CHARACTER BEFORE DIALOGUE Before you communicate, know who you are

by Kieran Flanagan @ThinkKieranF @TheBehaviourRpt #Communication #Brand #PresentationSkills #PersonalBrand #Leadership

A friend of mine is a screenwriter in Hollywood, but before moving to the land of swimming pools and movie stars, we had worked together in the Advertising industry.

One evening, overlooking Los Angeles by the pool at his home just beneath the Hollywood sign, we got to talking about the similarities between developing a character and dialogue for a screenplay and communication and branding.

I spend a great deal of my time helping people all around the world develop their personal brands and communication and presentation skills, and it turns out, there is a lot of overlap with how a block buster movie is created.

Character and communication

People often struggle with communication - both 1:1 and 1:Many. In fact, Jerry Seinfeld once quipped that at a funeral, “most people would rather be in the casket than delivering the eulogy.”

One of the reasons people find communication so difficult is that we are so focussed on “what” we say that we pay no attention to being clear about “who” we are being. Cancel culture has only amplified this behaviour.

However, if I were to ask you to deliver a line that you might expect from a well known character from fiction - be it Darth Vader, Alice’s Mad Hatter or Disney’s Cruella de Vil, I’m sure most of you could deliver a line or two that would at least approach the essence of the character. But if I asked you to deliver a two minute message to your team on a critical issue, you might struggle.

The reason for this struggle is that “your character” is poorly defined. It sounds odd, but you just don’t know enough about yourself to communicate or “play” your character as effectively as a character from fiction!

Character and brand

This is equally true when communication shifts to 1:Market or 1:Community. In fact, brands and personal brands that have poorly defined characters struggle to stand out and be heard. They also suffer from the pursuit of fads and association with popular causes rather than building deep relationships and genuine connections.

In fact, a strong brand character should actually cost you customers - and people! However, it will also create a deeper sense of loyalty in the people that you truly want.

What’s more, it makes creating brand content and communication so much easier - you start to hear your brand’s voice in your head, and your brand character serves to guide your decisions and shape your culture.

You-nique share-ability

Using character to inform and drive the three functions of 1:1:Many:Market, allows you to build an easily referable and recommended reputation as well. Human beings are attracted to clarity and congruence and we tend to advocate for people and brands rather than their associated products or services - which may not have any functional advantage.

I call this your “You-nique-ness.” Your character is a function of what makes you… you!. Not only does this make establishing your character simple (not necessarily easy), it also makes consistency of communication more fluid and less contrived.

Creating your character

In the film industry, they use character mapping or character breakdowns to establish a short-hand reference for who a character is as well as what they look like, how they speak and how they behave. I do the same when I’m working with leaders and aspiring leaders on their communication, presentation skills and personal brand.

Here’s a few things I borrowed from the world of screen writing to consider:

1. How does your character look? How do they dress? Is anything about them visually distinctive? How do they walk and carry themselves?

2. What is your character’s personality? Are you cheeky, funny, a hero, an outlaw or villain?

3. What are your character’s behavioural traits? What behaviours or mnemonics do you want your character to be noted for? This might be something you always do, such as always starting with a question for the room, or else a physical quirk, such as Columbo’s last minute thought as he leaves a room, “Oh, ah… one more thing sir…”

4. What is your character’s motivation? How does your WHY show up in your WHO, WHAT and HOW?

5. What is your character’s back story? In other words, how does what you have done and who you have been both explain the character you have and shape the way your character communicates and behaves.

Developing situational dialogue

Finally, when you come to writing brand content or thinking about your personal communication, instead of becoming lost in what you think you should say or do, rather, consider how your character would behave and communicate in the situation you find yourself in - Vader was clearly a villain who led by intimidation, but he still found a moment to be a dad (albeit a bad one) when the situation presented itself.

THE WEAKNESS IN OUR STRENGTHS Why playing only to our strengths is not enough for performance & success

by Dan Gregory @DanGregoryCo @TheBehaviourRpt #Culture #Performance #Change #Leadership

In my early twenties, I worked in the advertising industry and I was pretty good at it, early doors. Within the first six months in the industry I had won the top creative award in the country and a few more besides - just to make sure my narcissistic ego was supercharged.

What made me good at my job was my strategic intelligence, a sharp wit and a knack for headline writing, having modelled my craft on the likes of Tom McElligott in the US and Tim Delaney and Richard Forster in the UK.

I’d played to my strengths and I’d had some quick wins. However, the success I craved still eluded me, and others (who I considered less talented than myself), were achieving gigs and goals that I coveted. What the hell was going on?

I soon realised that my strengths were not enough to reach the heights to which I aspired and that I’d probably have to take a look at my weaknesses (which I had been assiduously avoiding).

