This post will be a little bit more “roaming through knowledge” than the usual.
Actually, it is part of a series, first published in May 2009.
But, following the dictum of somebody else, I will make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.
What is the point? Talking about ways of representing and forecasting the expected decisions of groups and individuals, and some projects that try to build a “model” of what we are and could be- be it our DNA or our brain.
And, while doing this, recalling some useful concepts that you can apply in whatever you do in your business and personal life- including when you are on the receiving end of the results of a model.
As usual- theory is converted into (hopefully) plain English, and the examples are from real life and experience in business, politics, technology- and their impact on personal and business life.
PREVIOUSLY
GMN2009: PLAYING
Moving from designing the game to using the game implies adding a completely different set of skills.
You will need to learn how to manage the evolution of the dynamics between the players- be it a simple game, a real negotiation, the management of a major organizational change, a merger, or a political campaign.
Playing games implies being able to constantly feed back into your game the results of what you are doing.
From designing the game, we will move to evolution- something that is not necessarily following your strategy- but that you have to cope with.
GMN2009: SCRIPTING
When you create a story, you have roles.
And every role, has a script that is consistent with the role.
The behavior has to be consistent with:
- game
- execution of the game
- expectations from anybody you interact with
But the interesting part is: if you properly define the roles, you can script also the expected behavior of other participants without their knowledge.
From the concept of “script”, to the definition of roles and their interaction in real-life situations, a needed addition to the discussion about models, change, planning and all the associated activities.
If you are planning a change, you need to define a way manage the dynamics of the organization during change: you need a script.
If you are building a model of your target reality, you need to define how to get there- your script.
And every team is composed (hopefully) of people.
Each one covering a role.
And operating according to a set framework of rules and interactions. A script.
Switch on your TV. Watch the news. Watch the unfolding of events: legions of professionals work so that everything goes according to plan, from communicating the new tax increase so that people do not complain too much, to your favorite “reality TV” show. Script.
In my view, a script is a structure to outline the unfolding of the interaction between team members, for the benefit of their audience (the stakeholders).
A plan, you would say. No.
Because a plan charts mainly the time and resources between specific points, but tells nothing about what you expect from the people involved, on how they are going to behave/interact, how they are going to “play their game” (see GMN2009: PLAYING and GMN2009: GAMES).
I have a huge advantage: before entering the ICT consulting in mid-1980s, during my childhood I was tagging along with my father (a professional actor) and helping him while he was learning his script.
My role? Giving him the lines immediately before his own, and eventually I read each script end-to-end, and discussed also the general “feeling” or structure of each script.
Well balanced, or with some roles just sketched, and discussed about acting theory, preparation, scriptwriting, directing, light, public, stage, logistics, people, and so on.
So, here I was, reading for entertainment Plato’s Republic before I completed the elementary school, and then moving onto others.
Including, of course, at about 11 or 12, Book I of “Das Kapital”, in Italian, and some other books on the role of intellectuals and communication, like part of Gramsci “Diari dal carcere”, where he was passing through the shredder (Italian) journalists and the wisdom of the masses (”popol bue”) that had given enough support to a former director of the socialist newspaper to have him nominated Prime Minister.
What have in common all these books and theatre? That the “audience” attention has to be captured somehow.
Do you use scripts? I think that more people uses scripts in the real world (business and not) than what is normally considered.
Some of the best “spontaneous” events are carefully built scripts.
As described above, probably you too “script” reality- not in a completely deterministic was as in theatre or movies, but using something closer to charting your way through a partially known desert, looking for points of reference that will let the next “act” of your “play” unfold.
I already wrote my skepticism about my fellow consultants who generate a buzzword or new “cool” chart every year- often simply rehashing something existing into a slightly different package, so that they too can have their own market for a new “product”.
If you worked with me, you know that I am quite pragmatic and refuse to re-invent the wheel.
So, instead of creating my own “paradigm shift theory”, let’s see some lessons from creative scriptwriting
First, I will get back to who is probably the “fons et origo” of all the theories about script writing, Aristotle, notably his “Poetics” (for free here as a text, or as MP3).
But most important of all is the structure of the incidents.
For Tragedy is an imitation, not of men, but of an action and of life, and life consists in action, and its end is a mode of action, not a quality.
Now character determines men’s qualities, but it is by their actions that they are happy or the reverse.
Dramatic action, therefore, is not with a view to the representation of character: character comes in as subsidiary to the actions.
