wherever in the world you happen to be. It sounds familiar, doesn't it? It would be nice, though, if this actually happened. I strongly want to see IABC take and publicly and openly state a clear position on ethics in the profession. We have an excellent code of ethics that every member has to re-affirm every time they renew (re-affirm as in click a little box to say you've read the code if you renew your membership online). I want to see my professional association actively and passionately promoting that code, both among the membership and to the profession at large. I want to see my professional association effectively embracing information technology to the benefit of the membership rather than sustaining an ineffective IT structure at headquarters that, in my view, delivers little of sustainable value to the membership. Get rid of that Memberspeak thing and replace it with something that actually works as a channel to stimulate greater member engagement. Blogs will figure in there somewhere, undoubtedly. Ok, here' s my full disclosure. I served as Director IABC Europe Middle East Region from 2002 until mid 2004, and was a member of the Executive Board and Executive Committee during this time. I've been actively involved in wide-ranging volunteer roles since I joined IABC in 1989. If you want to see the details of my involvement, see my career profile on my blog. My final thought (at least, in this comment on Allan's blog) is just a little comment on something Brian mentions in his most recent comment above (and, Brian, why aren't you a member?): "Up until now, IABC "leadership" has concentrated on how to continually draw more and more money from the members' pockets. Go to the IABC web site and see how much of the site is dedicated to getting increased money, and how much is devoted to promoting the profession. 90-10? Just look at the news releases. They're all about paying money to IABC." A pretty stark view, but I think he's right. That has to change. And maybe that's the foundation from which Warren must start in his exercise of leadership. Posted by: Neville Hobson | Mar 16, 2005 10:36:30 PM Is anybody in IABC's senior leadership listening??? I regret to say: I doubt it. Please, somebody, prove me wrong! Posted by: Robert J. Holland, ABC | Mar 17, 2005 2:28:47 PM Robert, yes, I know that IABC HQ is aware of the thread, and am told that Kistle and Bickford are aware. Whether they are reading it is another thing altogether. Neville scores points on the ethics issue. IABC talks a lot about ethics in its highest councils -- it was on almost every meeting agenda during my tenure on the board -- but almost never speaks out publicly. IABC -- through Kistle, Freeman, or the collected board -- should have spoken out sharply about Ketchum-gate. I suspect leadership was fearful of mentioning an agency by name, but it could have made a forceful statement without naming names. Instead... silence. That silence sends an odd signal to the profession and its clients. It must send a bewildering signal to communication students about to join the profession. The shame of it is this: IABC appears cynical -- "We have a code of ethics, but that's just for show." Most insiders know that the association's members believe in the code, but I wonder what outsiders think? Posted by: Allan Jenkins | Mar 17, 2005 7:49:06 PM I doubt that outsiders know (or care) that IABC has a code of ethics. The reason they neither know nor care is that IABC has done very little to influence the profession's knowledge or opinion of the code. "Ketchum-gate" is just one of many examples of real-world issues I would like to see my association take a stand on. Then I would feel the $249 I'm debating whether or not to pay this year was doing more than support a marketing machine. Posted by: Robert J. Holland, ABC | Mar 17, 2005 8:44:19 PM I don't think the general public knows or cares. But many IABC members cite their IABC membership -- that they are part of an association with an ethics code, an accreditation process, and a good annual PD conference -- on resumés or consultancy profiles. I imagine at least some of the readers of those resumés and profiles must visit the IABC site. You are right, though, that we do little as an association to promote the code or give it teeth. Posted by: Allan Jenkins | Mar 18, 2005 9:34:06 AM The reality, Allan, is that IABC does nothing to promote the code of ethics or give it teeth. Enabling members to click a little box in the online membership renewal form to indicate you might have read the code is about as far as it goes. In the wake of Ketchumgate, quite a few people (members and non-members alike) are talking about ethics and IABC's silence - see this Technorati search result: http://www.technorati.com/cosmos/search.html?rank=&url=iabc+ethics In my view, the IABC code of ethics is an excellent benchmark, with promoting it being one of the simplest ways in which IABC could easily demonstrate leadership in the profession. If the leadership will were there. Posted by: Neville Hobson | Mar 18, 2005 12:35:23 PM A plea to kind souls -- if anyone feels so inclined, I'd love to get a cut and paste of the Memberspeak thread I understand now exists about this stream of messages in Desirable Roasted Coffee. Since it is members-only, and I'm not a member .... Has any official IABC person, elected or staff, responded there? I'm