I am frequently asked, “How do you grow a storytelling business?” As it turns out, the answer is the same as the question, “How do you grow any business?” So I’ve put together this short note on: how do you grow a storytelling business?
One way of approaching this subject is through a set of questions that deal with the main aspects of growing a business. These aren't the only questions, but they can get us started.
1. WHAT ARE YOUR GOALS?
What are your goals? This is the first and the most important and the most difficult question to answer. More specifically, how much money do you need to make and how badly do you want that? And how does this relate to other goals you might have, such as having a rich and fulfilling family life? Or meeting some social objective, like fixing global warming, or making the local park safe for dogs? What tradeoffs are you willing to make?
If you are single, with no dependents, and no mortgages or debts or expensive habits or hobbies, you might not need very much money at all. Ah, the simple life! No money, but richly fulfilling!
If on the other hand, you have a kid that you want to put through a private college, you might need $80,000 (pre-tax) a year just for that. If you have five such kids, then you need $400,000 (pre-tax) a year, just for that. You might say, "I could never make $400,000 a year," but I will be suggesting that this is not the case. In this country, even at this difficult time, with the talents we have, and the technology which is available, any of these goals are feasible if you get serious about it. Now you might not be willing to do what it takes to make $400,000 a year, but that is another issue. In which case, you will need to have a discussion with your five kids about whether and where they are going to college and if so how.
So first, you need to get clear on what you are trying to accomplish in terms of making money. Then you can start to see what is feasible in terms of game-plans for accomplishing that.
Sometimes I hear people say, "No storyteller could make $400,000 a year!" As it happens, I know many people who make a lot more than this every year and they do nothing all day but tell stories. They include film-makers, novelists, playwrights, business consultants, and people who tell more mundane stories, like dispensing web advice on profound topics like dating or cleaning carpets.
To which the reply is often, "But they're not real storytellers! They don't do what I do!" To which, I reply, "Precisely. Unless you are already making a lot of money, you are probably not going to make a lot of money by continuing to do what you are now doing. If you want to grow your business and make more money, you are probably going to have to make changes. The only question is: which changes?"
At other times, I hear people say, "I want it all. I want to write the Great American Novel and make a lot of money and have a rich, fulfilling family life and spend most of my spare time hunting and fishing and golfing and sailing." The problem here is that this combination of goals is not likely to be realistic. If you are single-minded, you might be able to achieve one or two of them, but probably not all four. Goal setting involves a realistic alignment of means and objectives. Here the means and objectives are not aligned.
You might say, "I don't have any clear goals. I think I'll just see what happens." That's also fine, but then you should have no complaint, if you don't like the outcome, whatever it turns out to be.
2. WHO ARE YOUR POTENTIAL CLIENTS?
So you’ve figured out what your goals are. The next question is: who are the potential clients who could generate the potential income that you are seeking to make? Who are they? What are their characteristics? What do they want/need? How much money do they have?
The answers are likely to be that there are different categories of client.
You may have wonderful, worthwhile clients who are penniless. If you decide to focus all your energies on these clients, you will also remain penniless. You will never make, say, $80,000 a year if you focus all your energies on these clients.
At the other end of the spectrum, there are very wealthy potential clients, like the Fortune 500 companies, or some foundations or some well-heeled NGOs, who are able to pay what it would take for you to make $80,000 a year, or even $400,000 a year.
But what do they want/need? By and large, these companies are not looking for storytellers or storytelling per se. They might need it, perhaps, but they aren't looking for that. So if you want these organizations as clients, then you have to ask: what do these organizations want that I could potentially offer?
That might not be what you are currently offering, in which case you might need to rethink what you are offering, if you want these organizations as clients. In between the penniless clients and the super-rich clients, there is obviously a whole spectrum. The task is to identify the various classes of client, who could be interested in what you might offer, and make a realistic assessment of how much they would pay.
You might want to devote your energies to one end of the spectrum, the penniless or the super-rich, or you might decide to devote some time to each, like Robin Hood, stealing from the rich to give to the poor. The thing is to get clear about what is your focus and then stick to that.
Looking at existing markets is one way of understanding these issues. The market of business speakers, for instance, is a well established market, with fairly ascertainable criteria for different levels of remuneration, related to content, celebrity, speaking skills, credentials, written works, preview videos and so on. So if you want to be a business speaker, you need to understand this market.
