Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Lessons Learned’ Category

Lesson 54 Rumors are Rampant

Posted in Internal Politics, Lessons Learned, Public Affairs on April 2, 2011| Leave a Comment »

Now that we are halfway through the legislative session, developments in Austin are reminding me of how rumors are rampant everywhere. We live with them in organizations, and we are now dealing with them in the Texas legislature. What makes it so complicated is that they are sometimes only a consequence of the natural communication process; other times they are unethically manufactured.

The House bill in Texas dealing with the need-based financial aid program for private institutions calls for a 41% cut from current appropriations. Some will tell you that this is the way it will come out in the end.  However, we are now hearing from some on the Senate side that the final cut will be no more than 25%.  Still others say any cuts will be for only one year, and by the end of the summer, will be restored for the second year. Each unofficial source has his or her own story to tell.  So, are these rumors natural, or manufactured?  

I am reminded of the exercise I sometimes do in one of my classes where I whisper a message to one student, and then ask that it be passed from one person to another around the class.  When the last  person hears the  message I ask that it be repeated out loud to the entire class.  It’s always amazing how much messages change.  Sometimes they in no way resemble the original statement.

Communication experts often explain how rumors are a natural part of the communication process, and therefore cannot be avoided.  Natural rumors  actually develop in three steps: 1)  listeners can remember only a portion of  each message, and they always select the portion based on their individual special interests; 2) in retelling a message, the portion they remember is automatically given  additional personal emphasis; and,  3) additional thoughts are then added from the communicator’s personal experience.  A message will often significantly change with only one retelling.  But, when retold many times, it can become  a whole new message.  These rumors are both innocent, and natural. 

However, in today’s competitive world, both in organizations and in society, rumors are often used as ruthless strategic tools. They are  consciously manufactured, and relentlessly repeated. The belief is that if they are repeated often enough, they will eventually be seen as true, i.e. “Obama was not born in the U.S.”  Those that recognize what is happening often just drop out of participation from disgust, leaving extremists to win elections and manage our affairs. As professional communicators, we cannot accept this situation as mere clever competition. Rather it is unethical behavior, and in time it will totally undermine the effectiveness and integrity of our profession.

We must, therefore, challenge institutional leaders, politicians, and  practitioners who have adopted questionable communication tactics. The only professional response to rumors, natural or manufactured, is the formulation of truthful, simple messages. These then can be  repeated using interactive tools and tactics selected for each audience. When a rumor is identified upfront, and then followed by a thoughtful statement, the rumor can be bypassed and legitimate communication restored.  We know this approach works in organizations, and we must now make it work in today’s socially destructive political environments.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 53 Timing Makes a Difference

Posted in Integrated Marketing, Leadership, Lessons Learned, Planning on March 25, 2011| Leave a Comment »

I just returned from spending an entire day with the trustees of a prestigious liberal arts university. In the recent past, several of those trustees had suggested that they change the institution’s name because they felt the name was geographically limiting. It was preventing it to be seen, they thought, as a leading “national” institution.  But after getting the results of research they commissioned, and much heated debate, they determined the best course of action was to keep the current name and allocate additional funds for marketing. The university then contacted me.

Frankly, my day there was the best day I spent in a long time.  The advancement committee was energized and ready to get on with discussing how the university they loved could step-up and step-out with new and significant recognition.  We talked all afternoon about brand clarification, and market segmentation, and new media, and research, and planning, and more. The passion in the room was contagious, and I could tell it was about to become a whole new day for this already high-quality institution. That evening, at a very inspirational dinner, the entire board became infected with this let’s “get-on-with-it” energy. 

As I reflected on all this, I remembered the number of times I facilitated the very same kind of meeting with other institutions, but this level of spark and passion was just not there.  Yes, these people would learn something, and some new things might eventually be tried, but it was abundantly clear that after I was gone very little would actually change.  There certainly was no institutional transformation in the wind!  The timing was not right.

It, therefore, became crystal clear to me this week that when the moment for change is right, change will happen with great passion.  But when the time is not right, very little real change will happen at all.  Discussions about needed change, or a crisis, or a serious institutional problem, must take place before I arrive.  Then, the meeting dynamic becomes totally different.  Participants don’t just sit there waiting for me to tell them what to do. They know what they need, and they draw it out of me. The experience for everyone becomes exciting, and being there at the right time is what makes this difference.

