Feeds:
Posts
Comments

The Council for the Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) held its seventh annual Summit for Advancement Leaders this week. This Summit, however, would be quite different for me. I was to receive one of those lifetime professional achievement awards.  

I had watched others receive this award over the years and thought I knew what to expect. But standing there before hundreds of my peers I found myself thinking, “How in the world can this be me?”  My mind was racing. “There are so many smart people out there,” I thought. “What must they be thinking about all this?” I became consumed with the thought that I had learned everything I know from these and other colleagues! 

Suddenly I was recalling what I had learned from two CASE board of trustee chairs, one of them also receiving an award this day. I had watched them both pilot the board through a particularly troubled time in the association and it became a very memorable lesson for me in skillful leadership and courage. I had written about leadership, but I had learned the really helpful lessons from them.

Then I found myself recalling when, as a very young faculty member, I had asked my academic dean at TCU for a promotion in faculty rank. He responded: “We better get you tenure while we can… I think you are going to need it!”  He was right. His insight paved the way for a long and rewarding future as a maverick who was destined to get involved in changing how things were done. It was my first practical lesson in strategic thinking and timing.

I also recalled the academic vice-chancellor who knew I was not headed into administration but nonetheless asked me to take a position directing the University’s evening college, summer school, and non credit programs. I had been complaining about the programs and so he challenged me to take the job and fix them. Later, when I went to him with my problems, he countered: “I hired you for solutions, Lauer, not to bring me problems.”  That experience became one of the most  important learning opportunities of my career.

Another major career-changing moment came when a development vice-chancellor brought me into this field, thereby enabling me to practice what I was teaching. It would require rethinking everything in the communication  division. But this would open the door for everything that would follow… my books, presentations, articles, travel, and literally everything that led to this award. 

Beyond those board of trustee chairs I mentioned there were many other strong professionals involved at the time in  CASE.  Talented volunteers and innovation-minded staff became my collaborators and teachers as we worked to bring new levels of sophistication to the communication field. Together we were able to inject strategic and integrated marketing concepts into our work. Timing was everything, and no one could have done it alone.

More recently I had a mentor-teacher at the American Council on Education (ACE) who taught me the importance of  advocating on behalf of the issues that are shaping the future of our industry. And with my academic hat back on, I found new collaborators at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). They helped me conclude that the internationalization of higher education would bring significant world problem-solving opportunities that we had never before even anticipated.

This moment of personal recognition clearly had me realizing that everything I know came from someone else. We all stand on the shoulders of many others, and it is especially during these moments that we fully understand and recognize that it is not ultimately about us. It’s all about our teachers and mentors.

Finally, I must confess that I also wanted to be giving a speech that day about how lucky our young professionals are to be in this field at this moment in time. Our industry is becoming global, governments are changing, and as a consequence advancement professionals are moving front and center in their institutions. We are in the middle of a major “sea change” in higher education, and the leaders in our field will literally have an opportunity to help change the world.

More than five years ago several key members of the board of trustees and professional staff of the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) could see a “sea change” coming in higher education, one that would thrust advancement professionals into a new level of leadership with a completely new set of performance expectations.

This “sea change” is both good and challenging news for the profession. The good news is that new and better rewarded opportunities will appear in the U.S. and abroad for the best among us.  The challenging news is that extremely high performance will be expected which will also require a new level of sophistication and understanding of the industry’s market issues, realities and trends.

Past CASE annual conferences concentrated mostly on the most current fundraising, alumni relations, marketing and communication tactics and cases. However, in order to meet the coming industry challenges an annual Summit was designed primarily to prepare advancement leaders to deal with the issues and competitive realities ahead.

This year’s Summit will kick off in Washington on Sunday. Here are eight “beyond tactics” concerns that are currently on my mind: 

1. How will today’s state legislative cutbacks change our core business, and what are the implications for advancement?  And how do for-profits factor into this equation?

2. How will essential increases in tuition be managed when the public thinks we already cost too much? What are the consequences of the recent questioning of the basic value of a college degree?  And what are the implications here for advancement?

3. How will internationalization effect competition for students, money and reputation at home? Will even the smallest U.S. institution be affected?

4. Are back-to-back comprehensive campaigns sustainable? How do we maintain donor loyalty when every nonprofit in the U.S. and abroad is out looking for philanthropic resources?

5. What is the future of on-line education?  Can it actually save money? How will it affect institutions that already have huge investments in maintaining a residential-based college experience?

6. Where will jobs in the future be found?  What will be the appropriate preparation for getting one of them? Is this sufficient preparation for a lifetime?  And does advancement have a role to play here?