Another dimension here is whether you want to focus on a few clients or a mass market. Until the advent of the web, the latter wasn't really an option for individuals. But now, it is relatively easy to make a lot of money by providing something fairly cheap that very large numbers of people want and are willing to purchase on the web, like advice on dating or how to clean carpets. You might not want to tell these kinds of stories, but it's an option to consider, if you need to make a lot of money.
You also have to ascertain what languages your potential clients speak. If you are telling stories to Russians, you will need to speak in, guess what, Russian. If you are talking to business people, you need to talk in, guess what, business speak. If your clients are marketing people, you will need to speak marketing. If you know the language, fine. If you don't know it, you will have to learn it, to succeed with these clients.
3. WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO OFFER TO THESE CLIENTS?
What do you offer that could be of potential interest to your selected markets or groups of clients? If your offer is, "I am a storyteller", then if your clients are looking for a storyteller, then you're fine -- you are in business! If on the other hand, they're not looking for a storyteller, which is the likely situation, then that offer is unlikely to produce revenue. Instead, to make money, you have to provide something that they are looking for, whatever that is.
Maybe they need help on sparking change, or encouraging teamwork, or enhancing values? If you can reframe what you offer to be responsive to that need, then maybe you can do business with them. You might say: I'm not willing to make that shift; that would be selling out. In that case, so be it. But don't complain that you're not making money.
But you might also be able to find a way to stick to your principles, and do what you love doing, but also meet the need of the client. This would not be selling out, but rather doing what many great artists, like Shakespeare or Molière, have done throughout history.
You also need to keep an eye what prices are associated with what you are offering. For instance, "communications specialists" receive low pay, while "leadership specialists" can command astronomic prices. What they do is pretty much the same in substance but the pay is radically different. Positioning yourself as a “communications specialist” will forever limit how much money you can make. Positioning yourself as a leadership expert offers potentially much higher pay, but also a huge amount of competition, and will raise the question, what unique service do you offer? You need to make a decision which segment of the market to aim at and live with the consequences.
Similarly, you need to think about what your products or services can potentially earn. An author makes roughly a dollar for every book sold. So you have to sell 10,000 books, to make $10,000, which obviously isn't going to make you rich any time soon. Books are a "winners take all" market, in which Malcolm Gladwell makes a fortune, but almost everyone else limps along.
By contrast, training videos sell in the $100-$800 range, of which the creator may be able to take a substantial slice. So you don't have to sell many videos before you are making real money. But again, you have to make a video that would be attractive to the kind of client who can afford that kind of money.
Books in themselves are not generally very profitable, but they do establish credentials and credibility, and so are important for marketing other products and services, like speaking engagements, or training videos.
4. HOW DO YOU GO ABOUT MARKETING WHAT YOU HAVE TO OFFER?
The object of marketing is to create desire for what you have to offer among the potential clients that you are hoping to attract. If marketing is very successful, it obviates the need to do any selling. The clients come to you and beg for your services. How do you achieve this happy result?
One dimension is simply informing people of what you have to offer. Many people in business do not make clear what they are offering. For instance, of the people I know, I don't know what a lot of them do. Making clear what you do is a key part of marketing.
Another dimension of marketing is going beyond merely informing, and creating interest in and desire for whatever you are offering.
There are myriad ways to accomplish this, including books, articles, websites, blogs, listservs, newsletters, interviews, events, prizes etc. The books on guerilla marketing are full of suggestions on low cost marketing ideas. The only limit is your energy and imagination. The idea here is to spend very little money and get a big impact on the potential clients that you are aiming at.
For instance, suppose you have an offering and you want to attract people, you might:
be active on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube and build up a following.
participating in listservs and making interventions in the conversations that were occurring there, that drew attention to the weekend.
accelerating issuance of newsletters - once a week, rather than once a month.
doing interviews of the speakers, and circulating those by the above means.
The object is to have a lot of people say, "How interesting!"
5. HOW DO YOU SELL WHAT YOU HAVE TO OFFER?
If you have done your marketing well, you won't need to do much selling. People will come to you. (In general, time spent selling is time wasted. If you are spending a lot of time selling, then you probably need to review your marketing.)
Nevertheless, you do need to close the deal. What price should you set? This will largely be determined by existing markets, so you need to understand those markets and adjust your price accordingly.
