Annette Simmons

  • About
    • About Annette
    • Annette in Action
  • Books
    • Territorial Games
    • A Safe Place for Dangerous Truths
    • The Story Factor
    • Whoever Tells the Best Story Wins
  • Services
  • The Six Kinds of Stories
  • Storytelling 101
    • Blog
    • Q & A
    • Metaphor Maps
  • Clients
  • Contact

April 24, 2020 by Annette Simmons 3 Comments

Storytelling Moral Survival System: Part nine (templates)

Stories that cherry-pick correlations and represent them as causation can be misleading.

Stories that cherry-pick correlations and represent them as causation can be misleading.

A Story Spine

The best storytelling templates arise from the arts. Improv artist Kenn Adams laid out what he called a “story spine” as a mechanism to help children and adults play with improvisational theatre. According to Kenn, the origin of his template arose from his desire to bring arts, creativity, and improv play to more people. The template is a guide for creating characters and a plot that produces a spontaneous play that is as satisfying to the players as the audience.

Pixar Studios uses a similar template to provide structure to illustrate core human conflicts with a story.

Once upon a time there was ___. Every day, ___.
One day ___.
Because of that, ___.

Because of that, ___.
Until finally ___.
(And ever since that day______.)
A beginner storyteller given this template might find fill in the blanks with merely plausible events and characters instead of looking to personal experiences with real people, actual life events, and the sensations of time and space. No template can correct for a storyteller who doesn’t remember to “write what you know.” It’s worth noting that this template is only one part of Pixar’s 22 rules of storytelling. Without the other twenty-one rules the template could be limited to creating merely feasible characters negotiating hypothetical situations. Apply the other twenty-one rules, such as “remember that what is most fun to write doesn’t necessarily translate into what is most interesting to an audience,” and the template becomes much more useful.

Story as Cause/Effect

The novelist E.M. Forster famously stated that “the king died then the queen died” was not a plot until adding the detail that the queen died “of grief”. Some have interpreted this to mean that stories set up clear cause/effect relationships. It’s not a bad way to hunt for a plot – love sets you free, pride leads to a fall, etc. – but this method risks oversimplifying relational truths, and correlations. Love usually kicks your butt before it sets you free and pride leads to wins as well as losses. Whenever a storyteller forces a story to suggest an easy cause/effect relationship he runs the risk of omitting complexities that render the story as recognizably realistic. Perhaps the king killed the queen’s lover before he died. Her grief gets a bit more complex and the reader is offered more freedom to come to his or her own conclusions.

There are risks to restricting a story to the format of cause and effect. We create unnecessary problems when we tell a story that suggests a clear single cause and direct effect, when the truth is far more complex. Cause/effect stories can discredit story-supported social norms, like the golden rule. For instance, if a story translates “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” into a cause/effect relationship, it unilaterally suggests treating people fairly automatically causes others to treat you fairly in return. Forcing a story to characterize any human dilemma as an effect of a single cause unwittingly encourages oversimplified solutions that don’t work in real life. Even when simple parables imply cause/effect sequences, the goal is to reinforce reliably accurate correlations—not statistically provable causes and effects. Within storytelling, then, be advised that impressions of cause/effect are usually metaphorical and correlational.

Excerpt from Chapter 11, 3rd ed. of The Story Factor (2019)  AUDIBLE VERSION HERE

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: business storytelling, communication, correlations, interview techniques narrative, narrative, The Story Factor, Whoever Tells the Best Story Wins

December 10, 2019 by Annette Simmons 1 Comment

The Morals of Our Stories

From Strategy + Business article in PwC’s online magazine:

“Stories have always been about ethics. They help listeners find the right path in the face of ambiguity and competing desires. The King Midas story juxtaposes commercial desires against social desires. Narcissus was so entranced with his reflection in the water, he died of thirst. The morals expressed in story form teach us how to negotiate the paradoxical dilemmas that all businesspeople — that all humans — must navigate and reconcile: growth and sustainability, freedom and safety, inclusion and exclusion, control and collaboration.

And the stories you pick to tell can change your view. Truly powerful stories — like the fables and myths — tend to take small circles of concern and make them bigger.”

