IMO: Mensa's Unresolved Essential Problem

American Mensa's strategic plan

 VISION: 
Create a stimulating intellectual and social environment for the most intelligent people.

MISSION
: Identify and foster human intelligence for the benefit of humanity by encouraging research in the nature, characteristics and uses of intelligence and by providing a stimulating intellectual and social environment for its members.

CORE VALUES:
 (Core values are essential and enduring tenets of the organization — a small set of timeless guiding principles.)

Intelligence benefiting humanity:
   Demonstrated by support of initiatives that advance the use of intelligence in solving problems and seizing opportunities.

Intellectual integrity:
   Demonstrated by organizational dedication to ethical, truthful and evidence-based decision-making with an appropriate balance between openness and privacy, and between transparency and confidentiality. 

Valuing ideas and individualism:
   Demonstrated by celebration of the power of differing views, admiration for independent thought, and appreciation of well-intentioned and informed criticism.

Connection:
   Demonstrated by commitment to providing opportunities for fellowship among a global community of common interests.

BIG GOAL: To be widely recognized as the premier community for intelligent people seeking intellectual challenge, respect for intelligence and the opportunity to join with others to benefit humanity.

................................................................

I agree with and support all of the vision/mission/core values/goals. I really truly do.

But Mensa is heading the way of dinosaurs, and when that happens, none of these lofty goals will be met or remembered. Here’s what I consider to be a essential unresolved problem: We are utterly aggressively inclusive. As a result, all the smart misfits of the world have a place to congregate and socialize. Sounds wonderful.

However, for every 100 adequately-socialized smarty who join, there will be two or three I would classify as unrepentant, irredeemable “jerks.” You know them:

Revolting Ralph, who hovers at the food table, eats with his hands, coughs without covering his mouth, and sticks his fingers in the chip dip.

Dirty Old Monty, who leers at the 20 and 30-year old women, makes lewd remarks, and gives tight pelvic-grinding hugs without permission.

Snotty Sara, who criticizes everyone in a snarky tone, bitches in a 500-person hospitality line about how “real” turkey should be hand carved from a whole bird instead of served pre-sliced in warming trays, and writes condescending letters to the editor when events are not planned in places and times convenient for her.

Tommy Troll, who purposely floods online venues with rude, racist, hate-filled or obscene posts and then proudly boasts about how many thin-skinned members block him.

There are more, of course, and we all know them.

BUT… people like me, and most of my readers have been around long enough to have met and befriended 100s of brilliant and colorful people who are really awesome, and we know that it’s easy enough to sidestep the jerks and find the intellectual camaraderie and acceptance we joined for.

However, we wise and seasoned members… will fade away. Until Mensa develops and distributes affordable immortality pills, there will be fewer of us. Ah, but, you say, we get new members, younger members, and they will replace older members. Circle of life and all that.

The problem is… incoming members do not have our experience. They encounter the jerks and then quietly mutter “Wow, this is sooo not what I expected or need in my life. I’m outta here.”

The new jerks, having found acceptance, stay.

Consequently, the number of jerks swells over time, which hastens the exit of more and more new members. As we gray-hairs fade away, the jerk-to-awesome ratio tilts in a very bad direction more and more.

Where is Mensa heading by virtue of its unwillingness to stop tolerating and supporting the activities and participation of the jerks? 

Is this the “stimulating intellectual and social environment for the most intelligent people” we want?

Thoughts on FaceBook Meltdown 2014

Every Mensa group, be it geographical, Special interest, or online, has it share of Revolting Ralphs who grope boobs, stick their fingers in the chip dip, and troll for infamy. We pride ourselves on tolerating and welcoming and accommodating everyone, including the Revolting ones. That's fine for people like me, who have been around enough to know for sure that there are more well-socialized members than Revolting ones. Knowing that enables me to shrug off the dickheads and move on to enjoy cold beer with people I like.

BUT... new members do not have my experience. They run into revolting Ralph too soon and they are quick to turn away. The result, over time, is more gray haired folks, fewer energetic new ones, and general stagnation. 