In some markets, if you are not getting enough business, you may need to lower your price. However in other markets, having a low price may indicate that you aren't worth anything. Perversely, in these markets, raising your price may generate more business and revenue. Knowing what sort of market you are in is important.
6. WHAT IS YOUR BRAND NARRATIVE?
Once you have a going business, and preferably before you have it, you should be thinking about your brand narrative. What story can communicate what you are offering to your potential clients? And even more important: what is the story that you hoping to elicit from them in when they accept your offering? Do you consistently communicate your brand narrative? How? Since having a strong brand can make all the other steps above very easy, doing what is necessary to establish your brand is an important step in making your business sustainable.
7. WHAT ARE YOU LEARNING?
If anyone ever tells you they are having an unbroken string of brilliant successes, they are not telling the truth, or they are not really trying. Any effort to do something new will involve some failure. The main question is whether you learn from the failures.
For instance, when I left the World Bank, I assumed there would be demand for my services in knowledge management. It turned out that the demand was mainly for storytelling. So I re-oriented my focus to what the market wanted, i.e. storytelling. In this case, what the market wanted happened to be in sync with what I wanted anyway, which was nice. Obviously, the choices are not as easy if they market is pushing you in a direction you don't want to go.
I also found that as knowledge management went into decline, other parts of organizations (like marketing and HR) were in a better position to pay for the kinds of things I do. So I repositioned myself in ways that would make explicit why what I do is relevant to what those departments are trying to accomplish. As a result, now quite a bit of my business comes from marketing departments and HR.
Similarly, I found that what resonates in the US (e.g. innovation) didn’t work in Europe (where they talk about change management). No one could guess this in advance. One learns by trying things and finding out what works - and what doesn't.
* * *
Are these the right questions? Are they framed correctly? Are there other good ideas out there about how to respond to them? Love to hear from you!
Being driven by “purpose” or being “strategic” will save us, by becoming more “client focused”, or by "marketing".
No, sorry, marketing is the problem: it's “un-marketing” will save us.
“Intrinsic motivation” or “empowerment” will create energized employees and thus save us.
Or giving employees more “freedom” and “autonomy” will save us.
Or on the contrary, maybe there has been too much freedom, autonomy and empowerment. Instead better “execution” or “playing hardball” or “ruthless management” will save us.
Or maybe we need to see that it's “leadership” that will save us, or “servant leadership”, or “strengths-based leadership”, or “primal leadership”, or “principle-centered leadership”, or “total leadership”, or “tribal leadership,” or “transforming leadership” or “fierce leadership”?
No? Then could “corporate responsibility” save us?
If not, then surely better “talent management” or becoming a "learning organization" will do.
“Wikinomics” is going to “change everything”, so it will surely save us. If not, there's always “freakenomics” or “superfreakenomics”.
If that doesn’t work, then new technology “platforms” will surely save us, along with “social media”.
Then again, some think “knowledge management” will help us learn.
While software developers often imagine that “Agile” will make us nimble.
While some even think that “storytelling” alone might save us.
And so on.
In reality, none of these single-fix solutions will “save us”. None of them will address the complex array of problems that management now faces. In fairness, some of these authors never said that their idea would solve all those problems. But the book is often presented in such a way that we are definitely left with that impression.
THE EFFECT OF THE SINGLE MANAGEMENT FIX
What is clear is that each of these books focuses on a particular facet of management. Each of these ideas represents a tool that, with some exceptions, can be used to improve management and if used intelligently, should have some positive effect. But none of these tools is individually powerful or comprehensive enough to resolve the profound and pervasive management problems that we face today.
Indeed, when one of these tools is pursued within the framework of goals, attitudes, values and assumptions of traditional management, it may not lead to any improvement at all. Like business process re-engineering, which was launched as something fundamentally new, it ends up being “more of the same” under a different label, and thus becomes counter-productive, by preventing other, more worthwhile change.
By contrast, if the single management fix is pursued within a truly different framework of goals, attitudes, values and assumptions, as some of these authors do indeed suggest, then the initiative may begin to create a truly different dynamic within the organization, and it can be successful for a period. But as the initiative grows in size and importance, it attracts the attention of the powers that be—the traditional managers who view the new initiative as a dangerous virus that needs to be sidelined, scaled down, or simply eliminated. And so the once-promising initiative fails to have lasting benefit. This has happened many times in knowledge management, in lean manufacturing, in agile software development, in marketing and elsewhere.