at BrianKilgore@BrianKilgore.com Posted by: Brian Kilgore | Mar 19, 2005 6:25:29 PM Brian: Instead of asking members of IABC to help you read and possibly publish information that was only intended to be viewed by members (those were the conditions under which those entries were written), why don't you dig deep and buy a membership? I haven't read the Terms of Service for the IABC site, but I suspect there's something in there about not distributing members-only information to non-members. Posted by: Eric Eggertson | Mar 20, 2005 3:01:18 AM Eric, up above there's a long explanation of why I'm not a member if IABC. It even mentions Regina in it. Go back and read, please. BAK Posted by: Brian Kilgore | Mar 20, 2005 5:26:05 AM My point was that if you aren't a member, you don't get the benefits of membership. One of those benefits is access to the information within the members-only area. The members who submit to that area do so on the assumption that their messages are for other members. So why ask people to betray that confidence? Posted by: Eric E | Mar 20, 2005 7:16:04 AM Okay, I'm jumping into this... It's easy to understand why passions run so strongly here. IABC is a good organization -- but many of us believe it could be much, much better. We care; we want to raise the bar and help reshape IABC. That is what's driving the candor and passion in this discussion. I share that passion, and I hope we all (members, leaders and staff alike) can view this discussion as the tipping point for IABC. Time for full disclosure: I'm an active "lay" member of IABC. I've never been on the Executive Board (in fact, I've never even held chapter office). But I'm a long-time volunteer as well as a frequent presenter at our international conferences and many chapter events. I value my IABC membership. It has helped me grow professionally and presented this so-called entrepreneur with some excellent networking and business opportunities. I also value the IABC friendships I've built, many of which will last a lifetime. Yet I, too, feel that IABC is far from attaining its full potential. Some of the key issues have already been well articulated -- sadly, with no response (yet) from the current leadership or staff. As a frequent focus group facilitator, I encourage participants to make their criticism as constructive as possible -- and in that vein, I'd like to propose something that I believe is long overdue and would serve as a major step forward for IABC: a members task force to develop a comprehensive strategic plan for making IABC a strong, highly visible and highly respected advocate for our profession. Our shortcomings in this area have been well articulated by Shel and others. I'm pleased to see that the five-year strategic plan calls for IABC to "champion the communication profession to business leaders" -- yet there's little in the plan beyond oblique references to PR, branding and marketing. This presents a golden opportunity for members who feel strongly about this issue to get involved and make a difference. That's why the Executive Board should sanction this effort. Now. The task force should NOT include anyone who is currently on the Executive Board -- these fine volunteers already have very full plates. But within our worldwide membership of more than 12,000 professionals, I know there are highly qualified individuals who share our passion and would be eager to help do the research, benchmarking and planning needed to develop a working plan that the Executive Board can endorse and implement as a major component of IABC's future. We could even "brainstorm" by throwing the question out to members: what should IABC do to become an effective advocate for our profession? This would be a great way to *engage* members, bring in new ideas, and channel our passion into something constructive. I'll go one step further. Although I don't have a corporate employer to underwrite my involvement, I'm willing to serve on this workgroup and donate whatever time and effort is needed to help make a difference. Does this mean we're taking the bull by the horns? Sure -- but at least it would feel like *someone* is. Like the rest of you, I look forward to seeing our leaders and staff join in -- not just the discussion, but the action, too. As I said earlier, this is the tipping point for IABC. It's now or never. Posted by: Michael Zimet | Mar 20, 2005 3:22:42 PM Michael, I believe your idea is worthy and I applaud your willingness to not just talk about the problem, but to initiate some sort of solution. I'd like to make a couple of observations. One is that the problem of IABC being a poor advocate and champion for our profession is significant -- but it is only one of the problems facing our association. I still believe the root of the problem goes much deeper. It's an issue of IABC's direction, its priorities and where it goes from here. I maintain that IABC largely ignores the needs of its infrastructure -- currently, the chapters -- and that if those needs were addressed, many of IABC's problems would begin to improve. But this suggests a fundamental change in IABC's direction and I'm doubtful that it will change, especially now that a reorganization plan is under way that puts IABC's direction even farther out of reach of chapters. Another observation is that IABC's leadership -- the paid staff and the volunteer executives -- do