Take another look at the post that, as of this writing, has the most pageviews on this entire blog:
Stop Calling It Strategic Planning
I stand by it. Whatever you choose to call it, to be effective, associations need a methodology to accomplish the following five things:
1. They need a mission that everyone can support, that defines why they exist, and around which they will dedicate their resources and activity.
2. They need a vision for the future, a single or set of envisioned states of being, that inspires people and keeps them stretching to achieve more than they might have thought possible.
3. They need to develop a set of programs that are clearly aligned with their mission and which are capable of moving them towards their vision. These programs should both serve the interests of their members and engage them in the process of their development and execution.
4. They need to develop and employ the appropriate resources so that the programs have the best chance of success.
5. They need to monitor the progress of the programs and evaluate their impact on their mission and their ability to move them closer to their vision. They must make adjustments based on this evaluation, striving for a cycle of continuous improvement.
+ + +
This post first appeared on Eric Lanke's blog, an association executive and author. You can follow him on Twitter @ericlanke or contact him at eric.lanke@gmail.com.
Monday, September 16, 2019
Top Takes: Stop Calling It Strategic Planning
Labels:
Top Takes
Saturday, September 14, 2019
Narcissistic Leaders by Michael Maccoby
Maccoby starts by telling us that he wants to use narcissism in its psychological sense.
I’m using the term “narcissism” to describe some of the most important business leaders in the world; but how could a word that’s become synonymous with all sorts of self-centered behavior -- a sense of overall superiority and entitlement, a lack of empathy or understanding of others, the need for constant attention and admiration, and overall arrogance -- apply to them? These days, in both the psychiatric field and in colloquial conversation, “narcissism” has become a term for egoism, egocentricity, or just plain bad manners. But I believe the concept of narcissism has been widely misunderstood ever since Freud coined it after Ovid’s pathologically self-involved creature from Greek mythology. I want to bring about a radical new definition of the term and the way we think about leadership, and show you how your understanding of productive narcissism can help you.
This is a tall order. He wants us to understand, but he’s deliberately confusing us by using a word that means something different than what we have come to understand. Regardless, here is Maccoby’s definition of the word.
A true narcissist is the kind of person who (1) doesn’t listen to anyone else when he believes in doing something and (2) has a precise vision of how things should be. A narcissist possesses this dual combination of traits, not one or the other; plenty of people who aren’t narcissists never listen to anyone else (they are negativistic, closed-minded, or arrogant), and plenty of people have an idea of how things should be (they are often just know-it-alls or big-talkers). It is the combination of a rejection of the status quo, along with a compelling vision, that defines the narcissist.
Then he gives us some examples of successful narcissists.
If you look at some of our most productive narcissists, the ones who have built highly successful and sustained businesses, you’ll find that they score very low on emotional intelligence. Just a few examples make the point in a dramatic way: Anne Jardim, a Ford biographer, wrote that Henry Ford’s “attitude to the men around him at times bordered on the sadistic.” Craig Venter’s wife and business partner told me that he is “not as diplomatic as he might be. He’s always pissing people off.” Bill Gates is known for his put-downs in meetings. Steve Jobs has brought subordinates to tears during business meetings. And compare the qualities of emotional intelligence with [Jack] Welch’s description of his own managerial style: “I was blunt and candid and, some thought, rude. My language could be coarse and impolitic. I didn’t like sitting and listening to canned presentations or reading reports. … And I never hid my thoughts or feelings. During a business discussion, I could get so emotionally involved that I’d stammer out what others might consider outrageous things, [such as] ‘My six-year-old kid could do better than that!’”
This is part of a section where Maccoby is deriding the value of emotional intelligence for leaders, but still, it doesn’t paint an attractive picture for this reader. Isn’t the challenge of leadership to accomplish great things through building people up, not by tearing them down? Too often, the Cult of Results cavalierly dismisses things like emotional intelligence as “touchy-feely,” and pretends that nothing matters more than “highly successful and sustained businesses.”
But then, Maccoby reminds us that he is not really talking about narcissism, but something he’s calls productive narcissism and, more than that, really productive narcissists are those who have learned to temper their narcissism with something else, something called strategic intelligence.
While strategic intelligence may help any [personality] type, it is essential for productive narcissists to work on their strategic intelligence. A narcissist who is productive can make it to the top of a company or have an impact in the business world; but I believe that only a productive narcissist with developed strategic intelligence can stay on top, can sustain success. This is because the narcissist, more so than any other type, is susceptible to a quick rise and a precipitous fall: if the stories of Michael Armstrong, Jean-Marie Messier, and Bernie Ebbers teach us anything, it’s the importance of connecting vision to implementation with strategic intelligence.
And what is strategic intelligence? Maccoby breaks it down into five essential elements:
1 - Foresight - anticipating how current movements, ideas, forces will play out in the future, driving changes in technology, products, the global marketplace, competitors, and customer needs and values.
2 - Systems Thinking - the ability to synthesize and integrate, to conceptualize the whole rather than a collection of separate parts.
3 - Visioning - combining foresight and systems thinking into a holistic vision, then creating that vision in the real world of business.
4 - Motivating - the ability to get people -- a social system -- to embrace a common purpose and implement your vision.
5 - Partnering - making strategic alliances.
Which, if someone is successful in doing, I would claim, no longer makes them a narcissist. How does a narcissist look outside themselves and their own needs enough to do foresight, systems thinking, and visioning? Where does she get the empathy necessary to motivate and partner with others? Telling a narcissist to act with strategic intelligence strikes me very much like telling an asshole to no longer be an asshole. But that analogy is actually too simple to capture Maccoby’s central point. He’s not telling the narcissist to stop being a narcissist. He’s telling them to go right on being a narcissist, but to stop being so narcissistic about it.
Taking the Test
Maccoby’s book includes an 80-item questionnaire, the responses to which are designed to determine which of his four basic personality types (Marketing, Narcissistic, Erotic, and Obsessive) dominates in the responder. Although I struggled with Maccoby’s central premise, I was curious enough to take the test, even though I have long tired of these kinds of personality tests.
There were eighty items, each phrased in the “How well does this statement describe you” model, and each scored on a scale of 0 to 5, in which 0 = Never, 1 = Almost Never, 2 = Seldom, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Frequently, and 5 = Almost Always. Peeking ahead to the score sheet I could see that the items had been somewhat randomized, but 20 of them were aligned with the Marketing personality type, 20 were aligned with Narcissistic, 20 with Erotic, and 20 with Obsessive.
The instructions, of course, were to add up your scores in each group of 20, and the one with the highest score shows you what personality type you were. Everyone, Maccoby was quick to caution, is actually mixture of all four personality types, but usually, one will dominate over the others.
So what were my scores? Get ready:
Marketing = 62
Narcissistic = 65
Erotic = 61
Obsessive = 61
Does that make me a narcissist? I don’t think so. Although 65 is certainly a larger number than either 62 or 61, it’s not like it’s an order of magnitude higher. With a possible range of 0 to 100, having all four types clump together between 61 and 65 tells me that either Maccoby’s survey instrument is broken, or I am.
It gets better. In addition to the four dominant personality types, the same questions, sorted in a different order, can tell you which secondary type you are. There are four of those, too, and when used in combination with the dominant ones, provide 16 different personality combinations. My scores on the secondary personality types, which could have ranged between 0 and 25, were:
Self Developing = 16
Visionary = 16
Caring = 16
Systematic = 16
No kidding. I guess I am broken.
+ + +
This post first appeared on Eric Lanke's blog, an association executive and author. You can follow him on Twitter @ericlanke or contact him at eric.lanke@gmail.com.
I’m using the term “narcissism” to describe some of the most important business leaders in the world; but how could a word that’s become synonymous with all sorts of self-centered behavior -- a sense of overall superiority and entitlement, a lack of empathy or understanding of others, the need for constant attention and admiration, and overall arrogance -- apply to them? These days, in both the psychiatric field and in colloquial conversation, “narcissism” has become a term for egoism, egocentricity, or just plain bad manners. But I believe the concept of narcissism has been widely misunderstood ever since Freud coined it after Ovid’s pathologically self-involved creature from Greek mythology. I want to bring about a radical new definition of the term and the way we think about leadership, and show you how your understanding of productive narcissism can help you.
This is a tall order. He wants us to understand, but he’s deliberately confusing us by using a word that means something different than what we have come to understand. Regardless, here is Maccoby’s definition of the word.
A true narcissist is the kind of person who (1) doesn’t listen to anyone else when he believes in doing something and (2) has a precise vision of how things should be. A narcissist possesses this dual combination of traits, not one or the other; plenty of people who aren’t narcissists never listen to anyone else (they are negativistic, closed-minded, or arrogant), and plenty of people have an idea of how things should be (they are often just know-it-alls or big-talkers). It is the combination of a rejection of the status quo, along with a compelling vision, that defines the narcissist.
Then he gives us some examples of successful narcissists.
