This is a question that’s been bothering me for some time. Not a day goes by when it’s not glaringly obvious that people just aren’t comfortable with “me”. Why are so many people avoiding “me”? I wanted to know.
Me, Myself, and I
Pronouns are lovely little devices, easily replacing nouns that could be long and cumbersome to repeat with short little generic replacement words. The first person pronoun refers to the speaker and takes on the nominative form (“I”), the objective form (“me”), the possessive form (“my” or “mine”), and the reflexive form (“myself”). For some reason, many people object to the objective form.
First, I’d like to present a brief refresher on which is which: The nominative pronoun is the actor. “I read a book.” “I fed the cat.” The objective pronoun is on the receiving end of an action. “She saw me.” “Grandmom gave me an apple.” The possessive pronoun, well, possesses stuff. “The money is mine.” “It’s my life!” And the reflexive pronoun is in the objective position but always refers back to the subject. “I really embarrassed myself.” “I gave myself a treat.”
It’s All About Me
People seem to do just about anything to avoid the using “me” as the object of a sentence. The substitutions seem to vary based on whether the object is part of a coordination (two or more objects are linked by “and”) or stands alone. “Myself” often substitutes for “me” in both coordinate objects AND alone.
Just the other night, I was watching a DVD of the old Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour from the mid-sixties. Every time Tom Smothers spoke about himself and his brother, he would say “my brother and myself.” (My Microsoft Word spell-check just put a squiggly line under “myself” to let me know it’s wrong.) I see the coordinate of another person (“Charlie and myself”) occasionally in business communications, as well. However, I am more likely to see it all by its lonesome in business communications. “Send the information to myself as soon as possible.”
Why is this wrong? It’s wrong because a reflexive pronoun is supposed to refer back to the subject. In the example “Send the information to myself as soon as possible”, the inferred subject (the action taker) is “you.” The reflexive pronoun for “you” is “yourself.” The subject for the reflexive pronoun “myself” is “I.” But many U.S. English speakers have turned “myself” into an objective pronoun…and, at times, a nominative pronoun.
In business communications, I am more likely to see “I” in coordination with another noun (or pronoun). “Tell her and I if we should attend the meeting.” “Refer the customer to either Nancy or I.” In this case, the nominative form of the first person replaces the objective form. You would not say “Refer the customer to I.” Or “Tell I if we should attend the meeting.” For most of us, this would never sound right.
Makes me cringe!
To me, the only correct word to use in any of the above cases is the short and simple “me.”
Finding Me
I went looking for answers as to why this is so common. Did I find them? No. There’s a good bit of conjecture, though. Most commenters on the Internet (both professionals and Facebook fans of a certain grammar page) seem to believe, and I tend to agree, that a lot of people think “me” is too direct and even vulgar. “I” and “myself” seem proper and formal. That’s why people think nothing of saying “It’s me!” – when “It’s I!” is actually the “correct” form – but have difficulty saying “When you have completed the report, give it to your manager and me.” It’s hard to know for sure, however. Who is willing to approach friends, co-workers, or strangers and ask “Why are you using incorrect grammar?”
On my search I did discover that this whole issue is actually very sensitive and wrought with controversy. Who knew? I thought it was pretty straightforward: grammar rules are grammar rules and that’s that. Boy, was I wrong!
They’re Fighting Over Me
There are two camps in the grammar world: prescriptive grammarians and descriptive grammarians.
Prescriptive grammarians prescribe to a certain set of grammar rules that are inflexible. Failure to follow the rules results in grammatical errors and some strong “tsk, tsks.” According to Bradford R. Connatser in his article “Reconsidering Some Prescriptive Rules of Grammar and Composition” (Technical Communications – Volume 51, Number 2, May 2004, pages 264-275), many of these rules were imposed by 18th and 19th grammarians who were trained in classical Latin; these grammarians were attempting to apply the rules of Latin grammar to English.