I’m gaining faith that people are ready to stop controlling narratives and start recruiting multiple narratives for bigger picture, not to mention, more creative solutions! Are you seeing the same shift? Please speak up, we could all use a little more faith at this point.

 

 

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Annette Simmons, Big T Truth, business storytelling, influence, interview techniques narrative, storytelling, Whoever Tells the Best Story Wins

June 7, 2019 by Annette Simmons 2 Comments

The Story Factor 3rd ed. OCT2019 (new material)

ship
“Ships at a distance have every man’s wish on board.”                          Zora Neale Hurston
From a distance, storytelling also seems to have every man’s wish on board. There is an initial euphoria when you consider that once you learn how to tell stories that alter perceptions, conclusions, and actions you might become captain of all the ships and invent “Get out of jail free” cards for anyone who wants a story of absolution, whether they deserve it or not. Over time, like King Midas, you will discover that getting everything you want inevitably produces unintended consequences. When technology alters moral stories, it changes the meaning and the morals of those stories. King Midas did not anticipate that his golden touch would kill his daughter. In the story, his personal experience of watching the light in her eyes go out carries a sensory impact; we get the message. But when calculated on a spreadsheet, the promise of an infinite return on investment (ROI) after sacrificing just one person can seem like a viable investment strategy. What’s more, people who value utilitarian reasoning now use data distance to create enough emotional distance that they can characterize one person as a “small sacrifice” and therefore a reasonable price to pay. The question is, are we at risk of allowing utilitarian reasoning to guide our storytelling practices? (Excerpt from The Story Factor 3rd ed. Chapter 11 out October 2019 )

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Annette Simmons, business storytelling, influence, interview techniques narrative, leadership, true stories, Whoever Tells the Best Story Wins

November 12, 2018 by Annette Simmons 6 Comments

Ten Games People Play to Control Truth (5)

 

  1. Information Manipulation Game
Weasel words distort truth.

Weasel words distort truth.

Tweak the numbers and you tweak the decision.  Edit video and you edit context. Control the narrative and you control what information seems relevant. Truth is the first casualty whenever we assume that everyone manipulates information so we have to as well….since “that’s how the game is played.”

“Their response [when tweaking numbers] is that they’re doing what the system allows them to do. They feel, ‘I’m within the rules. I’m applying the rules to my benefit but I’m still playing within the rules.’”

When we characterize work, government, or other personal interactions as a competitive game we invoke game “rules.”  As long as politics is considered a battleground, war rules apply and truth is the first casualty.  Why not review the rules with Sun Tzu’s Art of War? The battle metaphor is a disaster for truth seekers. In a war/game, withholding information, promoting disinformation, suprise attack and active misdirection are not just acceptable but honored as good tactics. Whenever I facilitate high-level budget meetings, I always ask the question – how do you calculate your budget requests? Eventually I hear, “we figure how much we need and double it, or add 30%,” or whatever distortion each group’s norms justify. When I ask:

“How can we possibly make good decisions if our norm is to lie to each other?”

…it is usually the first time the group has asked themselves this question. The resulting conversations reveal the obstacles we impose on ourselves every time we characterize a budget meeting as a battle or a game. We play by rules that guarantee to distort our collective understanding of Big T Truths. Truth is the first casualty the minute we unconsciously expect there will be winners and losers, because it means that helping the other side tell the truth is the fastest track to becoming a loser.

Granted our judicial system wouldn’t work if lawyers were asked to collaborate – but there is no reason this adversarial approach should be our primary method for seeking Truth. While there are laws about sharing information in the judicial system, few lawyers call attention to evidence that helps the other side.  An adversarial system for seeking truth incentivizes a battle mentality that rarely assembles various points of view into one big picture.  We limit our truth to the one who wins, rather than the one who has the most integrity, experience, or good intentions.

“Another example is where data can be selectively manipulated.  That’s a strong word for what I’m describing, but I’ve seen instances where selective use of data can basically get you to a different conclusion. They are protecting their own territory. The conclusion they are going for – let’s assume we are looking at a particular feature on a product – it’s a strong desire from one group in the company to have this feature.  Another group…may not feel it’s that important…It becomes a judgment call.  You are adding cost, adding weight. The one that wants the feature will tend to collect data and present data that would enhance the attractiveness of that feature. On the other hand, other people will be tweaking the numbers the other way.”