If you look at some of our most productive narcissists, the ones who have built highly successful and sustained businesses, you’ll find that they score very low on emotional intelligence. Just a few examples make the point in a dramatic way: Anne Jardim, a Ford biographer, wrote that Henry Ford’s “attitude to the men around him at times bordered on the sadistic.” Craig Venter’s wife and business partner told me that he is “not as diplomatic as he might be. He’s always pissing people off.” Bill Gates is known for his put-downs in meetings. Steve Jobs has brought subordinates to tears during business meetings. And compare the qualities of emotional intelligence with [Jack] Welch’s description of his own managerial style: “I was blunt and candid and, some thought, rude. My language could be coarse and impolitic. I didn’t like sitting and listening to canned presentations or reading reports. … And I never hid my thoughts or feelings. During a business discussion, I could get so emotionally involved that I’d stammer out what others might consider outrageous things, [such as] ‘My six-year-old kid could do better than that!’”
This is part of a section where Maccoby is deriding the value of emotional intelligence for leaders, but still, it doesn’t paint an attractive picture for this reader. Isn’t the challenge of leadership to accomplish great things through building people up, not by tearing them down? Too often, the Cult of Results cavalierly dismisses things like emotional intelligence as “touchy-feely,” and pretends that nothing matters more than “highly successful and sustained businesses.”
But then, Maccoby reminds us that he is not really talking about narcissism, but something he’s calls productive narcissism and, more than that, really productive narcissists are those who have learned to temper their narcissism with something else, something called strategic intelligence.
While strategic intelligence may help any [personality] type, it is essential for productive narcissists to work on their strategic intelligence. A narcissist who is productive can make it to the top of a company or have an impact in the business world; but I believe that only a productive narcissist with developed strategic intelligence can stay on top, can sustain success. This is because the narcissist, more so than any other type, is susceptible to a quick rise and a precipitous fall: if the stories of Michael Armstrong, Jean-Marie Messier, and Bernie Ebbers teach us anything, it’s the importance of connecting vision to implementation with strategic intelligence.
And what is strategic intelligence? Maccoby breaks it down into five essential elements:
1 - Foresight - anticipating how current movements, ideas, forces will play out in the future, driving changes in technology, products, the global marketplace, competitors, and customer needs and values.
2 - Systems Thinking - the ability to synthesize and integrate, to conceptualize the whole rather than a collection of separate parts.
3 - Visioning - combining foresight and systems thinking into a holistic vision, then creating that vision in the real world of business.
4 - Motivating - the ability to get people -- a social system -- to embrace a common purpose and implement your vision.
5 - Partnering - making strategic alliances.
Which, if someone is successful in doing, I would claim, no longer makes them a narcissist. How does a narcissist look outside themselves and their own needs enough to do foresight, systems thinking, and visioning? Where does she get the empathy necessary to motivate and partner with others? Telling a narcissist to act with strategic intelligence strikes me very much like telling an asshole to no longer be an asshole. But that analogy is actually too simple to capture Maccoby’s central point. He’s not telling the narcissist to stop being a narcissist. He’s telling them to go right on being a narcissist, but to stop being so narcissistic about it.
Taking the Test
Maccoby’s book includes an 80-item questionnaire, the responses to which are designed to determine which of his four basic personality types (Marketing, Narcissistic, Erotic, and Obsessive) dominates in the responder. Although I struggled with Maccoby’s central premise, I was curious enough to take the test, even though I have long tired of these kinds of personality tests.
There were eighty items, each phrased in the “How well does this statement describe you” model, and each scored on a scale of 0 to 5, in which 0 = Never, 1 = Almost Never, 2 = Seldom, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Frequently, and 5 = Almost Always. Peeking ahead to the score sheet I could see that the items had been somewhat randomized, but 20 of them were aligned with the Marketing personality type, 20 were aligned with Narcissistic, 20 with Erotic, and 20 with Obsessive.
The instructions, of course, were to add up your scores in each group of 20, and the one with the highest score shows you what personality type you were. Everyone, Maccoby was quick to caution, is actually mixture of all four personality types, but usually, one will dominate over the others.
So what were my scores? Get ready:
Marketing = 62
Narcissistic = 65
Erotic = 61
Obsessive = 61
Does that make me a narcissist? I don’t think so. Although 65 is certainly a larger number than either 62 or 61, it’s not like it’s an order of magnitude higher. With a possible range of 0 to 100, having all four types clump together between 61 and 65 tells me that either Maccoby’s survey instrument is broken, or I am.
It gets better. In addition to the four dominant personality types, the same questions, sorted in a different order, can tell you which secondary type you are. There are four of those, too, and when used in combination with the dominant ones, provide 16 different personality combinations. My scores on the secondary personality types, which could have ranged between 0 and 25, were:
Self Developing = 16
Visionary = 16
Caring = 16
Systematic = 16
No kidding. I guess I am broken.
+ + +
This post first appeared on Eric Lanke's blog, an association executive and author. You can follow him on Twitter @ericlanke or contact him at eric.lanke@gmail.com.
Labels:
Books Read
Monday, September 9, 2019
Eight Is Enough
Eight years ago, on September 5, 2011, I made my first post on this blog. I called it "Recipes for Innovation," and in it, I talked about several things that were heavy on my mind at the time, including my then soon-to-be-ending first foray into blogging, The Hourglass Blog.
Since that time, I have managed to make a post appear here every Monday morning, a post almost always focused on some aspect of my professional experiences as an association executive. That has helped create a library of more than 400 posts, most of which I have indexed into one of the "Blog Topics" shown on my home page: Core Values, Generations, Innovation, Leadership, Member Engagement, Strategy and Execution, and Workforce Development.
But there are two other Blog Topics on that list.
Starting on September 24, 2011, with Women with Men by Richard Ford, I began the Books Read series, where, every other Saturday, I started posting a sometimes short and sometimes very long "personal take" on one of the more than 800 books that I've read. More than 200 such "personal takes" have since appeared on this blog.
And starting on July 13, 2013, with Columbia by Eric Lanke, I began the Fiction series, where I post, when the mood strikes me, some of my original fiction. Lately, that has been draft chapters from Dragons, my newest and as-yet-unfinished novel, appearing on every other Saturday, alternating with Books Read.
Now, truth be told, after eight years of consistent blogging, my creative energies have come to derive much more satisfaction from these two kinds of "Saturday" posts -- from Fiction and Books Read -- than they do from anything I'm continuing to post in for the "Monday" Blog Topics. Some weeks, I'm sorry to admit, it's a tremendous struggle to get something useful put together for Monday morning. It feels like I've already said everything I can in subjects like Innovation, Leadership, or Strategy and Execution.
So I'm making a change. I'm going to stop posting things here on Monday mornings, preferring to dedicate more of my time to composing the Saturday posts focused on the books I've read and the ones I'm writing. That, increasingly, is where my creative spirit wants to go, and, lately, it feels like I've been battling my own obligation to provide relevant Monday content.
If you've been a loyal reader of this blog, what can I say, other than 'thank you'? I hope you decide to keep on reading, because I'm certainly going to keep on writing.
+ + +
This post first appeared on Eric Lanke's blog, an association executive and author. You can follow him on Twitter @ericlanke or contact him at eric.lanke@gmail.com.
Image Source
https://malaphors.com/2017/04/24/hes-really-ahead-of-the-eight-ball/
Since that time, I have managed to make a post appear here every Monday morning, a post almost always focused on some aspect of my professional experiences as an association executive. That has helped create a library of more than 400 posts, most of which I have indexed into one of the "Blog Topics" shown on my home page: Core Values, Generations, Innovation, Leadership, Member Engagement, Strategy and Execution, and Workforce Development.
But there are two other Blog Topics on that list.
Starting on September 24, 2011, with Women with Men by Richard Ford, I began the Books Read series, where, every other Saturday, I started posting a sometimes short and sometimes very long "personal take" on one of the more than 800 books that I've read. More than 200 such "personal takes" have since appeared on this blog.
And starting on July 13, 2013, with Columbia by Eric Lanke, I began the Fiction series, where I post, when the mood strikes me, some of my original fiction. Lately, that has been draft chapters from Dragons, my newest and as-yet-unfinished novel, appearing on every other Saturday, alternating with Books Read.
Now, truth be told, after eight years of consistent blogging, my creative energies have come to derive much more satisfaction from these two kinds of "Saturday" posts -- from Fiction and Books Read -- than they do from anything I'm continuing to post in for the "Monday" Blog Topics. Some weeks, I'm sorry to admit, it's a tremendous struggle to get something useful put together for Monday morning. It feels like I've already said everything I can in subjects like Innovation, Leadership, or Strategy and Execution.
So I'm making a change. I'm going to stop posting things here on Monday mornings, preferring to dedicate more of my time to composing the Saturday posts focused on the books I've read and the ones I'm writing. That, increasingly, is where my creative spirit wants to go, and, lately, it feels like I've been battling my own obligation to provide relevant Monday content.
If you've been a loyal reader of this blog, what can I say, other than 'thank you'? I hope you decide to keep on reading, because I'm certainly going to keep on writing.
+ + +
This post first appeared on Eric Lanke's blog, an association executive and author. You can follow him on Twitter @ericlanke or contact him at eric.lanke@gmail.com.