Prescriptive grammarians, typically linguists, claim these rules may be attempts to fit square pegs into round holes. Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum in their book “The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language” (2002 – Cambridge University Press) argue that these rules are arbitrary and a matter of the writer’s preferences and prejudices. They claim that the grammar in use by the majority of people, not the prescribed 18th and 19th century “Latinization” of our language, is the most relevant grammar. Specifically, in the case of using “I” instead of “me”, the authors challenge the logic behind saying “if the object is ‘me’ when the object is alone, then the object must be ‘me’ when the object is not alone.” They say that the coordination might change the object so the pronoun is different. They present the case where you would say “I don’t know if you’re eligible” but you would not say “I don’t know if she and you’re eligible.” The logic of what’s good for the single pronoun is good for the pronoun in a coordination of pronouns doesn’t work here.
Connatser calls this grammar that people use in their everyday speech and, often, writing “organic grammar.” It’s the grammar we internalized as we learned how to speak. He believes it’s “hard-wired.” And it informs how we read. If what’s written on the paper or screen conflicts in form with the organic grammar in our heads, it triggers warning bells that there is something wrong with the text.
Tell Me What to Do!
The practical dilemma for any writer, particularly any non-fiction writer, is to decide what to do. Do you use prescriptive grammar that might be out of step with how your reader talks and processes her language? Or do you use the organic language of your reader so that he feels comfortable with the content?
Connatser points out that errors in text can be distracting and impact the credibility of your content. I’ve personally experienced this many times. As I see more and more errors in a text – grammatical, spelling, or even formatting – I tend to discount the author as sloppy, ill-prepared, and potentially uninformed. I am likely to question the accuracy of the content. He suggests knowing your audience and using grammar rules (whether prescriptive or organic) that will make the reading experience comfortable and easy to process for that audience. If your audience includes people with varying levels of education and inclination toward prescriptive grammar, this is a real challenge.
Personally, I will stick to the prescriptive rules for the first person pronouns “I”, “me”, and “myself.” Dangling participles and split infinitives? Well, that’s another story.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Required Reading for Dinosaurs
Hey, T-Rex! Over here! I have a few things I’d like you to read. Set up a lounge chair next to the primordial pool. Grab a pitcher of iced tea. Make yourself comfortable. Just a few hours of your time.
Whether you’re ready or not, it’s time to evolve. Your industry depends on it. Your future depends on it. These ideas will help you make progress and avoid the tar pit.
Drucker
Peter F. Drucker predicted in “The Coming of the New Organization” printed in the Harvard Business Review (January-February 1988) that the typical large business of this decade will be flatter – have fewer levels of management – and have no more than a third of the managers. I see you shiver at the idea, T-Rex. What will you do without all of those people between the CEO and the “front-line” workers? Where will the management’s status come from? How will workers be motivated to do better if there’s no place to go? Who will make sure things get done?
As business changes, particularly in the West, our work world is evolving from production oriented to information based. Information based organizations require more specialists and knowledge workers. Whereas, in the past, knowledge was held by the people at the top of the organization and the workers just did what they were told, today most of the knowledge is with the workers who tend to direct themselves and require much less supervision or assistance. Many layers of management are no longer necessary, create redundancies, and impede communication. According to Drucker, these managers “…neither make decisions nor lead.”
I think that’s a very important statement. These middle managers “…neither make decisions nor lead.” They merely pass information from higher levels of management to those below them and then from the bottom back up again.
Information in the current “command-and-control” version of organizational management is used for control. Managing this or that. In the information based organization, information must be extracted from data and that requires specialists. Lots of them. In Ducker’s vision, corporations will work much more like an orchestra: a conductor at the head and musicians, all specialists, working together and following the conductor’s lead. The conductor could be the CEO but is more likely to be a department or division head; the department will be a training ground and a “home base” for specialists. Specialists will, instead, work in cross-functional task forces or groups, usually led by a member of the group instead of a manager.
In order to make this successful, everyone has to be working from the same “score” or set of instructions. Everyone needs to hear the same clearly stated, common objectives. The leaders provide this direction. All members of the team in Drucker’s organization have responsibility for sharing information and requesting the information they need. While we often concentrate on what we need to tell others (reporting on activities or what we discovered), knowledge workers must consider what information we need to make our contributions.
