Note: This interview in the Weekly Wisdom Series originally aired on November 14, 2023 as part of the University Innovation Alliance’s Innovating Together Podcast, appearing live on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. The transcript of this podcast episode is intended to serve as a guide to the entire conversation, and we encourage you to listen to this podcast episode. You can also access our summary, along with helpful links and audio from this episode.
Bridget Burns:
There's an opportunity cost here. Whose job do people think it is to vet your idea and see if it's any good? It's nobody's job. No one on campus is paid to actually just evaluate ideas. So, this idea that there's an active market that's just sitting there as a group of consumers waiting to consume your ideas, it doesn't even make sense. But also, it's not acknowledging what you are costing them just by the pitch. You are wasting their time, possibly. You are being assumptive about whether or not they have even the same problem that you're trying to solve. That's why you have to start there, because frankly, it's people taking time away from their actual job of helping with students or improving outcomes or implementing complex solutions that are innovative, like, nobody has the time to do this, so you owe it to them to do a better job, making it easy for them to vet whether this is something that's worth their time.
Welcome to Innovating Together, a podcast produced by the University Innovation Alliance. This is a podcast for busy people in higher education who are looking for the best ideas, inspiration, and leaders that will help you improve student success. I'm your host, Bridget Burns. Each week I partner with a journalist to have a conversation with a sitting college president, chancellor, system leader, or someone in the broader ecosystem who's really an inspiring leader. And the goal is to have a conversation to distill their perspective and their insights gathered from their leadership journey. Our hope is that this is inspiring and gives you something to look forward to each week.
This episode, my co-host is Inside Higher Ed co-founder and CEO, Doug Lederman. Each week, Doug and I team up to have a conversation with a leader in the field, and this week we're going to be having a conversation with each other, because we have been talking to a lot of leaders in the field, but in IRL 3D at conferences around the country, and noticing some of the themes and issues that are popping up today and giving us the chance to actually debrief what we're seeing.
So as always, it's on a Monday, it's positive, it's uplifting. That's why we call it Start the Week of Wisdom.
Doug Lederman:
And this week we're going to... Oh, sorry, go ahead.
Bridget Burns:
I do want to say – so, the other day I ran into someone, and I found out that when we talk about Mainstay, first off, I don't receive anything from Mainstay personally, but I didn't know that because they do, so this is connected to what we're going to talk about, because they do RCTs ,and they actually do these validated studies to prove that their product works. One would think that that means that's good, that that sets an industry standard and perhaps validates their work, apparently happens as other chatbot companies use their peer-reviewed research to prove that their product works, which I think is such an interesting thing. Because even in my campuses who have used a multitude, because there are other chatbot companies, there's a total difference in terms of what it is you're doing, the team that is doing it, what they're doing with the data, all that kind of stuff.
I thought that was a really interesting piece, is that others use that research to validate their product even though it's not about their product. So, I think that's really interesting. And I also think campuses, it's kind of relatable in terms of if I apply an intervention that I hear about from another campus and I cite their data to prove that what I'm doing is actually working, I think that's something for us to think about in terms of how do we make it easier for us to know what products actually work, and that there's a neutral objective standard. So anyway, that's my random.
Doug Lederman:
Yeah, well no, it's OK. But it's actually – it's consistent with I think what we're going to try to talk about today, which is, as you said, we've been out and among people, and we were just at our Student Success U.S. Conference that we do with Times Higher Education in LA. And it was really a bunch of practitioners coming together. And I think one of the things that is worth talking about is conferences are a time when things get shared, and figuring out what resonates and why I think is a worthwhile thing to discuss. And so, I think it's worth talking a little bit about how campuses share what they're learning and, hopefully, what they've done that works and, to some extent, doesn't work and why? That doesn't necessarily always mean that it's received or that it leads to something being spread. And I guess, in a recent newsletter that you sent out, you talked about what you're seeing that gets in the way of campuses scaling each other's innovations. And can you tell us a little bit about what the problem you've spotted that you think is worth talking about?
