Formulating an animation strategy

As I've been messing around a lot with Prezi and Apple Keynote lately, I've realized how easy it is nowadays to weave animations into slide presentations and videos. Gone is the era of my arduous attempts at animation in Macromind Director, Flash and ActionScript. Welcome to easy creation of paths for moving objects or for moving the eye of the viewer. Showing movement to audiences is likely to move audiences to change their minds and act accordingly. Animation can be another strategy for doctoring indoctrination. With such powerful tools at our fingertips, I'm feeling the need for a framework for orchestrating how I use these tools. The options I'm facing are overwhelmingly numerous and diverse.

In this first post, I'll explore what all these new animations can show. In later posts I'll look into different ways to show those options and how to choose among them. First, here's a look at what animations in slides or videos can show:

Movements in Space can show:

1. the way to get a result, to get to an desired outcome or to end up where one originally intended
2. the pitfalls where we can get into trouble, get stuck in a maze, or get mislead off the path through the woods
3. where to look for a solution, where answers can be found or where better ideas will be discovered
4. how close/distant something has become, how near/far apart two things are or easy/difficult it is to move between those things
5. the path to follow, the chasm to cross or the contrasting high and low roads to take
6. how steep a path is, how tempting it can be to step onto a slippery slope or how to reverse attempts climbing the wrong hill
7. levels of play in the game, higher levels of attainment or challenges to get back up after falling down
8. the difficulties with getting inside an opportunity, getting outside a confinement or getting around an unmanageable obstacle
9. the process of iterating successive approximations, of evolving a refined response or of rethinking previous decisions
10. the disconnect between two subsystems, the gap between two understandings or the broken bridges between islands
11. the straight narrow path of conformity, the avenues that deviate from the consensus trance or ways to think outside the box
12. the thought processes can get somewhere significant, get out of going in circles or make good decisions upon further consideration

Movements of Objects can show:

1. assembling a chart one row, column or cell at a time
2. building a diagram in stages, with subassemblies or in synch with a parallel process
3. changing the location, proximity or overlap of at least two distinct things
4. removing the excess, non-essentials or next level of detail to reveal the main thing
5. covering up a misdiagnosis, flawed strategy or bad decision with corrections and revisions
6. adding comments to a statement, callouts to an illustration or dialogue to cartoon characters
7. introducing the next piece to a historical timeline, sequential procedure or unfolding storyline
8. revising the size of the container to include, exclude or draw a line between components
9. bringing in what has been missing, held in suspense or expected to complete the picture
10. reconfiguring the layout to function better, to solve the problems or to address different opportunities
11. engineering the desired outcome in reverse or proceeding backwards from the end result
12. combining incompatible alternatives to resolve dilemmas, to benefit from paradoxes or to explore their intersection

Welcome to my world of a staggering number and diversity of animation options :-)

Starting where they're at

When we're poised to spew some propaganda, we're in no mood to deal with wherever the audience is at. We're anxious to cover all the material before the time is up. It's not a problem if we take off without the passengers on board. We're functioning like an airline that gets to the destination on time without anyone enjoying a "moving experience".

To doctor this kind of indoctrination, we need to start where the audience is at, not where we're at. They'll get on board when it appears they can personally relate to what is being presented. The presentation will fly for them:

• if It looks like it's making sense to their frames of reference
• it speaks their language, lingo and buzzwords
• if It appears it can apply to their situation, troubled context or crisis
• if it offers pragmatic solutions to the problems they're facing

When we succeed at starting where they are at, where we're coming from becomes their destination. We offer a travel package that expedites their journey from their understanding to our own. We show them the way to get out of their state of mind into another state. We offer a path from their being part of a problem to becoming part of the solution. We guide their transition from a stuck place to a place of being effective, successful and respectable.

When we start where they're at, we're practicing empathy. We're speaking their minds, walking in their moccasins and seeing situations through their eyes. We've got their backs and stand behind what they're trying to accomplish. We coming from the place they're coming from to get started on a shared journey.

If we're successful at getting others on board, they will say they felt moved by the presentation. They will frame their experience as getting transported or taken to a better place. They will look back on where they started from with a new perspective. The propaganda will have been transformed into travel itineraries.

