Brandon_11_I

“Since 1983, Children’s Miracle Network has turned thin air (radio waves, music, and stories) into $2.2 billion for 170 nonprofit children’s hospitals.”

I think this is a great way to exemplify the power of good storytelling. Simmons tells us that storytelling can generate great things from “thin air.” If you are a good storyteller, you can get what you need.

It’s not the product you are selling, it’s the packaging. Included in the packaging is the pitch that’s given to sell it, the story. So true.

Brandon_10_I

“One of the most important culture shifts to observe in an organization is a shift away from an abusive organizational story of “giving 110 percent” to a story that better balances family and work.”

Then Simmons tells us a story of how a man missed a company to watch his daughter play soccer.

It’s a heart-warming story.

But what if everybody is “missing meetings” so that they can “watch their daughter play soccer”?

Telling heart-warming stories every time errors are made in the company will make a shift toward family-based stories within the company.

But a heart-warming story as an excuse to miss important company meetings doesn’t pay the bills.

If it is considered acceptable by one member of the organization, others will follow suit. Pretty soon, 2/3 of your project group is missing meetings simply because they have a nice little story of why they missed.

A balance definitely has to be found in order to balance family and work. However, a heart-warming story should not be deemed an excuse to miss important company meetings.

Tell your heart-warming stories on your lunch break.

Brandon_9_Q

“Besides, approaching those we wish to influence from a position of pious superiority creates either resentment or dependence. Both are troublesome.”

I can easily imagine examples in which both reactions from an audience could occur.

But if you can’t appeal to your audience in a manner to make them dependent on you or your services, what is the tactic to be used to sell? Are all salesmen manipulators?

Of course, appealing to your audience by relating to them is necessary. It seems as though people have to be treated with “kid gloves” in order to sell them your product or service. Is this the best way for a salesman to manipulate someone into buying their product/service?

Making them feel dependent on my products/services seems as though it would be a more efficient way to gain business.

Any salesman who tells me that they don’t partake in either of those is lying to him/herself. “My cow just died, and I don’t want your bull.”

Ruthless business ethics?

Brandon_8_I

I wish more “business people” would take into consideration the lessons that this chapter infringes upon us.

I believe that listening is a key to success.

In a problem situation, listening also allows us to map out all the areas of a problem. The opposite of this would be to go into a situation immediately thinking of rebuttals to issues that are occurring.

I have dealt with a number of clients who come into situations thinking “I already know everything you are going to tell me.” If this were true, there would be no need to communicate with them about issues they are having.

Nobody knows everything. Everybody can learn something from everybody.

I was once having a chat with a client of mine who has quite a successful business. I was curious to what his thoughts were on “keys to success.” So I asked him what he tells people and what he has done to get where he is.

His answer: “I listen to people.”

From the book:
“One of our ancient methods is to tell a story begging the listener to say – and to feel – ‘Yes, that is the way it is, or at least that is the way I feel it. You’re not as alone as you thought.’”

I think this quote points out that, in order to communicate positively with somebody, we must be able to relate to them. Relating to a person helps to stifle the ability for negative emotions to occur in a communication situation.

Brandon_7_I

“We tend to cast ourselves as the hero or heroine and paint those denying our requests or obstructing our progress as villainous. It is easier to imagine our adversaries as dumb, stubborn, or lazy than to consider they probably believe they have a “good reason” for not cooperating with us and may even think we are the dumb, stubborn, or selfish ones.”

I think this is a good point. However, when we need to influence somebody to get them to say what we want them to say, I think there are other factors involved.

Portraying ourselves or our ideas as the hero may not be the best way to go all the time. The consequence of this may be the thought of us coming off as cocky or pompous.

I think that when we are in a communication situation where we somebody is trying to influence us, we naturally try to find a reason to oppose the person’s arguments… playing “devil’s advocate.”

So, when we want to influence somebody, a tactic might be to say the opposite of what we want them to say, just so that the person will play “devil’s advocate” and say the opposite of what we said, which is what we wanted them to say in the first place. I hope that’s not too confusing.

The same tactic is used when somebody is “fishing for compliments.” For example, I have a painting that I did that I think is great. Jane also has a painting. I approach her and tell her that I think her painting is better. Out of politeness, or by her playing “devil’s advocate,” she disagrees and tells me that my painting is better. I win. Sign on the dotted line.

I think the same type of tactic could be applied in a business situation, to a degree. But it cannot be overdone. Being able to “read” people plays a big part here. Each person that we communicate with must be dealt with in their own custom manner in order to sell them our idea.

