the good life
Anyone who has visited this blog more than a couple of times may have sensed my tremendous reverence for Sir Ken Robinson’s speech at the TED 2006 conference in California. A few months ago, JK Rowling delivered another wonderfully inspiring speech at a graduation ceremony at Harvard. This address by the Harry Potteress, if you will, comes extremely close to evoking the resonance created in me by Robinson.
Their themes are similar in part. The overlap lies in their descriptions of how people are typically held back from finding their talents. Robinson talks of how kids are often pushed in to doing things that they are not designed to do. This detracts from their uniqueness and leads to the feeling of having failed from within – no matter how successful they may appear to be from the outside.
JK Rowling speaks of her own experience as a mother in a financially dire situation who finally found the courage required to live her life with authenticity: She said: “So why do I talk about the benefits of failure? Simply because failure meant a stripping away of the inessential. I stopped pretending to myself that I was anything other than what I was, and began to direct all my energy into finishing the only work that mattered to me. Had I really succeeded at anything else, I might never have found the determination to succeed in the one arena I believed I truly belonged. I was set free, because my greatest fear had already been realised, and I was still alive, and I still had a daughter whom I adored, and I had an old typewriter and a big idea. And so rock bottom became the solid foundation on which I rebuilt my life.”
Robinson gave the example of Gillian Lynne, now a British ballerina, who was taken to a doctor when she was still in school for being miserable at her studies. The doctor was wise enough to tell her mother that her child didn’t have ADHD but that she did have the fidgetiness of a dancer. He encouraged her mother to enroll her in a dance school. In Robinson’s words: “Gillian was eventually auditioned for the Royal Ballet school. She became a soloist and had a wonderful career there. She founded her own dance company. She met Andrew Lloyd Webber. She has been responsible for some of the most successful theater productions in history. She has given pleasure to millions. And she’s a multi-millionaire. Somebody else might have put her on medication and told her to calm down.”
Bravo to both speakers!
Rowling took the idea a step ahead. She spoke of how getting in touch with ourselves then helps us to get in touch with others. She talked about how it enables us to use our power of imagination to empathize with those less fortunate than us. That, most beautifully, is her definition of a good life – which is what she eventually wished upon the graduating class of 2008.
I have always thought that “the good life” is not one in which you have acquired material things and been a conventional success, but one in which you have been true to yourself; it is the only way in which you can be true to others. Believe me, I know how tough it is. But I also deeply feel how vital it is, not just for our own wellbeing but also for that of those around us; for our children, our spouses, our families, our employers, our employees, our countries, our world – whether strangers or friends.
Finally, Rowling had an important point to make for the youth of ’superpower’ America – which figures in this moving excerpt from her speech.
“Amnesty International mobilises thousands of people who have never been tortured or imprisoned for their beliefs to act on behalf of those who have. The power of human empathy, leading to collective action, saves lives, and frees prisoners. Ordinary people, whose personal well-being and security are assured, join together in huge numbers to save people they do not know, and will never meet. My small participation in that process was one of the most humbling and inspiring experiences of my life.
Unlike any other creature on this planet, humans can learn and understand, without having experienced. They can think themselves into other people’s minds, imagine themselves into other people’s places.
Of course, this is a power, like my brand of fictional magic, that is morally neutral. One might use such an ability to manipulate, or control, just as much as to understand or sympathise.
And many prefer not to exercise their imaginations at all. They choose to remain comfortably within the bounds of their own experience, never troubling to wonder how it would feel to have been born other than they are. They can refuse to hear screams or to peer inside cages; they can close their minds and hearts to any suffering that does not touch them personally; they can refuse to know.
I might be tempted to envy people who can live that way, except that I do not think they have any fewer nightmares than I do. Choosing to live in narrow spaces can lead to a form of mental agoraphobia, and that brings its own terrors. I think the wilfully unimaginative see more monsters. They are often more afraid.
What is more, those who choose not to empathise may enable real monsters. For without ever committing an act of outright evil ourselves, we collude with it, through our own apathy.
