§

Question:
How can our offices become proactive and future-thinking, versus playing catch-up (e.g., LinkedIn replacing alumni directories)?

Charlie:
Start with a clean slate. We still view problems through the lens of old solutions. Look at the news business, for example. The industry was so entrenched in papers as the delivery vehicle, they were slow to adapt to a new model to do what was ultimately most important – deliver information in the most timely way possible. We need to focus on the need, the opportunity, or the problem – and be open to changing our ways. People want a network, not a directory. People want a job, not a careers program. People want to make an impact, not a gift. How can we facilitate all of this?

Andrew:
You can’t do this unless there’s someone in your shop whose job is to pay attention to how the world is changing. They need the time to do this, and they need the experience and perspective to recognize emerging opportunities. In Cornell Alumni Affairs & Development, we ask two questions when new opportunities present themselves:

1.       Does the opportunity enable us to pursue an existing strategic goal more efficiently or effectively than we are doing now?; and

2.       Is there an emerging critical mass of alumni activity that warrants our involvement? 

Charlie’s focus on value from the user’s perspective is also essential. We aren’t employed to perpetuate ourselves and our programs; we’re employed to engage our audience. Focusing on our alumni and their evolving needs will make it much less likely that we’ll be left behind.

[Melichar: "People want a network, not a directory. People want a job, not a careers program. People want to make an impact, not a gift."]

Question:
Most donors engage without having to "be present." They send a check whenever they want. What are some non-financial analogs to this?

Charlie:
Social media is a great example of asynchronous engagement. People pick and choose the content that is meaningful them, from the sources they care about, and then do “something” with it. They like it, share it, mash it up. We need to get away from only counting engagement when it happens on our own terms (e.g., events we organize, conversations we convene) and find mutually beneficial ways to join with our constituents.

Andrew:
As Charlie suggests, it’s content. Social media. Archived video. Asynchronous games. Infographics. Memes. High-quality, on-demand engagement is a great fit with today’s highly digital lifestyle.

We could also focus on the convener role, trying to connect alumni so that they can engage with each other when it’s convenient for them, around their priorities. We make the introduction and get out of the way.

[Gossen: "Emerging platforms & techniques blur the distinction between giving and other modes of engagement – the boundaries start to collapse."]

Question:
In fundraising, should we just count donors and not worry about dollars? It's much easier to measure...

Charlie:
It depends on what you’re counting and why, but both are critical. There are engagement models that would take size of gift, whether it is a first-time gift, renewal at a higher level, and so on, as engagement measures. This underscores that there is no "one-size fits all" model. We need to tie these measures to institutional and program-level goals. That’s the way to stay relevant and nimble.

Andrew:
Emerging platforms and techniques blur the distinction between giving and other modes of engagement so thoroughly that the boundaries start to collapse. Take crowdfunding, for example. A $25 donation is definitely "giving." But receiving an almost-instant thank you from someone involved with the project is both stewardship and person-to-person engagement. The frequent, informal updates sent to donors by the project team are stewardship, but they’re also communication that fits well with culture of the social web. This may complicate measurement, but it almost certainly will better engage the donor. 

§

Related articles

Online Discussion: Higher Ed Live Explores Alumni Engagement

§

The video embedded in this blog post is a recording of a live online discussion about measuring alumni engagement. It took place April 18, 2013, as part of Higher Ed Live, a series that explores topics across higher education.

This program included two panelists besides me, Alumni Futures advisory group members Charlie Melichar (Vanderbilt University) and Andrew Gossen (Cornell University). Using my recent blog post about The Risk in Measuring Alumni Engagement as a starting point, and guided by Ryan Catherwood of the University of Virginia, we discussed a range of topics, including using data, choosing metrics, fundraising as an alumni relations outcome, social media, and more. 

