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

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

April 21, 2017 by Annette Simmons 3 Comments

United Airlines: The Nurse Ratched Effect

Can safety becomesa pipeline to express resentment?

Can safety create a pipeline for resentment?

 

I stopped flying United Airlines a while back.  I remember the first time I felt harassed on a United flight. I asked for help lifting my backpack into the overhead. The flight attendant’s lip curled slightly as she said, “I am primarily here for your safety” with a tone that added the unspoken message, “so don’t treat me like a servant.” At the time, I assumed her anger was due to a snowballing series of unpleasant events and my assumptive request felt arrogant to her. It was not immaterial that she was black and I am white. I am active in racial reconciliation work in the Deep South so if race was part of it that makes sense to me.

But I see another pattern fueling tension between United employees and customers that recently led to man-handling a customer. And I’d be interested to hear your thoughts. Like all reality, there are predictable polarities in business – particularly service businesses. One big paradox is:

If the customer is always right… are employees still our most important asset?

I’m guessing United and other airlines adopted the “primarily here for your safety” perspective as a strategy to increase the dignity employees retain if/when customers are unkind. A guardian gets more dignity than a servant so this metaphor shifted the pendulum of empathetic perspective toward employees. And that’s wonderful. We should be taking better care of employees. This has been a long term strategy for United and it explains the CEOs initial solidarity with employees.

Yet the unintended consequence of increasing empathy for employees by characterizing them as guardians first, hosts second, simply shifts the burden to manage physical safety and psychological safety. Attempts to mechanize empathy seem to shift the burden by de-humanizing yet another context where personal attention matters. We are drowning beneath a tsunami of decisions chasing numbers at the expense of personal relationships and it is turning out exactly as you might imagine.

Systems designed to ensure physical safety frequently create a lack of psychological safety. Think Nurse Ratched. Or TSA (much better now). Systems and routines designed to minimize the situational nature of empathy only prevent the situational nature of empathy. Even hospitals enter a dangerous phase when numbers become more important that people. And it’s not restricted to a focus on safety. Last week, I felt harassed by endless phone calls from my car dealer strong arming me into completing a customer satisfaction survey. These poor people seem more incentivized to score satisfaction than deliver it. Competition for good numbers can turn good people into little nazis. We need two forms of measurement: numbers are great but qualitative measures matter too.

Numbers games teach winners to shift expenses and burdens onto losers – in United’s case – customers. Emphasizing physical safety  (measurable) over psychological safety (qualitative) builds autocratic systems that enforce preventative routines based on worst case scenario, root cause analysis, and the ethic of “better safe than sorry.” We can do better. The human need for empathy (and the consequences of empathy denied) will never be designed out of real life. So why not embrace the paradox, pursue safety and good numbers while remembering that the best way to get empathy is to give it.

P. S. Check out my updated audiobook version of The Story Factor on Audible!

Filed Under: Annette's Blog Tagged With: Annette Simmons, business storytelling, empathy, metaphor, paradox, patient experience, patient safety, polarity, safety, storytelling, United, United Airlines, User Experience, UX, Whoever Tells the Best Story Wins

September 16, 2016 by Annette Simmons Leave a Comment

The Story Factor Audiobook: Connecting the Dots 2001-2016

The Story Factor is now updated and available on audible as an audiobook. Fifteen years of perspective and a genius editor (Stephen Brewer) helped me cut it from 13 hours to 5 hours flat. Producers Jay and Michelle from Beyond Measure Media took me into a real studio and monitored sound quality and my energy levels to meet their high standards. I hope you like it.

In the Steve Jobs tradition, I thought I’d “connect the dots” between the obsessive research (you have no idea), designed interventions, and no charge experiments I’d run on any group of volunteers that would let me and the journey that lead to the original  The Story Factor back in 2001.  I was still in grad school when I attended my first National Storytelling Festival in 1994, but it was a long time I realized how important storytelling is or learned enough to describe storytelling as a type of “intervention.”