not seem to grasp the importance of practicing excellent communication. The fact that we are this far into this discussion (now on IABC's own MemberSpeak as well as in several blogs sponsored by lay-leaders of the association) and no staff or volunteer executive has participated is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. It's as if IABC leaders have fallen off the face of the earth! They refuse to recognize the new world of communication, despite the pleas of those of us who care so passionately about IABC's success. My third observation is that I find myself torn as to where to try to plug in and make a positive contribution to solving these problems. My first instinct is to jump up and volunteer to serve with you on the task force you suggest. I care very much about IABC's role as not only an advocate for our profession, but as exemplar of excellent communication. But I also care about the other problems I've noted. And to be candid, I'm struggling with whether or not I even want to continue as a member of IABC. My membership is up for renewal right now and I'm finding it difficult to write that check (I'm also an independent consultant). A friend who has been following this discussion recently challenged me to put up or shut up -- to do something rather than just talk about these issues. I just can't decide what would be the most effective use of my time and energy because I only want to be involved in something where I believe I can make a positive difference. I'll bet a lot of folks who have been following this discussion feel the same way. It sure would be nice to hear from someone in IABC's paid or volunteer leadership on all of this. Posted by: Robert J Holland, ABC | Mar 20, 2005 5:43:24 PM A brief comment on Brian Kilgore's audacious request: I agree with Eric. Brian, you have no apparent stake in this discussion other than to find more grist for the editorial mill. You are not willing to pay for IABC membership, so don't expect this IABC member to give you benefits for free. The main reason this discussion is taking place in such a public forum is that our association's communication processes are broken. As soon as we repair them, I expect our discussions will take place more privately. Posted by: Robert J Holland, ABC | Mar 20, 2005 5:50:02 PM Robert, thanks for your thoughtful response. I agree completely with your observations. Sadly so because, as has already been pointed out, IABC should be the exemplar of organizational communication... and it's not. I also agree that IABC's problems go deeper than its advocacy role. But I chose to address that issue because it's where I feel I personally can make the most significant contribution, based on my own skills and experience. I'm determined to try. You're right -- IABC's infrastructure, its relationship with its chapters and its overall direction are of grave concern. We're truly at a crossroads. Given the continuing erosion in many members' confidence in IABC, the leadership *must* reach out and signal its willingness to listen to our concerns and work with us to address them. I'm hoping they will. You have a superb background and professional skills. Together with your experience on both the chapter and international levels, you're in an excellent position to help facilitate needed change. That's why it saddens me to learn that you're undecided about renewing your membership (trust me, you're not alone). But I hope you'll choose to renew your membership -- at least once more -- and help us try to make a difference. As naive as this may sound, I'm an eternal optimist, and I want to believe that this emerging discussion is the tipping point for IABC. This could be our year. This could be the ultimate Gold Quill case study: the turnaround of IABC itself! So please, everyone, stick around and jump in where you feel you can make the greatest contribution. Encourage others to do the same. As I said earlier, it's now or never. Let's try to make a difference -- and we'll soon find out if our leaders share our passion. Posted by: Michael Zimet | Mar 21, 2005 8:34:36 PM Michael Zimet proposes a member's task force to create a strategic plan to take IABC out of the doldrums. And steps up to the plate. One part of me embraces Zimet and applauds "A member who cares enough to speak out, instead of voting by checkbook." The other part of me, experienced in how IABC works, says "The last thing IABC needs is another committee." IABC boards spawn committees left and right. Most are utterly useless: One committee, using about an hour per board meeting, exhorts fellow board members to find "sponsorships" or, failing that, to give out of their own pockets. The efforts of that committee cover about 18 hours of IABC's revenue stream each year; the board spends, though, about 5-6 hours talking about it each year (I'm told, however, that chairing that committee is a huge credential). Others live forever: the committee on "governance" started before my tenure and, five years later, grinds on. I have six inches of its reports on my shelf. I led a committee to raise dues to reflect the effects of inflation. We did our work, which has put most of a million dollars on IABC's plate, and disbanded. When we included a clause to disband the committee in the formal resolution, we drew a debate -- was it smart to simply disband a committee that raised money? Fortunately