The Broken STC Model — and What’s Replacing It
April 24th, 2008 | Posted in blog 52 Comments »
I attended an STC chapter meeting tonight, and while the presenter had some excellent information, only 6 people showed up — the presenter, the program manager, a new guy, two regulars, and me. I thought this was okay because we were recording the event anyway, but I’m sorry to report that I botched the recording. The mic jack wasn’t snug in its socket, so you can’t hear anything.
I walked away tonight convinced that the STC model is broken. In the recent general elections, around 12 percent (if that) of the entire membership voted. I guess this means most people don’t really care who runs what. 12 percent is about the same percentage of active attending members in many chapters. I often attend STC meetings out of a sense of commitment rather than desire. Commitment, responsibility, etc. Huh?
About 10 years ago, I hear the STC had a much more lively, active group. My impression is that the regulars who attended back then have kept up the habit, and show up month after month regardless of topic.
Were it not for the annual conference and the Intercom magazine, the STC would wither away. It needs a completely new model of participation. I’m not sure what that is. Perhaps replace evening meetings with lunchtime gatherings? If meetings are truly professional development, hold them during professional hours, rather competing with family time.
I thought virtual meetings might be a good cure, but after some exploration, I’m convinced that virtual meetings will fare the same or worse than physically attended meetings. People like time-shifted and location-shifted media more than to be tethered to their computer listening to bad audio at an inconvenient time.
Last week I joined in a conference call on talkshoe.com about WordPress with two experts, and was surprised to see only 11 participants. I have decided to stick with podcasts as the best form of virtual meetings. 200-300 downloads is much more successful than a conference call of 11.
While I lament the dying STC model, I also celebrate the new forms of communication and interactivity that have sprung up globally, without the confines of a professional organization, without the hierarchical structures of chapter organization. Without bylaws and elections and committees. I’m talking about new media and the blogosphere. My real chapter, my body of local colleagues, are those in my feed reader.
Sponsors
Tags: Technical Writing
If you liked this post, keep updated with new content: Subscribe to I'd Rather Be Writing.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
3834 Subscribers
Greg DeVore (4)
Mark Baker (4)
corporate gifts (2)
Great Clips Coupo... (2)
mma (2)
Tammy P (2)
Childrens Charities (1)
Christine Astle (1)
Recent Referrersidratherbewriting.comhelpstuff.com helpstuff.com idratherbewriting.com helpstuff.com more…
I’ve been an on-again off-again member of STC since 1998 and I have to agree with you, the model is broken.
I joined primarily to make contacts in the hopes of landing a tech writing job in my area, and also to gain some professional knowledge as I was new to technical writing.
I began with the usual newcomer’s enthusiasm, even volunteering to serve on my local chapter’s admin council. After about 3 years (two of which I paid my dues out of my own pocket, the other my employer only paid half)I became somewhat discouraged for several reasons:
- Every meeting was basically one of two types; either a senior member of the chapter would give a presentation about what they do at their company (and by the way, we’re not hiring), or a sales rep from a software company would give a demo of a tool that was “the future of technical writing”.
- Since the cost of attending a meeting was only slighty higher for non-members as opposed to members (maybe $5 tops) I realized I could get the same benefits of attending as a non-member, and save myself $100 a year.
I let my membership lapse in 2002 due to the time constraints of attending Grad school at night, and only re-joined in 2005 when my present company offered to pay the entire cost of membership.
I got shanghied into serving on the admin council again this past year, and found things pretty much the same as I had left them in 2002. At this point, I really had to question why I ever joined in the first place.
Though I have made some contacts in the local tech writing community, not one of them has ever led to a job. Every job I’ve had since I’ve lived in this area I got through either answering an ad, or just posting my resume on Monster.
To me, $100+ a year for two magazines is a waste.
I don’t know what benefits they could offer to make themselves a more attractive organization. I don’t think getting “Technical Writer” changes to “Technical Communicator” is going to do it.