Bridget Burns:
So, this is something that, it's been nine years of trying to answer this issue, and it comes from two spaces. One, campuses come to me ,and they say, "We've done this thing, we think it works. How do I get other people to use my idea?" And then I also get other campuses who come in and say, "Hey, we need to figure out what is – we hear this, we hear about this other thing. How do we know what's good? How do we know what actually works?" So, I kind of stand in the center. Actually, I stand in the back of the room so when people pitch, I get the side that's not true or that data's not actually that compelling, but they only did that with five students or whatever. And I'm always paying attention to that because I want to understand where does the skepticism come from? When does it serve us, when does it not? And how do I help?
For me, it's about I need to help ideas scale. And also, there are some things that you probably shouldn't scale because, based on the culture of your campus, the idea might actually not be a good one for you. So, my newsletter – actually, this is the first time this happened where this is not always the case where it actually, literally came from an email I was sending to someone about how to improve the pitch, essentially: if you want your ideas to spread, this is what I see happening. And I notice, regardless of the campus, it's the same problem. If you want other people to use your idea, I get it. You believe in the idea, fantastic. Do not tell me what you accomplish, because that is not helpful for me, because I don't even know why I should listen. I don't know why I should care. And by the way, I do this with companies too. I'm like, “Start with the problem.” The problem is the invitation.
What I see happens too often is that people start their pitch with, “I've done X and I've done X with Y number of students.” And both of those are peacocking. They are both differentiators. They are both telling you how I'm different than you. And if I want you to use my idea, the thing I need to focus on is what do you want to have in common? Do we share values? Do we have the same issues? Do we do the same work at all? Right? That's what someone who's a listener is trying to validate. “What's in it for me” is the basic question people in sales have to answer, right?
So, I say don't start with those two things, because one tells me, "Cool, you're awesome at this one thing." I don't even know what that thing is. But you start by bragging. That makes me immediately, like, I'm kind of pulling back. But two, when you start talking about the number of students you've served, if it's a large number, you think that you're validating your product, but what you're doing is telling me that you have more students than me. And I immediately go to, “Well, I don't have that many students, or maybe I have more.” But those are both things that are about highlighting difference. And when you're trying to explain something in a way that helps someone vet whether it's a good idea for them, start with here's the problem that we had. And you have to literally say, “We had this problem.” And say it as simply as possible.
I always do the elevator test, like a stranger in the elevator who doesn't work in your space. Would they even understand the language you're using? So that's number one. Number two is we didn't know how to solve that problem. That's a really important one. People would skip that, but I need to know that you and I are similar that we both don't know how to solve that. You didn't just silver bullet this. You didn't just jump to this is something that you're trying to sell. The third step is here are the things that we tried, and the reasons why they didn't work, and walk me through it. Explain to me you tried X platform, and it works to do this thing, but not this other thing I needed.
Because what it does is it shows me that you didn't just, again, silver bullet come up with the idea, and I'm actually not looking at something that's helpful. The other thing is you're actually doing a service to the person, because you're explaining to them the process that they might need to go on. And then the last thing is, and here's why we think this might be working for us based on X, Y, and Z data. That architecture does not make me turn my ears off. I can keep my shoulders lowered. I don't feel like you're trying to sell me something. And you lead with something that hopefully builds similarity.
Ray Magliozzi:
I am Ray Magliozzi, co-host of NPR's Car Talk. If you're working to solve the biggest challenges in higher education, you've come to the right podcast. If you're looking for a student retention –
Bridget Burns:
The likelihood that someone's going to actually –
Ray Magliozzi:
Check out mainstay.com. I may be biased, because the CEO of Mainstay happens to be my son. So instead of taking my word for it, you can trust the research they've done with Georgia State, Brown and Yale as proof that –
Doug Lederman:
As readers, as listeners, as people watching something, we're in it for ourselves. And again, that makes it sounds harsh to say that we're all selfish, but we all have our own things that we have to get done, and our own problems. So, if you make it about you as the deliverer, you're going to get that talk to the hand kind of thing, because it's just not until I see how it's relevant to me. You made the point that that's something you explain not just to the colleges and universities that you're advising, but to companies, and I do a lot of work in that realm, is talking to advertisers about how they might connect with our audience. And I always say the same thing you said, which is make it clear that you understand them and understand their problems. Obviously, you're going to do it, you're wanting to do this because you think you have a solution for them, but if you start with that solution or start to make it about you in any way, and what you're talking about is a twist on that, but it's the same, you're just not going to land.