for all of us, that committee is no more. Let's face facts. At $7 million in revenues a year, IABC is no Fortune-1000 company. It's an SME: small/medium-sized enterprise. On my recent drive across the American South, I shopped in, ate in, chewed the fat in a dozen or more businesses with the same turnover and better profits. The difference between IABC and Art's Hardware of Erwin, Tennessee is that Art doesn't have dozens of board members and staff beavering away in committees on strategy, diversity, ethics, governance. He buys nails and hammers wholesale, and sells them retail. That's about it. Art knows he isn't a Fortune-1000 company; he does know, and says it, that 10-penny nails won't do that job. IABC's board and management should understand that Fortune-1000 theory doesn't apply to them, either. When your association is insolvent and failing to attract members, closely reasoned arguments about corporate governance aren't interesting; they are a disgrace. What is interesting is "What do we do?" So... I sign on to Michael Zimet's committee, as long as its first task is a thorough housecleaning. Posted by: Allan Jenkins | Mar 22, 2005 3:13:22 AM So Robert Holland thinks >Brian, you have no apparent stake in this discussion other than to find more grist for the editorial mill. < Well, no. I cover IABC. It's part of my beat. People come to BAK's Report to read about IABC. Apparently for a while, when IABC had good leadership, BAK's Report was required reading, more or less, at the request of the acting boss. And, just to explain communications and the role of assocaitions to those who don't understand either... Big associations that purport to be leaders in an industry, craft, profession, etc., are de facto representatives all the men and women in the industry, craft, profession, etc. even when thos people are not members. When IABC does osmething about communications, (rare, but it happens sometimes) it is the defacto spokesorganization for all of us. When IABC convinces someone to make ABC a criterion in a job application, it affects all of us who refuse to waste our money on a badly run association. When Charles Pizzo was chairman of IABC, I told him he was the most important communicator in the world. IABC is the most important communciations organization in the world, although it is a failure. No other organization has the geographic reach, the semi-massive membership, and the potential for so much clout. So when I write about IABC (or speak about it) I'm doing so on my own behalf of course (but I'm not clear how I personally benefit -- any ideas, anyone?), and on behalf of lots of IABC members who ask me to write about things that bug them, and on behalf of non-members who ask me to cover things and take editorial positions, because they'd like IABC to be worth joining, blah, blah, blah... Of course, I did not serve three years on the executive board of the International Association of Business Communicators and of course I'm not active in IABC, and I never served as president of a chapter in 1993 and 2003. And I did not earn IABC accreditation in 1992. (I got my CPRS accrediation a decade earlier.) So I can't take any responsibility for the sorry state of IABC today, really. Unless my writing made IABC even worse. Maybe Kistle uses unreadable slides, and maybe he blew the blog, and maybe Heidi's name is still up ont he web site, and maybe Amada's name is stiill up, and maybe the media coverage report is out of date, and maybe the web site stinks, just to spite me. Readers who believe in the idea of the plain brown envelope are still welcome to cut and paste MemberSpeak and e-mail me. I won't quote any posters by name, except IABC big shots, if any contribute. BAK Whoa -- I just realized "apparent" in the original quote is a weasel word. Maybe I'm taking this all out of context. Posted by: Brian Kilgore | Mar 22, 2005 6:20:33 AM Brian, if anything happened on MemberSpeak, you'd be missing a scoop. But nothing does, and you aren't. If stats are anything to go by, then this thread attracts far more readership. (Also: IABC does not screen its own IP address, so a lot of MemberSpeak "traffic" is generated from within IABC HQ). Posted by: Allan Jenkins | Mar 22, 2005 1:12:46 PM As the silence from IABC leadership continues -- now going on its third week -- I want to address what I believe is one of the primary reasons for it: political sensitivity. I read one blogger's opinion that IABC President Julie Freeman would be crazy to jump into this conversation and that chairman-elect Warren Bickford has nothing to gain from commenting either. It would be embarrassing at this point for even chairman David Kistle himself to say anything because his lack of leadership is indefensible. I know serving as an officer of IABC is a voluntary position and one might argue, "Who needs the headaches of jumping into the fray? Officers have enough problems in their paying jobs." But that is what leadership is all about. David Murray in this week's Ragan Report characterizes the IABC chairmanship as largely ceremonial: "...the chairmanship of IABC has historically been more perk than work." I strongly disagree. During my three years on the executive board, I came to appreciate the tremendous responsibility and the hours of work that go into being an effective officer. Mr. Kistle, who has been around IABC's upper ranks for many years, knew this when he accepted the position. With the chairmanship comes the possibility -- these days, the probability -- that the officeholder will be criticized. Welcome to the real world. As for Ms. Freeman, she is the day-to-day CEO for IABC. When the association comes under fire, when members raise their voices with legitimate and well-articulated concerns, the chairman should be able to look to her to manage the situation. But we get silence. Any comment from Mr. Bickford might be interpreted as unbecoming or a slam against his predecessor. So what is a leader to do? Allow the association to flounder under withering criticism with no response from leadership? Stay silent and hope that it all goes away? This has become an embarrassing episode for all of us. I understand their might be a move afoot to create a wiki in which those of us who care about IABC could contribute to a productive discussion and actions for bringing it back to life. That would certainly be a move in the right direction, but I believe it is too little too late. IABC has screwed this one up beyond repair. People who either volunteered to lead or are paid to do so have failed those of us who have poured heart and soul, not to mention time and money, into an association that no longer stands for anything except the mass marketing of products and conferences. Until major, fundamental changes occur, IABC is no longer a wise investment for communicators who are passionate about our profession and want to see it and the people in it succeed. So until major, fundamental changes occur, I'm investing elsewhere. The last two weeks have convinced me not to renew my membership. I sincerely hope those who remain members will succeed in convincing IABC's leaders that they need to make big changes. Posted by: Robert J Holland | Mar 22, 2005 4:53:36 PM (Reposted from IABC Memberspeak, so BAK can get at least one post from the members-only forum): Robert, I'm saddened to hear this. While I share your aspirations for IABC (and those articulated by the other passionate and concerned members who have spoken up here and elsewhere), for me the primary value of membership in IABC has been and remains the ability to meet people like you. Regardless of what else the association might have "screwed up," as long as IABC remains a place to establish connections such as those I've made with professionals far too long to list here, it would be worth the $175 to me. After all, that's considerably less than I'd spend on a suit to look good for a first meeting with a client! (Okay, maybe if I shop at Men's Wearhouse...) In fact, before today I had never heard of Mark Shanahan or Jennifer Faircloth. Now I know who they are, have tremendous respect and admiration for them both, and hope to interact with them more in the future. That most likely wouldn't have happened with IABC providing the environment for such a meeting to occur. I certainly hope IABC will step up and take action. I certainly hope IABC will evolve into the association we all want representing us. And I certainly intend to participate in that evolution however I can. In the meantime, though, I still derive enough value to remain a part. And I hope you'll reconsider and be a voice for change from within, Robert. It just won't be the same without you! Shel Posted by: Shel Holtz | Mar 22, 2005 5:56:00 PM The good thing I'm noticing on Memberspeak right now is that comments are beginning to be made by IABC members other than the 'usual suspects', ie, those who comment here on Allan's blog or in other public places. Whatever anyone thinks about Memberspeak - and, for my part, I've commented here that I don't think much of it - if more members start using that place as a channel to say what they think about the matters being publicly discussed here, then that would be a great development in my view. Maybe it does need the perceived safety of a behind-the-wall location to draw more comments out from more people. I was just reading an interview with David Kistle in the Ragan Report, published on their website yesterday. He's certainly aware of all these discussions, according to that interview (done by David Murray, who's commented here). It's a good read but quite frankly, leaves me wholly underwhelmed. In fact, reading it again starts making me angry about this continuing silence while all these chats are going on. Arrogance! I'm now starting to look at the camp of 'Kistle must go now' opiners. I have no idea what David's (K) goal was in doing this interview, but in my book it's just fluff. That's just my opinion, though - go and read it and form your own. Posted by: Neville Hobson | Mar 22, 2005 6:54:35 PM FYI, all-- You don't have to be a Ragan Report subscriber to read the interview with David and Allan. It's available as our feature of the week, at www.ragan.com. David Murray Posted by: David Murray | Mar 22, 2005 9:38:10 PM What I like most about this conversation is that we are in accord about one thing: IABC needs to be more relevant in business than it is. The path to that relevance is for the volunteer chair to be "the most important communicator in the world." We know that many (if not all) mission or vision statements are all hearts and flowers. But advancing the cause of effective communication in business is a dang sight better a mission statement than most. If that was IABC's mission, we could