My .02
I hear you. I am not a member of STC, partially because I don’t think I would ever make it to a meeting or have time to be really involved. I would join if it were a bit cheaper perhaps (or if my company paid for it). Until that day, I will continue to keep tabs on different happenings through my feed reader. Keep up the posting (most of us read much more than we comment)!
[...] The Broken STC Model — and What’s Replacing It [...]
[...] The Broken STC Model – and What’s Replacing It [...]
I joined STC right before I got into tech writing – it provided a few decent resources to get started but I found myself less and less interested in the content. It seemed to me that STC was more interested in writing than writing about technology. This may have changed in the past few years, I wouldn’t know though since I never renewed my membership again after two years. I’ve found blogs (like this one) and websites a LOT more useful (and practical) than my experiences with STC meetings/groups/website.
[quote]In the recent general elections, around 12 percent (if that) of the entire membership voted. I guess this means most people don’t really care who runs what.[/quote]
I was today involved in a discussion on stcforums.org about that very thing. The STC president was suggesting the same thing, that STCers don’t care who runs what.
I’d like to see some evidence of that.
Perhaps STCers don’t vote because they really don’t know the candidates and all the candidates’ bios look professional, so how do you choose?
Perhaps STCers don’t vote because they perceive that it doesn’t matter who gets elected, staffers run the STC anyway?
Perhaps STCers don’t vote because they didn’t renew in time, because voting privileges and renewal do not completely overlap?
Perhaps STCers don’t vote because they believe you can do as much to change the STC by working hard and don’t need to get elected to effect change?
There are lots of reasons why people might not vote for the STC board; why assume it’s because STCers don’t care who runs what?
Cheers.
[...] good article on the state of the STC: http://www.idratherbewriting.com/2008/04/24/the-broken-stc-model-and-whats-replacing-it/ Joel ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Create HTML or Microsoft Word [...]
The title of this blog is, “The Broken STC Model — and What’s Replacing It.”
What is the broken STC model and why do you believe podcasts and RSS feeds are replacing it?
The STC provides RSS feeds and podcasts and Internet-based training. However, that aside, there are many free lists, blogs, and communities available for STCers for free … how could the STC change its model to provide free content and still survive?
Perhaps the actual value in the STC is the grassroots local organizations–chapters–and the in-person meetings that they have. Perhaps the failing is the marketing, communication, and ability of local chapters to get their membership to such meetings. That is, perhaps, the old model. How is the STC supporting that?
So, perhaps the issue is that the STC has stopped supporting its old model without a viable alternative to choose instead?
Food for thought, eat up, yum.
Cheers.
Seans last blog post..Renewal? Why not a Region 1 STC Conference?
Sean, thanks for your comments on this post. I realize that I wasn’t very clear about what STC model I’m saying is broken.
The basic model of each chapter is to have a monthly meeting structured around a scheduled presenter. Chapter members physically congregate, network, interact, and then go home after a couple of hours. That’s the basic chapter model that most people experience. And that’s what I’m saying doesn’t work anymore.
As far as the larger STC goals, the online communities, the forums, and conferences, and the magazine — those seem to still be popular. I’m not saying those are broken. Just the way chapters function.
What I’d really like to see the STC do is record and then freely distribute conference presentations to each paying STC member, similar to SXSW (except restricted to STC members). The STC doesn’t see the business model behind this, I guess.
[...] blog post here.Some good comments too. Not that I particularly think this one post and its replies are indicative [...]
Interesting post. Year in and year out, my company’s management encourages the members of my department to join STC… on the company’s dime even.
Each time it’s offered, I peruse the STC Web site to learn more. I never join because I always leave with the sense there isn’t much in it for me by doing so.
After reading this post — and most of the comments that follow — I can’t help but feel my gut feeling is spot on.
