For All Those Who May or May Not Care

Leadership, Motivation and Responsibility in Collegiate Student Organizations

How to Lead so Others Will Follow

            Leading a group of college students can often be a challenging balancing act. On one hand, many students need a bit of prodding to get serious work done on a project. On the other, push too hard and you risk losing potentially bright and hard-working students who could benefit any organization. To toe the line, it’s important to create an environment that is stress-free enough that other students want to be there but not so laid back that it fails to be productive.

            Creating this goldilocks zone environment starts at the top. As the head of an organization or a group within an organization, the person in charge needs to carry themselves in a way that sets the standard for expected behavior. Anyone new to the organization will look to you, as the leader, to know what is acceptable and unacceptable. For many organizations – especially student governments – it is the student’s responsibility to act as a liaison between the student body and the administration. As such, students need to carry themselves in a way that won’t offend administrators but won’t intimidate other students. Failing to do both, from my experience, can be problematic.

            Personally, I’ve served as the Academic Affairs Committee Chairman of my school’s Student Government Association for nearly two years and was elected to start my third term at the end of last year. I came in as a freshman, the youngest person in my committee and in Senate Leadership (our governing body of student government) more broadly. My first worry was that I wouldn’t be taken seriously; I thought that the other students and administrators would look down on me and write me off. I did everything I could to run a tight ship. While it may have made some administrators see me as responsible it caused a lot of the students in my committee to lose interest. I failed to balance. Despite what I saw as firm leadership, no one was interested and, as a result, no one pulled their weight. Part of the reason for this, I have since realized, is that I tried to dictate what to do rather than genuinely work to get students interested and involved in the changes I was looking for.

            One of the lessons that I’ve learned since then is that you can’t expect to motivate anyone unless you can give them a reason to be motivated. While it may sound obvious, it’s easy to overlook what other people in your organization are truly taking out of your group’s work, especially those who aren’t in a position of leadership. Even though you may see “goals” as the right thing to focus on, step back and consider what others will really get out of it. Are the goals achievable? Without a goal that can be completed in a reasonable amount of time – especially before the majority of your group member’s graduate – it’s hard to expect your group members to stay interested. Will achieving the goal benefit the whole group? The whole school? Is the goal more than a personal desire? Setting overarching goals gives everyone a personal stake in the matter that helps to keep them interested for their own benefit.

            An example of this from my own experience is a library project that I’ve been working on for the last year or so with my committee. I won’t pretend that the library is the top priority for everyone in my committee or that everyone is willing to put in 110% effort to better it, but the library as a resource is something that everyone uses and everyone benefits from. It makes it a lot easier to ask someone to do something – sort through data, table for a survey, change their Facebook status – when that person is invested in some way in the change you’re seeking.

            Another big part of creating a comfortable and productive environment is being able to work around other people’s schedules and lifestyles. Being flexible allows you to get things done in a manner that won’t disrupt (or potentially alienate) other members of your group. Don’t set group meeting times or plans to meet with administrators based simply on your own schedule; not only does it come off as self-important, you lose valuable insight and participation from other people. It can also make people feel like you actively seek to exclude them, which will undoubtedly serve to dishearten that group member and diminish their contributions. Failing to work as a member of a group that you lead is a sure-fire way to shoot yourself in the foot when it comes to creating an environment where people are motivated. You need to be sure to remember that you are a student, too. Even though you may be “in charge,” in the grand scheme of things you are the same as the people you are leading. If you don’t act in a way that shows this you are destined to lose credibility and support. Working around others can also mean conducting business and meetings in a way you aren’t accustomed to. I remember having to text all of my committee updates to one member of my committee because he didn’t actively check his email. How anyone can survive college without checking their email is beyond me, but I had to recognize that simply because he didn’t do it didn’t mean that he wasn’t committed or working hard. I just needed to alter my way of doing things.

            College students present a challenge for any leader or organizer. While many college students need a degree of focus and direction to accomplish tasks, any leader needs to recognize that college students are overwhelmingly busy. For the first time in their lives many students have to balance a challenging course load and living on their own, as well as active participation in numerous clubs and organizations and even a job to help cover expenses. There is only so much that many students can give and it’s important, as a leader, to recognize that one student’s expectations and commitment may be less than what yours are for a perfectly good reason. This took me a long time to understand. At first I assumed that they simply weren’t invested enough and if they aren’t putting in the effort then, well, to hell with them anyway. But this isn’t the way to run a group or club. It isn’t the way to run a governance body. While you need to have expectations, you need to have them on a case-by-case basis so that they can be realistic for everyone. And not just because it’s fair. Doing so also gets everyone invested in the group and maximizes productivity.