Image Source
https://malaphors.com/2017/04/24/hes-really-ahead-of-the-eight-ball/
Labels:
Associations
Saturday, September 7, 2019
Dragons - Chapter 18 (DRAFT)
Even after such a late night, the next day I was back at the office, bright and early. It was the day for our follow-up meeting on the Staff Qualities project, and I had a lot of information to comb through to get prepared. Most of my morning was tied up with meetings, so it wasn’t until after eleven that I was able to sit down at my desk and start working on it. I had asked people to email me their thoughts on the observable behaviors an ideal staff person would display and, somewhat to my surprise, everyone had actually responded. I had seen the emails come in bit by bit throughout the week, but had been so busy with Eleanor’s program and the other final preparations for our educational conference that I hadn’t had any time to open them and see what wisdom they contained.
Most had sent me a list. Flagging the messages and grouping them together I could see that Peggy, Scott, Jurgis, Angie, and Michael had each sent me a single email with a list of behaviors attached in a Word file. Some lists were longer than others, but they had all done the minimum I had asked for—probably not giving it another thought after hitting the send button.
Bethany was one of the two outliers in this regard. She had emailed a list like the others—the morning after her promised free evening of work, according to the date stamp on the email—but had sent me six subsequent emails since then, each with a slightly revised list attached. I shook my head as I looked through them, eventually putting all seven documents up on my screen at the same time in an attempt to understand her thought process. First she added some new behaviors, then deleted some others, then added more, including some that she had deleted the previous time. I couldn’t make any sense out of her indecision. What was with all the edits? I just wanted a pool of behaviors to start with. It was as if I had assigned her to write a nonsense poem—‘twas brillig, and the slithy toves—and she was struggling to get it just right.
Gerald was the other outlier and he had taken precisely the opposite approach. He hadn’t labored over anything, firing ideas at me as soon as they had occurred to him. He had sent a total of twenty-eight emails, each containing a single behavior in bold capital letters. They had come in throughout the week, some of them outside of office hours, one at 2:36 in the morning. I couldn’t help but wonder if that one had woken him out of a sound sleep. I could almost picture him sitting bolt upright in bed, his designer eyeglasses on the nightstand beside him, and crying out observable behaviors in capital letters.
I took everyone’s suggestions and copied and pasted them into a single document. Bethany’s multiple lists gave me some problems here, but I decided to transfer them all over, knowing I could sort the list and kill off the duplicates more easily than comparing each subsequent version to the last and trying to identify which ones had been added and which ones had been removed. My method would include any that Bethany had thought better of and wanted deleted, but I didn’t care. At this stage of the game I was casting a wide net and was more interested in quantity than quality.
When I was finished I had an alphabetized list of ninety-nine behaviors, and I read them from start to finish, curious to see what impression they would leave on me. My first thought, frankly, was that they covered too much ground. Most were definitely observable behaviors of the type Gerald would approve, but thematically they were all over the map, and it was hard to imagine any one person living up to them.
But I read through the list again, this time looking for holes, for some key area that seemed important but wasn’t already covered. I hadn’t added my own ideas, after all. The past week had been so busy I hadn’t put any thought into this culture-changing effort I was leading. But upon this second review I saw that there wasn’t anything I needed to add. They were a big, nebulous collection of disparate thoughts, jotted down by different people at different times, some poorly worded and others expressing near-identical ideas, but together I could see that they formed a rough picture of what the exercise was aiming at—the ideal staff person.
Never mind that no human being could actually exhibit all of the necessary behaviors. The list was still the beginnings of a blueprint for total success in our environment. If these traits could be mastered, I thought wildly, if someone could not just show these behaviors but embody the qualities they were meant to demonstrate, there was no telling how far that person could go in the company. A person like that would put amateurs like Mary and Don out of business.
I heard a soft tapping on my office door. I spun around in my chair and saw Bethany standing there.
“You got time for lunch today?”
“What?” I said, spinning back to look at the clock on my desk and realizing that the lunch hour had already started.
“Are—you—hungry?” Bethany said slowly, the way Jenny sometimes did when I was slow on the uptake. “Do you want to go to the Cellar and get a bite to eat?”
I thought about it for a second. Bethany and I had semi-regularly gone out for lunch before my promotion, when we were both on the same rung of the corporate ladder. It was probably fair to have called us friends of a sort. We spent a lot of time talking about our family lives and I think saw each other as semi-safe confidants of the opposite sex—someone who could offer candid feedback from the other gender’s perspective when we were having difficulty with our spouses. I knew, for example, that Bethany had been raised in a very strict household—her father was some kind of Pentecostal minister who forbade even the mildest of curse words to be uttered in his presence—and that although she had caused something of a scandal by disobeying her father and marrying David, a man she had met in college and an avowed secular humanist—her upbringing still created conflicts in her marriage. She, in turn, knew that Jenny and I had had our disagreements, and often didn’t see eye to eye, especially where Jacob was concerned.
But we had not gone out to lunch together a single time since I had become her boss. Most days since the promotion I had brown bagged it and ate lunch at my desk, both needing the extra hour to get my work done and not sure if someone of my level was welcome in the company lunch room. Almost no supervisors ate there, and when they did, it was always in groups of fellow supervisors. The rules were unspoken but clearly understood. Supervisors and the people they supervised never mixed in the lunch room, each camp needing to sit at their own tables and have their own conversations. But now that I was the supervisor of supervisors—the only position like it in the company besides Don’s or Mary’s—it didn’t seem like I had a group to sit with. Every time I went in there for a cup of coffee or something out of the vending machine, whatever conversation was going on simply stopped, and I could feel the people looking at me out of the corners of their eyes until I left.
But my alienation from the lunch room wasn’t the only reason I was eating at my desk. It felt like the taboo against eating with your direct reports would extend out of the office as well. I might have taken all of my staff out, I suppose. Ryan had done that occasionally—when a team had something to celebrate, he would take them all out to a restaurant and the company would buy them lunch. But it wasn’t clear I had the authority to spend the company’s money that way, or that my team had anything significant to celebrate. Looking back on it now, I realize I was mostly concerned about what people would think if they saw me out with just one or two members of my staff. Would they think I was playing favorites? And if I was out alone with someone like Bethany, would they think something inappropriate was going on? I knew enough to know that office rumors had gotten started on flimsier evidence.
“Well, do you?” Bethany asked impatiently.
I had thought about it for a second, but probably should have given it more time. “Sure,” I said. “Let’s go.”
The Cellar was a depressing food court in the basement of our office building. It had been decorated in the seventies with giant concrete planters, a smelly water fountain, and no windows. But it was where a lot of people in the company went for lunch because it wasn’t far away, the service was quick, and you could get something different every day. There was a sub place, a Thai place, a Greek place, a soup place, and a pizza by the slice place—all lined up along one long wall, a stack of cafeteria trays at the start and a pair of cash registers at the end. None of it was name-brand and everything was done on the cheap. Looking behind the counters as you slid your tray down the metal track you’d see things simmering in giant crock pots and a whole bank of microwave ovens humming and beeping as their digital numbers wound their way down towards zero.
Bethany and I both got our food and found an unoccupied table near the fountain. Several other people from the company were already there, eating in groups of three or four, and I nodded hello to each table and we weaved our way through the maze and sat down.
“How late were you at work last night?” Bethany asked as she took a metal spoon out of her purse. Everything in the Cellar was served on paper plates and Styrofoam bowls, and the cutlery was all plastic. Regulars quickly got into the habit of bringing their own silverware. The edges on the plastic spoons they provided were so rough cut by the Korean War-era injection molding machine that must have produced them that you’d finish your soup with dozens of small stinging cuts in the corners of your mouth.
“Oh, I’m not sure,” I lied, affecting a casual attitude, as if I didn’t notice how much time I spent working on mindless projects. “I got home around ten, I think.”
Bethany nodded as she placed a small paper napkin on her thigh. She was wearing a tight business skirt and had to sit sideways in order to cross her legs at the table. “Did you get the program finished?”
“Yes,” I said. “Lily sent it to the printer this morning.” I tried to cut my titanic pizza slice with the edge of my tiny plastic fork, and only succeeded in snapping the flimsy implement in two. The Cellar never had any plastic knives.
Bethany reached into her purse and handed me a metal knife and fork. I accepted them gratefully. “I guess I’ve fallen out of the habit of coming here,” I said.
She hooked her hair behind her ear as she leaned forward to begin spooning up her soup. “We haven’t had lunch together since you got your promotion.”
It was true, but not something I necessarily wanted to discuss. And besides I was distracted by the flatware she had handed me. It was nice—heavy and solidly constructed, with a frosted finish and little floral designs on the tip of each handle. “Were these a wedding present?” I asked, holding the fork up.
Bethany nodded and swallowed the soup in her mouth. “Yes, but we never use them. Their eleven brothers and sisters sit in a velvet-lined drawer in our china cabinet.”
“They’re the same kind we have.”
“Really?” Bethany said, sitting up a little straighter.
“Yeah,” I said. “We don’t use ours, either.”
We ate in silence for a few minutes, me looking around at the crowd and from time to time catching some of the other employees staring at us. A group of Education staff were at one table, Caroline Abernathy among them.