Hi -
I’m not sure the STC model is broken. What I am sure of is this: the web, the ability to publish to the web, the ability to have blogs, wikis, social networking and all the content rich stuff that is available out on the net is putting a tremendous pressure on all associations, including sales associations. And associations are not alone.
Just think think of it: within seconds I can find out a wealth of information about anything at anytime. Why should I make a one hour drive to meet with people I may or may not remember or even recognize to learn something I might even be able to teach? At my finger tips is a reservoir of sheer volume of information to an unprecedented level. How can an association compete with that?
Sales people are being obsoleted by the fact that buyers no longer depend upon them as carriers of information about what competitors or like minded business folks are doing. Buyers can find that all out in a few minutes of surfing.
Informal publishing on the web is often replacing disciplined writing. In fact, informal publishing more or less gets the job done, and some managers feel that’s good enough.
It isn’t just association models that are feeling the pressure.
We live in interesting times.
As an STC chapter president, I’ve been struggling with this question all year. After talking over the situation with the executive, I posted this article on the chapter website:
http://www.stcwestcoast.ca/index.php/site/coastlines_article/stc_cwc_chapter_call_for_change/
Also, I emailed the Leadership council with this article and to say that the Community Model that the STC gives is just too much overhead to maintain.
Wow, Theresa, that’s a really interesting new position that you’ve taken out there. Thanks for sending me the link to your article. It seems that you’ve addressed this issue and responded in an innovative way. Is it working?
I agree with your post, however, I think there are a few things to consider.
1. The STC is losing out memberships to other professional organizations (like the Usability Professionals Association, American Medical Writers Association, and the IA Institute).
2. The field lacks a cohesive mission statment. (I could be wrong on this; I’ve only been in the Tech Comm field for 18 months and have been an STC member for 3). From my experience, I have a really hard time explaining to people what I do. For instance, I rarely write help files anymore, but I do quite a few other jobs that line up with a technical communicator’s responsibilities. However, the standard identity of a TC is someone who writes help files and user manuals. That’s not really a strong identity (considering not everything we write are “how-to’s”).
3. I agree with your explanation of intercomm (I love that magazine); I think it’s really important to realize why intercomm succeeds: it expresses the excitement around technology that other fields (like human factors and interaction design) currently have in their favor.
I think it really comes down to the fact that the field feels like it’s held aloft by academics and old-timers. It needs a fresh identity and fresh blood. I don’t think lunch time meetings will help; the whole STC needs a drastic overhaul.
Anyway, great post. I can’t agree with you more.
-Dan
Well actually, it isn’t ‘held aloft’ by academics, but it could be serious argued on the ‘old-timers.’ Most people who volunteer for STC heavily have been around for a long time.
However, I still argue that all associations are finding this difficulty. Although STC is losing members (Quite frankly, I am not sure that’s true anymore. The numbers appear stable to me over the last 4 years, given a swing of about 10% which is pretty good.), so are other associations. Further, getting people to volunteer to help create and maintain services is very, very difficult to do. We are all working at least one full time job, some of us are working longer and harder hours, with absolutely no room for volunteer activities.
So it comes back that if we can snatch information and/or interaction from our PCs at home, for free, why wouldn’t we?
I think the real pressure is coming from a changing social dynamic in work. It is much bigger than STC or ASTD or ISPI or Writers UA or any association.
Just a thought…..
I agree with the broken model concept, as well as the South by Southwest (SXSW) comparison.
What Theresa, STC CWC president, has done is an excellent way to incentivize the sharing of knowledge. A wiki is a phenomenal use of Web 2.0 within a writing environment, and I wish her the best of luck.
Sincerely,
Charles
Charless last blog post..Whaddya mean, Derek don’t blog?!?
We’re having a meeting in May to redefine the direction. The format/structure isn’t up for discussion – the executive has decided and we’ll move forward with it. Hopefully people will cooperate inside the system. If they don’t, the chapter simply will die because we have no one to support the old structure.
