Perhaps it is presumptuous to assume my Friday blog entry inspired IABC chairman Todd Hattori to reply to his own post about IABC's new strategic plan.
But if he's not responding to my post, then why does he begin with a rhetorical question that paraphrases my demand that he tell us "What is different about this plan?"
"What makes this strategic plan different?" Hattori asks. And then in five tidy paragraphs, he attempts to answer. His paragraphs are below, in Roman. My attempted translations are in italics.
**
The process. Previous plans were created by the Executive Board and tasked to the staff to implement. This strategic plan was developed by senior staff based on member feedback, the branding research, and trends in the communication profession. Two key results: increased focus on what is important to our members and how IABC will meet those needs, and increased clarity and buyin for our staff.
Oh. So the paid staff now makes the plan, rather than the executive board—the direct representatives of the membership. I'm not going to argue with this new governance method—in fact, if pressed, I'd argue for it based on my experience covering IABC boards and my knowledge of the current staff. But I'd say this fundamental shift from board-control to staff-control might have been worth an explicit mention in the original post, wouldn't you?
The structure. Previous plans were based on the Balanced Scorecard method, which was right for the time, and helped IABC manage the challenges — financial, staff and volunteer trust, etc. — that we were facing. When you look at the previous plan, it included 20 goals in four sections that created silos within our operations. This strategic plan sets four goals on which all activities are measured, and five priorities on which all actions are based.
Translation: We've simplified the old plan.
The focus. Again, the previous strategic plan was right for the times. A lot of detail on a lot of operational tasks. These new goals and priorities focus on what our members have told us is important. They provide focus so that the executive board doesn’t micromanage the staff, and the staff have the tools to make decisions and act rather than responding to the “grand ideas of the day” that don’t measure up to the criteria set by our priorities.
Not only did we simplify the strategic plan, we board member-proofed it. No longer can these well-intentioned boobs make the staff chase their tails with dumb ideas.
The reality. Our recent branding efforts involved seeking input from our members, and from non-members. We assessed our strengths and weaknesses by looking at the communication profession and other professional associations for communicators. We learned that we do some things very well, and others not so well. The reality is, IABC is an organization of 15,000 members from all areas throughout the world, specializing in a broad range of communication work, and wanting and needing a broad range of resources. The reality is, we will never be all things for all people. The reality is, we should strive to be something for all of our members. This strategy helps us focus on our strengths and what we will strive to offer this year.
I'm pretty sure this means IABC is shitcanning some services or products or events that some members (and board members) hold dear.
That’s what is different in this plan. Once it is posted and available to you, you may have questions. In fact, I hope you do, and I hope we — me, my fellow board members, and the senior staff — hear from you. I believe this is a very practical strategic plan that will help us maintain focus on our strengths and pursue new strengths that will define the IABC of the future. Your comments and questions are important to our processes, structure, focus, and reality.
Actually, I think you've just spent four paragraphs saying our comments and questions have less bearing than ever on your processes, structure, focus and reality. But whatev.
***
Let me be clear, because somebody has to be: I've got no issue with what Hattori seems to announcing here; to the contrary, a more focused and less concensus-mired organization is what I and many other observers have been calling for IABC to become for years. I've also known, from interviewing IABC board members and president Julie Freeman over the years, that these changes have been in the works for some time. Some IABCers might object, but I don't, particularly.
Neither do I relish criticizing Hattori; he's been a good and effective volunteer soldier at IABC, several years ago helping the organization streamline its governance structure by cutting the number of board members in half.
But in rolling out IABC's new strategy in such an opaque way—in smothering the true novelty of this plan—he seems to betray an obnoxious anti-communication instinct that all communicators can smell from a hundred miles away.
It smells like many of our communication clients—not our communication colleagues.
Comments (12)
Tasked to the staff? BARF!!!
Posted by Diane | October 8, 2007 11:15 AM
Posted on October 8, 2007 11:15
Tasked to the staff? BARF!!!
Posted by Diane | October 8, 2007 11:15 AM
Posted on October 8, 2007 11:15
You see, Todd? Now look what you've done.
Posted by David Murray | October 8, 2007 12:27 PM
Posted on October 8, 2007 12:27
Actually Diane, I think this is a good thing. Back when I was involved with IABC, even during a brief stint working with the Board, it struck me that is was a particularly dysfunctional governance model. There was no continuity, the board makeup changed every year, there were only 4 meetings per year and board members had to fit IABC tasks into their "day jobs," which needed to take priority.
As a result, there was tremendous pressure to stay the course and thus, nothing new or innovative ever saw the light of day.
In contrast, I am on the board for our local YMCA's camping operations. The board serves primarily as an oversight and mentoring body. The strategic plan is developed by the paid staff with heavy involvment and input by the board. However, once it has been approved, the paid staff has the responsibility to execute the elements of the plan against objectives which is THEIR day job.
On a monthly basis the executive director provides a status report to the board which might make some slight mid-course direction changes but pretty much operates in a hands off manner. Without going into the boring details the results of this governance structure over the past 7 years has been nothing short of miraculous.
Of course, the difference with our organization and the IABC model is that there is continuity in the board ranks. Members are elected to three year terms and many of us stand for multiple terms. I don't know how effective this type of structure would work where you have the make-up of the board changing every year with a steady influx of new members.
Posted by Craig Jolley | October 8, 2007 12:28 PM
Posted on October 8, 2007 12:28
Should IABC members consider a change to the election bylaws that would create staggered 3-year terms like Craig mentions, and provides for direct election of officers by the membership, as Mike Klein recommends in this post on the IABC Advocacy Commons?
http://commons.iabc.com/advocacy/2007/09/23/iabc-advocacy-time-to-consider-iabc-democracy/
Posted by Tom Keefe | October 8, 2007 1:58 PM
Posted on October 8, 2007 13:58
Likely this is just what Todd wanted to avoid--a new conversation about how IABC should be run. Still, he wanted to get and give kudos for an exciting new strategy.
Communication rule number 6A: You can't simultaneously have your cake and questions about it, refuse to take.
Posted by David Murray | October 8, 2007 3:11 PM
Posted on October 8, 2007 15:11
I've no problem with the staff doing the work. It's the "tasked to the staff."
BARF. I can't believe I even typed it.
Posted by Diane | October 8, 2007 3:20 PM
Posted on October 8, 2007 15:20
Have you considered a career as a professional translator??? I laughed at the unvarnished candor of your translation... Wish we could all wear headsets like they do at the U.N and get your running recapitulation of meetings/business presentations!
Posted by Vincent | October 8, 2007 4:28 PM
Posted on October 8, 2007 16:28
Sigh.
And BARF, too.
Posted by Robert J Holland, ABC | October 9, 2007 7:44 AM
Posted on October 9, 2007 07:44
Allow me to introduce myself; I am Warren What's-His-Name, the immediate has-been of the IABC International Executive Board and primary architect of the former balanced scorecard-based strategic plan.
I've been following the discussion about the new IABC strategic plan with great interest. Having been on the IABC IEB for a number of years, along with many other not-for-profit boards, I have seen many approaches to strategic planning; board-generated, staff-generated or not generated at all! I believe the balanced scorecard approach was right for the time and it served the association well over the years it was used, but there are many other effective formats as well.
My thoughts on this strategic plan, you ask? First, kudos to IABC for, at the very least, having a plan. Second, while I may not be a big fan of the process used to develop this particular plan, I'm sure it was put together with the best of intentions. If the staff and board are on the same page and firmly support the plan, I’m sure it will be successful. As is the case with all strategic plans - no matter how they are crafted - the devil will be in the implementation detail.
Personally, I’m a big fan of large, hairy, audacious goals, but I can live with more modest ones as long as the association continues to grow. By the way, David, the name if Bickford.
Posted by Warren Bickford | October 24, 2007 11:40 AM
Posted on October 24, 2007 11:40
Although I am relatively new to IABC, I currently serve as President of the South Carolina Chapter. I guess I found myself puzzled at the angry tone of some of the recent commentary about the organization.
From my outpost way out here in the trenches, it sure seems like IABC is at least headed in the right direction. Membership is growing and the finances are much improved. The suggestion from some quarters that IABC should be growing at an exponential rate is amusing to me - in our chapter we have to fight for each membership against other PR groups, tight budgets and the fact that people constantly move.
But growing membership is not really our main goal - we are a non-profit service organization. Many communicators in our town come to events and seminars we sponsor but never join. We are glad to have them whether they ever become a member or not. I am proud to provide a service and put in place affordable training opportunities that might not exist otherwise.
More fundamentally, with the exception of HQ staff, we are all volunteers. Personally, I am amazed that groups like IABC can even find people who are willing to serve on no-pay boards that involve tremendous amounts of travel and loss of personal time. I just can't see why someone with an "obnoxious anti-communication instinct" would sign up for such a gig to begin with.
And as far as HQ writing a strategic plan, I just can't feel the outrage. If the membership through their elected leadership does not like the plan, we can reject it or change it at any time. Through the same channels we can also replace any paid staff who don't seem to be up to snuff or order that the main office move to Kansas. In all my dealings with board and HQ, I have just not seen signs of either arrogance or laziness - and I am a person who is keenly attuned to those traits and quite willing to speak out for change.
Am I missing something?
Michael Sponhour
President
IABC-South Carolina
Columbia, SC
Posted by Michael Sponhour | October 25, 2007 10:51 AM
Posted on October 25, 2007 10:51
Warren, thanks for your comment; good points.
Re. your reference here to "Warren-What's-His-Name" is to another column that I wrote, from the perspective of an average IABC member, who doesn't pay much attention to what happens at International and who may or may not remember the name of even of the immediate past-chairman.
As for me, I'm not about to forget your last name, but I might someday call you "Harry."
Posted by David Murray | October 27, 2007 9:48 AM
Posted on October 27, 2007 09:48