“Thanks for sending me your list of observable behaviors,” I said, telling myself to ignore them and deciding to find something business-related to talk about.
“You’re welcome,” Bethany said. “Sorry about all the edits I made. I just kept thinking about it all week.”
I shook my head and told her not to worry. “I got a lot a good responses from everyone else, too. You’re not the only one who’s been putting some thought into it.”
Bethany smiled. “That’s great,” she said. “I didn’t mean to sound like such a brown-noser last week. I really am excited about this project. A lot of the other department heads are, too. A couple of us think it could really change things—for the better.”
“I hope so,” I said. I opened my mouth to say something else, but abruptly cut myself off.
Bethany looked at me quizzically. “What?”
I put my fork down and thought about it. I was about to launch into a description of the things I thought needed changing at the company. I certainly had a list of things I thought needed fixing, and had consciously decided to use the staff qualities exercise as a mechanism for addressing them. But those things had to do with the company’s culture, and its culture was a product of the leadership example set by Mary and Don. Criticizing one meant you were criticizing the other, and criticizing the owners of the company you worked for was never a good idea—least of all to someone you supervised and for whom you had to demonstrate a leadership example of your own. That kind of shit was only meant to flow uphill. Employees complained to their supervisors, but never the other way around. Had we been inside the company walls, I wouldn’t have even approached the subject with Bethany. But there in The Cellar, Mary and the company seemed a little more distant, and Bethany seemed just a little less like my employee.
“Alan, what is it?”
I decided to test her first. “Do you like working at the company, Bethany?”
“Well, sure I do,” she said.
“But you want to change things.”
She looked at me sternly, as if seeing immediately through my annoying subterfuge. “No more than you do, Alan. Isn’t that what the staff qualities are all about?”
“I’d like to think so.”
“Then what’s this ‘do you like working at the company’ malarkey? Don’t go getting all corporate on me now.”
I laughed.
“What?”
“Nothing,” I said, trying to keep from grinning.
Bethany turned suddenly serious, putting her Mikasa spoon down next to her Styrofoam bowl. “No, I mean it. What are you laughing at?”
“It’s nothing,” I said as gently as I could. “It’s just that you said ‘malarkey.’”
“So I did,” she said, turning in her chair and putting her lipstick-stained paper napkin up on the table as if she meant to storm out of there. “What of it?”
I laughed again, and it was the wrong thing to do. She stood up, and I had to reach quickly across the table and grab her hand to keep her from fleeing the scene. “Bethany, please,” I said, my eyes darting around to see if we were still being observed. “Sit down. I’m sorry. It’s just that when you use those code words instead of swearing you sound like an angry Amish woman.”
Talk like that probably wasn’t going to help, but she did sit back down. “Well, what would you call it?” she asked.
“Bullshit,” I said forcefully, and I delighted to see her flinch the way I knew she would when I said it. “It was bullshit and you saw right through it, good for you. Truth is neither one of us really likes working for the company—not the way it’s currently run—and we both think that this staff qualities thing has a decent chance of forcing some kind of change there. Isn’t that right?”
Bethany looked at me with a kind of open-mouthed wonder. I didn’t know exactly what was going through her head, but I knew I was having a hard time wrapping my mind around the kind of risk I had just taken. I had more or less declared myself in open rebellion against Mary, and in doing so, I had handed Bethany all the power over me she could have ever desired. What would she choose to do with that power? Would she join me on my mad quest? Would she realize that only someone as brazen as that had any chance to make a difference in the company and line up behind me like the leader I wanted to be? Or would she use this new leverage against me, betray me to the dragon and watch me get bathed in her withering fire? There really was no telling, and the recklessness of the act was invigorating. Realizing I was still holding her hand, I withdrew and sat back against the hard plastic chair with a confident affectation.
“Isn’t that right?”
“Yes,” she whispered. “It is.”
“Okay,” I said, pushing forward before Bethany could change her mind. “Then let’s talk about what we’re going to do next.”
+ + +
“Dragons” is a work of fiction. Names, characters, businesses, places, events, locales, and incidents are either the products of the author's imagination or used in a fictitious manner. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental. For more information, go here.
This post first appeared on Eric Lanke's blog, an association executive and author. You can follow him on Twitter @ericlanke or contact him at eric.lanke@gmail.com.
Image Source
http://lres.com/heres-why-amcs-need-to-pay-close-attention-to-looming-regulatory-changes/businessman-in-the-middle-of-a-labyrinth/
Most had sent me a list. Flagging the messages and grouping them together I could see that Peggy, Scott, Jurgis, Angie, and Michael had each sent me a single email with a list of behaviors attached in a Word file. Some lists were longer than others, but they had all done the minimum I had asked for—probably not giving it another thought after hitting the send button.
Bethany was one of the two outliers in this regard. She had emailed a list like the others—the morning after her promised free evening of work, according to the date stamp on the email—but had sent me six subsequent emails since then, each with a slightly revised list attached. I shook my head as I looked through them, eventually putting all seven documents up on my screen at the same time in an attempt to understand her thought process. First she added some new behaviors, then deleted some others, then added more, including some that she had deleted the previous time. I couldn’t make any sense out of her indecision. What was with all the edits? I just wanted a pool of behaviors to start with. It was as if I had assigned her to write a nonsense poem—‘twas brillig, and the slithy toves—and she was struggling to get it just right.
Gerald was the other outlier and he had taken precisely the opposite approach. He hadn’t labored over anything, firing ideas at me as soon as they had occurred to him. He had sent a total of twenty-eight emails, each containing a single behavior in bold capital letters. They had come in throughout the week, some of them outside of office hours, one at 2:36 in the morning. I couldn’t help but wonder if that one had woken him out of a sound sleep. I could almost picture him sitting bolt upright in bed, his designer eyeglasses on the nightstand beside him, and crying out observable behaviors in capital letters.
I took everyone’s suggestions and copied and pasted them into a single document. Bethany’s multiple lists gave me some problems here, but I decided to transfer them all over, knowing I could sort the list and kill off the duplicates more easily than comparing each subsequent version to the last and trying to identify which ones had been added and which ones had been removed. My method would include any that Bethany had thought better of and wanted deleted, but I didn’t care. At this stage of the game I was casting a wide net and was more interested in quantity than quality.
When I was finished I had an alphabetized list of ninety-nine behaviors, and I read them from start to finish, curious to see what impression they would leave on me. My first thought, frankly, was that they covered too much ground. Most were definitely observable behaviors of the type Gerald would approve, but thematically they were all over the map, and it was hard to imagine any one person living up to them.
But I read through the list again, this time looking for holes, for some key area that seemed important but wasn’t already covered. I hadn’t added my own ideas, after all. The past week had been so busy I hadn’t put any thought into this culture-changing effort I was leading. But upon this second review I saw that there wasn’t anything I needed to add. They were a big, nebulous collection of disparate thoughts, jotted down by different people at different times, some poorly worded and others expressing near-identical ideas, but together I could see that they formed a rough picture of what the exercise was aiming at—the ideal staff person.
Never mind that no human being could actually exhibit all of the necessary behaviors. The list was still the beginnings of a blueprint for total success in our environment. If these traits could be mastered, I thought wildly, if someone could not just show these behaviors but embody the qualities they were meant to demonstrate, there was no telling how far that person could go in the company. A person like that would put amateurs like Mary and Don out of business.
I heard a soft tapping on my office door. I spun around in my chair and saw Bethany standing there.
“You got time for lunch today?”
“What?” I said, spinning back to look at the clock on my desk and realizing that the lunch hour had already started.
“Are—you—hungry?” Bethany said slowly, the way Jenny sometimes did when I was slow on the uptake. “Do you want to go to the Cellar and get a bite to eat?”
I thought about it for a second. Bethany and I had semi-regularly gone out for lunch before my promotion, when we were both on the same rung of the corporate ladder. It was probably fair to have called us friends of a sort. We spent a lot of time talking about our family lives and I think saw each other as semi-safe confidants of the opposite sex—someone who could offer candid feedback from the other gender’s perspective when we were having difficulty with our spouses. I knew, for example, that Bethany had been raised in a very strict household—her father was some kind of Pentecostal minister who forbade even the mildest of curse words to be uttered in his presence—and that although she had caused something of a scandal by disobeying her father and marrying David, a man she had met in college and an avowed secular humanist—her upbringing still created conflicts in her marriage. She, in turn, knew that Jenny and I had had our disagreements, and often didn’t see eye to eye, especially where Jacob was concerned.
But we had not gone out to lunch together a single time since I had become her boss. Most days since the promotion I had brown bagged it and ate lunch at my desk, both needing the extra hour to get my work done and not sure if someone of my level was welcome in the company lunch room. Almost no supervisors ate there, and when they did, it was always in groups of fellow supervisors. The rules were unspoken but clearly understood. Supervisors and the people they supervised never mixed in the lunch room, each camp needing to sit at their own tables and have their own conversations. But now that I was the supervisor of supervisors—the only position like it in the company besides Don’s or Mary’s—it didn’t seem like I had a group to sit with. Every time I went in there for a cup of coffee or something out of the vending machine, whatever conversation was going on simply stopped, and I could feel the people looking at me out of the corners of their eyes until I left.