[...a free, online conversation about alumni engagement, with 
Andrew Gossen, Charlie Melichar, and me]

Your panelists are all on Twitter as well:

Andy Shaindlin (that's me) – Associate Vice President for Alumni Relations & Annual Giving, Carnegie Mellon University. Twitter: @alumnifutures

Andrew Gossen – Senior Director for Social Media Strategy, Alumni Affairs & Development, Cornell University. Twitter: @agossen

Charlie Melichar, APR – Associate Vice Chancellor, Communications, Vanderbilt University. Twitter: @melicharlie

Our moderator (also on Twitter) was Ryan Catherwood of the University of Virginia (@RyanCatherwood).

Note: I will also be addressing this general topic at the CASE Summit in San Francisco, July 14–16, 2013 (where Andrew Gossen is speaking, too!). 

Related articles

The Risk in Measuring Alumni Engagement

Sure, we won't actually compensate you helping supervise this BS "class", but think of it as "service" to your alma mater.

Good grief... this is truly scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Another sarcastic and bitter soul opined,

Good news for adjuncts who thought they were at the bottom of the academic barrel! Harvard has come up with an even lower category. 

I'll assume for the moment that Harvard isn't proposing the alumni component as a way to further demean adjuncts, nor to trick alumni into doing something they ought not to. So then a question worth asking is why would Harvard ask alumni to serve in this capacity? Who benefits, and how?

[Why ask alumni to serve in this capacity? Who benefits, and how?]

A few reasons come to mind...

It makes the online course more functional
Content facilitators can make any course more functional, especially a humanities course where the educational currency is discussion. And it's even more true in a course with 27,000 enrolled students (as reported by the New York Times).

It connects alumni to students and to each other through volunteerism 
This is volunteerism on mutual terms. Instead of just saying "you need to help us because we don't have enough staff," they're saying, "you can put your education to work in a new way."

It may attract alumni who wouldn't volunteer in other ways
Many alumni are uninterested in socializing at mixers, or attending weeknight talks about the capital campaign. Many alumni are interested in the classics, in literature, and in the humanities. For them, this is a unique way to exercise that interest.

It adds to degree equity indirectly
If my alma mater runs open courses and those courses have high quality instruction, the quality of my own degree is maintained or even slightly increased as a result.

[Compared with handing out name tags...
this is directly connected to the graduate's educational experience]

It can connect volunteers more deeply than a generic activity can
This is a role that not just any graduate can fulfill effectively. Compared with handing out name tags, staffing the registration table, or setting up chairs and tables, this is directly connected to the graduate's educational experience.

It incorporates the academic and teaching mission of the institution
It goes beyond professional needs of alumni, and beyond the fundraising needs of the institution.

It reflects something unique to the institution
You can't take this particular class just anywhere, and you can't take it online from anyplace else. At least, not yet.

Agree or disagree? Did I leave something out? Is there a downside to this effort? Would it work in face to face classrooms, as well as online?

Leave a comment...

Related articles

Harvard Seeks Alumni Help With Free Online Course

Harvard's Ancient Greek Hero Course Online

Harvard Ask Alumni to Donate Time to Online Class

What are universities for?
I recently read a thoughtful (and at times, funny) book called What Are Universities For? by Stefan Collini. Collini, a professor of intellectual history at Cambridge University, describes how politicians and a "morose, prickly" mythical creature called "the taxpayer" are challenging universities to justify their existence in economic terms. And as we see in the media, critics are calling for more "accountability" by universities regarding the needs of the communities which they serve. They say we can assess this by tracking things such as

* jobs created
* graduates being hired
* companies founded by faculty members, and
* technologies commercialized by the institution. 

But as Collini points out, economic growth is not the sole (or even primary) way in which a community benefits from having such an institution in its midst. To measure education – and humanities in particular – in this way is to apply standards ill-suited to the task.

Collini's essay about what universities are for prompted me to wonder, "what is alumni relations for?" In a way, alumni relations is similar to the humanities. Like the humanities, alumni relations is under scrutiny. Every dollar invested, every staff hour worked, every event, is being assessed to see whether it is generating something called "engagement."

[Engagement is to alumni relations what
economic output is to the humanities]

Advancement VPs, budget managers, and development directors are wondering whether alumni relations is contributing directly to fundraising, and many of us are indexing "engagement outcomes" in search of an answer.