Repositioning the preaching

When we're being preachy, there's only on place we can come from. We appear to be stuck in a location that offers no other vantage points. We've somehow become a prisoner of the ideas we're espousing. We've fixated on some doctrine, truth or right answer. Within this place, there's no two ways about it and no flip side to explore.

Anytime an idea has taken us captive, we are surrounded by other places. We can go to those conceptual locations once we see where we're at and where we're coming from as we communicate with others. We can then reposition ourselves amidst many other possibilities. Here's some examples:

When we're coming from a place of "one right answer", we can go to other positions of:

• it ain't necessarily so because the actual right answer depends on other factors
• it's true some of the time but not always
• it's the right answer under a particular set of circumstances

When we're coming from a place of "let me tell you what to think", we can go to other positions of:

• having listened to others concerns, I've been thinking more deeply
• incorporating what others have considered, I've changed my mind
• seeing how it looks to other viewpoints, I now see what's missing in my outlook

When we're coming from a place of "I'm the better expert", we can go to other positions of:

• others know the situation better than I do
• without others' familiarity with using this, my expertise is useless
• others are better experts at how this comes across to varied frames of reference

When we're coming from a place of "my way of seeing rules", we can go to other positions of:

• how you see things will also see my viewpoint differently than I do
• how you look at this incorporates your experiences with it which differ from my own
• how you picture this will also picture me seeing it differently than you do

Repositioning our own preaching in these ways gives others a much better impression. We transition from being preachy to being considerate and self aware. We come across as "one of us" instead of "some hot shot talking to them". We get beyond making our point to making a difference with those we want to serve.

When acceptance is a tough sale

We occasionally ask people to accept a change that seems to us like an easy sale. They are already eager, willing and able to accept the change. For instance:

• changes in policies which allow them more personal discretion and freedom to accommodate their unique circumstances
• changes in requirements which lighten their workload and help them get other things done
• changes in assignments which enable them to work with their favorite people or show up at a time that works best for them
• changes in rewards which give them more recognition for what they've accomplished as well as satisfaction with the reward itself

Most often, we're asking people to accept a change which seems like a tough sale. They are predisposed to oppose it, resent it and possibly even obstruct it. For example:

• making a personal sacrifice to compensate for a financial setback or downturn in the overall economy
• making time to work with a unskilled new hire, an antiquated machine or a location with insufficient resources
• making an adjustment that changes personal habits, increases the chances of failure or expose their previously undisclosed limitations
• making greater effort to cover for others who seem to be slacking off, negligent or lacking in initiative

The sales pitches we typically make to get acceptance of an unwelcome change usually come across as indoctrination. We attempting to override what they are already thinking and pressure them into changing their minds. We're resisting what they're inclined to value and feeding a vicious cycle of conflict. We're implicitly telling them "you're wrong and I'm right" which sets them up to feel wronged, misunderstood and devalued.

The way I've found to doctor this kind of indoctrination is one I enjoy. Rather than try to sell others on acceptance of an unwelcome change, I've found it works to switch to wondering about this situation which seems to require that change. Here's some of the many facets of any situation to wonder about:

1. You may be wondering what other alternatives there are to this change that's hard to accept, including what will happen if we do nothing.
2. I'm wondering why this change became necessary now, instead of much earlier and with more advance warning.
3. You might be wondering what could have been done to prevent the need for this change and who could have accomplished that for all of us.
4. I'm wondering what other connections are influencing our situation and possibly keeping it from being even worse or forcing us to make this change.
5. You may be wondering who's responsible for letting this happen, whether they can be blamed and how much you can be left off the hook.
6. I'm wondering what's lined up in our near future that may require even bigger changes unless we do something we not even considering right now.
7. You may be wondering whether this is a question of a change in attitude or effort that could make the big difference in getting through this with a minimum of pain.
8. I'm wondering if I'm setting an example of one who can handle this challenge or someone who's looking for ways to make the challenge go away.

All this wondering opens the space for considering the change with less fear, opposition and negative emotions. Questions of wonder fire up the right brain which is non-judgmental, creative and fascinated by new challenges. With an audience thinking about what-if?, why not? and how could I contribute?, the tough sale of acceptance just got a lot easier.

