|
EIA Exclusive:
"We Are a Union Without a
Message”
AFT Employees Reveal Their Innermost Thoughts in Secret
Report on Union Communications
Staffers Speak Candidly and Critically About AFT's
Structure, Culture and Politics
"No one seems to know what anyone else is doing."
"Hundreds of thousands of dollars are thrown in the
trash."
"I have heard bold, outright lies told to large
audiences."
These are just a few of the sentiments expressed by
employees of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). Their remarks were
part of a comprehensive communications audit commissioned by the union to
analyze and evaluate its practices for conveying its message to members and
the public.
AFT contracted with
Cleverspin, a Chicago-based public relations design firm, to conduct the
audit. Cleverspin has worked with AFT before, as the driving force behind
the
union's branding project, which standardized the design and use of AFT
colors, logos and graphics.
Cleverspin began work on the communications audit in
September 2005. Between November 2005 and January 2006, Cleverspin owner
Kris Kemmerer conducted interviews with 103 AFT staffers at the union's
national headquarters, following up in March and April 2006 with phone
interviews of 57 state and local affiliate officers and staff.
Kemmerer presented an interim report to AFT President
Ed McElroy in February, and updated the 174-page report in May. There is
evidence that AFT is beginning to implement some of Cleverspin's
recommendations.
Cleverspin assured interviewees that while their
comments would be culled and quoted for the report, it would be done without
attribution. EIA has obtained not only the updated interim report, but also
audio files of those interviews – with the interviewees' names attached.
After listening to 34 hours of candid conversations between Kemmerer and AFT
employees of all ranks, EIA has determined that no purpose would be served
in identifying the individuals by name. EIA will abide by Cleverspin's
promise of anonymity and will quote staffers without attribution or
identification.
Though the report and interviews were designed to focus
on AFT's internal and external communications, Cleverspin also asked
questions about the union's culture and "tone of voice," eliciting outspoken
assessments from virtually every interviewee. The report submitted to AFT is
divided into categories that emphasize the focus of the audit, such as
Strategic Communication, Print Communications, Communication Structure, et
al. In examining the report and listening to the interviews, EIA prefers to
discuss the results under a different set of headings that better reflect
the general sentiments expressed by AFT employees and affiliates.
Of Islands, Silos and Bubbles
By far, the problem AFT employees identified most often
was that of a disconnect – between management and staff, between affiliates
and national headquarters, between departments within headquarters, and
between individuals within departments. Cleverspin concluded that there is
"a lack of coordination" between departments, and a similar lack of
coordination of activities in the field. The union doesn't have a standard
process for disseminating information, and Cleverspin felt that various
departments "are their own islands," crafting messages for the union
individually.
Cleverspin somewhat understates the feelings of the
people interviewed. Time and again, they used the same metaphors to describe
how things were at AFT headquarters. At least five different staffers used
the word "silos" to depict how departments were operating within their own
structures and separated from outside influences. Others used different
vocabulary, but with the same meaning:
* "Our culture makes us operate too much in the
box."
* "Stuff goes on in various bubbles."
* "Everybody has their own little kingdom."
* "We have all these little islands floating around
in a big sea, and there are no bridges between the islands."
Beyond being descriptive, some staffers expressed real
frustration with the lack of coordination within AFT headquarters, with
several interviewees claiming "No one seems to know what anyone else is
doing." Some attributed this to a "knowledge is power" mindset within the
union, which discourages peers from sharing information with each other. One
interviewee had a blunter assessment:
"A lot of people here, they just think they’re their
own agent."
Grand Funk
Because Cleverspin was commissioned to examine the
union's communications, its report doesn't address the general malaise
expressed by AFT staffers in the interviews. The political realities of a
Republican White House and Congress, with a conservative majority on the
U.S. Supreme Court, has had a serious effect on morale at AFT headquarters.
Staffers had these things to say about the climate in Washington, DC:
* "People on the Hill [and the press] used to wait
for what AFT had to say before they acted, before they put out a particular
piece of legislation, before they wrote a particular piece. They just would
not think of acting without checking with AFT in a certain sphere of issues.
That's not the case anymore."
