My New View of Mensa International's Position

For most of my Mensa life, I've thought of Mensa as a hierarchical pyramid, with Mensa International at the top, dictating to the national Mensas and members. Upon much reflection, I now see it as a broad, but inverted pyramid, with Mensa International at the base — enabling, serving, and supporting everyone else.

If you're going to do it...

do it right. On the other hand—

 

Space to Unfold

I recently stumbled across an essay by Henrik Karlsson in his blog "Escaping Flatland."

When I meet a person who is truly, profoundly themselves, I sometimes think of a letter Charles Darwin sent to Joseph Hooker in January 1862 after receiving a package of orchids. 

“Good heavens,” Darwin wrote about the Angraecum sesquipedale, an orchid from Madagascar with a nectary as long as his forearm, ”what insect can suck it?” There must exist a pollinator moth with a tongue longer than any that has ever been observed, he conjectured later. The moth and the orchid must have evolved in dialogue.

This is what I infer when I see someone who is comfortable in their unique strangeness, too. There probably exists someone who enabled that evolution of personality. A parent, a friend group, a spouse. It is rare for people to come into themselves if no one is excited and curious about their core, their potential. We need someone who gives us space to unfold.

It occurs to me that in many ways this is what Mensa offers people of high intelligence — space to unfold and be comfortable as their true selves.

Today I learned

 about "sunk cost fallacy."

My Guiding Principle

 As drama swirls and intensifies, my guiding principle is this:

What is best for Mensa?

Not what is best for me, my status, my ego, my travel budget, my friendships...

What is best for Mensa?

How can I leave Mensa better than when I joined?

I keep contributing to discussions, but...

 

Harvard’s 15-Step Leadership Checklist

Leadership is one of those terms we all use and we all "know" what it means, but I found this article particularly on-point for identifying exactly what makes a good leader. 

https://hive.com/blog/leadership-checklist/

Shower Thoughts: Resources and Strategic Priorities

It occurs to me that we spend ~50% of our staff resources on services that benefit maybe 5% of our membership.

Why does the AMC spend so much time pondering

What's the best term—Ombudsman, Ombuds, or Ombudsperson?

instead of

What percentage of our resources should be allocated to which of our strategic priorities?

Great Leaders

 Saw this somewhere and liked it:

Great leaders

don't set out to be leaders;

They set out to make a difference.

It's never about the role—

it's about the

goal.

If Mensa Had a Million Dollars

I’ve been reading some discussion about Local Group funding and how to improve the members’ experience in Mensa. I’ve watched as membership numbers slip downward, and as testing numbers continue to drop, despite all sorts of massive efforts and incentives to Groups to promote testing.

Even in Chicago, widely-admired as an active and high-functioning group, there is a sense of… staleness. I know that despite being quite committed to Mensa, and proud of my chapter, even I find myself feeling rather “meh” about most offerings. Another party with the same people and same types of food and entertainment. Another dinner out with the same crowd. Another spread of pictures of the same people playing games in our newsletter.  I like the folks here just fine. I enjoy the beer selection and some of the speakers at meetings and gatherings are quite entertaining. No complaints, really. Just…  nothing that really grabs me any more enough to put on my shoes and drive an hour.

If the group had even more money, what would I get? Another page or two of the newsletter, perhaps with some puzzles, which I can get online for free. Maybe some well-written an thought-provoking articles and essays, which I can find all over the Web whenever I sit down to catch up on the 37 blogs I follow. Perhaps two more parties a year, with some good wine and some nice hot hors d’oeuvres and the same smart people standing around talking and playing games. It’s even possible that we might hire a famous professional speaker to give a really great lecture, much like I can watch on TED. All quite nice. Might even get me to drag myself out to a meeting. But might not.