Hence the incidents and the plot are the end of a tragedy; and the end is the chief thing of all.
I will get back to this quote- for the time being, instead of commenting, I will move to somebody else, Syd Field, whose book on “The Foundations of screenwriting” I read (and re-read) long ago (see his website for a tutorial on his approach).
The ideas expressed by Aristotle (actually, read it: it is but a couple of dozen of pages, but still worth reading) and restructured by Syd Field are simple but direct: you script around and toward the incidents that are the source of the evolution of the script.
Just building a script around a “main actor” will get you what I remember was called “prova d’attore” (an actor/actress giving proof of her/his acting skills).
Something I can still appreciate when they are stages as they should be- monologues.
But that can generate some farcical effects when converted into movies or full-blown staging, with all the other roles reduced to shadows, to avoid outshining the only role that has really build tailored on the “mattatore” (I will translate this in Spanish: “Matador”- because in this case actually the audience is compared to bulls slaughtered by the impressive performance).
Is this a digression? Yes and no. Because I saw way too many cases where some team leaders behaved as a “mattatore”, constantly putting people on edge- as if the purpose of the team wasn’t to do something, but to let the star shine.
The “paradigm wordsheet” that Syd Field designed is useful not only if you feel that you have an unexpressed urge to become the next Shakespeare.
I planned in a similar (but less structured) way my presentations when, in my early 20s, I was doing also pre-sales on DSS/EIS.
Of course, sometimes you do not have three acts (begin, development, end) and two incidents (mid-way in the first act and mid-way in the last act), plus the central “pivotal” moment at the middle of the second act.
Incidentally: sorry to my British readers for the “pivotal” tongue-in-check reference- I can resist anything but the temptation 
If you read again the previous four phrases (including the apologies), you will notice something: I am writing about scripting, but I am only writing about something that happens.
And this is the point.
If you deliver a presentation, your role as a presenter is to let the subject of your presentation shine, not yourself- notably when you are trying to sell something…
Because roles matter only within the environment that you set in your script.
You define the framework, and then you can fit the roles.
Try to do the other way around, and you will either end up with a weak script (the storyline does not match the roles), or you will dramatically alter the storyline.
That’s also why writing for readers or the stage requires a completely different set of skills from writing for the visual audience.
The environment and its own rules are forcing a structure on the story and the roles.
Therefore, once you have identified how you would like the story by itself to develop, you can then select the roles
Whatever the purpose of your script, I will assume that you will have an audience that you want to reach.
Therefore, we can now wave goodbye to Aristotle and Hollywood, and move onto the use of scripting in the real-world, directly through the interaction between roles and part of the audience, or by “staging” roles for an audience that is just an observer.
If you can, choose roles that are meaningful and supporting to what you want to achieve with the script delivery.
For example: it is fine to invite somebody famous to talk to your staff- but if that is relevant to your message/corporate culture, not just to show that you provide them “panem et circenses” (food and shows).
Usually, you want to have your team motivated, not just to avoid unrest, as it was in Ancient Rome with the games etc.
Moreover, the roles are to be balanced, to deliver a unified message- add too many “stars”, and they will naturally focus on outshining each other.
If you are designing the script from scratch, for a new activity, then, you can build the story following an approach that I used with startups.
My first step is talking with the leading member of the founders, or try to build a consensus around one of them to become the “primus inter pares” (the first among his peers).
Basically, an election.
Why? Because I like the democratic approach to management- when applicable. Our legal system is not built for democracy on the work-place: at least, not yet.
CEO, COO, CFO, CIO: all roles that represent a vertical hierarchy of responsibility.
Therefore, once the, say, CEO, is identified, you discuss and define the “storyline”- my approach is: a 5 minutes speech that conveys the message on what is going to be the company.
In some cases, written as a roadmap, and then re-written as it should be five years from now, to help the CEO in building a mindset that looks for the “big picture”.
If you define the story, then it is time to design the roles
Continuing with the startup: usually, I had to assess who would be involved in this script called “startup” (no, not the movie- but that gives you a good idea).
Because in any startup, moreover between friends, what happens often is that you have more people willing to join if it costs nothing and they have just talk about the commitment, not deliver it.
And, for the sake of (personal) goodwill, often the CEO is tempted to coopt his/her friends.
More than a business, it becomes an extension of a social event (and it is managed as such).
What happens next? If you do not control which roles are added to the “script”, you end up altering the storyline to fit all the people.
