Archive for the ‘Scenes’ Category

Over Under Sideways Down

Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010

One of the characteristics of networks is their flexibility. What our communication channels looked like yesterday may not be what they look like today. This, of course, can be an asset or a liability. The net that allows us to build new relationships, discover markets and expand our potential for taking productive action is the same one that swallows channels and markets like a singularity sucking down solar systems in nanoseconds.  The global financial system, guaranteed, is right now teetering on the edge of such a debt-and-greed-spun vortex.  Call it The Bank Hole.

TheBankHole1In our crazy race to escape these kinds of vortexes, we can turn direction-blind.  We pick a course of action, or someone picks a course for us, and in our all-out effort to escape a certain fate, we go heads down as hard as we can for as long as we can in that direction, like barn-sour horses galloping toward a distant barn.  A strategy, as Umair Haque points out in his latest HBR post, can be just as bad as a locked-in direction, because it can confine or limit one’s options instead of liberating them.

What Haque advocates, and what we could not agree with more, is adopting a set of behaviors (he calls these behaviors ‘Wisdom’) that foster liberation of the ideas and the ethical actions that can deliver us from the Goldman-Sachs Singularity, and whatever else sucks.  These behaviors have no time frame, because they are timeless.  They cannot be quantified, because they are potentially limitless in number.

One of these behaviors (me, adding to Haque’s list) is to Envision.   And by that I don’t mean Ayn Rand’s old Burt Lancaster-as-One-Of-A-Kind-Genius concept of vision but what I call ‘Viola Vision’, which consists of ’seeing and sharing what we see.’  This kind of envisioning expands our horizons, and gives us infinitely more options for escaping what sucks.  So in your quest for solutions, don’t forget to:

Look over. It’s how you get perspective on a problem.

Look under. Play with the dynamic of concealment and revelation.  Respect roots.  Dig deep.

Look sideways. My friend, the animation director John Musker, talks about stories as ‘taking an unexpected left turn.’  A sideways move can shake up your narrative in a way that keeps you on your toes and your audience engaged.

Look down. Who needs help?  Some days, this the only question worth answering.

Cyberhouse Rules

Monday, February 8th, 2010

I speak occasionally to Steven Lisberger, who directed the landmark motion picture, TRON.  Naturally enough, the conversation usually comes around to cyberspace and how, as Steven puts it, “TRON came true.”  Lately, we’ve been talking a lot about the role of story and storytellers in the networked world.   Steven has a way of boiling things down to their essence.  Sometimes I call him Obi-Wan.  Here’s some Jedi from our most recent conversation:

Lisberger and Me

Lisberger and Me

“For most of mankind’s existence, our subconscious mind has been hidden.  Now it’s on full display in the network.  Everything you can dream of is there and accessible instantly.  And the question is, what are we going to do with it?”

“People need a new way in.”

“If one aspect of work, access to information, has gotten infinitely easier, the laws of physics tell us that another aspect, one that maybe we don’t recognize yet, has gotten infinitely harder.  We expect things to always get easier, but that’s not necessarily true.”

“On one side of the equation you have the swarm, the hive mind, whatever you want to call it.  And on the other, you have all these tools, and this demand for productivity.  If you don’t know what you’re doing, it will get revealed quicker.  So you have to really know what you’re doing.  The swarm has to be grounded in capability.”

“The network and the tools are amazing.  If people learn how to use the network and the tools, they’ll be amazing, too.”

“One result of networks is the democratization of quality.  When all content is pumped out and made accessible, it creates a kind of middling format.  It leads to a common denominator effect.  This is why elitism matters.  Not just anyone can tell a good story, or create a good design.”

“Intellectual bullying perpetuates the wrong argument.”

“With improvisation, you can do a scene where one person plays the landlord and the other person plays the tenant who’s behind on the rent.  Then those two people reverse roles, and from that process, you learn how to go about resolving the problem.  In business, that never happens.  No one switches sides or changes roles.  If you play for the Blue Team, that’s the team you stay on.  If you’re on the Yellow Team, you stay on that team, and you argue for that side.  And you just keep on having the same argument, and it’s terrible, because nothing changes, and nothing ever gets resolved.”

“What you’re doing with GameChangers is fracturing and realigning the sides of the argument so that problems can get solved.”

“The subconscious mind doesn’t recognize time.  It exists in a permanent state of ‘now.’  In this sense the subconscious mind is like a child, who doesn’t know anything but ‘right now.’  When the subconscious mind makes itself visible and instantly accessible in the network, and everything exists in a state of now, it breeds immaturity.  We begin operating at the level of awareness of an 11 year old.  Maturity is something you can only get to over time.  It’s linear in that sense.  The ethics and perspective that come with time and maturity are what’s missing in this environment.”

“Maturity comes from mastery in the physical realm.”

