Creative Streak

Can I Have That Idea For Less?

This is a group of responses based on one of the most popular posts I've written in the three years since Creative Streak began. How To Make A Creative Director Cry outlines the ten most common responses I've heard as a creative director, with links to each subsequent post giving more thoughts and suggestions to address each statement. This is statement #10: "Great idea. Can I have it for half the cost?"

Experience has taught me to respond to this question in two ways.

1. Is the client asking the question because they simply want to negotiate?

2. Is the client asking the question because we didn’t explain the idea properly?

Negotiating or Haggling

It’s almost human nature to want something of value for less. If it ever went out of style, a recent article in the Washington Post suggests there’s a resurgence in haggling because of the recent recession.

For some people, negotiating is a game (me included, especially if it's an antique). It’s actually invigorating to bargain, especially when you get a concession, however small. For other people, a price or an estimate is nothing more than a suggestion, a perceived indication of an item’s value. Negotiating is a way to find the balance between want and need. For others, negotiating is a fundamental part of their philosophy or values. My first assignment at my first job was to get estimates from vendors. Before I began, the managing director sat me down and gave me her two cardinal rules: 1. Negotiating is good business. Therefore, never accept the first quote. 2. Because it’s business, don’t make it personal.

How To Be An Authentic Speaker

Of all the attributes you bring as a speaker – informally at a status meeting, formally as a conference presenter – which do you think is most important?

We debate this question in my Impact workshops. Some people believe the most important element is being engaging, other say it’s being relevant. Or motivating, or enthusiastic. Then someone suggests an element that gets everyone's agreement – but at the same, is the most difficult to teach:  being authentic.

The other elements – engagement, relevancy, motivation, enthusiasm, among lots of others – are easier to define (and teach) because they are specific. Because of this, a good trainer can teach specific techniques or show a presenter hints to make them extrinsic to the audience.

Authenticity is different because it begins with something intrinsic – something inside the speaker. No matter how good the trainer, only the speaker can make this attribute come alive. Along with charisma – another unteachable attribute – the element of authenticity intrigues me because they're the ultimate goals of the best speakers. They can sell their ideas with such ease. But to teach a person to be "real" or "genuine"? The Holy Grail perhaps.

To that point, here's how I define "speaker authenticity" – whether it's demonstrated across an auditorium, a conference call, a boardroom table, or a cup of coffee. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

No. 1  You have to be you.

It begins with utterly knowing yourself. If you don't know who you are, more so, what you stand for, how can you be authentic to the audience? There's a truth to being you. It's more than knowing your topic, or having credibility, or having age and/or wisdom - although they all help. It requires a lot of self-examination, but not to be egotistical. It's done to get a crystal-clear perception. That's why being filmed (giving the presentation, or in a training workshop) is so vital: you have to know how you come across before you can be authentic. As many people find it confronting to see themselves on camera as they find it comforting, but it's part of understanding you.

Creativity and Conflict: Collaborating (5 of 5)

This is the fifth and last in a series of five posts about the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI), developed by Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann as part of their research in the 1970s.  My interest here is two-fold: to understand how conflict affects teams, and to reflect how creativity may help to manage conflict. The introduction to these posts is here, which includes links to the other modes, as well as information about how to take the TKI assessment, either individually or among your team.

Collaborating is the fifth mode of conflict, when a person chooses to be assertive (they satisfy their own concerns), and cooperative (they satisfy the other person’s concerns). Of all five modes, this is the only one that is truly a win-win situation because both parties fully realise their concerns and find an integrative solution.

Creativity and Conflict: Compromising (4 of 5)

This is the fourth in a series of five posts going into more depth on the different modes of conflict outlined in the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI), developed by Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann as part of their research in the 1970s.  My interest here is two-fold: to understand how conflict affects teams, and to reflect how creativity may help to manage conflict. The introduction to these posts is here, which includes links to the other modes, as well as information about how to take the TKI assessment, either individually or among your team.

Compromising is the fourth mode of conflict, when a person chooses to be moderately assertive (they somewhat satisfy their own concerns) and to be moderately cooperative (they somewhat satisfy the other person’s concerns). Because the outcome of this mode is typically an acceptable solution (but still just partially addresses key issues), it's still seen as a win-lose situation.