So why might playing to our strengths alone be a fraught strategy?

1. Strengths are non-binary

We tend to think of our strengths and weaknesses as being binary - strengths are good, weaknesses are bad. However, that is only occasionally the case as a change in the environment, or in cultural norms, can render what was a strength either inappropriate or indeed a new weakness. 

The “charge” attached to a strength or weakness can also change over time. For example. what was once funny can become desperately unfunny over multiple exposures - just ask any dad whose children have shifted from endearing giggles to withering eye rolls.

2. Strengths are contextual

This might seem obvious but it is often forgotten in the pursuit of performance. 

Sure, Aquaman is a super hero, but if you’re falling out of a multi-storey window, talking to the fishes isn’t going to be much use to you. 

This was perhaps demonstrated most shockingly in the experiments of psychologists from the Situationist School, such as Zimbardo and Milgrim, where diligence and conscientiousness can easily translate to cold-blooded compliance.

3. Strengths can be category generic

In a room filled with carpenters, being good with a hammer is generic in the field. A room filled with accountants finds no exceptionalism in being able to use a spreadsheet. And of course, all lawyers are ubiquitously evil.* 

So, if you want to stand out in your field, it’s unlikely to be found in your strengths and much more likely to be linked to an unrelated skill or factor, and perhaps, even a weakness. Weakness can actually equal uniqueness. Seinfeld’s “Soup Nazi” delivered terrible customer service (a weakness) but it was so bad it made a visit a “must do experience” (transforming it into a strength).

4. Strengths amplify cognitive biases

The truth is, the maxim of playing to your strengths is entirely unneeded. No one needs to be told to play to their strengths, we do it automatically, willingly, enthusiastically. Essentially, we want it to be true! So, we tend to lean on our strengths pretty heavily and it’s no surprise. They make us feel good. We feel competent. What’s more, people praise us for our capability. 

Of course, there is another maxim that warns us, “When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” The problem is, our “hammer” isn’t much use when we’re trying to change a light bulb.

5. In solo pursuits, weaknesses cannot be delegated (or outsourced)

Imagine I’m an Olympic swimmer (this will require some creativity). The thing is, while I might be incredible at the swimming bit, I could be hopeless at diving off the blocks and it costs me critical seconds. You will never hear the announcer over the pool loudspeakers saying, “Representing Australia in the 50 metres freestyle is Dan Gregory - but he’s crap at the dive, so coming off the blocks will be Michelle, his VA from the Phillipines…” 

This notion was illustrated to me brilliantly while chatting with a friend of mine, world surfing champion Layne Beachley. Layne revealed that early in her career she had walked on her toes for a year to rectify a weakness that had been costing her the number one spot in global rankings. This “transformed weakness” was the missing piece to her later dominance and winning 7 world championships.

6. Strengths offer little performance uplift

This is perhaps the most critical argument for not playing to your strengths exclusively. You might be a carpenter who is a 9 out of 10 at swinging a hammer, but a 2 out of 10 with a saw - the opportunity to lift your total performance lies in sharpening your saw technique.

A friend of mine once shared that his daughter was an artist - that was her strength and he wanted her to lean in to it. We chatted about the cliché of the “starving artist,” and I suggested that while she should definitely lean into her art, she might do well by studying business and personal branding as, to the artistically-uneducated eye who might be buying her art, reputation was more easily understood than the aesthetics of her personal painting style.

Of course, some of these functions could be outsourced to other professionals, however, an understanding of them is critical for personal success and, let’s face it, for not getting ripped off.

Coming back to the personal story I started to share at the top of this article - my pursuit of ego-affirming success.

My weakness was presenting. Actually, to call it a weakness is rather to understate things. To be fair, my weakness was talking to people in general. I once had a former client ask my business partner Kieran if I was on the autism spectrum - within my hearing I should add.

The solution? Three and a half years touring on the global stand up comedy circuit as a professional comedian where I became bullet-proof on stage.

Here’s the thing, my strength - strategic intelligence, didn’t diminish. However, my weakness became an asset. So much so that I now travel the world working as a professional speaker with a reputation for making keynote speeches (which are essentially a lecture on psychology), entertaining, and for being able to bring a tough audience to life.

Here’s the rub:

By all means, play to your strengths when and where they serve you - this article isn't about ignoring or rejecting your strengths. But for true performance uplift and overall success, learn to also “work your weakness!”

* My little sister is a lawyer - this is a shout out to her 😂

WHY TRUST BEATS TRUTH How a post truth world makes trust more important

by Kieran Flanagan @ThinkKieranF @TheBehaviourRpt #Communication #Brand #Leadership

Let me preface this post by stating that I am not making the case that truth isn’t important or not valuable. Simply that it is getting harder and harder to identify the facts amongst the fictions, and therefore, truth is no longer enough to build trust in your communication, brand or leadership.