What is striking, though, to me is that even part of the reason, especially in a realm like student success that we've been talking about a lot, there are plenty of differences between institutions, a research university, and a community college and a 1500- or a 1,000-student private, nonprofit, liberal arts college, and regional public institution with 15,000 people. They have some different priorities. They all have a pretty common priority, which is educating and training their students and helping them. And so, especially in this student success realm, which I define very broadly, it's not just graduation rates but it's mental health, and it's all the components. And most institutions have a lot more in common than they have differences. Again, to reinforce what you said, it's focusing on the things that you have in common and not holding up the difference, whether it's size or our students, most of whom are valedictorians. I mean there are a bunch of different ways where you can other yourself and differentiate yourself, and those just aren't helpful. So anyway, that was my main thought back.
Bridget Burns:
I think that's the right point. And I would add for any companies that you speak to, the thing for me that I try and draw attention to is there's an opportunity cost here. Whose job do people think it is to vet your idea and see if it's any good? It's nobody's job. No one on campus is paid to actually just evaluate ideas. So, this idea that there's an active market that's just sitting there as a group of consumers waiting to consume your ideas, it doesn't even make sense. But also, it's not acknowledging what you are costing them just by the pitch. You are wasting their time, possibly you are being assumptive about whether or not they have even the same problem that you're trying to solve. That's why you have to start there, because frankly it's people taking time away from their actual job of helping with students or improving outcomes or implementing complex solutions that are innovative. Nobody has the time to do this, so you owe it to them to do a better job making it easy for them to vet whether this is something that's worth their time.
For me, I cannot stand when I get blind third-party intros. That is the thing for me where I'm just like, "Hey Bridget, you'd like to meet so-and-so." Well first off, do you know that I actually have to raise all the money for this? So right now, you are literally, I am not doing my job. If I'm listening to you, two, you don't know if even if this is at all relevant, and three, is like I now am actively, it's costing me. You have cost me 30 minutes at least, because I'm going to be polite. And so, it's just the same thing is start with, “Do you have this problem?” I love it when people reach up and they're like, “Hey, I'd like to make an intro for you.” Is this something you would like or not? And that way, I at least have a chance to defend and protect my –
Doug Lederman:
Right. Yes.
Bridget Burns:
I think it's a slightly different issue, but more it's about the same of be a good friend, be a good ally, be a good colleague by helping make it easier on the listeners. Have a two-way conversation. Don't waste anyone's time and acknowledge that it's a gift that they're listening to you. It's a gift that they're letting you try your pitch and recognize that you're taking them away from something else. And so, that's why I take it away so seriously as they stand in the back of the room, because I'm trying to figure out what ideas really do need to go viral? Where is there a space where people are just, they actually just need affirmation and perhaps a little bit of praise? And it's not even that they need their ideas to scale. It's that they need a little bit of, “attaboy,” that I know that it was hard to do that, and it was, but when it comes to scaling, it really has to be focused on does it solve the specific problem of the people you're serving?
Doug Lederman:
The other thing you said that really resonated is the acknowledgement that what you accomplished wasn't simple or you didn't get it right out of the gate. Because again, what I first said about that, it was hard. I don't mean like, oh, pat myself on the back. I did this really hard thing. But I think again, I just said at the student success event that we just did, I made the point that I've made a lot of times about how uncommon it is for colleges and universities to apply the scientific method of experimentation and failure and trying again and trying a different thing that this industry is built on. How uncommon it is for that to be applied to the institutional operation itself?