I had a similar experience recently with a major association.  In this case, I was  talking with a senior executive in his office about some education issues when the conversation shifted to the organization’s marketing program.  Knowing this was my field,  the executive started asking me questions.  He told me that what they needed was a total culture change, and that he was not the only one who thought so.  I talked with others and could see that this organization really was ready to change.  So by the time my visit was complete, I had agreed to do a marketing and communication staff seminar, as well as a comprehensive marketing audit!  The organization was ready to change, and I just happened to be there at the right time.  Had it been a few years earlier,  change would not have been possible.

My university won the rose bowl this year. Shortly afterwards, a  colleague mentioned that this win had taken the marketing pressure off of us for a while.  My instant response was:  “That is not true!”  The win opened a window, but now we will need to go through that window and tell the rest of our story. Events had created an emotionally charged moment in time, which also created the right time to motivate and orchestrate moving the institution ahead. 

Timing indeed makes the difference. When recent events and conversations have established a readiness to change, the timing is perfect for an expert to help produce  new and powerful marketing and communication initiatives.  This is when a whole new day becomes possible for institutions.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 52 Communicating Context

Posted in Leadership, Lessons Learned, Public Affairs on March 18, 2011| Leave a Comment »

Too often we send out position statements without explaining their context.  This is particularly important for political statements, especially if they are to have genuine credibility and legitimate social value.  

This week I have been especially mindful that virtually all the “solutions” I have been hearing about for solving our budget deficits lack any reference to meaningful context, especially to lessons of past societies.  Without including needed perspective, strategic communication is alarmingly incomplete.  

I observed in previous posts that today’s political communication often amounts to only one-sided propaganda.  Positions on issues are put forth over and over again with the assumption that repeating them often enough will make them true. But when context is missing, and needed, political viewpoints are  just not useful. 

For professional strategic communicators, I have argued that we always have the responsibility to make sure our political messages  are seen in as accurate a context as possible.  Only then will our audiences understand the essential historical and social factors that surround the situation, and can see how they have been taken into account when formulating our position.  Such a position, then, is worthy of serious consideration, and it is socially useful because we have established its’ credibility.

Much-needed context is missing in most of today’s political discourse. The result is dangerous polarization. A few respond to these extremes,  but too many just drop out.  And it is entirely possible that these dropouts will become the vast majority.

I asked my historian cousin to describe his “lessons learned” from studying similar situations over the course of time.  Just what are the consequences of this kind of extreme rhetoric, I asked?  His response was that when extreme political rhetoric (i.e. propaganda), based mostly on ideology, ends with the wealthy allowing the middle class to decline, and the poor to be ignored, the society will inevitably decline. In fact, this is how entire civilizations fall.  

We certainly are not hearing this kind of broader “historical context” addressed in today’s debates over how to manage deficits over time.  I believe, however,  that only  by seeing political positions in the context of established historical realities like this, will our arguments have  real credibility.  Otherwise, we are only simple-minded propagandists, and our society is certain to decline.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 51 Political Contradictions

Posted in Leadership, Lessons Learned, Public Affairs on March 11, 2011| Leave a Comment »

The American Council on Education’s (ACE) annual meeting was held in Washington this week, and as you would expect, many of the speakers addressed the huge issues facing higher education, and the dilemmas we face in trying to address them.

I addressed this dilemma previously in Lesson 46, but I am driven again this week to talk about the senseless contradictions inherent these days in most of our political messaging:

Some give rousing speeches to motivate teachers to higher achievement,  and then turn around and make them hostile. 

Many make statements about reducing costs and restoring local responsibility, but then impose national standards and stiffer regulations…all of which, of course, increase costs!

Much rhetoric is about creating new jobs, but then these same folks propose immediate and draconian cuts…putting  people out of jobs by the thousands.

These “political communicators” operate on the premise that repeating the same extreme view over and over again will eventually make it effective.  But this is not true communication.  It is propaganda, pure and simple. 

The consequence of propaganda is that some will buy it, and others just stop participating . We end up with a polarized world, and no solutions.

Genuine political communication is about better understanding and  promoting  the greater good. It seeks to move audiences toward genuine solutions. It favors practical approaches and simple messages that improve social climate and enable democratic progress, one step at a time.

Propaganda, then, aims only to win big for a few. Communication, however,  expands understanding, accounts for differences, and offers reasonable solutions.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 50 Deficits Can Be Opportunities

Posted in Internal Politics, Lessons Learned, Public Affairs on March 4, 2011| Leave a Comment »

I just returned from the Texas Legislature and am headed to Washington for the American Council on Education’s (ACE) annual conference.  All week I heard, “You make a good case for support, but we have no money.”  And I am likely to hear the same song again in Washington.

It may be much the same even inside your institution.  Your organization may have fallen on hard times too, and you are just told there is no money.  You may have a good case for moving forward, but it is dismissed. The only remark you hear is the one for which there is no argument. We are broke.