So, what happened to the truth?

Trust Decay

The past couple of decades have seen an incredible decrease in our trust in our institutions, of commercial organisations and even our communities, and a correlating rise in cynicism and even nihilism - and with good reason.

Politicians across the spectrum have been publicly outed as liars, cheats and criminals, financial corporations revealed to be corrupt and economically reckless, religious institutions found guilty of terrorism and child abuse, children’s entertainers exposed as paedophiles, celebrities have been cancelled, police have been implicated in systemic racism, our war heroes accused of war crimes and it turns out our parents - let’s call them Santa and The Tooth Fairy - lied about EVERYTHING! 

Distrust, is actually, the logical conclusion to life in the 21st Century! 

However, this trust decay is also being amplified by:

Black and White Thinking

Now, this has nothing to do with racism, although that is often an outcome, it is more to do with our belief that, “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.” In other words, it is our belief-based tribalism that sets us up in opposition with other members of our community.

We become more convinced by our own rightness (and even righteousness), as social media algorithms feed our own biases back to us as factoids, whilst devaluing dissenting views and opinions as flawed and even improper. 

Just look at any conversation between two people you used to consider close friends just a few years ago about the subject of COVID and vaccines - two words that are so divisive they attract fact-checker bots like they’re Taylor Swift tickets!

Consequently, we are becoming less good at entertaining views outside our own, or even in acknowledging their right to exist. Again, this manifests across the spectrum with tribal divisions stretching across culture, politics, race, religion and even what is considered funny (or in most cases, considered not funny - I’m looking at you Dave Chapelle & Jimmy Carr).

This mode of thinking makes finding agreement and consensus between opinions extremely difficult. 

Where there are no shades of grey and when compromise is seen as weakness or loss, the only alternative is distrust of the truth of the “other.”

Media Bias, Deep Fakes & False Narratives

This may be the defining trust-breaking factor of our time.

In a world where different media platforms are censoring free speech they (or regulators) disagree with, where one side shouts “fake news” while the other sites “false narratives,” we find ourselves in a world we’re information and intelligence is impressibly democratised and ubiquitous as at no other time in history, but simultaneously untrustworthy, and therefore devalued.

Complicating things further, is the rise of Deep Fake AI technology that can map a face (often that of Tom Cruise) onto someone else’s, sample a snippet of your voice from an online social post and create a fake message of such quality that it can fool a member of your own family. 

How long will it be before digitally-native school children can actually provide video evidence and convincing parental testimony of a dog digesting their homework.

Discerning the truth amongst the lies has become so difficult, it might well be considered impossible.

The Fragility of Trust

Finally, It’s a cliché, albeit an accurate one, but “Trust is built over years and lost in seconds.”

In other words, even though my argument is that “Trust beats Truth,” it is itself vulnerable to the same threats that truth is currently facing.

What this all means is that in a post-truth world, as we are constantly being told we are living in, trust is our greatest currency.

So, how do we establish, build and maintain trust?

1. Share The Inconvenient Truth - No Al Gore, this is not about you, it’s about vulnerability. It’s about sharing a truth so personal that it puts you at some kind of risk - even if it’s only reputational risk. This has always been a precursor to trust. In fact, it’s why gossip exists in human societies - we share intimacies with each other, so we have something “on” each other - and trust ensues. So, don’t just tell the truth, tell a truth that makes you a little uncomfortable.

2. Fight for a gain that is not your own - When you argue for a cause that you personally benefit from, establishing trust is difficult. However, when the case you’re presenting does not benefit you, or might even cost you, you become more worthy of trust. After all, why would you lie?

3. Mea Culpa - A latin phrase that translates as, “In my fault.” It's an admission of apology or remorse that usually manifests as a public declaration that, “I was at fault.” One of the most interesting facts about the psychology of trust, is that we are more likely to trust someone who has faltered, admitted their error and apologised, than one who has never been found with a fault.

CULTURES OF THE WILLING How engagement drives performance (and vice versa)

by Dan Gregory @DanGregoryCo @TheBehaviourRpt #Culture #Performance #Leadership

A number of years ago I was working with a military consortium on an innovation project. I could tell you what we were working on, but then I’d have to kill you.

Now, to set the scene, a military consortium is usually a group of 20-30 ex-military men (and it’s always just men). As you might imagine, when group of ex-military men get together in a room, there’s a lot of posturing goes on - Who’s the biggest… Who’s the toughest… That kind of thing. (Fortunately, I watched a lot of Jean Claude Van Damme movies as a kid, so I think I held my own!)

