Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Strategic Communication’ Category

I imagine a world where a large number of innovative small colleges become the “boutique agencies” of higher education. They will use the advantage of their size to become quite nimble and highly innovative as they design totally new approaches to address the competitive realities of the future.

Such small, lean and highly creative boutique groups have emerged in the advertising and public relations industry to compete head-to-head with the well established, large, high-priced, high overhead  and cumbersome agencies. In response, small teams of professionals and creatives have come together  with little or no overhead to produce very innovative project and branding solutions, make compelling use of digital media, and serve clients with a price that makes sense.

The boutique college idea came to me at a recent conference as one president reported how she was able to align her tuition price directly with what it actually costs to deliver her college’s special kind of undergraduate education experience. Thus, she refreshingly will no longer be stating a higher tuition in order to maintain a high discount rate.

Discounting is the common practice in all of higher education that has enabled significant financial aid for some… which really amounts to a discount on the price. But the practice has evolved to where it confuses virtually everyone about what an education actually costs to deliver. Now there is at least one small college that is creatively addressing the problem.

Diversity of institutional type has been the hallmark of American higher education. Even so, in this age of intense competition and economic hardships, many have predicted the decline and fall of small colleges. “Boutique colleges,” however, with talented leaders who maximize the creative possibilities of their size, just might be able to show the rest of the world that American institutional diversity can and will  continue to lead higher education into the future.

Read Full Post »

The State of the Union address each January has evolved to an hour-long (or longer) list of every problem imaginable, along with statements about how to solve them which have little (and sometimes no) actual substance. President Obama’s speech this year was no different.

No matter your political bias,  it seems obvious that there is no way the country can afford to accomplish all these recommendations. It is therefore likely that most people will conclude this exercise was mostly just talk. And with such an endless list, it is impossible to remember what the president might really want to accomplish.

By covering so many issues the president gives up an opportunity to control the message you receive. In fact,this kind of speech actually allows you to choose whatever points you want to remember… and those are likely to be the ones that make you most mad! This type of speech, intended to unite and inspire, will  inevitably end up dividing and confusing.

I suggest that next year the president revise the state of the union address format to focus only on a few of his priorities. In fact, it would be best to limit the speech to only 3 or 4 points, with possibly only one of them emphasized. His introduction should focus on convincing the audience that he knows their priorities, as well as their pain. The body of the speech should follow with a pragmatically thought-out plan for actually solving the main problem, with a brief description of how he is addressing the others. Examples can then support these points with credibility– rather than having so many of them come off as emotional platitudes. His conclusion should then be a quick summary, with a dramatic call to action. It’s deadly to sound like you are concluding when you are not!

Days before his speech this year the president said his priority will be to close the widening gap between the rich and poor. I believe it would have been a much more successful speech if he would have focused mostly on that point, made his case with a substantive plan, and then called the country to action.

Read Full Post »

Key Washington legislators are currently collecting the hiring and salary information of recent graduates in various fields of study. Their thinking is that those fields that produce early jobs and strong salaries are worthy of more government support. Other fields are fine, but students interested in them should basically be paying their own way.

Such thinking demonstrates that as a country we are becoming more interested in “how to” training than in educating people to solve complex social problems, create new initiatives, manage complicated projects, or lead cutting-edge enterprises.

Don’t get me wrong, training for new high-tech jobs is especially critical. The declining job market is not a matter of political ideology as much as it is a matter of technology eliminating jobs. Even many small businesses are able to hire fewer people these days as a consequence of technology innovations. Community colleges can deliver that job training, and must. And, of course, many university fields can as well.

But as a nation we also must not lose sight of the fact that a broad comprehensive education that includes the humanities, social sciences, arts, and more, not only prepares people for much-needed  leadership, it also prepares them for their second, third, and fourth jobs. It provides historical context. It teaches past successes and failures. It enhances personal creativity, and thus increases capacity for innovation.  Broad comprehensive education is what builds and maintains competitive superiority in individuals, businesses, institutions, and nations.

