Roles - Tumblr Posts

What do you see as the difference between leading leaders and leading followers?

There are four (4) groups surrounding leaders: Followers, Non-Followers, Outsiders, and Observers. Your question focuses on breaking down followers into five (5) categories: enthusiasts, visionaries, pragmatists, conservatives, and laggards. ("Crossing the Chasm", Geoffrey A. Moore) Based on the definition of leadership, "Guiding Intent with Integrity" there should be no difference in leading Leaders vs Followers. However, as described above, there are different types of followers, as well as three (3) additional groups, that require different types of handling.

The terms Scott mentioned: [accountability, empowerment, innovation, collaboration, trying and learning, straight communication, supporting intentions, [assessment], projection, and blame] concern integrity. And, he split them into two (2) groups based on proximity to the leader - closest and farthest.

Integrity's unwritten rule is called a, "Social Contract". The expectations that all parties have against each other. When unwritten it's "word of mouth" or an "Understanding". When written it's a contract.

Exceptions on outcomes, drives the group to accomplish something, or resolve a problem. The question now is, "How much have various individuals bought into this outcome?" The answer indicates their level of participation, motivation and excitement. Participation, motivation and excitement levels diminishes the farther from the leader.

In the five (5) groups of followers: enthusiasts, visionaries, pragmatists, conservatives, and laggards a pattern emerges around expectations and willingness to change. Enthusiasts and Visionaries look for new innovative ways to merge ideas and craft unique solutions to the "Human Condition" or Business Problem. Pragmatists want something that will give them a leg up. Conservatives don't care where the solution comes from, it's foot cream, any will do as long as it does the job. And, laggards, refuse to use new tools until it's so entrenched into society that they have no other choice.

Now we can measure the level of effort needed to interact with each group. Enthusiasts and Visionaries talk in broad terms, are excited and motivated about you're work, and in return excite and motivate you to continue researching bigger, better solutions. Pragmatists only believe what other pragmatists say, thus your conversation dynamic has to change. The amount of energy to convince someone to "Try the New" increases. Conservatives require your product to be main stream, mature and in full competition before they will look at it. This requires a tremendous amount of energy, which few entrepreneurs are capable of providing. And, there is no amount of energy that will move a laggard.

Each group assess change differently as well. This is based on their judgments triggered by beliefs "On how things should be". "Shared Visions" play an important rule in motivating followers. This is where followers migrate to non-followers and outsiders depending on whether or not they share your vision. Thus when employees can't see the vision, or understand how they are part of a larger whole, and are treated as a commodity (foot cream), they loose motivation, excitement, creativity, enthusiasm, and so on.

As such, when searching for the right people for the right roles, leaders are looking for excited people who can motivate others through a shared vision of a better world. Thus the mission of the organization is to achieve this vision, and it has to flow out from the Board down to every member in the organization.

pet peeve: the ubiquitous casual conflation of ‘bottom’ (gay sex meaning), ‘bottom’ (adynamic kink meaning; that is, a way of referring to the one who is the target/recipient of an action such as spanking without reference to the existence of a D/s power dynamic between participants), and ‘sub’.

Whenever people get snarky about Krist coming back to BL all, “Looks like rent’s due,” I’m just like, “He has a custom-built music studio in the house that he owns, works on nine projects at a time, rarely has time off, drives a luxury car, allows his family full access to his bank account, gets money bouquets from fans just for breathing, and he’s kissed Gawin Caskey and Singto Prachaya multiple times like this:”

You’re in the house that he and Singto built.

You pay rent to him.

destroy the idea of the “average father” coveting his daughter’s virginity and “protective brother” making sure no men lay their unholy eyes upon his sister who has given them full permission.

slaughter the idea that men are allowed to be gatekeepers for sex and have a duty or a right to “save women from themselves” when it comes to sex

kill the purity myth

I'm the protagonist, yeah 🔥

The signs in a spy movie

Aries: The spy's boss who has no idea what they're doing

Taurus: The underrated but really attractive sidekick

Gemini: The one who betrays the good guys

Cancer: The good person who's in love with the villain for some reason

Leo: The protagonist spy

Virgo: The strategic mastermind in HQ

Libra: The one who betrays the bad guys

Scorpio: The creepy rival who the spy gets paired up with for the assignment

Sagittarius: The evil sidekick who's actually smarter than the villain

Capricorn: The evil mastermind

Aquarius: The villain with a scarring backstory

Pisces: The spy's love interest who only appears in this one movie

I’m seeing a lot of discourse about Bridgeton Season 3 and the recasting of certain characters and people keep talking about it being unfair to the original actors, or that they shouldn’t have jumped to other projects (Francesca’s season 1 actor was cast as the lead in Lockwood and Co, which was then unfortunately cancelled…) and instead they should have stayed around to be avalible etc.. and I think we’re missing an obvious point:

People don’t want to watch the kids that grew up on their Tv have s*x.

Bridgerton by definition is a s*xual show, with explicit scenes and n*dity from its leads. When it gets around to the younger kids stories (if the show’s renewed enough) no one will be 100% comfortable watching s*x scenes when they remember that actor as a child.

Game of Thrones ran into this issue too. We all watched Maisie Williams grow up on screen, watched as her characters story grew and she had to handle tougher subject matter and scenes. No one wrote into complaint when we watched her pretend to kill a child at 14 (playing an 11 yr old Arya Stark), when she blinded and killed a p*edophile at as an actor of 18 (15 for Arya) or watched what was essentially torture p*rn of a blind 19 year old being beaten relentlessly every week for a month.

But when it came time to do an intimate scene… suddenly the audience felt awkward. Something about s*xual intimacy crossed some internal boundary for a large portion of the audience and suddenly the voyeuristic nature of being an audience in those scenes was driven home. It was okay being a viewer to explicit scenes if they were violent or gory, but explicit scenes of romance… nope that somehow feels indecent.

It was a tasteful scene, only partial n*dity, nothing full frontal, and the blocking and writing made it clear it was consensual and enjoyable. In every way possible this was a positive thing for Arya as a character and as both the character and actor were adults there was no concern about appropriate story lines.

And yet.

People wrote in. People switched off, fast forwarded, talked about it at work on Monday. Articles were written, and it became a discussion piece around the TV; even knowing all the above people still felt wrong watching an actor they first knew as a child and who they ‘watched grow up on screen’ perform a s*x scene.

So I think a big part of Bridgerton’s casting choices around the younger children is to head this off at the pass and to not invite the discussion. Why risk even a percentage of your audience not watching the intimate scenes that season (or god forbit not streaming the season at all!) when you can just recast and remove the problem? Why borrow trouble or controversy, especially when other plot points in future stories will likely do that all on their own?

This way we get to have a child character played by a child actor, who the audience can find cute and precocious, who they can feel parental and familial toward with complete peace of mind. And then when the season comes for that siblings love story, ‘oh would you look at that puberty made them look all grown up and completely different’! A new adult actor is playing the adult version and the audience can watch them enjoy their love affair with no guilt, unease, or annoyance.

So yes it’s probably sad for the actors who first played these characters or are playing them now to know that they won’t get to be the one to act out their characters ‘main character moment’ season. But they were hired on in that capacity, they knew what they signed up for, and at the end of the day no one is ‘entitled’ to anything in Showbusiness.

The whole show’s already a guilty pleasure, so let’s not tip the balance too far!

I COULDN'T MAKE IT TO A PLAY THAT I REALLY WANTED TO DO!!! I WANTED TO BE A WOLF TOO!!!!