But my alienation from the lunch room wasn’t the only reason I was eating at my desk. It felt like the taboo against eating with your direct reports would extend out of the office as well. I might have taken all of my staff out, I suppose. Ryan had done that occasionally—when a team had something to celebrate, he would take them all out to a restaurant and the company would buy them lunch. But it wasn’t clear I had the authority to spend the company’s money that way, or that my team had anything significant to celebrate. Looking back on it now, I realize I was mostly concerned about what people would think if they saw me out with just one or two members of my staff. Would they think I was playing favorites? And if I was out alone with someone like Bethany, would they think something inappropriate was going on? I knew enough to know that office rumors had gotten started on flimsier evidence.
“Well, do you?” Bethany asked impatiently.
I had thought about it for a second, but probably should have given it more time. “Sure,” I said. “Let’s go.”
The Cellar was a depressing food court in the basement of our office building. It had been decorated in the seventies with giant concrete planters, a smelly water fountain, and no windows. But it was where a lot of people in the company went for lunch because it wasn’t far away, the service was quick, and you could get something different every day. There was a sub place, a Thai place, a Greek place, a soup place, and a pizza by the slice place—all lined up along one long wall, a stack of cafeteria trays at the start and a pair of cash registers at the end. None of it was name-brand and everything was done on the cheap. Looking behind the counters as you slid your tray down the metal track you’d see things simmering in giant crock pots and a whole bank of microwave ovens humming and beeping as their digital numbers wound their way down towards zero.
Bethany and I both got our food and found an unoccupied table near the fountain. Several other people from the company were already there, eating in groups of three or four, and I nodded hello to each table and we weaved our way through the maze and sat down.
“How late were you at work last night?” Bethany asked as she took a metal spoon out of her purse. Everything in the Cellar was served on paper plates and Styrofoam bowls, and the cutlery was all plastic. Regulars quickly got into the habit of bringing their own silverware. The edges on the plastic spoons they provided were so rough cut by the Korean War-era injection molding machine that must have produced them that you’d finish your soup with dozens of small stinging cuts in the corners of your mouth.
“Oh, I’m not sure,” I lied, affecting a casual attitude, as if I didn’t notice how much time I spent working on mindless projects. “I got home around ten, I think.”
Bethany nodded as she placed a small paper napkin on her thigh. She was wearing a tight business skirt and had to sit sideways in order to cross her legs at the table. “Did you get the program finished?”
“Yes,” I said. “Lily sent it to the printer this morning.” I tried to cut my titanic pizza slice with the edge of my tiny plastic fork, and only succeeded in snapping the flimsy implement in two. The Cellar never had any plastic knives.
Bethany reached into her purse and handed me a metal knife and fork. I accepted them gratefully. “I guess I’ve fallen out of the habit of coming here,” I said.
She hooked her hair behind her ear as she leaned forward to begin spooning up her soup. “We haven’t had lunch together since you got your promotion.”
It was true, but not something I necessarily wanted to discuss. And besides I was distracted by the flatware she had handed me. It was nice—heavy and solidly constructed, with a frosted finish and little floral designs on the tip of each handle. “Were these a wedding present?” I asked, holding the fork up.
Bethany nodded and swallowed the soup in her mouth. “Yes, but we never use them. Their eleven brothers and sisters sit in a velvet-lined drawer in our china cabinet.”
“They’re the same kind we have.”
“Really?” Bethany said, sitting up a little straighter.
“Yeah,” I said. “We don’t use ours, either.”
We ate in silence for a few minutes, me looking around at the crowd and from time to time catching some of the other employees staring at us. A group of Education staff were at one table, Caroline Abernathy among them.
“Thanks for sending me your list of observable behaviors,” I said, telling myself to ignore them and deciding to find something business-related to talk about.
“You’re welcome,” Bethany said. “Sorry about all the edits I made. I just kept thinking about it all week.”
I shook my head and told her not to worry. “I got a lot a good responses from everyone else, too. You’re not the only one who’s been putting some thought into it.”
Bethany smiled. “That’s great,” she said. “I didn’t mean to sound like such a brown-noser last week. I really am excited about this project. A lot of the other department heads are, too. A couple of us think it could really change things—for the better.”
“I hope so,” I said. I opened my mouth to say something else, but abruptly cut myself off.
Bethany looked at me quizzically. “What?”
I put my fork down and thought about it. I was about to launch into a description of the things I thought needed changing at the company. I certainly had a list of things I thought needed fixing, and had consciously decided to use the staff qualities exercise as a mechanism for addressing them. But those things had to do with the company’s culture, and its culture was a product of the leadership example set by Mary and Don. Criticizing one meant you were criticizing the other, and criticizing the owners of the company you worked for was never a good idea—least of all to someone you supervised and for whom you had to demonstrate a leadership example of your own. That kind of shit was only meant to flow uphill. Employees complained to their supervisors, but never the other way around. Had we been inside the company walls, I wouldn’t have even approached the subject with Bethany. But there in The Cellar, Mary and the company seemed a little more distant, and Bethany seemed just a little less like my employee.
“Alan, what is it?”
I decided to test her first. “Do you like working at the company, Bethany?”
“Well, sure I do,” she said.
“But you want to change things.”
She looked at me sternly, as if seeing immediately through my annoying subterfuge. “No more than you do, Alan. Isn’t that what the staff qualities are all about?”
“I’d like to think so.”
“Then what’s this ‘do you like working at the company’ malarkey? Don’t go getting all corporate on me now.”
I laughed.
“What?”
“Nothing,” I said, trying to keep from grinning.
Bethany turned suddenly serious, putting her Mikasa spoon down next to her Styrofoam bowl. “No, I mean it. What are you laughing at?”
“It’s nothing,” I said as gently as I could. “It’s just that you said ‘malarkey.’”
“So I did,” she said, turning in her chair and putting her lipstick-stained paper napkin up on the table as if she meant to storm out of there. “What of it?”
I laughed again, and it was the wrong thing to do. She stood up, and I had to reach quickly across the table and grab her hand to keep her from fleeing the scene. “Bethany, please,” I said, my eyes darting around to see if we were still being observed. “Sit down. I’m sorry. It’s just that when you use those code words instead of swearing you sound like an angry Amish woman.”
Talk like that probably wasn’t going to help, but she did sit back down. “Well, what would you call it?” she asked.
“Bullshit,” I said forcefully, and I delighted to see her flinch the way I knew she would when I said it. “It was bullshit and you saw right through it, good for you. Truth is neither one of us really likes working for the company—not the way it’s currently run—and we both think that this staff qualities thing has a decent chance of forcing some kind of change there. Isn’t that right?”
Bethany looked at me with a kind of open-mouthed wonder. I didn’t know exactly what was going through her head, but I knew I was having a hard time wrapping my mind around the kind of risk I had just taken. I had more or less declared myself in open rebellion against Mary, and in doing so, I had handed Bethany all the power over me she could have ever desired. What would she choose to do with that power? Would she join me on my mad quest? Would she realize that only someone as brazen as that had any chance to make a difference in the company and line up behind me like the leader I wanted to be? Or would she use this new leverage against me, betray me to the dragon and watch me get bathed in her withering fire? There really was no telling, and the recklessness of the act was invigorating. Realizing I was still holding her hand, I withdrew and sat back against the hard plastic chair with a confident affectation.
“Isn’t that right?”
“Yes,” she whispered. “It is.”
“Okay,” I said, pushing forward before Bethany could change her mind. “Then let’s talk about what we’re going to do next.”
+ + +
“Dragons” is a work of fiction. Names, characters, businesses, places, events, locales, and incidents are either the products of the author's imagination or used in a fictitious manner. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental. For more information, go here.
This post first appeared on Eric Lanke's blog, an association executive and author. You can follow him on Twitter @ericlanke or contact him at eric.lanke@gmail.com.
Image Source
http://lres.com/heres-why-amcs-need-to-pay-close-attention-to-looming-regulatory-changes/businessman-in-the-middle-of-a-labyrinth/
Labels:
Fiction
Monday, September 2, 2019
You Are The Association
This past week one of my staff members retired from working for our association. She has been with the organization for just over 30 years. At the celebratory lunch we threw in her honor I asked her how many former Executive Directors of the association she had worked with.
She she, somewhat matter-of-factly, that our association has had a total of five Executive Directors in its history, and that she has worked for four of them.
This was not the first time I had reflected on how much institutional knowledge we were losing with her (very well deserved) retirement, but her response really brought that reality to the surface for me. We're a small and somewhat long-tenured staff, but we had seen a handful of departures over the last few years, really bringing down our average years of service. Now that the 30-year veteran has retired, there's still one staff member with 20 years of service, another with 19, and then it's me, with 12. Since we have a total of 12 staff positions, that means that nine of the twelve have less tenure than me. Or to be precise, have been hired in the last 12 years under my leadership.
That is a very interesting way of looking at the situation. As the President/CEO (we switched away from the "Executive Director" title during my tenure), I always knew that I was the leader of the association, but being reminded that I was directly responsible for its staff team made me take a fresh look at the responsibility.