One of the many things I learned at the end of that Classics corridor down which I ventured at the age of 18, in search of something I could not then define, was this, written by the Greek author Plutarch: What we achieve inwardly will change outer reality.
That is an astonishing statement and yet proven a thousand times every day of our lives. It expresses, in part, our inescapable connection with the outside world, the fact that we touch other people’s lives simply by existing.
But how much more are you, Harvard graduates of 2008, likely to touch other people’s lives? Your intelligence, your capacity for hard work, the education you have earned and received, give you unique status, and unique responsibilities. Even your nationality sets you apart. The great majority of you belong to the world’s only remaining superpower. The way you vote, the way you live, the way you protest, the pressure you bring to bear on your government, has an impact way beyond your borders. That is your privilege, and your burden.
If you choose to use your status and influence to raise your voice on behalf of those who have no voice; if you choose to identify not only with the powerful, but with the powerless; if you retain the ability to imagine yourself into the lives of those who do not have your advantages, then it will not only be your proud families who celebrate your existence, but thousands and millions of people whose reality you have helped transform for the better. We do not need magic to change the world, we carry all the power we need inside ourselves already: we have the power to imagine better.”
Hear hear! Powerful thoughts and words indeed.
speak for america
I haven’t warmed up to Obama yet, even though I am for the most part fine with his politics. Even so, I resonated with Clinton even less, and was relieved when Obama was the one nominated.
I watched his speech at the Democratic National Convention a few days ago and was not as moved as some of my friends in the US. (Of course, I do not currently reside there, and maybe that partially affects how I received it.) See I thought that while he was good, his speech lacked a real power to motivate the listener. He was too composed and his demeanor was aloof. His words had integrity but lacked drama, an aspect necessary to win this election. Where did his gifted speaking skills go?
In contrast, Palin’s speech at the Republican National Convention was way more dynamic. It drew the audience in with its conviction, humor, and strategy. Kudos to her speechwriters. Don’t get me wrong – it made me continually livid. (For example, when she alluded to the “fact” that even though America is still under catastrophic threat from Al Qaeda terrorists, Obama wants to read them their rights!) The same anger that I felt when I lived in the States not too long ago – at the warmongering that is condoned.
But an impassioned speech or two is imperative to swinging this election! I heard both speeches with a sinking feeling. From a persuasion perspective, I have a strong sense that it is the McCain-Palin ticket that will win this election of ambivalence.
All I can say is: PLEASE VOTE.
making it work
Back to work culture like I said I would.
I think one of the most important qualities to engage in the work place is flatness. By that I mean – a strong check on hierarchical behavior. Everyone has contributions to make and worrying about what the boss might say/think/feel is the best way to bring about clamming up of employees, or even worse – them expressing thoughts they believe will be favored by those “in power.” This creates a space where people are motivated by fear, leads to a fake consensus, and culminates in a non-progressive environment. What we need are work cultures in which people are intrinsically motivated. Every job is a self-portrait of the person who does it. Autograph your work with excellence. Sucking up is not conducive to this kind of sentiment.
A facet related to the first is this: companies must be very careful to inculcate an atmosphere that is not idea-killing. The role of two-way communication needs to be deeply underscored. It’s easy to be dismissive of thoughts that are not articulate enough or stated confidently enough or are perhaps slightly tangential to the topic at hand. But true respect is always due to input offered – so value all that is said, dig a bit deeper to get at the essence, certainly don’t discount anyone. Someone once said: The paradox of innovation is this: CEOs often complain about lack of innovation, while employees often say that leaders are hostile to new ideas.
The next thing I can think of is affirmation of who employees are – in a holistic sense. It is not often that people feel known/understood where they work. (There is plenty of research in organizational psychology showing that verifying people’s sense of self is greatly useful.) So, for example, let’s say you have an engineer who can paint, let it be known. Perhaps a showcasing of employee’s talents outside of their job descriptions is worthwhile. People are unique and should be seen as such; cliques should be avoided at all cost. A related aspect is of giving people autonomy. Don’t tell people how to do things, tell them what needs to be done, and then let them surprise you with the results.
