This is a specific continuation around my Non-fiction proposal journey. First, there appears to be some disconnect between finding the right people actually providing the specific service: book proposal development. I have put in a lot of work and effort to do market research, identify competitive position in the market, and the scope of the book and comprehensive approach. I already have an invitation from a high selling agent with mutual friends to submit this proposal. I have already "written the book" figuratively on the level of influence my expertise has had with friends and network close to power, and that platform and position, as well as proof of concept in influence and results based on my ideas in this topic are why I am the expert to write this book. As I mentioned, there are several reasons I do not write non-fiction. My voice is very folksy and informal, which is great for fiction, and revolves around telling stories. I don't need to have a formal voice in my professional life or being an expert in these areas. Much of the work I do, and influence I have is through my network, that involves people I have known since I was 14, and 18. My reproire with them being in influential positions but having a shorthand between us, doesn't suddenly change and require formality.
I recevied some odd comments of judgement from an agent who supposedly wrote the book on developing non-fiction book proposals. The irony. His comments was to judge my voice as undermining my expertise. An agent who is not the high selling agent who's already requested this proposal. An agent who may not come from the deeply rooted background of influence I do, where formality isn't necessary. Then the question also becomes whether there is gender bias in this reaction. This is a male agent who judges me as needing to sound formal to believe my expertise on a topic I'm an expert in. This is a male agent who has written a book claiming he's an expert in non-fiction proposals, but can't work on developing mine?
Early in my career, I worked in a heirarchical field with people who thought thier degrees brought them influence, when in reality what it brought them was playing a lot of politics, and trying to overcome their insecurities about whether they were experts in their feild or not. They used big fancy language to describe organic processes, because using big words made them sound like an expert. Because I had a background in the subject matter, I could understand processes themselves on a basic level of principles. I see this in theology, and other fields as well. I find the people who are the experts and understand the principles, do not need to rely on big words and fancy language. They are the experts because they can explain the principles in any language to help it be accessible to any audience. They understand and can use big fancy words to impress their peers, but they don't share the same insecurities of needing to prove they do.
Is this a luxury that men have? Is it only the insecure men who feel the need to attack women for not sounding formal enough to be believable as experts? Or do confident men who are experts also recognize confidence in a woman who can explain complex topics in plain, informal language, who understands the topic so well, she doesn't need to rely on big fancy words to discuss it, and can make the topic accessible to any audience using any language?
As for myself, I've always strived to be confident in my understanding of principles of a topic. Whether it's biology, medicine, theology, or politics. This empowers me that I don't need to rely on crutches or leaders or dogma to identify my understandings and opinions about areas in these fields. Culturally, I come from a much less formal culture, where relationships are how people work with you and trust you, and part of my expertise in the topic of my book is precisely why people trying too hard to sound like experts lose arguments in less formal cultures.
If anything, this example gives me an additional point to make as an expert in the topic of the book. It also weighs in on the discussion I am having with a mentor whether to use my initials as an author on the book, to remove gender bias. For me to write the book as an expert on the topic, and not need to use big fancy words to please insecure white men who think that validates me as an expert, because they don't see me as a woman, is a valid argument to support removing gender bias in my authorship. As for the agent, makes me question his supposed expertise.
To illustrate the point, here's a folksy anecdote about a related situation. Of course in the world of competitive athletics, results are king. You are an expert if you win. To set the scene, I am thinking of this instance in my early 20s. It involved this older man who I had literally helped get his job with a letter I wrote to the hiring manager, who saw me as an influencer as an alumni of the program who provided support. Financial strings always give you leverage. This older man was kind of like, and prided himself in being like, an obnoxious older brother. By older, perhaps around 10 years older than myself, and I knew him personally from his previous job, and knew his wife and was there when they announced the conception of their first child. That's how well I knew him.
The thing is, he and I wound up in a situation where he was doing a dance about coaching me for high performance, and this of course brings up questions and insecurities about his expertise. While he was playing his games, one thing he forgot to do was to discover what my level of expertise was in the area. He asked me a question like "when had I learned a specific athletic skill" rather than "to what level had I used that specific athletic skill" because the answer to the first question was I started teaching myself when I was 16, but the answer to the second question was that I had competed in the trials to compete at the World Championship, and that wasn't information he obtained by asking the wrong question, or not realising that experience level was in the scope of my expertise.
When he was priding himself in being an asshole in this scenario, and threatening me to have a "sit down" with me like I was a teenager, I remember thinking to myself "But I know more people than God." Why did I need this older friend of mine who I already knew was grateful and felt indebted to me for my support his career advancement, to lecture me about how to behave toward him, when there were less insecure experts in my pocket? That's how the situation wound up playing out. I contacted one of the leading experts in the world in the sport, went down to visit him, he flirted with me and that's a different tangent I won't get into, but made his interest clear in developing a professional relationship with me as an athlete.