I've already written about how, when it comes to institutional knowledge, I can no longer rely on any of my Board members, since none of them had been in our leadership for longer than I have. And now, it's made apparent to me that I am among the longer-tenured staff members the association has.
It leads me to a startling conclusion. As the President/CEO, I am not just the institutional knowledge of the association, I, in fact, am the association, in a way that no single other person can be. Not only do I know where we've been, I also know where we're going and am actively working with Board and other staff members to make that happen.
It's a perspective, I think, that only long-tenured association executives can have.
+ + +
This post first appeared on Eric Lanke's blog, an association executive and author. You can follow him on Twitter @ericlanke or contact him at eric.lanke@gmail.com.
Image Source
http://harbus.org/2018/personal-presentation/businessman-looking-in-mirror-pan_12170/
She she, somewhat matter-of-factly, that our association has had a total of five Executive Directors in its history, and that she has worked for four of them.
This was not the first time I had reflected on how much institutional knowledge we were losing with her (very well deserved) retirement, but her response really brought that reality to the surface for me. We're a small and somewhat long-tenured staff, but we had seen a handful of departures over the last few years, really bringing down our average years of service. Now that the 30-year veteran has retired, there's still one staff member with 20 years of service, another with 19, and then it's me, with 12. Since we have a total of 12 staff positions, that means that nine of the twelve have less tenure than me. Or to be precise, have been hired in the last 12 years under my leadership.
That is a very interesting way of looking at the situation. As the President/CEO (we switched away from the "Executive Director" title during my tenure), I always knew that I was the leader of the association, but being reminded that I was directly responsible for its staff team made me take a fresh look at the responsibility.
I've already written about how, when it comes to institutional knowledge, I can no longer rely on any of my Board members, since none of them had been in our leadership for longer than I have. And now, it's made apparent to me that I am among the longer-tenured staff members the association has.
It leads me to a startling conclusion. As the President/CEO, I am not just the institutional knowledge of the association, I, in fact, am the association, in a way that no single other person can be. Not only do I know where we've been, I also know where we're going and am actively working with Board and other staff members to make that happen.
It's a perspective, I think, that only long-tenured association executives can have.
+ + +
This post first appeared on Eric Lanke's blog, an association executive and author. You can follow him on Twitter @ericlanke or contact him at eric.lanke@gmail.com.
Image Source
http://harbus.org/2018/personal-presentation/businessman-looking-in-mirror-pan_12170/
Labels:
Associations,
Leadership
Saturday, August 31, 2019
The Extended Phenotype by Richard Dawkins
After my disappointing experience with The Selfish Gene, I almost didn’t bother with The Extended Phenotype. But, in the end, the allure of Dawkins’s concept was too strong for me to resist. As he states fairly early in this text:
The thesis that I shall support is this. It is legitimate to speak of adaptations as being ‘for the benefit of’ something, but that something is best not seen as the individual organism. It is a smaller unit which I call the active, germ-line replicator. The most important kind of replicator is the ‘gene’ or small genetic fragment. Replicators are not, of course, selected directly, but by proxy; they are judged by their phenotypic effects. Although for some purposes it is convenient to think of these phenotypic effects as being packaged together in discrete ‘vehicles’ such as individual organisms, this is not fundamentally necessary. Rather, the replicator should be thought of as having extended phenotypic effects, consisting of all its effects on the world at large, not just its effects on the individual body in which it happens to be sitting.
I don’t know if that comes off as revolutionary to you as it does to me, couched as it is in language that tries to avoid metaphor for the sake of clarity. What he is essentially saying is that genes produce effects in the world beyond the individual organism in which they reside, and it is by these “extended phenotypic” effects that their survival and replication depend.
Dawkins himself, in his 1989 note to the Oxford Paperback Edition of The Extended Phenotype, gives this idea a singular honor:
I suppose most scientists -- most authors -- have one piece of work of which they would say: It doesn’t matter if you never read anything else of mine, please at least read this. For me, it is The Extended Phenotype. In particular, the last four chapters constitute the best candidate for the title ‘innovative’ that I have to offer.
Extended Phenotypes
One of the most common extended phenotypes, or at least one that practically everyone has a common understanding of, is the beaver’s dam. Indeed, a beaver is shown on the cover of the paperback I read. Whatever gene or combination of genes that exist in the beaver that codes for her dam-building behavior can claim not just the behavior but the resulting dam itself as its phenotype. Because it is, in fact, the dam, not the dam-building behavior, that increases the reproductive fitness of the beaver.
Once you start looking for extended phenotypes, there is a tendency to see them everywhere. Dawkins describes one of the more thought-provoking in a section on songbirds.
If a physiologist wants to bring a female canary into reproductive condition, increase the size of her functional ovary and cause her to start nest-building and other reproductive behavior patterns, there are various things he can do. He can inject her with gonadotropins or oestrogens. He can use electric light to increase the day-length that she experiences. Or, most interestingly from our point of view, he can play her a tape recording of male canary song. It apparently has to be canary song; budgerigar song will not do, although budgerigar song has a similar effect on female budgerigars.
Now suppose a male canary wanted to bring a female into reproductive condition, what could he do? He does not have a syringe to inject hormones. He cannot switch on artificial lights in the female’s environment. Of course what he does is sing. The particular pattern of sounds that he makes enters the female’s head through her ears, is translated into nerve impulses, and bores insidiously into her pituitary. The male does not have to synthesize and inject gonadotropins; he makes the female’s pituitary work to synthesize them for him. He stimulates her pituitary by means of nerve impulses. They are not ‘his’ nerve impulses, in the sense that they all occur within the female’s own nerve cells. But they are his in another sense. It is his particular sounds which are subtly fashioned to make the female’s nerves work on her pituitary. Where a physiologist might pump gonadotropins into the female’s breast muscle, or electric current into her brain, the male canary pours song into her ear. And the effect is the same.
So here the extended phenotype is not the male canary’s song, nor even the stimulation of the female canary’s pituitary, but the instigation of female’s reproductive behavior patterns. The male canary has genes “for” female reproductive behavior.
Extended Metaphors
But here again, as in The Selfish Gene, I wonder if the metaphoric language that Dawkins has chosen to communicate his idea is the very thing that gets in the way of it being clearly understood. By way of example, and the reason I had to put “for” in quotation marks at the end of the last section, is that genes don’t always create the phenotypes with which they are associated.
If I am homozygous for a gene G, nothing save mutation can prevent my passing G on to all my children. So much is inexorable. But whether or not I, or my children, show the phenotypic effect normally associated with possession of G may depend very much on how we are brought up, what diet or education we experience, and what other genes we happen to possess.
This is one of the scientific realities that belie the metaphor that we have genes “for” certain phenotypes. Just having a gene isn’t enough. A gene must be expressed in order for its phenotype to manifest, and gene expression is a process that is very much mediated by the environment for by what other genes are present on the chromosome.
Here’s another way of thinking about the implications of this.
When a geneticist speaks of a gene ‘for’ red eyes in Drosophila, he is not speaking of the cistron which acts as template for the synthesis of the red pigment molecule. He is implicitly saying: there is variation in eye colour in the population; other things being equal, a fly with this gene is more likely to have red eyes than a fly without the gene. That is all that we ever mean by a gene ‘for’ red eyes.
Did you get that? It’s another example of metaphoric language causing misunderstandings. Genes don’t automatically create their phenotypes, extended or otherwise.
But it goes deeper than that. Because despite what Dawkins himself proposed in his earlier groundbreaking work, genes are also not actually selfish.
Anyone who thinks about genes literally as molecular entities is in danger of being misled by passages like ‘What is the selfish gene? It is not just one single physical bit of DNA … It is all replicas of a particular bit of DNA, distributed throughout the world … a distributed agency, existing in many different individuals at once … a gene might be able to assist replicas of itself which are sitting in other bodies.’ The whole of kin selection theory rests on this general premise, yet it would be mystical and wrong to think that genes assist copies of each other because those copies are identical molecules to themselves. … Chimpanzees and gorillas are so similar that a gene in one species might be physically identical in its molecular details to a gene in the other. Is this molecular identity a sufficient reason to expect selection to favour genes in one species ‘recognizing’ copies of themselves in the other species, and extending them a helping hand? The answer is no, although a naive application of ‘selfish gene’ reasoning at the molecular level might lead us to think otherwise.
Dawkins is even more direct a few paragraphs on.
It is the incidence of phenotypes that we are interested in explaining, not the incidence of molecular configurations of DNA.
In other words, it is not genes that are the agents of evolution. In a world where natural selection dominates, it is the phenotypes that are the gene’s expression (extended or otherwise) that serve as the selection mechanism.
And Dawkins very next sentence, is the one that just about made my head explode.
And if any reader thinks that last remark contradicts my basic thesis, I must have failed to make my basic thesis clear!
Are you following this? For a book and a half, Dawkins has been advancing a theory about selfish genes, admittedly not as a description of reality but as a handy way of thinking about the mechanisms of reality. But it is only occasionally that he comes through with the kind of clarity that we see above. Remember, despite everything I’m saying, it is not the gene that is selfish, it is instead the phenotype that is better adapted to its environment.