A recent article in the UK’s Times Higher Education (THE) writer David Matthews points out that in the past educators in Singapore focused mostly on science and technology research as the pathway to international superiority. But more recently they have added broader programs in humanities and the arts in order to produce graduates with greater capacity for innovation and creativity.

The US is still the unquestioned higher education leader in the world. But current domestic political trends could quickly change all that. Diversity of institutional type, well supported research, and a full array of professional and liberal arts fields of study, have together been the US hallmark.  Just when others around the world are beginning to copy our success, it seems we are now about to dismantle what we have achieved.

Read Full Post »

In previous posts I suggested that countries, institutions and even individuals can best articulate their distinctions by using easy to understand stories, or narratives. They should be inspirational, and as such they also have the potential to become “self-fulfilling prophecies.

Critics suggest that too many narratives stretch the truth too far, and become mere “spin.” But legitimate self-fulfilling narratives combine current strengths, values, cultural traits, location distinctions, and missions into a vision for a bigger and better future. A self-fulfilling prophecy uses current facts to inspire an institution or country to a new and higher level of achievement. Credibility is maintained because the vision is believable.

An America that is truly democratic, with opportunities for everyone, and protects each individual’s freedom has been a credible and enviable narrative for many years. It is inspirational, and promises a believable self-fulfilling prophecy. But polarization, infighting, unsolved economic problems, and confusing international behaviors are seriously threatening the credibility and believability of this narrative.

When you think about it, we all resent it when surrounded by truths that are stretched too far, or hear narratives that no longer ring true. Yet, we still yearn to be inspired by an institution or country we care deeply about. We will accept narratives that stretch us beyond the present. We will buy into exciting self-fulfilling prophecies. But such motivational narratives require consistent and credible champions.

Read Full Post »

News reports last week about divisive tensions related to governance between the president of the University of Texas and the system chancellor increase concerns about the politicization of higher education.  This, coupled with news reports about potential new regulation coming soon from Washington, heightens those concerns even more.

Simply put, the US already has the best system of higher education in the world. Its’ diversity of institution type, wide range of prices, discounts based on need and talent, and program strengths, is unmatched anywhere. And it achieved that distinction through the work of talented teachers, top researchers and imaginative leadership. What happens to all this when partisans start thinking they know better than the best and most experienced experts?

Yes, there are some weak institutions, weak professors, and weak administrators. But from time I spent doing management training, I know first-hand there is deadwood everywhere, most especially in businesses and legislatures. But there is talent everywhere too. And that most certainly includes universities.

Economic realities, new technologies and international trends require the most talented in every industry to lead. Higher education in the US is already the established global leader with the proven  ability to develop first-rate international leaders, conduct the highest level research, utilize the latest cutting-edge technology, produce the most effective international citizens, and ultimately help solve the world’s most pressing problems. This is our narrative, and everyone in higher education must help communicate it.

It would be an absolute tragedy for us to tear apart our hard-earned success through political extremism. Otherwise, we will end up handing over well-established international leadership to foreign institutions… many of which, ironically, are already learning how to do it from us!

Read Full Post »

Only once have I been to South Africa. I visited Cape Town, Johannesburg, and Pretoria, and it was in that period after Mandela retired as president.

I worked for an institution that found its’ struggles to respond appropriately to apartheid especially painful. I was its’ chief communication officer, and a faculty member. And so I listened and responded to both fellow administrators and faculty, as well as trustees, students, alumni and church officials. All had strong and varied opinions, to say the least. And by the time I made this trip, my views were clear. I was squarely among the Mandela admirers.

Mostly I talked with public television producers at a conference I was attending in Cape Town, and with academics in higher education. The producers came from many socio-economic levels, age groups and countries in Africa, as well as from over 50 other counties around the world. These incredible professionals spend their entire lives deeply engaged in investigating social issues and conflicts. The university people were mostly white South Afrikaners who strongly believed in a well-educated multi-racial future.

I asked a lot of troubling questions about what I was seeing, hearing and reading. Why were there still so many poverty-stricken “shanty towns” dotting the landscape? Just how many people still live in this awful poverty? What hope is there for the many gangs of very young children I passed on city streets?  What business opportunities are realistic in this still heavy crime-ridden society? What about all the rumors of government scandals and corruption? How effective is the current system of education? Can it do what’s necessary to meet the needs of a new democratic nation?