* "We don't have friends. We don't get tickets to
the inaugural ball anymore. We don't have friendly bills passing in Congress
very often."
* "I think we're trying to remain relevant in an era
where our enemies are doing a very good job trying to make us irrelevant."
Interviewees referred to "losing the battle" and
"treading water" when it came to influence in the political sphere. This
results in AFT and its locals being "always in crisis mode." The current
environment prompted several staffers to question the value of AFT
membership and wonder about the union's prospects:
* "What is there really for the members? What? I
don’t know. American Teacher and the newsletters, that’s it."
* "People are surprised when they get a poll that
comes out that says our members don't even know what union they belong to.
Well, why should they?"
* "I think that the AFT could be facing a very
troubled future."
* "I find it almost miraculous that we have as many
members as we do."
Such expressions of dismay prompted Cleverspin's
Kemmerer to remark to one interviewee, "I feel like I'm watching a
slow-moving disaster."
The staffer replied, "You are."
Quality Control
Complaints about AFT's products and services were
widespread, ranging far beyond the communications sphere. Cleverspin
concluded the main cause was a poorly defined message throughout the
organization. The firm found that neither AFT headquarters staff, nor
affiliate leaders and staff, were aware of the union's priority issues. Of
those that were, "Too many discover the issues by chance," Cleverspin noted.
Cleverspin went around the horn, dissecting AFT's
communications products and services. The Public Affairs department? It has
"a lack of focus." The aft.org web site? It "does not communicate clearly or
effectively on the AFT’s behalf." AFT's other web sites? They "compete
against one another" and "create a gap in AFT's communications." The
newsletters? Their information "is very dated" and their message "is not
defined."
The Cleverspin evaluation, while blunt, again fails to
capture the flavor of the AFT interviews. Staff criticisms ranged from the
quality of the publications to the effectiveness of the union's entire
communications process. First, on the union's output:
* "I think we have a lot of really bad newsletters
out there."
* "I don't like our press releases."
* "The web site - I could go off for hours on - but
it's so backwards. It's so frustrating. I don't know where it would make
sense to the public, and I don't know where it would make sense to the
teachers…. When they launched the new public web site, I was like 'Oh my
God, Oh my God.' They went backwards. Oh my God, they went backwards…. The
navigation is atrocious."
* [on Inside AFT]
"It's always
reworked stuff, you can see it in all the other publications."
* [on American Teacher]
"Those of us
who are paid to read it, don't remember much of it either."
* "I think there are a lot of people who throw stuff
in the trash, who don't read it at all."
* "The
salary survey - I'm not sure that helps us…. It just makes us look like
we're overpaid."
Then, why the output is sub-par:
* "I question the efficiency of our structure."
* "There is a lack of accountability. We have so
many temps and consultants."
* "Primarily it's very poor writing. The writing
skills of staffers have gone in the toilet the past five or 10 years.
Sometimes I wonder if they even read it after they print it out."
* "I think our training is pretty pathetic."
* "Sometimes things are acceptable that should not
be acceptable, and I just find that repulsive."
And finally, the leadership's responsibilities for
fixing those problems:
* "There's no media plan."
* "My sense is right now, organizationally, we are a
union without a message."
* "What is that the AFT really wants us to be
doing?"
* "People don't have a clear sense of our
organizational priorities."
* "I'm not sure we have a defined message."
* "We create a lot of things in a vacuum."
* "I think we have a lot of conflicting messages out
there, and I don't think that does us any good."
A high-ranking AFT staffer interviewed by Kemmerer
commented, "It's every employee's right to bitch."
Who Cares and Who Doesn't
Virtually all of the staffers interviewed expressed
enthusiasm for their job, and generally liked their colleagues and their
superiors. There was some sniping at individuals, but nothing out of the
ordinary for an organization the size of AFT. There is something of a
divide, however, and it seems to lie between AFT employees who consider
themselves professionals trying to do a good job, and those who consider
themselves activists for a cause.
Cleverspin came down firmly on one side of this issue.
It concluded that not all employees were "supportive of AFT's mission. Some
have a job; they are not part of the movement." It may be a little more
complicated than that.
