IS THE SKY REALLY FALLING?

A June headline in The Wall Street Journal has sparked some fierce academic debate. 

Its gist?  That – oh woe is us! – undergrad enrollment in the humanities is declining, while majors in more “practical” subjects, from engineering and mathematics to biology and chemistry, are on the upswing.  [These facts were gathered from reports out of Harvard, the Georgetown Public Policy Institute, U.S. Census Bureau, among others.]

The reasons for this trend should be crystal clear:  Ever-increasing cost of tuition.  Staggering student debt levels.  An economy that rewards hard knowledge, not softer skills.

There’s a but, and a big one:  Academics and statisticians alike point out:

• Compared to the increased numbers of Americans who do go to college today, the relative decline in English and philosophy and history majors is modest.
• What’s hurting now:  Graduate humanities education, along with its prestige and funding.

To us, the facts are merely fodder for what’s wrong, deep down.  Whether in The Chronicle of Higher Education or in The New York Times, few of these posts and editorials talk about the business need for liberal arts majors.  The crisis, it seems to us, is in proving that humanistic studies lead to critical thinking and writing skills.  Sure, corporations and many of us lament the decline in intellectual literacy, and often take it upon ourselves to improve our staff’s skillsets.  And definitely, we can point to many humanistically trained successful business people, from the late Stanley Marcus to Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs.  [Admission:  We too majored in English and philosophy and journalism.]

Yet:  Until we can show proof that liberal arts education impacts bottom lines, our employers and our clients will continue to look for those techies who just might need hours and hours of remedial training in writing and thinking.  And it will be up to us in marketing and communications to fix it.

WE INTERRUPT THIS PROGRAM TO BRING YOU

It’s performance evaluation season for many of our clients.

And our hearts are heavy.

Ever since World War II, when the German military pioneered the use of 360° ratings to measure performance, 360s (substitute “multi-rater feedback,” among other nicknames) have risen in popularity among the Fortune 500s as an employee evaluation and/or development tool.  Such instruments usually ask members of an employee’s immediate work circle to provide performance input – not just tap the individual’s manager.

There’s a problem with that. 

In fact, there are several.  Goals, for one.  As HR researchers point out, there is a real difference between a 360 used for career pathing discussions versus pay and promotion decisions.  [Most in the business admit that the tool is best used for development conversations.] 

Other gurus emphasize the “lurking variables”:  number of raters, number of years raters have known the employee, scale of responses, how raters were selected, training for raters and participants, accountability, instrument quality, HR systems integration, among other factors.  All impact the validity of the feedback.

True, there are pros and cons of any course of action, whether it’s an assessment delivered by Human Resources or Supply Chain or Communications or Marketing.  Yet few tools have the potential, as 360s do, to be destructive and to damage morale.  To hurt people. 

We’ve witnessed high-achieving talent be completely devastated by the feedback – and soon thereafter, leave the company for a spot where s/he will be appreciated.  We’ve dealt with situations where, after evaluations were given, passive-aggressive behaviors are rampant … and, yes, voluntary or involuntary terminations follow.  Bottom line, the tools intended to improve corporate performance do the complete opposite. 

What executives and managers fail to remember is that work is all about the people who do it.  When you minimize a fellow human being, even unwittingly and (we would hope) with all good intentions, you knock yourself down a peg.

Our hearts are heavy.

PICTURE PERFECT?

The power of visuals is certainly a philosophy we heartily endorse (it’s a common subject of this blog).  After all, statistics demonstrate that illustrations and design are much more likely than text alone to be remembered – and retained.  [So what if the ad industry was behind the research?] It’s clear, in our multi-channel intersected beings, that pictures enhance and expand our worlds, and help us make our messages even more meaningful.

So recent news about the popularity of graphic novels and other pictorial applications delighted – and surprised. 

In education, for instance, pictorial versions of classics and moderns – like Capote’s In True Blood – go hand in hand with the actual text to build comprehension, develop critical thinking skills, and engage unmotivated readers.  And it’s not just used in low-performing institutions; one high-achieving school  here in Illinois actively promotes the use of graphic novels … not only in literature, but also in math, science, biography, and other subjects.  [Of course, such apps follow some pretty rigorous validation before being incorporated in the curriculum.]  No wonder that sales of graphic books over the past decade have increased 40 percent.

On the other hand, comix as serious corporate fare encounter different fates.  Conglomerate Loews (a holding company with a diverse portfolio), for example, recently issued its 2012 annual  report … in the cartoon form of The Adventures of Lotta Value, Investment Hunter!  It’s a good try, in 13 pages, to convince today’s investors of the company’s value.

But, sad to say, it doesn’t work as well as it could.  Why?  Disregard the quality of the illustrations (which are good); instead, focus on the story.  The plot is contrived … and the language, occasionally in corporate speak.  The heroine just doesn’t elicit much empathy.  

Authenticity, in short.   Do we learn from our perusals?  Sorta.  Have we produced similar tactics?  Sure, with visuals and words that work hard for a purpose.  This time, though, the message clearly doesn’t paint a clear and compelling picture.

WHO'S COUNTING?

Now that the BIG elections are over, can we tell you how much we loathe-despise-detest pollsters?

We’ve learned how to zero out (to avoid the robo-dialers).  Found excuse after excuse to disqualify ourselves from responding to a live questioner. [Try “I gave at the office.”  It’ll flummox them every time.]  Squirmed and gave weird comments to the “other” answer in online surveys.

Yet, somehow, THEY know:  There’s a fellow feeling deep down of compliance, of understanding that it takes 10,000 calls to create a village of 1,000.  Besides, we do the same thing … inside.

So why the avoidance, the need to be, quite simply, contrary? 

It might be because we’re over-surveyed.  Have lost faith in the power and performance of polls.  Witnessed the conflict among numbers in national reports.  Or prefer, honestly, to engage in conversations with those around us, testing what we need to among the groups who know and work with us.  A focus group of friends, if you will.

Is it statistically significant?  Nope.

Can we ferret out real intentions in these dialogues?  Maybe yes.  Maybe no.

When we do want to get a snapshot in the moment of what people know, what they believe, and the actions they follow, this is our preferred route.  It’s like copytesting, probing opinions and communicating both ways.  Asking strangers, even inside corporations, about certain matters is like asking for a leap of faith; many – even if you’ve been referred by the senior-most executives – will either decline politely or go through the answers somewhat mechanically.  Sure, the humongous engagement surveys do get responses.  Sure, they’re anonymous, without attribution.  Yet, there’s no opportunity to exchange ideas and thoughts; that “other” bucket receives the venting from many … but it doesn’t answer back.

So when you ask us to sample our opinions, think again, please, about the “how.”  We’re counting on it.