In a situation like this there seems to be little hope. No matter how good a case you make for increased support, the answer is the same. I have been in this situation many times, and so today I have been asking myself, “What are the lessons I learned?” 

In retrospect I realized that even in this legislative climate, by continuing to make my case, I have an opportunity to lay the groundwork with legislators for the day when the economy gets better.  If I was impressive today, they just might want to help me even more tomorrow. 

So the lessons I learned are these: 1. First, convey an empathetic understanding of the reality of the economic moment. 2. Then, continue to make your case for the social value of the support you need. 3. Look for changes in the situation over time that may allow some progress, no matter how little. 4. Make a reasonable compromise now, in exchange for a promise of support later.  When times get better, your organization will too.

Bad economic times can really be depressing. But if, in a situation like this, your communication initiatives are handled positively, professionally and with confidence, you will establish a foundation now that will bring you even  more success over time.  In a word: Onward!

Read Full Post »

Lesson 49 People Hear What They Want

Posted in Integrated Marketing, Internal Politics, Lessons Learned on February 26, 2011| Leave a Comment »

A reality of institutional politics is that we generally hear what we want to hear.   Most of us hold preconceived ideas about many issues, and what we hear from others just reinforces what we already believe. 

Communication researchers call this reality “selective perception.” 

Democrats become better Democrats when they hear Republicans speak. And Republicans become better Republicans when they hear Democrats speak. This type of polarization also occurs with many of our issues in the institutional workplace.  An example of polarization is the use of the  word “marketing.”

For many, the word means “commercialization,” and whenever it is heard in the context of the academy, the perception is that the consequence will be to turn the institution into a retail sales organization. The word “brand” is another example of this kind of selective perception. 

In Lesson 48, and elsewhere, I argue that it’s a waste of time to focus on converting detractors. It is also true that some people who have preconceived ideas are not totally committed detractors, and that over time they might change their minds. In other words, they are “on the fence” with respect to their opinion.

We are open to changing our minds when new information appears and begins to confuse us. We then seek more information to resolve this confusion. This state of uncertainty is often called “cognitive dissonance,” and we all seem to have an inner drive to resolve it.

The political strategy in this situation is to raise key questions, describe the complexity of the moment, and then articulate the best alternative solutions… those, of course, that support our objectives. Open forums, staff meetings, invited meetings, and other opportunities for dialogue, can be created for this purpose.

To summarize, committed detractors should mostly be ignored. It is a waste of time to try to convert them. But many people are only “on the fence,” and it is possible over time, through thoughtful, patient and persistent dialogue, to change their minds.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 48 “Grass-Roots” Internal Politics

Posted in Internal Politics, Lessons Learned on February 20, 2011| Leave a Comment »

Today, I met with senior advancement officers at the combined CASE District III & IV annual conference in New Orleans to discuss my new book, Learning to Love the Politics.

Most of us in the advancement professions of marketing, communication, fund-raising, and alumni relations, would prefer to avoid internal politics, but all agree that dealing with institutional roadblocks to our work inevitably takes half or more of our time.

The first step in developing internal political savvy is understanding the larger context of each difficult situation. This involves analyzing how universities are fundamentally different from other organizations, identifying the various types of people who find themselves in academic leadership positions, and then listing the barriers and political situations advancement professionals typically encounter. It’s one thing to know these things, but it’s entirely another to carefully analyze them by making notes and developing action plans.

Identifying supporters, detractors and neutrals is the first step toward action.   Next you gather your supporters and ask for their help in educating neutrals. With that complete, you simply ignore the detractors. The biggest mistake you can make is to try to convert opponents. You won’t be successful. You will waste precious time. And you will make yourself frustrated. Believe me, you can get the institutional train moving down the track without them.

With “grass-roots” tactics in place to build overall support, you will now be able to develop initiatives to address the issues you are encountering with specific administrative leaders, trustees, and others. This will include one-on-one and group education, using “third-party” advocates, and making win-win deals.

It’s difficult to imagine that with all the conferences and professional development programs we have in advancement, we have never really made this topic a subject matter to explore.  The participants in my session today agreed that we need to continue our explorations and my book is just a beginning.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 47 A “Learning” Organization

Posted in Integrated Marketing, Internal Politics, Lessons Learned on February 12, 2011| Leave a Comment »

In his 1990 classic The Fifth Discipline:The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Peter Senge argues that the only way to remain a leader in one’s industry is to learn faster than the competition.  I am amazed at just how much Senge’s work has influenced my thinking over the years.

