Hi, everyone. Welcome to week three's Screen Side Chats. I'm on the road this week traveling around Europe and elsewhere so I apologize for the recording quality, I'm not in my office where I have a microphone and a great camera. But nonetheless I've been reading your forum posts and threads and I'm very excited and it's terrific content. Each time I read them, I feel like I learn so much from all of you and I hope you feel that way about each other. Also about the contributions of the CTAs. I mean, they are just very active, conscientious individuals. And we're very grateful for that. Of course TAs are also behind the scenes lifting far too much work, given the lack of pay. But all of us are working together to try to give you a great experience, so I appreciate all your patience and support through the beginning of the class. We will keep looking at forums and try to answer as much as we can, as quickly as we can. In terms of today though, the first question I wanted to address was the one concerning coalition leaders and what are the qualities of a good or bad one. And a lot of you had a lot of consensus about what the good qualities are. And you mentioned things like the ability to communicate, the ability to negotiate to form consensus, etc, etc. And I think those are all common sense kind of things and a lot of you saw that in leaders within your organizations that seem to kind of hold together people over a long term. Others of you kind of picked up on certain kinds of points that I want to amplify here. Like, Hanan Tarik and Milroy Anthony mentioned how you really want to know the interests and motives of stakeholders or members of this coalition. Because you know like we read in Allison, these are the parochial interest of bureaucratic politic model, right? And if you misunderstand or misinterpret people's motives, you have very little leverage to negotiate on them. And it makes communication difficult too. So those are kind of one key point, another is that people mentioned that it to do negotiate, it kind of helps to have resources. So, [COUGH] in spite of having some knowledge of people's motives, if you don't really have concrete structural leverages. And often, in an organization that tends to be resources, you're kid of stuck in the water. And this is kind of [INAUDIBLE] and Leah comment, which I think is very realistic too. Others of you kind of caught on [COUGH] that a leader isn't a perfect consensus builder to some extent. Or that it isn't this idealized perfect leader that we all would want to follow all the time. Coalition leaders tend to be somewhat devious too and this was something Harry Tucker Onahu and Anne Herbst brought up. And I think what they were trying to mention was that, when you lead a coalition, the core of that coalition may be behind the same ideals and have consensus to some extent. Or at least on that issue. But as you move out into the periphery, and you need these people to push things through, right? There are individuals that can be an enemy, or demobilize any effort you have. And you have to maintain them as well. That requires wheeling and dealing, and whenever you wheel and deal or create these side agreements and bargains and negotiations, they aren't that terribly idealistic in terms of the core belief or goal of the coalition and its organization. It's kind of real politics. It's where in order to get this kind of thing through, this kind of group to stay together, I have to kind of appease people on the periphery by means that have nothing to do with what I care about. So it may mean that I agree to not vote against something that they care about, that I may find somewhat discomforting, but doesn't affect my coalition, right? So that they ignore voting against something that could [COUGH] really affect my coalition. So there are these compromises, these negotiations that you have to do. And it's not always kind of the cleanest business. So the example that we have is in the United States is of someone like Lyndon Johnson, who was a Vice-President under President Kennedy, and then became president when Kennedy was shot and assassinated. But as a legislator, he was amazing. I mean, as a president, you can make your own judgements, but as a legislator, he did remarkable amounts of pushing things through Congress. And that required a set of skills that was like a coalition leader, the ability to kind of make side deals, to make bargains on the periphery, and to maintain a coalition of shared interests. And to prevent them from being picked off. Now here is the other side of why it's not always idealistic or a coalition leader may not be someone that you want your daughters and sons to marry say. [LAUGH] If they were like that all the time which is that they often have to be offensive too, they have to take a part competing coalitions and pick off peripheral individuals to bring them onto their side. So you're constantly being political. And I think that's where I want you to kind of consider the fact that a coalition effort does require, at least when there's inconsistent preferences, ambiguity, and multiple actors who could drive things in completely different directions, that you really kind of have to be cutthroat to make that coalition keep going. And maybe not all the time. Maybe not with everybody, but there may be some instances where that's required. And particularly in something like situations where people do have equal representation, and have kind of pluralist of interests, where pushing something through thus require perhaps pushing aside what other people require at times. And so as much as I want to see the idealistic kind of consensus ethical either, it may not always be the case for a coalition. Particularly for the time and a context in which you have such conflict and competing interests. So, there you have it. Sorry to be a downer on the end on that one.