Several AFT employees described themselves and others
at AFT as people who "drank
the Kool-Aid," meaning they are true believers. Others supported this
sentiment.
* "85% of people have a connection to the movement.
15% - it's just a job.”
* "I'm pretty sure half the people believe in what
they're doing. I think half the people working here are just for a job and
don't really care anything about it."
* "I think we're a movement, more than a union."
Others expressed reservations about their colleagues'
commitment, but they seem to focus on pride in their work, rather than
belief in a cause.
* "Unfortunately, there's a lot of staff that don't
give a damn."
* "There's a whole bunch of dead weight around
here."
* "Half of the managers are really good and desirous
of doing a good job for the members and the other half could give a shit."
* "They are paid good money and they're as lazy as
shit."
The interviews contain some talk about the union having
financial difficulties, but few details are offered, other than "management
got no pay raises, which is, I think, the first time ever." Several staffers
cited general waste in expenditures, and the lack of enforcement when waste
is produced.
* "The waste sometime is tremendous."
* "They can even avoid the whole bidding process.
They can do whatever the hell they want. Designers who are bad are kept on
because they're favorites, or there are old favors. Not everything is always
bid out. You can circumvent any rule you want."
* "There is no reward for being frugal."
* "There's no accountability. They talk a
bunch of crap about accountability."
* "No one is really asking those higher questions of
'Should we really be spending money on this?'"
* "Hundreds of thousands of dollars are thrown in
the trash."
Comments like these prompted Cleverspin to conclude:
"There is a lack of accountability within the AFT. If a manager decides not
to follow policies, such as the brand guidelines, print process or
maintaining a separate database, there are no consequences."
AFT employees also expressed a genuine fondness for AFT
President Ed McElroy and the other executive officers. They noted obvious
differences between McElroy's motivations and those of his predecessor, the
late Sandy Feldman.
* "We used to be more of an issues place, and now
we're more of a union."
* "Ed's a trade unionist first."
* "Ed McElroy is extremely concerned about our
ability to continue to grow as a labor movement."
* "Ed's interest is not as much about education
issues."
Their only real criticism of McElroy was that he is
"too camera shy," perhaps due to the perception that "Ed hates the press."
Message Manipulation
"Cultivating the press" was a popular phrase in the
Cleverspin report and in the interviews. Cleverspin stated that "AFT’s
public relations activity is heavily reactive. It relies on press statements
and responding to media requests. Time is not spent on cultivating
relationships with major media." Some AFT employees believe that the union's
external press is purposely designed according to internal headquarters
politics, rather than a desire to get a particular story in the media.
* "We are told to do press releases, knowing they
won't be picked up."
* "(Press statements) are always late. They don't
seem to be keyed to reporters' deadlines. You can tell that every statement
is meeting a lot of needs of maybe people that are in the building, but not
necessarily newspaper readership."
* "Sometimes we put out a press release knowing it's
not going to get any media attention, and we put it out for the members'
benefit."
AFT is an advocacy organization with a point of view to
sell, and it would be naïve to expect anything other than a certain amount
of spin on the issues of the day. Nevertheless, it is eye-opening to hear
AFT staffers openly discuss their efforts to manipulate the perception of
the union in the minds of the public and the press.
* "From my perspective, we should be about
propaganda, we shouldn't be about journalism."
* "I have to step away from looking at the opposing
views."
* "I'm glad that a lot of the interviews I do with
reporters are over the phone, because they can't see my eyes rolling at
times."
* "I have heard bold, outright lies told to large
audiences."
* [on reporters]
"We'll ask them what stories
they're working on, what kind of things are on their to-do list, and offer
to help them with spokespeople, find spokespeople on a certain issue. And
even provide guidance on this stuff. Sometimes they may be approaching a
story on, say, how great charters are in Texas or something. They're looking
at the Texas experience in charter schools. We'll offer some context, as
well as spokespeople on this stuff."