So far the response as been luke-warm and i was advised to run it by the STC headquarters. I sent them an email with the info and said that if they don’t approve, there’s nothing that can be done anyway because we don’t have the resources to follow their model.
The woman who is treasurer might step up into the president role because she sees this as a chance for the chapter to be pacesetters again. I think it would be an awesome opportunity, but I’m so burnt out of this chapter and keeping it moving with about 2-4 volunteers. I’m tired of giving, I need to receive. ;-P
For comparison, this year I’ve been to chapter meetings at STC Berkeley (March, about 30 people attended) and STC Minneapolis (April, about 60 people attended, I was the speaker). I believe that Puget Sound regularly draws quite a few attendees every month.
I don’t think the model is broken…I think it’s just defined incorrectly. One of the most frequent debates I seem to find myself in concerns F2F v virtual locations…I very rarely attend F2F meetings, yet I can be found in numerous virtual locations.
Some members feel that F2F is the most important thing that a chapter offers. Others don’t. The model needs to be changed to accommodate both, and I think we’re seeing more of that now with wikis, blogs, etc. from various chapters (see Theresa’s comment above).
Char James-Tannys last blog post..Dr. Steven Squyres, Mars rovers, and team building
Hey Everyone,
Tara at the Tieline asked me to write an article based on the STC CWC article I put up on the chapter website.
What I’d like to do: take this post, my article, and make a bigger and better article that we can post on the Tieline.
I’ll tell Tara that I’d like to thank everyone who has posted on this blog for their contributions to the article and put your names at the bottom of the article.
Any serious issues with this or is ok to use your thoughts and give you thanks at the end of the article?
Theresa
Like others who commented, I’m an on again/off again member. This year I didn’t rejoin because I thought I was wasting my company’s payment for my membership. I’m too busy to attend the monthly programs just to network, and when I do find the time, the topics are often either non-applicable to what I do or something I’ve already heard ad nauseum.
Someone suggested daytime programs, over lunch maybe. With the price of gas at an all-time high (in the US), maybe a lunch web-based meeting would work. I could see the tech writers at my company gathering for a lunch web meeting, but not piling in a car, driving an hour to a meeting, staying for an hour or two, and driving back. But then how would the STC charge for programs? It would have to be an honor system since one phone call from a conference room could have many people.
The other problem is, though, that businesses, as they try to improve profit margins, keep cutting what they consider to be unessential tasks (like editing). *We* know they’re not unessential, but a cost-cutting company will drop them anyway. And our docs often go out the door so quickly that they’re not of a quality that would stand a chance for an award.
The one bright side to this is that technical communications professionals are usually quite intelligent and resourceful. We’ll figure something out — I hope.
Mary
No one has mentioned the large, virtual special interest groups. Memberships in some of the STC SIGs continue high and some members insist that their membership in a pertinent SIG is worth the cost of membership in STC.
[...] On Tom Johnson’s blog, he had a timely post, too, about the Broken STC Model and What’s Replacing It. [...]
[...] 2. The Broken STC Model – and What’s Replacing It [...]
Tom, you mentioned family time and that rings true with me. I am loathe to give up those precious few hours between work and the kids going to bed to drive 45 minutes and sit in a room with four other people attempting to create meaning ex nihilo. I get enough of that during the work day.
I basically still belong to STC because I think I “have to”. I’m also a member of IEEE Professional Communications Society.
I don’t mind going to a few chapter meetings a year if the speaker is something I’m interested in, but there’s only so many presentations on XML that a person can stand.
I do have a major complaint about the journal. Why do we, as practicing technical writers, accept articles that are only tangentially related to our field, and are written in incomprehensible academic-speak? At least Intercom in occasionally amusing.
Perhaps that’s the disconnect. We have a wide variety of practicing writers with a wide variety of experience. If we knew that writers just starting out had questions, we could answer them. At our last chapter meeting, I was grilled by a woman looking to get into writing, and was able to share some of my experiences. Perhaps that’s what we need more of.