In fact, The Story Factor was the third book in a series of three intense periods of research and experimentation, design and testing that began with my search to increase authentic collaboration.  In 1994 my mentor Dr. Jim Farr (founding contributor to Center for Creative Leadership) taught me how to deliver learning experiences using transformational self awareness techniques that improved leadership skills by blending soul-deep examination of intent and beliefs in a way that clarified their definition of success and for some, redirected the traectory of their life.  So… the “team building” tools at that time just seemed terribly superficial in comparison to my experiences running these workshops. I was certain I could find a leverage point for self-awareness that would shift the negative emotions wasting time and resources with phrases like “not my job,” or avoided questions with “who wants to know?” I set out to identify what patterns work against team building:  “When, where, how do we reject collaboration and why?”

For instance, in meetings, subtle messages like a stiff tone of voice, raised eyebrows, or strategically insincere agreements erode trust and decrease our desire to collaborate, share information, support, or even to save the game player from drowning down the line.  So the first book, Territorial Games named ten micro-behaviors or repeated patterns from hundreds of executive’s true stories I had recorded and transcribed.  Most answered first with metaphors like turf war, back stabber, silo or the thank-god-its-a-metaphor “pissing contest.” I’d point out the metaphor was not literally true and then ask “so what actually happened?” These true stories revealed a subterranean language of inclusion and exclusion understood across all cultures. My theory was that evolution designed us with insincts a/k/a emotions  that compel us to acquire and protect territory: no longer hunting grounds and watering holes but the intangible territory that helps us survive and thrive: information, relationships, and status.  Therefore a rational, cognitive desire to collaborate was insufficient without vital emotions like trust and faith.

So AMACOM published Territorial Games and give it away as the 1998 membership gift for joining American Management Association. Clients hired me to help plan mergers, de-escalate infighting, and unlock impasse.  The games worked best with funny stories that neutralized defensiveness and increased self awareness. I provided an alternative story for the “who started it?” question to decrease assumptions of malicious or negligence, which is that these emotional behaviors are hardwired by evolution for survival. “If you play these games, it’s okay, its not your fault…but guess what…those people who you think deserve payback?  It’s not their fault either.” This new story increased self-compassion and a reason to monitor behaviors that sent unconscious signals to back off.  For those who are doing it on purpose – the list of games denied them plausible excuses.

Still, there were long term turf wars that would never go away until all the old stories were exposed to each other in a way that created a bigger story than the us/them causing problems.  Back in grad school (1994) I had written my masters thesis on “dialogue,” drawing from organizational learning, systems theory, social psychology, In 1996 I got ahold of David Bohm’s “On Dialogue” and continued my enduring study of anything from Ed Schein on group process. Armed with this understanding, and the crafty little tricks I learned from my mentor, I wrote A Safe Place for Dangerous Truths: Using Dialogue to Overcome Fear and Distrust.  It was an ambitious design for training a group (60 max, although it worked for 90 at least once) to a.) self-regulate by generating personal and group strategies for pre-empting what I’ve come to call “going to the bad place” and b.) shifting expectations to accomodate the feelings of uncertainty and sheer frustration of stretching your brain wide enough to see that everyone has a piece of the same elephant.  In that book is a shapter on Storytelling as one of the “seven basic facilitator skills.” This is the first time I used simple drawings for common group patterns instead of words.  It was a very successful form of visual storytelling even if I was not yet aware of it.

Everytime I facilitated dialogue I took notes to capture as close to a verbatim transcript as I could.  It turned out the “faulty assumptions” groups decided to abandon were basically stories. And every insight a group dsicovered by examining their bigger story required could not spread from that group to the organization without it’s own stories and metaphors. I realized l was an awkward fish swimming in an ocean of stories.  I wrote the The Story Factor to map the currents.

Fifteen years later, I took time to revisit, update and edit the maps in The Story Factor, producing this audiobook as a result. Let me know what you think!