‘The President’s Question Time’ Scene

Saturday, January 30th, 2010

There’s a great tradition in British government that, if you’ve never seen it, you ought to.  It’s called The Prime Minister’s Question Time, and it is wonderful political theater.  Watch some of this.

And then compare this.

Quite a difference.

The first is improvised.

The second is scripted.

Improvisation is active.  It is alive.  Members of Parliament are energetically engaged in the conversation about the matter at hand, supportive of, but not bogged down by, their various ideologies and positions.  Their actions and reactions are immediate, emotional and visceral.  This honors the problem.  American politicians dishonor a problem, and obfuscate it, when they use it as a foil for politicking, which is how almost every problem faced by the federal government is regarded now.  An excuse for campaigning.

ObamaRepubs1This is the big point President Obama underlined yesterday in his meeting with the Republicans.  That 66-minute conversation may be the best thing that’s happened in American politics since the Watergate hearings.  Obama changed the game by calling out the current political game for what it is.   Let’s call the current game “Our Way or No Way.”  It is played by Democrats and Republicans alike, with equal vigor.  This game is toxic.  Limiting.  Stultifying.  Divisive.  And ultimately it’s unproductive.  This is not about blaming one party or the other.  The bad game is to blame.

Yesterday, Obama not only called out the current game for the quicksand pit it is, he suggested a better, more liberating, more productive game.  You might call the game he’s proposing, ‘Part of a Pie is Better Than None.’  In other words, the invitation to the Republicans (Dems, you’re next!) is to find an area of agreement and agree on it.  Do it knowing that some, but not all, and probably not not 80% of what you’ve got scripted, will come to pass.  Don’t be greedy.  Be generous instead.  Don’t place blame.  Accept responsibility.  Don’t point fingers.  Shake hands.  And then come out fighting.  Let’s relish the good fight, one where we fight together to solve the problem, not the bad fight, where we fight over who’s right and who’s wrong about how to solve it.  Let’s pick battles we can win instead of battles we can make the other guy lose.

Cheers to the GameChanger in Chief for changing the game once again.  Our political discourse needs more of the kind of energetic, intelligent, articulate, performances that the Brits demonstrate in their ‘Question Time With the Prime Minister” and Obama and the Republicans staged yesterday.  It will be a healthy transformation.  And it’ll make great TV.  Nothing we Yanks like better than that!

Do not get locked into your script for success.  Be prepared, instead, to improvise your way there.  Remember that other people have scripts, too.  As I can tell you from working in the entertainment business, when all we do is fight over whose script we’re going to follow, the show does not go on.

Stengel’s Storyboard Ban

Wednesday, January 13th, 2010

Back in 2002, when he was still the CMO for Procter & Gamble, Jim Stengel was pictured on the cover of an Advertising Age reprint that I happened to pick up while in the office of a client in Atlanta.

Jim Stengel

Jim Stengel

Before there was a GameChangers LLC, before one word of the book had been written, I read in that Ad Age article how Stengel had made what we know today as a GameChanger move: He banned all storyboards from first meetings with ad agencies on new campaigns. What a gift!  Storyboards in a kickoff meeting, presume way too much. They hijack the process, and take it down a one-way, one-lane street. They imply a client/vendor relationship that prematurely assigns status and roles to the players and is therefore toxic to a truly organic process.

I give Jim Stengel a lot of credit for indicating that there is a need for improvisation in business. His storyboard ban created a vacuum that, by design I’m sure, required improvisation to fill.

In animation, where films are largely worked out on storyboards, presenting scenes that have been depicted on storyboards is called ‘getting the story on its feet.’ Stengel recognized that getting anything on its feet that was going to have legs needed to fall a time or two first.

Today, Stengel teaches at the Anderson School of Business at UCLA, and from his website it seems that he’s still got a unique perspective on the practices and processes of marketing brands.   I hope he’s telling the future captains of industry about his P & G storyboard rule.  It’s a good one.

Pat on the Back

Tuesday, December 29th, 2009

A VERSION OF THIS FIRST APPEARED ON THE HUFFINGTON POST WEB SITE…

I am at our local hardware store on Vermont Avenue in L.A. where I’ve recently been spending a lot of time and money on our fixer-upper, when I see one of the store’s employees give another one a pat on the back.  It makes me smile because it’s something I don’t see too often in the workplace these days: generous, a gesture of appreciation — for what, exactly, I cannot tell.   A favor returned?  Encouragement?  A conflict resolved?   Good news?   A joke?  All I can tell for sure is that it’s a connection between two people who, in that instant, are enjoying their scene.

We earn our money by learning from the Past and by being correct more often than not about the Future.  But we do our living in the Now, and nothing says Now like a pat on the back.

And yet, there’s a problem with this, at least where the workplace is concerned.   Touching is a vital element of communication, but between the computer culture and the corporate playbook, it is being systematically eliminated from the game.