Just as economic measures are ill suited to assessing the "effectiveness" of the humanities, assessing alumni relations primarily according to fundraising outcomes is misplaced. And it ignores a fundamental aspect of alumni relations: the fact that it's largely about relationships.

How do we measure relationships?
We don't generally quantify how we feel about others or what we "get" from having a relationship with them. We don't assign a numerical outcome to interactions with a spouse, a close friend, or a family member. Nor do we keep a record of weighted "engagement opportunities" with family members and acquaintances. 

Why don't we quantify the relationships that matter to us? Because we measure their value based on how we feel, not on a scorecard created by a committee. And things that are based on feelings can't be measured. As Collini points out, they can only be judged.

The engagement craze
And yet, increasingly, we're trying to measure alumni relationships instead of judging them based on our goals and experiences. We have created engagement scoring schemes that quantify intangibles. How much time and effort are alumni relations professionals spending collecting, curating, and computerizing "engagement activities"? How much time should they be spending?

Critics will say, "But Andy, a relationship isn't a business. Universities are businesses. We have to apply business practices to manage them effectively and to maximize return on investment."

Schools, colleges, and universities exhibit business-like characteristics in some areas, and we can choose metrics to assess our progress toward some goals. But historically we've treated alumni relationships like a liberal art, not like a science. So if we assess alumni relations on a numerical scale, we have to change the way we design it and practice it. And we have to reassess its purposes.

Alumni relations needs a methodology
Regardless of its stated purpose in a given institution, alumni relations needs a methodology. We need tools that describe our profession, that help us assess our work, and allow us to talk about it with colleagues from other institutions. But what methodology should we choose? A subjective one based on judgment? Or a more numerical one, based on metrics?

Alumni relations operates today on a continuum, with no data at one end and nothing but data at the other end. 

"Friendraisers to the left, please. Robots to the right."

We could operate without data, judging our work by whether people "seemed happy" when they left an event, and by calling ourselves "friendraisers." I don't suggest we do that. 

At the other extreme, we could assign weighted values to things we define as engagement, put them into a database and try to prove exactly how engaged someone is. As you've guessed, I feel that this prevents us from exercising the judgment we need to wield.

A hybrid solution
Instead, we should combine these methods, as some already do. We can find a comfortable spot somewhere in the middle. We can use less measurement and more judgment. We can track data and correlate alumni relations to giving-related outcomes.

And we can find activities that support fundraising directly. A simple example: Work with development research staff to scan the LinkedIn profiles of alumni who join your official group. Flag likely candidates for research, based on job titles and keywords, and track how many become prospects and donors (hat tip to Cornell's Andrew Gossen). 

Alumni executives should regularly set aside the engagement scorecard long enough to get a feel for their alumni family. Because that's what people who are nurturing relationships do. They feel.

And based on how they feel, they decide what's important. To achieve what's important, they can check the numbers for guidance in taking the next step forward. And then see how that feels, and continue the process.

It's not a scientific method, but it can still reflect intellectual and professional rigor.

A simple equation to help us
In that vein, Collini suggests a simple way for scholars to assess each others' work in the humanities: 

Experience + Reflection = Understanding 

This is a proxy for metrics in a field - the humanities - where progress may be impossible to characterize with numbers. Wouldn't this be useful to alumni relations professionals too?

Experience the interactions students and alumni have with each other, and with the institution. 

Reflect on how these interactions matter, based on your goals. 

Understand what you see, what you hear, and what you feel, using your experience and reflection as the foundation.

[Collini: "Experience + Reflection = Understanding."
Is this a useful approach for alumni relations?]

A fork in the road
My views are somewhat of a backlash against the current hunger for engagement metrics. We're at a fork in the road: Do we need more measurement, or more trust in our professional judgment?

It's not an either/or choice. We should measure what we reasonably can, even when it's difficult. But we mustn't lose sight of the human aspect of what we do. 

§ § §

Agree or disagree with my viewpoint? Do we need more measurement? Or something else? Leave a comment.

E-mail opened up a wonderful new world of alumni engagement, especially for a university...that has a significant number of alumni around the globe. However...each year I receive exponentially more email correspondence from alumni that require a personal response from me.

It's now taking up most of my time just reading and replying to emails in a considered way that deepens the relationship (rather than giving generic/glib replies). What is the best way of getting the most out of e-mail correspondence with alumni without it becoming your sole accomplishment for the day?

Peter's question illustrates something true of all forms of relationship in all contexts:

Relationship-building doesn't scale.

As the number of relationships increases, converting them into traditional, mutually beneficial outcomes becomes more difficult. Peter points out that a generic or shallow reply won't help an alumnus solve a problem or make valuable connections. But one person in his role can only support so many relationships. 

So what can one do?

[There are two obvious strategies – and one non-obvious one]

Possible Solutions
There are two obvious strategies, each of them somewhat challenging:

1. Exchange the creation of new relationships for fewer – but deeper – relationships;

or

2. Add staff to create and foster additional relationships, while supporting existing ones.

If you can document engagement opportunities lost to lack of time and attention, you can craft a business case for greater resources – new staff positions and bigger budget. But even with a good business case, for most of us, the additional funds just aren't there. Many alumni offices have had to cut staff; adding new positions is a fantasy.

This prompts me to propose a less obvious strategy:

3. Convert staff positions from traditional roles to online support and interaction roles.

What if someone in Peter's situation had 3 or 4 staff "replying to emails in a considered way that deepens the relationship"? His office could keep pace with the demand for written communication and support. This would mean changing some team members' job descriptions to reflect the increased reliance on online interaction (including email, the web, and social platforms).

[Do we spend too much time emailing our alumni – or not enough?]

Two Final Thoughts
FIrst, alumni relations is communication. Even if they're not attending events or interacting with you in person, alumni feel engaged if they have an open line of communication with their alma mater. (More about this in a future post.) 

FInally, our communication with individuals need not solve their problems directly. We should connect them with resources that they can use to solve their own problems ("teach a man to fish..."). Acting as a relationship broker will decrease our time spent on an individual's needs, and show alumni how to use the network for future problem-solving. 

What do you think?

Too much time spent emailing with alumni? Or not enough?

How do we balance face to face interaction with the reality that we interact meaningfully with just a small fraction of our audience?

I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn.

This is the standard message that LinkedIn created for you, so you can ask others to connect with you.

It is succinct, and universally applicable. It's also self-evident, and therefore, unhelpful. Of course I want to add you to my network – if I didn't, would I be asking you to join it?

The Problem
Those 11 words are actively preventing LinkedIn users from developing the skills they need to network more successfully.

What if you walked up to someone you encountered at a conference and (without providing any context) said, "I'd like to add you to my professional network"?

The response would probably be something along the lines of, "Why? Who are you?" And perhaps, "Is there any benefit to me?"

[Those 11 words prevent LinkedIn users
from networking more successfully]

LinkedIn created this introduction to remove an obstacle to reaching out, and to make it easier for people to connect with each other. But the most helpful thing that LinkedIn could do here would be to make it slightly harder to connect. 

How LInkedIn Can Help
Instead of pre-populating the "personal note" in the message window, LinkedIn should do two things:

1. Leave the message window empty, and
2. Prevent you from sending the invite until you've typed in your own, truly personal message.

This would help the sender learn the art of introducing oneself and one's networking goals to a desirable contact.

And it would help the recipient to understand why they are receiving the message in the first place. 

Which is more helpful and effective? This?:

"Dear Andy - Greetings from Denver. I'm seeking a position in annual giving after 6 years in student events. I notice we share mutual contacts, including your former assistant director, whom I know from grad school. I'd be grateful if we could connect via LinkedIn. In return, my own network may prove valuable as you add staff for your newly-announced capital campaign."

Or this?:

"I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn."

Duh. 

It's time for LinkedIn to make us tell each other something we don't already know.