I think the uber Mensa leaders need to decide if Mensa in general is a club for people who cannot and will not fit in anywhere else... or if it is something a little more inviting than an insane asylum. 

And if the latter, then we need to find our collective balls and turn away the Revolting ones, regardless of their poo-flinging and howling, and concentrate on being kind and welcoming to the members who ARE the sort of people we joined in order to find.

My Presentation to the AMC in Reno, 2012

I mentioned on FaceBook about the sad neglect of the recommendations in the Governance Task Force report from 2010. I thought I'd share a bit of the follow up to that, when the AMC had claimed it wanted to work on a few topics. What follows is what I presented to the AMC in Reno.
(very long)

Governance Discussion for AMC meeting in Reno

A summary of the Governance Task Force Report

I’m not sure how to summarize that 53 page report better than it summarized itself.  It has a ton of research, gathered from professional and credible sources as well as our own investigation of our members. It ends with many many pages of changes to make or to consider making. All I can say is—read it. Really. And then read it again; answer the thought-provoking questions; scribble in the margins.

Based off of that…

What, if anything, does this AMC really want to address?

Last May, I led the AMC through some discussions to come up with a beginning list of what they wanted for Mensa. Here is what they identified and what has happened since then:

1. AML needs detailed useful job descriptions (to give the NomCom and potential candidates and voters better decision-making information).

I asked members of the AMC to review the job descriptions written by Jean Becker years ago and to update and expand them according to current practice and needs.

I heard back from Dan Burg, who said “The descriptions for 1VC and 2VC look fine to me.  For both of them, the job is really what the person makes of it.  Some do more, some do less.”

I heard back from Russ Bakke, who listed a couple Past Chair duties that were no longer current and added that the Past Chair is the liaison between the National Hearing Committee and the AMC.

I heard from Jean Becker, who said that she would review the descriptions and has lots of background information if I need it.

The Communications Officer replied, saying that I would be the best one to review and write that job description.

And that’s it. Not a single RVC replied.  Nor the Chair, Second Vice Chair, Treasurer,  Secretary, nor any of the other appointed officers.

So basically, I got nothing useful from the office-holders, even though they themselves agree that this was something to be done. And now it is the beginning of election season—when accurate and full descriptions of what each office entails and requires would be most helpful to the  NomCom and to the candidates considering  running—  but we have nothing.

2. AML needs a NomComm with teeth AND a petition process that somehow still protects the org from really unqualified candidates.

In October, I wrote to the GBTF:

Rick, Elissa, and Jean were to look at this. We seem to agree that Mensa still wants a combination of the two, that there is resistance to a process that involves some Mensans having authority to pass judgement on other Mensans, and that having no vetting leaves the organization open to wild-card candidates that suck up resources and have the potential to harm (think Birdman who gets 50 people to sign his petition -- super easy to do electronically -- as a joke, giving him mandated, uncensored access to all members for spewing any lie or hate-filled message). What is the best solution?

I received no replies.

3. There should be some formal but not excessively rigorous training for whole board on financial matters.

In October I reported to the GBTF:

Elissa and Ellen were going to take the lead on instituting this, and Jean brought up the good point that it might be best for such training presentation be integrated into the expectations of the AMC treasurer. If so, then that duty may need to be mandated in a bylaw. I know Nick (current Treasurer) did a presentation at the fall AMC meeting. How did that go? Is it what was needed? Elissa, can you gather the talking points he made and share them with Ellen and expand or refine them for regular training purposes?

I received no replies.

4. Committee and task force openings should be advertised to the general membership, with clear descriptions of what is needed.

We agreed that this has already been implemented and with much rejoicing, we took it off our to-do list.

5. There should be some formalization (bit not too intensively) of how committees set and report goals and how they receive feedback from the BoD.

