At the end of September, the University of Navarra's postgraduate headquarters in Madrid hosted the Training Seminar: Journalism and Good Corporate Governance, an event organised by the Faculty of Communication and the Observatory for Responsible Media and Information. One of the sessions was given by Alfonso Sánchez-Tabernero, professor of news companies, former rector of the University of Navarra and current president of the Association of Friends of the University of Navarra.
During the talk, entitled Governing from the mission, and in his characteristic direct and provocative style, he reflected and made the audience think about identity, internal commitment in organisations and the coherence that actions must have with the purpose in order to communicate them. To go deeper into these issues and how Communication relates to the objectives of the University, we met with Alfonso Sánchez-Tabernero. His advice and perspective on the importance of Strategic Communication is applicable to any type of organisation.
What is your perception of the evolution of strategic communication at the university level?
We can say that in recent years there has been a tendency, as with all institutions, to take more care in communication, both internal communication, which in the university is basically communication with employees, professors, researchers, students, alumni and donors, who are also part of the university community, and with external audiences, i.e. with candidates and their families, the media or influencers, public authorities and society in general.
The investment of resources in internal and external communication in universities, and in the world at large, has grown substantially, partly because higher education institutions see an opportunity.
What challenges do these teams face in aligning messages to the purpose of each institution and ensuring that all communication flows in the same direction?
These are two closely related questions. Firstly, I would say that there is indeed an evolution towards the professionalisation and qualification of the activity of internal and external communication which, by the way, we always talk about internal and external, and I think that the border is very doubtful. I think it has to be said that when you communicate you address different audiences, with different objectives, but there is not such a big border.
We are moving in this direction of professionalisation, but there is still a long way to go and it seems to me that there is a quite significant fact in this aspect in Spain, and that is that the Spanish university is organised around an institution which is the CRUE, the Conference of Rectors of Spanish Universities, which has its plenary sessions, but it also has what are called sectoral meetings. There is a sectoral meeting on international relations, a sectoral meeting on research, but there is no sectoral meeting on communication. So we are on the right track, but there is still a long way to go.
And the second is also very pertinent, because in the world of communication amateur, What the university did was to give a reactive response to the demands of the media. When there was a positive or negative news, someone called and someone had to respond to that call. That is not strategic.
And what would be strategic?
The strategic aspect basically has to do with aligning the university's communication with the mind of the rector. So, what are my institutional priorities, what is my identity, what are the values that I defend, what are the things that captivate me. Why, because it is not about achieving maximum notoriety. I could achieve notoriety through scandal.
What we need, what the university needs, is basically two things. The first has nothing to do with communication, the second has to do with communication. The first thing the university has to do is to behave in such a way that it is always proud of what it does.
How do I treat the students? How do I do my research? How do I integrate into my environment? What do I contribute? How do I treat the professionals who work here? What do I do? The first thing the university has to do is to behave in a way that makes it proud of what it does. Because it is coherent with what it promises. It is consistent with its identity, with its values.
And the second thing is to tell. It is to tell. And I believe that one of the main missions of the university, and I have always insisted on this at the University of Navarra, is that the person in charge of communication is not there to hide bad things, nor to deceive by telling things that are not true. That is not what he is there for. Instead, one of his fundamental missions is to ensure that what we would not want to be known is not done. I mean, since I have to tell the reality, look... we can't do this because I wouldn't want to tell it.
And beware, there are things that are legal, even morally irreproachable, but which are, for example, unsightly.
What I mean is that one of the main missions of the communication manager is to influence the behaviour of the institution. Again, the communication manager is not the one who sees what happens, tells the good, hides the bad and exaggerates the regular. No. Because then we would be saying that the communication director is a good manipulator. No. This is not the case.
But sometimes there is a bit of confusion about this role in the company. The perception, sometimes, is that the Dircom plays with these cards.
True, but there are two reasons not to act like that. One reason is the moral reason, manipulating is a bad thing, cheating is a bad thing. And then there is a pragmatic reason, which is that almost everything becomes known. You take a big risk of losing trust. Because the day you are found out as a liar or manipulator you are no longer a reliable source. Therefore, the university Dircom is not the one who does that. It is not the one who manipulates reality to achieve a good public image. It is the one who works hand in hand with the top management of the institution to ensure that the institution always lives up to its promises. And once he achieves that, he can tell the story.
In the end, it is to be and to seem...
For this, the Dircom has to have great power. Great internal authority. An extraordinary closeness to the company's number one. Which in a company is called CEO and in a university rector.
Just as the rector did not take a decision without being told by legal counsel that it is legal, so he or she did not take a decision involving economic activity or investment without the rector's legal counsel telling him or her that it is legal. controller, If the general administrator or the manager says to him or her, effectively, we can undertake this investment, then he or she cannot take a decision that has a communicative impact, and almost everything has a communicative impact, without the vice-rector for communication saying, very well, what we are going to do is something we can tell you about without getting red in the face.
And based on this analysis, do you think that the main mistake of university management teams is not listening to the advice of their Dircom or not telling them what might happen?
There are two fundamental mistakes. The first is to make the wrong choice, because you need to choose someone of high calibre. If I am the rector, I have to choose someone I can trust. If I put an intern in charge of communication, it is very easy for me not to listen to him because he lacks my trust, he lacks experience, etc., he has no overall vision. The first thing I need is to get the profile right, it has to be a highly qualified person, with a strategic vision, with managerial capacity, with empathy with the public, with an overall vision, with seniority. Therefore, the first mistake is to choose the wrong person to lead the activity.
The second mistake is not giving him the authority to do his job and his authority is that he has to be informed and he has to be listened to.
What role does communication play in conveying the purpose of the institution to the student who arrives on the first day? To be seen as an alumni and not as just another enrolment.
Communication is key to culture. It is not the only thing. Because again, if I say that I want to give a personalised training to each student and for that reason the teachers will be available, and for example I recruit individualistic teachers or when I do the professional development plan I don't evaluate the opinion that the students have of the teachers, my declaration of principles is going to be false. It is not going to be fulfilled. There are many cultural things that have nothing to do with communication, they have to do with decision-making processes and performance evaluation.
But communication is powerful. Communication serves to say that we aim to increase student satisfaction, which we have measured, which in a ratio of 0 to 10 is 6, to 8 in one year. And for that to happen we are going to do this and that.
Communication is mobilising. Therefore, when an institution wants to change its culture, so that the alumni feel part of the university, wear the T-shirt, and when they graduate they support it, we need a decision-making process that is coherent with that commitment and a strategic communication oriented to that objective.