SPH Consulting Group

My favorite article of clothing is a ten-year old red sweatshirt with the name of my alma mater emblazoned on the front. It is incredibly comfortable, but most importantly, it is a conversation starter. I have had fabulous conversations with fellow alums, alums of our rival institutions, students and parents thinking about college, and a host of others.

I am not alone in publicly advertising a deep connection to my university. In 2022, the revenue for collegiate-licensed apparel industry exceeded $4.6 billion dollars. That is a whole lot of t-shirts, mugs, koozies, onesies, and stuffed mascots. Our willingness to spend so much money on “merch” is a significant piece of evidence that our love for our institutions of higher education runs deep and wide.

When I rep my alma mater’s brand, it is because I am proud to be associated with what that brand stands for. This pride is an important element in the ongoing work of “friend-raising” in higher education. My alumni pride translates into recruiting, advocacy, and fundraising gains for my institution.

A university’s brand has two component parts: image and identity. The “image” is what audiences on the outside understand about the organization. Image is influenced by media coverage and advertising campaigns and can change over time. Institutions may see their image wax and wane with successes or failures, but, unless the failure is a catastrophic one, changes are not perceived as existential threats to the institution.

“Identity” is what people closely connected with the university see as its fundamental character. Identity is understood through lived experience and remains relatively unchanged over time. Faculty, staff, students and alums often see a university’s identity as a core part of their own personal identity. Threats to identity are perceived as existential threats to the institution.

Colleges and universities who are considering a significant change in their mission, a wide-ranging partnership or a full-on merger, or even a name or mascot change, are likely to face the fear that an organizational change will undermine or eliminate an identity that is valued by their constituents. If those fears are not managed proactively, they can derail a strategic decision that is in the best interest of all parties.

Any evaluation of potential partners must include a thoughtful assessment of a partner’s image and identity. It is essential that the images and identities of the respective institutions be brought together in exciting ways that speak to legacy constituencies. Your strategy should include answering the following key questions:

Do we clearly understand our organization’s current image and identity?
Do we understand which portions of our image and identity must be preserved in any partnership or merger?
What is our potential partner’s organizational image and identity?
How can we design a process so that our constituents stay connected to us as we work through an evolution in our image and identity?

Universities that navigate a change in identity well invest time with their constituents. In leading the name change at Augusta University, we prioritized engagement of faculty, staff, alumni and students at every stage of the process. We spent a lot of time uncovering the shared parts of our legacy institutions’ identities and what connected our people to those places. Those shared values, traditions, images, etc. formed the basis of the new brand. The time spent with our constituents enabled us to roll out a new brand that felt familiar. The new brand was embraced and has served the consolidated institution well.

To learn more about SPH Consulting Group and how we can help your organization, contact office@sphconsultinggroup.com.

Writer: Karla Leeper, Senior Consultant, SPH Consulting Group

Gauging by the calls we are receiving, an increasing number of higher education chief executives are becoming more aware of the critical need to develop strategies and tactics that address current and future challenges – and opportunities – facing their institutions. Stressors include significant declines in enrollment, which look to continue as we approach the coming ‘enrollment cliff’, and the increasing cost of doing business, resulting in reductions in endowments and reserves and increasing indebtedness, as institutions attempt to address the resulting fiscal challenges. Tactics and strategies will likely have to be different than what has been done before, and they may include major organizational restructuring such as internal and external mergers, acquisitions, strategic partnerships, and the like.

But how to start those conversations? And how to get your board to start thinking about the future in a new way?

Firstly, introducing these concepts requires care and planning. I suggest keeping the following in mind.

