PR-Bridge

College teachers gain a great deal of insight into student skills and mindsets. As a result, it is easy to dispute common assumptions, such as the widely-held belief that college-aged people are well-versed in technology.  

Putting aside that notion, one realizes that most young people have little or no practical experience with social media, beyond the elementary skills necessary to create a Facebook page. Given the task to coherently explain how or why an organization should be involved in social media, most students would fail miserably. In other words, talking incessantly on cell phones and obsessively updating one’s Facebook status does not mean students understand social media. 

For an interesting read about the challenge of handing over social media to young people simply because they are young, see Meg Roberts’ discussion of the topic: “Are We Forcing Social Media Tunnel Vision on Young PR Pros?” 

Another challenge is the sense of entitlement young people have coming into internships and entry-level jobs. Reading an overview of “Outstanding Best Practices for Public Relations Firms: The 2009 Compendium of Insight and Intelligence” from the most popular articles of The Firm Voice, one sees clear evidence of how organizations are supposed to change to meet the “needs” of young professionals. 

Here are the excerpts from “The role and expectations of millennials in the work place” provided by Aaron Uhrmacher: 

“Let us work remotely: We can work at Starbucks and even from home. By creating a less structured physical work environment, you can stimulate us, encourage our creativity and teach us how to work smarter. 

Give us iPhones: Most companies only provide phones to management. If you want us to stay connected, give us the tools to do so. Blackberries are fine, but iPhones are much cooler. And they work on corporate networks. 

Create opportunities for social interaction: If you want us to enjoy where we work, make it a place we want to be. Give us the chance to connect with our co-workers in an environment that promotes social interaction. Host group brainstorming sessions, take us bowling (or to the theater, or paintballing) and remember to celebrate our success outside the confines of the workplace.” 

I don’t know how these “expectations” read to you, but I cannot help shaking my head as I examine this list. 

From what Uhrmacher is saying, organizations are supposed to let Millennials work wherever they would like to “stimulate” them and “encourage our creativity.” I guess the perks of having a job and paycheck aren’t enough for today’s young people. And, always with the gentle pleading neediness of “teach us” included. 

Next, organizations are expected to give young people iPhones because they are “much cooler” than other devices, as if a company or agency is somehow denying Millennials their unalienable right to an iPhone. 

If all this isn’t enough, next Millennials expect to be taken out on play dates, such as bowling, so work is “a place we want to be.” Finally, Uhrmacher urges organizations to “remember to celebrate our success outside the confines of the workplace.” Could this smack more of the entitlement issues Millennials have? 

This sad list of “expectations” takes me back to two points that keep banging around in my head. First, why does society focus so much on the 18-34 year old demographic? Next, can’t Millennials at least attempt to adapt to the way organizations run, rather than expecting that the world change for them? One could easily write off Uhrmacher’s findings, but spending even a little time with young people reveals that his conclusions about their expectations are accurate.The challenge is that our coddled Millennials think they are the center of the world, each and every one a mini-celebrity with an entourage of Facebook “friends” gawking at their every move posted online. 

So what’s the upside? Millennials who learn to write professionally, read across a broad range of subjects, and learn to think deeply and strategically will be prepared to assume leadership positions, while their celebrity-obsessed, vacuous brethren will not. 

I have faith that those young professionals positioned for success will achieve it. I have taught many of these Millennials and know others who break the stereotype, thank goodness. They would scoff at the “expectations” listed above and want to build their foundational skills.

As Roberts explains, “As companies continue to look at younger staff members for social media expertise, senior employees, recent graduates, and interns should work together to ensure young professionals have well-rounded task lists that include a variety of skills necessary for communication campaigns - both online and offline.”

Popular culture Web site PopMatters is publishing “Pixelated Brains,” a four-part series of articles addressing the consequences of technology and new media on thinking.

My article in Pixelated Brains runs today: “Google and the End of Wisdom.”