I came back to the first friend and mentioned the name of the other expert, and could see the colour drain from his face, could see all of the questions and insecurity churning like wheels in his head. Then he asked me another question "how long have you known him?" And the answer to that question was "since I was sixteen." The moral of the story was I packed up and left the insecure guy dancing around playing games and taking pride in being an asshole, and still chide him to this day like an obnoxious older brother whose career success I still support. And the other world expert was a difficult relationship and situation to navigate, which I won't get into, but he has become like a father to me, and he respects my confidence, even when that means questioning his training methods. He doesn't consider my questions or challenges, based on solid physiological principles and understanding, to threaten his expertise or make him insecure, because he isn't afraid of improving his methods or learning how to make them better from someone else who can discuss them with confidence.
I guess the moral to this parable, is that if someone meets me, and my confidence makes them insecure, and their default is to attack my expertise, there's always the same answer in my head. Perhaps if people find themselves in this situation, and are tempted to let their insecurity impact their behavior negatively, this answer will provide them some helpful course correction: I know more people than God. (I mean the tone of this is not arrogant, the tone of this comment I mention to myself is frustration mixed with realization that I don't have to put up with the way that person's insecurity is making me feel, and if they are so insecure they can't treat me with respect, that's definitely their issue and not mine. So the tone is slightly tongue in cheek, but never less true.)
I think the implication is less about what does it mean about me. It doesn't mean I think I'm better than other people, though as someone highly competitive, the preparation I put in is always with the goal in mind to be better than someone else, but I am an empathetic and loyal friend, so it should never be used to attack me personally. The implication about situations is that in a situation with an insecure person, I will see the insecurity plainly - it will be written all over their attitude, face, or word choice. I will not look to that person for validation, so if they chose that insecurity to result in bad behaviour lashing out at me, it will create a toxic moment in my day, but the only result is that in addition to seeing the insecurity written all over that person, I will also conclude the person needs to be an ass for no good reason, when I have done and said nothing to personally attack them, or imply in any way that I am better than them.
What about the implications for other people who are not me, who don't have my vantage point, being validated since you were a teenager, or having a world expert in sport as a father figure in your life who tells you not to take crap from anyone? How can you navigate this? Well, I guess a starting point is don't take crap from anyone. However, I can pass along other lessons - which is about vetting who you trust or look up to as an expert.
In the folksy anecdote I used, there was a moment I had a realisation talking to the older friend when his insecurity was written all over his body language. Real experts make insecure people really really really scared. In that moment, I thought "well why should I continue playing these games with this guy, when the other guy has already had all of these results, I've been watching all of these athletes who have succeeded with him since I was 16, and I trained when him when I was 18? If he's really really really so much better that he's making this guy so insecure, then maybe he's the real expert."
So I think that's a good litmus test I can recommend. Another is kind of like dating. The guy playing games with me complained that he had a life and children and acted like a situation HE INITIATED was somehow me putting too many expectations on him. Well, he didn't communicate his expectations clearly, first. Second, he didn't understand the support I needed to pursue the direction he initiated. So his eyes were bigger than his stomach, he didn't know what was involved, and he was writing checks he couldn't cash. That's another good sign. For me it was pretty simple. Instead of playing all of these games, he could have had an adult conversation with me about the expectations and path forward. Here's how I know.... ready for the contrast?
I mentioned I visited/ reconnected with this world expert I had known as a teen early in my athletic career, and that relationship took a while to navigate. However, when I did show up on his door, he didn't complain. He sat me down and said "here's where you are, here's what it will take for where you want to go," and he was prepared and understood what the expectations were. I came with low expectations - I didn't expect large amounts of his time and attention. I came with one expectation: to work hard, and to have fewer distractions to be able to focus on that. Because he was experienced and prepared, there was less guesswork. However, in contrast with the person who wrote checks he couldn't cash, this coach showed up every day to check on me and to support me, even though he didn't have to.
Of course, the first guy had a choice, didn't he? He initiated, and I responded positively. He said, ok if you want to go in this direction, you need to do this... so I did. If he had been serious about wanting the opportunity, he could have put in the work and preparation to be ready for it. I did not go into the situation with bias or negative assumptions. In fact, it would have been significantly more convenient for me if he had provided support I needed instead of spinning his wheels playing the games he was playing. The other relationship was very challenging to figure out - I cannot stress that enough - but in the end made working toward my goals and having support and direction for success less of a challenge.
Kommentarer