Filed Under: Annette's Blog, Uncategorized Tagged With: Annette Simmons, business storytelling, group process, leadership, metaphor, narrative, storytelling, The Story Factor, Whoever Tells the Best Story Wins

February 17, 2015 by Annette Simmons 12 Comments

The Story Factor – “How to” Series

Sam Thurman’s story is short (5 minutes) and delightful. Please listen to it before reading my comments so you can have the full listener experience. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Finding Stories, The Moth - Storytelling HOW TO Tagged With: Annette Simmons, authenticity, business storytelling, how to, imagery, Japanese most pit, metaphor, Sam Thurman, storytelling, true stories

January 1, 2014 by Annette Simmons Leave a Comment

Episode #11 – Jim Signorelli on Story Branding and Archetypes

Happy 2014!!  One of the best interviews yet!!

Jim Signorelli on Storybranding and Archetypes

jim-signorelliJim Signorelli approaches story using a tried and true process.

“We want to look for joiners rather than buyers.”

After gathering the back story and the facts, they conduct an archetypal analysis asking the team to individually choose the archetype that best represents their brand.

Jim asks each member of the senior management team to choose which archetypes and values best explain their brand. He offers the traditional twelve archetypes developed by Carol Pearson http://www.herowithin.com the warrior, rebel, explorer, magician etc. and asks individuals to choose the  archetype they think captures the brand.

Jim and his team look for overlap and inconsistencies and facilitate the group by letting them figure out: How do we resolve this? Who are we really?

Which Archetypes are the most popular?

websitepodcastgfxJim says the Provider archetype is very popular with insurance, banking, any service organization.  Also popular is the Explorer, for instance a restaurant that is all about finding new tastes and textures. He had a real estate company choose the Outlaw because they think other realtors charge too much and they rebelliously promote the idea that people should “Keep what’s yours.” Their brand included a lot of humor – a good trait of the truly rebellious.

How does he help a client find their Archetype?

Group dialogue and discussion helps the team refine and reconcile the different points of view, ultimately finding the one belief or value that expresses their brand.

Jim Signorelli describes his agency’s archetype as the “regular guy, straight shooter.” I think you will agree.

  • MP3 Download or play thisepisode directly.
  • iTunes Subscribe to The Story Factor Podcast directly in iTunes.
  • RSS Add the podcast to your RSS reader, podcast player or
    manually into iTunes.

Feed link: http://ia601006.us.archive.org/28/items/StoryFactorPodcast011/StoryFactorPodcast011.mp3

 

Filed Under: Podcast Tagged With: Annette Simmons, business storytelling, influence, Jim Signorelli, metaphor, narrative, podcast, story, Story Branding, Story Factor podcast, story lab, Storybranding, storytelling

  • 1
  • 2
  • Next Page »

Storytelling 101

Once sprayed stink forever.

Ten Games 8. Discrediting Game

February 8, 2019 10:07 am

Discrediting Game “He would sometimes use humor to put him down. He’d make comments like ‘Well let’s stay strategic here,’... Read more →

Posted in: Annette's Blog, Big T Truths
"Come on in" said the spider to the fly.

Ten Games People Play to Control Truth (7)

December 13, 2018 10:33 am

Invisible Walls Game “He would use the bureaucracy. He would tie things up in bureaucracy. He knew how to make... Read more →

Posted in: Big T Truths, Uncategorized
Let me lull you into a false sense of security. You are feeling sle-e-epy.

Ten Games People Play to Control Truth (6)

November 19, 2018 11:29 am

Strategic Non-Compliance “There was clearly an executive who would ‘roger up’ on everything but then do his own thing. He... Read more →

Posted in: Uncategorized
Weasel words distort truth.

Ten Games People Play to Control Truth (5)

November 12, 2018 10:08 am

  Information Manipulation Game Tweak the numbers and you tweak the decision.  Edit video and you edit context. Control the... Read more →

Posted in: Uncategorized
wildgoodchase

Ten Games People Play to Control Truth (4 of 10)

November 6, 2018 6:05 am

Camouflage Game (Wild Goose Chase) The new forms of this game have the potential to twist truth in ways that... 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