Today we bring you another episode of Exec Direct, postings by STC Executive Director Susan Burton. Exec Direct presents a more personal, informal, and direct discussion with Susan Burton on a variety of topics, STC-related and not.
I recently read the Orange County chapter’s newsletter, which included an article about the 2010 Summit by Michael Opsteegh, chapter president for Orange County. What a positive, dynamic, and enthusiastic description! (I also happen to think it was fair and accurate, too!)
I feel STC is definitely on the cusp of a whole new and exciting era! When I was hired in 2006, my goal was to get STC ready for this change. I saw the potential for this profession to change from a static focus on documents to a dynamic process that can fundamentally change the world.
True technical communicators should be recognized and honored, since practitioners are not only capable of describing things technical, but also able to use the tools of technology to enhance the entire communication process with users, clients, and fellow workers. And this process needs to be re-conceptualized so that it is global in scope—not just in a geographic sense, but within companies, across companies, across professions, and across borders or boundaries of any kind.
The whole BP crisis is a perfect example of when technical communication goes wrong. One wrong document, which led to wasted hours on a potential early fix, exposed a weakness of communication across the companies and professions. And who is in charge of the communication process across multiple companies? I doubt anyone! Silos upon silos upon silos. But this will have to change as projects involving different industries, professions, specialties, crafts, etc., come together on complicated global issues.
So going back to August 2006, to my shock I discovered that the “cobbler’s children” principle was in operation here: STC might have “technical communication” in its name but every single one of STC’s infrastructures (volunteer structure, financial, database, website, you name it!) was unbelievably outdated, cumbersome, and mired in the past. This was a 1980s association with a very thin technical veneer covering these antiquated systems and processes. Huge amounts of hard digging (John Hedtke called it “the Aegean stables exercise”) had to take place before STC could take off. I advised the board at the October 2006 board meeting (three months after I started), that it would take about three years to clear out the debris. I couldn’t imagine it would really take that long, but it turns out I was about right.
Then recession hit! This was both a blessing and curse. It was a blessing in that it forced some hard decisions that might have taken a lot longer for the Board to develop the resolve to take, but also a curse in reducing our financial base and causing additional stress with our community leaders.
But now with most of the infrastructure in place (some technology stuff still needs to be dealt with, for sure—such as the website, for example), and Mike Hughes’s leadership of a Board that is absolutely committed to the transformation, big advances can be made.
The STC Board has been committed to these changes ever since I started. Suzanna Laurent had the challenge of making the big CEO change, Paula Berger had the vision for the profession and the association, Linda Oestreich addressed the heart, Mark Clifford reorganized governance, and Cindy Currie tackled the unbelievably challenging financial problem with great personal courage. Each of them contributed largely to the progress we’ve been able to make and have set us up for success in the future.
To paraphrase what Michael Opsteegh wrote, it’s not about age—it’s about who’s ready to embrace the future. I am tremendously invigorated by his article and encourage all of you to read it. We so much want to have a real partnership with our communities and we need leaders who are willing to work together! I invite all of you to embrace the future with us.
Susan,
Thanks for the open and candid remarks of the STC’s bumpy ride over the past few years. Even though I’ve been involved with the STC for about as long as you, I feel that up here in the Canadian northwest we’ve been isolated (or shielded) from the bigger picture of the global strategy in operation behind the scenes.
STC is going through change. But then again, our profession is always subject to change! It’s nice to see that we’re working to direct the change rather than be caught up in the tsunami.
Summit 2010 impacted me greatly. I was initially a little put off by Cindy Currie’s incessant reminders that “we’re still here/we’re stayin’ alive/we will survive”–your post gives context to her preoccupation. Cindy had to steer the ship during the challenging fiscal year, and possibly nobody was more surprised than her that it didn’t capsize.
I am confused, however, that when the STC needed money, we chose to raise dues rather than lower them. Basic economics states that where the demand is low, costs should decrease. Lower costs encourage higher participation, which adds to the kitty. Thankfully, by the end of the year the membership team focused on adding value–such as the Gold membership, subsidies, and interest-free installment payment plans.
We’re not out of the woods yet. I chose the STC over the option of working alone in a vacuum. I look forward to more openness and sharing from the executive. And I anticipate the breaking down of those worldwide silos.
Cheers!
Thanks for the comments, Tony. I had a different take on our situation with dues. You said, “I am confused, however, that when the STC needed money, we chose to raise dues rather than lower them. Basic economics states that where the demand is low, costs should decrease. Lower costs encourage higher participation, which adds to the kitty.”
My take when we were making that decision was that because demand WAS low, decreasing dues would NOT increase participation. I think it takes a pent up or unfulfilled demand to see an increase in purchasing when the price of something is lowered. If the price of an iPad went down, I’m sure sales would go up. If the price of a rotary phone went down, I’m not sure that would stimulate a lot of sales.
I think we were in for a drop for a lot of reasons: economy, weak curb appeal, low-profile marketing, etc. Lowering dues (and not getting an increase in members for the reasons I stated) would have just exacerbated our problem that is was costing more to run the operation than we were taking in.
I’m not saying you’re wrong; I’m just sharing with you what I was thinking when I participated in that decision.
Mike
Hmmmmm…..
The most interesting thing I take from the above exchange is that Mike is implying that STC is (or was) a “rotary phone.”
That may be true. What I saw and heard at STC 10 seems to be saying we’re at least moving to the touch-tone era 😉 and hopefully we’ll be into iPhone-Android space before too long.
The trick is, how do we get there in a down economy, when we’ve also been hit with our own internal financial crisis (which would probably have happened regardless)?
I’m not sure I’ve got a rough and ready answer in my hip pocket (or cellphone holster), but if we look at the way the virtual economy is moving (provide a base tool or service for free and charge for addons and upgrades) we might have the beginning of a clue.
Want to improve curb appeal? Give something of value away for free, but make sure that value is understood and communicated. Then charge for added value. Can we do this for our members? And if so, how would we organize it?
Just a stimulus for brainstorming…