My clear impression was that the government was corrupt, and not getting the job done. It was investing mostly in itself, and the bureaucrats in it. While education and business opportunities were topics reported in the news, those opportunities were obviously not accessible to enough people. And the streets remained very dangerous… not just for foreigners, but for everyone.

I was told only to take approved taxis from my hotel, and on my return to make sure that my host arranged the transportation. My academic colleagues were committed to helping build a bright future, but many privately admitted they send their children to school abroad. Everyone on campus was  searched everyday entering and leaving, and they all assumed that their heavily insured cars would sooner or later be stolen.

But twenty-seven years in prison produced a man of clear ideas, firm values, and incredible vision. Upon release he made a life-changing and unbelievably startling decision: He totally forgave everyone who wronged him, from his prison guards to the former president of apartheid South Africa. And he reinforced that decision every time he appeared in public by whom he invited to appear with him. And  later on, he refused a second term as president, which allowed him to rise above the turmoil of daily politics and become the keeper of a much larger and powerful narrative.

At peace with himself, and through the force of a constant presence, firm conviction and message consistency, this icon was able to establish an amazingly simple self-fulfilling narrative… not only for South Africa, but for the world. Mandela simply calls for a multi-ethnic, truly democratic, intelligently compromising, free society. He chose that role of keeper of this simple and compelling narrative for himself, and that decision enabled him to become one of the most inspirational leaders of modern times.

Read Full Post »

While scanning Book TV on C-Span last weekend, one of the authors speaking about conflicts in Israel commented: “We have lost our narrative!” I immediately knew exactly what he was trying to say. And from a communication dynamics perspective he was making a very astute observation.

All those years I spent helping institutions clarify their brand identities I was really helping develop their narratives. I would ask executive leaders to identify exactly why their institutions were founded. I would then suggest that the reason probably was to meet a need that was not being met. This starting point would become their unique competitive advantage, which would also be the essence of their brand identity, and fundamentally their founding mission. Over time, they would add a compelling vision grounded in that mission, and collectively all this would make up their basic story, or narrative.

Individuals have narratives too. Most of us have a driving purpose, even if at times it’s vague and elusive. Authors of memoirs bring a timeline and specifics to the telling of their story, and thus add substance to their narrative. Some are able to add a vision to complete their narrative. Understanding narrative is what keeps our identity and life purpose in tact.

Institutions and countries also have narratives.  And just as the Israeli author observed, we in the US may have lost our national narrative. The very “idea of America” may be getting lost in confused and prolonged angry polarization. We hear angry polarizing voices loud and clear. But where are the keepers of our narrative? Without a narrative we are lost.

Read Full Post »

This is the 50th anniversary of the assassination of JFK. Those of us alive at the time are once again recalling where we were when we heard the news.

I was sitting in a communication class at American University in Washington, DC. The door opened and a person stood there stunned, and then managed to simply say, “the president has been shot!” My classmates and I sat motionless in total silence.  No one, not even our professor, said a word. In a few minutes, one by one we stood up and passed quietly from the room. I walked solemnly out into the fall morning and wandered aimlessly around the campus bewildered about what might be the future of our country, and frightened about what unknown course my life could now take.

In an instant, the world had changed.  Internal unrest and racial divide would eventually shake up our society. The Vietnam war would continue to divide us. And admiring perceptions of this United States of America around the world would never be the same again. The now dominant  medium of television would seize the moment and literally come into its’ own during the next four days. The entire world was glued to a screen, and the power of imagery was inescapably experienced by all of us… all “live” on television in “real time!”

From the very beginning, those of us studying television were asking the question: “Will television eventually bring about a global village of common understanding, or will it magnify our differences?” The Kennedy assassination managed to muddy the waters. In some ways we were one community, and in other ways we were driven apart. In the final analysis, the lesson learned was that the age of imagery, and eventually the age of digital interactive media, was making things far more complex, bewildering, and potentially explosive, than ever before.

