Posts Tagged ‘Communication’

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 a helping hand?  Some days, this the only question worth answering.

Be Nice to the Mice

Monday, January 4th, 2010

The end of the year, the decade, passed fitfully, at times stressfully, with no pause for reflection, and no Resolution for the New Year except the fairly vague intention of being more Resolute. What to be resolute about? That was still the question.

And then this article by Errol Morris in the New York Times came across the network this morning, the hook being a quote from Walt Disney (”I only hope that we don’t lose sight of one thing — that It Was All Started By A Mouse.“) as its headline. I’d already seen the link a couple of times when Howard Green from Disney Studios called to invite me to a tribute for Walt’s recently-departed nephew, Roy Disney, on Sunday at the El Capitan Theatre in Hollywood.   Suddenly the universe was in my ear bigtime, whispering that I had to click on the link to the Morris article. Something was there to be discovered….

The article itself is a photo essay and dialogue with photojournalist Ben Curtis about the forensics of war photography, the context of image vs. imagemaker, the technological challenges and dangers that come with altering photos to create propaganda or enhance a certain point of view. The kind of stuff in which Morris specializes. After I got the context, I began skimming. But I kept coming back to a photo by Curtis that led off the article:MMWarPhoto1

In seeing the photo, I found what had been missing over the holidays. I might have decided to be resolute, I was still waffling on a theme, what, exactly I’d be resolute about. This photo resolved that. I wrote the following Comment on the Morris piece:

Errol

As our old friend Onosko, who worked at the House of Mouse for many years, might have said, you’re making it more complicated than it is. Focusing on the cosmetic level of communication–the toy itself, the shards of glass, the smoke, the interaction between imagemaker and image–is a fascinating narrative, and yields neverending complexity, but this complexity obscures meaning instead of bringing it to light. How Mickey got there is not nearly as important as the meta and emotional levels of the communication: War’s awfulest tragedies are its children.

Until we begin thinking of children first–begin with the Mice!, that what Walt would’ve done–War will be an adult theme park where children get crippled, grow old and perish before their time.

And so, finally, thanks to Howard and Errol and Ben, I have it — my New Year’s theme — the thing I can be Resolute about:  Be Nice to the Mice.

Hit it, Kid!

BabyDrummer1

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

Applied Improvisation, Part Two: Talking the Client’s Language

Thursday, November 19th, 2009

Part of a series about the Applied Improvisation Network’s world conference, Portland, Nov 11-16, 2009:

OYF Panel Discussion with Intel's Zabel (far r.), Nike's Dodge (second from r.) and the State of Oregon's Gardnes (far l.)

OYF Panel Discussion with Intel's Zabel (second from r.), Nike's Dodge (third from r.) and the State of Oregon's Gardner (second from l.)

I am blown away by the work being done by Julie Huffaker, Gary Hirsch, Brad Robertson and OnYourFeet, with clients like Nike, Intel and the State of Oregon.  The scope of their engagements, the value they create, and their ability to collaborate with their clients and speak the client lexicon is easy to see.

Karl Zabel (who today works with Nike but was a product manager at Intel at the time) hired OYF to train presenters for an Intel conference in Vegas in which lead engineers present new products to audiences of their peers.  The program paid off with positive results for Zabel and his product team.  Scores the audience gave presenters who’d had improvisation training left those who didn’t in the ditch.  (my word for the outcome; he had Intelspeak for it…4.2 to 4.7 positive variance, e.g.)

One presenter, says Zabel, got up in front of the audience and impulsively tossed his entire PowerPoint presentation aside at the last second in favor of  improvising his pitch.  An audience numbed by days of PowerPoints loved the move, and this was reflected in scores that were well above the conference norm.

Interestingly, Zabel changed the game to help OYF’s work reflect its real value.  Previously, scores for these presentations had been an aggregate number.  They included a score for the catering, a score for the air conditioning, a score for the quality of the audio and projection…and oh yeah, a score for the actual presentation, let’s throw that into the mix, too, why not?  Zabel convinced the scorekeepers to separate the presentation scores, which meant that weak presenters couldn’t compensate with good sushi.  Improvisation for business offers objective criteria for performance, kudos to Karl for seeing it, and clearing the way for Intel to see it, too.

Shelly Dodge, head of Gobal Learning and Development for Nike, says that value creation for her training programs is “largely anecdotal.”  This is an brand that knows itself and trusts its instincts.  Dodge says OYF’s training helps bridge cultures within the company, particularly with many of its Asian employees, for whom improvisation can be a means to communicate more openly and get more in tune with the ‘just do it’ vibe of the brand.  (Note to all orgs that want to be like Nike:  Cross cultural communication is yet another area in which improvisation can bring immense value to a brand.)

Lucy Gardner, head of employee training for the State of Oregon, says that given all the layoffs and cutbacks the state government has experienced of late, OYF’s work gives people a much-needed time when they can laugh about something, and also keeps them engaged and thinking positive when there’s a lot of negative news in the network.  Cheers to Lucy for understanding the good ROI the state gets on its investment in improvisation.

Any story that begins, “For the price of one television commercial…” has the potential to become a success story for improvisation in business.

Exercise in the OYF Workshop

Exercise in the OYF Workshop

Why I’m Bullish on Journalism Majors (and You Should Be, Too)

Monday, August 17th, 2009

In 2006, newspapers took in $49.5 billion in advertising.   In 2008, it was about $38 billion, a 23% decline.

After losing 42% of their value between 2005 and the end of 2007, publicly traded newspaper stocks lost 83% of their remaining value during 2008.

Most surveys show that 13,000+ U.S. newspaper jobs vanished in 2008.

In 2007, 70% of college Communication and Journalism majors had jobs six months after graduation.  In 2008, 60% did.

No doubt about it, the print journalism profession as we’ve known it is fading fast, and its future is as hazy as the crystal ball of a boardwalk fortune teller.

So why put stock in university students who, in these uncertain times, choose to major in Journalism?—as opposed to, say, the point of view expressed in Sarah Lacy’s smug, self-congratulatory April 09 TechCrunch story that disses journalism schools and anyone majoring in journalism these days.

Here’s why we ought to be bullish on Journalism majors:

journalism11.  They’re optimists.  Feeling good about the future is the first step toward making it so.

2.  They’re self-reliant.  They realize there’s no ready-made career track waiting for them at the end of the diploma.  Their career will be one they carve out for themselves.

3.  They’re creative.  They’re putting themselves in a position where they have no choice but to be creative.  Some of the most creative people I know have used this strategy throughout their careers to grow and prosper.

4.  They’re following their fear.  Garrison Keillor, the writer and radio host, once told me that he built his career by “doing the thing that scared him most.”  Majoring in Journalism is a bold move in the face of a fearsome job market.  On the other side of your fear is potential you cannot discover until you do the thing that scares you.

5.  They’re entrepreneurial.   An entrepreneur sees opportunity where others do not.  Something in these Journalism majors relishes the wave of negative news coming from the marketplace, because it means they can position themselves at the bottom of the market to ride it up.

Educators at the University level, many of them celebrated veterans of old school journalism, share their students’ appetite for the unknown:

Overholser1Kevin Klose, Dean of the University of Maryland Journalism School, admits he doesn’t know where people will get their news in coming years. “It’s like the early days of radio,” he says. “There was a tremendous amount of feverish invention, trial and error that went on in the 1920s and 1930s.  The outlets or platforms are unclear now — they’re being invented.”

Klose describes himself as a “participant in an ongoing experiment” to find formats for independent journalism.

Geneva Overholser, a Pulitizer Prize-winning editor and journalist, who today is director of the School of Journalism at USC, says, “We seem to feel the only way we can work is to work the way we’ve always done it.  That’s just not true. We will ride these yearnings for the past right down the tube.”   She sees her work as an exploration that will lead to “a reinvention of journalism that is richer and better than the old.”

Roker1Raymond Roker, founder and publisher of URB, a print and online publication dedicated to hip-hop and urban culture, believes that the calling of journalism is the one constant in a changing business environment.  “The allure,” he tweeted in a 137-character response to my question, “is wht it’s always bn–regardless of the dramatic changes in the economy of media–to develop, explore & lead the conversation.”

Roker tweet #2:  “The quality of our journalism, in whatever form it takes in a post-print world, will remain a barometer of how informed we are as a society.”

Any brand would be wise to include journalism majors in its conversations about What’s Next and Whom to Hire.  There are lot of reasons why these students, in particular, will be productive players in the changing game.

Prezi

Thursday, August 13th, 2009

We have all been crippled, to some extent, by PowerPoint. I won’t go into all the reasons here, except to say that it limits our ability to improvise in a business meeting, and that too often presenters cede the center of attention to the screen, which means that they’re telling their audience, in effect, that flat data projected on a screen is more attention-worthy than they are. Gulp.

Prezi can change all that. Take a look at this amazing Prezi done by @happyseaurchin. 

Sing Everything

Thursday, July 9th, 2009

DaveCarroll1This story broke in the L.A. Times a couple of days ago and has been burning up the interwebs ever since.  Dave Carroll of the Canadian country music band Sons of Maxwell sings about a problem he has with United Airlines.  It’s easy to see how productive this game is for Carroll and the Sons of Maxwell, and how damaging it is to United Airlines, a brand that already has a pretty shabby reputation for dealing with passengers.  It is after all, the best customer complaint of the Networked Era.

There are three elements of gamechanging at work in Carroll’s United Breaks Guitars song (with two other ‘complaint songs’ to follow, according to Carroll): (more…)

Miley Cyrus Naked! 99 Pieces of Spam on the Wall

Saturday, May 2nd, 2009

I know, huh.  A message doesn’t have to be profound to be effective, and nowhere is this more true than in your spam folder.  Spams are designed to work on the most visceral and immediate level of human communication.  They have maybe one second to get their idea across.  For this reason, it’s useful to study their communication strategies.

Spam6

Like anyone participating in the Networked World, we get our share of spam at GameChangers.  Here are some stats on the last 99 pieces of spam we’ve filtered: (more…)

Flexible Essence

Monday, April 20th, 2009

FlexEssence4Catherine Stephens, a Disney executive, coined this phrase last week in casual conversation when she and I were discussing the studio’s new eco-brand, Disneynature.   I am captivated by the pairing of these words, because it describes perfectly the relationship between what a brand stands for, and what it has the potential to become.  This tension between fixity and fluidity, between discipline and disruption, between predictability and opportunity, is at the heart of entrepreneurship and branding.

‘Essence’ defines the core of a brand.  If brand is a tree, essence flows through its trunk.  Essence, especially at the beginning of a brand’s life, is often rooted to the sensibilities of one person or a small group.  For example, Steve Job’s appreciation of good design is at the heart of the Apple brand, Jimmy Buffet’s lifestyle is the essence of Margaritaville, and Tamara Mellon’s taste in shoes is the foundation for the Jimmy Choo brand.  Essence can also be an institutional philosophy like you’d find at a Japanese auto company, or a fast-paced technology brand like Cisco.  Either way, this is where a brand’s fire burns brightest, where vision is most needed, where a brand’s themes are distilled and defined.  It is where the secret formula for Coca Cola, Martha Stewart’s personal style, Oprah’s reading list, and the ‘Honest’ in Honest Tea reside.

FlexEssence5‘Flexible’ is what the improvisational brand has to be at the edges of its network.  Continuing the tree analogy, flexibility is what you find in the tree’s outermost branches and leaves.  For a business operating in the Networked World, the edge is where the action is.  It is where creative disruption happens.  Where innovation is most likely to find its inspiration.  Most importantly, it is where a brand carries on conversations with its customers.  This is where you find skunk works, social networks, and tweets.  It is where buzz begins.

A brand needs both Essence and Flexibility to make a real impact in the marketplace, but it is interesting to note that a brand can be successful with a strong Essence and very little Flexibility, while the reverse is not true.  We have a word for brands with little or no Essence and a lot of Flexibility.  We call them doomed.   During the dotcom era, I once heard a pitch from a group of university scientists who’d lost their funding for a robotic crop picker and had somehow morphed their idea into a a proposal for a 3D web browser.  We in the audience failed to see the connection between the two ideas.  Those scientists never should have mentioned the robotic crop picker.  It may have demonstrated their Flexibility, but it revealed the absence of Essence.  They were showing us a pile of leaves and calling it a tree.

The priority is crystal clear.  Essence has to be the the first consideration.  If you got no Essence, you got nothing.

FlexEssence3

GameChanger of the Month – March 2009

Wednesday, April 1st, 2009

Zappos6

Over lunch at the Iron Wood Barbecue at SXSW in Austin a couple of weeks ago, my friend Dean McBeth, who has participated in several GameChangers workshops, told me how much I would dig the Zappos brand because they and their CEO, Tony Hsieh (pronounced SHAY), are so improvisational in their approach to their business. (more…)