7. What should liberal arts based institutions do now?  What happens to the “education for both a career and for a happy life”  philosophy?  How does advancement help address these situations?

8. Are boards of governance changing in make-up and expectations?  If so how?  Is there a trend toward more financial  risk taking?  Is there mounting pressure for a more corporate style management?  Is there a different traditional academic culture that should be maintained?  How should advancement respond?

In this new world of higher education there is little doubt that advancement will face increasingly high expectations, and will be required to play a key role in overall strategic planning and institutional problem-solving. Those professionals who stay focused only on tactics, even when those tactics are the cutting edge new media ones, will no longer qualify for the top leadership positions, or so I think.  Simply put, the coming “sea change” in higher education is bringing new very complicated, and in many cases institutional survival related, demands.

I suggest that only those advancement professionals who have moved beyond the tactics, and have developed the intellectual capacity to manage critical issues in a rapidly changing landscape, will qualify for taking on these new leadership opportunities. And the annual CASE Summit for Advancement Leaders is the perfect place to begin your immersion in these critical issues and to learn all about these exciting leadership challenges.

My wife and I spent this week at the Chautauqua Institution, a cultural, educational, and family vacation retreat in upstate New York. We had been told that attending one time would have us coming back again and again for years. And I must admit we are hooked.

The main morning program for the week was moderated by Jim Lehrer, retired host and executive producer of the PBS News Hour, and was focused on a review of  all of the issues related to the current presidential campaign. The topics ranged from the latest political poll findings, to the polarization of the parties, to the role of presidential debates, to the future of science and research, to an analysis of what voters need to know.

Only several times was the role of the media itself mentioned. Finally on Friday, Michael Gerson, former aid to George W. Bush and current conservative Washington Post Columnist, suggested that the new media world of 24/7 cable channels, talk radio, and bloggers has created a situation where people can now select only what they want to hear. There are no editors, and no effort to achieve balance of viewpoints. People therefore end up reinforcing their biases and further polarizing their opinions, rather than expanding their understanding and tolerance.

What we need now is a situation where people  become their own editors, and where a personal objective of theirs is to learn from other points of view. They can no longer demonize and treat opponents as enemies. We must find a way to return to the day when we debate during the day, socialize in the evenings as friends, and then sit down and work out our differences in an environment of mutual respect.

At the end of the week I concluded there is much to be discussed about the role of the media in all of this polarization. Do too many of today’s journalists see polarized gridlock as a happy source of ongoing daily headlines?  Should the modern journalist bear some responsiblity for reminding people to become their own editors, and to show them how to do it? In the final analysis, is the media part of the problem, and should we have more discussions on campuses, in schools, and at places like Chautauqua about the psychic and social consequences of media?

The longer I work in the strategic communication field the more I find credibility in a kind of “you are what you eat” theory of how media affects us.

When print was the dominant medium in society, using it caused people to become more rational and structured in their thinking…or so it seemed to me and Marshall McLuhan. But when television became the dominant medium, using it caused people to take on more of its characteristics, and they became more emotional, fragmented, less rational, and more impatient.  With TV came less detail and more drama. Indeed, TV even changed the way we arranged the furniture in our living rooms, thereby changing how our families interacted… or how they didn’t!

Now the new digital media revolution is changing the world once more, and all the basic questions about social and psychic effects are being asked still again. How is it affecting how we think and learn?  Has it again changed behavior patterns in families, and is that good or bad? 

How about politics and government?  How much is media to blame for the extreme polarization we now have in our political campaigns, and in our legislatures?  What impact have these new media platforms had on how governments operate, and on who has the power?

What about the news?  In this new environment how do we know what is fact, and what is not?  What happened to the editors that checked the facts and demanded multiple sources before news was published?  Do 24/7 cable news channels, bloggers, website aggregators, citizen journalists, and social media users merely generate information clutter and create more confusion about what is really gone on?   

What impact has economic cutbacks had on how international events and crises are covered and reported?  Who is really reporting this news, and how is it distributed?  Why does it seem that all of the network and freelance reporters herd to crisis locations, thus leaving the rest of the world unreported? 

How has social media changed the ways nation’s conduct diplomacy?  What is “public diplomacy,” and why is it so important in today’s information cluttered environment?  What can we expect as more and more people inside closed societies find out about how people live in other parts of the world?

And what impact has all this had on institutional religion, on education at all levels, and on every organization–public and private, profit and nonprofit–trying to be understood with relentless data implosion going on all around them?    