Morphing knowing into questions

There's lots of knowledge that does not come across as indoctrination or propaganda when someone gets told to "know this":

• Knowledge of facts like the state capital of California (Sacramento) or the name of the fifth hurricane in the Atlantic Ocean this year (Earl)
• Knowledge of techniques like how to change the default font in a web browser or how to play F# on a double bassoon
• Knowledge of consequences like what happens after you open a door marked "Fire Exit Only" or after you drive a car when the fuel gauge already reads "empty"
• Knowledge of patterns like recognizing the signs that it's nighttime in your time zone or winter in your hemisphere

However, there's lots of knowledge that usually provokes defensiveness, objections and closed minds because it comes across as indoctrination:

• Knowledge of moral imperatives to obey like the "right way" to act or "the only" ethical approach to a situation
• Knowledge of stances to adopt like the opinionated positions argued by political candidates or the selective claims made by attorneys during courtroom proceedings
• Knowledge of theories to embrace like why the current global recession is persisting or for why the college dropout rate is increasing
• Knowledge of recommendations to follow like an advised change in a strategy to get different results or a suggested change in a diagnosis to alleviate chronic symptoms

When we're delivering content, making presentations or otherwise being informative, we rarely consider ourselves to be indoctrinating our audiences. We simply want others to know what we know. We assume we can think alike and reach the same conclusions. We fail to realize how the receiving end is taking offense when no offense was intended.

Whenever I've learned that my well-intended pronouncements have come across as indoctrination, I consider morphing what I'm expecting others to know into questions. When I succeed at making that translation, the receiving end becomes more receptive. Defenses get lowered and minds open up. Questions seem to have the opposite effect from telling people what to know. The answers to the questions provides what they need to know.

Here are some of the key points I've just made translated into questions I ask myself:

1. I question whether all the information I present is the acceptable which says that any defensiveness on the receiving end is completely unjustified?
2. I wonder if I am being shown something I can change when it appears that I have provoked my audience to become closed minded?
3. I question whether I'm failing to make a distinction between information that is easy to accept and information that is likely to be found objectionable?
4. I wonder what alternatives there are to telling people what they need to know which might open their minds and lower their defenses?
5. I question whether people can appreciate being guided to their own realizations instead of getting bombarded by a sage on stage?
6. I wonder if my presentation strategy is actually too straightforward which suggests that I could take a more indirect approach?

As you ask these questions of yourself and formulate some answers, you will know something about morphing knowing into questions.

Getting others to stop themselves

There are many occasions when we feel the urge to tell others "stop that". Here's a few examples to keep this exploration feeling real:

• Stop making a nuisance of yourself in ways that are testing others' patience
• Stop running over budget and behind schedule before we lose the customer, project or reputation we've worked hard to earn
• Stop violating the rules, policies and laws we all must obey
• Stop sabotaging your own success with your lack of ambition, organization and practice
• Stop making excuses and blaming others for not getting the job done
• Stop before you fall into that trap or you step onto that slippery slope
• Stop looking down on us as if you're better than the rest of us

When we feel that urge to say "stop that", we are afraid of what will occur if we don't say "stop". We thinking of consequences with our usual worries, apprehensions and dread. We are relying on dichotomous reasoning where the only options are saying "stop" or "go" and saying something or being silent.

Those in apparent need of being told "stop" may welcome the cautionary advice. However, most of the time, they will resent it. They will hear the "stop message" as propaganda, preachy advice and unwelcome interference. This is yet another situation where the indoctrination needs some doctoring.

I've found it helpful to think out loud about the possible reasons the others are not stopping themselves. Their motives get regarded as mysterious and fascinating to me. The others usually get to wondering about themselves along with me. They value my indirect approach of not telling them to stop while I find lots to ponder, rather than dismissing them as hopeless, lost causes.

I also find a way to give them "go messages" in contradiction to the "stop messages" they're expecting. To do that, I need to perceive a process deeper than their conduct which begs to be stopped. I can then trust their underlying process and show them ways the process will work things out for the better. Here are some processes that often run deeper than any "behavior without brakes":

1. exploring the limits and seeing how far they can push things before someone pushes back
2. waiting for someone whose been ignoring them to say something or show an interest in them for a change
3. begging for an argument or confrontation in order to experience themselves as confident, powerful and independent
4. showing off to boost their flagging confidence and to overcome some nagging insecurities
5. losing their perspective of the big issues they cannot impact while becoming obsessed with details they can control directly
6. antagonizing some deserving control freak, power tripper or bully who shows no empathy, genuine concern or compassion
7. trying prove themselves as equal or better than someone they admire and often imitate their approach to situations

Each of these processes eventually reach a conclusion. It finds a place of having enough, being ready for change, and wanting more variety of experiences. When this place is discovered, the people will naturally stop themselves. They don't need to be told to stop when these processes underly their conduct, they need those processes trusted to come to their own conclusions.