To get the complete picture, I phone Martin Ett, an HR consultant with ObsessiCom Outsourcing Services, and ask him to interpret a pat on the back like the one I witnessed in the hardware store.

“It depends,”  says Ett.

“On?”

“A lot.  Was it a display of affection?  If so, was it sexual in nature?  What was the duration of the gesture?  We recommend a three-second limit on casual contact, including handshakes, conversational touching, hair or clothing adjustments, and lint-plucking.  Back-patting falls under the three-second rule.

PatontheBack1A“There’s also the nature of the contact itself to consider,” Ett went on.  “Was there rubbing involved or was the contact static?   Was it hand contact only, or was it of a hugging nature so that bodies were touching?  This is an important distinction, because hugs are becoming increasingly problematic in the workplace.  Many employers prohibit what we call ‘full frontal clutching’ while still allowing what we call ‘casual side-to-side linkage.’   We’re seeing strong anti-clutching trends across the corporate landscape.

“I’d want to talk to each of the employees separately,” Ett continues, “to determine both intention and interpretation, an ‘I-to-I Analysis,’ we call it.”

“Eye-to-Eye? I ask.  Misinterpreting.  “Is that like a 360?”

“You mean a 720?  Uh, no.  It means was there alignment between the patter’s Intention and the pattee’s Interpretation of the incident?

(Incident?)

I get where this is going but there’s no stopping him now.  I put the phone on speaker and tend to my Farmville on Facebook as Ett continues: “Did the pat make the pattee defensive or uncomfortable, or imply some kind of future obligation?  Also, what was the proximity of the parties? Was one of the parties backed into a corner, or was there space for the pattee to avoid the pat if it was unwelcome or unwarranted?”

“It happened in the hose aisle,” I say.  “It’s cramped in that store.  Space is tight.”

Hose aisle,” repeats Ett, gravely.  “That could be an issue.  Context is key.  I’d need to know more about what exactly goes on in the hose aisle.  Is one of the parties the hose manager, or is that aisle considered neutral space?  Was there actual hose involved?  Because that’s a whole new kettle of worms…

Kettle of worms? When did a pat on the back turn into a scene from a Wes Craven movie?

PatonBack2A“Also what, specifically, was ‘the back’ being patted? I’d want to know that.  Was it in the region of the upper, or Cervical, vertebrae?  If it was on the upper back it was probably okay, assuming of course, it didn’t last for longer than three seconds and no rubbing was involved.  Middle, or Thoracic vertebrae, are a gray area, especially numbers T-One through T-Four.  You find HR people very divided about this, and there are no clear guidelines, so my advice is to steer clear of the Thoracic region entirely, just to be safe.  The lower, or Lumbar region, is a definite no-no.  And a pat on the Sacrum will get you a visit from Security, no question.

“Was one of the employees the other one’s superior?” continues Ett.  “If so, the gesture could be taken as intimidation or harassment.  Was the patting public or did it happen in private?  Was this an isolated incident, or was it part of a pattern?”

“I don’t know,” I say, feeling a bit harassed myself now, for even bringing it up.  “They just seemed like a couple of guys enjoying a moment.”

“Couple of guys, eh?  We’re seeing a big increase in same-sex sexual harassment these days.”  Ett says it with the ominous satisfaction of an exterminator describing a cockroach invasion in the building where you live.

“What about giving myself a pat on the back?” I ask.  “Do you have a rule against that?”

“Are you making fun of me?” Ett replies.  “If you are, you’re barking down the wrong well, buddy.  There are rules about that.”

Next time I see them, I’ll warn the guys over at the hardware store they’re skating on some very thin skin.

The problem with rules of the game like those cited by (the fictional) Martin Ett is that they define workplace interactions in the context of the Past or the Future while minimizing the impact of the Now.   Because of this they tend to suppress rather than expand our ability to communicate in a productive, meaningful way.

In this kind of sanitized environment, we may be making our money and limiting our liability, but it has very little to do with how we’re living our lives.PatonBack3B

Context Sensitivity

Friday, November 20th, 2009

From David Brooks’ column in today’s NY Times:

…you would also have to say that Geithner, like many top members of the Obama economic team, is extremely context-sensitive. He’s less defined by any preset political doctrine than by the situation he happens to find himself in.

‘Sensitivity to one’s situation’ is a quality you find in any good improviser. Dogma (e.g. “political doctrine”) by contrast, doesn’t do much to move a scene forward; instead, it usually results in one of two less-than-desirable outcomes:  1)  a groupthink decision by people who let their dogma do their talking; or 2) the scene bogs down in a circular debate about how to move the scene forward.

The only thing that will move a scene forward is moving the scene forward.  You can’t talk about it.  You can’t write a prescription for it.  You just have to do it.