People (and now, algorithms) that assemble, interpret, format, and relay information into “meaningful” chunks edit out what seems unimportant (from their point of view) in order to feature what is important (from their point of view).

“So you’ve got a subculture that is trying to go for their optimum, which is counter to the big-picture good…What actually happens in the interchange from human to human is that they refuse to look at the big picture.  They tell you flat out in a meeting… I’ve made the request that we look at the big picure and their response back [to me] is that they don’t get measured to do that, not paid to do what. ‘I’m only measured on meeting this objective and that’s what I’m talking to you about.'”

Any “fight” for truth means welcoming truths we dont like as well as the truths we do like.  Denying unpleasant realities doesn’t make them untrue, it only distorts our ability to find solutions.  That’s what I meant when I titled my last book “Whoever Tells the Best Story Wins.” I didn’t mean to suggest it was a guide to crush someone else’s truth with a truth you like better.  I thought it would be obvious to those who study storytelling that the real wins are only found in Big T Truths.  I guess I need to keep working on that.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Annette Simmons, Big T Truth, engagement, interview techniques narrative, metaphor, storytelling, Territorial Games, true stories, war, Whoever Tells the Best Story Wins

November 3, 2018 by Annette Simmons 4 Comments

Ten Games People Play to Control Truth (3 of 10)

3. The Filibuster Game

Endless chatter that dominates the airwaves.

Endless chatter that dominates the airwaves.

“… we were just wasting our time. No one wanted to be the one to tell him he was full of crap so they just sat and listened to him ramble on. After all, no one could disagree with the fact that we needed to act more like a team.  But wasting all this time talking about our values and customer service didn’t solve the problem.  Everyone walked out of that meeting and went right back to the same old, same old.

I’ve been there. You’ve been there.  Now it’s happening on a national level and it’s no longer an irritation but a real threat. This quote above describes a meeting that happened over 20 years ago, but it’s happening again today, except game players now have “scaled” the filibuster game with technology that floods the airwaves with talking heads and images designed to activate clicks instead of collaboration.

The Filibuster Game has long been codified as a tactic in Congress: talk long enough and it prevents everyone else from telling his or her story.  Today technological variations of the filibuster game include apps that push notifications to the point we don’t have time to look for verification. Particularly if the “news” we get affirms our own goodness and blames those “idiots” for not understanding what’s real.

You aren’t going to like this but in experiments, peace makers sabotage their ability to confront the Filibuster game if they get stuck believing that a Filibuster game player knows exactly what he is doing and why.  Nope.  Most of the time, these game players genuinely think they are heroes protecting a value that the rest of us want to “destroy.” Calling a game player stupid (accurate or not) only doubles the energy he or she gives to the game.  Just to be clear, even those game players who are intentionally playing the filibuster game draw energy from your accusations.  The only way a game player stops playing games is if he/she can admit to him/herself in the privacy of his/her own mind: “I’ve been acting like an asshole. I think Im making things worse. I want to change for my own reasons” It’s not easy, not particuarly gratifying, but focusing on the games and not the people works faster – not 100% of the time because nothing works 100% of the time. But it works with small groups, so surely there is a larger scale approach.

IMO, I think we need to stop fighting each other and start fighting the games people play with the truth. We need checks and balances for airtime that is currently for sale to the highest bidder.

Most people who play the Filibuster Game don’t realize they are doing it. Fear and anxiety create a knee jerk physiological impulse they just can’t control.  All they know is that whatever you have to say distresses them, and they feel much better when they are talking instead of you. They will talk about anything except what you want to discuss. In corporate meetings the bluster mouth playing the filibuster game runs out the clock so other agenda items are never addressed. Filibuster is a fire hose of rhetoric that is not meant to communicate but to dominate.

This next quote was from a man describing a meeting, but you can imagine how this has translated to dominating media with loud engaging rhetoric that drowns out other stories.

In meetings when they get to the point where the gloves are off, it becomes very, very loud. The loudest and the most eloquent … He could make you listen, even though he was on the other side. He could compel you to listen by his rhetoric…You knew he was a snake. You knew full well…that what you were hearing was but a tip of his intent, what he was saying was only a portion of what he wanted you to hear. You know that what came before you on the table did not represent all that there was.