Brandon_Q_6

“Yet as unique as we are, we are embarrassingly predictable. In a way, if you’ve seen one epic you’ve seen ‘em all. We humans cycle through the same stories generation after generation.”

After reading this paragraph, I immediately disagreed with the point that was made. I thought, “There is no way that we simply cycle through the same stories generations after generation.” Then Simmons qualified the idea by naming some of those types of stories.

“There are a few archetypal characters that sum up many of our life stories. The hero, magician, sage, king, queen, heretic, martyr, and traveler are but a few.”

Will the types of stories broaden as time passes? Or have we already discovered all the basic ways that all stories can be told? Will stories evolve as to where more types to emerge?

Brandon_5_Q

“And if you peel any human being’s “want list” back to its core, they all look very much the same. If you want to influence others, to tap into another’s momentum instead of using yours, your best bet is to tap into the things that we all want. If your story can tap into one of the core human needs that we all share, you’ve got yourself some pretty good bait.

I think that if you ask enough questions about any situation, you will eventually get down to the basics of what people “want.” Keep asking “why,” and the answers to the question will continue to become more generic and basic.

----------

From p.110:

“I want a million dollars.”
Because?
“Then I won’t have to work for someone else.”
Because?
“I don’t like someone else telling me what to do.”
So it isn’t a million dollars that this person wants… it is personal freedom.

----------

I think this series of questioning can be applied to any story. Eventually, the answer received will be the same basic answer that is received from other stories.

So is there really any story that doesn’t, at its bare roots, apply to something that people want?

Brandon_4_Q

Chapter four tells us a lot about the type of language that we use, the gestures we use, facial expressions, body language, timing, tone and how to make convince listeners to hear our story.

However, the chapter does not touch on the form/process of a story. Are there not typical processes to a story that occur that good stories seem to follow? For example, on a basic level, should the “punch line” of the story come at the end of the story or at the beginning?

Let’s look at the stories of comedians. The “punch line” usually comes at the end, right? The part that makes people laugh is at the end of the story. Everything before the “punch line” is what convinces the people to listen to the story.

Is there a process that a story must follow for it to be engaging? Or can all elements of a story simply be in the message in an effort to get the same idea across?

Brandon_3_I

Chapter three takes a look at facts… and discredits their potential when presented as a solitary type of evidence in a situation. Stories are important with facts, and do indeed aid with credibility of facts.

However, I do not think that stories are always necessary.

Although stories do aid when presenting facts, I think the facts themselves are more important than the story.

I think “personal experience” stories hold the most importance when trying to prove a point in conjunction with facts.

The chapter expands upon the idea that facts are not as important without stories, when are there times that facts. However, I think there are many situations that call for stories being less important in a situation.

One example of this is in a typical work atmosphere with a hierarchal employee ladder. In these situations, does the boss take the time to tell stories to his employees, or does the boss simply tell them what to do by stating facts? It may be seen as inefficiency in the workplace for a boss to have to explain their orders with stories.

As presented in chapter one, employees Simmons states that employees want to trust their superiors in these situations. What would happen if workers were to question their boss’s orders every time the boss gives an order by telling the worker facts?

Brandon_1&2_Q

So Simmons begins the book by talking about Faith.

Simmons tells of a “$6-an-hour” worker who found a mistake that Simmons made in a project that could have been quite costly to the company.

The beginning of the next paragraph is titled “Trust Me.” This is where Simmons goes on a bit of a diatribe about the whole Faith issue… in a business sense. She says that people want faith, faith in the mangers to be able to pick up where they left off because they believe in them.

Is it me, or is Simmons being hypocritical about the situation?

She wants the ditch diggers of the company to believe in their upper-level cohorts. However, it was the fact that one of the low-level workers did NOT believe in Simmons’ work that a mistake was caught that could have become quite costly for the company.

The example that Simmons gives demonstrates a lack of faith by a worker that resulted in a positive outcome for the company.

I think it’s good for all workers to be somewhat skeptical of the powers-that-be. This keeps everyone on their toes. This way, everyone in a company is depended upon, rather than just one individual for each level of the corporate hierarchy. Could this viewpoint cause inefficiency in the corporate ladder? Possibly. But that is why it needs to be executed within agreeable degrees of effectiveness.

People may indeed want faith. They may want to be able to believe in their bosses. But do they really? To a degree. It’s important to always be aware of project situations in a company so that some of those mistakes can be caught by the menial “$6-an-hour” worker.