The reader is cautioned not to fall into a similar trap when Dawkins discusses the concept of inclusive fitness.
Individual-level thinking is superficially attractive because individuals, unlike genes, have nervous systems and limbs which render them capable of working in obvious ways to maximize something. It is therefore natural to ask what quantity, in theory, they might be expected to maximize, and inclusive fitness is the answer. But what makes this so dangerous is that it, too, is really a metaphor. Individuals do not consciously strive to maximize anything; they behave as if maximizing something. It is exactly the same ‘as if’ logic that we apply to ‘intelligent genes.’ Genes manipulate the world as if striving to maximize their own survival. They do not really ‘strive’, but my point is that in this respect they do not differ from individuals. Neither individuals nor genes really strive to maximize anything. Or, rather, individuals may strive for something, but it will be a morsel of food, an attractive female, or a desirable territory, not inclusive fitness. To the extent that it is useful for us to think of individuals working as if to maximize fitness, we may, with precisely the same licence, think of genes as if they were striving to maximize their survival. The difference is that the quantity the genes may be thought of as maximizing (survival of replicas) is a great deal simpler and easier to deal with in models than the quantity individuals may be thought of as maximizing (fitness). I repeat that if we think about individual animals maximizing something, there is a serious danger of our confusing ourselves, since we may forget whether we are using ‘as if’ language or whether we are talking about animals consciously striving for some goal. Since no sane biologist could imagine DNA molecules consciously striving for anything, the danger of this confusion ought not to exist when we talk of genes as maximizing agents.
Sorry. This is all just a little too much for me. Dawkins writes about selfish genes that aren’t really selfish, that only act ‘as if’ they were selfish. And he also writes about individuals striving to maximize fitness that aren’t really striving to maximize fitness, that only act ‘as if’ they were striving to maximize fitness. And then, he criticizes people who fail to remember to add the ‘as if’. How, I wonder, are these metaphors helping me understand what is really going on? At the very least, Dawkins should be making the ‘as if’ explicit, but I think I would prefer if he dropped the metaphors altogether.
How Very British
One of the things I didn’t like about The Selfish Gene (at least the version I read, which contained the original 1976 text and new introductions and endnotes from Dawkins written in 2006) was how arrogant Dawkins came off; especially the 2006 Dawkins, who seemed to be writing explicitly to extract his rhetorical revenge on all the real and imagined critics of his work. Thankfully, no similar arrogant jerk can be found in the pages of The Extended Phenotype. Indeed, one paragraph in the author’s preface, written in 1981, jumped out at me as expressing quite the opposite state of mind. It has to do with his occasional use of feminine pronouns to refer to the generic reader.
The linguistic experiment of the last sentence reminds me that I wish I had had the courage to instruct the computer to feminize personal pronouns at random throughout the text. This is not only because I admire the current awareness of the masculine bias in our language. Whenever I write I have a particular imaginary reader in mind (different imaginary readers oversee and ‘filter’ the same passage in numerous successive revisions) and at least half my imaginary readers are, like at least half my friends, female. Unfortunately it is still true in English that the unexpectedness of a feminine pronoun, where a neutral meaning is intended, seriously distracts the attention of most readers, of either sex. I believe the experiment of the previous paragraph will substantiate this. With regret, therefore, I have followed the standard convention in this book.
My note in the margin upon reading this for the first time: How very British!
+ + +
This post first appeared on Eric Lanke's blog, an association executive and author. You can follow him on Twitter @ericlanke or contact him at eric.lanke@gmail.com.
The thesis that I shall support is this. It is legitimate to speak of adaptations as being ‘for the benefit of’ something, but that something is best not seen as the individual organism. It is a smaller unit which I call the active, germ-line replicator. The most important kind of replicator is the ‘gene’ or small genetic fragment. Replicators are not, of course, selected directly, but by proxy; they are judged by their phenotypic effects. Although for some purposes it is convenient to think of these phenotypic effects as being packaged together in discrete ‘vehicles’ such as individual organisms, this is not fundamentally necessary. Rather, the replicator should be thought of as having extended phenotypic effects, consisting of all its effects on the world at large, not just its effects on the individual body in which it happens to be sitting.
I don’t know if that comes off as revolutionary to you as it does to me, couched as it is in language that tries to avoid metaphor for the sake of clarity. What he is essentially saying is that genes produce effects in the world beyond the individual organism in which they reside, and it is by these “extended phenotypic” effects that their survival and replication depend.
Dawkins himself, in his 1989 note to the Oxford Paperback Edition of The Extended Phenotype, gives this idea a singular honor:
I suppose most scientists -- most authors -- have one piece of work of which they would say: It doesn’t matter if you never read anything else of mine, please at least read this. For me, it is The Extended Phenotype. In particular, the last four chapters constitute the best candidate for the title ‘innovative’ that I have to offer.
Extended Phenotypes
One of the most common extended phenotypes, or at least one that practically everyone has a common understanding of, is the beaver’s dam. Indeed, a beaver is shown on the cover of the paperback I read. Whatever gene or combination of genes that exist in the beaver that codes for her dam-building behavior can claim not just the behavior but the resulting dam itself as its phenotype. Because it is, in fact, the dam, not the dam-building behavior, that increases the reproductive fitness of the beaver.
Once you start looking for extended phenotypes, there is a tendency to see them everywhere. Dawkins describes one of the more thought-provoking in a section on songbirds.
If a physiologist wants to bring a female canary into reproductive condition, increase the size of her functional ovary and cause her to start nest-building and other reproductive behavior patterns, there are various things he can do. He can inject her with gonadotropins or oestrogens. He can use electric light to increase the day-length that she experiences. Or, most interestingly from our point of view, he can play her a tape recording of male canary song. It apparently has to be canary song; budgerigar song will not do, although budgerigar song has a similar effect on female budgerigars.
Now suppose a male canary wanted to bring a female into reproductive condition, what could he do? He does not have a syringe to inject hormones. He cannot switch on artificial lights in the female’s environment. Of course what he does is sing. The particular pattern of sounds that he makes enters the female’s head through her ears, is translated into nerve impulses, and bores insidiously into her pituitary. The male does not have to synthesize and inject gonadotropins; he makes the female’s pituitary work to synthesize them for him. He stimulates her pituitary by means of nerve impulses. They are not ‘his’ nerve impulses, in the sense that they all occur within the female’s own nerve cells. But they are his in another sense. It is his particular sounds which are subtly fashioned to make the female’s nerves work on her pituitary. Where a physiologist might pump gonadotropins into the female’s breast muscle, or electric current into her brain, the male canary pours song into her ear. And the effect is the same.
So here the extended phenotype is not the male canary’s song, nor even the stimulation of the female canary’s pituitary, but the instigation of female’s reproductive behavior patterns. The male canary has genes “for” female reproductive behavior.
Extended Metaphors
But here again, as in The Selfish Gene, I wonder if the metaphoric language that Dawkins has chosen to communicate his idea is the very thing that gets in the way of it being clearly understood. By way of example, and the reason I had to put “for” in quotation marks at the end of the last section, is that genes don’t always create the phenotypes with which they are associated.
If I am homozygous for a gene G, nothing save mutation can prevent my passing G on to all my children. So much is inexorable. But whether or not I, or my children, show the phenotypic effect normally associated with possession of G may depend very much on how we are brought up, what diet or education we experience, and what other genes we happen to possess.
This is one of the scientific realities that belie the metaphor that we have genes “for” certain phenotypes. Just having a gene isn’t enough. A gene must be expressed in order for its phenotype to manifest, and gene expression is a process that is very much mediated by the environment for by what other genes are present on the chromosome.
Here’s another way of thinking about the implications of this.
When a geneticist speaks of a gene ‘for’ red eyes in Drosophila, he is not speaking of the cistron which acts as template for the synthesis of the red pigment molecule. He is implicitly saying: there is variation in eye colour in the population; other things being equal, a fly with this gene is more likely to have red eyes than a fly without the gene. That is all that we ever mean by a gene ‘for’ red eyes.
Did you get that? It’s another example of metaphoric language causing misunderstandings. Genes don’t automatically create their phenotypes, extended or otherwise.
But it goes deeper than that. Because despite what Dawkins himself proposed in his earlier groundbreaking work, genes are also not actually selfish.
Anyone who thinks about genes literally as molecular entities is in danger of being misled by passages like ‘What is the selfish gene? It is not just one single physical bit of DNA … It is all replicas of a particular bit of DNA, distributed throughout the world … a distributed agency, existing in many different individuals at once … a gene might be able to assist replicas of itself which are sitting in other bodies.’ The whole of kin selection theory rests on this general premise, yet it would be mystical and wrong to think that genes assist copies of each other because those copies are identical molecules to themselves. … Chimpanzees and gorillas are so similar that a gene in one species might be physically identical in its molecular details to a gene in the other. Is this molecular identity a sufficient reason to expect selection to favour genes in one species ‘recognizing’ copies of themselves in the other species, and extending them a helping hand? The answer is no, although a naive application of ‘selfish gene’ reasoning at the molecular level might lead us to think otherwise.