The other day, I was fantasizing about winning the lottery and what all I might do with a bazillion dollars. One of the things I daydreamed about was writing a check for a million dollars made out to American Mensa (not the Foundation, since as a bazillionaire, I was not really concerned about getting the tax deduction, but what the heck, I also dashed off a check for two million to the Foundation just because I could). In my fantasy, I arranged a meeting with Pam, Nick, and Elissa, and quite enjoyed their eye-popping gasps when I presented the check.

But there was a catch.

I challenged them to come up with an answer to this question: Since Mensa already excels at offering acceptance and succor to very smart and socially awkward people, how could they use a million dollars to provide very smart, socially adept people something they cannot easily find anywhere else?

The daydream trailed off at that point, but the emails I’ve been reading lately made me think about it again. Obviously, since I don’t buy lottery tickets, my bazillionairehood is still far in the future. But still…

I challenge the leaders and other members of Mensa to:

Think of what Mensa could offer smart and socially skilled people that they cannot easily and cheaply find elsewhere.

Develop and implement a massive fundraising campaign (hell yeah, I’ll kick in $100 for something novel and wonderful).

Make it happen.

Confirmation Bias

I do a lot of research and report-creation because supposedly the AMC wants to make decisions based on objective information. Then I fume in frustration when the reports are ignored and change is  avoided. And then I fume some more when members complain that change is needed. Perhaps I'm just bashing my head against a brick wall.

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.

Read the whole article here.

Illusion of Asymmetric Insight

Now this speaks volumes about how various factions in Mensa view each other!


"The illusion of asymmetric insight makes it seem as though you know everyone else far better than they know you, and not only that, but you know them better than they know themselves. You believe the same thing about groups of which you are a member. As a whole, your group understands outsiders better than outsiders understand your group, and you understand the group better than its members know the group to which they belong.

"The researchers explained this is how one eventually arrives at the illusion of naive realism, or believing your thoughts and perceptions are true, accurate and correct, therefore if someone sees things differently than you or disagrees with you in some way it is the result of a bias or an influence or a shortcoming. You feel like the other person must have been tainted in some way, otherwise they would see the world the way you do – the right way. The illusion of asymmetrical  insight clouds your ability to see the people you disagree with as nuanced and complex. You tend to see your self and the groups you belong to in shades of gray, but others and their groups as solid and defined primary colors lacking nuance or complexity....


Read more

Holiday Cards vs Facebook

I was raised to write long holiday letters every year, and hand address and sign hundreds of cards. Last year I just didn't get to it. No one noticed. I've noted a steady decline in the numbers I receive, and yet I feel like I'm more up-to-date with friends and family than I used to be. I think the on-going updates and interactions via Facebook, blogs, and other social media have supplanted the old tradition. And for once, in a good way.

I think it's so much nicer to keep up in little bites through out the year instead of reading paragraph after paragraph of bragging about how the kids are doing in school, what vacations we took, home improvements, etc.

Two Things I'm Pondering Today

• After almost 4 years of posting lots of meaty information and opinions about Mensa issues and controversies, readership is highest now, when the election is over and the content is mostly just personal and admittedly, a little petulant (I figure I'm entitled—it's my personal blog, after all).

What does this say about what information Mensans really want to consume?

• I looked over the quarterly officer reports, and for my own amusement, I compared the quarter-to-quarter text of certain officers' reports. Quite a bit of cutting and pasting, I see. I was also surprised at the ones that are missing here and there.

What does this say about the usefulness of our current reporting process?

Musing on Complaints about AMC Travel

People complain about AMC travel and point to that over and over as something to reduce in order to increase the black at the bottom of the budget.

Most people agree that:
• The AMC needs to meet face to face now and then.
• We need officers from different parts of the country.
• AMC meetings should be in different places so more members have opportunities to attend.
• AMC officers need to eat and sleep.
• Volunteering should not be limited to only those rich enough to afford it.

I do think there are ways to reduce AMC meeting costs, and I would support a few of the obvious suggestions such as having fewer AMC members and choosing locations that are overall cheaper to get to for most AMC members. 