Television was enhancing our emotional experience of critical events. I know from trying to produce programs myself, that television “liked” conveying feelings and drama and did not like details. The more emotion, the more the public became glued to the screen. The more information and details, the more likely the public would tune away. What was happening before our very eyes, was the realization that the addictive power of television could be making the world more emotional, and the consequence of the decline of print could be the decline of logic and reason in the world.  Heightened emotions can have community formation benefits. But they also can fuel discontent and polarization.

The years since the assassination have been a time of continuous communication revolution. And what has become clear to this communication professor is that the way virtually everything works changes with each new dominant medium.  Family interactions change. Individual behaviors and beliefs change. Elections change, along with what it takes to win. Government functions and perceptions  change. And even religions and denominations change. There indeed is some truth to the “we are what we eat” theory of communication!

Today we are a global village in mourning over a great leader. Our many thoughts include what might have been. But tomorrow we still will face the complexities and contradictions of how communication media can establish communities one day… and then the next day tear them apart.

Read Full Post »

Last week we talked about how using multi platform teaching enhances both educational experiences and learning outcomes. And we therefore argued that online MOOC’s are most effective when used to enhance rather than replace that total experience.

Recently my wife and I traveled to Paris and Venice to participate in a Road Scholars program.  These programs combine facilitated discussions, individual investigations, expert lecturers, one-on-one collaborations with attendees, site tours, and cultural and other artistic experiences to produce an almost-perfect learning experience.

In my earlier days of teaching television production I remember interviewing people about their “TV vs. real life” experiences.  One example I recall was how one person reported that seeing a slum area of town and images of horrible poverty on TV in no way prepared him for knowing what to do when he was in the situation. Only when he walked through one of those depressing neighborhoods did he realize the limitations of the video only experience.

Videos cannot take the place of walking Paris’s left bank neighborhoods where Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Sartre, Picasso, and countless other writers, artists, and philosophers struggled with themselves and each other to realize their creative potential. One cannot escape absorbing what they were feeling and thinking while drinking  espresso in the same cafe, eating in the same bistro, and having drinks in the same bar where they borrowed money from each other, and doubted they would ever survive. Now add an expert scholar-guide to enrich your experience, and you have the best possible learning opportunity. I know because we prepared for this trip by watching many videos. They clearly helped with our orientation, but in no way replaced the awesome experience of being there.

In Venice we had one of the best scholar-guides I ever experienced. She was a native of the area, and displayed a love and passion for her home and its history and art that was absolutely contagious. She has a PhD, but she also was able to demonstrate a total empathy with how people lived and were governed, how artists survived and worked, and how writers and composers were forever shaped by the magic of this totally unique culture.  This natural teacher could never duplicate in a MOOC what she gave us face-to-face in the ancient streets of this incredible city.

As once again I experienced the power of learning on site, the truth of all this came rushing back to me. Online MOOCs will never replace experiencing centuries old buildings by wander the streets, seeing art of the masters up close, hearing live opera in authentic settings, and experiencing all this in dialogue and spirited discussions with local experts and fellow students.

Read Full Post »

Watching congressional hearings this week I have been reminded of the communication consequences of mean-spirited combative communication.

This is not complicated. When we are aggressively attacked we strike back. When someone approaches us proposing a get acquainted conversation we are more likely to open up and explore common ground possibilities.

The subject of one of the hearings I observed was the administration’s response to the bloodshed in Syria. State Department officials were testifying, and legislators were attacking. It stands to reason that this kind of confrontation will accomplish nothing. In fact, it is likely to make matters worse. Polarization worsens. Colleagues become enemies.

Not only are such hearings difficult to observe, they become repulsive to thoughtful people. Active citizens get disgusted, then get angry, and then drop out. And eventually many become protestors… or even worse.  

When will we learn that not only are we destroying our democracy with such mean-spirited behavior, we are looking more and more foolish to the rest of the entire world?  And who wants to follow an example like this?

This is not political positioning. It’s simply a lesson from communication 101.  

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »