When we left off yesterday, I had asked my Uncle Larry—who reminds me so much of IABC’s leaders that he could almost stand in as a metaphor!—how his life had been going since I last saw him in the summer. And the normally loquacious Larry had grunted a laconic few terse responses at me and headed into the other room to drink beer in front of the football game.
In my confusion and distress, I turned to other members of the family—some of the most respected figures in IABC's recent history—and asked them if I was overreacting to Uncle Larry’s sudden-onset Asberger syndrome.
I turned to Julie Freeman, who served as IABC’s paid executive director from 2001 to 2012.
“For many years IABC thought leaders have written and spoken about best practices in business communication,” she wrote. “Those best practices include being open, transparent and honest with all audiences, avoiding corporate speak and listening. Furthermore, messages have most credibility when they come from the organization's leader, not its communicator. I am confident that many of IABC members are practicing these principles. I wish that IABC leaders would walk the talk as well.”
I turned to some of the IABC Fellows. They are so designated because they have received “the highest honor that the association bestows on a member … for exceptional leadership and service to IABC. It denotes a body of achievement as a communicator or communication educator who has had a significant impact not only on the communicator’s organization and IABC, but on the communication profession.”
“I see few of the characteristics today of the organization I was attracted to as my professional organization of choice some years ago,” wrote Fellow Tudor Williams. “Loyalty is declining rapidly at all levels of the organization in the vacuum that we have been trapped in for over a year now.”
“I personally am heartsick over the state of IABC leadership and its lack of promised transparency and two-way communication with members,” wrote Fellow Suzanne Salvo. “I grow weary of waiting.”
“I'm disheartened by IABC's approach to communicating—with members, with the press and with other influencers, like yourself—but I'm not ready to write the association off just yet,” wrote Fellow Shel Holtz. He explained why:
First, there is a strong core of dedicated members. At the chapter level, in the regions, among the membership at large, and in groups like the Fellows, there remains a vision of what IABC has been and could be again. Second, there are many members of staff who are committed to the membership and envision a strong association that serves its members and walks the communication talk. And third, IABC has had many highs and lows over its history. It's certainly in our DNA to survive this and come out stronger. A new executive director is coming, and there will be new volunteer boards in the years ahead drawn from that dedicated pool of volunteers that has served us well for so long.
That said, IABC's approach to communication over the last year or so has been a source of concern for me and a far cry from the kind of professional engagement with audiences that the association holds up as a standard in its professional development offerings. The lack of transparency, leadership's absence from many conversations (like those taking place in the IABC LinkedIn group), the reluctance of leaders to speak on IABC's behalf, and the woeful communications in general are hardly setting the example the premiere communications association should set.
Still, ever the optimist, I have my fingers crossed.
And his pencil sharpened. Along with a number of the Fellows, Holtz has been working behind the scenes to influence the process for conducting what he sees as the make-or-break hire of the next executive director.
“IABC’s Fellows don't see themselves as recipients of some kind of lifetime achievement award,” Holtz added. “We have a lot of experience between us, both in communications and with IABC at all levels. We intend to share that experience and to be a resource to IABC, its members, leaders, and staff, wherever we can. And as a group, we hope to find ways to influence IABC’s direction.”
(For instance, a number of the Fellows want a member of IABC's headquarters staff included on the search committee to avoid such a cultural mismatch that apparently occurred with Chris Sorek last year. IABC Fellow Barbara Puffer—who is herself on the search committee—says "staff involvement in the [hiring] proccess has not been denied"—but the suggestion of a staffer on the search committee has been rejected.)
One of the last people I heard from was a well-connected longtime IABC watcher who requested anonymity. He compared IABC leadership to an airliner where the “first class passengers … threw the flight crew off the plane, thinking they could do a better job themselves—only to realize, once it’s too late, that they have no idea how to fly, let alone land, the plane.”
He added, “I think IABC's ‘leaders’ would be a lot more chatty if the news (e.g. membership levels, finances) were good. I suspect they're stonewalling in the hope that they can turn things around before the real numbers get out.”
Uncle Larry, your family wants to help you, but they can’t until you tell them what’s wrong.
Is Uncle Larry capable of telling us what’s wrong? I’m not sure. That’s what scares me the most.
We’ve made progress in some areas. Gold Quill is much improved. More good webinars and other offerings. And the annual conference was terrific despite the recent disaster at the home office.
But is IABC focusing on what we, the members, really want? Do we need an ISO-compliant accreditation program, or should we instead invest in an award-winning campaign to promote the more rigorous ABC to the outside world? Do we need an elaborate career map tool, or do we need more intensive support for our chapters? Do we only want to educate about best practices in communication, or is it time to demonstrate them?
IABC still has virtually no public presence, although maybe we don’t want the public to see us right now. The trouble is, apparently the board doesn’t want us to see them right now, either, because they don’t seem interested in connecting with us.
The big buzzword these days is engagement. It has gone MIA here in IABC.
I value my membership (of many years) because of the bridges I’ve built with a large number of IABC colleagues and friends. Some of whom I’ve worked closely with; many of whom I’ve grown professionally with. But the connection I’ve felt with my leaders has virtually disintegrated in the past couple of years. I don’t feel valued.
I’m with Shel. I’m not ready to write IABC off yet. I pin my hopes on the reasons Shel mentioned, plus one more: we members do care, and we desperately want IABC to emerge from this mess stronger than ever.
I don’t want Uncle Larry to become the moribund distant uncle that’s virtually forgotten by the rest of the family. I want to reach out to him. But at this point, I don’t think he’ll even answer the phone to say “fine.”
There is nothing I can say here that expresses my feelings about IABC better than the words of Mr. Holtz. Along with him and many others, I care about this organization and want to see it not just survive, but thrive. I have and will continue to give my time and efforts to that goal. But at the end of the day, it’s not the most important thing in my life and I have only so much time and energy to spread around. The thing is, IABC cannot exist without its volunteer members. And I sadly see many once happily engaged volunteers quietly (or occasionally loudly) opting out.
I’m one of those that opted out (with much sadness and disappointment). Boy, am I glad I did.
I don’t think Gold Quill is “much improved.” Or if it is, it still has a long way to go. Gold Quill is a measurement competition — not a communication awards program. You can have a poor product, but well-measured — against goals YOU set — and win. Conversely, you can have a great product, poorly or not measured at all, and lose. Because it’s all about the measurement.
We as communicators do as much measurement as we can or need to do. That’s the ART of communication. Measurement is a good thing; it’s not the only thing.
It leads back to what IABC wants to believe about communication — that it should be seen as some sort of science if it is to be taken seriously. And science means measurement. But we as writers and communication know that measurement can’t tell you everything — sometimes, we as professionals KNOW or should know what to do without surveying everybody or holding a focus group.
Maybe that’s why IABC is having such a hard time communicating itself. It literally has no intuition or experience on which to draw now that MEASUREMENT is showing that what it’s doing isn’t working for its membership. How many members do you need to MEASURE voting with their feet before you figure out that you’re doing it all wrong?
David:
Both posts brilliant and hilarious.
“Fly, Robin, fly,
>David Murray must die.”
>>
>> Your commenter Amy nailed an important explanatory point: “IABC leaders believe communications must be a science before it is taken seriously, and for communications to be scientific, everything must be measured.” This is so true, and it explains Robin McCasland’s stonewalling you. She’s incapable of talking to you as one intelligent person to another, because any idea she voices, well, THAT’S JUST HER OPINION. It is therefore subjective, unscientific, elitist, presumptuous, impolitic, naïve, premature, and insulting to the membership for her to speak out ex cathedra about what IABC should do differently. She is self-reduced to helpless, impotent irrelevancy, which is what she deserves for her false modesty masking her very sincere, real, but utterly PHILISTINE, common, vulgar FEAR.
