There is one thing that drives the devastation in the corporate world that is warned about in the religious world – Unbelief. When employees lose the corporate vision or leaders forget to paint the vision, employees change their behaviors and become less productive. We’ve seen the effects of it many times and will soon see it again with the reduction of service at the post office.

It amazes me that during the generation of service, the postal office has determined the best way to reduce its expenses is to slow down its service – Can they get any slower? I’m a firm believer that the postal service doesn’t have a visionary encouraging workers to be faster and thereby reducing the need for certain expenses. After all, visionaries are always about finding ways to make things better, cheaper and faster.

The total blame can’t be put on the corporate visionary, as it’s the people who decide what they want to believe. This is true when it comes to following any of society’s bibles. Some follow the “green” bible with all diligence in recycling, the avoidance of fossil fuels and managing organic composes. Others subscribe to the bible of political correctness. And, many hold to the teachings of the Holy Bible.

Regardless of ones perspective, it takes belief to follow any bible religiously. It takes even more belief to evangelize one’s viewpoints in today’s society. Proselytizing someone with a mantra about carbon emissions takes even more belief due to our love of cars. After hitting many brick walls of apathy, few will continue to get the word out.

If we were to take the lead from the religious world, we would know that “sin” is the greatest hinderance of employees fulfilling the corporate vision. While many would suggest that sin in the corporate sense includes the distractions of the marketplace, I’m a firm subscriber to it being about disbelief. After all, in the religious world sin is more about not trusting God to do what he says he will do, which leads to people taking life upon themselves and choosing a vice for comfort rather than turning to God for their answers.

This unbelief also holds true in the corporate world. If we don’t buy-in to the corporate vision or it wasn’t painted for the employees, most will eventually gravitate to anything that the crowds are doing. This mentality comes from the idea that it must be right if so many people have made the decision to do it. Unfortunately, fortune 100 greatness has only come about through true evangelists that stand their ground in spite of the sense of isolation that they live with.

Steve Jobs was one of those evangelists who was fortunate enough to draw in a group of true believers to his products, like the iPad I’m typing this blog on while riding the train into Chicago. Not only did I become a believer in Apple products that are easy to operate, but I’ve made it a part of my lifestyle. I find myself using my iPad 1-2 hours a day. Can you imagine the results of people spending 1-2 hours a day developing religious morals or sharing compassion?

Regardless of which bible we follow in life, the real question is do we believe in it to the point of making life changing decisions as a result of it?

The test of any belief system is how we act it out. In the corporate world our actions reveal our beliefs. The people we follow or trust, and the action steps we take toward our objectives or into the minutiae that doesn’t matter, all speak to our belief system. Just as religion drives us to live moral upright lives, the corporate financial and innovation goals drive us to improve our services and products through better quality, cheaper pricing, and faster delivery and production cycles.

I’m not convinced the postal service has a bible, let alone subscribes to any visionary. But what about us? What of our actions reveal what vision we follow? Do we believe in it enough to evangelize it like Steve Jobs? A moment of self reflection on our actions can quickly bring perspective to what is in our hearts and minds. Frankly, I think it’s time we make the decision to walk away from apathy and put some energy behind what we believe in.

There are several types of auditions for film and television, but the most common is the screen test. The actor is given a page or two of a specific scene that will reveal at least one aspect of their character. They will then be given ample time (about 30 minutes) to review the script pages and rehearse their lines.

When its time to film the actor, the director will review the character and the scene. The typical items discussed are the character’s “moment before,” their “fighting fors” and their goal or motivation. Sometimes a director will also review the conflict within the scene, but that is typically left for the actor to determine, as the shifting of power at key points within the dialog is up to interpretation.

Sometimes the actor will be auditioned with an actor that is already contracted on the picture. Other times, they will play across from a neutralized actor – One who reads the lines in a monotone, so as to not give the actor any interpretation of the scene.

The goal of the director during the screen test is to learn if he can work with the actor. To do so, he will give various adjustments to the actor and learn if he gets what he is looking for. The interaction between the actor and the director makes up 75%of the casting decision. After all, only those who can act are brought in for screen tests.

The shooting set up typically includes a camera and a boom microphone. Lights are seldom a part of the screen test, although many studio pictures that use lights will also incorporate costumes and sets. The camera and boom mic help to establish the right level of acting and response (voice volume and movement) from the actor.

If the screen test is treated like a stage audition, the actor’s motions and voice will be too big and give an inaccurate reading of his performance. This may completely undermine the process of the screen test, but will still give the director an opportunity to interact with the actor.

Unfortunately, few independent casting calls are set up to give the director what is needed to determine who should be cast. Auditions turn more into a competition of personalities and a measurement of who has the longest list of credits. This type of audition typically finds an upset director well into the shoot once he realizes a couple of the actors are very wrong for the roles, as he watches the roles conform to the actor’s whims or his desire for a certain type of clip for his demo reel.