Today’s reality is that each person now must become his or her own media editor?  The fact is that we can regulate our choices so as to receive only information we like, or we can achieve a more balanced diet.  It’s now up to each of us to decide.

But does this mean that to have intelligent consumers of media in the future we must introduce  media literacy education in our schools?  And if so, how and where?

These are the fundamental questions I will address this fall with some of the brightest Honors College students we have at TCU. And I will use this new media to bring experts and great thinkers into the classroom from various locations to collaborate with us. Stay tuned, you won’t want to miss the “breaking news!”

Since writing a book about internal institutional politics, I have had many conversations with colleagues probing their deep inner feelings about their work environment and the people they must deal with in order to get the job done. Many of these feelings are subconscious, but they can come to the surface in heart-to-heart conversations.

For example, one executive told me about the guilt he felt when he had to admit to himself that the incredible talent of a subordinate was threatening to him.  The executive was not proud when he confronted the reality that he actually was preventing a person on his staff from having contact with other executives in the organization, and was not approving his participation in external projects. “It’s this guy’s job to put me out front, not for him to steal the limelight,” was the executive’s attitude. But, of course, he was only setting up a barrier that was holding back the career of a very talented professional.

Another person admitted in a conversation that he was fighting the feeling that he was really hoping a colleague who was getting attention for his talent would ultimately fail. This person had excuses for his feeling such as, “this person is getting too big for his britches.”  But the truth of the matter is that this is a classic case of professional jealously.  And the harm done was negative “office talk” about a professional’s genuine achievements. This situation is what reinforces the classic, “you can’t be a profit in your own land,” reality.

Another person admitted that she was doing things to impede a colleague’s recognition because she just didn’t like him. Questioning revealed this to be a common case of personality conflict.  “He makes me mad every time he opens his mouth,” was one observation.  Another was, “when he walks into the room he makes my skin crawl!”  Sometimes a person’s style is a problem for the entire office. But more often than not it is a problem between two people, and the behavior of one of them can become destructive to the well-being of the other.

Truthfully, it’s not unusual to feel unhappy about co-workers’ successes and to have difficulty celebrating their achievements.  Whatever good happens to them can feel like a setback to us. It’s a common feeling that is rarely admitted, and rarely dealt with directly. 

Indeed, most of us are in denial about our feelings, and make up excuses for them if we must. We simply conclude that the person is a selfish corporate climber, or an elitist social climber, or just a plain ego driven maniac.  “He thinks it’s all about him,” is what we say. But the truth often is that he (or she) is merely trying to advance his ideas and exercise a sincere passion he feels for making a difference.

My little book “Learning to Love the Politics,” attempts to look at leadership styles and typical barriers to individual advancement and support, and to propose some ways to deal with them. This book is mostly about university politics, but many of the situations are universal. Internal politics are in fact the big barriers to professional  achievement everywhere, and many people never have realized that they can work hard and actually be penalized for it.

There is no doubt about it, our unspoken feelings can be destructive. Getting them out in the open so we can deal with them is a major step toward organizational and individual progress.

I got into a discussion with colleagues this week about the meaning of the word “integration” as it applies to all areas of university advancement. I explained my approach to the topic this way:

Integrated marketing is simultaneously considering product, pricing, program delivery, and communication so that communication can be effective.  It’s impossible to communicate a wrong product, or a product that is priced poorly and delivered inefficiently.

In fact, brand identify is often the primary product of an academic institution. It is what constituents are actually “buying.” And so integrated group processes become essential to clarify a differentiated brand identity and to stimulate essential word-of-mouth communication.

Integrated communication is using multi-platform media tactics simultaneously to converge intensively enough to cut through today’s media clutter. Effectiveness comes from using only the preferred media tactics of each market segment and age group.

Integrated planning usually results in using both “old” and new media, as print often still serves as the tangible “hold-in-your-hand” symbol of an institution or program while electronic tactics facilitate information searching  and two-way relationship building.  I think of integrated communication as “orchestrated” communication.

Integrated advancement then is the bringing together of all this with alumni relations, fund-raising, government relations, and student recruiting.  A task force composed of representatives of these areas can be used to make certain that the institution’s mission, vision, values, and how they come together in branding themes, are commonly understood.

Confusion and breakdown can also be avoided by implementing integrated advancement. For example, in both alumni relations and development there are tendencies to want a brand and logo for every event and program.  Campaign directors also often think a separate theme and logo are needed for fund-raising to be successful.  Yet, if everything an institution does is really to advance the overall brand, why would any of these activities need a separate identity?  Does this not work contrary to the cause?  Imaginative ways to enhance overall brand intensity can be found through integrated planning.