>>
>> And I loved Amy’s saying that setting up communication measurement as the Golden Calf of the Gold Quill Awards has ruined that competition. David, the herd mind at IABC headquarters cripples everything. The Association will continue to be a nullity until some timorous soul in IABC headquarters takes heart and decides to speak up for the unique excellence of individual judgment in IABC contests, in IABC administration, in every pursuit of IABC. Robin McCasland doesn’t speak to you because she has no thoughts to divulge, no convictions to evangelize,and nothing to say, and she’s afraid in the exactly the way men in corporations she’s worked for are afraid in a well-publicized corporate emergency or scandal.
Bill Sweetland
The question is, Bill, whether the “herd mind” as you put it–and which to SOME extent is a necessary evil in a professional association–can be steered in more intelligent directions by a good shepherd.
I’ve seen it happen before, when Lou Williams took over the group on an interim basis, and then as Julie Freeman kept it moving in Lou’s commonsense direction.
But all that was made possible because the leadership recognized it was in the middle of an existential crisis. And unless this leadership does that, no Lou Williams–or Amy Gooen–will invited, or attracted, to captain this listless ship.
David:
You say,”. . .the ‘herd mind,’ as you put it [is] a necessary evil in a professional association. . .”
David, you are so right. That is one reason ANY healthy, vigorous association must be on guard against creeping consensus, comfortable collaboration, convention and conformity stealing into activities where they have no place. And the Gold Quill Awards are one of those places.
David, an association of corporate communicators should be the ONE professional association in the world where open, public debate and civil contentiousness are living, practical ideas, the very lifeblood of the everyday business of the association. Wouldn’t you agree?
Instead, what do we have? What do these officers and directors at IABC headquarters believe in? What are they ready to fight for? Do you know? Does anyone?
The prosecution rests its case.
Bill Sweetland
Court is adjourned.
I may be speaking to an empty courtroom at this point, but thanks, David. This post is your best yet on the crisis that’s continuing to distance IABC from its members. You’ve produced an excellent piece of journalism that’s refreshingly free of dickishness, letting the facts and the heartfelt quotes of prominent IABC members speak for themselves. Our poor broken association needs reporting like this, and I hope it helps prompt some positive action.
The quality of your piece made me doubly disappointed in our friend Bill Sweetland’s rude, childish rant. Very little gets accomplished in this world through vicious attacks on people’s character. Just when I thought that the level of discussion on Writing Boots had reached a new high, it plummeted to a new low in the comments section. Shame on you, Bill. Robin McCasland deserves a public apology from you.
I’m no fan of Robin McCasland, but I have to agree with Ron. Hyperbolic rants and name-calling do nothing to move the debate forward. It’s a shame, too, because somewhere in there, Bill actually has some good points. Too bad he went to the Brian Kilgore school of public discourse because the good points are buried by his boorishness.
Ron, Robert, let’s review what Bill said:
“She’s incapable of talking to you as one intelligent person to another, because any idea she voices, well, THAT’S JUST HER OPINION. It is therefore subjective, unscientific, elitist, presumptuous, impolitic, naïve, premature, and insulting to the membership for her to speak out ex cathedra about what IABC should do differently. She is self-reduced to helpless, impotent irrelevancy, which is what she deserves for her false modesty masking her very sincere, real, but utterly PHILISTINE, common, vulgar FEAR.”
Do you think Bill doesn’t realize, as you do, that these are speculative critiques of a mind we can’t possibly know because its owner will not speak to us.
“Robin McCasland doesn’t speak to you because she has no thoughts to divulge, no convictions to evangelize, and nothing to say, and she’s afraid in the exactly the way men in corporations she’s worked for are afraid in a well-publicized corporate emergency or scandal.”
Robin could flick these accusations away forever with a single comment, here or anywhere, demonstrating their falsity.
But she doesn’t. In the face of the public criticism and dismay of many of the people who built the association she chairs, Robin says NOTHING.
