As I finalize my syllabus for this semester’s Columbia College Oral Communications classes, I can’t help but compare the level of detail and ‘spell-it-all-out-format’ of my syllabus relative to the syllabi of my colleagues that teach the same course.
Is it necessary, I wonder, to provide such a level of detail?
My belief is yes. People learn from various channels—visual, aural, reading, and kinesthetics (doing). So sure, some of the kids may still need to hear me describe the upcoming assignments each week, but other kids may want to read about those same assignments. Further—provided my grading consistently reflects the ‘requirements’ written in the syllabus—the students will learn very quickly that I’m not messing around. {A minor example would be specifications for a precise format in which they need to submit their formal speech outlines}.
Is the same true when dealing with AEC professionals? Again, my answer is yes. The more you put in writing relating to your firm’s expectations of each individual in his/her role, the more you can be sure they will absorb and live up to those expectations. A great example is during annual reviews. Since we are always asking everyone, in every role, to do marketing, doesn’t it make good sense that we’d be specific in terms of some ideas/activities that would ‘count’ as marketing/sales?
If your annual review process does not yet include a section for ‘Marketing and Business Development Contributions’, then work with your firm’s Human Resources team to make that adjustment. As well, make sure that those leaders who are administering these reviews have a clear and consistent perspective on how each professional can best contribute (based upon their personal skill sets as well as the freedom/limitations within their primary role). These articles—What’s your bizdev purpose? and Turning lemons into lemonade, Part II of II talk about specific ways that various individuals within the firm can be assigned certain marketing/sales responsibilities.