I’m a non-member in Theresa’s region.
When I first started working in Vancouver, I met with various technical writers and always heard about this STC thing (odd that I hadn’t hear about it while studying professional writing). Each time someone mentioned it, I’d ask them: “Do you think I should join?” and every time they would give a wishy washy sort of answer, that was ultimately a no.
Then, I started asking “Do you find any value in your membership?”
And every time, without fail, I’ve gotten the answer: “No. Not really. I’m only really a member because if you are a technical writer, I think you have to be a member. If it wasn’t for that, I wouldn’t bother.”
That’s not very good word of mouth marketing. I’ve asked ~40 different people now, most in the lower mainland, and I’ve yet to meet someone who has any perceived value in the organization.
If you’re looking to do a revamp of the westcoast chapter, I’d start with three things.
First, see what you can do to address this word-of-mouth advertising issue. As a non-member, and frequent potential member, I still feel that I should join, but I am told not to every time I start filling out the sign up forms.
Second, see what you can do to provide value to non-members. I participate in other community sites because they have a low barrier to entry (RE: I don’t have to pay for the articles) so I can test the waters, see if I like it, and then possibly ramp up my commitment from there. If I try it out and don’t find any value, I don’t come back. The ‘High Value’ items w/ the STC are all members only.
Last, focus on your strengths. I think this is what you are trying to do. The organization definitely has some good things going for it — but it’s got a lot of other stuff going on as well that distract from the strengths. Focus on your core competencies, and I think you’ll find the rep improves.
To respond to Dave’s comments…
I agree with the “word of mouth” marketing not being very strong. I think this is a huge problem for the STC, but I think it also shows a lack of understanding of how the STC model works.
The base membership is about $$140 with one chapter or SIG. You pay $25 more per SIG. (This is the new model, before the chapter used to get $8-15 per member; the more members the chapter had, the less money it received per member.)
So of the $100 that goes to the STC Int’l, what is the STC doing with the money? They provide the Intercom and a large bureaucratic structure. What effort is the organization with all the money making to promote the value of the STC?
The REAL value of a membership comes from the chapter, but the chapters have very little money to work with and very few resources. So how is the chapter supposed to create value, offer high calibre programs, promote the job bank, when it has little money and resources?
This is how the model is broken. I totally agree with you, Dave, about the lack of perceived value in a membership. The model is a member model where special perks are offered to members only. You don’t get a preview, you don’t get any access, because that is the model that the STC Int’l has chosen. But then again, on the chapter level, you need to create value, so all those people who don’t perceive value may not be creating any on the chapter level.
There are chapters, the Illinois chapter (and one other), I think, who have opened up all of their website offerings to all website viewers, even the job bank is open to non-members. The Canada West Coast chapter would like to do this, but we don’t have any volunteers to make it happen. Perhaps we can get this started though, since the job bank is the #1 reason people join the chapter.
It’s complicated, eh?
“The REAL value of a membership comes from the chapter, but the chapters have very little money to work with and very few resources. So how is the chapter supposed to create value, offer high calibre programs, promote the job bank, when it has little money and resources?”
Theresa, I think you exactly pinpointed the way the STC is broken. One fact that made my jaw drop last year was the amount of rent the STC staff requires to pay for their Arlington office. Apparently it’s around $300,000 a year. I may be naive, but paying $300,000 a year in rent for a large office in Arlington seems to drain a lot of money that might otherwise be distributed back to chapters.
Last year I attended STC Leadership day and there was an entire panel about what the STC does for its members, so obviously it’s a point of confusion/mystery. I wish I could easily recall what the points were.
Why would you think that if the job bank is the #1 reason to join, then opening up the job bank to non-STCers would promote membership?
FWIW, the Connecticut chapter has never restricted access to its small job bank, which was a specific decision of the BOD.
Cheers.
Seans last blog post..Renewal? Why not a Region 1 STC Conference?
