A Call For Change: Why Trade Groups Should Question the Status Quo
by Stuart Z. Goldstein

(previously published in Strategic Communication Management, Vol. 6, issue 2 - March 2002)

The dynamics of the communications profession have changed dramatically in the last 10 years, but many trade organizations like IABC and PRSA have failed to keep pace in fundamentally redefining their mission to reflect the drivers of change and respond to the very different needs of their members. Here, he discusses the need for professional associations to fundamentally redefine their mission to reflect the changing role of the communication practitioner and respond to the different needs of their members.

Professionals who run corporate communications departments or serve as senior practice managers in large public relations firms, they would generally agree that the greatest challenge to the profession is finding people who can think and act strategically.

We have lots of folks in communications who are talented tactically, but we have fewer who bring the analytical and big picture perspective that can really add value to the development of strategy for senior management and clients.

Being strategic means influencing outcomes and affecting results. It means not seeing yourself as adjunct to the business strategy, but an integral part of that process. Strategic means not seeing yourself less as "client driven" (e.g., I do whatever my client asks), but seeing yourself as a "catalyst for change". In this role as a catalyst, communication professional bring with them a defined philosophy or conceptual framework for what they do. They set their own benchmarks for excellence, and they demonstrate by their performance and ability to get results.

Running a War Room
In today’s real time communication environment, professionals will be required to have experience across disciplines (e.g., media relations, employee communication, issues management, marketing communication) and function as interchangeable players. Corporate communication departments will function like a war room in a political campaign headquarters, with sophisticated research on perceptions of various publics becoming standard practice as a baseline for plotting communications strategy.

This change in role means that today’s communication professionals can’t simply react to business problems: we must influence them. And this means that communication associations and trade groups like IABC and PRSA have a leadership role to play. Trade groups need to reinvent themselves based on the real time nature of the profession. If communication has become a knowledge-based profession, then professional associations can become the enablers of these higher thinking skills.

Now, I’ve just done the unthinkable by challenging the current status quo of our trade groups. The truth is, however, that the original mission of these groups was successfully accomplished more that 20 years ago and these organizations have not redefined their role or kept pace with the profession.

Getting Strategic
Trade groups are doing little to prepare professionals for the current real time communication environment we face – and to think and act strategically. Rather than promoting dialogues on the "What" and "Why" of communication strategy, trade group conferences are obsessed with the "How to" or tactical approaches to communication programs. Workshops are conducted in a traditional classroom approach, which limit give and take among professionals in the audience who may have equal knowledge and different views from the speaker.

While it’s nice for younger professionals to hear about different models, this experience does not challenge or empower them to think outside the box. The conferences need facilitators and panels of senior professionals who can discuss, debate and pose alternative strategies based on a given role-play scenario. This approach, pioneered by Fred Friendly, offers the dynamics of interaction that get at the "What" and "Why," in the broader context of factors and variables that influence communication strategy.

Accreditation
University programs have eliminated a major emphasis of trade groups: the need for trade group certification programs. At one time in history, years ago, there was concern that communication professionals would not be taken seriously unless they were certified. Today, these programs are an anachronism. I don’t believe these certification programs ever gained wide credibility.

Instead of competing with university training, trade groups have a new and significant role to play in creating methodologies for validating whether the educational process is turning out professionals who will succeed in the changing communication environment. Trade groups should champion their role in offering feedback to universities on real world requirements, through the involvement of senior communication professionals.

They should also play a more aggressive role in challenging universities to uphold the value of communications or public relations degree. Almost anyone and everyone wants to be a communications major these days, but this does not mean they are being rigorously prepared to succeed as a communications professional, when universities can turn out communications majors who can’t write or don’t know different styles of writing, then the profession is not being well served.

Learning from each other
Award programs sponsored by trade groups also represent misplaced emphasis. My first concern is that most of these programs focus on tactical solutions, in isolation from the larger overall communication strategy of the company. My second concern is that the documentation required by these awards is lengthy and dense, so it’s less accessible as a case study to use in benchmarking other companies or in searching for best practice models. Trade groups should be putting more emphasis on research and creating laboratories in the profession, rather than publishing reams of documentation.

…And from the world of politics
Why is it that many of the perceived leaders of our profession, and the most innovative, breakthrough strategies in communication, come from the world of politics and not from our own senior level practitioners? Why is it that when companies feel most threatened, they bring in an ex-White House staffer sooner than hire a senior communications professional from a major PR firm? Perhaps it’s because the political environment comes closest to a laboratory for innovations in communication theory and practice: you have a fixed time frame, a product that isn’t easily quantified and a rapidly changing communication/media environment in which to operate. If that’s so, communication trade groups can learn from this model and look to create laboratories of their own on innovations.

It’s time to crest laboratories for change. Why not for example, establish a more active collaboration and closer working relationship with colleges, universities and corporations to test new strategies and structures. In previous articles, I’ve talked about the growing importance of research to pre-test and post-test messages. Some companies have begun to use overnight polling techniques. These are ripe subjects for experimentation and thought leadership.

It’s ironic, but the basic structure in how we manage communications has not changed in more that 20 years. However, innovations in technology and telecommunications have expanded the quantity, quality and speed of communications worldwide. The margin for error in communicating the right message is narrower, as access and opportunities for communicating messages has leveled the playing field for our competitors. Communications has become a knowledge-based profession, but we have few laboratories for testing new approaches, structures and methodologies.

The pressure for change has never been greater on the trade organizations. While universities are turning out thousands of potential new recruits each year, the exigent reality is that there may be fewer positions available for those without the requisite analytical, writing and leadership skills. Corporate communication departments and PR agencies will be hard pressed to limit growth, and the key differentiator in hiring will be professional who can think strategically about message management, corporate positioning and branding.

I’ve raised some points in this article that are likely to cause reaction. But as a practitioner and long-standing member of these trade groups, I believe a public discussion of how trade groups can more effectively serve the profession is long overdue. The more of us who do speak out, the quicker change will come.

About the Author:
Stuart Z. Goldstein is Managing Director, Corporate Communications at The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation in N.Y. His 20+ years of experience cuts across the disciplines of corporate communications and public affairs, including serving as a spokesperson at two Fortune 500 companies. He also spent a decade running political campaigns in New Jersey. He can be contacted at sgoldstein@dtcc.com.

back to Table of Contents