To help you out T-Rex, Drucker lists four requirements to help you create a successful, information-based organization without the thick layer of middle managers:
You’re going to love this one, too, T-Rex. Patrice M. Buzzanell writes in “Gaining a Voice: Feminist Organizational Communication Theorizing,” published in Management Communication Quarterly (May 1994 – Volume 7, Number 4), about a feminist approach to organizational management. First, you need to recognize and accept that the modern business organization is established on a patriarchal philosophy of hierarchy and competition. It’s a male dominated world where stereotypically male behavior is rewarded – unless it’s displayed by a woman – and stereotypically female behavior is criticized or dismissed as ineffectual.
While there is no one feminist approach, there are some common values. First, feminism promotes cooperation over competition. Competition fosters distrust, lower self-esteem, neglect of personal relationships, and health problems. Competitive organizations promote exclusion, particularly of women through negative myths about professional women. In these organizations, it is often unclear how one advances; the “rules and routes” are rarely divulged. The reliance on extrinsic rewards (e.g., money and promotions) inhibits development encouraged by curiosity, reliance on individual competence, and learning.
The cooperative, feminist environment values commitment, relationships, and interdependence. Consensus processes are used to negotiate decisions; the processes have minimal rules, create little, if any, differentiation between members, and motivate based on the value of the results in terms of positive feelings, satisfaction of human needs, etc., instead of advancement up the corporate ladder. The organization recognizes the “human” side of women’s contributions to the workplace, such as conflict resolution, providing encouragement, and acting as a sounding board, as valuable and even essential to the organization. And it values a work-life balance.
Second, feminism promotes integrative thinking over linear, cause-effect thinking. Linear thinking assumes that there is one best way of doing things. It ignores possible alternatives. Diversity must be managed instead of explored. “Effective” managers embodied traditionally masculine traits such as independence, rationality, self-confidence, and easy decision-making. However, women who exhibit these traits are often criticized. Integrative thinking emphasizes the possibility of alternative, viewpoints, approaches and outcomes. It also looks for dependency on input from others.
Finally, feminism promotes connectedness over autonomy. Stereotypical male goals are recognition as individuals through action, work, and status and exclusion of emotion from the concepts of truth and fairness. The feminist approach values nurturing and relationships.
Kim and Mauborgne
W. Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne, in “Blue Ocean Strategy,” published in the Harvard Business Review (October 2004), suggest that successful organizations are the ones who create new markets, not join and out-compete existing markets. That does not necessarily mean you have to come up with a brand new product, T-Rex. But it does mean offering a different value proposition to the customer. For example, Kim and Mauborgne cite Ford’s introduction of the Model-T as a “blue ocean” strategy. Ford did not invent the car. But they did make the car affordable to the masses. Before the Model-T, cars were custom made by teams of workers who took weeks to build one car. Ford developed the process and parts that alllowed a group of workers to build a car in less than a week.
“Red ocean” strategies involve competing in existing markets and focus on beating the competition. They attempt to exploit existing demand and typically sacrifice value for low-cost or vice versa. Red ocean organizations align their systems and activities with choosing between differentiation and low cost. They are deemed “red” because of the blood from the battle or competition discoloring the ocean water.
“Blue ocean” strategies create uncontested markets, making competition irrelevant. They create and capture new demand; newcomers or imitators don’t fare as well because the innovators captured the market first. These organizations don’t sacrifice value for low-cost or vice versa. Blue ocean organizations align their activities to pursue both differentiation and low cost. They are deemed “blue” because the water is clear since there’s no battle and resulting blood.
Innovation, T-Rex, is part of the recipe for success.
Taylor
James R. Taylor, in “The Other Side of Rationality: Socially Distributed Cognition” published in the Management Communication Quarterly (November 1999, Volume 13, Number 2), suggests that there are two types of organizational knowledge: practical and discursive. Discursive knowledge is knowledge that an individual can convey in explicit language. It’s the kind of stuff you write in instructions or reports. Practical knowledge is the information you know but take for granted. You don’t normally include it in instructions. For instance, if you tell someone to complete a form, you normally don’t include instructions such as the need to pick up the pencil, what side of the pencil (the lead or the eraser) to apply to the paper, etc. For organizational information, the practical information is probably more sophisticated than that but it does include information that the worker takes for granted.