When I was at STC-Suncoast in Florida, we kept the job bank open, but this was an issue that split the membership 50/50. One group wanted to restrict it, the other wanted it kept open. Technically, it’s tough to restrict access to jobs. It requires setting up a password-protected site and then requiring members to log in using their STC username and password — otherwise you exclude people who are STC members of other chapters looking to relocate.
The STC doesn’t have a good way for setting up the password protection technology — at least I could never get it to work. And then you also often have a listserv where the same announcements are sent out. How do you regulate that to ensure no non-members read it? Recruiters often post job ads through more than one venue, so all the effort to password protect the job listings is for naught because sites like indeed.com or dice.com or multiple other listings provide the same content.
About the job bank… I meant that other chapters have opened it up, bypassed the membership model thing, maybe we should do that, would need to look at how we would offer value if we did it, etc., etc.
I guess being a member would then be seen as contributing to an organization that you really like and believe in. For example, Radio Paradise is listener supported, commercial free, internet radio. I can listen forever without donating money, but I really like what they do so I give them money.
That kind of thing. It’s not the STC model, but some chapters have implemented it. That’s all I’m sayin’.
Hi Tom,
Up here in the Canada West Coast chapter we have a similar problem, in that we will be running without a president for the first time in several years. You interviewed Theresa for your podcast awhile back, so you know how solution-driven she is.
One of the models we’re thinking of exploring will make use of the existing tools for Web 2.0 collaboration and community building. By harnessing the power of the CMS behind our website and wiki we can allow our membership to participate online on their own time, rather than make time to attend a meeting physically. This way we hope to encourage more participation related to specific technical areas, in effect, building “communities of practice” around those technologies.
I’ve been administrating the STC Forums for the past few months. While most of my work has been behind the scenes, I have seen and discussed a need for the organization to change their view of the SIGs. As they are, the value of the SIGS is lost, in that the membership communicates purely by email list. Hardly worth the additional $10 per extra SIG over 3. The problem with email lists is the messages aren’t archived anywhere, whereas on a forum the information can be captured for perpetuity.
You can read Theresa’s “Call for Change” here: http://www.stcwestcoast.ca/index.php/site/coastlines_article/stc_cwc_chapter_call_for_change/
Cheers!
-Tony
Ha ha! Sorry… I should have read all the comments before jumping to the bottom. I see Theresa already posted the link to her article. Ah well.
The main point I guess I was trying to make was that if the STC is smart, they will capitalize on the interest to move to online communities. The volunteer base is pushing hard to drive up the usage of stcforum.org. There is talk about hosting the forums on the same server as the membership database, to provide single sign-on and validate memberships.
This move should be reflected in their membership cost-value model.
-Tony
Speak of the devil. My latest podcast is about my issues with STC. I thought I was the only one who anguished over renewing my membership each year. But it seems that I’m not alone.
Mark, thanks for letting me know. I will definitely listen to that one.
I do agree that the model is broken. A while back I volunteered for a special STC PR project. I conducted a lot of research on behalf of the STC, especially as it relates to industries to target for the STC message and how to reach them.
My comments at the time were along these lines. It’s great that STC is working on outreach, but what will this really accomplish? All of the focus was/is on traditional PR channels. The fact is, the PR game has changed. As explained in “The New Rules of Marketing and PR.” http://www.davidmeermanscott.com/books.htm
I suggested revisiting how they planned to pull off their PR campaigns, but was told that they just didn’t have the infrastructure in place to do it.
Now, I’m not pointing fingers or placing blame. All I’m pointing out is that the STC seems very slow to respond to the new technologies out there. It’s changing fast, and organizations that aren’t nimble enough in adopting will soon become obsolete. I’ve grown from my STC membership in the past, but based on where I’m headed, it sure feels like I’ve outgrown them now.
[...] receive feedback on the podcast on a weekly basis from listeners. But given the recent controversial posts on the STC, I thought this email was especially relevant. K. gave me permission to post [...]