            Finally, and perhaps most importantly, you have to make the environment fun. Remember that most members of clubs and student governments don’t get paid. They are at the meetings because they want to be and, as a leader, you need to make them feel like their time is being well spent or else they may do something else with it. Forge friendships. Talk about things other than business. Don’t be afraid to laugh and make others laugh. Doing so makes your meetings feel more like a chance to hang out with friends than a job or responsibility and, while you have to get your business done, make sure that you don’t spend all your time on just business. If you can give people a reason to show up and a reason to stay, they’ll be far more willing to get work done to help out.

            Collegiate leadership is a balancing act. As a leader, you need to foster a productive and enjoyable environment where students can have fun and be productive. Most student organizations and student governments are voluntary and students can walk away at any time. It is important to remember that what you see as logical and crucial goals may not be so logical or crucial to everyone in the group. Step back and try to think as objectively as possible about what you want to get done. Do the other members care about it? Will they be willing to work for it? Is there an actual “solution” that can be achieved? Without these, many group members will likely give less than 100% and your project may flounder. While you want to lead from the front and set an example, don’t get too caught up in yourself. You’re still a student and you’d do best to remember that. Finding the right balance – between business and fun, structure and free-for-all, serious and silly – is crucial when leading any organization.

Have you ever thought of living in the not-so-distant past and, despite thinking about the allure of the Roaring 20s or the romanticism of VE and VJ Day, worried that it must be horrible to live in a world where you wouldn’t have your iPhone or even a laptop? If you have you’ve likely considered – or perhaps had pointed out to you – that no one misses what they never had and that you can’t say that the quality of life in that era was worse simply because they didn’t have technological innovations that hadn’t come yet. No one knew what a high-definition television was, so why would they care? The argument seems to make sense; short of experiencing something, it seems counterintuitive that anyone would be sad or bitter about not having it. I’d sure like to have a personal rocketship to take me to a futuristic extraterrestrial vacation resort but not having that luxury doesn’t prevent me from being happy.

Interestingly, we seem to draw the line here. Only when we look forward to the future or back to the past do we make the excuse that not having known about something makes it okay that we are happy without it. But what about suffering? Why, then, do we make suffering absolute without using the same logical analysis of comparing it to what we already understand? Despite the fact that some people say that it is impossible to compare the suffering of one person to another we all do it every day. From our judicial system to which charity we choose as worthy of our money, we are measuring how “deserving” someone’s suffering truly is. So why aren’t we as logical about it as looking to the past? In short, it doesn’t feel right. It feels cheap, condescending and dismissive to try to say that something you, personally, image as being unfathomably horrific may be the same as something that you have in fact experienced. But that’s exactly the point. It is truly unfathomable to you because you have no benchmark for it. You have no point of reference. You can’t wake up every morning and consider that it will happen to you.

But what if that is your norm? What if the constant threat of death, torture, rape, famine, or any of the calamities our world faces was a reality for you? What if you didn’t know the bliss of sitting on your bed, having nothing to do, eating a Ben and Jerry’s ice cream and watching the sun set? Why would you long for it? Why would you have pangs of sadness and despair without it? Without the same point of view, it is no more realistic to hope for than a space camp adventure.

I understand that someone comparing the life-or-death problems of someone living in a war zone to the angsty frustrations of a teenage American may not sit well. And, deep down, I don’t want to agree with it, either. I don’t want to say that they might just be the same. Because it doesn’t feel right. Somehow we see it as discounting the horrors of the world. They become less serious, less worthy of our attention, less in the moment. Every inch of my mind is crying out but they could die! Imagine being hungry all the time! Imagine being in fear for your life! Imagine living like that! And that’s just it. The reprimand always starts with the same word; imagine. Not “hey remember that time when.” Not “there was that kid from school.” Imagine. Try to put yourself in their shoes. And quite simply, we can’t.