One or both of you have "compromised" something to gain partial satisfaction. In many cases, this might be an ideal situation.

• You had a limited amount of time, so Compromising was speedy.  (Notice how people are more willing to compromise at the end of the meeting, rather than at the beginning.)
• To be fair, both sides gave up a little - and that public acknowledgment was important to the relationship.
• Compromising was the most practical solution.
• The issue - and its conflict - is complex, and Compromising is a good temporary solution.
• A compromised solution is the only option, when Collaboration and Competing have failed.

Creativity and Conflict: Avoiding (3 of 5)

This is the third in a series of five posts going into more depth on the different modes of conflict outlined in the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI), developed by Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann as part of their research in the 1970s.  My interest here is two-fold: to understand how conflict affects teams, and to reflect how creativity may help to manage conflict. The introduction to these posts is here, which includes links to the other modes, as well as information about how to take the TKI assessment, either individually or among your team.

Avoiding is the third mode of conflict, which describes when a person chooses not to be assertive (they don’t want to satisfy their own concerns) and chooses not be cooperative (they don’t want to satisfy the other person’s concerns). Their aim in his style is to postpone, side-step, if not ignore the conflict altogether.

Creativity and Conflict: Accommodating (2 of 5)

This is the second in a series of five posts going into more depth on the five modes of conflict outlined in the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI), developed by Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann as part of their research in the 1970s.  My interest here is two-fold: to understand how conflict affects teams, and to reflect how creativity may help to manage conflict. The introduction to these posts is here, which includes links to the other modes, as well as information about how to take the TKI assessment.

A second mode of conflict is Accommodating, which describes when a person is cooperative, but not assertive. In other words, they try to satisfy the other person’s concerns at the expense of their own. The aim of this mode is to yield, and often to maintain the relationship or status quo between themselves and other other party.

With no direct research to support my theory beyond my own empirical experience, I frequently find workshop participants who prefer or choose this mode to be the quintessential “people person.” Much like an F profile in Myers-Briggs, they admit that in conflicts they are as much or more interested in the other person and how they feel about the issues and concerns, or how they use their values and harmony to make decisions about how to re-act in the conflict. In a workshop a few weeks ago, one person told me: “I let my personal connection with the person get in the way of the conflict. Perhaps even on purpose.” As a result, an Accommodating person will concede or discount their own concerns.

Creativity and Conflict: Competing (1 of 5)

This is the first in a series of five posts going into more depth on the five modes of conflict outlined in the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI), developed by Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann as part of their research in the 1970s.  My interest here is two-fold: to understand how conflict affects teams, and to reflect how creativity may help to manage conflict. The introduction to these posts is here, which includes links to the other modes.

The first of the five modes of conflict is Competing, which describes when a person is assertive (they satisfy their own concerns) and uncooperative (they do not satisfy the other person’s concerns). Even though the aim of this mode is to win, and often at any cost, it is not a "win-win" situation. The other party's concerns are un-met, so this mode is "win-lose."

In my experience, the Competing mode is chosen (or preferred) by people who fall into two camps:

1. They either intuitively or deliberately take an pro-active or aggressive position in tense situations, or
2. They fear conflict so much that they over-compensate by going “over-the-top”

Competing should be used primarily in situations when the outcome is extremely important to you. You need to be assertive, so your two options are Competing and Collaborating. Ideally, Collaborating is a often a better option - it's "win-win" - but when this mode is not an option, Competing at least ensures you meet or satisfy your concerns. Ideal situations for the Competing mode include those times when you must make a decision, you must assert yourself, or you need to protect or defend your interests.

However, Competing has significant drawbacks. Most of all, it can strain or damage the relationship with the other party which, in turn, provokes a variety of negative responses: ongoing confrontation (especially with future negotiations, such as revenge), or lower motivation, interest or initiative. In other words, use Competing only when necessary – not as a default or commencing style.

If Competing is the Appropriate Option ...

... here are some questions to inspire your creativity to create options which might minimise negative emotions or resistance.

