With the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act by Congress in the early 1980’s, national leaders began to recognize the growing potential of universities to contribute to economic prosperity. In recent years, states across the nation have increasingly pressed public universities to actively develop a “fourth prong” to their traditional missions by including economic development in their mission statements. In some states, such as Tennessee (2003), encouragement of stronger economic development participation through funding has been codified in law. In other states, including North Carolina, legislatures are holding hearings and requiring detailed studies of how institutional programming and direction can be aligned with the state’s need for new forms of economic competitiveness.
Underlying this pressure to shift institutional mission is an internationalization of the economy that has resulted in significantly increased competition, job loss, and structural unemployment. Legislatures face increasing pressure from their constituencies as the permanent loss of jobs leads to community disruption, and, in many cases, high levels of despair for the future. The political environment is such that job creation has become the dominant policy issue in many states across the country. And, with the perceived shift to a “knowledge-based” economy, legislators are looking to higher education as a key partner in re-establishing a positive economic climate.
Universities have been slow to respond. Faculty generally have not seen economic development as a core mission and, historically, many faculty have vehemently decried any relationship between job creation and education. Universities have generally prided themselves on “educating students broadly” rather than adding value by also preparing for careers. Moreover, as has been noted by Duderstadt and Womack (2003), university management systems are not designed for the “quick response” required for institutions to be effective participants in the current rapidly-changing world economy. This combination of institutional traditional culture and structural issues make it difficult for universities to respond to the changed political and economic climates.
There is increasing evidence that the “new economy” will be based on relationships between naturally-occurring economic regions ( Eger, 2003) and world trade patterns, a third issue that further complicates this situation. Traditionally, states and state university systems have tended to create
law and policy that is uniform across the entire state. When the state and nation were the key actors in economic activity, this policy approach was effective. However, under current and emerging conditions, policies that fail to take account of regional economic differences and opportunities hamstring both the state and its geographical regions, and make response even more difficult. With regard to higher education, the need to differentiate regional economic opportunities has been recognized by the National Governors’ Association in a series of “best practices” papers (2003), but in most instances neither universities nor state policymakers have effectively implemented these recommendations.
What is clear from the current situation is that there is widespread confusion and different expectations between many internal members of the university community and many policymakers and their constituencies. At the same time, public support for universities is dependent upon university’s responsiveness to the needs of the people who fund them. In these circumstances, it is critical that differences in expectations be minimized. As leaders in higher education, we therefore need to promote alignment of internal and external expectations with regard to economic development and develop and implement a clear and effective communications plans. The remainder of this paper will focus on key components of communications plans.
Internal Communications and External Expectations. By the very nature of universities, leadership does not involve “command and control.” Many political (and business) leaders do not recognize the differences in structure between private sector for-profit enterprises and universities. The essential feature of effective management in an institution of higher education involves constituency building and effective communication not unlike that which is required of elected officials in political office. As leaders in higher education, it is critical that we take a strong stand in developing the cultural and structural capacities of our institutions to respond to economic development requirements. This will not be a simple process, but there are some key approaches.
Share with internal constituencies the nature of the current economic situation and its importance to their futures. Most faculty members are specialists in areas that have historically had little or any relationship to economic development. In fact, many share a philosophical opposition to engaging in “job training” or in recognizing that their specialties can lead to specific career development. At the same time, studies of faculty interests (Antonio, Astin, Cress, 2000), indicate that faculty interests and loyalty accrue first to their disciplines, then to their departments, and finally to their institutions. An effective communication strategy, therefore, would recognize this cultural attribute of faculty by linking their interests with the emerging need for activity related to economic growth.