If that drives the occasional observer over the rhetorical top … well, I’ll let Robin ask Sweetland to apologize, because I’m not gonna.
So, becaue Bill uses a rhetorical device — the “speculative critique” — to attack her character, he’s off the hook when it comes to literal human decency? I don’t buy it.
For the record, I also don’t buy IABC’s evasiveness, lack of transparency and bad media relations. When organizations duck rather than face their critics head on, they squander their reputations and alienate their constituents, and it’s heartbreaking to see this happening at IABC.
You don’t have to buy it, Ron.
But I do ask you to take back your remark about Sweetland’s comment taking Writing Boots to “a new low.”
If anyone is going to take this blog to a new low, then I, not Bill, will.
Sorry, I’m still with Ron on this one. I agree that McCasland’s silence, evasiveness and lack of transparency make things much worse for IABC (though it’s difficult to see how that’s possible). I still think Bill went too far, as he usually does.
But I also get that’s just part of his schtick and always has been.
Amy Gooen’s IABC ship has sailed. I got in my lifeboat and rowed the other direction.
That’s funny, Amy. Because I’ve been thinking you should apply for the chairman role.
Oh, David Murray. You foolish, hopeful, delightful man. You know they wouldn’t have me. People who actually DO communication (vs. those who spend their lives measuring it) would not be welcome at that table — especially at the head of it.
Plus, I’d probably have some “communication” that was pretty open, honest and maybe not so pleasant. That wouldn’t go over.
BTW, no disrespect to Angela Sinickas, a measurement guru I respect, or to measurement itself, which I do. It’s the “let’s just set a goal, make our comms meet the goal, and pat ourselves on the back that we met a goal we set” mindset that bugs me.
Madam, I beg your pardon. I’ve been called foolish many times. But never hopeful!
As to the “let’s set a goal and meet the goal” mindset: It’s hideously shallow, amoral and utterly BORING.
I think a lot of observers would agree that IABC could use one year of the opposite. Which would be you.
And if a candid, thoughtful, opinionated, searingly intelligent person as IABC chair seems like an outlandish fever dream, well … you said it, I didn’t.
There was a time when IABC chairs were interesting, creative, independent-minded and sometimes even spoke the unvarnished truth. But that was before the Recent Unpleasantness, as we might say here in the south.
O YOU SHAMELESS FLATTERER, David Murray. Trust me, they’d hate what I’d dish out. Communication World? A TOTAL SNOOZE — kill it. Measurement contests? Buh-BYE. Chapter focus? YES, PLEASE!!
I think you can see I’d never make it in the big IABC leagues. I don’t even have an ABC, or whatever they’re calling that program these days. Nopey nopes; I’m unelectable to IABC. Which is fine with me, actually.
And as to calling it “Recent Unpleasantness,” RJH, may I suggest that we might also call it “The War of Communication Passive-Agression?” Also very southern (and descriptive…)
Amy Gooen, my cerebral sister, my other hand clapping! You KNOW I know what you would dish out. And what an unprecedented feast it would be!
But I wouldn’t be QUITE so sure of your unelectability. Word has it that the last chairman got in there because he was the only dupe who put his name in for the job.
An empty tour bus pulled up, and the current International Executive Board stepped out.
Getting to be chairman might be like knocking politely on the front door and having it fall down.
Knock, and see what happens.
Amy, I like your description better. And yes, that is very southern too. “Bless their hearts.”
I’d vote for you. I’d even support the platform you have suggested. That is, if I was still a member.
I’ll go one step further. If Gooen goes for president, I’d become a member and renounce that measure of my journalistic independence, just to vote for her.
And I (kind of quote) LBJ: If elected, I will not run. Or, um, something like that. Maybe I should go with the old Groucho Marx saw?
I appreciate your faith, men, but seriously, it would take more than the s**tload of snark I’d dish out to fix this mess. (Bless their little white cotton socks, RJH!)
I’ll take that as a maybe.