Ideas about how knowledge in one area can strengthen another are also uncovered through integrated planning. For example, how does what development officers know about building relationships with donors help people in communication with their news media constituents.  When the role of each is better understood by the other new ideas emerge that strengthen the whole.

Alumni relations professionals are beginning to expand their programs so as to function as a “portal” through which all alumni can access the total university for their lifetime.  Development operations are also looking to other advancement areas for help in addressing concerns about donor fatigue and loyalty. And marketing and communication practitioners are devising media platforms and strategies to help upgrade the effectiveness of the other advancement areas.

Integrated advancement therefore is simply using group processes and coordinated communication tactics to speak with one voice.  This results in a differentiated, competitive and effective brand identity. And it’s a compelling brand  identity that enables an institution to achieve its primary goal of academic distinction.

I spent a half-day this week with the institutional advancement officers in the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities System. In the past my impression had been that many state systems were in a constant search for clarity of role and identity. But this week I collaborated with a highly energized group of professionals, and as I reflected on our time together I came to see more clearly just how they might function effectively in this current environment of government cut-backs and public criticism.

1. Who better than a state system can put together an impressive case for state support of higher education, and then to represent it in the legislature with one voice and ongoing persistence? Who better can make an effective case for insuring diverse access, meeting workforce needs, stimulating economic development, researching new products, solving community problems, and much more?

2. Who better can lead the rethinking of core business plans? Cut-backs are likely to remain permanent to some degree. What will  be the new ratio of revenue sources?  What proportion will now have to come from tuition, philanthropy, federal government, state government, fees, etc.?  How can we insure the needed amounts from each source will be available?

3. Who better can coordinate the best professional development programs, and provide access to the best experts in the fields of philanthropy, alumni relations, marketing and communications?  A new level of sophistication will be required in all these areas to meet future revenue and admissions needs, and the system can make sure this is available to every member.

4. Who better can assess the impact of globalization on the institutions in the state and guide a planned response?  Both opportunities and threats will have to be taken into account as a part of core business rethinking.  Does it make sense to have programs abroad?  What is the likelihood of foreign institutions successfully rasing money and recruiting students in this region?  How should each institution respond? 

5. Who better can help clarify where and how institutions can cooperate, and yet compete at the same time. For example, where might institutional student recruiting, and therefore marketing and communication initiatives, overlap? Where might the same donors, foundations, and corporations be solicited by individual institutions?  And what are new and better ways to build donor loyalty and avoid back-to-back campaign donor fatigue?

6. And who better can facilitate making an “everyone on the same page” case for higher education to the general public?  In this age of negativity and skepticism a strategic communication initiative to clarify higher education’s overall brand identity is essential, and a state system can lead the way. Even if a system is not in a “political” position to launch such a public campaign, it might help and encourage an outside group or association to do so.

Indeed, there are many roles for state systems to play in these uncertain times.  It’s exciting to think of the possibilities!

This week I found myself discussing with a colleague the significance of calling on important people in areas of interest just to get to know them.  Sometimes you get a new special insight. Other times you will pick up important information about new developments.  And often this contact will lead to others that can be helpful later on.  We readily agreed that making the effort to get out and get to know key people never turns out to be a waste of time. And before you know it you have a network with which today’s new media will allow you to stay in touch.

Many years ago fundraisers demonstrated for me the power of third-party contacts.  It’s a matter of everyday practice for them to realize that they might not be the best person to call on a given donor for a particular gift.  Rather, a third-party that knows you both very well is likely to make a more effective ask. And so you equip your third-party with talking points and a proposal to make the call with you, or in some cases for you. 

This is not rocket science, but I have found this approach often can also work for news reporters, foundation heads, government officials, legislators, business leaders, and virtually anyone from whom you might one day need help. 

It’s a great tactic for advancing the brand as well.  It’s even possible to ask many of these people a few basic research questions to take back their feedback, or to ask for word-of-mouth support for a special project, event or your entire institution.

These networks can also often lead to productive partnerships.  A great partnership is one where just the association brings you and your organization instant expanded visibility and prestige.  Nothing is more effective than the right  third-party partner. But also, nothing is worse than the wrong partner… one that no one ever heard of or is a rung or two down on the brand reputation scale.

The truth is… it’s all about relationships. The more key people you get to know the more effective you can be in everything you undertake. It’s just as simple as that.