Cleverspin conducted many staff interviews during
January 2006, right after AFT launched its blog devoted to NCLB, called
Let's Get It Right. The blog was generally welcomed by the education
blogosphere, with many citing it as an example for NEA to follow. But maybe
the blog, especially the much-lauded comments section, deserves a little
closer scrutiny:
"This blog is an example, and
[supervisor's
name redacted] just happened to mention to somebody that he knows
teachers, if we ever need teachers to comment on something, to invite
comments and get somebody to respond. You know, here's something on teacher
certification or teacher quality, can you write in as a teacher and say
this, because obviously blogs are half true dialogue and half staged
dialogue. We're controlling things, and trying to, to some degree…. This is
a relatively open discussion, but we want to control what gets emphasized,
and really where the discussion starts."
AFT staffers can be extremely creative, if not terribly
subtle, about how to get the union's point of view delivered to the public.
AFT also represents nurses, and one staffer had this idea:
"I do think there are a lot of things we could do
even with other shows, like
Scrubs. It's all about health care. I think it would be interesting
to try and get in touch with the writer there and say hey could you just
work into one of your shows something about staffing ratios. About how there
are not enough nurses on the floor and it hurts patients. I'm not saying a
really overt thing, but just get it into the show."
Members and Politics
AFT is grappling with the problem of getting
rank-and-file members on board with the union's political agenda. Differing
schools of thought on how this is to be accomplished are illustrated by an
incident that must have resonated deeply within AFT headquarters, because
many staffers brought it up even though it happened over a year earlier.
Cleverspin found itself compelled to address the issue
in this recommendation: "Covering political candidate endorsements in the
AFT newsletters needs to be issue-based, not person-based. What form this
takes still needs to be tested to determine when it is effective and when it
is counter-productive."
That is a vanilla version of a debate that went on
among many AFT employees, culminating in the question of how many times John
Kerry was featured on the cover of American Teacher and the union's
other publications during the 2004 presidential campaign. Apparently, prior
to the election Kerry made the American Teacher cover three months in
a row.
One faction thought this was a good thing.
* "That was a common sense judgment."
* "We tread lightly because we’re in a Republican
state... but we should do everything in our power to PR our endorsement. I
think [our candidate] needs to be on the cover every time."
* "If we're going to be for Kerry, put Kerry on the
cover every time!"
One staffer offered the novel argument that since
teachers were not reading American Teacher, putting Kerry on the
cover was doubly important. Others thought it was overkill.
* "We do get a lot of complaints. People got tired
of seeing so much Kerry."
* "There was a lot of dragging of the feet during
the Kerry campaign, on the American Teacher. It was like, 'My gosh,
do we have to put Kerry on the cover again?'… Our readers are not stupid. We
should give them the facts, and the word we got was 'No, no. I want to tell
them what they think'… We got a lot of very angry mail about that….
Sometimes when you overdo something, you chase your people in the opposite
direction."
* "I don't think our publications should be used to
beat members over the head with things."
There were also differences of opinion about why
members complained about the surfeit of Kerry. Local affiliate officers
explained what happened in their unions.
* "Didn't get anything from [Kerry on the cover]
because too much emphasis on the person versus the issues."
* "Members don’t want to be told who to vote for so
we shifted to comparisons which received a great response."
* "The pushback comes from our lack of educating our
members on the importance of politics and their job."
* "The content with the presidential campaign and
the documents were too narrowly focused.... Let's talk to working families
and tell the story better."
Some interviewees used the Kerry covers to address the
broader question of how politically connected the members are to AFT
headquarters.
* "I know we do tend to piss off our members a lot
when we have too much political coverage."
* "I think that most of our locals don't care all
that much about education reform, or about issues going on in Congress, if
we were really honest about it."
* "I pick up American Teacher, and say, if I
were a teacher, I'd throw this out immediately. It's all political."
* "I am absolutely not interested in the politics of
the organization."
Two interviewees agreed that the members just needed
the information necessary to make an informed choice, but even their
agreement was divided by their tone.
* "We talked a lot about - people are smart enough,
if we give them the issues, and tell them where the candidates stand,
they'll figure it out for themselves. We've gotten away from that a little
bit. We're not giving [the members] enough credit."
* "I know that lots of people believe that you have
to walk this fine line of convincing the members that the union's opinion,
the leaders' opinion is the right opinion, and so you have to act like
you're being bipartisan and everything. Well to hell with that, just tell
them what they need to know. Since when do we need to be bipartisan?"
