This is the third in the trilogy (the others were posted on 17th December 2015 and 19th February), in which James Cryer provides observations and recommendations on how the PIAA can "climb out of the mess it currently finds itself in."
He suggests how the association can re-invent itself to provide a range of services that better reflect what most members are looking for, and proposes a new board structure that will streamline decision-making and put members back in control of their own destiny.
Being a member of the PIAA reminds one very much of the old cliché about piloting an aircraft: hours of tedium punctuated by occasional moments of sheer terror.
In our case, it's been a bit like that: a hundred years or so of relative calm, punctuated by several months of sheer chaos, destructive influences, bad management and poor board oversight, all rolled into one!
If ever there was a textbook example of how NOT to implement "change management" this was it. In fact, it may have done a favour to tertiary institutions around the world in providing a perfect case-study for future generations of business-school students on pitfalls and traps for the unwary to avoid. So there's always a bright side!
But putting all that to one side, there is usually a quick-fix, band-aid solution (the classic ''lipstick-on-a-pig'' response), or one can search for a deeper, underlying cause, and try to fix it.
We all know the ''rebels'' recently met with certain members of the Board: but that was almost a month ago and our eardrums are still echoing with the sounds of silence emanating from that momentous meeting of minds.
And so, just as nature abhors a vacuum, I will toss my two-penneth worth in, to try and propose an explanation - and a solution - to what an effective PIAA should look like going forward.
This whole episode may be a reality check that our industry, or at least the PIAA's traditional constituency, the commercial offset sector, has shrunk considerably to the point we just do not need a massively top-heavy administration or even such a large, formal national board structure. Several related-industry associations I know service a bigger membership-base, engage in more promotional activities and stage more trade-show events than the PIAA - with half the superstructure. Look at the signage association (AGSA) managed by Michael Punch - and very little else! It runs on the smell of the proverbial oily rag. Same with the newly-created Visual Connections - I could go on.
And Governments, these days, don't take the slightest interest in special pleadings by industry groups such as ours - look at the short shrift the PIAA got when it went to Canberra last year to make the case for lower business mailing-rates. So we can forget about any need to have an industry body that represents our best interests to the Feds.
And so, what have we now inherited, after the recent kerfuffle (i.e., the firing of staff, dismantling of state offices, hiring a PR mob, etc.)? We've got a lot of new people running ''our'' association, who none of us know, and I suspect from some of their utterances, that they don't know us. They send out emails proclaiming some alliance with a ''global provider'' of some service or another, and are hell-bent on offering ''x'' off our energy bill, or ''y'' off our insurance costs. I don't actually see anything specifically related to helping me run my printing business better! It's as if the new regime is turning the PIAA into a ''buyers group''. I genuinely expect to see the next email from them, exhorting people to, "Join now and get a set of steak-knives absolutely FREE!!"
It looks more like an association in search of a purpose, than one actually serving a purpose.
May I propose a solution? I think we ... us ... me ... everyone (even the PR mob), has been searching for some elusive answer to the question: what do we want from the PIAA?
I'll tell you what we want: we want the occasional opportunity to rub shoulders (hopefully that's not too politically incorrect) with our colleagues and other members of the great printing fraternity. We want the occasional opportunity to visit print factories to see new equipment or processes; to attend occasional ''supplier nights'' to see and experience new technology; or to attend the occasional dinner to hear a guest-speaker regale us with the latest insights from overseas or drupa or Fespa or whatever. We could even hold occasional forums on contentious issues or emerging technologies, such as 3D-printing, or nano-printing). And if we're really daring we could hold the occasional wine-tasting evening or theatre-party or golf-day.
And so, you know what's so terribly sad? All these things I've mentioned above - we used to do - but have been put aside in the rush for more sophisticated ''member services'' that we probably don't need or want.