My primary contribution to higher education and the nonprofit world has been to adapt core concepts of integrated marketing to be used as planning tools to strengthen the effectiveness of strategic communicators.  And so I frequently get asked: “Do these ideas apply to just any organization, including businesses?”  And my answer clearly is always, “Yes.”

But as a matter of clarity let me first point out that I still find people defining marketing as selling. It is not. To understand my formula you must see marketing as a way of thinking. And I also find people in the field defining the term “integrated marketing” differently than do I. So there seems to be no uniform definition. 

What follows, then, is my hard “lessons learned” fundamental formula, the core concepts that I think define IMC as a way of thinking. And the formula applies to all organizations, sometimes with transformational results:

1. The very first principle of IMC: Simultaneously consider product, price, distribution methods, and communication tactics, as a fundamental way of thinking about communication strategy. A weak product that is priced and/or distributed poorly cannot be communicated effectively. This  is equally true in the nonprofit, commercial, and public service sectors.

2. Treat the corporate brand as your most important product.  Brand attraction is what establishes trust and builds confidence  in the integrity of your entire enterprise.  It incorporates assumptions about core values and reliability.

3. Also concentrate on sub-brand clarification for the key product/program and service divisions of the organization. Sub-brands should position divisions appropriately to their function, but also advance the overall brand identity.  This requires a relentless passion about carefully crafted and compelling words, as well as creative and consistent design.

4. An essential ingredient is a firm belief in the power of group dynamics. Only “bad” meetings are a waste of time.  Task forces and small groups should be used to mobilize the troops, getting key people on the same page inspired to help tell the story inside and out.  Action teams composed of the best available writers, designers, and strategic thinkers should  be used to implement key reputation defining initiatives.

5. Select multi-platform media tactics based on individual audience and target market preferences.  Then launch these tactics simultaneously to converge intensively on each target.   This is the only way to break through the confusing information clutter of today’s digital media world.

6. Always prefer interactive media. Feedback and response over time is the only way to achieve any level of understanding. Comprehensive surveys can mislead.  But today’s interactive communication is a form of market research that keeps everyone current about what works and what doesn’t.

In the final analysis, integrated marketing brings a broader way of thinking and planning to the profession of strategic communication. Simply put, incorporating this “value-added” subject matter better qualifies strategic communication professionals to function more impressively as a member of the top executive team.

Last week I met with a group of visiting educators on campus to help us review our graduate program in the Schieffer School of Journalism.  They ask me bluntly: What should be the “value added” benefit of a graduate program in journalism and strategic communication?

I confidently told them I thought that the “value added” of a professional school’s graduate program in these fields should be to help the students learn how to deal with the surprising and sometimes frightening workplace realities confronted by professional communicators in all organizations… all of those things we never get to cover adequately in lower level tactics and professional practice courses.

I also stressed that it is likely that these students will need to take more courses related to the topics they will be communicating. i.e. business, politics, international affairs, education, recent history, etc., and to become more exposed to how academic research in the various communication disciplines informs the practical world.  

But my list of the key “value-added” topics related to working in and with organizations includes to learn to think more critically, to manage complex issues, to make strategic plans that actually work in rapidly changing daily turmoil, to negotiate skillfully, to solve difficult problems, to lead innovative teams, to deal with corporate lawyers and management consultants, to manage and inspire creative people, to conduct really productive meetings, to make politically sensitive presentations, to deal with time-consuming and ever-present personnel problems, to make priority budget decisions in a competitive situation, and how to initiate research that actually  informs today’s critical decisions. But the most important topic of all is organizational politics–learning how to deal with the inevitable organizational barriers that can prevent you from doing what you now know how to do!!

Internal politics present problems everywhere.  The students may have actually learned something about politics in kindergarten and elementary school, but chances are they have forgotten all they knew!  And unless they were in that very rare undergraduate program, they didn’t get the refresher course.  So, a graduate program is a perfect place to address the specific workplace realities that communicators inevitably will confront head-on.

What do you do when your boss is actually threatened by your talent?  How do you get support from division heads who want to run their own show in every way?  How do you deal with the various leadership styles to be found from top to bottom in all organizations?  How do you get branding standards successfully  implemented?  Most importantly, how do you get widespread support for what you know how to do?  And the list goes on…

And one more point:  The line between journalism and strategic communication is blurring more and more every day.  Our graduates will work one day writing speeches in the White House and the next day in a news organization. They will use the same multi-platform communication tactics, and the best among them will strive to find and report truth no matter what side of the communication business they are on at the time. A properly shaped graduate program therefore is the perfect place to bridge the traditional divide between the disciplines and explore the full potential of a savvy, well-educated communication professional.