[...] the STC Last month a lengthy discussion broke out on Tom Johnson’s blog after he wrote a post about STC’s broken model. After noting continued low attendance at STC chapter meetings, he suggested that the ability to [...]
Yes, the current model is broken. HQ is a bloated PR enterprise clouded in more secrecy than ever. We should have an active presence in Second Life and stop focusing on in-person events. There is little value for the price of membership. The journal has gotten better at providing practical articles; the intercom is rehashed local chapter, low-level drivel and should be abolished. Where’s the STC wiki? Where are the podcasts? Why focus on the BOK like employers will give a hoot? I’ve been in the profession for over 20 years and people are still whining about respect. Maybe we need more seminars on how to stop whining?
[quote=Fran Adams]Maybe we need more seminars on how to stop whining?[/quote] Oh you know THAT will never work….
That’s last comment was not only brutal, but really inaccurate.
There’s no secrecy. Everything, including meeting minutes, is posted on the web site, at minimum. Members are encouraged to attend board meetings. They are not secret. There are some sessions that are barred from general attendance because they are voting on things like awards, and this tends to ‘leak’ before the awards ceremony, so these are secret only until such time as the general announcement is made. In fact, it is fair to say that anything that isn’t broad knowledge immediately becomes broad knowledge in appropriate timeliness.
As for bloated PR enterprise, there is only one marketing person. That’s the whole department. There are a total of 8-10 employees. Where’s the bloat?
As for podcasts…granted some things take time. Members clamor for services, but most services depend upon volunteers, with only 10 employees to provide everything for a 10,000 member organization. Volunteered lately? If you want to start a wiki, and keep general interest in it up among 10,000 members, I’m sure the board will support your efforts.
The focus on BOK is because its in the STC mission. The board asked members what they wanted, and overwhelmingly, they wanted this focus. With ten employees and too few volunteers, there has to be a focus. Wikis probably kind of fell down the list under financial responsibility, and employer awareness. I’m just guessing, and apparently so are you. But the mission chart shows you where the STC focus has to be until things are properly in order (They’ve been out of whack and trying to be righted for some time. When you consider each board has to get up to speed to carry on the initiatives, it is no wonder that takes time.).
It apparent we do need seminars on how to stop whining (such as this post), and how to stop bashing volunteers.
It apparent we do need seminars on how to stop whining (such as this post), and how to stop bashing volunteers.
Blaming the customer or members is not the answer, either.
And, I don’t think a lot of the blame is aimed at the volunteers, but instead the institution as a whole.
A recent decision to mail badges to conference attendees before the conference, and to assign seating at the end-of-conference dinner were made due to popular request. Who is “popular”? Who made the request?
The currently proposed definition of technical writer: where was that discussed. We have forums and email and the STC likes sending out polls–though they often be vague. Where was that definition decided upon? Was it even written by a technical writer?
Etc.
No, I don’t think the answer is to label the membership as good-for-nothing whiners. I think the answer lies somewhere else.
Cheers.
And where in my post did you see me label the membership good-for-nothing whiners?
Let’s at least try to be accurate. Mailing badges decision? Definitely a decision made by the conference committee, and they’d have to tell you where the “overwhelming” requests came from. Part of the inaccuracy here is confusing committees with the association itself, and/or with the employees and/or with the board.
Get accurate, then complain, bash, whine, have a ball.
Oh, and by the way, if a committee makes a decision, even a bad one, the board will support it while they ask for changes. Why? Because there are so few volunteers and its so easy to make a mistake that not supporting your volunteers is a death knell to getting anything done at all.
[quote]And where in my post did you see me label the membership good-for-nothing whiners?[/quote]
Eh? Did I say you did?
Get accurate, then complain, bash, whine, have a ball.
Cheers.
One last thought: The answer is always “somewhere else.” As long as I’ve been around (earth cooled and crusted comes to mind), it is always somewhere else.