Please don't take this post as just another defensive whine. What I'm really wondering about is if there is some psychological or social phenomenon at play because the travel is an expenditure members can see with their own eyes.

The lease on the copier and postal machines in the office are more than twice the price of an AMC meeting. Credit card fees I've already mentioned. Running an election in which only 11% of the membership participates costs nearly three times what an AMC meeting costs. Postage for mailing things to Local Groups is close to equal the cost of an AMC meeting, as is the cost of insurance for Groups.

There are perks and inequities to many volunteer jobs. Editors and Webmasters get awards for their work; LocSecs and Membership officers do not. RG Chairs get comped rooms; regular attendees do not. MindGames Chief Judges get dinners paid; regular judges do not. Some proctors get paid for their efforts; some don't. RVCs have funding to attend gatherings; Development officers and Secretaries do not.

Yes, AMC members get to travel, sleep in hotels, and eat nice meals while other members do not. It comprises about 1% of the annual budget. There is no denying that fact. Is the zeal for reducing that particular area of expenditure, while never mentioning other larger line items, at all motivated by some dog-in-a-manger human emotion?

Is the AMC "Out of Touch?"

Pam recently returned from her annual ASAE convention, and shared some observations and lessons and pointers to blogs reviewing the convention. I read this one at Social Fish :

Most of it was pretty specific to ASAE, however, this jumped out at me:

"Here’s a lesson: there is no such thing anymore as “unofficial” versus “official”member activity. We’re all part of the same community. We’re all building community and engagement on behalf of ASAE – for you, not for us. The point of YAP is to get young association professionals (including “young to the profession” and “young at heart”) more involved in ASAE. Get it?  We’re doing it for the love.  All we’d like in return is a little love back once in a while.  We’re feeling our love is unrequited, and if you’re not careful, one day we’ll take mom’s advice and go find other fish in the sea."

We in Mensa do try so hard to distinguish between official and unofficial, between ASIE-regulated and Fist-waving independence. Mensa has very much become a huge set of overlapping groupings of members, some of which are initiated top-down, and some of which are grown grass-up. But all are equally essential to gestalt of the Mensa experience.

Reading the comments, the recurring theme was that ASAE leaders were out of touch with their membership. I see this same complaint about AMC on some of the Yahoo lists. I really don't feel like I'm out of touch. So either I'm not and other AMCers are, or I am and I am not seeing that in myself because I don't understand what members mean by "out of touch."

So, readers.... are Mensa's national leaders "out of touch" with the membership, and if so, what do you mean by that? What actions or inactions make you reach that conclusion? 

Hhmmm.... and since there are so many members and so many member communities, are there  particular segments of the membership that leaders should be touching more than others? (Get your minds out of the gutter!)

Booting Appointed Officers

Three cups of coffee and lots of rambling, with few conclusions….

Some members seem to feel that there should not be any appointed voting members of the AMC— that by having such appointees, the Chair essentially stacks the board with four lackies who will be assured of voting the way the Chair wishes.

If that were true, then I can see both pros and cons to it: Pro, in that the membership ostensibly voted for a Chair who espouses a philosophy that the majority of members agree with, and therefore giving that Chair a bit more oomph with votes of the Board is reflective of the mood of the membership.

Con, because four AMC voters making decisions were not put there by the membership at large, and it just feels kinda not-cool to let a Chair have toadies with votes.

Which side of the fence do I fall on regarding these two points of view?  Somewhere in the middle. I don’t think about it much, in part because truthfully, the appointed officers do NOT have a track record of consistently voting the way the Chair would prefer. We may be on the board by grace of appointment, but we’re still Mensans and very independent-minded. I’ve been appointed by three different Chairs—and in every term, I’ve voted my mind based on what I think is the best direction for the organization, and never once was I taken aside and forcefully instructed to vote a certain way by my leash-holder. Certainly anyone who watches the AMC and how we appointees vote can confirm that we do not have a pattern of going along with the Chair’s wishes.