Often, people will “experience” suffering in a poor area, through a youth-group event, a retreat, or some other see-how-the-other-half-lives experiment. And that certainly beats having no idea what the world is like. But that doesn’t mean that it represents experiencing the suffering of others. A trip is, by its very nature, temporary. Eventually everyone will go home to their benchmark for normalcy. Many will walk away deeply moved. They’ll find their own sufferings seem inconsequential and they’ll gape at how anyone can be happy in such a condition. And for awhile they may be thoroughly shaken up. But eventually it will fade.

And why does it fade? Many people attribute it do a save-the-world, somewhat condescending rich, white liberal idea. You see how the world is like and, in your haste and guilt, you become incredibly passionate about changing it. Or maybe the experience was never actually real. I wanted to think both of these myself. It seems easy. You can blame something about the person and still see that there is true suffering that is worse there than here.

I propose a different explanation. What if suffering is relative? What if, rather than a one-size-fits-all understanding of what “good” and “bad” experiences really are, we see it as unique to everyone? Because personal experiences and personal expectations play a role in what makes us happy, why limit how this impacts our happiness? Instead of a unilateral declaration of sufferings – or perhaps worse, an attempt to imagine ourselves experiencing a certain level of suffering – we pay attention to the deviation from our own expectations. We try to understand what makes us happy and what makes us sad and, from this, establish a center point that is as close to neutral as we can achieve. From there, “suffering” – as an index of the kind of sadness that someone feels because of an event or life circumstances – represents a negative deviation from that norm. The farther one goes from what they are used to experiencing on the most mundane of days the “worse” that suffering is.  I understand that it may come off as somewhat cold, but we can’t expect a “bad day” to mean the same to everyone when everyone has a different definition of what a “day” normally is. Implying that this definition is or should be the same for everyone comes off as quite naïve.

Now, you may read this and see it merely as an attempt to reduce my own guilt or excuse being a middle-class American and not feeling bad. But I do feel bad. And we all should. Such an idea doesn’t mean that everywhere in the world is the same or that we have no duty to help those around us. Just check the rates of depression in countries we see as the have-nots like Afghanistan or Myanmar. Look at the life-expectancies of many sub-Saharan African countries or the infant mortality rates throughout the developing world. There are still problems and problems that need and deserve fixing. But when we come at the problems perhaps we would be better served to truly think about who is suffering and why, and what it means to suffer. Looking at the world in such a way may just help us to understand why children struggling to survive in Haiti can get so much satisfaction out of something that is as simple to us as a game of soccer or why a privileged American adolescent becomes severely depressed over the end of a relationship. Saying that it “isn’t a big deal” may be true for you, but it likely doesn’t hold true for everyone else.  

First Tumblr rant of the year.

Why Not Taking a Stand is Bad.

In modern American Society there is a serious issue becomingly overly apparent in society (or at least in college classrooms at Seton Hall); no one is willing to take a stand. On anything. We have an overwhelming collective avoidance of saying no, of disagreeing and of refusing to conform to the ideals of those around us. This ranges from discussions with peers and friends, both in person and online. Polite social niceties are expected in any social setting rather than genuine disagreement and it is impossible to reject being someone’s Facebook “friend.” Most people are uncomfortable with genuine disagreement, quickly lose interest in thoughtful discussion or feel awkward that perhaps their views will be in opposition to those around them.

But is this really so bad? Is it wrong to be tolerant of the views of others, especially in a rapidly evolving world where people of dramatically different cultures and opinions are brought together? Of course it is wrong to merely be an ideologue fixed on one’s own opinions, unwilling to compromise or be open minded. But one can stand firm in their beliefs and still be open minded. Being “open minded” doesn’t simply mean bending like grass before the wind on every discussion. The problem is that, in growing numbers, American youth are unwilling to take a stand on anything and risk losing both their identity and their individual agency by being tolerant of all opinions even if those opinions contradict his or her ethics and could, perhaps, even be dangerous. And this, indeed, is bad.

Thoughts can be dangerous. Bigotry, racism, sexism and other types of prejudices can lead to the ostricization, oppression and even killings of groups based on factors outside of their control. Such opinions are a risk to any free society. In an environment where all beliefs (or close to all beliefs) are tolerated, such opinions can fester and be utilized to capitalize on frustrations of groups of people, sometimes resulting in scape-goating and discrimination. Such beliefs and trends are accelerated by the “bystander effect,” the voluntary observance of injustice without taking action to oppose it. In reigns of tyrants and dictators, seen most notably by the Nazi party in Germany, it is often the bystanders who give rise to injustice because of their inability to take a stand to what they see as wrong.