- Communications need to stress economic development within the context of the traditional “three legged stool” of the institution’s mission (teaching, scholarship, and service). Economic development activity on a campus normally can be accommodated within traditional categories of work that faculty accomplish. Our experience shows that faculty are uncomfortable with adding a “fourth leg” to the stool, but they are much more willing to engage in conversation if they can see the issues within the traditional cultural framework
- Effective economic development activity will require a broadening of traditional criteria for tenure, promotion, and merit, but higher education literature is increasingly providing frameworks that can be effective in promoting faculty activity related to economic development. During the last decade, there has been significant work on such issues as experiential learning (Hollander, 2000), service learning (Smith, 2003), and engagement. Likewise, Boyer’s (1990) concept of “the scholarship reconsidered” has been widely discussed by faculty. This concept provides a strong base on which to focus discussions of economic development.
- People tend to work on issues for which they are rewarded;communications regarding reward systems are crucial. Assuring that the tenure, promotion, and merit systems are aligned with the need for activity related to economic development is a core component of an effective policy.
- Program distribution, and resource allocation, will need to reflect economic development requirements. It is critical that there be an on-going conversation within the university regarding the importance of distributing resources, in the form of positions and operating budget, to support economic development initiatives. This conversation is important in helping shape individual departmental decisions regarding their role in economic development. Moreover, to the extent that the conversation regarding distribution of resources is public, it is important in shaping other departments’ understandings of the importance of development-related activities.
- Faculty have interests in such areas as intellectual property, technology transfer, and curriculum focus. An effective economic development communications strategy will encourage faculty members to be involved in setting policy with regard to their key interests. Faculty members have interests in many, if not most, aspects of the university, but they have particular, and personal interests in such issues as technology transfer and intellectual property and the structure of the curriculum. For the institution to be effective in economic development, it will require faculty to be engaged in discussions of these types of issues and for them to help structure effective internal policies regarding these and related issues. Communications need to recognize that not all faculty members will be, or should be, involved in economic development. Validation of traditional faculty roles is an important component of the process. Economic development, regional engagement, and outreach are very important functions, but many faculty members will not engage in these activities. It is important to recognize, however, that for an institution to have a strong economic development program does not take the majority of the faculty to be involved. Therefore, it is important for the institution to continue to validate traditional teaching, research and service models. Where this type of communication is successful, it generally helps the institution address key policy issues such as tenure, promotion, merit and hiring.
- An effective internal communications strategy will include analysis of external constraints that limit an institution’s ability to effectively address state needs. As the university develops its capacity to support the state’s or region’s economic development, it is increasingly important that the people who work within the institution understand the limitations that are imposed by external constraints. This helps set the internal agenda and it assists participants in the organization in understanding why certain actions may be necessary and others may be inappropriate. Many strategic planning techniques used in universities include a process for “external scanning.” To the extent that these external scans can include economic development-related materials they can contribute to an effective internal communication strategy.
This general discussion is based on the assumption that a university’s economic development potential can most easily be realized when the campus culture and important campus constituencies are involved in planning the university’s role in development. For a university to be effective, economic development should be linked to the broad, traditional, institutional mission of teaching, research, and service. Because this issue will be perceived as “new” by many internal constituencies, it is very important that there is a consistent, broad-ranging discussion of its implications for members of the university community. A part of that discussion should involve validation of the traditional work of the faculty and development of a clear understanding of the external constraints being faced by the institution.
External Communication.
Positioning the university to address the economic development needs of the institution’s external constituencies is one of the more important, and time-consuming, tasks involved in establishing an effective economic development strategy. We have found that a focused strategic planning approach is most valuable in helping position the university. The traditional strategic planning model is termed an “outside-in” approach since it focuses the university on externally-derived opportunities and threats. The first step in creating a viable economic development strategy, therefore, should involve an extensive “environmental scan.” This scan should focus on hearing from key constituencies and in reviewing textual and other media materials to assure that the institution understands the needs and issues being faced by key constituencies. Some of the more critical questions to be addressed include:
What are the interests, needs, and expectations of various constituencies (political leaders, businesses, other educational institutions, non-governmental organizations, and the general populace) with regard to the institution’s role in economic development?