One person at a time: Recently, I commented that these kinds of conversations start one person at a time. Because when presenting completely new – some would say radical – options for the future, it is critical to spend sufficient and focused time with whomever needs to be educated.
Choose the order of approach: You should decide who needs to hear this first, second, and so on. Sometimes it’s your board chair that should be spoken to first. Sometimes it’s the person you are closest with on the board. Sometimes it’s one of your direct reports. Whomever it is, be sure that the choice is made planfully, fully understanding how the order of communication will impact the idea’s acceptance.
In person: These nascent conversations need to be made in person, in confidence, and without a paper trail. And preferably not by videoconference, either. The nature of these discussions requires you to be able to fully read the individual’s body language for subtle (and not so subtle) cues as to their feelings and concerns.
Find the right venue: These conversations should not be made on the fly, at the end of a busy board meeting, or in the hallway as members are leaving. Resist the urge to be spontaneous. Best to arrange for a specific appointment with sufficient dedicated time, in a setting with a minimum of distractions and without having to rush.
Tell a story: As we commented recently, storytelling is a critical skill in fostering institutional transformation. Provide the background for why the concept should be considered and examples of other schools who succeeded in leveraging the strategy… or who failed by not considering it. In essence, tell a story, weaving the environmental changes we are facing with the history of the institution. Your story should lead the listener along the same thought path that you followed.
Make a point of listening: While an idea may seem to you like the right one, at least the right one for consideration, it will be critical to speak only enough to tell the story and then listen. Understanding the concerns and objections of the listener will help you to craft a better approach. And often will provide you with insights on issues you were not aware of but should be.
Be patient: It will take time and often more than one discussion for individual board members and other leaders to fully grasp the situation on the ground and the opportunities presented. Take your time… but not too much.
Just for discussion: Reassure the listener that you are bringing these possible options for their consideration, not because you think they should be done, but because you think they need to be considered and vetted.
End with next steps: Make sure your discussion ends with clear next steps. Whether it is to meet again to continue the discussion, or to bring in other board members, or even to hire an external party to assist in the education. Always clearly state what the next steps and timeline should be.

Secondly, once key individuals have been approached and appraised it might be time to educate the board as a whole. Often this may be ad hoc, although on occasion, it is part of a larger strategic and scenario planning session. This is where external third parties can be very helpful. A third party not only helps bring in fresh perspectives but also provides institutional leaders with a modicum of distance from the discussions, which can be important as they continue to advocate for the institution’s students and its future.

The team at SPH Consulting Group frequently offers short education sessions to college and university boards or individual board members and helps to manage strategic and scenario planning sessions.

To learn more about SPH Consulting Group and how we can help your organization, contact office@sphconsultinggroup.com.

Writer: Ricardo Azziz, Principal, SPH Consulting Group.

Higher education has been going through significant change. After years of steady and, at times, substantial growth in demand, the last twelve years have seen a clear significant change in direction. Between 2011 and 2020, institutions of higher education experienced a 10% decline in the demand for the “product” they offer, the once coveted college degree. The reasons for the decline have been studied extensively and range from, the obvious issues of escalating cost, an aging population with a shrinking college age demographic, to a new recognition of the need for people in the various trade industries that do not require a college degree. Models for learning have also changed. Post-Covid that trend has only continued, with the idea of delivering education through distance or remote online learning gaining strength.

Put another way, higher education has lost more than 2 million students annually. This decline in enrollment has led to something virtually unthinkable prior to 2010; old and respected colleges and universities are being forced to close. However, if you look closer at the data, you also see that not all schools are experiencing a decline in enrollment. Larger schools have actually seen an increase in their overall enrollment. For example, if we examine the 20 largest institutions in the U.S. (by enrollment) we observe that between the same years, student enrollment increased by 8%, and was even greater when considering four year institutions only (+10%) or private institutions only (+22%). So, what does all this mean for colleges and universities who are trying to strategically plan for their future and how do they remain “market relevant” in the evolving environment?

Is there a way for smaller colleges and universities to retain their legacy and continue delivering on their underlying mission? The answers are not easy. Not because there are no options, but because the options are often outside the normal “comfort zone” not only for school boards and executives, but also for the extended campus community.

Unlike other sectors of our society, prior to 2010 the world of higher education functioned in its own unique space. Sometimes referred to as the “Ivory Tower,” these organizations functioned with their own rules of engagement, thinking of themselves as different and unique enterprises, where many of the typical rules that govern business did not apply. It was a place for free-thinking people to go, explore through research and teaching with the mission of providing the world its next generation of leaders across all industries. Following World War II, demand was such that there was little reason to be overly concerned about the economic realities of operating the higher education business.

The demand was there, growth was required, and on a relative basis all institutions could increase in size and charge what they needed to charge, and there would be a customer or client who valued their brand and was willing to pay for the product. Post college, the market was demanding that the workforce obtain a college degree in order to secure the best paying jobs and have the greatest opportunity for a better financial future. Unlike other industries, higher education was far less affected by supply and demand, business and economic cycles, changes in the regulatory environment, and even the evolution of technology. In fact, if anything, the rapid evolution of information technology (IT) helped to spur the further demand for trained personnel, which in turn helped colleges and universities as the training ground for this new generation of engineers, scientists, and IT personnel.

Unlike higher education, other industries were unable to escape the reality of a changing and evolving environment. New for more sophisticated technology, the increasing cost of materials, a changing demand for services, increasing regulatory burden, and much more – all impacting virtually every industry from healthcare to transportation to communications to banking and finance. These other industries learned that the market demanded they reconsider how they operate and be open to modifying how they view themselves and retain their relevance. The need to look ahead, strategically plan, flex their size, adjust their operations, and view new partnerships and relationships, all became the basic tools for how they operate.

However, the uninhibited use of these fundamental operating and financial tools and principles have been frequently absent from most institutions of higher education. Many traditional institutes of higher education, in particular private institutions, have functioned primarily as standalone entities, without significant operational or financial ties with others. They have therefore found themselves competing for the same market, expending funds to build similar programs and facilities, and supporting what often is duplicative infrastructure. There has been a general reluctance to explore the development of creative strategic partnerships and relationships.

Included in the idea of considering strategic relationships is a willingness to consider and, as needed, embrace the idea of merging with and/or merging into other compatible organizations. If it is to be used in a meaningful way, consideration of strategic partnerships requires an openness to letting go of some control and accepting that real change is going to be difficult and likely will take the organization and its leaders out of their usual comfort zones. It also means that traditional ways of looking at challenges and how they might be truly mitigated need to be on the table.

Consideration of strategic partnerships requires setting aside egos and a higher degree of transparency then the culture of the organization may be accustomed to. This is perhaps the greatest challenge to considering strategic partnerships in higher education. The willingness of most senior leaders to relinquish some degree of control and accept appropriate risks to their own positions. These concepts are not new to other industries, and it is in fact how organizations in health care, communications, and the like have managed to evolve and remain successful.

Ultimately, it all comes down to leadership answering the question, “What is more important?” Is it retaining our name, traditions, and independence just because this is how we have always operated? Or can we see ourselves in a new way, relinquishing some degree of control and finding new ways of being, in order to preserve our legacy and, even more importantly, create new legacies that meet the realities of today’s marketplace?

To learn more about SPH Consulting Group and how we can help your organization, contact office@sphconsultinggroup.com.

Writer: Richard Katzman, Senior Consultant, SPH Consulting Group.

As we navigate the increasingly choppy waters of higher education, we must remember a key fundamental – stories are how we communicate around complexity. Stories have been central to human communication for thousands of years. From 30,000-year-old cave paintings in France, to the blockbuster opening of Top Gun: Maverick last summer, we are clearly drawn to a good story.

Why is the narrative form so powerful and so popular? I believe it is due to two key features: the way stories engage our senses and the work that stories do for us.

Stories engage more areas of our brain as we read or listen to them. Unlike “info dumps” in endless PowerPoint slide decks, good stories use language to help us see, hear, feel, and taste things from another place and time. They draw on our sense memories to stir our emotions.

Because they so fully engage us, stories can be powerful. They influence who we think we are, how we are connected to others, and they motivate us to do what we do and believe what we believe.

Our institutions are fundamentally shaped by the stories we tell about our origins, our history, and our work together. They are the most powerful creators and sustainers of our organization’s identity and culture.

Do you know what your organization’s most important stories are? Do you know who is telling your stories?

As you consider changes to your organization, such as a new name, new brand campaign, a merger or a significant evolution in mission and vision, have you considered how those changes will impact the story your organization shares about itself? Will the changes be a new chapter or a total re-write of your story?
Have you, also, considered how your stories can help manage the change you are planning, leveraging your culture to make your change successful?

As you think through these questions, here are some storytelling principles to keep in mind:

The leader of an organization should be its “storyteller-in-chief”. An organization’s stories should be incorporated into leadership communication strategies.
Your story should have a “plot” that is consistent with your mission, vision, and values. The plot is what moves the story forward. Your mission, vision, and values should provide the energy and motivation that propels your organization forward to overcome challenges.
Every good story has a protagonist. Your people should be the heroes of your story.
Every good story has an obstacle created by an antagonist. Be sure to identify who or what is standing between your organization and its people and success, and how those challenges were or will be overcome.
Good stories make sense to people—there is a logic to them. Think about the movie or television show that flops because it is incoherent, too far-fetched or because the characters do not behave in the way we would behave if we were in their shoes. Make sure your story is credible, that it is internally consistent and that it makes sense with what we generally know about human behavior.
Stories that last the test of time and serve as the bedrocks of an organization’s culture shape the way new facts and stories are evaluated. As a result, change must account for an institution’s past.
Language is powerful. The difference between someone who merely provides information, and a good storyteller is that the storyteller uses language to engage the senses and call upon the values of their constituents. The right language can make a story much more powerful.

As you begin to consider major opportunities for your institution, such as a merger, acquisition, consolidation, or even closure, let SPH Consulting Group help you craft and communicate that story. A story that will help you and your organization achieve its goals and vision.

To learn more about SPH Consulting Group and how we can help your organization, contact office@sphconsultinggroup.com.

Writer: Karla Leeper, Senior Consultant, SPH Consulting Group.

We hear much regarding the crises facing higher education today – tumbling enrollments, changing student demographics, increasing institutional costs, the even greater increase in costs to students and the exponential rise in student debt, the challenges occasioned by increasingly influential rankings, the declining interest in the humanities and liberal arts, the rise in market-capturing online programming, and much more. And we hear much about the suffering of the small, mostly private, mostly stand-alone institution. But what we do not hear enough about is the important opportunities present – on both sides of the negotiation table.

What the current environment has begun to achieve, albeit slowly, is to encourage college and university executives and governing boards to begin to think beyond the usual strategies of enrollment management, enhanced campus amenities, tuition and fee discounting, and expanded online programming and adult learning. More and more executives and board members are beginning to consider how a strategic partnership, possibly including a merger (sometimes termed consolidation or acquisition depending on perspective), may be the best tactic to achieve growth, sustainability, and success – for both the institution and students.

Why should institutional leaders consider a merger now? Because, paraphrasing Churchill, “Never let a good crisis go to waste”. As the pressures on many institutions rise, the opportunities also increase.

For example, some colleges or universities may want to expand their geographic or market footprint by partnering or merging with an institution that is already located in the area or community of interest.

Or some schools may want to develop programs in law, health sciences, or manufacturing. What better way to do so rapidly than to merge with a school that is already offering such programs? Especially, considering the many specialized schools throughout the nation.

Or some institutions may want to expand their degree portfolio, adding bachelors, masters, or doctorates, by merging with a school that already offers these degrees. Or, alternatively, a school may want to gain a secure base of undergraduates. What better way to do so than merging with a two-year college?
And still other institutions may seek future sustainability, ensuring that their mission is continued and students are served, albeit perhaps in a modified manner.

Yes, it is a time of opportunity. But a few things should be kept in mind.

First, institutions should not wait too long, particularly if they are seeking greater sustainability. Opportunities should be explored, deliberately and with resolve, when the institutions are still in good financial and political state.

Second, institutions should be strategic. While opportunism is often the leading guide to strategic partnerships, we believe that is best for institutional leaders to have clarity around the strategic tactics that are most fitting to their institutions. And which should guide their search for a strategic partner.

Third, institutional leaders should remember to put their ego in their pocket. These partnerships are not about them. They are about the school and its future. And most importantly, they are about the students. So, when in doubt, ask what would be best for the students? Today and in the future?

So, are you and your institution making the most of this time of opportunity?

To learn more about SPH Consulting Group and how we can help your organization, contact office@sphconsultinggroup.com.

Writer: Ricardo Azziz, Principal, SPH Consulting Group.

It’s about the right expertise, experience, objectivity, perspective, time, focus, communication, and education.

When all of us begin to deal with areas that we are unfamiliar with, we often turn for advice and guidance to those who have more experience and expertise in the field. And so it is when a merger, acquisition or consolidation is being considered. Or even earlier in the process, when potential options to expand programming or grow enrollment rapidly want to be explored. Or even more commonly, when strategies and tactics to address a difficult enrollment and financial environment are being pursued.

Expertise is the principal reason leaders of higher education think of when considering an external consultant. And it is true that many consultants bring to the table expertise. Expertise that is relatively infrequent.

But do they bring experience? Because the one thing I have learned as someone who actually led two different consolidations, is that experience counts the most. Experience that is relatively uncommon in higher education. But not all consultants have ‘on-the-ground’ experience. Unique among consultants, all SPH Consulting Group team members have served in leadership and administrative roles during mergers, acquisitions, or consolidations in higher education. They get it.

While expertise and experience may be the reason that a consultant is selected, there are many more reasons to hire an outside consultant when considering these major corporate transformations in higher education.

For starters, seeking outside counsel from an expert and experienced firm will provide needed objectivity and perspective. Impartiality and a different perspective that is often in short supply when transformational options as emotionally charged as a merger is being considered. Consultants can provide external analysis and due diligence that is critically needed when making these types of decisions. Information that will help validate any decision that is made – whether to proceed or not with the proposed transformation. And dispassionate external validation to a decision provides the added benefit to institutional leaders of what we euphemistically call ‘air cover’ – protection for leaders that would not exist if they had chosen to make these decisions alone.

In addition, hiring the right consultant allows the appropriate amount of time and focus to be given to considering the pros and cons of the option. Leaders in higher education are busy individuals. In fact, in an analysis of some 40 mergers occurring since 2000, it was indicated that “successful” mergers seem to involve the decision-makers who were managing their institutions well. All leaders, regardless of how experienced or outstanding they may be, have limited bandwidth and attention spans. And, good decision-making and analysis around major institutional restructuring require significant time and attention. Time and attention that leaders cannot afford if they are to manage their institutions well, while also arriving at the best and most informed decision. The right consultant will serve to ‘extend’ the leaders’ time and focus, providing careful analysis and due diligence for ready consideration and decision-making.

Finally, the right and experienced consultant will be able to assist in communicating and educating important stakeholders including boards, executive leaders, and key community members concerning the environmental challenges, the potential options, the process forward, and much more. While these individuals may not always listen to their own, they almost always listen to national experts. Experts that SPH Consulting Group has in abundance.

When a merger, acquisition, consolidation, corporate conversion, or other major institutional restructuring is being considered, hiring the right consultant should be able to provide the right expertise, experience, objectivity, perspective, time, focus, communication, and education. Critical benefits, when major and uncommon options need to be considered and decisions made in a timely manner.

To learn more about SPH Consulting Group and how we can help your organization, contact office@sphconsultinggroup.com.

Writer: Ricardo Azziz, Principal, SPH Consulting Group.

When higher education institutions merge (consolidate) to create a new institution, most academic and other departments are combined to reduce duplication of positions and services. This helps reduce the number of administrative positions and creates economies of scale which helps reduce operating costs. But what becomes of athletic departments in a merger?

There are generally three options for athletics when multiple higher education institutions consolidate into a single institution. The easiest to manage can be seen in the consolidation Middle Georgia College and Macon State College that resulted in what is today Middle Georgia State University, in which only one of the institution had athletics department. In this case, the single athletic department is continued.

The second option was seen in the consolidation of Georgia Southern University, which was a member of NCAA Division I, with Armstrong State University, which was a member of NCAA Division II. In this case, the choice was to discontinue Armstrong’s athletics (in what ended up being the Savannah campus of Georgia Southern University) and the Division I program was continued on the Statesboro (main) campus of Georgia Southern University. In this case, the decision appears to have been based on which division the merged school chose to continue and invest in. But even in the example provided, a number of questions remain. What happens with students interested in athletics who are on the Savannah campus of the merged entity? In the Georgia Southern University example, one institution was dissolved while the other remained in operation. But what happens if two institutions have operating athletic programs and both institutions are dissolved in favor of a new consolidated institution? These are complex questions that require careful analysis and lead to the third possibility.

A third option that may be considered when each of the merging institutions have an existing athletic program, is to keep both athletic departments open and run as separate departments on different campuses. Whether the departments are in the same association (NCAA, NAIA, etc.) or not, maintaining two athletic departments is an option that often needs to be considered. The mergers in the University System of Pennsylvania are an example in which six different institutions were merged into two (three in each case) yet each retained a separate athletic department on each campus, and compete against each other.

Maintaining separate athletic departments can become a necessity for enrollment. Mergers are designed to help the school become stronger and losing a percentage of student-athletes due to combining athletic departments can have a negative impact. At smaller, private institutions, student-athlete enrollment can comprise as much as 60%, if not more, of the overall student-body and adding new athletic teams or club sports for increasing enrollment. If two institutions are merged in order to increase the sustainability of both, losing any portion of the student population due to the loss of an athletic program needs to be balanced against overall costs of that program, financially and politically.

Considering which program to continue and which to discontinue will depend on many factors including the extent to which enrollment, branding, and fundraising depend on athletics, the costs of the program, Title IX and equity considerations, future potential, athletic association, conference, and much more. Determining how to manage these questions is a key component in the process of merging institutions of higher education.

To learn more about SPH Consulting Group and how we can help your organization, contact office@sphconsultinggroup.com.

Writer: James Hagler, Consultant, SPH Consulting Group.

Higher education is a service and institutions of higher education are wise to consider themselves service providers. Most do not frame academia in this way, but just as an auto repair shop fixes a car or a health care provider gets a patient back on his feet, colleges and universities serve students through teaching, research and community service. In services, we know consumers are risk-averse. It is simple human nature. People want to find a way to engage with a service provider to have their expectations met and to do so with limited interruption or friction. A merger or consolidation in higher education could easily be a source of friction or discomfort to consumers including students, faculty, staff, alumni, and communities served. So how do we approach our stakeholder engagement to minimize the risks and prepare our communities for change? At SPH Consulting Group, we consider the following when preparing our clients for success.

Determining your audiences.

When colleges or universities make the decision to merge or consolidate, there are numerous parties with a vested interest in the outcome of such a decision: alumni, current and prospective students, donors, faculty, staff, affiliates, regional accreditors, state office of education, and many more. Consider all who may be impacted or have even a peripheral interest in what is happening, including peers. And especially if you are a state-funded institution, you must ensure state and local officials are also included.

Segmenting your audiences.

As with any organizational change, providing context is key. Everyone will want to know the answer to the question, “What is in it for me?” The answer to this question will differ for each audience. However, it is key to segment your audiences, to communicate the right message, at the right time, and to the right people.

Creating a systematic approach for all voices to be heard – and promptly answered.

Often times in academia, we find the noisiest constituencies or the loudest voices are often responded to first. This leads to disengagement from other key stakeholders who don’t know how or when to voice their opinions. Or simply are trying to voice their thoughts in a quieter, calmer, more less confrontational manner. To prevent disengagement or lopsided feedback, administrations should take a proactive approach and a priori determine primary and secondary audiences. Then allow individuals to express themselves in a documented fashion, whether through an online survey or multiple town halls. Consider the timing of events to ensure audience availability and participation. Ensure the questions you are asking are related to the segment of the audience you are addressing. And consider the following – Do they have enough information to answer the questions? How will their feedback influence future decisions?

As with any organization in the service industry, if institutions put PEOPLE FIRST in their stakeholder engagement planning, the outcome will be sustainable and will create loyalty to the institution’s brand, post-merger.

Writer: Aubrey Hinkson, Consultant, SPH Consulting Group

To learn more about SPH Consulting Group and how we can help your organization, contact office@sphconsultinggroup.com.