A Defining Moment

What do management culture, the right of free speech, the Mensa Constitution and the laws of complexity have in common? A fundamental principle of complexity, or chaos, says that a very small input into a dynamic system can have consequents far beyond the significance of the input. People who study weather systems like to say that a butterfly flapping its wings in Honchoing can cause a tornado in Oklahoma. It does not take much to change the dynamics of a system.

A long time ago InterLoc reported the minutes of an AMC meeting that took place around September 12, 1992. At that meeting they discussed whether Mensa should, or should not, as an organization, license or endorse products and engage in business. There was a difference of opinion between two members of the AMC, whom we shall call Mr. "A" and Mr. "B." The outcome of that exchange, in my opinion, was decisive in developing the future of Mensa the organization. The outcome was evidence of a lack of attention to detail in management culture. 

Forget the names. People are not the subject. Mr. A believed the Constitution forbids any opinion being expressed as that of Mensa as an organization. So, since an "endorsement" or a "license" is the expression of a favorable opinion, Mr. A said the Constitution prevented Mensa as an organization from taking that step. Here is what Mr. B said (the quote is from InterLoc):

"Mr. B stated that when Mensa was originally organized, the concept of Mensa having no opinions as an organization was intended to mean political, religious, or ethical opinions, not commercial opinions. He has consulted Mr. C, who was involved in the latest rewrite of the Constitution, who said that there was never any intention that Mensa should not express a commercial opinion." 

Mr. B, with Mr. C's alleged agreement, said that what the framers included under "affiliations" they really meant to say under "opinions." This is a small input into a dynamic system, but it alters the meaning. It set a precedent that a constitutional question could be decided by one person. No one said, "Let's settle the question by checking the Constitution." 

If you are like most of us, digging into a constitution for pleasure rates somewhere close to a root canal. But let's take a shot at it. The Constitution covers the subject in "THE POLICY OF MENSA," article II, paragraphs B and C. Paragraph B deals with opinion, political action and affiliations, and it says that Mensa, as an organization, shall not express an opinion as being that of Mensa. No exceptions. Not even commercial. It says Mensa, as an organization, shall not take any political action, but it makes an exception. Mensa can publish the results of its investigations. 

It says that Mensa as an organization shall not have any affiliations that are ideological, philosophical, political, or religious. Other affiliations are permitted, including business and commercial, so the Mensa Constitution was needlessly distorted. Maybe the right thing was done for the wrong reason. That is not the point. The point is that management was careless about details of the job. The butterfly flapped its wings. 

Paragraph C further defines stipulations in paragraph B about opinions, but it also includes actions. Paragraph C puts "actions" and "opinions" together, because opinions are indicated by speech, writing or body language, and action is doing something about it. You say that Mrs. Eppy Cot is disposed to untruth and a dullard. That is opinion, but if you roll up your newspaper and hit her on the head in the middle of her speech, that is action. You may say you are a member of Mensa and do either or both, but you cannot say that Mensa agrees with you.

However, you may be evicted from the meeting for disorderly behavior. 

In paragraph C, you and I are "Members." We can write or utter or show by body language an opinion — and say that we are members of Mensa, but we cannot say that the opinion is that of Mensa the organization. 

Paragraph C also talks about "groups of members." Here are some "groups of members." You can think of others, but these will suffice. The local chapter to which you belong is a "group of members." If you can get the entire group to agree upon anything (I'd like to see you try), your newsletter can report it as the opinion of that chapter of Mensa, but it cannot say that it is the opinion of Mensa as an organization, and you had better print a disclaimer to that effect. 

SIGs are groups of members. Same rule applies.

The Executive Committees of your local chapters are "groups of members." Same rule applies.

Is the AMC a "group of members"? Well, yes, but ... The AMC is a "group of members" placed temporarily in charge of the affairs of American Mensa Limited by the vote of the membership. But, when we elect the AMC to office, we delegate powers and responsibilities. However, those powers must be exercised within the Constitution. Why did the framers of the Mensa Constitution include paragraph C? Because each "individual member" and "groups of members" are transitory entities. Mensa as an Organization endures. 

The framers were careful that your right of "free speech" be protected. That is the law. However, they put a firewall between Mensa the organization and "members" and "groups of members." Why? It makes Mensa the organization not liable if as a "member" or a "group of members" you violate someone's freedom of speech. You are on your own. Or, if while exercising your right of free speech or action as a "member" or "group of members" you slander someone or damage them physically, the "organization" is not liable. 

Why is this important? Because somewhere in the Constitution it says something about "disciplinary action" and imposing sanctions, including expulsion, on members for "acts inimical to Mensa." Should this provision be in the Constitution? Again, yes ... BUT!  Remember the difference between "opinions" and "acts"? The provision speaks only of "acts."

The Organization Mensa has the right to protect itself from harm, but individuals temporarily assigned that duty must take extreme precautions that in discharging their duty they do not violate anyone's right of free speech. That is against the law of the land, and, in itself, could be an "act inimical to Mensa." The courts have brought so much under the umbrella of free speech that it is a hazardous domain to navigate. It is very easy in any organization for succeeding generations of management to follow the customs, habits and beliefs of preceding generations. It's called culture.

Have you ever heard the parable of the processionary caterpillars? What is a processionary caterpillar? They feed upon geranium plants. They move in a long procession. One leads and the others follow with their eyes closed, each one's head fitted against the rear extremity of his predecessor. They proceed in this way until they find food. One time, a naturalist enticed them to the rim of a large flowerpot in which a geranium plant was growing. He got the first one connected with the last one to form a complete circle, which started around in a procession that had neither beginning nor end. 

The naturalist expected that after a while they would discover their mistake and the food in their midst and take another direction. But they did not. Through habit, they kept moving around the rim of the pot for many days. Some fell out of the circle, but the others continued the steady march to ultimate destruction. Food was close at hand and plainly visible, but it was outside the circle, so they continued along the beaten path. 

— Sherm Vandaveer
     srvan@alltell.net