An openness to change is vital. A great quote speaking to it: To survive in the future, every organization must be prepared to abandon everything it does. The world is engulfed in a revolution, on a social and psychological level, and this must reflect at the organizational level as well. I’m obviously not saying the focus should be on abandoning everything, but that there should be a readiness to doing so, if need be.
Money is an unavoidable but surprising variable in creating a good work culture. Another neat quote that talks to the point: There is no contest between the company that buys the grudging compliance of its workforce and the company that enjoys the enterprising participation of its employees. You could pay people a ton of money and not have their faithfulness. (Employee turnover rates are not as muted by high salaries as one might like to think.) Or you could value an employee tremendously and have his loyalty forever, even if you couldn’t pay him the best that is out there.
Management must develop a clear ideology and let it be implemented by all – from the guy who wheels the coffee and croissants in to the conference room to the one who heads the table. It is more than vital! A powerful quote that I believe gets at it most thoroughly: A visionary company creates a total environment that envelops employees, bombarding them with signals so consistent and mutually reinforcing that it’s virtually impossible to misunderstand the company’s ideologies and ambitions. This ties in inextricably with giving meaning to the work employees do. A vision is exceedingly important.
Finally, a thoughtful and honest Corporate Responsibility policy is imperative today. When institutionalized right, it can cover almost all of the points touched upon above – and more! The idea of Corporate Responsibility is NOT anti-profit, as many like to believe; it is just a more long-term orientation than the short-term one to which we are accustomed. Ultimately, CR is about nothing but profit, actually. I will write about it some more in another post.
quote
“What good fortune for those in power that people do not think.”
Interesting thought, especially when you consider the role of the music or movie industries or even advertising in popular culture. I often find people in the biz that consider others – especially consumers – as fools. Then they deliver mediocrity of a kind that is really unacceptable, but it is often lapped up!
Unfortunate that those words are Hitler’s and we still see his vision play out day after day around us. Isn’t it time that people became less naive to the phenomenon? It might be wise to heighten awareness and learn how to see through sugar-coated manipulations. But more than anything else, I wish we would all pay just a little heed to to our intuition.
tattoo much!
Millward Brown recently did a worldwide study to measure brand loyalty. One of the questions they asked was: would you be ready to permanently tattoo a brand logo on to your arm?
Almost 20% said they would be willing. Of them, the most popular response was Harley Davidson. If you are thinking that’s because of Harley’s rough-n-toughness, then consider the brand that came in a close second: Disney. So, obviously, it’s less about brand-consonance with the concept of tattoos, and more about the brand itself. Not surprising then that Cocoa Cola came in third?
Now guess which brand was fourth…
It wasn’t Apple, no. Go here for the answer, but think about it for a moment first – just for the fun of it!
I’m sort of amazed by it all.
mute point
Have you often wondered why the television set seems to blare much louder during the commercials between programming?
I dug around a little and it appears that the peak levels of commercials are actually no louder than that of the shows they pepper. It’s just that the average level of sound in TV ads is greater and so the perceived loudness is higher too. But I digress. Regardless of whether or not they do get louder, they sure seem to get louder, and so we turn the sound off/down or change the channel.
Wouldn’t it make sense for advertisers to tone the sound down so that we aren’t knocked off our sofas? To keep us from constantly clutching at our remotes, one finger on the mute button, in dread of the commercial breaks? Perhaps on more than one count…
Communication researcher Carson Wagner has recently found that watching anti-drug commercials under conditions of low attention is actually more convincing than watching under conditions of high attention. One reason offered up as an explanation for this phenomenon is that when pro-drug viewers are watching with full-on attention, they have the resources required to find faults with the message. They refute it and, in so doing, are less persuaded by it.
