Though the psychology of personality is complex and well beyond the scope of this discussion, the essential reason for behavioural change’s being difficult is not the stuff of dense theory. Put simply (if a little simplistically), you and I are creatures of habit. We resist change, especially when it’s externally imposed.

Which probably leads you to think, quite sensibly, that a belief in being able to change another person is fundamentally misguided. You would not be alone in this regard. For the most part, mainstream psychological literature still considers personality (and, by extension, its attendant behaviour) to be more or less fixed from young adulthood onwards.

So if that’s the case at the individual level, what about changing entire communities or societies? Logic dictates that it must be near impossible – surely?

Certainly, it’s not everyone’s bag. An agent of social change must offer more than just determination, or conviction, or altruism. To change the way a group of people think – which is, at least to some degree, a determinant of how they behave – requires a truly remarkable message. One that generates insight. One that forces people to question the status quo.

Eco-design consultants, Ecoinnovators, are trying to do exactly that with The Secret Life of Things project, a series of short, animated videos exploring the hidden environmental impacts of everyday things. Their first animated video, Life Psychl-ollogy, is featured below.

What we refer to in marketing speak as ‘cut-through’ or ‘a tipping point’ is what psychotherapists call a ‘breakthrough’: a rapid change in mindset after a period of resistance. Unfortunately, as psychotherapists will attest, these are exceptionally rare events. It may take years, even decades, of therapy before an insight of this magnitude is achieved. Sometimes it never happens at all.

So is this kind of change really possible on a macro scale? That is, does it represent profound insights and lasting behavioural shifts? Will the YouTube clip shown above result in real behaviour change? Do people like Al Gore have a rare gift for guiding whole sections of society towards a new way of thinking and doing? Or is their popularity just a passing fad that will lapse at the first sign of self-interest and human fallibility?

Are those who pursue social change a force for good – or just unrealistic zealots?

Ryan Wallman is Senior Writer at WellmarkPerspexa, a strategic communications and design agency that believes in the power of social marketing.

Because if we’re honest, most of us would probably admit that people with an entrepreneurial bent can actually be a bit on the anti-social side. Simon Cowell, for example, or that America’s Cup guy … you know, the one who rorted a whole state and then claimed illness at his court appearances … meh, I forget who he was now. (If he could get away with it, so can I.)

But what if – and you might want to sit down for this – what if people with an unusual degree of initiative and ambition and creativity were to apply those traits in the pursuit of something other than the almighty dollar? (Notwithstanding that most dollars are not exactly ‘almighty’ right now … more ‘formerly-almighty-but-now-a-bit-soft-around-the-middle-and-considering-retirement’ kind of dollars. Whatever. I figure you get the gist.)

Well, now, that would indeed be quite something – the kind of something that has the potential to change everything. And, let’s face it, most people just don’t have the wherewithal to carry through with a something that big. Hell, most people these days don’t have the wherewithal to carry through with a half-hour TV program.

And yet these big somethings are happening. What’s more, they are happening because of big somebodies. As the Ashoka Institute (a global association of social entrepreneurs), puts it:

Identifying and solving large-scale social problems requires a social entrepreneur because only the entrepreneur has the committed vision and inexhaustible determination to persist until they have transformed an entire system.

So it’s the old adage: when the going gets tough, call an entrepreneur. Or something.

Ryan Wallman is Senior Writer at WellmarkPerspexa, where he is always working towards something big.

So you may well scoff at this figment of my childish imagination (and apparent illiteracy), but the true meaning of ‘bioprospector’ is not much less far-fetched. To give you some idea, a Wired article once referred to bioprospectors as ‘the Indiana Joneses of the 21st century’. How’s that for a word-picture? Makes my ‘bionic weirdo’ interpretation seem a bit weak, frankly. Who would have thought?

So who are these swashbucklers, exactly: these fearless adventurers full of rugged charm and devil-may-care attitude? Well, I don’t want you swooning to the point of distraction before I finish my piece, so I’ll warn you now to brace yourself for this description … bioprospectors are commercially minded scientists who target the biosphere in a ‘methodical search for novel pharmaceutical and other products from plants and micro-organisms’ (as Wiktionary so seductively puts it).

Pretty sexy stuff, huh? Take that, you Indiana Jones fans. How often do you hear him referred to as ‘methodical’? And when was the last time he sought out a micro-organism? (No, wait, there was Calista Flockhart.)

My point is: entrepreneurialism comes in many guises. Just as ‘cutting-edge cool’ is now the province of the geekocracy, it appears that even the ‘maverick explorer’ stereotype is undergoing a 21st-century reinvention. So pack your bags, Indi; looks like we have finally seen your last crusade.

Ryan Wallman is Senior Writer at WellmarkPerspexa by day and entrepreneur-cum-rugged-explorer by night (or something like that).

The central theme of the series, that of the individual’s plight in the face of entrenched power structures, has much to say about the way in which individuals interact with organisations. So what parallels does it have in the business community, and what are the messages that bear consideration by leaders?

