Lauren Y. Walker- Week 5 – Application Assignment
“I don’t have a mission statement. I don’t have a vision statement. I have a conclusive statement, which is: to acquire and maintain viable and recurring fundraising streams” (Ronald Hubbard, personal communication, February 24, 2012).
That response from my question, “what is the strategy of the Corporate and Foundation Relations (CFR) team within Dornsife Advancement,” also set the stage in a few, but very distinct choice and ordering of words, for the ‘strategic communication imperative,’ “align communication with the department’s overall strategy, to enhance its strategic positioning” (Argenti, Howell and Beck, 2005). As I listened to Ron, I realized that his tact with his team illustrates the best practices of strategic communication. He allows the department’s strategy to drive their communication strategy and the corporate and foundation relations team is adept in tailoring communication messages for their constituencies to create a unique and appropriate message (Argenti, Howell and Beck, 2005). Though unique, it is the same message of Dornsife…this is the school where your gift can make the most impact. Had I not known any better, it was as though Ron had read each of our assigned readings and point by point explained how he has incorporated the highlights of each of the articles read, in his management plan. When Ron explained that he insures his team tells the right story, to the right person, each time, every time…seeking first to understand, so that they can eventually be understood, it reminded me of Louis Campbell, CEO of Textron, when he noted, “The only way to show the commitment is to communicate with passion, face-to-face, all the time, with the same message.” Without finding the department in the crosshairs of a credibility issue, part of Ron’s strategy, as well is to insure credibility among the constituents. He does this by managing a very structured, yet free flowing department.
This structure feeds the communication strategy he has internally for his team and externally. There is structure in the sense that everyone in his department has a specific function, from the interns to the executive directors. Each person is responsible for a portion of the communication piece that will eventually be presented verbally or in writing or both to a corporate entity or foundation prospect. Each and EVERY week, the entire team meets for at least two hours, sometimes more, to go present a proposed strategy for each entity that is on their target list. This strategy is designed sans Ron’s input, because in his words, I’m not being paid to do their job. Development officers present their strategy, interns are made aware of new research to gather to complete a presentation or prep for a new one and Ron offers suggestions in fine tuning the package that will communicate Dornsife’s message, if need be. The department’s over-arching strategy drives the internal communication strategy he has, seamlessly, as everyone by design of his structured/free- flowing management style, understands the role they have in the big picture and understands that their work has value.
By virtue of the constituents his department touches, his team also implements the strategies espoused in the McKinsey Quarterly report. As his team determines how best to showcase Dornsife to a corporate entity and in what areas of Dornsife (e.g. labs or marine biology) their involvement could be most impactful, his team, he explained, does their due diligence in presenting to corporations and foundation social issues that are in the news. Part of the communication messaging to the corporate entity is to present them with an opportunity to support and be involved with a program they can get at no other university that they may consider supporting.
Our department also has major gifts officers and a team of administrative staff. I mentioned to Ron that in my estimation, the major gifts officers don’t seem to have an operating strategy, much less, a communication strategy. I told him that I thought the admins don’t have much incentive to try harder because there has not been any communication to clearly define the value of their contribution. He agreed with my assessment. I asked if this communication ambiguity was purposeful, because no communication sends a message, as well. (Eisenberg, 1984) In no uncertain terms, he expressed his displeasure with the entire notion of communication ambiguity..
As it relates to the admin staff flailing in the wind with no direction or purpose…I totally agree with Ron. This lack of clarity is a relational variable that is a ‘poison’ in the office. Upon reflection of our conversation there is one point Ron made with which I must take exception. He hates ambiguity, but his conclusive statement is ambiguous. That vagueness is what fosters multiple viewpoints and facilitate organizational change to better communicate with his constituents. At the helm of a very definitive corporate structure he has implemented, is ambiguity that drives communication success for his team.
References:
Argenti, P.A., Howell, R.A., & Beck, K.A.(2005). The strategic communication imperative. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46(3), 83-89.
Bonini, S. M. J., Mendonca, L.T., & Oppenheim, J.M. (2006). When social issues become strategic. The McKinsey Quarterly, 2, 19-31.
Eisenberg, E. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 227-242.
Lauren, it sounds like you had a very interesting conversation with Ron Hubbard. It seems like in many ways he has implemented an effective strategic communication plan for the CFR team. However, you note the lack of a clear strategy for the major gifts officers, and a lack of incentive among admins due to a failure to communicate the value of their contributions. Did Ron have any explanation for why this is the case? What sort of problems are these communication failures causing? What sort of recommendations for improvement would you make?