Woody Allen once said, “Ninety percent of life is just showing up.”  Woody was 55.55% right.  Fifty percent of life is showing up.  The other fifty percent is what you do when you get there.  And the only way to know what to do when you get there is to be sensitive to the context of your scene.

Mr. Context Sensitive

Mr. Context Sensitive

Hurd is the Word

Monday, July 13th, 2009

HandsOnSolar1For months before we met for lunch last week, I had been hearing about Brian Hurd, mainly from Deep Patel of GoGreenSolar.  Deep claims that Hurd is one of the sharpest tools in the shed.  Has more experience than just about anyone in the solar industry.  Knows as much as anyone in the world about the state of solar technology.  Started the solar installation program at the East L.A. Skills Center, where he has trained more certified solar technicians than anyone in the U. S.   Helped write the State of California certification tests for solar installers.  Is a protege of Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis, the former Congresswoman from California who admires the work he’s done to create jobs in the community.  The web site for the company he founded, Hands On Solar, and the Google results page for ‘Brian Hurd Solar Technology’ bear out all this and more. (more…)

Three Moves (You Can Make Right Now to Change the Game)

Friday, June 26th, 2009

1.  Initiate a scene without having an outcome in mind We get so locked into our goals that we seldom enter a business scene for which we don’t have an outcome already scripted in our minds.  From an interview we want the job.  From a sales scene we want the sale.  From a scene with the boss we want the promotion.

There are two issues with focusing exclusively on our goals.  The first is that the people with whom we share our scenes usually have different goals from ours.   The interviewer’s goal is different from the interviewee’s.  A customer is not interested in helping the salesperson meet a sales quota.  A jealous boss might have the goal of turning an up-and-comer into a down-and-outer.  It’s been known to happen.  Focusing only on our desired outcomes can result in a tug-of-war for control of a scene, severely limiting the scene’s progress and potential.  Not good.

The second, and bigger, issue with being exclusively goal-oriented in our scenes, is that we diminish our potential for breakthrough moves.  Breakthroughs reveal unexpected avenues for productivity.  Breakthroughs can only happen if we are willing to let go of our expectations about what a scene needs to achieve.   And what is a goal but an expectation for a scene? (more…)

The Unsung Hero of the Game

Wednesday, June 3rd, 2009

We cannot emphasize enough how often the origins of the productive game rest not with actions of the first person to act, but with the person who defines the game by supporting and adding to what the first person is doing.  The second person is the unsung hero of the game.

Ethan Bauley sent me a link that’s a perfect depiction of the ‘Unsung Hero’ idea. Take a look at this video shot at the recent Sasquatch Music Festival outside Vancouver:

The first dancer, Collin Wynter from Calgary, deserves credit for initiating well. He’s having fun, and he’s high energy, connecting with the music and the rest of his environment and not at all caught up in his own little world. He is acting on his environment (the hillside and the soft grass and the music) and as a consequence, the environment ‘acts on him’ as his dancing becomes infectious. But it doesn’t become a scene, it doesn’t find its game, until the second dancer joins. The second dancer adds and heightens, and from that point on, there’s no stopping this scene. First, he learns the second dancer learns the ‘rules of the dance’ from the first dancer, then he makes the dance even more playful by falling to the ground and crawling through the first dancer’s legs. It is the second person who embraces the rules of the game and plays the game in a way that others cannot resist joining. After the third person joins, the joining becomes a wave that lasts until the music ends. (And maybe beyond, that’s where the video cuts.)This same dynamic is characteristic of any productive game. A game played alone has finite potential, while a game that invites joining has unlimited upside. It is the second person to play who signals to the crowd that your game is worth joining.

It is worth noting that this article in the Calgary Herald celebrates Collin Wynter as being some kind of hero, but does not mention the second dancer, or even the existence of the unsung hero of the game.

SXSW #3 – THIS IS THE GUY

Sunday, March 22nd, 2009

Taylor Davidson (www.unstructuredventures.com) is one of a small group of evolved network business strategists with whom I have an ongoing dialogue.  He’s been traveling cross-country for something like six months and predicts that he’ll probably stay on the road – Asia’s next — for another year.  During the conference, our paths cross many times, always by serendipity.  On the first day of the conference, he and I run into each other for the first time.  We are are sitting at a table talking when Leora Israel (www.speaklike.com), comes up behind Taylor and gives him a huge hug.  When he turns around, they realize they don’t know one another.  Embarrassed, she says, “Oh, I thought you were Nick O’Neill, the back of your head looks like his.”  A couple of days later, in a seminar on Entrepreneurship, Taylor and I meet Nick O’Neill himself (www.socialtimes.com), who’s one of the moderators.  Taylor introduces Nick to me by telling me,  “This is the guy who that girl thought the back of my head looked like his.”

LeoTayNic2