Exec Direct is a monthly post from STC's Executive Director and CEO Kathryn Burton. Exec Direct provides Kathryn a more personal and less official means of communicating with members about a variety of topics, both STC-related and not.
I have been contemplating the question of what it means for STC to be a “Society.” The word “society” implies a community. STC over the years has prided itself on being a professional community that crosses disciplines and country borders, and being a “community of communities” (chapters and Special Interest Groups) to allow communication to take place both geographically and virtually.
Part of being in a community implies linkages among community members. And according to learnthat.org, the words “communication” and “community” have the same Latin root of “com.” Com means “together or common.” This includes “compositions” and “commune.”
According to the Society for Organizational Learning (SOL) Community, the word “community” has old roots, going back to the Indo-European base mei, meaning “change” or “exchange.” Apparently this joined with another root, kom, meaning “with,” to produce an Indo-European word kommein: shared by all.
Juanita Brown is quoted on the SOL website. “We think the idea of ‘change or exchange, shared by all’ is pretty close to the sense of community in organizations today. Community building is a core strategy for sharing among all its members the burdens and the benefits of change and exchange.”
Since I became its CEO, STC has focused many of our communications on the importance of STC being run like a business to ensure its future, since even charitable organizations must have readable and accurate financial statements.
The question has arisen whether STC has “lost its heart.”
Although I did not anticipate the kind of response my recent name-change announcement got, it seems to have created a sense that STC is still an organization that cares about people.
Overwhelmingly the responses to my decision to change my name have been warm, friendly, supportive, enthusiastic, and full of warm wishes. Most of these were sent directly to me from members whom I have never met either in person or via email. And there have been over 200 (but to be fair, there were five negative reactions out of the total).
Quite a few told me their personal stories of how and why they changed their names or about someone they knew who had done so. Others shared with me their desire to change their name or take a stand that they feared would earn them disapproval from friends, family, or coworkers.
And several indicated that they felt that the very fact that I would send such a message shows that STC still is a community of people who care, or as one person said, “STC's heart is coming back. This message shows it! Thank you.”
STC’s heart never went away. The Board cares, the staff cares, our community leaders care, and our members care.
STC’s heart is alive, well, and beating with dedication, a sense of purpose, and excited about the entire “regeneration” of STC that Mike Hughes has blogged about in his Open Mike posts here on STC’s Notebook.
If my message has helped pave the way to allow a greater sense of community to arise, it has served the greater good, and service is one of my deepest values.
The question that I would like to pose is, “How can STC build on a positive sense that STC is a place where people can be their authentic selves and expect to have their communications received and responded to in a respectful, kind, and emotionally intelligent way?”
I can hear a Huey Lewis song: The heart of STC is still beating….
Here’s a stab at answering the question in your last paragraph — I hope that others will chime in too. By far the most common complaint I hear about STC is some form of “you’re not listening” or “you didn’t consider me and my needs.” It’s the same complaint that many of us hear from our customers — the people who use the technical communication products we create.
So, one answer to the question is to give each other the attention and respect that we strive to give our customers. From the other side, when we’re the aggrieved party, we should try to remember that it’s hard to be fully attentive and respectful every single time. Finally, communication that’s open and transparent — like Mike’s “Open Mike” posts — goes a long, long way.
Well said, Kathryn.
“How can STC build on a positive sense that STC is a place where people can be their authentic selves and expect to have their communications received and responded to in a respectful, kind, and emotionally intelligent way?”
I really think it all comes down to openness. Be open with members and let members be open with each other. Part of the way successful SIGs build strong communities is through open communication. Sure, we can’t all get into a room and share info, but over the years the mailing lists, forums and such really built that sense of community. Those who wanted to could speak up. Others preferred to sit back and listen. And it’s all good.
I think the work being done to create blogs like this, to allow comments, and to adopt a Web 2.0 mindset really speaks well of STC. It took a little while to get here, and the journey’s not over, but I think it’s made a huge improvement with regard to member value and morale. Keep moving forward! 🙂
what a delightful post! And, yes, I completely agree with you…STC has never lost heart…the beat was drowned out for a little while by the clinking of diminishing coins and the wind of members leaving the ranks…but the beat continued. Now that the Society is stabilizing and even growing, the beat will get louder and louder…I’m sure of it.
Your leadership helped make it so.
Blessings,
Linda O, STC Fellow
I wonder if there might be a structural cause for some of the perception that “STC doesn’t care” or “STC doesn’t listen.” The board is required to speak with one voice, even though the board is made up of individuals with varying opinions. When the U.S. Supreme Court makes a ruling, they present the majority opinion and the minority opinion, so that the minority’s voice is heard. We don’t hear the minority’s voice from the STC board; we only hear the final decision. That decision sounds very one-sided and creates the impression that members’ needs and opinions weren’t carefully weighed. The recent decision about student voting is a good example. It’s frankly bewildering that despite overwhelming member support for student voting, the board decided against it. I’m sure the board had good reasons for their decision; but unless the board communicates all the criteria they considered, for and against, the decision feels like a betrayal. The communication about the board’s decision doesn’t carry with it the passion many members feel about the subject. That doesn’t mean the board is uncaring. But their carefully crafted message makes them seem uncaring.
Even though, at first pass, I tended to agree with the concept that “the board is required to speak with one voice” but Andrea has really clarified my thinking and I agree with her. Board members should be able to say “The board decided X and I support the boards decision even though I did not vote in favor of it… and here’s why.”
It may make some uncomfortable but STC should fully embrace a free and open exchange of ideas and opinions. There’s no shame in being outvoted on an issue that comes before the board but we shouldn’t hide the discussion and even the disagreements like the Politburo. Without question, the board *must* retire to executive session to discuss matters of personnel but we don’t need to pretend that there are no disagreements.