Like, OK, over here in our research arm, we're going to experiment the hell out of it and see what works and see what doesn't work and fail. We'll try it again, and we'll make it better. It's really hard to get people to at least talk about – I mean, maybe a lot more of that gets done than is common, but it's so uncommon for people to talk about what didn't work and failure. And I think that might be one of the most significant changes we could see in higher education that could really move, really move the needle is a willingness to acknowledge imperfection, the need for improvement. I don't know, that's just a –
Bridget Burns:
Preach! That is the cornerstone of our work. People don't want to collaborate with someone that you can't trust, and one of the most important pieces is vulnerability. And that is actually makes you so much more relatable, and I'm so much more interested in your idea if you're willing to show me a little bit of that. This is why early on we discovered that you have to actually design your systems and the ecosystem to support vulnerability. And so, one of the things that we do is you have to have Chatham House rules so you can share the idea that you hear. Great. Don't you dare repeat who said it or their institution. You could be kicked out. I have to say that because it has been violated in year one. I saw that happen where a campus talked about a vendor they were having an issue with and or two weeks later was like, "Yeah, I heard that you're having issues." And I'm like, "Oh my goodness, this community practice, I have to protect the boundaries."
So number one, you literally set a boundary that makes it safe. But second, the only way you get the microphone is if you're going to share a story about failure. And that is the ultimate gift. It's the only thing that's interesting. People don't actually want to hear you talk about how great you are. It's so boring, and it's also not true. All of us, our humanity is what connects us. It is not what we've achieved. And then the other thing is I always preload the deck. I always try and get at least one to two people ready to be that way, to show up in exactly the way we're looking for. And Tim Renick, who you talked about, he has been for anyone who wonders why Georgia State's ideas go viral, not only are the ideas solid, and they actually did use a lot of that experimentation and truly a testing environment where they were watching the data, and they tried different things, and they look at what affects the data differently.
The number one is that you have a story that has from day one been told based on them leading with how poorly they were doing when term starts by describing how Ebenezer Baptist Church is within walking distance, it's just right there next to Georgia State, and how horribly they felt about how poorly they were serving, especially African-American students. That acknowledgement is that always was the unique thing is that nobody will just call it like it is and say, "Hey, listen, it feels bad to do this job poorly, and what we were doing was not good, and it felt awful. We felt guilty." That is so relatable, and I immediately want to know more. And it's set up as a story. They start with the problem, and they start with them being the problem and have been very open and about the bumps along the way. I just think that people, they have kept at it and they've kept a really solid team, so they have been able to make progress. And so, people might hear the headlines, but they don't leave with the headlines. That's the reason why's part of the reason why. It's also the ideas are solid, but the structure starts with, “This was the problem.”
Doug Lederman:
This is going to seem like a weird twist, but it's something I've been thinking about. Do you think – I have had people say to me, “It is difficult for us, particularly at public institutions, it's difficult for us to acknowledge imperfection or a failure, given how many people are out there looking to kick the shit out of us.” Sorry for trying to be a family friendly show. And I'm just curious whether that, and again, I would posit that I totally get that environment maybe makes what we're talking about more difficult to do. But I'm just curious how you think about that and whether there is more danger for leaders to, I mean, my usual response to that is, “Listen, is there going to be some politician out there who maybe decides to get a few points on you?”
Yeah, but we have a pretty, in general, there's a pretty forgiving public, and they want to see places get better. And I think as long as you have a plan for fixing the problem, maybe you don't start really talking about it until you've actually made some headway so that you can show that you're heading in the right direction. I don't know, but I guess I'm just curious how you think about that.
Bridget Burns:
I think the most refreshing thing the public could hear is a collection, not just one, because I realize you can't do this as one-institution leader. It does put a target on your back, but I think it would be really refreshing for a group of institutions to say, "Hey, you said X, Y, and Z about higher ed. And I just want to let you know, actually I agree that we need to be doing better, and in fact, here are the ways that I think we should be doing better, and here's how you would know. And in order to do that, here's what we're willing to do." I just think that some candor would be frankly what the public wants. It's what policymakers want because we have been for too long telling a story that we are X and Y and then, let me tell you, the billion-dollar economic impact that we have, it doesn't, that's not connecting to me as a human being.