From the overview:

“Bob Batchelor is convinced that thanks to easy access to online resources, today’s colleges are producing a generation of lazy thinkers. This is more than just an old fashioned, curmudgeonly professor demanding that people crack open a book once in a while - and actually read and comprehend it - it’s a concern that there may be a real cultural decline in critical thinking skills that is enforced, even rewarded, by modern educational institutions.”

The Canadian Public Relations Society adopted the following English-language definition of public relations in February 2009. Judy Gombita posted it at PR Conversations on June 17, 2009 (see below).

“Public relations is the strategic management of relationships between an organization and its diverse publics, through the use of communication, to achieve mutual understanding, realize organizational goals, and serve the public interest.” (Flynn, Gregory & Valin, 2008)

I applaud the effort to create a new definition of public relations. While the blog title muses that it is “maple-infused,” I would counter that it is more closely “Grunig-infused.”

When one reads “strategic management,” “mutual understanding,” and “serve the public interest,” obviously this is a nod to Grunig’s work, particularly his thoughts about two-way symmetrical communications.

As a result, I wonder if “maple-infused” communicators (and others around the world, if the many commentators posting the definition in their languages is any indication of its burgeoning popularity) who do not see Grunig as the end-all theorist of public relations will get much out of this definition.

I am dubious of “official” definitions, particularly of a field as amorphous as public relations. Why, for instance, the never-ending emphasis on “strategic management,” as if the only way businesspeople will take the field seriously is by throwing “strategic” in? And, why the need for “through the use of communication?” This clause broadens the definition to include so much, but says little about what the field actually is.

If one looks at the three-pronged monster of what public relations “is,” then, it is “mutual understanding,” “realize…goals,” and “serve the public interest.” Under this new definition, does that mean that if realizing org goals are independent of mutual understanding that it is no longer public relations?

My thought after reading this definition was basically, “why, why, why?” Do we need yet another attempt at fencing the field in? And, if so, then why does it just have to be derivative of Grunig and all the other tired definitions that already exist?

My boyhood fascination with getting mail diminishes over time, though I have to admit that I subscribe to many magazines partially because I love getting new issues in the mail. Other than that, the mail mainly contains bills and junk.

Last week, however, I received a package from The Ohio State University Press, the publisher of my book Kotex, Kleenex, Huggies: Kimberly-Clark and the Consumer Revolution in American Business, written with my good friend Thomas Heinrich, a history professor at Baruch College. Opening it, I pulled out two copies of the book pictured above — the Chinese language edition of the book, published by Shanghai Far East Publishers.

I will never be able to read the book, but it is cool to see it published in Chinese (even the graphs and pictures). Tom and I are really proud of the book and though it got great reviews in various academic history journals, it did not receive the kind of widespread readership we hoped for. Maybe the new edition will attract a larger readership as China struggles with many of the consumer issues and integrated communications efforts outlined in the text.

Todd Defren is an insightful social media and communications commentator and professional, as one can certainly ascertain by reading his blog PR-Squared. He recently wrote an intriguing piece predicting that the next 50 years of public relations work will no longer focus on media relations, instead shifting to a role as “facilitator” between customer service and social media.

Rather than comment on the content of Defren’s post, I would like to use it as an example of a particular challenge regarding social media today. In discussions with colleagues around the country, the vibe we see is that so much of social media commentary is taking place in the social media echo chamber. In other words, social media types simply talking about social media with others who are deeply interested in the topic.

I am certainly not the first person to discuss this topic. Jonathan Trenn wrote an interesting blog addressing the point last year, not only critiquing the “clubby” atmosphere of social media experts, but questioning whether that group can gain access to clients guided by large ad and PR agencies. My good friend Bill Sledzik at Kent State recently deleted his blogroll based on the assumption that having one set the stage for an “us vs. them” mentality where the “cool kids” are listed and other excluded. Sledzik explains, “In fact, I read only about one-third of the writers on my blogroll. There isn’t time for more. But their presence on my personal ‘A’ list implies endorsement.”