That kind of ‘counter-argument’ of the ad’s message doesn’t happen when viewers are watching the commercials in their peripheral view. In the latter case, the associations between the concept ‘drug’ and the concept ‘bad’ are subtly reinforced, despite - and perhaps even especially because of - a lack of complete attention on part of the viewer.
The same could easily apply to selling brands. The ads would play at slightly lower volumes and yet reiterate the connection between the ‘brand’ concerned and the concept ‘good’. It would be a softer sell, sure, but a sell nonetheless. And at least it wouldn’t encourage viewers to turn the darn telly off or have them change the channel to escape those in-your-face “breaks.”
Also, commercials that are replayed incessantly might not become as off-putting as they do when they are too loud. Anyone who watched the India-Australia test match at Perth on TV this week could vividly recall the Airtel annoyance. It actually made my father swear he would never subscribe to Airtel – even though he considers its message quite good. The intrusiveness of the ad somehow got attached to the brand for him, and I suspect that he is not alone.
So, advertisers, hear hear! It would probably be wise to turn the volume of your ads DOWN.
you see what i see
Derren Brown is devoutly skeptical of the paranormal. Like him, most ‘psychics’ seem to use a combination of observation, suggestion, psychology, misdirection, and showmanship in order to ’see’ things. But unlike most who have his skills, he is an entertainer. Here is a video on how he uses subtle cues to generate powerful suggestion – to the point that it’s almost persuasion. Amazing!
Yet, this fall, America’s #1 psychic will be crowned on reality TV. 16 ’seers’ will compete in several rounds of competition on a Lifetime show called ‘America’s Psychic Challenge’. In one challenge, psychics match pet-owners to their pooches. In another, the psychics recreate a scene of a violent crime years later. So on. Previews feature all the blurry sepia shots and eerie music one might expect, and it is being advertised on all major networks.
I can’t help but wonder how progressive or responsible of the media it is to give ‘psychics’ any legitimacy whatsoever. Did someone mention a “bottom line”? Of course.
a method to the madness
What makes a brand a brand? Its ability to stand out of the clutter, how the product fits lifestyles, how the advertising fits mindsets, the price, the packaging, the connection it makes over time with consumers… the list could go on and on. How does belief in the brand fit in the big picture?
At an account planning conference I went to recently, Domenico Vitale talked about ‘belief’ branding. One such is the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty. This flavour of branding seems to derive itself from a higher purpose, a greater calling, if you will. As Carisa Bianchi put it, “People want to be inspired. It’s up to us to find a way.” Consumers appear to be looking for a way to make a change for the better, to be part of something bigger than just the brand. And sure enough, companies are beginning to create appropriately ‘noble’ contexts for their brands.
But some brands are inspired from within – where a ‘purpose’ need not be superimposed on the brand, since the product and the greater good that inspires it are seamlessly spun. Consider Method. I’ve been following it for a couple of years and been fascinated.
They are a home cleaning product brand with the tagline “People Against Dirty”. Their aim was to clutter-bust P&G and other big soapers. They also knew they wanted to be environmentally friendly, aesthetic and fun. Their products look beautiful, they clean well, are naturally scented – they are truly sink-top accessories rather than something nasty that you hide away as soon as you are done. They don’t make a big deal about being “green” in their advertising but their blog is explicit: “Dedicated to the fight against dirty. In whatever form dirty appears.” On it, they talk about individual and corporate social responsibility with respect to the environment and other such things.
I have never known a brand that comes from the inside-out as much as Method does. These guys are young, smart, and above all, they have a vision. They seem to sleep, breathe, walk, and talk Method. They deeply believe in their brand and (perhaps consequently) have been wildly successful in engaging deeply consumers’ belief in their brand. The result: a near cult phenomenon linked to something as banal as cleaning! Of the co-founders, one of them was an account planner and the other is a chemical engineer. Together, they have a brand that was initially bottled in their kitchen in San Francisco. It has grown almost 4000% (?!) in the last 5 years and they were listed this year as the seventh-fastest growing company in America.
Here is an engaging telling of the entrepreneurship of Method by one of its co-founders, Eric Ryan.