Actually, like in some fiction books and most recent movies… the story is killed by the roles.
Aristotle still holds true: “Dramatic action, therefore, is not with a view to the representation of character: character comes in as subsidiary to the actions.”
Therefore, the next step is viewing the roles, before assigning each role to specific people, and do a simple exercise: profiling each role.
I will let you go online and search all the material on profiling, also because there are not-so-subtle differences between different “schools”.
My approach is much simpler:
- Look at the storyline.
- Identify the way that it should unfold to fulfill the requirements of the stakeholders (see GMN2009: CHANGE)
- Create a draft profile of the roles needed for to contribute toward the achievement of the goals
- Check if the storyline still holds, or change the profiles to allow a communication dynamics that support the goals, avoiding to add unneeded layers of complexity
The key issue is the consistency: does not matter is you select a role after receiving a “suggested actor” in your team, or if you design the role and select the right person for that role.
You have to see the role as a dynamic conflict with the storyline. And keep the “how the role thinks and acts” consistent.
Because the role is represented by a character with a personality.
It is what is called depth
Well, in my activity, more than once, also when I had barely started working, I had to interview candidates for positions.
And what often puzzles me is how people get carried away with their lying.
It starts with some self-serving “increase” in the scope of the activities that they really did.
And then that becomes that starting point, to add more. And more. And more.
No wonder that an agent here in Brussels tried to convince me to add on my CV some different wording for my skills, so that she could send my CV to a customer… for something that I never did.
On the flip side- there is enough in my CV, that last Summer from Switzerland I received the forward of a message that declared that my CV was fake :@ Without even bother to contact me.
How do you recognize when a role lacks depth? When it frankly is not really relating with the other roles.
Because this role has nothing to contribute to the integration between the roles
If you properly defined the behavior of each role within the storyline, then it is time to verify that also the roles integrate with each other.
Moving to a business case.
If you get a budget for a project that lasts, say, one year or more, and that is paid not by the time spent by people working on the activities, but by the results produced, beware.
As a project manager on behalf of partner, I lost count of how many time I had to defend the budget from the assaults of my partners that, whenever they had somebody in the office, asked to use (or simply sent) somebody completely useless on the project.
Why? To drain on the budget instead of being on the payroll
The issue is not simply to have people sitting idle- is that, to avoid demotivating the others, you have to create tasks for them, and integrate them within the team, including in the communication processes.
As discussed in GMN2009: PLAYING, the way you manage the interactions is strictly dependent on the proper definition of some basic rules that govern whatever “game” you are up to.
For example: if you have a team of say 6 people, and add a newly hired junior that has no experience and did not get through any preliminary training activity, your team is not composed of 7 people. Or 6.5. If you are lucky, 5.75 to 5.5 is closer to reality.
Because, unless you close the poor new member into a room with a screen (not the best way to improve the skills of a newly hired), (s)he will start asking support to every other member of the team. And, having plenty of time available, the effective cost to your project will depend on how extrovert the person is.
Get the party organizer, and you risk having a 7 people team that is busy organizing parties and lunches and other extracurricular activities, whenever the pressure subside.
So… do not ask for more people, unless you know how which role they will play in your storyline, and how they will interact with the others.
I am ignoring the last obvious point: and unless you can define that the person matches a profile that you need.
Because the idea is to manage/lead resources, and maybe coach them into becoming better at what they do or develop new skills.
Obtaining the ideal resource is a shared dream, but has to cope with reality.
And reality is: you get the resources that are available and that, more or less, match the profile that you built for each role- they do not create the resources for you.
But an important issue is monitoring the mutual influence between the members of your team (or cast of actors, if you prefer).
If your script is highly structured, you are giving them limited degrees of freedom.
A sensible choice, if you are doing some one-off event of limited duration, like the opening ceremony of a major convention, as the sheer logistics of having 10,000 people running around the stage requires perfect synchronization, not free will.
But if you are doing something that lasts longer, maintaining compliance to a structured script requires building layer upon layer of delegation (depending on the size of your team).
If you want, have a look at the opening scene of “Gladiator”, when they are fighting in the forest.
See the different between the well scripted but not so rigid Romans and their opponents: you clearly see the benefits.
Remember a side-effect: unless your team includes professional actors or speakers or politicians… a “broad brushes” script is better than a complex script that requires to each role-players to remember 300 different possibilities on how to carry out something.