One sees evidence of the social media echo chamber in Defren’s post, which weighs in at a paltry 129 words and contains no contextual information to back up his assertion (though the graphic is interesting and that alone probably says something about the issue I am raising). This morning, the “Tweet count” on the article stands at 118, with 8 “Other Comments.”

Basically, Defren is approaching a tweet-a-word. Not surprising, given the limitations of Twitter, most of these merely repost a link to the article. Who knows how many people these tweets reached. Defren’s 129-word post could have reached 1,290 or 129 million readers.

The challenge with this is that social media commentators are talking among themselves, with readership dinged around the Twitterverse like a pinball game — thus the social media echo chamber rolls on. As I mentioned earlier, I think Defren is an insightful guy, so I don’t want to peg him as evil or something, rather an example of how the echo chamber works. In other posts, he has provided deeper thinking and context necessary for a broader, informed discussion.

Why point any of this out? The answer is twofold:

1. From the perspective of an educator, students and young professionals are looking to social media “gurus” like Defren to gain a deeper understanding of social media and as a role model for how they should conduct themselves as budding social media experts. As such, they learn that mimicking such posts — more or less devoid of higher order thinking — is okay because they will get tweets and comments, essentially playing up the narcissistic aspect of social media at the expense of knowledge.

2. Defren’s post reads to me like a soundbite. Unfortunately, social media has the potential to elevate the soundbite to even greater heights — think about it, Twitter is creating a whole generation of young people who don’t want to think in chunks larger than 140 characters. Since most soundbites bank on gut reaction or emotion, not asking the listener to use critical thinking skills, I do not see this as a positive. If social media really is changing communications, then perhaps social media experts should provide the depth that clients need in understanding why the change is happening and their place in it.

Forwarding or Tweeting 129-word soundbites is not going to enhance the social media discussion. I wonder how many Defren readers, like me, were left wishing that he would have provided a deeper discussion of his intriguing idea about the next 50 years of PR?

(Photo credit: wiselywoven/Flickr/Some rights reserved)

My great friend Les Potter wrote an insightful essay questioning the lack of curiosity among the Millennial students he teaches at Towson University in Maryland. When someone of Les’s caliber as a teacher, and with 35 years of experience as a professional communicator, brings a topic like this to light, believe me, my ears perk up.

Not only did Les sum up the prevailing lack of curiosity of today’s college students, but he also gave several examples of areas in which students could question him to gain greater understanding of the profession. For example, Les says, “As a manager who hired, trained, and terminated many employees in my career, the ability and willingness to ask probing questions is a competitive advantage for job seekers.”

I concur completely and would take it a step further, adding that I have never seen a person who lacks curiosity succeed in communications. Individuals become superstars in the business world when they ask probing questions, evaluate situations, and then derive new initiatives based on deft critical thinking. Curiosity is central at every point in this process.

I wrote a lengthy comment supporting Les’s statements, providing what I see as a problem among many of my USF students. Below is an edited and expanded version of that post.

The “challenge” I have with my students is twofold — they don’t understand much (if anything) about the business world, thus they have no idea how they “fit” into the picture and many lack what I call “intellectual curiosity.”

Here’s an example: many students enter the public relations sequence at USF with little or no idea what PR/communications is. Somewhere, someone told them that this would be a good major for them, usually having to do with “being good with people.” It seems outrageous, but many future PR majors enter the sequence with no understanding of writing, research, or strategic thinking skills. When they encounter their PR professors, most do not say to themselves, “Here’s my chance to actually talk to someone who worked in the field I chose for my major.”

Due to entrance requirements and prerequisites, most students enter our three-semester program still not knowing much about the PR major, even though they are already juniors. Then the first semester, they take “Principles of Public Relations.” For the first time, they finally have a PR prof teaching them about their major. However, getting them involved or asking meaningful questions is grueling. Many act as if it is just another course to get through, even though it is the first time they have formally encountered anything at all to do with public relations.