What becomes apparent from this familiar sequence is that the fundamental management problem isn’t the problem being addressed by this or that single management fix. It’s rather the whole array of goals, attitudes, values and assumptions that drive traditional management to act the way it acts in most established organizations today. Unless and until something is done about those basic goals, attitudes, values and assumptions, no single management fix will stick.
THE NEED FOR A COMPREHENSIVE RETHINK OF MANAGEMENT
This is why thoughtful business leaders and writers are increasingly going beyond single-fix solutions and exploring a fundamental rethinking of the basic tenets of management. The best of current thinking offers a coherent conceptual framework which enables us to see both why what is now being practiced has become so ineffective and even counter-productive, and what it would take to resolve those problems.
To synthesize this more comprehensive thinking, it entails five fundamental and interdependent shifts in management practice:
1. The first shift stems from a monumental transition in the power balance from seller to buyer: to management's astonishment, the buyer is now in the driver’s seat. As a result, the firm’s goal has to shift to one of delighting clients: i.e. a shift from inside-out (“You take what we make”) to outside-in (“We seek to understand your problems and will surprise you by solving them”).
2. The second shift stems from the first transition, as well as the epochal transition from semi-skilled labor to knowledge work. Again to management's astonishment, traditional hierarchy suddenly doesn’t work any more. The role of the manager has to shift from being a controller to an enabler, so as to liberate the energies and talents of those doing the work and remove impediments that are getting in the way of work.
To support and sustain those two shifts, three other shifts are necessary:
3. The mode of coordination shifts from hierarchical bureaucracy to dynamic linking, i.e. to a way of dynamically linking self-driven knowledge work to the shifting requirements of delighting clients.
4. There is a parallel shift from value to values; i.e. a shift from a single-minded focus on economic value and maximizing efficiency to instilling the values that will create innovation and growth for the organization over the long term.
5. Communications also have to shift from command to conversation: i.e. a shift from top-down communications comprising predominantly hierarchical directives to communications made up largely of adult-to-adult conversations that solve problems and generate new insights.
Individually, none of these shifts is new. However what has been learned in recent years is that when one of these shifts is pursued on its own, without the others, it tends to be unsustainable because it conflicts with the goals, attitudes and practices of traditional management. The five shifts are interdependent.
Implementing the five shifts simultaneously is a strenuous agenda but offers significant benefits. When well executed, it generates simultaneously high productivity, continuous innovation, disciplined execution, job satisfaction and client delight.
In an earlier post, I discussed an alternative to hierarchy and anarchy that I called dynamic linking—a way of organizing that combines a sharp focus on the client, autonomous working conditions and disciplined execution.
One commentator asked whether there weren’t other alternatives. What about the matrix organization?
A matrix organization is a setup where you have not one boss, but two or more. It is really a form of expanded hierarchy, rather than an alternative to a hierarchy.
How does it work in practice? In my new book, The Leader's Guide to Radical Management, I try to remind people of just how unproductive these working arrangements are by telling stories. One of the stories that I tell is is about a matrix organization—the story of Nathalie, the software development
The Software Developer
Nathalie, a software developer, is the head of corporate Internet solutions for a major insurance company.
When she inherited the software development team it was facing a typical set of problems—software was late, over budget, and full of bugs. So she set about fixing the problems by introducing practices known as Scrum and Agile. She placed confidence in self-organizing teams that performed work in an iterative fashion, and the team rapidly became more responsive, efficient, and effective. After six months, the team had proved itself increasingly capable of delivering whatever software management wanted.
It gradually became apparent that the bigger problem wasn’t in the team at all. Rather, the organization could not make up its mind what it wanted.
The firm provided a full range of financial services. As a large conglomerate, the varied product lines and distribution channels would have presented a challenge for any team charged with improving customer experience across the board. For many years, the operating model had been a loose federation that provided each company with a great deal of autonomy. At one time, scores of Web sites were associated with the firm.
Nathalie’s team was charged with consolidating and improving the user experience of the firm’s Web site. Although things began well, she could see problems. Under the Agile and Scrum methodologies, management was supposed to specify what software it wanted developed in the next monthly work period. But the various departments found it difficult to agree on what should be done. The implementation period would often start without the organization having reached agreement on what precisely should be developed. As a result, the software development team would begin working on something, only to find that the signals changed when it was halfway along with the work.