James reminds us that (1) most human accomplishments are the results of collaborative efforts and (2) “thinking and acting are two sides of a single coin” (what we know influences what we do and we learn from what we do). Individuals bring to a work group their individual knowledge which contributes to the collective knowledge, both practical and discursive. No one individual knows the whole of what the group knows together, mostly because of the practical knowledge that is “hidden” because it’s undisclosed and assumed.
To know what the whole group knows collectively would require someone to give it a voice, by documenting it. Even though these elements are not disclosed, they are essential to the organization. To successfully document what the organization knows, there must be four elements: “Community”, “Opinion”, “Representation”, and “Voice of Society.” “Community” is the people who make up the organization. “Opinion” is each individual’s discursive interpretation of the organization’s cumulative practical and discursive knowledge. “Representation” is the reformulation of “Opinion” as he or she understands it by a manager or other person authorized to speak on behalf of the organization. “Voice of Society” is the person or persons who express what the organization knows AND has the authority to do so. This is usually senior management. In order for the system to work, the Voice of Society must communicate the Representation TO the Community and the Community must validate it as true based on what they know. And, if more than one Voice of Society expresses Representations that differ, confusion and debate will follow.
To summarize for you, T-Rex, more is accomplished by combining resources with diverse knowledge (like the task forces in Drucker’s model and the collaborative work in Buzzanell’s). And, senior management must communicate the interpretation of what the organization knows or is setting out to do and have the recognized moral authority (through both appointment and validation of the message by the employees based on their experience and knowledge) to do so.
Weick
Karl E. Weick, in “The Collapse of Sensemaking in Organizations: The Mann Gulch Disaster” published in the Administrative Science Quarterly (1983, Volume 38), applies the disintegration of the team structure of a group of firefighters battling a wildfire in the 1940s to similar problems within other teams and organizations.
The story and evaluation is fascinating and much too long to summarize here. (The link above provides the entire article.) In short, Weick spells out what it takes to destroy a team or organization:
Okay. There you are, T-Rex. The forumla for success. There are some common ideas in the articles summarized above:
So, T-Rex, how about trading in that pyramid you acquired along the way…you know, the one with the sound-proof rooms, glass ceilings, and secret passageways…the one with the droves of workers at the bottom level and layer upon layer of management up to the point…for a low-rise, energy efficient structure with an open floor plan, windows that let in sunshine and fresh air, and easily marked stairways and elevators to move up and down freely and easily?
Whether you’re ready or not, it’s time to evolve. Your industry depends on it. Your future depends on it. These ideas will help you make progress and avoid the tar pit.
Drucker
Peter F. Drucker predicted in “The Coming of the New Organization” printed in the Harvard Business Review (January-February 1988) that the typical large business of this decade will be flatter – have fewer levels of management – and have no more than a third of the managers. I see you shiver at the idea, T-Rex. What will you do without all of those people between the CEO and the “front-line” workers? Where will the management’s status come from? How will workers be motivated to do better if there’s no place to go? Who will make sure things get done?
As business changes, particularly in the West, our work world is evolving from production oriented to information based. Information based organizations require more specialists and knowledge workers. Whereas, in the past, knowledge was held by the people at the top of the organization and the workers just did what they were told, today most of the knowledge is with the workers who tend to direct themselves and require much less supervision or assistance. Many layers of management are no longer necessary, create redundancies, and impede communication. According to Drucker, these managers “…neither make decisions nor lead.”
I think that’s a very important statement. These middle managers “…neither make decisions nor lead.” They merely pass information from higher levels of management to those below them and then from the bottom back up again.
