@Anna-leila Williams , I appreciate your response, and I offer my sincerest apologies for the unintended lack of sensitivity in sharing a few examples from that WWII-era Simple Sabotage Field Manual. The intent was to highlight how, sadly, some of those very outdated practices still exist in our organizations. And I agree wholeheartedly that they do not support today's goals toward becoming anti-racist and equitable organizations.
We're working on our own meetings culture within the AAMC. Under my leadership, we've launched a revised learning opportunity for our colleagues, Engaging Effectively in Inclusive and Relational Meetings, designed exactly to counter the harmful practices that were promoted decades ago.
I appreciate this virtual community allowing for introductions and conversations like this one to occur, as I value these opportunities to learn with one another.
------------------------------
Jennifer Schlener
Chief of Staff
Association of American Medical Colleges
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 03-10-2023 11:27:08 AM
From: Anna-leila Williams
Subject: #tbt: 1944 spy field manual on how to disrupt meetings
I invite this community to consider that for minoritized people and those who aim to address racism/bias in medicine, these actions may be necessary simply to be heard. I offer examples per each of your bullet points:
"Pontificate:" Personal experiences of minoritized people are rarely appreciated or understood by the dominate culture, which contributes to structural racism and biases. When personal accounts are valued as a resource and considered in addition to quantitative data, we all benefit.
"Focus on the trivial:" What the dominant culture considers trivial, may indeed be serious and impactful to a minoritized person/population.
"Nitpick over phrasing:" Words matter and can be alienating and harmful when used inappropriately. We must be precise in our language. We can and should use language that emphasizes inclusivity and respect.
"Reopen debate:" When minoritized people are ignored or dismissed, it is sometimes necessary to revisit decisions that were made previously. People will speak until they know they are heard.
"Express concerns about the propriety of any decision:" If we truly intend to expunge racism and bias from academic medicine, we need to invest time and effort to assure our policies and procedures have the appropriate reach and don't conflict with our stated mission, vision, and values.
Anna-leila Williams, PhD, MPH
(she, her)
Professor, Department of Medical Sciences
Frank H. Netter MD School of Medicine at Quinnipiac University
Author, Integrating Health Humanities, Social Sciences, and Clinical Care: A Guide to Self-awareness, Compassion, and Well-being (2019, Routledge Press) or Amazon Books or your independent bookseller
Original Message:
Sent: 3/9/2023 7:59:00 AM
From: Jennifer Schlener
Subject: #tbt: 1944 spy field manual on how to disrupt meetings
Allison Vaillancourt, consultant and former higher education administrator/faculty member, just published a terrific guide in Chronicle of Higher Education on how to run a good meeting. (Subscription may be required). The guide is full of great advice.
If you have ever wondered if attendees at your meetings are "following some secret instruction guide for making meetings especially painful," Vaillancourt points out that such a guide exists:
The once-classified Simple Sabotage Field Manual was developed by the U.S. Office of Strategic Services, the nation's intelligence agency during World War II. The guide was used to train citizen-saboteurs in foreign countries to disrupt the enemy's war efforts quietly and discreetly. The manual includes a host of tactics, including advice on blocking progress or decision-making in meetings. The manual's recommendations may resonate with your academic-meeting experiences:
• Pontificate: "Talk as frequently as possible and at great length. Illustrate your 'points' by long anecdotes and accounts of personal experiences."
• Focus on the trivial: "Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible."
• Nitpick over phrasing: "Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, resolutions."
• Reopen debate: "Refer back to matters decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to reopen the question of the advisability of that decision."
• Advocate caution: "Urge your fellow-conferees to be 'reasonable' and avoid haste which might result in embarrassments or difficulties later on."
• Express concerns about the propriety of any decision: "Raise the question of whether such action as is contemplated lies within the jurisdiction of the group or whether it might conflict with the policy of some higher echelon."
Does anyone else feel like this field manual is still in use today?
------------------------------
Jennifer Schlener
Chief of Staff
Association of American Medical Colleges
------------------------------