competitive strategy

Last week SJSU unveiled its new logo. Why the change? SJSU's Public Affairs states:

Every once in a while you have to clean house. With so many colleges, departments, auxiliaries and administrative offices creating communications in their own style, we have been presenting quite a fractured face to the rest of the world. This creates an impression of disunity on- and off-campus, which SJSU hardly deserves.

Public Affairs is trying to develop a representation of SJSU's competitive strategy, "a clear statement of why customers should choose a company's products or services over those of competing companies" (p. 310). The office has created a 60-page document on "identity standards" detailing how to use the new logo and providing instructions for brochures, digital slides, and other public communications. What's most interesting about this document is Eunice Ockerman, University Designer and Brand Coordinator, offers no information on how the new logo was developed and no empirical evidence to support the rationale for the change. For example, she states:

The updated logo is more unified, open and authoritative. The old rendering of bricks and
tiles has given way to clean geometric shapes, which will be able to carry meanings that are
more symbolic. The logotype uses one font in the signature instead of two. We've removed
the rule and we’ve given the elements more breathing room.

What makes the logo more unified, open and authoritative? Can an organization be open and authoritative at the same time? I thought the old rendering of bricks and tiles gave SJSU some texture and suggested diversity and complexity. I wonder what additional meanings and symbols the geometric shapes will be able carry. The metaphor is clearly the container or conduit metaphor for communication, which others have critiqued as I discuss in the metaphors and culture web lecture.

The development of the new SJSU logo provides a useful contrast to how the communication studies department developed its new logo. First, as a group, the faculty created a tagline based on student submissions and our own ideas. Then one of our GTAs who had been a graphic designer in a previous life created various drafts of a logo. We went through three rounds of viewing and commenting on the logo (two in person as a group and one via email) until we identified one we all found appealing. Developing the tagline and logo brought us together as a group. The statement--our competitive strategy--was a group effort. The differences between the university and department processes reveal the different metaphors for organization within which the two operate.

Several of you discussed the notion of competitive strategy in your blogs this week. aloha 123 applied the concept to the Marriott. MJ noted the importance of branding in developing a competitive strategy. Athina of Greece pointed out Walmart's and Jack in the Box's competitive strategies, and included a great cartoon related to the topic. In blogging about competitive strategy and strategic alignment, Gaber blogged about the importance of making more than superficial changes--a catchy tagline isn't sufficient for real organization change. Interestingly, in the communication studies department, the new tagline and logo were part of completely re-envisioning the undergraduate and graduate programs--far more than a surface change.

Will SJSU's new logo make it more competitive? Against what other universities is SJSU competing? Will students choose SJSU over SFSU or CSUEB because of the new logo? I wonder.

--Professor Cyborg

business as harmony

In Chapter 10 the authors of your text observe, "Whereas in the past enormous capital expenditures went into buildings and materials, today the two most critical parts of any successful business are people and technology" (p. 319). The July 7 issue of TIME reports on two organizations that take what Deetz calls a stakeholders' (as opposed to a shareholders') perspective. According to the article, the CEOs of Whole Foods and The Container Store believe the organizations have a commitment to multiple groups--employees, the communities in which they exist, and the customers they serve.

The two use a business as harmony metaphor, quite different from a business as winning or business as dominating metaphor. By empowering employees, the CEOs argue that the organization runs more smoothly and the shareholders still get good returns on their investments. From the description of the organizations in the article, it seems that the CEOs put into practice many of the principles of dialogic democracy I discuss in the web lecture. As Roy Hobbs wrote, such an approach can result in greater collaboration among employees--as well as chaos if participants aren't prepared to engage in this type of communication. Kim Mai also blogged about the advantages of dialogic democracy, but noted that individuals may still feel disenfranchised if their ideas aren't part of the final decision. Fabió also blogged about dialogic democracy, wondering about the opposite time point--the beginning. Who starts the conversation? And how does the reality of the organizational hierarchy impact the dialogic process?

sp1028 follows a different thread related to business as harmony--training and development in organizations. Although in tough economic times this is the first line of an organization's budget to get cut, investing in employees has many indirect and even direct returns. Providing training for employees also demonstrates a commitment to them.

The Container Store and Whole Foods likely aren't perfect organizations. But having CEOs who seem committed to a stakeholder model and an investment in employees certainly is an improvement over CEOs who put shareholder (or the CEO's own) gains as the organization's top priority. Yes, businesses must make money to survive. But making money must be balanced with other concerns, such as the impact on the community, environment, and employees. What if all organizations took a business as harmony approach?

--Professor Cyborg

leadership in practice

I took a leadership class when I was an undergraduate at Western Michigan University. I put myself through my bachelor's program, so I was working full time and going to school full time (which I'm sure nearly all my students can relate to). Communication and management scholars hadn't found transformational leadership yet; "best" leadership practices tended to focus on situational leadership. Trait and leadership style approaches were pretty much discounted. Nonetheless I found the class frustrating because it seemed to have little link to my experiences working as a unit clerk in one of Kalamazoo's hospitals. Maybe due to the highly bureaucratic nature of hospitals leaders and managers were constrained to behave in primarily one way (generally telling) and subordinates had little power in trying to change leaders' behaviors. This speaks to Gaber's comment that flexibility is essential for a good leadership. Yet organizational forces can prevent such flexibility. To make matters more complex in the hospital, although physicians were not hired directly by the hospital and technically were not part of the hierarchy, a doctor could get an employee fired. In studying leadership theories, it seemed to me the realities of organizational life were left out and situations were never as clearly defined as those theories suggested.

Transformational leadership certainly presents a compelling approach because it focuses on bringing out the best in followers. jdmINT blogged about the appeal of this approach. The habits of effective leaders discussed in the text also takes an optimistic perspective, but I wonder about the degree to which those habits are put into practice. Sensing and realizing (habits of mind), balancing humility and self-promotion (modesty), accessibility, decisiveness, and valuing individuals (character), and creating a vision and telling a credible life story (authentic and compelling communicative performance) provide the ideal that would resonate with organization members. Rabbit Tale did observe these habits put into practice.

But maybe we expect too much of leaders--developing the habits of effective leaders seems close to achieving perfection. Where are the followers in all this? That's the part that really interests me.

--Professor Cyborg