The key to a good screen test is to create a shooting environment that includes interaction between the director and actor. They need to learn if they gel and if the actor can give the subtle performance that the director requires in those difficult character development scenes. Few independent directors actually walk away with this type of knowledge from the screen test, as they don’t have a clue of how to conduct the audition.

I auditioned last Saturday for a role in a webisode that is to be shot in the spring. The audition was handled like a stage play, but taped for later review. There was no interaction with the director during the performance, nor was any instruction given. This typically suggests they were just looking for who has some form of raw talent for future projects, rather than looking for specific things for the webisodes. In fact, they even mentioned the myriad of projects they have in queue.

The audition was a common one for theater, which is very uncommon for screen. Each actor was asked to prepare a monologue rather than working with script pages from the story. The camera was far enough back to cause the actor to project his voice, rather than giving the intimate performance that cinema requires. Stage audition styles are actually more common than you’d think with independents, because most only have high school experience conducting an audition for the stage.

My directing experience suggests that a five-minute conversation with an actor can give me more of a glimpse into his performance than what the “cattle call” stage type of audition would give me. After all, cinema is about intimacy, not projection. It is also about interaction with the director with every performance, unlike the stage actor who only prepares with the director and then performs on his own with every open curtain.

The stage audition style is also detrimental to the actors, who need the immediate feedback of their performance. While amateur directors tend to only suggest improvements, actors need verification that the director got the exact performance and shot he needed or the actor’s performance will start to waver and weaken as shooting continues.

The actor is counting on the director to only keep the one take that makes them look good and will trust the director to tell them when that shot is achieved. The actor needs to take the guessing work out of the shoot, so everyone can perform at their peak. This also holds true for screen tests.

The silent director is the one who actors should avoid like the plague, especially during screen tests. After all, if the director can’t interact during the inexpensive audition process, how will he interact when he’s burning thousands of dollars an hour during a shoot and has to meet a deadline. It won’t bode well for the actor.

Copyright © 2011 By CJ Powers
Photo © seandeburca – Fotolia.com

The most important marketing information a company can gain typically comes from focus groups. Church growth also comes from the connections made in small groups and healthy emotions are strengthened in recovery with the use of small groups. In the business world, productivity is measured and increased via small teams focusing on critical functions. Yet with the incredible importance small groups have in our lives, few people understand how to facilitate a group’s success.

Last night I had the privilege of participating in a small group focused on facilitating small groups. It was enlightening to say the least. Not only did the program address each personality type so all participated in the discussion, but it also brought focus of vision and a team spirit through personal bonding exercises.

One of the most important points I learned about facilitation is the importance of knowing myself. By objectively understanding my personal hot buttons, style and tendencies, I can purposely counter any comments I might want to make that could steer the meeting in the wrong direction.

This became even clearer when our facilitator clarified that in a small group the number one goal is conversation. There are days when I fail at this simple task, as I hear a frustrated person share their pain that could easily be fixed with the right answer that I happen to know. During those times I struggle to keep my mouth shut and allow the person to talk through their issue long enough to come up with their own answer.

Respecting the other person and letting them take ownership of discovering their own solution is paramount to their growth. It also makes them a fisherman, rather than a hungry person who just ate the one fish I gave them to survive the moment. By empowering people to learn and manage their own growth, the team becomes stronger and more individuals rise to become strong leaders themselves.

Engaging participants in a deep conversation and allowing them to explore through each other’s experience and various viewpoints, helps them to take ownership of their role in the team and drives them to be the best they can be. It also provides clear information as to the health of the group and the needed direction the leader might want to steer them for greater success.

However, none of this is possible if the leader is driving their personal agenda or just wants to hear themselves speak. After all, true growth comes from the collaboration of ideas and experiences that are focused in the over all direction of the vision set forth.

A business team’s vision might be about altering processes to generate key savings. A church might want to encourage a discipline of prayer within their membership. A community group might desire a connection between the individuals so they can accomplish more with focused volunteers teaming together for the common good. Whatever the vision, it all starts with each individual taking responsibility for their area of focus, which is easily encouraged through small group conversations that share the strengths and weaknesses all face.

There were numerous key points taught last night, that we hopefully retained, but the one thing that became most clear was the bonding process that increased our respect for each other. The shear process, whether the vision was properly painted or not, was extremely useful in solidifying the team.

There was a new sense of closeness and anticipation in what we might do in 2012 that would bring our team’s success to an entirely new level. And, I can’t wait to reconnect with the team, as the open sharing of our strengths and weaknesses with respect, drew us closer to each other – All because the goal was conversation and not a linear agenda.

Copyright © 2011 By CJ Powers
Photo © Anatoly Maslennikov – Fotolia.com