In this post, which is also posted to the IABC Advocacy Commons, I raise a question about IABC’s governance structure in terms of how it facilitates or inhibits its various advocacy agendas. While I favor one alternative (which I outline separately), my main thrust is to stimulate an open and honest conversation among IABC members, and also among non-members who nonetheless have a stake in IABC’s effectiveness:
The concept of advocacy about, by, and for IABC is proving to be a tricky one, as the repartee in the Advocacy Commons has shown through the summer. Some think IABC and its officers should take official stands on external issues, some think IABC should focus its efforts on advocating for and leading the global communication industry, and still others want a focus on satisfying member desires and strengthening IABC as an institution.
It is clear that there is no consensus about which of these IABC advocacy roles should be emphasized. And, in my view, a key reason for this unclarity derives from the indirect manner in IABC’s officers are selected. For the advocacy potential of IABC to be unleashed, the subject of direct election of IABC officers is one that merits full and open consideration throughout the membership, centered around a bylaw change vote in 2008.
Direct election of IABC officers would allow members unprecedented impact not only in influencing the Association’s direction—but in actively determining its advocacy agenda. Those who seek leadership roles would not only have to propose their agenda alternatives, but advocate them with sufficient passion, clarity and lucidity to the membership.
There are some who may say that direct elections would be divisive and destabilising, and that the current system has successfully brought the IABC through some rough times. There are others, including myself, who think that the combination of advocacy and democracy would create a resurgent IABC that makes its message heard—and felt—as the leading voice for our industry in a fast-moving world.
But one thing is certain. The time for this discussion is now. Let it be open and thorough. And let it help us raise our game in the arena of advocacy. (As this is a reprint, please post comments here.