Deciding to do this

When we're the boss, we can say "do this because I say so" and expect compliance. When we're the respected expert, we can say "do this because it's the right thing to do" and people who show us respect by following our advice. When we're paying the bill, we can say "do it or else" and get others to follow our orders or get shortchanged.

Most of the time, we're cannot say "do this" and then watch it get it done. We're not in the position of authority, of commanding respect or of being in control of the consequences for non-compliance. Saying "do this!" will come across as bossy, pushy, arrogant, over-reaching, insensitive, or some other disconnect. We need an alternative that gets cooperation. One that works for me replaces telling people to "do this" with "when you're deciding whether to, how to or when to do this, consider this...". I show them the respect they deserve as those who already have a lot on their minds, who need to make up their own minds and who want to make better decisions by upgrading what they have in mind. I handoff the final determination to them while giving my input on how their decision gets made.

Sometimes it helps to discuss what does into good decisions in general. I usually cover the ground of generating more options and considering more criteria to avoid jumping to conclusions. I'm fond of showing how better decisions result from making the process more complicated, not more simplified. Occasionally, I explore a decision tree where choices get lined up in sequences and progressively eliminate the wide range of alternatives. I show how additional criteria can be discovered by considering what the decision depends upon and what the decision will impact.

All this applies to what I'm telling you to do right now. It's unlikely that, just because I said so here, you would replace telling people to "do this" with "when you're deciding whether to, how to or when to do this, consider this..." You need to be shown the respect of someone who has a lot on your mind, who needs to make up your own mind and who wants to make better decisions by upgrading what you have in mind.

• When you're deciding when to take this approach, consider if there's no need to bother with all this. Perhaps you can exercise your authority, command respect as an expert or attach consequences to others' non-compliance. Perhaps people want to be told what to do by you because they are unfamiliar with the situation, need structure imposed by someone better informed or depend on people to give them what they need to succeed.
• When you're deciding how to take this approach, consider how much resistance you're facing. The more objections, apprehensions or excuses the others will raise, the more complications need to be added to their decision making process. However, if their hesitation is slight, their decision making can be simplified.
• When you're deciding whether to take this approach, consider what else could improve by showing others this respect. Ponder what efforts could benefit from others making better decisions about their involvements. Explore what spill-over effects might be realized from engaging their minds in this way in the realms of creativity, contributions to shared objectives, and cooperation with team efforts. You may want to back-off from using this approach if you find you're in intensely adversarial situations where you're held in contempt, under suspicion and out of the loop of backstabbing commentary.

Deciding to do this is your own decision. I hope I've given you enough food for thought for you to make a decision that works for you.

Doctoring the indoctrination

There's a time to be straightforward and a time to be indirect with our message. There is content that calls for simply telling people what it is and content that calls for working with people's complex ways of thinking about it for themselves. There's a time to give people clear explanations and a time to give people more to talk through with others.

When we get this timing wrong, we come across as propagandistic. We appear to be brainwashing the people we intended to inform. We seem to be indoctrinating them, instead of educating, encouraging or engaging them. We give off the impression we're telling people what to think, instead of how, when and why to think things through differently. At these times, we need to "doctor the indoctrination" we had presumed to be harmless and helpful.

Indoctrination can prove to be mildly poisonous. It can induce a significant loss of interest, curiosity, attention and self motivation. It can provoke defensive postures, closed minds and opposing arguments. Indoctrination can even undermine the presenter's credibility, earned respect and leadership following. It can undermine implicit cooperation with tactics that appear controlling, coercive and manipulative. It can ask for passive compliance instead of initiative, integrity and self reliance. Indoctrination is usually bad medicine which deadens the recipients.

There are many ways to doctor indoctrination that I've had success with when making my presentations, conducting my workshops and teaching my classes. In this next series of blog posts, I'll review what has worked for me thus far, and explore some new ways I've discovered recently.