In October I wrote to the GBTF:

Ellen and Jean were going to look at this. There have been several reporting forms over the years. Please dig them up and craft something better that will result in providing focused direction for officers/committees based on the Strategic Plan and goals, clear reporting of progress on those goals, and a method for the BoD to respond and redirect if necessary. Right now, an AMC member or two might raise a brow at an officer/committee report, but no one dares hint that improvements could be made in anyone's potato patch. The AMC as is cannot give direction or redirection to volunteers who may or may not be accomplishing what the AMC asked them to do--or what the membership expects them to be doing. And all of this should be transparent to the membership at large, since they are ultimately the ones who judge the value of the goals and the effectiveness of the progress. How can this be best accomplished without crossing the line into asking the AMC to make and question every micro-step of every officer and committee?

I received no replies.

6. There should be some skill-specific, non-representative, voting BoD members. Whether they should be appointed by the elected officers or elected by the general membership is still undetermined (opinions are split fairly evenly).  Appointing non-voting positions seems acceptable to everyone.

Two GBTF members (Roger and Don) came up with this proposal in August 2011:

We leave the positions appointed, but set up a process whereby the positions must be advertised to the membership prior to each national election, with appropriate job descriptions, and anyone with an interest can send a resume to someone at the National Office, who would then forward all resumes received to the whole AMC.  The Chair would nominate one person for each office but if the AMC, after seeing the resumes, feels that a particularly good candidate was overlooked, they can vote against the Chair's nominee for that office.  If the Chair fails to get a majority in favor of the original nominee, a substitute nominee must be chosen from among the remaining pool of candidates.  Repeat until someone gets a majority.  That way the competition is open to all, the Chair gets to put forward someone he or she thinks would be good to work with, but the whole AMC makes the decision as to who is best qualified.

Jean Becker suggested that something similar be done for the Nat Reps, as those are important appointed positions as well.

Elissa replied “Just commenting on Jean’s comment about NatReps  not being appointed without AMC approval. But they are! The chair presents names, as I did in Portland, and rationale and the AMC approves. I could never just appoint anyone to anything without AMC approval. Would that I had that power!!

 “FYI, the chair usually has the best fit in mind for NatReps because of interaction with MIL’s ExComm and experience beyond U.S shores. So in a way, the chair should be able to appoint without second guessing from the rest of the AMC who generally are out of that loop.”

I told the taskforce:

If we all agree, I think this will NOT require a bylaw change, but just an ASIE mandating dissemination of job description (still to be written/updated) and soliciting members to apply for the three positions followed by distribution of those resumes/applications to the entire AMC. The holes I see in the logistics are timing:

When would solicitations for applicants go out? When would they be due?

When would the AMC-- and which board in an election year-- do the voting on the Chair's nominees? 

You don't want to wait until the AG and new board, but neither do you want an old chair and board to choose the officers of the subsequent board. How do we resolve that?

I got one reply, from Rick Magnus, who told us that Henry Noble has solicited in his Chair’s column for people interesting in an appointed position to let him know and he’d pass it on.

Other than that.. no further comments were made on this issue.

In October, I wrote to the GBTF:

Non representative / Non task-defined BoD members

One refrain we hear over and over is that "the AMC is too big" and that there are AMC positions that have no clear and direct representative or strategic function on the Board: the Second Vice and Past chairs, in particular. Wisdom and input they provide, without a doubt, but is having them at the table, voting, the most efficient and effective use of resources?

This has been brought up many times. Time marches on and communication methods improve. Just because it's been considered and turned down before doesn't mean it should not be reviewed and reconsidered.

Who would like to tackle gathering the meat of past discussions and see how things have changed or not?

I received no replies.

RVC Replacement

One of the biggest gotta-do issues is the  RVC replacement problem. We KNOW we have to address this. We TRIED and failed twice to fix it. So being the Little Red Hen that I am, I took it on last fall and did a ton of research, ultimately developing a long detailed background paper and a series of recommendations, which I gave to the AMC in December.

I received praise for the comprehensiveness of the report. I received several corrections to my having left out Clark’s replacement of Doug as RVC9 during the last month of his term.

Roger voiced a concern about the projected cost of a regional election, and suggested substituting a simple approval election for an RVC replacement appointed by the AMC. . Pam opined that there were probably ways that cost could be reduced, and she and Rick suggested some options.

Elissa asked about RVC removal.

