Mensa, the international association for those with high IQ, was founded in 1946. Mensa is latin and means “round table;” mens refers to “mind.” The organisation was named so to underline the equal footing of every member: characteristics such as race and gender were deemed irrelevant; only one’s intelligence mattered. Some sources (tragically, I am linking Wikipedia here) claim that the two founders, Roland Berrill and Lancelot Ware, were disappointed in what the society turned out to be; the formed lamented that many members came from the lower classes, while the latter was dismayed as the members seemed to want to spend time solving puzzles (as opposed to solving real-life problems such as ending war and famine).
Mensa is quite famous in Finland. I’m not sure why: perhaps it’s jealousy or a strong reverence for intellect. It wasn’t until a few years ago, however, that I looked into the organisation and its founding premises. I can no longer remember the source and can therefore not claim it’s true, but I seem to recall that the source claimed that Mensa was founded as a reaction to WWII; that the founders felt that if intelligent people were brought together, there would be no more war as the world would be built in a reasonable manner. Great idea (with some ominous echoes, perhaps – when did a society deeming itself above the rest ever produce lasting peace?), a lacking execution. Mensa remains a society for puzzle solvers, not peace builders.
Still, I like the idea. Similarly to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a document that was drafted as a reaction to the atrocities of WWII (especially those carried out by Nazis), it claims that if only people from all background can come together, sit down and discuss openly, we can find a peaceful way forward. Collaboration is the only way forward, no matter in which endeavour, and applies in the professional world, too.
You may have heard the term “roundtable” tossed around if you work in a white-collar role. This typically refers to getting a group of senior executives in the same meeting to discuss a specific topic. Roundtables have been on my mind recently as more and more companies make the headlines by calling all employees to return to the office full-time. After five years of remote and hybrid work for office employees, transitioning to the way things were is not as easy as it was to do it the other way round. Who wants to give up the extra sleep in the morning, courtesy of not needing to make the commute? No one. But the bosses are adamant: apparently, innovation and efficiency are down, and the only way to get those back is by getting the workforce back to the office.
I won’t extend this blog into a full-blown analysis of whether five days at the office increases innovation or efficiency; plenty of academic research and anecdotal evidence exists to support both sides. There’s one thing that is obvious to me, however: if you don’t get together with your supposed collaborators, you won’t innovate. And if you don’t innovate, you will be left behind.
The larger the organisation the more important communication becomes. Some people have an inbuilt capacity to communicate effectively: they understand the what, why, who, how, and when of it and manage to execute them well, too. Most people, however, don’t: they get on with their work, not notifying stakeholders of progress or lack thereof, not documenting their work (by which I don’t necessarily mean a step-by-step, tick-the-box exercise to satisfy micromanaging bosses but instead a plan that anyone can read). Ensuring that teams stay aligned is hard but necessary. When teams or individuals work with blinds on, they often do duplicate work or advance projects and initiatives that cannot coexist. Time and money is wasted, and employees get frustrated.
Organisations need to have round tables where all those with something to contribute have a seat. No matter seniority or expertise, if one is invited at the table, then one’s opinions should be heard. Someone at the table needs to ensure everyone gets to voice their thoughts. In an organisation, the bigger problem than not including all the necessary people (often those who have to do the actual work) is not communicating the conversations had.
If a roundtable’s idea is to bring people together to solve issues, then solve them. A waning or winding conversation leading to nothing is a waste of time; a great conversation is a great conversation, whether it is concluded with action points or not, but in advancing a cause it is moot if it leads to no action. Around and round the roundtable we go.
Sidetracked 