Us humans are herd creatures at heart, we like to meet and rub shoulders with those other ''like-minded'' individuals who populate our industry. We don't want all these fancy ''social media'' offerings that have been foisted upon us in recent months to ''improve the level of engagement with our stakeholders''. We just want occasional - not too often - opportunities to meet our colleagues with whom we manage to maintain (most of the time) a fairly friendly relationship.
Where the ''new'' PIAA, populated as it is with young marketing specialists, has misread the tea-leaves, it presumes we can all co-exist as an industry, without any of us actually getting out and meeting each other in the flesh! I suspect their next step may be to issue us with some electronic device that enables us to send text-messages to each other and avoid the need for physical interaction altogether.
If you think this is being fanciful, consider the following: all the activities that I posed (a few paragraphs ago) I deliberately used, as they've ALL been offered before! Garry Knespal did a magnificent job running GASAA (again, by the smell of an oily rag - hopefully a different one to AGSA's) and held a series of technical forums that were extremely popular and provided the perfect ''excuse'' for us all to get together, have a friendly debate and a meal and a beer with one's mates - and then go home! It doesn't get any better than that.
The LIA (NSW) regularly holds plant tours that are extremely well attended - and are a great excuse to get together, have a meal and then go home with a warm inner glow that you're part of a larger social structure: you got a sense of comradeship and camaraderie that is possibly quite unique among industries. (The building game doesn't have it: they're all ''subbies'' who may work together on a block of apartments - then get fired as the developer goes bust, deliberately.)
The LIA even held a wine-night which was extremely popular (well, we do print wine labels, don't we?), which, again, built this sense of cohesiveness and being part of something bigger, yet still friendly. But again, the LIA, which performs such a valuable role, also (you guessed it) runs on the smell of an oily rag, because it's effectively been starved of funds by the bigger ''parent body'' (you guessed it) the PIAA. The LIA also performs another valuable service, it conducts the annual ''Graduate of the Year'' program - again, run on a shoe-string budget, because ... well, I'll let you guess.
I participated a few years ago in hosting a seminar on 3D-printing which was extremely well-attended - except by the PIAA, who were invited, but chose not to attend. What is it about the PIAA that it doesn't seem to like organising or attending print industry functions!!!
So what's the solution? Dismantle the PIAA as we know it! We only need a general manager and a few staff - and then let it take back on-board the responsibilities for holding the type of functions which I've described (currently undertaken by other smaller, voluntary organisations like the LIA and the JPE.
But, often, we - like governments - search for the complicated, costly and complex solution - whereas there is a simple, elegant one lying on our doorstep. We don't need PR agencies or marketing specialists or even a legal department. (I hear groups like Employsure offer cheaper, faster, better legal advice anyway. Why not give them a go?)
We simply need a means by which us herd animals have the opportunity to meet each other from time to time, swap ''war stories'', ask about the better-half and kids of our fellow competitors and colleagues that we admire but rarely get the chance to say ''hello''. This socializing role of an industry is easy to overlook as it's a bit old fashioned - there must be something more? Discounts on insurance? Forget it!
That's all very well, but how do you achieve this sense of belonging-ness?
This brings me to the second part of my thesis: that as an association, we've become way too centralised. People easily forget that Australia is really six or seven different countries, who all, rather fortunately, seem to speak the same language and drive on the same side of the road. After that, the differences outweigh the similarities and each state jealously guards its own unique character. Federal governments and associations who aspire to the grander notions of ''nationalism'' forget this at their peril! This is where all the rot has set in within the PIAA.
About four years ago, there was a move to do away with state or regional councils and ''nationalise'' the association - why? To give it extra clout in Canberra. (We've just discovered that Canberra couldn't care less!) Another reason was, that centralisation appeals to the control-freaks among us, the bureaucrats, the bean-counters and those whose resume is enhanced by claiming to belong to a ''national'' board rather than just a ''state'' one.