The next semester is the meat of the program — three courses: “Writing for PR,” “Public Relations Research,” and “Public Relations: Issues, Practices, and Problems” (a case study course). After one 15-week intro course, they are slammed with these three, but it is finally a course load in their major. It is difficult work, but rather than rejoice that they will finally get to know what PR/communications is, they complain about the amount of work and toughness.

At a point where their curiosity should be at its highest, many check out based on the workload. Most do not read the required materials my colleagues and I assign, even if it is timely essays and short articles drawn from important PR periodicals, such as PRWeek, Ragan newsletters, and blogs. Some students sit in class and say nothing for 15 weeks, despite my pleas for them to engage. Others make no effort at all.

However, there are a handful each semester that do the work, read the material, engage with the profession, and ask great questions and provide thoughtful commentary. I guess this is why we all continue to teach.

A casual reader might read Les’s essay or my commentary and think that we are out of touch with today’s students or doing something wrong, since they are not more engaged. However, in discussions with colleagues across disciplines around the country and overseas, I sense that this mindset among today’s young people is widespread.

Let me end this long post with this: I thoroughly enjoy teaching and like all my students as individuals. I want them to achieve all their hopes and aspirations. However, I know that some of them are not cut out for a career as professional communicators, at least not when I have them in class. Perhaps some magic switch will kick in at some later date, which for their sake I hope does. But, I do know that a trait all my very best students share is intellectual curiosity and a drive for success that I can’t define. The two traits go hand-in-hand.

Contact: William Cooper

Project Manager

wdcooper@mail.usf.edu

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

COLLEGE STUDENTS ARE TWITTER-LESS 

Millennials are not “friending” or “tweeting” about companies and brands as widely assumed 

TAMPA, APRIL 14, 2009 — In an era when “Tweets” have little to do with pet shops, are Millennials all they are cracked up to be in the social media universe? A recent survey conducted by a research team from the Walter E. Griscti chapter of the Public Relations Student Society of America at the University of

Of the 250 Florida college students surveyed, 99 percent use social networking sites. However, only 15 percent have an account with Twitter and 34 percent have never even heard of the site.  Some 58 percent of the students who have Twitter accounts never use the service or rarely log-on.

“There is a stereotype that because students are always plugged in that they understand the strategic uses of social media sites,” said Kelli Burns, professor at the University of South Florida and author of the forthcoming Celeb 2.0: How Social Media Foster our Fascination with Popular Culture. “Businesses have a misconception that students know how to use Twitter; these findings prove otherwise.”

The research team survey results reveal two distinct findings. First, college students are not active Twitter users. More importantly, they are not interested in interacting with brands through social media sites like Twitter and Facebook.

A common misconception is that sites like Twitter offer an innovative way for advertisers and companies to interact with the young demographic. However, 75 percent of students say they would be “not at all interested in” or “don’t care about” following brands, companies, or organizations on Twitter.

Many companies assume that social media enables college students to be smarter consumers. Sites like Twitter, social media analysts claim, act as a medium for the new two-way communication between brands and consumers. Given the media chatter about the importance of social networking for corporations, there is a disconnect between the promise of social media and reality.

The research team’s results reveal that a mere 6 percent of college students follow companies and only 4 percent follow brands on social media sites. These findings suggest that if corporations and communicators continue to bet on college students using social media sites effectively, they may come up empty handed.

The fact is that college students use social media sites primarily for keeping in touch with friends, not for networking or brand interaction. Until Millennials become less weary of this interaction, the gap between what business professionals expect and what college students actually know will continue to widen.