My interpretation of Senge suggests that inspired leadership involves identifying  organizational deficiencies, learning about latest industry trends and practices,  clarifying identity and competitive advantage, and then implementing an education and training scheme that challenges managers and opinion leaders to “out think” and “out learn” the competition. 

While I was determining how I would approach writing my most recent book, Learning to Love the Politics, I once again came upon the work of Dr. Senge. This book is about how to gain support for a more sophisticated and integrated approach to advancing academic institutions, and once again I encountered the idea that finding a way to “teach” the organization about what this means is critical. 

First, I realised that as a foundation to understanding internal “politics” I would have to describe how universities are different from other organizations. Then, I found I would have to analyze the different types and styles of leaders that emerge in academic institutions, and the specific challenges involved in influencing their thinking.  That led me to outlining some “grassroots” tactics. But in the end there was no way to avoid the fact that advancement professionals would have to find a way to “teach” key people in the organization the basics of what they do.

In the book I use the example of how marketing and communication professionals could go about doing this. But those in other areas of advancement– fund-raising, alumni relations, student recruiting, and government affairs– should also do the same thing. 

Peter Senge made the case to me a long time ago that organizational leaders must systematize internal learning about their own industry’s trends, issues, and latest thinking. Indeed, I have come to believe that it’s the only way all organizations can remain successful.

In Learning to Love the Politics, I make the case once again.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 46 The Reform Dilemma

Posted in Integrated Marketing, Leadership, Planning, Public Affairs on February 5, 2011| Leave a Comment »

After hearing about proposed deep budget cuts in Austin last week, I went to Washington to get briefed on the deficit-cutting consequences ahead of us there! It seems everyone is reform-minded, and everyone has an extreme idea. This all sounds depressing to an integrated marketing professional. 

Most of these reformer’s ideas are based on pure ideology, and not practical problem-solving. Many propose cutting the size of government, favor giving control back to local communities and institutions, but then go on to propose a one-size fits all solution based on a set of imposed national standards. 

All this can sound very contradictory. They want less regulation in some areas (i.e. big business, banking, Wall street, etc.), but then call for more regulation of something else (i.e public schools, higher education, etc.).

The Department of Education is a good example. For K through 12, and higher education, their idea is to set uniform national standards on matters of curriculum, contact hours with teachers, accreditation, information disclosure, and much more. What is missed here, however, is that diversity of systems and institutions is the strength and competitive advantage of American education, and that imposing these standards from Washington will unleash forces that will make every institution alike.

Here is where professionals in integrated marketing and strategic communication have a contribution to make.  Public schools and universities must analyze their specific circumstances and the exact needs of their marketplace, and then use task forces and action teams to find and mobilize the best administrative, teaching, and community talent to find solutions. These people are the only ones positioned to design creative and effective curriculum, teaching methodologies, quality standards, and communication strategies that will meet the needs of their specific students and families.

The best role for a national authority in education is to provide financing for creative experimentation and leadership development. It can also require local strategic action planning, results evaluation, and that all of this be totally transparent to the public. But, above all, it must also encourage institutional diversity in curriculum and methodology.

The fact is that each student has both special talents and performance limitations. One national standard of performance will never meet that need.  Developing individual potential is what education is all about, and yes, integrated marketing analysis can help find much-needed practical solutions.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 45 An Example of Statesmanship

Posted in Lessons Learned, Public Affairs on January 29, 2011| Leave a Comment »

In the last several posts I have been discussing the consequences of state budget problems.  After spending some time listening to debate in Austin last week, I concluded that the way the Texas Tuition Equalization Grant (TEG) originally was enacted is a great example of bi-partisan statesmanship.

Enacted more than 30 years ago this grant was based on a fundamental American idea…a strong dual system of higher education. Early colleges were all private, and when the the public system evolved the concept of preserving a strong dual system became basic to our democracy.

Preserving that dual system is what the TEG is all about. It originally was seen as bi-partisan and non-political. This was so because it both stengthened a diverse group of large and small private colleges while it was designed to save the taxpayer money.

The basic idea was: If a modest grant enabled a student with financial need to fill a space in a private college, and if that grant was less in amount than it would cost the taxpayer if that student enrolled in a public university, then such a grant would actually save the taxpayer and the state money.

As explained in a previous post, today the TEG actually saves Texas taxpayers around $4,000 for each student that chooses the grant over enrollment in a public university.

However, this 30-year benefit to the taxpayer can actually fall victim to the partsian ideology that is polarizing our legislature today. Maybe one day we will return to the time when bi-partisan statesmanship was possible, and America will be made whole again.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »