IABC'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

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c215853ef00d83458c51769e2

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
Fellow IABC member and blogger Allan Jenkins posted a scathing commentary about IABC and Chairman David Kistle yesterday (and has attracted a bit of flack in the comments to his post as a result). What especially caught my attention in [Read More]

Tracked on Mar 9, 2005 1:38:45 PM

» Get used to transparency, IABC from NevOn
In yesterday's edition of The Hobson [Read More]

Tracked on Mar 15, 2005 7:29:18 PM

» IABC's Stunned Silence Brings Criticism from Mutually Inclusive
Canadians are patient, polite people, willing to forgive much of someone if they acknowledge their shortcomings and promise to try harder next time.Which is why, when I read Allan Jenkins criticism of IABC chairman David Kistle, I thought Allan was bei... [Read More]

Tracked on Mar 18, 2005 8:03:33 PM

» IABC Blog Speaks - 68 Days Later from Mutually Inclusive
Something popped up on my RSS feeder yesterday and I almost tapped the side of my monitor to see if there was a problem with the screen. It was an update to the IABC Chairman's Blog. [Read More]

Tracked on Mar 30, 2005 8:57:43 PM

» IABC Blog Speaks - 68 Days Later from Mutually Inclusive
Something popped up on my RSS feeder yesterday and I almost tapped the side of my monitor to see if there was a problem with the screen. It was an update to the IABC Chairman's Blog. [Read More]

Tracked on Mar 31, 2005 4:22:10 AM

Comments

Allan -

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

The comments to this entry are closed.