About the Walter E. Griscti Chapter of PRSSA at the University of South Florida  

Since its founding, the Walter E. Griscti Chapter of PRSSA at the University of South Florida has developed into a top-tier chapter filled with talented students eager to enhance their knowledge about public relations. Involvement in the chapter enables members to network with professionals and peers, learn about internships, hear guest speakers, attend national conferences, publish articles in its newsletter, participate in the national Bateman competition, volunteer in the community, and attend socials each month. 

The chapter works closely with the Tampa Bay chapter of PRSA and the Tampa Bay chapter of the Florida Publi Relations Association (FPRA) to provide numerous networking opportunities for its members. These strong relationships allow members to work face-to-face with those already in the industry. For more information please visit, http://prssausf.webs.com

If social media kills journalism and newspapers as we know them (i.e. the death threats announced by the New York Times Co. regarding the Boston Globe), what will take their place? According to BusinessWeek MediaCentric columnist Jon Fine, a potential replacement already exists — the “Journalist-Consultant.”

Fine’s analysis is, well, fine: the Web provides organizations with direct consumer access, which displaces journalism’s centrality as a content provider. As a result, journalists are turning to new media to create businesses that utilize their skills, essentially transforming into public relations practitioners (though I imagine the label would cause many of them to visibly shudder).

The challenge, Fine rightly addresses, is that at Abrams Research (a consulting firm founded by former MSNBC anchor Dan Abrams), touts its access, “to active journalists and bloggers.” One can only imagine the ethical firestorm this kind of “consulting” might ignite.

Examing the Abrams Web site, one sees clear examples of the blurry line Fine identifies. The site claims that “Abrams Research can bring together top financial journalists to advise that business [financial services] on how to best convey its message.” To help a video game distributor, Abrams claims it “can reach out to the most influential industry bloggers and present an overview of their opinions on a particular marketing message.”

Rather than focus on the ethical dilemmas, which Fine outlines, I would rather think through the rise of the “Journo-Relations” industry and what it might mean for future communicators. I believe that we are already experiencing this blurring of lines between journalist and communicator via blogs and tweets. The long-range consequences are even more cloudy.

The notion of who a person represents and which “hat” they wear at a given time will take on greater importance as bloggers, tweeters, and others extend themselves across various platforms. For example, when am I a company-paid communicator or simply advocating for myself (the idea of “brand you“)? How do the lines blur when one posts a link to a company blog or product blog to a personal social media site, such as Facebook or LinkedIn?

Most public relations experts I have discussed this idea with agree that they do not want their hard news coming from “Journo-Relations” practitioners. They lament the decline of independent news organizations. Most journalists, obviously, feel the same way. The disappearance of newspapers and magazines puts them out of work.

The biggest problems I see as a result of the rise of “Journo-Relations” is that people, in general, are not trained in critical thinking to the degree necessary to distinguish between journalistic content and non-journalistic content, particularly if it is written and/or taped to look like journalism. We only need to look at the recent VNR problems and the challenge of “advertorials” to see how quickly paid fact becomes real fact.

Rather than think critically, most people are urged to find a single correct answer or fall back on their “gut” instinct (usually a conglomeration of ideas, indoctrinations, feelings, and emotions they carry). For example, many people look at poll results at face value, not questioning who paid for the content, the survey size, or methodology. Given the large stakes at hand in poll results, from voting to when and where a company decides to run an ad, one would expect that voters/consumers, etc. would use a more critical eye. My experience discussing these issues with hundreds of college students each year have proved otherwise.

From a “Journo-Relations” perspective, we face a future (and many would argue current state)  where there are few or no gatekeepers. In this environment, is anyone really willing to base what is or is not appropriate for one to write about on a person’s individual ethical code?

In the Abrams Research case, for example, who will draw the line between “compensated experts” and active journalists? In an increasingly decentralized media world, no central body exists to regulate journalists or communicators that choose to ignore traditional ethical lines.

The demand for content is not slowing, though the delivery channels are changing. Journalism and communications are adapting to this new reality. Will the public keep pace, or perhaps even more important, do they care?