How can you build your credibility?

To persuade the other party in a constructive way requires you to make your case, not just dictate.  One way to persuade in the Competing mode is to explain why.  Be transparent.  Be clear.  Be rational without appearing aloof.  If any part of the decision reeks of a hidden agenda, your credibility is shot - and that's one asset you can't afford to damage.

Creativity and Conflict

As much as it’s associated with brainstorms and idea generation, creativity is also an important element in managing conflict and negotiating disagreements among parties.

Conflict is simply part of life. A job in “communications” ranges from educating disinterested people to try our new product, convincing editors or journalists to write about something they aren’t interested, or dealing with customers and vendors frustrated at changes to a particular service.  Even if “communications” isn’t part of the job title, it’s still an integral role in virtually any type of position. It’s probably a daily event that any of us must deal with emotions – our own, or others – that range from irritation to anger.

The common denominator: to be successful, we have to convince people to change their mind or behaviour, through our messages and actions. We all know change isn’t an easy or welcome step of human nature.

At the same time, being creative is difficult for lots of people in the most normal of situations. To be able to invent new or alternative solutions in tense or stressful situations would border on impossible.

That’s why I’ve been spending lots of time lately helping people deal and manage creativity during times of conflict, and I thought I’d focus on it over the next few weeks.

+++++

As defined by Kenneth Thomas, conflict is “the condition in which people’s concerns (the things they care about) appear to be incompatible.” There’s two key words here: “appear” and “incompatible.”

• Appear is important because it suggests a surface reaction: by investigating the situation further, perhaps other solutions may exist.
• Incompatible is important because it does not suggest anger or danger. It’s easy to associate conflict with arguing and fighting. And yet, if conflict is seen less as an emotional issue and one of different points-of-view, it’s often easier to find plausible solutions which are suitable to both parties.

Verbal vs Non-Verbal Communications

You may not recognise the name, but Albert Mehrabian authored some of the most famous studies in communications research. His most well-known hypothesis: When two people communicate face-to-face, how much of the meaning is communicated verbally, and how much is communicated non-verbally?

First published in 1971, his research is almost a quaint idea today, considering that a lot of organisational and personal communications uses decidedly non-face-to-face methods of social media.

Despite using Twitter, Facebook, blogs to communicate (and I’m as guilty of it as anyone), there's something in Mehrabian’s research that continues to fascinate.

 He concluded there are three parts to face-to-face communications – sometimes called the 3 V’s – and these three elements determine how much a receiver “likes” the speaker:

• Visual, or body and facial expressions, accounting for 55% of the liking
• Vocal, or tone of voice, accounting for 38% of the liking
• Verbal, or words, accounting for 7% of the liking

Categories of Questions

Preparing questions in advance of research or an interview is vital for a variety of reasons. First, it means you’ve thought of all possible questions in advance. This in turn means any follow-up interview will focus on drilling deeper instead of playing catch-up.

During the interview itself, you can genuinely listen to the respondent’s answers instead of thinking up the next question. (Similar to handling a crisis or negotiating a deal, most people’s creativity disintegrates during tense situations.) Most important, it universally improves creative sessions because it ensures your brainstormers have the information they need to generate new ideas.

ost questions fall into ten different categories. The list below isn’t meant to be definitive, but I’ve often it’s a good place for teams to adapt and expand to fit a particular situation or client. (It probably goes without saying, but depending upon the organisation or the topic, you may need to sign a non-disclosure agreement to get the information you need.)

The easy method: begin by brainstorming all possible questions in each area. A friend uses a slightly more elaborate method. She begins by developing questions in each area by listing a) what information she knows for sure, b) what assumptions she has (what she think she knows), and c) what she doesn’t know. After you have plenty of questions in each group, finish by using R-O-P-E.

• Remove any questions that doesn’t make sense in context with the others.
• Organise similar questions together.
• Prioritise the questions.
• Evaluate the questions one last time – just to make sure you haven’t missed anything.

A last piece of advice: divide the questions among team members so one person isn’t doing all the work.

Group 1. Background, or Facts of Establishment