grundyhome.com

In higher education, marketing is a dirty word.

Some faculty members believe that self-promotion is offensive to their intellectual, academic pursuits. What these purists don’t realize is that they’ve been marketing for their entire careers. They do this through the normal course of their job.

Eleven Ways Faculty Members Market Themselves

11. Applying for research grants

10. Serving on committees

9. Joining professional associations

8. Editing or reviewing for journals

7. Running joint research projects

6. Going to conferences

5. Using their own textbooks

4. Presenting at conferences

3. Hosting or moderating symposia

2. Giving interviews with the media

1. Publishing, publishing, publishing

Faculty members aren’t just marketing for themselves, either – they’re marketing for their employers. Schools rely on faculty members to spread the word (after all, how else will they get funding or publish?) which benefits the schools. It’s symbiotic, and it’s certainly not evil.

Marketing covers a wide range of activities, and most people have a narrow understanding of it. Marketing isn’t advertising, it’s not press releases, it’s not packaging, brochures, or websites. It’s all of these things, and much more. Marketing is about creating value, developing an identity, establishing awareness, and selling a product. Marketing permeates all facets of an organization.

• This post assumes that you are already a Ph.D. and have a tenure-track job somewhere.

Lately, there’s been a lot of talk in our office about working from home. On one hand, there’s the belief that our work can be done at any time and from any location. On the other hand, that has an effect on how easily we can manage our teams, schedule meetings, etc. I am a proponent of remote working: partly because I commute 45 minutes each way and partly because I’m more productive when I’m away from the office.

In the Chronicle of Higher Education, Mark J. Drozdowski writes about working from home as a fundraiser and manager. He lays out some of the pros and cons of this and I want to share these.

What’s more important than results?

As Mark writes in the Chronicle, working from home requires that we admit that our notions of productivity are too dependent on presenteeism.

Eventually, the numbers I generate will dictate success or failure…If they’re getting their jobs done, why worry about the process?

Best Buy has developed the Results-Only Work Environment intended to reduce the workaholic attitude that more hours is better. They’ve had tremendous success with this and it’s gotten a lot of attention:

ROWE stands for Results-Only Work Environment. In a ROWE, each person is free to do whatever they want, whenever they want, as long as the work gets done. Currently, there are two authentic ROWEs—Fortune 100 retailer Best Buy Co, Inc. and J. A. Counter & Associates, a small brokerage firm in New Richmond, WI. At both organizations, the old rules that govern a traditional work environment—core hours, “face time,” pointless meetings, etc.—have been replaced by one rule: focus only on results.

In a service-oriented business, customer service is a huge part of your success. This doesn’t have to take a hit, but you have to be prepared for how it will affect your service levels. Face time has a lot of value, but that also has a lot of costs. Use it wisely.

Yes, sometimes you need to be present.

This is the big discussion in our office. In an emergency, remote working made it difficult to contact some of our staff (myself included). The issue is the breakdown in communication, not the remote working. I could just as easily have been in a client meeting and out of reach. The answer here is protocol and preparedness, not presenteeism.

Mark, again:

My management responsibilities require me to interact more frequently with people on the campus, to put out fires, to slog through budgets and piles of paperwork. That part of the job keeps me campus-bound. Were I an untethered major-gifts officer, however, the duties for which I actually needed to work on the campus would be minimal.

But it attracts talent.

Top talent have a lot of options, which means there are more factors to consider. You can’t possibly compete across the board in all factors, so it’s important to look for the factors that matter the most to employees and work on those. Money is an obvious factor, but for many it’s not the most important; and some factors are very inexpensive. Telecommuting costs very little and matters a lot.

Mark continues:

Imagine a job candidate weighing two offers. One university will furnish a nice office, a computer, a phone, and other supplies necessary for the job. But you have to come in every day unless you are on the road. The other university will furnish the same items, but will allow you to fashion a home office and will require your physical presence on the campus only when necessary. Money being the same, which option is more attractive?

So what’s stopping you?

Mark concludes:

Fund raisers don’t work 9 to 5, so why make them conform to an office culture based on that schedule? Perhaps that’s why some leave for consulting gigs, which often let them live anywhere and travel when necessary. Given similar freedom from a university, might they stay?

I imagine insecurities and a perceived loss of control will prevent this notion from gaining traction. Or maybe managers simply don’t trust employees enough to free them from office shackles. But the practice is out there in other fields, and it’s certainly a growing trend. Don’t be surprised when it begins to trickle into our lives as well.

There are valid concerns about working from home, but these usually come back to management: define the criteria for performance management, establish results and goals for the employees, and create protocols for how you handle the absolutely necessary in-person time. As Mark said, these are insecurities of management, not employees. If you don’t trust your employees to get the work done, why would you hire them in the first place? There are so many benefits to working remotely that it’s worth the extra effort for management to overcome any downsides.

The customer is not always right. In fact, the customer is more often than not very wrong and has no clue what he’s doing.

This isn’t ego, it’s simple truth: you probably know your product better than your customer does. After all, you’re the expert, right?

A customer walks into a shop to buy a chainsaw. He is met by a salesperson, who may ask a series of questions and offer advice on the right product to fit the customer’s needs. How often do you cut wood? How big are the trees you intend to cut? And so on.

But sometimes, the salesperson won’t care what the customer needs and will simply try to sell the biggest, most expensive chainsaw available. Then he also tries to sell him attachments he doesn’t need, a service plan he doesn’t want, and a DVD set of “Ax Men,” which he doesn’t want to watch. He’s not a logger, he’s just a guy with a couple of trees to chop up each year.

The customer know this game. He wants to spend as little as possible to get the job done. He’s on defense, trying to keep from being ripped off or unnecessarily upsold. Sometimes, he will buy the cheapest product possible, even if it doesn’t meet his needs.

The good salesperson understands this dilemma and works his tail off to help the customer understand the decision and come to the right conclusion – even if it means not making as much money on this sale.

This is where the fight starts.

What it means to be an expert

In the web industry, like so many others, everyone has some experience with the product. The result is that everyone has an opinion about what makes a good website. And that’s when your job gets tough.

I know a lot of arrogant designers and cocky developers (it takes one to know one, to be sure). Often, there’s an underlying frustration that comes from years of working with clients who pick apart a design or scrap a project and start over. The defense mechanism is to position oneself as a superior mind, contradiction a sin against the expert.

This is damaging. It teaches customers not to bring honest feedback and criticisms. This attitude builds a cycle of stalling and uncertainty. It builds a wall so the customer doesn’t understand what is happening, which creates fear. And worst of all for the expert, it damages your brand.

For fun and profit

The ideal scenario is one where you bring the customer around to see your side, ultimately agreeing with you and doing what’s best. If you’ve ever watched a Democrat and a Republican go at it, you’ll know this is no easy task.

The fix is to create mutual trust. The customer should know his business and goals better than you do. But he’s also paying you, the expert, for your help. You can’t do this without him, and he needs your expertise to make it work. Be transparent, bring him into the process the entire way, and explain things as you go. Pick your battles and fight the ones that truly matter. And if the project continues to deteriorate, offer to let the customer out of the agreement.

Remember, sour projects are rarely the fault of one party. The customer might make poor decisions, but you’re the one letting him do that. You have to be strong enough to bring the customer to the right solution, because the right chainsaw can make all the difference.