Hank Haney coaches Tiger Woods. On the new Golf Channel reality show The Haney Project: Charles Barkley, the swing guru puts his reputation on the line in an attempt to fix the worst golf swing in the world. As a matter of fact, as Haney correctly assesses, Barkley’s swing (see below or check it out on YouTube) is so bad that it has become the most recognizable and famous in the world. That’s not the kind of recognition any golfer desires.

What struck me in watching the first two episodes was that Haney smoothly transitions from coach to teacher. And, he has no illusions about the difficult road ahead of him. After watching a video of Barkley’s swing over the course of a long day of practice, Haney explains, “As a teacher, you always think you’re going to perform some miracle.” However, he knows that big challenges require hard work and sweat, not divine intervention, and praises Barkley for putting in a “Tiger day” workout, basically 12 hours of golf and workouts. 

Haney’s thoughts about teaching set off an internal buzzer in my head. I immediately thought of my public relations students at USF. They could learn a great deal from watching Haney and Barkley attempt to rebuild his game.

To be fair, one should keep in mind that Barkley was once a single-digit handicap golfer. Much of his problem is overthinking. As golf legend Bobby Jones once said, “Golf is a game that is played on a five-inch course — the distance between your ears.”

Teaching PR (all of teaching, though, really) is much like the challenge that Haney faces with Barkley. Students possess the abilities they need to be successful, those skills just got flabby through misuse or bad instruction. In addition, many students lose their confidence or never had it to begin with, so they really want to be great, they just do not know the path to get there.

Take writing for example. There is no skill more necessary for a communications professional. Walking into “Writing for Public Relations,” students have been learning to write for 12 to 16 years. They use the language everyday. However, along the way, they pick up bad habits or face the unfortunate situation of having an average teacher.

As a result, students are in the awkward position that Barkley faces. They do not know how to compensate for their own errors and some become so self-conscious that they are too embarassed to know where to turn. When they turn in assignments — like the swing videos Haney evaluates — they finally begin to recognize the myriad of challenges ahead.

Where professors become even more like Haney is in transitioning between coach and teacher. About half my daily effort comes in fixing the hitches, slices, hooks, and misalignment students have in their writing. This is conducted through a variety of in-class assignments, longer pieces, and discussions of what professionals do when confronted with similar challenges.

The “coach” aspect of the job is revealed in the amount of time professors spend building up the confidence of undergrads being forced to cram a lifetime’s worth of work into 15-week timeframes. In the writing class, I coach them on the “a-ha” moment when they will realize that they have professional-level skills, but let them know that might not happen within the confines of the course. It may take 20-weeks, 6 months, or years, in fact, before the lightbulb goes off. Believe me, this is extremely disconcerting to today’s undergrads, who have been taught to follow explicit directions and come up with the single correct answer.

Where the rubber really meets the road for me in watching The Haney Project, however, is in the dedication and effort Barkley is willing to exert. This is the primary difference. I find that even many really talented students are often unwilling or unable to understand the level of commitment it takes to be outstanding. Too many students simply go through the motions to get a good grade without acquiring the wisdom that goes along with learning.

For example, all students that go into communications need to understand social media from a strategic standpoint. Yet, few of them blog because they want to (though my colleagues and I force them to blog for our classes) or use newer tools, like Twitter. Facebook is nearly universal among college students, but the vast majority cannot intelligently explain the pros and cons of a company using it.

For better or worse, a great deal of this learning process falls directly in the lap of students themselves. In that regard, professors are more like coaches or facilitators. We talk about the “big picture,” then expect that bright students will handle the tools on their own to really get a feel for them.

One way students can pick up this kind of experience is through internships, but that takes time and resources that many of today’s struggling students do not have. However, any student can start a blog and begin building “Brand You” a topic I discussed here.

I have several goals in teaching: create a learning environment that facilitates critical thinking, enable students to understand the necessity of hard work and determination, and get them prepared for the first day they hit the seat in their cube or office. As you may notice, none of these aspirations involve rote memorizaton, simple recall, or where and when to use commas.