- Economic development is an on-going process in which many organizations and agencies have been involved. Who are the other key players in the field and what are their expectations regarding the role of the university?
- Legislators and other elected officials have interests in the university’s participation in economic development. What is their understanding of the needs and the resources required to achieve their economic development goals?
- Because economic development is an ongoing activity, there are many published reports and sources of information. What reports exist? How are these reports interpreted by key opinion leaders in the area?
Once there is a clear understanding of external needs and expectations, following the general strategic planning model, institutional capacities must be “matched” to economic development needs. This matching process should involve both on-going discussions on the campus and feedback from external constituencies. This linkage is critical since it will result in an institutional approach to economic development that must then be communicated to stakeholders.
The highest priority consideration at this juncture is the question of quality. As with other institutional issues, any efforts in economic development must be of high quality if they are to be successful. This may well require reallocation of internal resources as well as requests for support from potential funding agents (federal, state, and private). The matching process should involve answering some specific questions:
What is the university already doing to address economic development needs?
- What should the university do to position itself to address appropriate expectations of external constituencies? What resources are needed? How do these actions relate to the perceived mission of the institution? What changes to mission, if any, will be needed to address these issues?
- Which of the needed resources can come from reallocation and which must come from new external resources?
Once the matching process has resulted in a clear understanding of the role the university can play in economic development, it is important that two communication plans be developed. One plan is based on internal constituency needs for information and understanding of decisions being made and the other is for external constituencies. The internal communications plan is a critical component of implementation of the economic development strategy since it clearly articulates for key personnel in the institution which of the possible priorities and strategies are actually being implemented. The external communication plan serves the purposes of: 1) informing external constituencies regarding the capacities of the institution and the role it can play; and 2) beginning the process of seeking resources to support economic development activities.
Among the most important components of the external communications plan is the need to work closely with affected legislators. This is important for several reasons. First, legislators are concerned with the welfare of their constituents and receive a great deal of pressure regarding unemployment and poor economic conditions. The university can be a critical resource in helping legislators respond to the felt needs of their constituencies. Second, it is very important that legislators understand what it is possible for universities to do and what is not possible. Clear communication can help establish realistic expectations for all parties. Third, many non-budget issues are associated with economic development. Many times, legislative intervention is required if the university is to reasonably address economic development needs. And, finally, because of the structure of higher education funding in North Carolina, many financial resources necessary to address economic development issues will need to come from legislative action.
Conclusion
Economic development represents an increasingly important function of North Carolina’s public universities. Clear communications plans, involving both internal and external constituencies, are at the core of an effective economic development strategy. These plans can best be implemented within the general context of the institution’s strategic plan which should focus on matching internal capacities with external needs and expectations.
Sources:
Antonio, A.L., Astin, H. & Cress, C. (2000). Community service in higher education: a look at the nation’s faculty. The Review of Higher Education, 23(4), 373-397. Retrieved on February 2, 2005 , from http://muse.jhu.edu.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton , NJ : Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Duderstadt, J. & Womack, F. (2003). Thefuture of the public university in America : beyond the crossroads. Baltimore , MD : Johns Hopkins University Press.
Eger , J.M. (2003). The creative community: forging links between art culture commerce & community. San Diego , CA : San Diego State University , The California Institute for Smart Communities.
Hollander, E.L. & Saltmarsh, J. (2000). The engaged university. Academe, 86(4). Retrieved on February 2, 2005 , from www.aaup.org.
Innovative state policy options to promote rural economic development. (2003). Retrieved February 2, 2005 , from National Governors’ Association Center for Best Practices website: http://www.nga.org
Smith, B.L. (2003). Learning communities and liberal education. Academe, (89)1. Retrieved on February 2, 2005 , from Academic Search Elite.
Tennessee General Assembly HB1173. Tennessee Higher Education Commission. (2003).
|
