The Social Setting

March 18, 2014

One week last month our local Big Ten head men’s basketball coach blasted Twitter. The following week Iowa’s head coach, arguably the coach with the league’s worst sideline decorum (and that’s saying a lot for a league that’s allowed its coaches to get out of control) said his players are henceforth barred from tweeting.

Between these headlines was one of more significance: Facebook announced that it would be paying $19 billion to purchase WhatsApp. Which means social media is here to stay. And everybody, including big time basketball coaches, needs to deal with it in better ways than merely blasting it and/or barring it.

What it means for an organization like mine is that everything we do needs to be considered in all the usual goals, objectives and strategies progressions, and that at least one progression must have social media as an outcome and almost all progressions must have social media as a tactic.

Just over a decade ago we realized that almost every task we have has an information technology component. We discovered we needed our IT staff in the room when new projects or protocols were being considered, when new policies were being developed, and when all sorts of problems were being addressed. Fail to involve IT personnel soon enough or at all, we learned, and failure of the enterprise was assured.

We are at the same point today with social media. If we neglect the social media component – fail to consider how to use it to the advantage of the project or fail to consider how adverse social media could doom the project – we operate with at least one hand tied behind our back.

Just as the IT staff have needed to be consulted, and listened to, in order for the enterprise to reach its potential, so must our social media staff have a seat at the table and a voice in the discussion of anything of consequence we might think we should do.

This is as true for nonprofit organizations as it is for profit, for small organizations and large, both private and public.

Failing Boys

July 9, 2012

In the autumn of 2002, I included the following statement in a longer editorial in the MHSAA Bulletin:

“Year after year I go to league and conference scholar-athlete awards banquets and see girls outnumber boys by wide margins:  54 girls to 33 boys honored at a March event in mid-Michigan is typical of what has occurred many places over many years.

“Year after year, I attend senior honors programs and see girls outnumber boys:  147 awards to girls versus 70 awards to boys honored at a May event in mid-Michigan is typical.

“Look at these figures from the National Federation of State High School Associations:
 
• “68.3% of vocal music participants are girls.
• 66.4% of participants in group interpretation speech activities are girls.
• 63.3% of participants in individual speech events are girls.
• 62.7% of orchestra members are girls.
• 61% of dramatics participants are girls.”

Nothing since that time has changed my opinion that schools and society at large are expecting far too little of boys.  It’s as if boys get a free pass from high expectations if they do sports and don’t do drugs.  Far too little is asked of far too many of our male students.

Now add this to the story:  There is a growing body of research that supports the premise that while high school sports participation is great for girls, it’s actually bad for high school boys.  Bad because it leads to lower participation in non-athletic activities, lower achievement in the classroom, and lower scores on measures of personal conduct and character than their female counterparts.

Males are dropping out of high schools at higher rates and enrolling in colleges at lower rates than females.  They’re abusing drugs at higher rates than females, and males are committing both violent and petty crimes at much higher rates than females.  Could much of this be linked to the low expectations we have for high school students?  Isn’t it time for organized advocacy on behalf of boys?