The appointed officers are chosen for their skill-sets. If the DevOff, MemOff, and CommOff (setting aside the DoS&E, who is really a MERF representative) were elected, would there really be more than one candidate for each office with the requisite skills and time to serve?

On the other hand, regardless of how many candidates there are for these offices, what would be so bad about letting the membership have intput into the selection? On the other other hand, I can easily see someone running for CommOfficer based on a platform of “I’ll get rid of the three remaining filtered words in the Forums” and having no clue about variations of postal regulation issues Local Group newsletters have to deal with.

Anyway, my epiphany was that I should not be taking it personally when members opine that the four appointees should get booted. They’re not saying that because they don’t like the job I’m doing. They’re not saying that because I don’t do enough and don’t “earn my keep.” They’re not saying that because the responsibilities given to the appointed officers are unimportant. Members are wanting more obvious control over the composition of the Board of Directors.  I think that if I knew that the responsibilies currently given to the Mem, Dev, and Comm officers would continue to be placed in the hands of appropriately-skilled volunteers, then I could get behind the “no more appointees” concept.

How to be assured of this, I don’t know. I mean, we have seen elections where the obviously-skilled secretary candidate lost to the obviously not-skilled-but-somehow-more-popular candidate. And we saw how well that turned out for the society. Imagine such a thing happening to the person in charge of marketing and PR?

It’s a conundrum, without a clear, obvious answer.

And then I got to my second flash of insight.

Does the sheer volume of stuff I do for Mensa entitle me to greater voice in the direction of the society? That doesn’t make sense—there are plenty of volunteers who put in just as many hours, if not more, but have no vote on the AMC.

What is the connection between the skills I (or any appointed officer) bring to the table and how valuable my input is when the Board is making decisions?

The current AMC comprises some representative and some not-directly-representative voting members: The RVCs ostensibly vote the way a majority of their consituents want them to. But what about the 1VC, 2VC, Treasurer, and Secretary? They vote based on their views, but not based on any sort of poll of their consituents. We appointees theoretically bring specific area knowledge and expertise to the table and debate. I think this is a good thing.

The case could be made to reduce the voting Board of Directors to only five or six members, generally elected, and then have a whole team of appointed people with the skills and knowledge without votes, but still reporting and advising the voters. That could work, but…. would it save any money? Would Mensa be well served if the input from those appointed people were only available vial email? Or would we end up paying to fly at least some of them to the AMC meetings so the discussions could happen face to face? What if we did do that, but only flew in the “experts” for agendas that have topics that pertain to their skill-sets?

Is the desire to eliminate the appointed officers a desire to reduce AMC meeting costs, to reduce the Chair’s “power,” or to make members feel like they have greater say in their governance?

Name & Logo musing

I continue to be amazed at how much time, energy, and money has to be spent on Name & Logo issues. I think I average at least one gotta-reply-to-it email on this topic every day.


- Posted using my iPhone

Should I?

I downloaded the Candidate Information Form.

Now to decide if I want to do this.

Gulp.

Email versus In-Person Meetings

... the eternal question.

Personally, I think the key is to use both... and then some. There are so many ways to exchange information and ideas, each with it's nuanced advantages. I like email for my long, data-driven, well-composed essays and judgements. I like one-on-on in-person conversations for  the "talk as I think" process of development or editing of documents. Certainly in-person works best for me when I'm involved in group brain-storming. Teleconferences are cheap and effective for dealing with one or two topics that don't require a lot of intense on-the-fly discussion and processing; the GoToMeeting technology helps. However, it's much easier to zone out on teleconferences.

Even the social media venues are useful tools. Twitter (which I just love) is good for pushed sound-bites of information, such as when I'm taking notes during a meeting. IM windows take the place of passed notes, which, although sometimes junior highschoolish, also serve as whispered reminders and suggestions of thinking points to consider or point out.  Online Communities and popular elists are good for the wide-audience masticating of ideas.

So what's my point in this blog post today? None, really. I'm just riffing on the comic I saw.