On an ethical level, not taking a stand is also contradictory for anyone who claims to hold an opinion. If person A believes X, and X and Y are in direct conflict, how can A not reject Y? For a more realistic example, imagine Bill is sitting in class and he is a staunch Democrat who believes that health care, as provided for by all Americans supporting one-another, including those who cannot support themselves. Also in his class is Rob, an avid conservative, who does not believe that it is ethical for someone to be forced by the government to benefit others, regardless of their situation. Now if Rob makes his point then is it ethical for Bill to sit there and say nothing? What if he merely avoids the debate, not wanting to feel uncomfortable with his friend Rob, and keeps his opinion to himself?

And where, then, would Bill go to put forth his opinions? Likely to a group of people who are like-minded and will provide no argument or potential for an uncomfortable situation to arise. But is this so bad? Well, although it may make him more comfortable, it also fails to foster true debate. Instead its one side often bashing or railing against the other with the side in question not present. This frequently creates a chasm where both sides fail to have any common ground or any ability (or desire) to see eye to eye.

Sound familiar? Enter the current political scene right here in Washington D.C. As witnessed quite clearly by the recent near-disaster over raising the debt, hard-line conservatives and tea-party members and liberal democrats looked as if they weren’t even speaking a mutual language. The result? A political game of chicken with the American people in the middle. And by the way that the situation was “resolved” it may be wrong to assume that this will be the last such situation where the American people are held hostage by political gridlock because, although minor compromise was achieved, the underlying beliefs and opinions are still embedded in both parties.

But I digress.

There’s nothing wrong with being polite, but doing so squashes all attempt at a debate. This prevents free-thinking individuals from sharing their opinions and insight into a discussion. This prevents people from talking. This prevents people from learning from others and, instead, often results in people “sticking to their guns” rather than exploring what they think. In a society based on free speech, a free flow of ideas and a culture that prides itself on individuality it is overwhelmingly detrimental to have a group of sheep too timid to take a stand on issues, especially moral issues where one opinion poses a threat to the happiness and well-being of others.

Finally, tolerance can compromise one’s own individuality. Remembering the above example, how ingrained can a person’s beliefs be if they are willing to tolerate views that fly in the face of their own, especially if these views could be dangerous or offensive? How truly can someone cling to that belief than? Without genuine beliefs unique to that person, often tested by fire by that person and built up over a lifetime, how much is a person really an individual? People become malleable and indefinite and lose what truly makes them who they are. And loss of individuality is dangerous to a free society.

Now it s still bad to be unflinching in their views. This is often the case with religion, and yes it has often historically led to conflict and although this conflict may be dangerous the opposite end of the scale, where moral beliefs and rationale cease to be important to anyone, can also be dangerous. The importance is in finding a balance. And these days, so it would seem, a balance is seen as desirable that really isn’t a balance at all.

And yes, this is dangerous.

Only a few moments ago, President Obama reported the amazing, patriotic victory of our brave soldiers over the evil forces of Al-Qaeda by killing their leader Osama Bin Laden. Here’s why I don’t think the story or our rejoicing make any sense.

First and foremost, as a Christian I don’t like to celebrate when someone dies. I believe that we are all God’s children and there’s nothing you can do in this life to lose that status; it is a gift freely given by God and whether or not you want the title you’re stuck with it. No matter how many people he killed, he’s still a human being.

Second, I doubt he just died. We need to remember that Bin Laden was (or has been, still is, etc. depending on what view you believe in) incredibly sick. The bottom line is that his kidneys didn’t work and so he required extremely frequent kidney dialysis. Some doctors have speculated that depending on the nature of his sickness and his location – as, obviously, information about him is sketchy to say the least – could be required every day just to keep him alive. And that would be in a modern hospital. I’ve never been to the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan but from what I’ve heard they aren’t overly hospital nor do they have state-of-the-art medical facilities. But perhaps I’ve been misled to believe that.

