The author argues that trade groups for communications professionals need to fundamentally redefine their mission to better reflect the changing nature of the field. Specifically, they need to focus more on strategic thinking skills and creating "laboratories" to test innovative strategies, rather than emphasizing tactics or accreditation. Current conferences also need to facilitate more high-level discussions of communication strategies rather than just presenting case studies or "how-to" information. By reinventing themselves in this way, trade groups can help professionals succeed in today's fast-paced, knowledge-based communications environment.

1. A Call for Change
Introduction to why Trade Groups Should Question the Status Quo
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.
Explication….
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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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.
Font:-
Stuart Goldstein