And so we crunched-up and threw away all those troublesome (i.e., parochial, short-sighted, vested-interest) state and regional councils - the ones who were responsive to local state issues and who were well- and personally-known to local members, and who were a focal-point for local members to go to if they had a grievance or to attend occasional meetings on local issues. And in one foul swoop, they effectively alienated all the states (particularly Victoria and Queensland) who felt ignored or unrepresented. (NSW actually felt no pain - and why would it? It was always the unofficial locus of power, with the association's headquarters firmly located in Sydney - which symbolically added to the sense of frustration in other states, that the association was really a NSW plaything tricked-up as a ''national'' body!)
It seems the directors (or whoever dreamed up the idea) may not have been much good at basic psychology. This battle - i.e., the one between centralising authority in a ''head office'' or devolving it out to the ''branches'' has been acted out a million times in many organisations, and it's like a hemline - it goes up and down in cycles. But the trend within modern organisations, or those with good internal reporting mechanisms, is to push the decision-making out to the local branches. Give them a budget and let them run their own race!
That means Queensland could run lots of small workshops if it wants to - and Victoria can hold fewer, bigger events - if it wants to! Who cares what other states do - it should be up to each state to decide how it organises its own affairs. I've researched this issue over recent months and have spoken to many people from various states - and the universal complaint was that they all feel as if any sense of ''control'' over their own destiny has been taken away - and that the national directors (bless their collective souls) are too far removed (or have no idea) of the specifics of each states' requirements.
To me, this is central to the whole reform: appointing local (state or regional) councillors, volunteers who represent the ''grassroots'' members and who know how they think and feel. With the savings made by not having a CEO on an obscene amount of money, we could even pay these councillors a modest allowance, which may in turn attract more and better people. (As I hear so often, we're all ''busy people'' trying to eke out our own existence - let alone run an industry body.)
Let's scream it from the barricades: trust them and give the states back their autonomy!!!
The final piece of the jigsaw-puzzle is what happens to the national Board? Knowing - when we are brutally honest - that ours is a smaller, much less relevant industry than it was a hundred years ago, one could even make a strong case for dismantling the Board entirely. They're a bit like the monarchy - they've been around for ages, and they look terribly impressive when they line-up for their annual photo (published in the PIAA Annual Reports, many of which were thrown out by the last CEO) - but what do they actually do???
Very few of them are known to us and most of us have even less idea what each one actually stands for? Why shouldn't all directors publish a statement outlining what contribution or skills they each bring to the table? This can easily be done via the PIAA website or through the trade press and would sit well with their newly-proclaimed commitment to transparency and accountability! (Although the recent statement from the Board saying they will determine who may/may not be approved as directors smacks more of the Kremlin's version of democracy than Westminster's.)
But the brutal reality is, we we do not need a massive, highly-centralised, national decision-making body - and it certainly doesn't have to meet every month or so. A better arrangement would simply to have eight (''national'' if you must) directors: two from Queensland; two from NSW; two from Victoria/Tasmania (their call) and two from SA/NT/WA (again, their call), which meets three or four times a year, simply to keep a broad over-view on strategic matters (not the rather minor matters that I hear it sometimes gets bogged down in).
We don't need a CEO (certainly not on the ridiculous amount of money the last one was on), an organisation our size only needs a GM who has a strong ''events management'' background. All they need to do is take back from the LIA what they now struggle to do (and what Garry Knespal used to do!) that is, hold regular social/technical get-togethers which would rebuild a sense of purpose and identity, all of which has been lacking in recent times.
And by getting rid of expensive CEOs and other supernumeries in Sydney, you could afford to have a state manager (and maybe even a small team?) in most states. And by reaching out to work with other print-related organisations (such as from the signage and packaging sectors) instead of ignoring them, we may even begin to create a sense that print is not just commercial offset, but these days, it is a whole lot more!
Failure to adopt these more far-reaching reforms is just sticking lipstick on the pig - and discouraging new members from joining and old members from remaining.