Speaking of misled, I think that the American people have been misled if they believe what was just given in the speech of the President. I would not consider myself anti-Obama and personally I would say that he’s done an amicable –albeit imperfect – job thus far as President of the United States and I can confidently say that based on the people I think he’ll run against I’ll probably vote for him in the upcoming election as things stand. However, I think he has either lied to us or been lied to himself to benefit American pride.

The story sounds too perfect. A few good, God-fearing American soldiers go in and, without the use of drones, kill just Osama Bin Laden without injuring his family or any other civilian and now they have possession over his body and probably managed to secure the puppies and kittens that he had been holding hostage, all at the direct order of the President of the United States in a country that we had recently sent soldiers into and had only done so on the gut of Obama and thanks to it we can all sleep a little sounder and be more American. Right. Let’s deconstruct.

First, I highly doubt that we have soldiers who were close enough to Osama to carry out the mission. The simple fact behind it is that if we had the capability to kill him and secure his body we would’ve done exactly what we did to Sadaam; we would’ve dragged him out of his whole and shamed him on the world stage to show his supporters that he is powerless and we have total control over the situation. The American government knows better than to assume that his being dead is the best solution – instead of being a humiliated figure now he becomes a martyr that all of his supporters can look to as another example of American brutality and violence.

Second, it is incredibly political. Apart from the incredible (and what I found honestly disgusting) use of Americana, there was a lot of important “I told you so” moments in his speech. I understand that it may all be true, but there are a few things that stick out to me as being just too storybook ending:

1. Pakistan – all of this, conveniently, occurred in Pakistan. How could anyone not support our incursion into Pakistan now that we’ve killed Bin Laden in that country? It certainly makes the decision a no-brainer because, in the end, we killed him there. It will certainly take some heat off the United States for its decision.
2. Drones – of course, we didn’t use any drones. It was the good ol’ boys of the U S of A military who killed him personally. Another portion of the war that the United States has received harsh criticism over is the use of drones and their morality. Since none were used, that can’t be an objection here either. And without drones there’s less of a worry about…
3. Civilian casualties – there were none here. Go figure. Despite being surrounded (one would have to assume) by a whole ton of people, we only killed Osama and no one else. Convenient, huh? Even moreso than the first two, countries around the world have condemned the United States for the deaths of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq. But luckily, in this specific attack there were none. One would have to assume that Osama was surrounded by his supporters, family members, etc. and yet none of them were harmed. And neither were…
4. American military personal – were all safe. According to the press conference, no soldiers were injured, nonetheless killed, during the raid. Another blissful co-winky-dink. Even if you are “winning” a war, it’s hard to gain support as the casualty figures add up. Luckily, there were no such tragedies here.

Granted, they may all have happened just like that. But because of his health and the ability of NATO (okay, “American” if you’re a liberal) forces, I doubt that it played out the way we were told and so I’m looking for more reasons why this may be the case.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I don’t think that we should be happy for his death, even those among us who can rationalize feeling good about someone dying. I can’t imagine that this, in any way, will help the security of countries around the world, especially the United States.  Can we really assume that there won’t be some form of “payback” from Al-Qaeda? Let’s not forget that they still exist. They see this as an ongoing war, just like we do, and they’ve just had a serious right-hook landed on them. So what will they do? Throw in the towel? Any serious reading of the history of modern terrorist organization or the history of the region would lead to one doubting this outcome. They’ll hit back. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow. But they’ll hit back. Not only will this enrage and motivate terrorist cells the world over to strike back, it will also likely cause an increase in recruitment for these organizations. Now they have a martyr whose face everyone in the world can recognize to draw support. It’s a huge name killed by the Americans – a man, we must remember, who was incredibly well-liked and well-respected by some people throughout Afghanistan in the Middle East.  It could well be enough to enrage scores of passive Bin Laden supporters into violent terrorists both willing and capable of strikes against the United States and other countries around the world. And because of that I’m scared and worried.

Maybe you can hear the news and celebrate. Maybe you can sit down in your American house, in your one-story, American built, GI-era American home bought with your hard-work-paid-for American dollars, crack open an ice-cold American beer, fall asleep soundly with your good, God-fearing family, 1.6 children and a white picket fence and wake up tomorrow and go to your patriotic American place of work and chat with your other faithful American co-workers and chat about how great a day it was. But I can’t. I’m sad, scared, and worried about the future. And honestly I think you should be, too.

