I'm not good at taking decisions. But my recent experience with THE university made the decision very easy for me. I requested information for two different programs: an MBA program and a Master's in Cybersecurity. The prompt feedback I received from the MBA program was very standardized and structured. Though my questions were answered, I had to find them within all the information provided. Nonetheless, everything was very well curated with follow-up e-mails, gently pushing me to start my application.
Though I asked the same questions for the Master's in Cybersecurity, the first response took a couple of days. The replies were disorganized, with spelling mistakes and to some point confusing. My follow-up questions were answered by another person that clearly had no reference to the previous conversation. Though I heard good things about the program, the initial interaction with the recruitment team didn't make me comfortable pursuing my interest in this program any further. The rather erratic conversations didn't create the feeling that the program management would be very different.
Isn't it strange that the onboarding experience (from the first interaction to the enrollment) at the same university is so vastly different? It appears to be a different institution.
As a university increases its portfolio to more specialized programs in more cutting-edge areas, a dilemma arises:
1. Shall we "dismantle the winning team" and create new recruitment units for a more personalized approach
2. Shall we keep the recruitment team united and just adapt the messaging?
Never changing a winning team is a well-known phrase. It's great for the leader as s/he can rely on a team that works efficiently. It ignores however the individual needs for professional growth. Building new recruitment teams away from the established processes enables individual team members to show their worth.
It also enables the establishment of new processes and more adaptation to the audience of a different area of the portfolio. A lead for the MBA is certainly different from a lead for the Master in Cybersecurity. Certain parts of the "commercial message" that triggers engagement for MBA candidates, do not necessarily do the same for Cybersecurity Passionists. So, a more focused approach looks appropriate.
Every opportunity bears risks. New processes are great if they smoothly can be integrated into existing flows. If they create extra work for the sake of personalization, it can become a balancing act in which the benefits of personalization might suffer from inefficient and time-consuming processes. This will ultimately impact the quality perception of prospective candidates.
Not doing too much and keeping the team together as one sounds like an easier decision. Just only adapting the messaging, that's it... Really?
Just using make-up is not creating personalization. The processes might be perfect for the programs for which it has been created. For the niche programs, however, the processes might not be necessarily a good fit. Imagine you apply for the Master in Cybersecurity and you get asked business-related questions or do not have the opportunity to add technical certifications in the application. Even the interview might need to see adaptation, as the set of questions and level of expectations should differ from MBA interviews.
Whichever route the recruitment team is taking, it's not impossible to accomplish a level of personalization while maintaining the level of operational efficiency. It takes a highly motivated team with an open mind and attention to detail.
Edu is going for the safe bet, MBA, as he feels more assured of the prospective outcome. Cybersecurity remains his passion but he probably will explore it again at a later stage.
If you need help in optimizing your admissions process, explore our Workshops or reach out for more personalized solutions.