look at each element of our strategic plan within that prism -- does it advance our mission? We could measure it. The volunteer leadership (chair and board) should be the voice of membership worldwide. If we don't hire a six-figure PR pro, we at least could hire an effective agency to get our word out. Mazel tov on a terrific discussion. Posted by: Sean Williams | Mar 23, 2005 12:00:28 AM All-- I'm doing a follow-up to my Kistle/Jenkins story of March 21, and I noticed this, on IABC's Web site, front and center. Includes a public link to the whole discussion on MemberSpeak. ----------------- A bold move, I'd say! Of course, I'll ask Julie Freeman if she's worried that participants won't appreciate their members-only conversation being made public, but in combination with Bickford's participation in the conversation last week, this does seem like a noble attempt to get ahead of the story--even coming from way behind. All: Your thoughts? David Murray, Contributing Editor Posted by: David Murray | Mar 28, 2005 7:09:29 PM It's a stretch to say IABC is attempting to get ahead of the story. Rather, its volunteer and staff leaders are finally responding after weeks of discussion on public blogs and in MemberSpeak. Although the response is a move in the right direction, it is much too little and much too late for many of us. Of course, it's only fair to see what comes of this discussion. If IABC finally learns a lesson in responsiveness to members, if volunteer and staff leaders finally embrace the world of technology as it is and not as they wish it to be, if IABC leaders wake up to the vital role chapters play in the health of the association (even if it means a redefinition of "chapter"), and if IABC finally begins to emulate the professional communication practices members expect of their association, then all the struggle might have been worth it. Based on prior behaviors and mindsets, however, I continue to have my doubts. Nobody on IABC staff or in the volunteer leadership seems to understand what a fiasco these last few years have been. No one acknowledges that they've made mistakes and perhaps embarrassed members with multiple blunders -- lack of real leadership, the failed attempt at a chairman's blog, the silence on the lawsuit settlement and the silence in the face of criticism in the last few weeks. Until someone says, "We have made mistakes, we hear our members and the voices of respected "lay-leaders" of this association and here is what we are doing to change," I will remain a skeptic. Posted by: Robert J Holland | Mar 28, 2005 8:33:33 PM A front page link demonstrates only that IABC realizes that very few members ever stop by MemberSpeak without prompting. An attempt to get ahead of the story? I don't think so; I think it's a brave attempt to catch up on a story that erupted some months ago. But, as Robert notes, it's only fair to give Warren Bickford a fighting chance. From where I sit, for Kistle to allow Bickford to lead this discussion, and restructure the blog, means Kistle has -- for all but ceremonial purposes -- abdicated. Which was only right. Posted by: Allan Jenkins | Mar 28, 2005 9:43:13 PM David, if a non-member clicks that link on the IABC home page, he or she will get a log-in screen. If you don't have a member ID and password, you can't get to Memberspeak. Just to be clear - it's not open to the public, only IABC members. While I've said in an earlier comment in this post what I think of Memberspeak, it is nevertheless very good to see the discussion that has developed there. Better late than never, in my view. What will it lead to? Ah, that's a good question. I'm happy to give Warren Bickford the benefit of the doubt, let's say, and see what he does (more than what he says) during the coming weeks. Posted by: Neville Hobson | Mar 29, 2005 12:20:30 AM Oh my, I take a couple of weeks off to go golfing and all hell lets loose in the blogoshere about one of my favourite topics - IABC or, more pertinently, making IABC relevant for its members. I am not sure I can add much new information or any devastatingly new insights to those already expressed. Posted by: Tudor Williams | Mar 29, 2005 2:06:25 AM I believe the fact that such well-respected IABC veterans -- including two Fellows and a number of past executive board members -- express such concern over the leadership at IABC speaks volumes about the problem. This is more than just a few malcontents whining because everything is not perfect. Rather, there is too much that is far from even being acceptable. Tudor, I too have thought about the opportunity that presents itself at the AGM in Washington. Actually, I considered attending and trying to summarize what I and others believe is wrong with IABC and to provide some suggestions about how to fix it. But I don't believe it will do any good. IABC has been much too polite an organization in the past to deal with complaints so publicly (even though it is a members-only meeting). The leadership is entrenched and, I believe, not open to reconsidering a strategic plan that many feel is leading IABC in the wrong direction. And the ability to make any real change depends upon what you aptly describe as a mysterious process for choosing leaders. Besides, my membership will expire before June. Posted by: Robert J. Holland | Mar 29, 2005 2:17:55 AM The comments to this entry are closed. |
|||||||||||
