Character Development, Not Just For Tween Shows and Sitcoms

Cast of Hannah Montana

So my nine year old daughter Emma and I have been talking a lot lately about the various tween shows on Disney and Nickelodeon - you know them - Wizards of Waverly Place, Sonny With A Chance, Victorious, and of course, the pioneers, Hannah Montana and iCarly.

iCarly Cast

I was asserting my opinion that Hannah Montana was by far one of the best written shows and therefore, I had a tough time watching all the others. Particularly because we know the back story of the characters which is something writers like me call "character development". Nowadays with all the unscripted aka "crap" television - it appears that writers have become lazy and less likely to take time to develop characters which for me leads to less connection to them. 


Let's think about adult sitcoms - again - we  love "The Office" and "Parks and Recreation" - why? Not because Michael Scott is a great boss or Leslie Knope is an effective local municipal employee. We like those shows because we all feel like we know quite a bit about Michael, Leslie and most all the characters on both those sitcoms and it got me to thinking about real life.


How in the world do we truly connect today without knowing the "back story" of those we do life with? 


Much like the shallow writing on most of today's television programming - we live in a time where quick 140 character sound bites rule. People are discouraged from actually talking to one another and are instead directed to email to "make connections." I have read no less than 10 articles since the start of 2011 bad mouthing phones, phone calls and people who make them. Really?


One of my main criticisms about Carly - the main character in iCarly is that I have no reason to stick around for a 1/2 hour and hear her whining or  silly musings because I know nothing about her. There are no parents, or much talk of them. There is a silly brother and two friends and her Internet show. That's it.


Hannah/Miley on the other hand has been "well developed". We know about her deceased mom and her quirkiness. We know about her rock star dad who traveled her and Jackson through most of her childhood. I could go on and on - yeah the show is still annoying but I feel a connection because even on the surface - I feel like I know Hannah/Miley and therefore I am more empathetic to her whining and silly musings for a 1/2 hour.


Can you see the implications of "character development" in our everyday lives?


How much more empathetic would we be to those we work with if we knew their story? 


How much more willing would we be to help a neighbor if we actually knew something about  them?


How much better would our relationships with those we love be if we knew how their story impacted their behavior and interactions with us?


We spend lots of time today trying to streamline our communications and interactions and I think it's made us delusional to think that we can solve things in 22 minutes - just like on TV.


Life takes time.


Relationships take time.


Any efforts to curtail the time spent getting to know people you do life is dooming you to a sitcom existence. 


Make it a goal to be able to tell at least one story about everyone in your life - work or personal. Take the time to learn about the characters around you.


"Character development" is not just for writers...

The Office Nails It

If you did not watch tonight's episode of The Office - don't read this. Wait until you watch it on DVR and then come back.

OK, now that you are back, tonight's episode nails it 100%. Tonight's episode nails the corporate experience as I have seen it in my 17 years of working. Whether or not you watch The Office regularly - this is an episode not to be missed.

I'll set it up for you and when the episode is posted on NBC.com, I will surely post the link here.

Basically, Dunder Mifflin, the fictitious paper company on which the NBC hit series is based, is in trouble. There is shareholder meeting called and to distract the shareholders from the pending news of bankruptcy, the officers of the company invite Scranton branch manager Michael Scott to wave and represent the one good thing going on in the company on its way to certain doom. In classic Michael Scott-style, Michael does not quietly wave and "represent" the way the officers of the company would have him, instead he tries to motivate the dissidents with a rousing speech and makes a promise to "come back with a plan - a 45 day plan to turn the company around."

Upon returning to the staging room - the officers of the company, clearly shaken and freaking out about Michael's promise, began to badger him for his "plan." Without one at the top of his head, he calls in one of his employees, Oscar, who had been pontificating on the limo ride what he'd do if he were in charge. The defining scene that motivated me to blog comes next.

Given an opportunity to speak to the officers of Dunder Mifflin and genuinely contribute to the conversation on how to save the company, Oscar freezes, says nothing and slinks out.

Before the slinking, Michael- in all his inappropriate glory - prods Oscar with some of the tidbits that he'd been putting out over the last two days since the greater environment was alerted to the company trouble. "Tell 'em what you said about cash and property dumping," Michael said trying to pull Oscar into talking.

Nothing.

Not only nothing from Oscar but worse than that, none of leaders had the brains to ask him to talk or attempt to make him comfortable enough to tell the ideas that his desperate boss had called him in to share.

It was an all too common scene. Uncomfortable as it was in this fictitious world, I know this happens on a daily basis in real life and that is worse.

This episode highlights what I believe is the #1 problem in corporate America today.

The chasm between the people in charge and the people who may have solutions to contribute is often deep and wide.

It's two-fold and everyone plays a part.

Which one are you?

Are you the "Oscar" in your organization? The person with "all the answers" among your peers but silent in front of stakeholders who can make things happen. You chirp and chirp and, who knows - some of what you say may be legit but you'd never have the huevos to express it in the appropriate forum. Or...

Are you the Dunder Mifflin officer - too damn prideful to think that someone else (gasp) lower than you on the corporate ladder could actually have something to contribute? You know who you are; you make the worker bees feel stupid when they open their mouths with an original idea and then asks a few trusted folks near you why no one says anything in meetings.

I am happy to report that I am neither.

Although I have only been in three "corporate" (corporations not start-ups or non-profits) environments in my career, I am proud to say that I have consistently been a person who has both the skills and will to speak up and contribute.

Even when I speak alone.