Information in the current “command-and-control” version of organizational management is used for control. Managing this or that. In the information based organization, information must be extracted from data and that requires specialists. Lots of them. In Ducker’s vision, corporations will work much more like an orchestra: a conductor at the head and musicians, all specialists, working together and following the conductor’s lead. The conductor could be the CEO but is more likely to be a department or division head; the department will be a training ground and a “home base” for specialists. Specialists will, instead, work in cross-functional task forces or groups, usually led by a member of the group instead of a manager.
In order to make this successful, everyone has to be working from the same “score” or set of instructions. Everyone needs to hear the same clearly stated, common objectives. The leaders provide this direction. All members of the team in Drucker’s organization have responsibility for sharing information and requesting the information they need. While we often concentrate on what we need to tell others (reporting on activities or what we discovered), knowledge workers must consider what information we need to make our contributions.
To help you out T-Rex, Drucker lists four requirements to help you create a successful, information-based organization without the thick layer of middle managers:
- Develop rewards, recognition, and career opportunities for specialists. As a knowledge worker myself, I can’t tell you how important this is. I enjoy what I do, but in order for me to make more money, to secure more benefits, and to gain public recognition for my contributions (which is much more important than many people will admit), I have to be promoted to a managerial role. That most probably means abandoning what I enjoy doing most and, quite frankly, what I do best; for that, both the organization and I lose. And, if you fail to recognize my contribution? Well, T-Rex, you’ll eventually lose me and the investment you made in me over the years.
- Create a unified vision. If you look closely at many organizations, they have conflicting visions originating from different business units and control groups. A unified message is necessary to ensure everyone is on the same track and to avoid struggles within task forces over the ultimate goals.
- Devise the management structure for an organization of tasks forces. These should be self-governing units that foster pride and professionalism. To motivate and inspire specialists, the organization might consider rotating them periodically into new specialties (if that’s reasonable for the industry).
- Ensure the supply, preparation, and testing of top management people. I know what you’re thinking, T-Rex. “If I don’t have middle managers, who do I groom for senior level positions?” First, in the current world, I know you’re taking a lot of senior managers from outside of the organization. You can’t fool me. You’re not just fishing in your own pond. But, just in case you’re being straight with me, Drucker suggests that these people can come from leaders who emerge in the task forces, the small pool of managers remaining in the organization, managers from smaller organizations, and business schools (who will need to refocus their curriculum based on the changing organizational structure).
You’re going to love this one, too, T-Rex. Patrice M. Buzzanell writes in “Gaining a Voice: Feminist Organizational Communication Theorizing,” published in Management Communication Quarterly (May 1994 – Volume 7, Number 4), about a feminist approach to organizational management. First, you need to recognize and accept that the modern business organization is established on a patriarchal philosophy of hierarchy and competition. It’s a male dominated world where stereotypically male behavior is rewarded – unless it’s displayed by a woman – and stereotypically female behavior is criticized or dismissed as ineffectual.
While there is no one feminist approach, there are some common values. First, feminism promotes cooperation over competition. Competition fosters distrust, lower self-esteem, neglect of personal relationships, and health problems. Competitive organizations promote exclusion, particularly of women through negative myths about professional women. In these organizations, it is often unclear how one advances; the “rules and routes” are rarely divulged. The reliance on extrinsic rewards (e.g., money and promotions) inhibits development encouraged by curiosity, reliance on individual competence, and learning.
The cooperative, feminist environment values commitment, relationships, and interdependence. Consensus processes are used to negotiate decisions; the processes have minimal rules, create little, if any, differentiation between members, and motivate based on the value of the results in terms of positive feelings, satisfaction of human needs, etc., instead of advancement up the corporate ladder. The organization recognizes the “human” side of women’s contributions to the workplace, such as conflict resolution, providing encouragement, and acting as a sounding board, as valuable and even essential to the organization. And it values a work-life balance.
Second, feminism promotes integrative thinking over linear, cause-effect thinking. Linear thinking assumes that there is one best way of doing things. It ignores possible alternatives. Diversity must be managed instead of explored. “Effective” managers embodied traditionally masculine traits such as independence, rationality, self-confidence, and easy decision-making. However, women who exhibit these traits are often criticized. Integrative thinking emphasizes the possibility of alternative, viewpoints, approaches and outcomes. It also looks for dependency on input from others.