The BOK is to try to find the answers. Polls aren’t easy. Pollsters are devastatingly expensive. It takes time for polls to be constructed to get accurate information, there’s a learning curve (I know, I’ve created many). So some were ambiguous, and you might notice they appear to get more direct, lately.
Further, the BOK was developed out of a direct request by members to have more voice. You don’t even want to know what a small percentage of members respond, or vote for that matter.
While ‘the answer’ is relentlessly tracked down, STC is doing what it can, with what it has. Because ‘the answer’ being ‘somewhere else’ really isn’t acceptable.
So, how were the membership involved in these two decisions?
A recent decision to mail badges to conference attendees before the conference, and to assign seating at the end-of-conference dinner were made due to popular request. Who is “popular”? Who made the request?
The currently proposed definition of technical writer: where was that discussed. We have forums and email and the STC likes sending out polls–though they often be vague. Where was that definition decided upon? Was it even written by a technical writer?
It’s fine to talk in generalities. How about those two examples?
I have another example where the Society polled a chapter membership and utterly ignored the chapter’s request to modify a biased poll to return better data.
Look, I’m glad the STC has volunteers. Guess what? I’m one. And, I volunteer at other stuff outside of the STC, too.
But, as a volunteer, I am not going to say we need seminars for members on how to stop whining. Instead, I’d rather have seminars for the Society leaders and staff on how to better consult with and listen to those members whom they perceive as whiners.
Cheers.
Regarding the badges, I can’t say with accuracy what happened. I can hazard an educated guess. I’d guess that at the last conference, several of the overall evaluations came back with ‘mail the badges’ as a suggestion. The committee acted on that input from previous conference attendees, which is normal, I think. Just a guess.
Regarding the survey, again, I’m not sure of 100% accuracy, but my educated guess is that the descriptions were debated at committee meetings, options were presented at the board meeting, so debate and refinement took place, and the question was put on the survey. Note that you are at liberty in the same survey to write an amended definition. Why was this approach taken? My guess, is because it is much easier to get large masses of people to approve or refine something already written than it is to beg to a 10,000 member mass to contribute something written and allow it to be refined by the membership.
The survey is a place of discussion. It specifically asks for input. It is a very good, direct, and almost intimate place for ideas to come in. It’s a pull mechanism. Its a ‘seek’ mechanism. It isn’t a debate mechanism, and frankly I don’t understand what a debate would be about anyway. That’s just me.
As for volunteering, I’m glad to hear it. I’ve volunteered for years, too, and one of the most difficult parts of volunteering that I found is just how many loud voices citing mistaken and erroneous data and calling your integrity into question, not to mention your competence. It is infuriating, and yet as a ‘leader’ you are required to ignore direct shots at you. As a currently non-volunteer, I’m under no such caveats, and I get to call it like I see it.
Let me say I’ve watched years and years of this type of caviling. Every time, when you unravel the threads, the caviling is unsubstantiated. The bottom line is that real people make real mistakes. Sometimes decisions are made that are not how I would call it. And sometimes STC members should be glad of that!! At the end of the day, these are well intended people taking the info they have and acting in good faith. To talk about ‘bloat’ and ‘secrecy’ is sheer ignorance.
Well, I did suggest changes in my response to the survey, so maybe they’ll be considered. I also started a public discussion on techwr-l and am watching the one someone else started on STC forums. Bottom line is, I think when it comes to defining our profession, the Society could have communicated better with more members than it did, I feel. Others might be satisfied.
As for the badges: I don’t really mind one way or the other. It is an issue raised by someone who seems to be a semi-regular conference attendee who was frosted by the change, and it seems it might have been a decision made by few and applied to many without communication. I don’t know that, but I threw it out in the hopes of being shown to be wrong.
Anyway, cheers and have a good long weekend, if you get one!
[...] Broken STC Model http://www.idratherbewriting.com [...]