As presented during District 84's Toastmasters Leadership Institute on January 9, 2016
How would you answer these questions?
- What type of organization is Toastmasters?
- What are the core strengths of Toastmasters?
- What is the greatest value Toastmasters provides to you?
For example, here are some possible answers to What type of organization is Toastmasters?
- Education
- Professional
- Corporation
- Business
- Volunteer
- Non-Profit
- Service
- Social
- Fraternal
- Networking
- Audience
- Customer base
- Mentoring
- Communication
- Self-esteem
- Mutual support
- Skill building
- Honest feedback
- Self-confidence
- Leadership
- Commitment
- Coaching
- What type of organization is Toastmasters?
- Fraternal
- What are the core strengths of Toastmasters?
- Self-esteem
- Self-confidence
- What is the greatest value Toastmasters provide to you?
- A forum for expressing and receiving new ideas
How well does your philosophy fit with mine? Are we compatible? Through my many years in Toastmasters, I know there are several philosophies incompatible with mine. For example, someone with a Corporate / Leadership bias expects each member to do what is best for the club. I, on the other hand, expect each member to do what is best for himself or herself. After all, that is what I do!
Therein lies the crux of the problem: The meaning Toastmasters is different for each member.
One Toastmasters club I have visited the expected attire is business professional and all speeches are presented from behind the lectern at the head table. This reflects the philosophy of the membership which then creates an environment that attracts like-minded people and repels others.
As long as a club is gaining enough members, this is not a problem, but if not enough visitors are signing up, then perhaps the club needs to consider being more open and appealing to alternative philosophies. Maybe a socially-oriented club needs to be more open to service-oriented. Or a professionally-oriented club needs to relax the emphasis on commitment.
Similarly, if many members are leaving, is there a philosophical conflict occurring? Were those members seeking self-esteem boost but get turned off by a corporate philosophy? Did an emphasis on leadership drive away members who only wanted to speak?
In one sense, what I am describing here is reframing conflicts within a club to conflicts of philosophy rather than conflicts of personality, but not every conflict can be so reframed. However if the reframing is possible, then the conflict becomes less personal and therefore easier to resolve without hurting egos.
My real goal, though, is to get every member thinking about what Toastmasters is really about and realizing that there are many answers, all of which are legitimate for someone.
Why did I even think this way? I have been noticing (and frustrated by) a distinct corporate philosophy bent from the Toastmasters International board for several years now. On many occasions I have suffered from a noticeable business demeanor from District leadership. Yet when I look back at when Ralph Smedley started Toastmasters a century ago, his idea was simply to help the young blue-collar and unemployed men on the street speak with more confidence, a clearly service-oriented fraternal organization. How have we come so far from that beginning? When I hear longtime members talk about Toastmasters, they talk about how the club has become like family. Do you notice the differing philosophies? I have already seen them cause conflict, anger, and very hurt feelings that could have been so easily avoided -- if only we bothered to understand!
Seek first to understand, then to be understood!
Therein lies the crux of the problem: The meaning Toastmasters is different for each member.
One Toastmasters club I have visited the expected attire is business professional and all speeches are presented from behind the lectern at the head table. This reflects the philosophy of the membership which then creates an environment that attracts like-minded people and repels others.
As long as a club is gaining enough members, this is not a problem, but if not enough visitors are signing up, then perhaps the club needs to consider being more open and appealing to alternative philosophies. Maybe a socially-oriented club needs to be more open to service-oriented. Or a professionally-oriented club needs to relax the emphasis on commitment.
Similarly, if many members are leaving, is there a philosophical conflict occurring? Were those members seeking self-esteem boost but get turned off by a corporate philosophy? Did an emphasis on leadership drive away members who only wanted to speak?
In one sense, what I am describing here is reframing conflicts within a club to conflicts of philosophy rather than conflicts of personality, but not every conflict can be so reframed. However if the reframing is possible, then the conflict becomes less personal and therefore easier to resolve without hurting egos.
My real goal, though, is to get every member thinking about what Toastmasters is really about and realizing that there are many answers, all of which are legitimate for someone.
Why did I even think this way? I have been noticing (and frustrated by) a distinct corporate philosophy bent from the Toastmasters International board for several years now. On many occasions I have suffered from a noticeable business demeanor from District leadership. Yet when I look back at when Ralph Smedley started Toastmasters a century ago, his idea was simply to help the young blue-collar and unemployed men on the street speak with more confidence, a clearly service-oriented fraternal organization. How have we come so far from that beginning? When I hear longtime members talk about Toastmasters, they talk about how the club has become like family. Do you notice the differing philosophies? I have already seen them cause conflict, anger, and very hurt feelings that could have been so easily avoided -- if only we bothered to understand!
Seek first to understand, then to be understood!
No comments:
Post a Comment