Finally, feminism promotes connectedness over autonomy. Stereotypical male goals are recognition as individuals through action, work, and status and exclusion of emotion from the concepts of truth and fairness. The feminist approach values nurturing and relationships.
Kim and Mauborgne
W. Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne, in “Blue Ocean Strategy,” published in the Harvard Business Review (October 2004), suggest that successful organizations are the ones who create new markets, not join and out-compete existing markets. That does not necessarily mean you have to come up with a brand new product, T-Rex. But it does mean offering a different value proposition to the customer. For example, Kim and Mauborgne cite Ford’s introduction of the Model-T as a “blue ocean” strategy. Ford did not invent the car. But they did make the car affordable to the masses. Before the Model-T, cars were custom made by teams of workers who took weeks to build one car. Ford developed the process and parts that alllowed a group of workers to build a car in less than a week.
“Red ocean” strategies involve competing in existing markets and focus on beating the competition. They attempt to exploit existing demand and typically sacrifice value for low-cost or vice versa. Red ocean organizations align their systems and activities with choosing between differentiation and low cost. They are deemed “red” because of the blood from the battle or competition discoloring the ocean water.
“Blue ocean” strategies create uncontested markets, making competition irrelevant. They create and capture new demand; newcomers or imitators don’t fare as well because the innovators captured the market first. These organizations don’t sacrifice value for low-cost or vice versa. Blue ocean organizations align their activities to pursue both differentiation and low cost. They are deemed “blue” because the water is clear since there’s no battle and resulting blood.
Innovation, T-Rex, is part of the recipe for success.
Taylor
James R. Taylor, in “The Other Side of Rationality: Socially Distributed Cognition” published in the Management Communication Quarterly (November 1999, Volume 13, Number 2), suggests that there are two types of organizational knowledge: practical and discursive. Discursive knowledge is knowledge that an individual can convey in explicit language. It’s the kind of stuff you write in instructions or reports. Practical knowledge is the information you know but take for granted. You don’t normally include it in instructions. For instance, if you tell someone to complete a form, you normally don’t include instructions such as the need to pick up the pencil, what side of the pencil (the lead or the eraser) to apply to the paper, etc. For organizational information, the practical information is probably more sophisticated than that but it does include information that the worker takes for granted.
James reminds us that (1) most human accomplishments are the results of collaborative efforts and (2) “thinking and acting are two sides of a single coin” (what we know influences what we do and we learn from what we do). Individuals bring to a work group their individual knowledge which contributes to the collective knowledge, both practical and discursive. No one individual knows the whole of what the group knows together, mostly because of the practical knowledge that is “hidden” because it’s undisclosed and assumed.
To know what the whole group knows collectively would require someone to give it a voice, by documenting it. Even though these elements are not disclosed, they are essential to the organization. To successfully document what the organization knows, there must be four elements: “Community”, “Opinion”, “Representation”, and “Voice of Society.” “Community” is the people who make up the organization. “Opinion” is each individual’s discursive interpretation of the organization’s cumulative practical and discursive knowledge. “Representation” is the reformulation of “Opinion” as he or she understands it by a manager or other person authorized to speak on behalf of the organization. “Voice of Society” is the person or persons who express what the organization knows AND has the authority to do so. This is usually senior management. In order for the system to work, the Voice of Society must communicate the Representation TO the Community and the Community must validate it as true based on what they know. And, if more than one Voice of Society expresses Representations that differ, confusion and debate will follow.
To summarize for you, T-Rex, more is accomplished by combining resources with diverse knowledge (like the task forces in Drucker’s model and the collaborative work in Buzzanell’s). And, senior management must communicate the interpretation of what the organization knows or is setting out to do and have the recognized moral authority (through both appointment and validation of the message by the employees based on their experience and knowledge) to do so.