ReplyDeleteYou note that Ron's conclusive statement was ambiguous. Which statement were you referring to? In what ways do you think ambiguity is driving the communication sucess for his team?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Jessica,
ReplyDeleteRon’s explanation for why there is no real strategy for the major gifts officers stems from a lack of strategy from the top...the Dean of the College. Xiomara referred to this in her synopsis of the interview she had with our direct supervisor, Wayne Combs. While Wayne seemed to have alluded to the lack of strategy from the Dean in fundraising priorities being set, as an excuse for an absence of strategy among the major gifts officers, Ron used the lack of priorities as a challenge to succeed in spite of there not being clear vision. Xiomara mentioned in her blog that Wayne explained to her that management uses ambiguity as a way to not have to make a decision and "ride the tide;' with the bonus for them in not having to ‘eat crow’, if their strategy is wrong. I view that as a cop out on the part of management and a recipe for communication disaster internally, with admins and results failure externally, as evidenced by soft fundraising numbers this past year.
Ron is in a unique position, because the Corporate and Foundation Relations team is an extremely specialized unit. Their fundraising efforts are quite different due to the entities they touch, rather than individual donors of wealth. He contends that because Central Advancement has no real idea how to manage a CFR unit, due to its specificity, it allows him to capitalize on that deficit, create his own strategy, prove that it works and then go back and say, ‘use this for major gifts teams.’ I agree with the overall strategy his team works under, which is ascertain, develop and maintain viable and recurring revenue streams. At the heart of what makes his strategy work is what Michael Dell said, have a different story for different people, but always provide the same message. Ron guides his team to do that as they develop strategies for speaking to and writing proposals for corporations. Every presentation is different, tailored to the entity, but the over arching message is the same. He does this with research from interns who intern feed it to the Executive Directors who craft appropriate proposals and presentations.
Challenges/Failures: The excuse that there is no strategy driving the work of the major gifts officers because the Dean of the College has failed to express priorities, is just that an excuse. This level of ambiguity places admins in a precarious position of working hard, not smart…always in a reactionary, rather than proactive manner. Every day one admin or another is met with ‘crisis’ in terms of having to generate a report at the last minute used to brief the Dean on messaging he should use to speak with a donor or reporting he must make to Central Advancement. This regular occurrence of “putting out fires” is frustrating to admins, in that they are simply told what to do. They have no understanding of the reasons why and as a result are left feeling like they are but robots, there at the ‘bidding’ of the Dean. They oftentimes can’t speak to the development officers they assist with any real knowledge of why they have been taken away from a task that might actually assitst the development officer in preparing for a donor meeting, because they have no idea, for what reason, there is yet another ‘fire’ to put out today. When nothing is a priority, everything becomes the priority. The admins who assist the major gifts officers have no ownership in their positions, don’t understand how their work is of any value in pushing forward the goals of the department, and as such, have the attitude of “I’m just here to collect a check.”
Recommendation: Ron’s communications strategy of relaying a different story to different constituencies with the same message, that Dornsife provides the unique opportunity to contribute to and positively affect the future of students at a world class university, is an extension of the overall ambiguous, but effective strategy...find, develop and maintain active and recurring fundraising streams. Ambiguous as it may be, it has led to a communication strategy that has yielded concrete results. Yesterday, Ron announced in a staff meeting that his team celebrated a $1M gift from the Fletcher Jones Foundation.
ReplyDeleteI feel a structured pattern of research for individual donors, by admins will better prepare development officers to cultivate relationships and in the process, give admins a proactive approach to assisting rather than a reactionary approach that boils down to working in a constant state of chaos like a robot on fire. In the absence of having priorities, from the Dean, implementing Ron's ambiguous conclusive statement; "find viable, recurring fundraising streams" as it relates to individual donors is not a bad one to consider. At the end of the day, even if the Dean set “priorities,” that would theoretically lead to a strategy, like corporations and foundations under the CFR umbrella, the donor dictates what they give and to what department or program, which is ultimately the priority to steward. If the admins researched the top 50 prospects of their development officers portfolio, made recommendations for a communication approach with said donor, while each communiqué is different, the message is the same, funding the work at USCs Dornsife is going to give you the unique opportunity to be part of world class research university’s future. In this way, a structured approach to completing tasks communicates to admins, their value, their work helps development officers better understand donor prospects, which is the key in being understood.
Recalling in the Strategic Communication Imperative article that communication is an intangible yet critical piece in an organization, I asked Ron, why he thought that in most organizations, communication is the last thing to be considered, and similar to marriage, of which 50% end badly, why is communication always the afterthought. His response, it’s hard. Albeit intangible, communication is a boundary object that illicit the opportunity for change. Most individuals however, are obstinate to change.