The filibuster game controls what we see as “True” by blocking out the stories deemed dangerous to a game player’s “preferred narrative.”  Some even label these other people’s stories as “anti-stories” and intentionally distract, block, nullify, or sideline those who are willing to risk telling the emperor he has no clothes.

Since we have a finite time amount of time to attend to different points of view, any media that fills our attention to capacity with a single story steals time from tough issues that arise when we admit there are at least 4 or 5 points of view, that may piss us off, but still need to be addressed.  When the flood of “something else, anything else” swirls within a media outlet it creates echo chambers (filibuster bubbles) designed to protect listeners from self-examination.

“People want to hang on to what they’ve got…so they generate so much data that it’s impossible to counteract.”

A flood of data makes it seem as if the problem we need to solve is to find a faster way to understand the data when solutions are much more likely to be found by sharing stories from all points of view, finding a way to walk a mile in the shoes of someone who knows what you don’t know, listening with empathy, generating mutual curiosity, or dialoging about Big T Truths.  This doesn’t happen unless game players somehow experience an emotional state that makes being vulnerable seem wise.  Attacking game players is satisfying but counterproductive. The trick is to get them to tell themselves the truth.

In my own experiements this rarely happens in isolation, but can be achieved in face-to-face group dialogue.

 

*******************************

BTW, my definition of Big T truths: human paradoxes than sound like opposites but are actually two poles that must be balanced in the middle. We balance helping individuals AND the collective, depending on rules AND relationships, and investing in safety AND freedom. For instance, the golden rule “treat others as you wish to be treated,” plots a middle way between my wants and your wants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed Under: Big T Truths, Territorial Games, Truth Tagged With: Annette Simmons, business storytelling, influence, interview techniques narrative, Territorial Games, true stories, Whoever Tells the Best Story Wins

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Next Page »

Storytelling 101

Ray, Rosa, Ted and me sharing dinner and stories.

Stories with a Moral Blueprint – part 8 of 8

May 14, 2020 8:43 am

  We need a Magic School for Storytellers Thirty years before J. K. Rowling created Harry Potter, Ursula Le Guin’s... Read more →

Posted in: Annette's Blog, Big T Truths
BIg T Truths make stories come alive.

Stories with a Moral Blueprint – part 7 of 8

May 13, 2020 7:37 am

  Truth in Storytelling When I wrote the first edition of The Story Factor twenty years ago, I began with the... Read more →

Posted in: Uncategorized
oz

Stories with a Moral Blueprint – part 6 of 8

May 12, 2020 6:48 am

The Moral Dilemmas of a Lion, a Scarecrow, and a Tin Man Frank Baum’s original introduction to The Wizard of... Read more →

Posted in: Annette's Blog, Big T Truths
We need trust to survive and thrive.

Stories with a Moral Blueprint – part 5 of 8

May 11, 2020 8:38 am

  Blueprints for Building Trust Learning to drive was fun until I hit the mailbox. I burst into tears, blaming... Read more →

Posted in: Annette's Blog, Big T Truths
"Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything."

Stories with a Moral Blueprint – Part 4 of 8

May 8, 2020 8:13 am

  Brand Stories: Trust Based on Trustworthy Behaviors Nike has employed corporate storytellers since the 1990s. Their decision to illustrate... Read more →

Posted in: Annette's Blog, Big T Truths

Subscribe to Annette's Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Like us on Facebook:

Like us on Facebook:

Contact Us

Group Process Consulting, LLC
phone: 318.861.9220
email: annette@annettesimmons.com
facebook: www.facebook.com/thestoryfactor

Group Process Consulting, LLC

Group Process Consulting provides keynotes, workshops and personal coaching to CEOs, senior executives, sales staff, fund-raisers – anyone who wants to use stories to motivate groups and/or individuals, via personal interactions or personally delivered presentations.

DIsclaimer, Safe Harbor & IP Notice

click here for details.
© Copyright 2016, Group Process Consulting, All Rights Reserved.
Based on the ·Executive Pro Theme/Genesis Framework by StudioPress · Built using WordPress · Log in