Weick
Karl E. Weick, in “The Collapse of Sensemaking in Organizations: The Mann Gulch Disaster” published in the Administrative Science Quarterly (1983, Volume 38), applies the disintegration of the team structure of a group of firefighters battling a wildfire in the 1940s to similar problems within other teams and organizations.
The story and evaluation is fascinating and much too long to summarize here. (The link above provides the entire article.) In short, Weick spells out what it takes to destroy a team or organization:
Thrust people into unfamiliar roles, leave some key roles unfilled, make the task more ambiguous, discredit the role system, and make all of these changes in a context in which small events can combine into something monstrous. Faced with similar conditions, organizations that seem much sturdier can also come crashing down much like Icarus who overreached his competence as he flew toward the sun and also perished because of fire.In order to make an organization more resilient, Weick suggests the organization must provide for the following in all levels, management and workers:
- Improvisation and bricolage (the ability to create order out of chaos): Individuals and groups should be trained to improve and solve problems with the tools (including knowledge) that are available to them. Creativity needs to be encouraged; creativity under pressure is learned through practice so that it becomes natural to think of alternative solutions.
- Virtual role systems: Group members need to understand the roles of others in their group so they can visualize and recreate those roles in their minds. This information can help guide individuals in their own actions. And individuals need to continually assess the situation and look for the potential dangers or pitfalls and exits. “Never get into anything without making sure you have a way out.”
- The attitude of wisdom: The more we learn about something, the more questions and uncertainties arise. We discover that it’s more complex than we thought. Wisdom is knowing that you are knowledgeable about something but don’t know everything. Having too much confidence in your knowledge can stifle learning and creativity. Not having enough confidence can be paralyzing and prevent progress.
- Respectful interaction: This requires trust – respecting reports from others; one must be willing to base beliefs and actions on those reports. One must report information honestly; others must be able to trust one’s observations so they can come to valid beliefs. And one must have self-respect and respect one’s own perceptions and beliefs; those perceptions and beliefs should be integrated with reports from others without deprecating them or one’s own. This includes “vertical” interactions as well as “lateral.”
Okay. There you are, T-Rex. The forumla for success. There are some common ideas in the articles summarized above:
- Collaboration
- Lack of or short hierarchy
- Open, respectful communication
- Sharing of knowledge
- Innovation
So, T-Rex, how about trading in that pyramid you acquired along the way…you know, the one with the sound-proof rooms, glass ceilings, and secret passageways…the one with the droves of workers at the bottom level and layer upon layer of management up to the point…for a low-rise, energy efficient structure with an open floor plan, windows that let in sunshine and fresh air, and easily marked stairways and elevators to move up and down freely and easily?
Survey Says…
Surveys and the resulting statistics have always fascinated me. I loved my probability and statistics class in high school. My part-time job as a telephone market research interviewer in my senior year of high school introduced me to survey design including the concept of closed ended and open ended questions. We learned to prompt (“any other reasons you like this product?”) and probe (“how does it ‘work well’?”).
While my college education included classes in statistics and social research, I never took it any further…until this past October when I administered my very own survey.
Tell Me What You Think
Our Exit Polls Show…
Based on a count of the cards compared to the tickets sold at the door, nearly 100% of participants submitted a card. However, not everyone responded to the questions. Some just wrote their names and put the cards in the box. Unfortunately, I’ve not had time to evaluate the results. (Manually inputting over 250 cards of information is quite time consuming.) This is on my list as a winter break project. But I can discuss a few issues.
What’s Going On?
So What Does That Mean?
When you hear or read about reports from surveys, there are often words or phrases they throw around that typically don’t mean much to most people. The three most common are standard deviation, margin of error, and statistically significant.
The standard deviation is the average distance of set of scores is from the “mean” or average. When the standard deviation is a smaller number, most of the scores are close to the average. There’s very little diversity or variability in the responses. When the standard deviation is a larger number, the scores are fairly well spread out. This represents more diversity or variability in the responses.
Results are statistically significant if there is less than 5% chance that the results occurred randomly.
So, stayed tuned for the results from my survey. Let’s hope with we have statistically significant results with small margins of error and standard deviations.