The group responsible for setting priorities was composed of representatives of interested departments. But the individuals in the group had no mandate to make decisions on behalf of their departments, and if they did, they were likely to be second-guessed. Time-consuming checking back with their constituencies slowed decision making to a crawl, and often a halt.
Compounding the problem was the fact that a duo of senior managers affectionately known within the firm as the Gruesome Twosome weren’t happy. The Gruesome Twosome insisted on signing off at certain critical decision points, and during their reviews, they would often second-guess the instructions that had been given to the team of software developers. As their interventions became more frequent and disruptive, the group charged with setting priorities became less willing to make decisions for fear of being reversed upstairs.
Nor were the Gruesome Twosome’s decisions entirely clear: the group setting priorities had no way of getting clarification from them and was unwilling to substitute its own judgment. So like the oracle at Delphi, the group deployed an ambiguous dialect that enabled them to be on the right side of the winning decision whatever it turned out to be.
Nathalie came to see that no one was held to what they had said in a previous meeting because everyone knew that decisions were provisional. The only constant was deniability. The more troublesome a problem was, the vaguer the language became.
Nathalie knew that her team of software developers was working well, but it wasn’t productive because the firm couldn’t make up its mind what it wanted.
Nathalie and her team are unproductive, not because they don’t know what to do or how to do it. It’s because they are embedded in a matrix where it takes forever to get the decisions needed for the work to proceed.
The matrix at the World Bank
I spent many years working in a matrix organization in the World Bank. It took around a year to process a development loans that financed complex multi-million dollar projects in developing countries. The projects were complex but most of that year was spent negotiating with the matrix—the various fiefdoms within the World Bank, i.e. the macro-economic department, the technical department, environmental department, the procurement department, and so on, as well as the bosses of these departments, who sometimes had different views from their own staff. In the meantime, the clients would be waiting for a year or more for these internally focused discussions to be completed before they could get their loans. Within the World Bank, time was almost irrelevant: it was more important to placate the various fiefdoms of the bureaucracy.
Paradoxically, there was also a procedure for “emergency loans”. When there had been a crisis, like an earthquake or a flood, the World Bank would put together a team to process an emergency loan. With this procedure, each department would nominate someone to the team, and it would be accepted, given the urgency of the situation, that their representatives on the team were fully authorized to make the best decisions that they could and their “home” departments would accept whatever they decided. As a result, the members of the team were fully empowered to get things done. And so the emergency loans would be processed in about six weeks, rather than one year. This was because the people doing the work could actually get on and do the work, rather than spend their time negotiating with the tentacles of the matrix. The clients were happy because they got their loan in six weeks rather than a year. And the people doing the work found it exhilarating because for once they were free to get on with the job, without being second-guessed.
From time to time, I would propose to the management: why don’t we process all our loans using the emergency procedure? Then all our loans would be processed in six weeks instead of one year. Reviews showed that emergency loans processed in six weeks were not of lower quality than “regular” operations that took a year. In any event, even if there was the occasional error, since we would be moving so much more rapidly, we would have plenty of time to correct the error in a subsequent operation.
My suggestion was always greeted with horror. Unthinkable! And why was it unthinkable? It was unthinkable because that change would have revealed that all of these reviewing departments and managers were not adding value to our clients. It was the people actually doing the work who were creating value for our clients. The reviewing departments were, as Vineet Nayar has said in another context, nothing but a shell, layers and layers of management and aggregators who had nothing to offer to our clients. These layers were not creating value. Instead they were wasting the time of the people doing the work, by requiring them to make endless presentations about irrelevant things and write reports about what they had or had not done. But this was the way the work had always been done and this was the way it was always going to be. End of discussion.
If my suggestion to process all loans on an emergency basis had been accepted, the World Bank would have effectively adopted a version of dynamic linking.
“Dynamic linking” means that (a) the work is done in short cycles; (b) the management sets the goals of work in the cycle, based on what is known about what might delight the client; (c) decisions about how the work should be carried out to achieve those goals are largely the responsibility of those doing the work; (d) progress is measured (to the extent possible) by direct client feedback.
As The Power of Pull points out, one proceeds “by setting things up in short, consecutive waves of effort, iterations that foster deep, trust-based relationships among the participants… Knowledge begins to flow and team begins to learn, innovate and perform better and faster.… Rather than trying to specify the activities in the processes in great detail.., specify what they want to come out of the process, providing more space for individual participants to experiment, improvise and innovate.”