The notion of “justice” and the realities of war seem to be in opposition. Is it possible to legislate or judge armed conflict between peoples, regardless of the nature of the conflict, if both groups are fighting in their perceived self defense? If the actual fighting happens to people who would be killed for not fighting, isn’t it always in self defense? Can resorting to violence ever be accepted legally by states, especially if a country has not been the victim of an armed attack?

War is, at its essence, one group – or multiple groups – fighting to preserve their security, integrity and (ultimately) survival against another group. The notion behind a “just” or “legal” war is that it is not done on a whim; there must be grave implications for going to war to prevent countries from partaking in unwarranted acts of aggression. Can necessity be defined with such broad brush strokes? Can another country accurately judge whether or not another country’s acts are necessary especially given that they almost always lack all the facts in an era where intelligence-gathering and espionage is critical for all countries? Do the ideological differences between countries and regions of the world even allow for an objective “need” to be definable? At best, the question seems debatable.

Is war inevitable? Albert Einstein said that “so long as there are men, there will be wars.” Human history is riddled with conflict against other individuals and peoples. Can we ever assume that wars will end? World peace seems to be an unreachable ideal because war stems from some source of conflict or tension. As long as there are disputed borders, as long as countries feel that their right to existence is threatened, as long as people are competing for resources, it is impossible to imagine that war will end. Does this make war natural? Humans are not the only animals that engage in “war.” Chimps have been demonstrated – in the wild – to form groups and fight other chimps of the same species to gain land and precious resources such as food and living space. Ants, bees and other insects, similarly, organize together with members of their colony to combat exterior threats, from the same species as well as others. If war is natural, then, does it mean that war is permissible? Does war become a “necessary evil” that we must live with? Does this put war above the realm of something we can assign “good” and “evil” qualifications to since it appears to be inherent in our nature?

From here, the winding path of moralizing only becomes more convoluted.  It is impossible, as an individual with no military experience, to pretend to understand the thought process of a soldier in war. In an age where more and more politicians and decision makers lack military experience is it presumptuous to apply “rules of war” to combatants? It seems  arrogant to assume that a person with no real-life experience (or even in-depth study) should decide what is permissible for a soldier. One underlying truth behind this is the nature of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and other serious psychological effects of combat. They are literally life-altering for individuals involved in conflict and are occurring at rates believed to fall at least between 10-15% (if not higher) for soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. How can we then hold soldiers to a similar level of accountability as in a situation where this isn’t the case? Are they as responsible for their actions if they are so mentally and emotional altered?

Another important question is the nature of self-defense. For a “moral” war under today’s standards, each country must have, in essence, some aspect of self-defense. This holds true on the individual level as well. However, in conflict, soldiers on the battlefield are always at risk and therefore always in self-defense. Further, when it is difficult – if not impossible – to know who the enemy is it only accentuates the fear and anxiety experienced by combatants. This causes soldiers to at least perceive that they are in danger. Is this all that matters? Can we objectively say that there is “threat” outside of what we perceive? It seems impossible to conclude that threat can be objectively realized. Who gets to decide what a “threat” is? How threatening must a situation be? What is the appropriate response? Does the contest determine the appropriate response? How does PTSD factor into the “threat” perceived?  Do feelings exist outside of our own mind enough to be put into a box? Can you legally ascertain a “threat” and how it must be responded to? If, then, soldiers are always acting out of this perception of threat then mustn’t they be acting out of self defense? And haven’t we already concluded that self defense is morally – or at least, legally – defensible?

War is not a game. You cannot simply assign broad rules and regulations to something as fluid and entropic as war. The phrase “war is Hell” seems to sum it up. If states or individuals are acting out of their own self defense, a vague term used here to describe a perceived threat to that state or individual, aren’t they always in the right? Of course, there are exceptions such as killing unarmed civilians, killing in cold blood and other war crimes. But doesn’t the overall concept hold true?

Is war simply a reality of our existence? Can we end war? If we as people are always fighting over a finite number of resources, won’t there always be conflict?

Thoughts? Questions? Answers? Reblog?

I’m paying a lot of money and spending a lot of time to go to “classes” where I sit and have conversations with professors that could be had during office hours, via e-mail, or over coffee.