Watching Haney work with Barkley, I realize that he shares similar goals. But, at the end of the day, it is the student’s response that determines one’s success. That’s why we cannot hope for miracles. Instead we need to let students know that what seems like a miracle evolves from hard work. Acquiring a foundation centered on hard work places the budding professional in a good place for the communications world that is constantly in flux.

Jim Collins shot to worldwide acclaim with his 2001 bestseller Good to Great. For years the book sat atop or near the top of the national bestseller lists, selling more than 1 million copies in hardback alone. Thirty seconds ago, I checked to see the book’s place on Amazon’s list and it stands at #63 among all books sold. For business readers, Good to Great sparked a Harry Potter-like frenzy. It changed the way books are marketed and the way people speak about business topics. No one should be surprised by the number of red-covered books lining the shelves in the business section of the local bookstore.

In a recent issue of Fortune (The 100 Best Companies to Work For,” 2/2/09), Collins emerges to participate in a Q&A that provides his assessment of the business world in today’s troubling times. Interestingly, Collins’ next book will address how companies survive when the world spins out of control.

Interestingly, the terms “advertising,” “marketing,” and “public relations” do not appear in the index of Good to Great. Perhaps one should imagine that like many management gurus, Collins has little interest in these disciplines, setting his sights instead on the C-suite. However, reading the rather short Q&A, there is a nod to communications that the general reader might pass over.

When asked what companies do to get through difficult times, Collins responds: “No. 1, in times of great duress, tumult, and uncertainty, you have to have moorings.” He cites P&G, GE, J&J, and IBM as those with “an incredible fabric of values, of underlying ideals or principles that explained why it was important that they existed.”

Aha! What an empowering moment for the often trod upon communications team, particularly the overworked and understaffed internal communicators. Collins explains, “What we have found is that what really matters is that you actually have core values–not what they are…You need to preserve them consistently over time.”

In my experience, it is the internal communications team that is focused on implementing what Collins outlines. Obviously, it is impossible to do if the CEO and the management team are not in agreement. But, when the execs and communicators that support them work together to spread the values message throughout an organization, great things happen.

What I find in the classroom and many textbooks and other publications is a overly simplistic view of internal communications. Students and others default to a definition of internal comm as “keeping the employees happy.” What I attempt to convince them is that the objective is several levels deeper: educating employees about the goals and aspirations of the organization and its leaders and showing them how their individual work helps the overall organization meet those goals. This difference is more than just fancier words and semantics. In teaching tomorrow’s professionals, the ability to go beyond easy answers is critical.

The part about “values” is just one paragraph in the Collins Q&A and because he does not have any particular insight into how internal communications works inside an organization, he quickly moves to tagging “talent” as the other piece of the puzzle. However, even within his discussion about great companies hiring the best people, the value of internal communications shines through.

Collins discusses Boeing after World War II, reeling because its military production fell to almost nothing. Rather than go under, Boeing’s leader Bill Allen advocated applying what the company learned making militar aircraft to the commercial plane business. Boeing’s employees rallied, according to Collins, in “the sense that they were all creating something together,” even though an outsider might have labled it crazy.

The point Collins does not connect is that talented individuals – like the Boeing employees — understand the link between their success and the organization’s success. Some of that feeling is certainly the hallmark of bright, capable workers, but it is also in the glue that internal communicators create, essentially locking employees and aspirations together.

Strategic management gurus often talk about big-picture ideas, like “values,” and this rhetoric sounds really great in speeches or books. Tactically, however, organizations that are successful in building and living a mission statement understand that it takes more than just air to make it part of the culture. Collins did not mean to address the value of organizational culture in the Fortune piece, but those charged with maintaining culture should feel proud nonetheless. Outside the CEO’s office, there are few individuals with a more daunting task than those responsible for an organization’s culture.