As this was going on, a door at the back of the room opened and an older gent in chinos and a polo shirt entered the room, and the posturing stopped. The bragging stopped. The BS stopped. 

It was immediately obvious to me that a real leader had entered the room. So, I said to the ex-special forces guy I was talking to, “Who’s that?” He responded, “That’s Maj. Gen. Jim Molan. He’s a legend.”

Before his recent passing, Jim Molan had served as an Australian Senator, but before that, he had been an Allied Commander during the war in Afghanistan working with troops from Australia, Afghanistan, Canada, Great Britain, Poland and the United States.

Later that day, we had a conversation about leadership and I asked him what it was like to lead an organisation of people from different backgrounds, ethnicities, values, religions and military disciplines. He praised his team stating that he had led the most highly trained, most well resourced and most disciplined workforce on the planet - and it had been his honour to serve with them. 

Then he looked me in the eye and asked, “What kind of people do you command!”

I said, “Creative people.”

He looked and me with eyes that said, “You poor bastard!”

Here’s the thing, Jim Molan knew that if he ever gave any of his people an order, they would snap to attention and say, “Sir. Yes sir.” If I was ever to give my people anything resembling an order, they would tell me to go and do something to myself that might be a little more enjoyable if another participant was involved! 

I think we all know what that kind of leadership feels like.

Today, leadership is less about command and control, or hierarchy, or even positional authority, and much more about how we create cultures of the voluntary, of the enthusiastic of the engaged.

What’s more, Cultures of the Willing also outperform those who are not engaged.

Engagement = Performance

If you’ve ever read one of Gallup’s Global Workforce Engagement reports, you’ll know that workforce engagement is pretty dire - roughly half of the global workforce is NOT engaged in the work they do, with a further 20-ish percent ACTIVELY disengaged. And this may even be a false positive, as though many may hate their jobs, they still need them!

However, what is often missed is the fact that organisations with a highly engaged culture are more productive, more profitable and even have customer satisfaction ratings much higher than the norm. In other words, not only does an engaging culture lift performance internally, it also drives market reputation and performance.

The other thing that people often miss is the fact that this is an equation - which means it works both ways. In other words:

Performance also equals Engagement

This means engagement and performance are a virtuous cycle where one feeds the other. 

So, how does this work in practice? Allow me to explain through a personal story.

I was raised in a very musical family. My mother was a former child prodigy who won the national eisteddfod (and many others in piano, cello, musicianship and theory). Consequently, she made sure my siblings and I all started piano lessons before we were even old enough for school. Once we had achieved a certain competency in piano, we were then allowed to add another instrument to our repertoire. I chose guitar.

Later at university, I earned some spending money working as a guitar teacher. However, I chose a very different method of teaching to the one I had learned by.

Usually, kids will be taught simple songs like, “Three blind mice,” or “Frère Jacques” that are easy to play but desperately boring and uninspiring. If you’re the parent of a child learning to play, you know how hard it is to love them while they’re playing that crap.

I thought, “Screw that!”

Whenever a young kid came to me to learn, I would ask what their favourite band and song was. For instance, I was teaching in Sydney’s Western suburbs during the early 1990s, and “Westie” kids love metal. One young man told me he was obsessed with Metallica and the song, “Master of puppets.” Now, any guitarist can tell you, this is not an easy piece to play and certainly not a typical place to start your guitar playing career.

However, without teaching him any theory or even what the names of the notes he was playing, I taught him where to put his fingers and which strings to strum - phrase by phrase, note by note - a tiny piece at a time, week by week.

Within a few weeks, his Mother approached me and said, “What are you doing to my child?” Which admittedly looks quite bad in print without context!

She revealed that with his former teacher, she had had to force him to complete even 5 minutes of practice (usually just before his lesson), but now she had to drag him away from his guitar to come to dinner at night.

In other words, his performance increased his engagement and his engagement increased his performance. 

He was more likely to practice and more interested in music theory, simply because I had created competence beyond his capability - which then increased his passion for his playing.

So, how might we create performance-lifting engagement in our cultures?

1. Inspire - Do more than simply telling people what to do. Demonstrate why you want them to do it, but even more importantly, show them who you are helping them to become in the process.

2. Invite - Allow your team to co-create solutions and strategy with you. When they help to create it, they feel greater ownership of it and they work the strategy harder.

3. Interest - Make sure that the work you perform is intellectually challenging and talent stretching. This means allowing your people to reach beyond their current beliefs and perceived limits.

4. Influence - Stack the odds in your favour by creating a behavioural bias towards success, and just as importantly, away from failure. In other words, create systems, contexts and environments that make performance (and therefore engagement), more easily achievable.