For example: if I had been given the power to structure the team for a convention (usually instead I was just a more or less senior consultant on an activity organized by somebody else), I would have done what often is forgotten:
- check which audience should be expected to drop by
- identify what would be the focus of our presence
- build the main script, describing the general roles and the interaction between the roles
- build a script for each “position” (or product, service, etc) that you want to be able to illustrate
- clearly assign to each member of the team a dual role: focused on one of the scripts, and sharing the main script
The concept? Avoid that somebody tries to explain/present something that (s)he does not know, just to turning away a potentially interested party.
Not only whoever receives an unprofessional explanation/presentation will be unsatisfied, but will have a negative image on the company as a whole.
So, you can that scripting is not really just for actors.
When I was a kid, I remember that most of the acting theories that I discussed with my father focused on a dual role: actors on stage, audience off-stage, more or less passively watching events unfolding on stage.
Some brave souls recovered concepts that came from the “Commedia dell’Arte” and also the theatre of Shakespeare.
The public is not in front of you- is all around you. And you interact also with the public.
Sometimes it is farcical. But usually the audience appreciates the involvement (also if it is highly structured- so that the degrees of freedom given to the public are limited).
If you really involve the interaction with the public into a scripted event- you lose control.
The trick used in theatre is to contextualize: add roles for your public within your script, based on how you expect that they would react.
As an example: when I was working in pre-sales on business intelligence and decision support systems, my approach was to contact whoever knew the customer/prospect, and ask information about the customer, who was going to attend, and so on.
In a commercial situation, this is acceptable- at worse, I had to call myself, and ask them information to better understand their needs.
But sometimes somebody had already called, and talked about sport, instead of collecting information; calling again would have been awkward. Therefore, the only real option was to insert this Q&A within the presentation.
I customized just the title and maybe prepared in my mind some potential example to discuss, not do to. Everything was really tightly scripted- including the pauses to ask questions, and the “diversions” to bring the customer back to the beaten track that I had so carefully scripted.
If you want, my script involved also the customer as an unknow actor.
While presenting, I did my best to look at the audience, to perceive the dynamics and identify key issues.
And this “scripting the unknown” approach was quite useful, in few cases, but there is one that I like to remember.
While in Paris, I had to go with the CEO of my customer in Madrid for two presentations with major customers, as at the time English was what my own French colleagues and customers called “Franglais” (French with English words pronounced the French way).
My mother tongue is Italian, but at the time I had no clue about Spanish. I had eight years of Latin and French in school-partially useful, with Spanish.
I started delivering my presentation- and I understood that one of the members of the audience was translating in Spanish.
So, I offered to slow it down and give pauses when needed (do not run at 200 words per minute for five minutes, if you have an interpreter!).
But then, I heard that a concept had not been translated correctly, and I offered them to ask any question that they had in Spanish, and I would reply in English and Spanish.
Well, the dynamic of the presentation changed completely. But the script stayed the same.
And the audience was really part of the script.
After the presentation, the CEO of my customer said: you did not tell me that you speak Spanish. I replied: I myself did not know it until today.
The secret? When you script, consider also key points that you can return to if the flow is broken.
And try to convert any “distraction” into a logical introduction to your next point.
Personally, I either build “Q&A” points or allow free-ranging questions, moreover in a commercial, or brainstorming, or critical presentation.
Why? Because otherwise you risk losing part of the audience, that will keep listening to everything you say through the question that they thought ten minutes before, and still has no answer.
If you are in a meeting, not a presentation, scripting the unknown becomes even more important.
In this case use the broad brushes approach to scripting your own position.
When you start adopting this mindset, it is relatively easy to link any meeting or presentation to your “stock of pre-written arguments”, that you are able to quickly logically connect with any point that is discussed.
But so far we discussed the scripting of a specific event.
Even more important is the scripting about scripting, or, following again somebody else: metascripting.
NEXT
After scripting event-by-event, you will probably identify the need of some structure of reference.
So that each scripting is linked to a common, shared “way of scripting” that you adopt in your own organization (or for your 20-volume “novel”).
But this scripting about scripting, or metascripting, represents the environment that defines, identify, and justify your activities.
When does it make sense to script? How does scripting link with the model that you built for your reality?
And, finally, how do you represent everything together, and evolve your models, including the scripting rules that are contained within the models?
Tags: actor, aristotle, character, depth, field, game, gmn2009, metascripting, planning, poetics, role, screenwriting, scripting, scriptwriting, stage, storyline, syd