Dynamic linking is productive and fun.
By contrast, the matrix organization is a variant of a hierarchy, and usually not a very productive one.
In fact, the matrix organization is like Kafka's Castle, and the natural home of the Dilbert-style manager, the manager who focuses on procedure not substance, communicates by ambiguous signals, never takes a personal stand on any issue, and plays for time, hoping to survive.
Having one boss second-guessing you is bad enough. Having multiple bosses doing that is hell.
We are here to do. And through doing to learn; And through learning to know; and through knowing to experience wonder; and through wonder to attain wisdom; and through wisdom to find simplicity; and through simplicity to give attention; and through attention to see what needs to be done. Ben Hei Hei Wisdom of the Jewish Sages Spiritual Literacy By Frederick and Mary Ann Brussat: P. 353.
Shane Hastie has posted a notice on InfoQ about my new book, The Leader's Guide to Radical Management: Reinventing the Workplace for the 21st Century. Shane writes: “[Denning] contends that management today is in need of a radical makeover - existing practices are not adequate to meet the needs of the modern high-speed world, and to support today’s workforce who are motivated by inspiring leadership rather than command-and-control authority. He draws on the changes that are happening as a result of the application of Agile methods and shows how they are influencing organisations beyond the information technology space.” Read the full notice, which contains Q&A with Shane and an excerpt from the book, here.
Matt McFadyen, polar adventurer, has a great story about the importance of recognition (in an interview for Tirian International. He said:
It is easy to get a false sense of security and camaraderie in the team during the initial stages of an expedition. The first 30 minutes on our boat were sheer jubilation for the team as we sailed out through Sydney Heads bound for Antarctica. After months of preparation, the expedition was finally under way and the mix of excitement and relief put everyone on an emotional high. As a result, the team was motivated, engaged and getting along well.
But by day 11, morale had hit a real low. The euphoria was smothered by repetitious work and monotony and got worse as the reality of the task at hand set in. The impact on the team was that we withdrew into ourselves, trying to live off our own resources till we reached the Pole. We acted like 5 individuals instead of a team. But it wasn't working.
Eventually we had to break through our personal barriers and get the conversations going to act like a team again. We started to realize that if we were going to make it through to the end of our journey, we couldn't just wait till we got there to celebrate – we had to recognize success along the way. We needed to celebrate the little achievements - invisible markers of progress on the open ocean like certain lines of latitude or reaching specific coordinates. We had to find ways of paying attention to what we were doing well rather than focus what was still left to do.
Are there people in your life who could do with a little positive reinforcement and recognition? To do this, you can use the Recognize A Leader website ( http://www.recognizealeader.com/ )and put a little pep in their lives.
You may have heard of virtual conferences before. You may have attended storytelling conferences before. Starting this Thursday November 11, 2010 and going until Monday November 22, is a large scale virtual storytelling conference: The Reinvention Summit.
This stone soup creation coming to life thanks to 6 creators, 17 partners, 37 speakers, including Michael Margolis, John Elkington, Nancy Duarte, John Gerzema, Annette Simmons, and myself, along with 53 producers, and hundreds of participants. And you can add your story, insights, and voice into the mix. This is a historic global learning event in the field of storytelling.
Learn from these visionary voices on the role of storytelling as a driver of reinvention: for your career, business, and change-making efforts. There is nowhere else in the world you can find this leading edge content.
You participate on your own terms – in your pajamas if you want. All sessions are recorded and archived, so you can listen on your own time: http://www.reinventionsummit.com/
I'll be talking on Friday November 19 from 4pm to 5pm. I'll be discussing in a live session: Why Great Storytelling Initiatives Fail, and What Can Be Done About It.
Why do great leadership storytelling initiatives tend to fail? These world-class initiatives in established organizations seem to flourish for a while, with strong top management support and demonstrated results; but then something happens, and the initiative is sidelined or downsized or undermined in some indirect fashion, Why do managers act in this way? Why don’t they recognize that storytelling is central to leadership and key to their organizations future? What can be done to sustain storytelling initiatives?
I will be drawing on the findings of my new book, The Leader's Guide to Radical Management , and shows what kind of changes are needed to have storytelling take its rightful place as a key management and leadership tool in 21st Century organizations.
This conference is ridiculously affordable (registration starts at $11.11)