Tell Me What You Think
I’ve been thinking about this for a few years now. My class in Communication Theory and Social Research prompted me to take the plunge. It was exciting to finally go through with it.
For the past 18 years, I’ve been involved in (some years, like this year, consumed by) running a fund raising event for a local animal shelter. We call it a “Bucket Auction” but it’s also known as a “Chinese Auction”, “Tricky Tray”, or “Penny Auction.” The event does reasonably well but we’ve hit a plateau in how much we raise. Even with gradual increases in admission and charging for previously free refreshments, there’s been no real increase in the proceeds.
Overall, it’s an impressive event. There are hundreds of prizes and we regularly attract participants from over an hour from the event venue. But, I’ve wondered if we what our participants think. Is there something we can do better? What do they think we do well already?
So, I developed a very short survey to assess how people feel. All of the information appeared on the front and back of a 4 by 6 index card. To encourage people to participate, we offered a drawing for a $25 gift card. The following images are the front and back of the card that was inserted in each participant’s program.
Front of Survey Card
(Click on image to enlarge.)
(Click on image to enlarge.)
Back of Survey Card
(Click on image to enlarge.)
I attempted to assess the following:
- How the participant found out about the event. This will help us in the future to focus our efforts on the most effective way to promote the event.
- Whether or not the participant knew about the event website/blog and Facebook site. These were new efforts this year to create some excitement about the event.
- What participants thought of the prices charged for admission, different ticket levels, and refreshments. I used a Likert-type scale to determine if the prices were too low, just right, or too high. (Remember, I had limited space.)
- Whether or not they intend to return next year.
- The most and least popular prizes. (A quick visual survey gave me some indication but it’s always good to ask.)
- What improvements participants would like to see in the prize selection.
Our Exit Polls Show…
Based on a count of the cards compared to the tickets sold at the door, nearly 100% of participants submitted a card. However, not everyone responded to the questions. Some just wrote their names and put the cards in the box. Unfortunately, I’ve not had time to evaluate the results. (Manually inputting over 250 cards of information is quite time consuming.) This is on my list as a winter break project. But I can discuss a few issues.
A cursory review of the results (flipping through the cards) shows that we are generally on-track with these participants. They think the prices are reasonable. A few people made suggestions for improvements, but not a lot.
What’s Going On?
So, why aren’t we making more money, even after raising prices, if nearly everyone is happy? Well, this year there is the big “E” word – the ECONOMY. It could be that people have their limits when they walk in the door and they stick with them.
Another observation from the event itself is the perceived socio-economic status of our participants. I did not request income or other demographic information in the questionnaire but general appearances would have me belief that most of the participants are from lower-middle class households.
What would be interesting is to survey people who did not attend, particularly those with more disposable income. Why don’t they attend? Is it the venue – a high school cafeteria with hard benches attached to the tables? Is it the quality or value of the prizes? Is it a perception of the event as “lower class” or not socially acceptable? How can we get the bigger spenders to come out? Will that cause us to lose our “regulars”?
So What Does That Mean?
When you hear or read about reports from surveys, there are often words or phrases they throw around that typically don’t mean much to most people. The three most common are standard deviation, margin of error, and statistically significant.
The standard deviation is the average distance of set of scores is from the “mean” or average. When the standard deviation is a smaller number, most of the scores are close to the average. There’s very little diversity or variability in the responses. When the standard deviation is a larger number, the scores are fairly well spread out. This represents more diversity or variability in the responses.
Because surveys generally do not include 100% of a population being studied, researchers usually attempt to acquire results from a representative sample of the population. Researchers seek to achieve results within a 95% confidence interval – they can be 95% confident that the sample represents the entire population. The margin of error tells us how much variance from the resulting percentage we can expect in the total population. So, if the margin of error is 3 points and our result is 45, that means the result in the total population is between 42 and 48. The larger the standard deviation, the wider the range of possible scores.
Results are statistically significant if there is less than 5% chance that the results occurred randomly.
So, stayed tuned for the results from my survey. Let’s hope with we have statistically significant results with small margins of error and standard deviations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)