These are places that are about maximizing talent. These are about their talent, activators, essentially. And for me, I worry that the future of America and our democracy needs everyone's talent contributing. We need everyone to reach their full potential in life so that we can actually put it all in there, because the future of society requires that humanity really, we step up, especially in the future of AI. And the only way we're going to do that is if higher ed makes it so that every person can achieve their full potential in life. And right now, that's not true. In fact, we can basically look at the data – where you grew up, the family you're born into – we can tell you what your likelihood is. That's messed up. I think a level of candor with the public that just says, you know what? We haven't done enough, and in fact we have to do better, is what would be appreciated.
When you talk about vulnerability and sharing from failure, I recommend doing that in a community of practice. I recommend using Chatham House rules. I don't recommend using that as the front headline, but I do think that when it comes to the strategy that would be appreciated or taken advantage of, I do think, again, a collective voice, not just a single president. Because yeah, I think that that is more challenging. So anyway, I think this has been a really interesting conversation. Thanks for – So these are the, we're going to go to APLU, and we're going to talk to presidents about it. And by the time you hear this, APLU will be going live, and we'll validate whether or not these are the topics that are resonating and also report back live, what else we're hearing from folks in the hopes that we can give you a sense of the topics and the people who we think are inspiring and you should be listening to. So, thanks so much for being an excellent co-host and as always, we will see you all next week.
Bios of Co-Hosts
Bridget Burns, Executive Director, University Innovation Alliance
Dr. Bridget Burns is the founding Executive Director of the University Innovation Alliance (UIA). For the past decade, she has advised university presidents, system chancellors, and state and federal policy leaders on strategies to expand access to higher education, address costs, and promote completion for students of all backgrounds. The UIA was developed during Bridget’s tenure as an American Council on Education (ACE) Fellowship at Arizona State University. She held multiple roles within the Oregon University System, including serving as Chief of Staff and Senior Policy Advisor, where she won the national award for innovation in higher education government relations. She was a National Associate for the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, and has served on several statewide governing boards including ones governing higher education institutions, financial aid policy, and policy areas impacting children and families.
Doug Lederman, Editor and Co-Founder, Inside Higher Ed
Doug Lederman is editor and co-founder of Inside Higher Ed. With Scott Jaschik, he leads the site's editorial operations, overseeing news content, opinion pieces, career advice, blogs and other features. Doug speaks widely about higher education, including on C-Span and National Public Radio and at meetings and on campuses around the country. His work has appeared in The New York Times and USA Today, among other publications. Doug was managing editor of The Chronicle of Higher Education from 1999 to 2003, after working at The Chronicle since 1986 in a variety of roles. He has won three National Awards for Education Reporting from the Education Writers Association, including one for a 2009 series of Inside Higher Ed articles on college rankings. He began his career as a news clerk at The New York Times. He grew up in Shaker Heights, Ohio, and graduated in 1984 from Princeton University. Doug and his wife, Kate Scharff, live in Bethesda, MD.
About Weekly Wisdom
Weekly Wisdom is an event series that happens live on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. It also becomes a podcast episode. Every week, we join forces with Inside Higher Ed and talk with a sitting college president or chancellor about how they're specifically navigating the challenges of this moment. These conversations will be filled with practicable things you can do right now by unpacking how and why college leaders are making decisions within higher education. Hopefully, these episodes will also leave you with a sense of optimism and a bit of inspiration.
Rate, Review & Subscribe
Learn why hundreds of people have rated this new podcast 5 stars! Please join others and rate and review this podcast. This helps us reach and inform more people -- like you -- to help increase the number and diversity of college graduates in the United States.
Click here, scroll to the bottom, tap to rate with five stars, and select “Write a Review.” Then be sure to let us know what you loved most about the episode! Also, if you haven’t done so already, subscribe to the podcast. We’ll be adding a bunch of bonus episodes to the feed and, if you’re not subscribed, there’s a good chance you’ll miss out.
Follow us to Join LIVE:
