Feeds:
Posts
Comments

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.

A large group of students and faculty in TCU’s Bob Schieffer College of Communication gathered this week to hear Bob Schieffer talk about the consequences of the communication revolution. One of his major themes was that in this world of 24/7 cable, blogs, and social media, it’s possible to surround yourself with information based only on your own personal biases. And what’s frightening is that it’s possible to do that without realizing what you are doing. Schieffer’s point simply was that if you don’t take the initiative to hear the other side, you are not getting the all the essential facts.

In my work over the years, I have found that selective processes work in many ways in many situations. For example, institutional executives often become insulated because they get their information solely from people in their inner circle. These people tell executives, and even lower level managers, pretty much only what they want them to hear, or what they think the “bosses” expect to hear. Often it is not the whole story.

We tend to create information “bubbles” around us, and then think we are fully informed. Bob Schieffer’s message essentially was that in today’s information-saturated world, each of us must become our own editor. We must seek out various sources of information, ask whether or not the information is one-sided (or even true), and then act cautiously on the information we come to trust over time.

I continually ask my students if they think we should be teaching “media literacy” as  a subject of study in schools?  Should there be an entire course on understanding how media changes the way things work, and how to become your own editor?  Should it be required?  At what grade level should it be offered? How about offering such a course open to everyone at the university level?

Last week I argued in this blog that the internationalization of higher education has the potential to develop truly global leaders and citizens, enhance cross-cultural understanding, and solve world problems. This week I add: Should becoming an intelligent and skilled editor of confusing and contradictory information be a requirement for a truly global education?

My interests have evolved over the years.  As a young radio and television producer, and soon-to-become professor, I focused my thinking on understanding media. Soon, however, I shifted to helping organizations communicate more effectively, and eventually found myself focusing on universities. This challenge led me to bringing the subject matters of marketing and group process into the strategic communication field… and eventually writing about it as one of the early pioneers of “integrated marketing.”

Currently I am intrigued with rethinking the psychic and social consequences of media, and the implications for advancing institutions. I am also especially interested in how communication technology and the globalization of higher education are coming together with compelling new future problem-solving possibilities.  These range from developing truly international leaders and citizens, to addressing cross cultural conflicts, to using research and topic experts to help solve serious global problems, to responding to concerns about higher education’s continuing relevance as it currently is configured.

Beginning today I will focus more of my posts on the future of higher education as it evolves into a truly global industry. Delivery formats, international communication, digital technology, and even foreign policy, will not escape examination. For all of these will have to converge and change if we are to shape a better world  for tomorrow.

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.

“I resolve that I will lose 25 pounds this year, and become a better person.” Good luck with that! Wishful thinking resolutions can be fun at parties. But a new year is also a great time to take stock of previous accomplishments, and to think realistically about coming year possibilities.

What can be accomplished in the next year that is both realistic and challenging? And at the same time, how can your sensitivities be heightened so you don’t miss unanticipated opportunities?

As a teenager I was advised to determine where I wanted to be in 5 years and to plan exactly what I needed to do to get there. I was told that without a map I would have no direction. But I had no basis on which to draw a map. So I found author Joseph Campbell more helpful. He advised simply to “follow your bliss.”  The most reliable path to personal happiness, he believed, is to get better and better at doing those things which bring you the most satisfaction.

In my own experience with students and colleagues, I found that those who identified and developed their most fundamental talents, and never got diverted by unrelated goals, eventually became the most successful. Their plans largely were based on developing their talents. And for most of them, unimagined opportunities appeared along the way.

And so I suggest in 2014 you consider fine-tuning your talents. Identify what worked in 2013, and do it even better in 2014. Top talent, plus hard work, enhances luck… every time!

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.

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!

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.

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.

It should not be surprising that events in Washington have me thinking about leadership! As a result I am developing an outline for a new course in the TCU honor’s college. My working title is: “The Essential Communication Dimensions of Leadership.” And somehow this Thanksgiving week has me also thinking about how the concept of  “thankfulness” might actually factor into my communication-centered approach to this subject.

To be sure, leadership has many communication dimensions: Planning messages and tactics; assessing audience needs; chairing meetings; managing group process, using multimedia; dealing with journalists; handling sensitive issues; managing crises and conflict; inspiring essential support; dealing with internal politics; developing a personal leadership identity; and on and on. Indeed, communication savvy and skills are key components of a leader’s success. But it was this last topic, “a personal leadership identity,” that leaped out to me as I pondered the meaning of the Thanksgiving holiday.

If you listen carefully to a would-be leader’s rhetoric you can tell who is and who is not a phony. Some are too focused on themselves to express thanks for the system that enables their success. They never think to describe the beauty of a democracy where all ideas must be freely expressed and examined. Rather their talk is about themselves.

Self-centered rhetoric quickly becomes negative. It eventually attacks others and focuses on destroying rather than building. In the end, it’s all about personal attention and cleverness… and never pauses long enough to say thanks for a diverse world of great ideas.

Worthy leaders will always express thanks for our unique democratic process. These leaders are the ones who add value because they have a clear positive mission and goals beyond themselves. They do not attack, but rather choose to put forth well thought-out ideas and programs. They find genuine solutions rather than focus on the destruction of what exists.

And what’s more, the most worthy leaders will actually be thankful for their “loyal opposition.”  This is because they understand that it’s this incredibly diverse democratic system of ours that makes our one-of-a-kind life and culture possible. It’s precisely because we can embrace so many different ideas simultaneously that we have the abundant freedom and opportunities that we do. Self-serving phonies forget this, but the rest of us must not.