A few people questioned the accuracy of the election cost estimate (which came from Howard asking the election house for a quote). A few members said outright that the estimate was a lie and a ploy by the AMC to not have a regional election because they wanted to keep control.

And then it appears to have been dropped. The AMC not only declined to take any action, but didn’t even put it on their meeting agenda for March.

And that, my friends, was the end of the GBTF’s work.

YOU are the elected officers. YOU are the ones who should be gathering information and MAKING DECISIONS.

Instead, the AMC has become… the elected followers.

The consultant we hired a few years ago pointed to several ways that Mensa Governance could and should be improved.

The Governance Task Force Report showed many areas that need change or improvement.

Pam has fed you articles and blog posts about how association governance needs have changed in this modern age.

I have given you several long detailed research reports and recommendations.

And most importantly, members have cried out over and over for SOMETHING TO BE DONE.

And so... frozen by inaction, the AMC is now facing a set of bylaw proposals crafted by members without researching, without fully understanding  the needs and processes. And these bylaws are about to be shoved in your face in a way that you cannot just ignore them.

I told Elissa I’d try one last-ditch effort to get y’all on track. Here goes—Just three steps for this quarter, and two will get done today:

ONE

Right here, right now, divide into three groups. Each group is to list two governance-related processes that should change or improve.  Feel free to flip through your copy of the Governance Task Force report for inspiration.

But before you voice your views , which are based on your umpteen years in Mensa leadership positions, consider these two snippets:

1.  The Misconception: Your opinions are the result of years of rational, objective analysis.

The Truth: Your opinions are the result of years of paying attention to information which confirmed what you believed while ignoring information which challenged your preconceived notions.

Check any Amazon.com wish list, and you will find people rarely seek books which challenge their notions of how things are or should be.

You seek out safe havens for your ideology, friends and coworkers of like mind and attitude, media outlets guaranteed to play nice.

Whenever your opinions or beliefs are so intertwined with your self-image you couldn’t pull them away without damaging your core concepts of self, you avoid situations which may cause harm to those beliefs.

Over time, by never seeking the antithetical, through accumulating subscriptions to magazines, stacks of books and hours of television, you can become so confident in your world-view no one could dissuade you.

(Shared from the “You AreNot So Smart” blog)

2. Typically organizations spend way too much time, worry and effort parsing how their multiple constituencies will be represented in their various governance and operational bodies.

Ever since our Eighteenth Century call to arms– No taxation without representation!–we have been trapped in the mindset that no organization can be truly democratic unless all recognizable constituencies have a seat at the governing table. But in this new era of Internet-based communities it is becoming increasingly difficult to determine whose team anyone is on. Do you feel a certain way just because you live in Michigan, or because you work in a certain industry, or perform a certain job or practice a certain profession?–perhaps so, but increasingly not.

So what does “representation” mean in this new environment? I suggest that when it comes to board representation the primary criteria are and should be the background and skills set of the people on the board—do they help advance the organization’s strategy and the strategic goals that are part of that strategy? This is the only question that matters, everything else is or should be subordinate to that.

(Shared from a post by Steven Worth of Plexus Consulting via a blog called Social Fish)

Governance-related processes that should change or improve

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Great, so now we know what you think should be fixed. You next need to gather pertinent objective information about those processes—without jumping ahead to a conclusion you’re trying to justify.

TWO

For each of the six processes listed above, an elected or appointed member of the Board of DIRECTORS should raise his or her hand to DIRECT him or herself and others on gathering information necessary to make a wise decision about how to best improve that process.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

That’s it for now. Don’t worry about coming up with plans and solutions. Those will reveal themselves to you quite clearly AFTER you ask your questions and do your research. And no, I’m not going to patronize you by listing what sorts of questions you should be asking about these topics. You have been overloaded with background paper examples and information about how to think strategically. Use what you have learned.

THREE

In September, provide your peers with full reports detailing all the information you’ve gathered about your assigned process-to-improve.

Do this, and the next steps will be obvious.                       

...............................................................................................................

They did task One and Two.

Then (to my knowledge)... nothing.