Well, why are political endorsements and political
coverage so controversial? AFT is a democratic organization. Members,
through their representatives on various AFT governing bodies, direct the
union to follow their wishes, don't they? Well, maybe not, according to one
AFT staffer: "Is it a totally democratic process? No. AFT orchestrates what
gets done."
Fear and Caution
"People who follow this expect us to have a less
kneejerk reaction to certain issues - be a little bit more thoughtful about
what we say, and a little less strident," a high-ranking staffer told
Cleverspin's Kemmerer. It is clear from the responses of AFT staffers that
this is true. They, however, are far less sanguine about this approach. From
top to bottom, staffers seem to agree that AFT is far too cautious.
* "The tone of AFT is ultimately fearful."
* "I think our biggest enemy is caution."
* "I think there's a culture of fear in the
organization. People are afraid to make a mistake. I don't think that comes
from Ed [McElroy]. I don't know where it comes from. It predates him,
certainly. There's a lot of timidity."
* "There are no lines in the sand."
* "AFT is not on the cutting edge. They're not on
the bleeding edge. They're six years behind."
There were many more like-minded comments. AFT
employees like having the reputation the union has enjoyed since the tenure
of Al Shanker as more thoughtful and less reactive than NEA. In the current
political climate, however, AFT staffers feel their message suffers in
comparison to that of NEA, particularly when it comes to the No Child Left
Behind Act.
NCLB and NEA
There was a surprising lack of warm feelings for NEA,
particularly since the unions share three state affiliates (soon to be
four). Staffers scoffed at NEA's downplaying of its role as a labor union,
referred to NEA's message as "kneejerk," and claimed that NEA "is so hated
on Capitol Hill."
Nevertheless, there was a notion that NEA's strident
message in opposition to NCLB was a much easier sell than AFT's.
* "The NEA has been much more aggressive than we
have, really going after the Act. We've tried to take what we consider to be
a more responsible position."
* "The campaign basically started because our
members see NEA shouting about how terrible this law is, and they ask,
'Where is AFT on this?'"
* "There was a lot of disgruntlement about where we
stood on NCLB."
Staffers used one word repeatedly to describe AFT's
position on NCLB, and it's a pretty good word for an intellectual argument,
but a terrible word for a PR campaign. The word was "nuanced."
* "It's a very nuanced position."
* "I think we've had a really difficult time
figuring out what our position is on that. We've tried to take a very
nuanced approach, and there just hasn't been a clear message."
* "We've nuanced the message to death."
Others skipped using "nuanced," and got right to the
point.
* "We have a message on NCLB, but it's a very
confusing message on NCLB."
* "I know NCLB is a big issue, but I don't know what
we're doing. I just don't know. I keep hearing we have a plan, but I don't
know what the plan is."
Interviewees made a lot of clouded references to an
incident that apparently occurred on the anniversary of NCLB's passage in
January 2006. If I've pieced the references together correctly, it seems the
union printed up a ton of NCLB "anniversary cards" to distribute. It wasn't
until the cards were out the door and on their way to be delivered to
members of Congress, that AFT higher-ups caught sight of them and decided
they were too "celebratory" and contrary to the union's message on the law.
Only a last-minute delay in delivery prevented the cards from reaching
Congress. Ultimately the entire print run was trashed.
The Fallout
There is yet no documentation on the amount AFT paid
for the Cleverspin evaluation and report. The union's 2005 LM-2 lists some
of the expenses incurred for the firm's work on the branding project. In
fiscal 2004-05, AFT paid Cleverspin $189,357. It is safe to assume that this
project is worth a lot more.
Cleverspin listed dozens of recommendations to improve
AFT's communications, from design changes to the publications, to merging
web sites and altering the review process. The biggest proposal appears to
be the establishment of a Director of Communications for the union.
The
Cleverspin report invites comparisons to NEA's Kamber Report of January
1997. Though the unions' problems are similar, The Kamber Group was also
commissioned to help generate the new NEA message (which became "new
unionism"). Cleverspin's job is apparently limited to streamlining the
communications structure and filtering out the noise. |