Dawkins is even more direct a few paragraphs on.
It is the incidence of phenotypes that we are interested in explaining, not the incidence of molecular configurations of DNA.
In other words, it is not genes that are the agents of evolution. In a world where natural selection dominates, it is the phenotypes that are the gene’s expression (extended or otherwise) that serve as the selection mechanism.
And Dawkins very next sentence, is the one that just about made my head explode.
And if any reader thinks that last remark contradicts my basic thesis, I must have failed to make my basic thesis clear!
Are you following this? For a book and a half, Dawkins has been advancing a theory about selfish genes, admittedly not as a description of reality but as a handy way of thinking about the mechanisms of reality. But it is only occasionally that he comes through with the kind of clarity that we see above. Remember, despite everything I’m saying, it is not the gene that is selfish, it is instead the phenotype that is better adapted to its environment.
The reader is cautioned not to fall into a similar trap when Dawkins discusses the concept of inclusive fitness.
Individual-level thinking is superficially attractive because individuals, unlike genes, have nervous systems and limbs which render them capable of working in obvious ways to maximize something. It is therefore natural to ask what quantity, in theory, they might be expected to maximize, and inclusive fitness is the answer. But what makes this so dangerous is that it, too, is really a metaphor. Individuals do not consciously strive to maximize anything; they behave as if maximizing something. It is exactly the same ‘as if’ logic that we apply to ‘intelligent genes.’ Genes manipulate the world as if striving to maximize their own survival. They do not really ‘strive’, but my point is that in this respect they do not differ from individuals. Neither individuals nor genes really strive to maximize anything. Or, rather, individuals may strive for something, but it will be a morsel of food, an attractive female, or a desirable territory, not inclusive fitness. To the extent that it is useful for us to think of individuals working as if to maximize fitness, we may, with precisely the same licence, think of genes as if they were striving to maximize their survival. The difference is that the quantity the genes may be thought of as maximizing (survival of replicas) is a great deal simpler and easier to deal with in models than the quantity individuals may be thought of as maximizing (fitness). I repeat that if we think about individual animals maximizing something, there is a serious danger of our confusing ourselves, since we may forget whether we are using ‘as if’ language or whether we are talking about animals consciously striving for some goal. Since no sane biologist could imagine DNA molecules consciously striving for anything, the danger of this confusion ought not to exist when we talk of genes as maximizing agents.
Sorry. This is all just a little too much for me. Dawkins writes about selfish genes that aren’t really selfish, that only act ‘as if’ they were selfish. And he also writes about individuals striving to maximize fitness that aren’t really striving to maximize fitness, that only act ‘as if’ they were striving to maximize fitness. And then, he criticizes people who fail to remember to add the ‘as if’. How, I wonder, are these metaphors helping me understand what is really going on? At the very least, Dawkins should be making the ‘as if’ explicit, but I think I would prefer if he dropped the metaphors altogether.
How Very British
One of the things I didn’t like about The Selfish Gene (at least the version I read, which contained the original 1976 text and new introductions and endnotes from Dawkins written in 2006) was how arrogant Dawkins came off; especially the 2006 Dawkins, who seemed to be writing explicitly to extract his rhetorical revenge on all the real and imagined critics of his work. Thankfully, no similar arrogant jerk can be found in the pages of The Extended Phenotype. Indeed, one paragraph in the author’s preface, written in 1981, jumped out at me as expressing quite the opposite state of mind. It has to do with his occasional use of feminine pronouns to refer to the generic reader.
The linguistic experiment of the last sentence reminds me that I wish I had had the courage to instruct the computer to feminize personal pronouns at random throughout the text. This is not only because I admire the current awareness of the masculine bias in our language. Whenever I write I have a particular imaginary reader in mind (different imaginary readers oversee and ‘filter’ the same passage in numerous successive revisions) and at least half my imaginary readers are, like at least half my friends, female. Unfortunately it is still true in English that the unexpectedness of a feminine pronoun, where a neutral meaning is intended, seriously distracts the attention of most readers, of either sex. I believe the experiment of the previous paragraph will substantiate this. With regret, therefore, I have followed the standard convention in this book.
My note in the margin upon reading this for the first time: How very British!
+ + +
This post first appeared on Eric Lanke's blog, an association executive and author. You can follow him on Twitter @ericlanke or contact him at eric.lanke@gmail.com.
Labels:
Books Read
Monday, August 26, 2019
Meetings with Purpose
I think I've mentioned before that I got my start in association management as a meeting planner. When I started I had zero experience. It was entry-level, and someone simply gave me a chance to provide myself. I found that I had a knack for it, and pretty soon my career in association management was off and running.
I say association management, but honestly, for a time I thought I might be looking at a career in meeting planning. I even contemplated getting my CMP to help bolster that possibility.
But eventually I decided that it wasn't meeting planning that I was interested in. It was association management, and meeting planning had simply been my introduction to it.
That backstory affords me a different take on meeting planning than most meeting planners. With no wish to denigrate, meeting planners are cut from a different cloth than association management professionals who know how to plan meetings. The incentives and reward systems are different. To describe it as simply as I can, for the meeting planner the goal is that the meeting run smoothly. To the association management professional the goal is that the meeting achieves its purpose.
Now, these are not mutually exclusive goals. In fact, they support each other to such a degree that it's almost impossible for one to occur without the other -- but only in one direction. In other words, it's completely possible to have a meeting run smoothly that does not achieve its purpose, but it's next to impossible to have a meeting achieve its purpose if it doesn't run smoothly.
This one-way co-dependency creates a trap that too many association fall into. Knowing that they can't achieve their meeting's purpose without it running smoothly, they elevate the importance of a smooth-running meeting in all of their decision processes.
Smooth running means not going over budget, so let's cut a corner here. Smooth running means automated processes, so let's forget about customizing the name badges too much. Smooth running means the right number of box lunches, so let's enforce our rules about needing a ticket in order to get a lunch.
If you follow this logic long enough, you'll soon realize that you've stripped all the humanity out of your meeting. Or worse, you won't realize it. Instead, one of your attendees will point it out to you. I used to look forward to coming to your meetings, but now they feel so impersonal and regimented. I don't think I'll bother coming any more.
This is a major problem because almost every association meeting has the same common purpose: bring people together so that they can learn, connect, and have fun. Without that, there's no point in having the meeting in the first place. Your members are not coming to your meeting so that they can follow all the rules you've put in place to make sure the meeting runs smoothly. They're coming to your meeting so that they can learn, connect, and have fun.
That's the purpose of your meeting. Don't let your meeting planning get in the way of that.
+ + +
This post first appeared on Eric Lanke's blog, an association executive and author. You can follow him on Twitter @ericlanke or contact him at eric.lanke@gmail.com.
Image Source
https://images.app.goo.gl/g7XHurAUmGTeULs48
I say association management, but honestly, for a time I thought I might be looking at a career in meeting planning. I even contemplated getting my CMP to help bolster that possibility.
But eventually I decided that it wasn't meeting planning that I was interested in. It was association management, and meeting planning had simply been my introduction to it.
That backstory affords me a different take on meeting planning than most meeting planners. With no wish to denigrate, meeting planners are cut from a different cloth than association management professionals who know how to plan meetings. The incentives and reward systems are different. To describe it as simply as I can, for the meeting planner the goal is that the meeting run smoothly. To the association management professional the goal is that the meeting achieves its purpose.
Now, these are not mutually exclusive goals. In fact, they support each other to such a degree that it's almost impossible for one to occur without the other -- but only in one direction. In other words, it's completely possible to have a meeting run smoothly that does not achieve its purpose, but it's next to impossible to have a meeting achieve its purpose if it doesn't run smoothly.
This one-way co-dependency creates a trap that too many association fall into. Knowing that they can't achieve their meeting's purpose without it running smoothly, they elevate the importance of a smooth-running meeting in all of their decision processes.
Smooth running means not going over budget, so let's cut a corner here. Smooth running means automated processes, so let's forget about customizing the name badges too much. Smooth running means the right number of box lunches, so let's enforce our rules about needing a ticket in order to get a lunch.
If you follow this logic long enough, you'll soon realize that you've stripped all the humanity out of your meeting. Or worse, you won't realize it. Instead, one of your attendees will point it out to you. I used to look forward to coming to your meetings, but now they feel so impersonal and regimented. I don't think I'll bother coming any more.
This is a major problem because almost every association meeting has the same common purpose: bring people together so that they can learn, connect, and have fun. Without that, there's no point in having the meeting in the first place. Your members are not coming to your meeting so that they can follow all the rules you've put in place to make sure the meeting runs smoothly. They're coming to your meeting so that they can learn, connect, and have fun.
That's the purpose of your meeting. Don't let your meeting planning get in the way of that.
+ + +
This post first appeared on Eric Lanke's blog, an association executive and author. You can follow him on Twitter @ericlanke or contact him at eric.lanke@gmail.com.
Image Source
https://images.app.goo.gl/g7XHurAUmGTeULs48
Labels:
Associations,
Member Engagement
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)