For the benefit of those who haven’t seen it, The Wire is ostensibly the story of a Baltimore police department, beginning with the targeting of a drug gang via a ‘wire’ tap. By way of this rather prosaic setting, the series examines the complex, interrelated machinations of a modern society, emphasising the difficulty of effecting change within established systems (and the inevitable alienation that results from this difficulty).

You can see where I’m going with this.

When individuals are subjugated by an inflexible collective – one that by its very nature inhibits change – they lose faith in the system. And it is for this reason that organisations must be very careful about the way in which they interact with their people. As Henry Mintzberg has observed, employees are not ‘human capital’ but humans who provide capital: that is, the relationship between the organisation and the individual should begin with basic respect.

The simple fact is that people are more likely to do the right thing by an employer if they don’t feel completely powerless. Not exactly rocket science, you would think. And yet it does seem that this message continues to be ignored by some companies, particularly those in industries with traditionally scant focus on ‘soft’ skills.

The problem for these organisations is that their more astute competitors are taking employee engagement seriously, irrespective of how much stock they may have historically placed in such an approach. And they’re doing it because it affects productivity, retention and the bottom line. So if you’re a manager, dismiss this as touchy-feely nonsense at your peril.

To extend the analogy to The Wire a little further, the other crucial issue here is fairness. The systems examined in The Wire all thrive on uneven power distribution, which further compounds the overwhelming sense of futility experienced by the (disempowered) individuals who get tangled up in them. At the organisational level, the parallel is obvious. Quoted in a 2009 report to the UK Government, Baroness Margaret Prosser, Vice-Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, put it thus:

‘It’s hard to imagine an engaged workforce where one group felt that their voice was being ignored. Ensuring equal opportunities and fair treatment is an essential strand of an engagement strategy.’

For those in leadership positions, there are clear lessons in all of this. Are you heeding them, or alienating your people?

Ryan Wallman is Senior Writer at WellmarkPerspexa, where his penchant for highly creative metaphors can spice up even the most dry communications.

Many businesses would do well to take note of this principle. In my experience, business communications are soporifically similar to each other: a fatal flaw of any communication that actually aims to be heard. With few exceptions, they are couched in the bland, clichéd language of the modern office. But rather than just being a depressing fact of corporate life, this is something that can be exploited by the astute business. So how can you make the ‘voice’ of your organisation distinctive and – equally importantly – ensure that it rings true?

Looking again to advertising as a model, the first rule is to be genuine with your audience. Greg Ippolito, writing about The Psychology of Sameness in AdWeek, believes that this is the key to avoiding uniformity: ‘Part of the problem is a lack of empathy. Good creatives know that, in order to craft meaningful communications, you need to empathize with your audience – to understand their worldviews and “pain points” within the context of the product or service you are selling. But very few people are wired for empathy.’

It’s an observation that is essentially true of communication in any sphere, so why should the business world be any different? Granted, some corporate communications are constrained by legal and regulatory requirements, but this alone does not account for the modern tendency towards inert language, repetition and mindless cliché. For this we can also blame complacency, laziness and – above all – a basic lack of respect for the audience.

To extrapolate a little, the homogeneity of business communications probably reflects the broader use of ‘management-speak’. And there’s the rub. As Don Watson and others have noted, this kind of communication does not resonate with most people for the simple reason that it is inauthentic. People bristle when they hear a boss talking about ‘maximising synergies’ because it is not how people really talk – or at least not how they talk to someone with whom they have a genuine relationship. Moreover, this kind of communication can be perceived as an insult to the audience’s intelligence, something to which people are unlikely to respond with great enthusiasm. (Go figure.)

With so much of this swill around – falling on the increasingly deaf ears of a sceptical audience – there is a clear opportunity here for businesses to stand out from their competitors and connect with their audience. And the real bonus? Half the battle is won just by being yourself. If you have a good sense of your own brand (not just some imposed version of it), you can speak with a voice that conveys real personality. You’ll certainly stand out from your pompous-sounding competitors and, hell, people might even like you. It’s common sense – and good business sense.

It is generally accepted that good advertising, indeed good communication, does not condescend. Time for business to get real?

Ryan Wallman is a Senior Writer at WellmarkPerspexa, a business-to-business communications agency that specialises in making complex communications simple.

In the business setting, stakeholders are (generally) less murderous. Their stake is not so much a post-like instrument as it is an instrumental post: a role of which an organisation must take heed.

Businessdictionary.com defines this kind of stakeholder as an entity (i.e. person or group) that can affect or be affected by an organisation’s actions, objectives and policies. A very inclusive definition, when you think about it – and therefore progressive – but how do organisations take into account the many potentially competing interests that this implies? For example, I’m seriously affected whenever my football team loses, but I get the distinct impression that my views on team selection are not being taken seriously by club management (and heaven knows I’ve expressed them audibly enough).

The answer is that the devil is in the detail. Businessdictionary points out that ‘all stakeholders are not equal and different stakeholders are entitled to different considerations’. Which sounds vaguely Orwellian, admittedly, but at least it means that some self-righteous ignoramus doesn’t get much say in how a football club runs its business.

Ryan Wallman is Senior Writer at WellmarkPerspexa, a business-to-business communications agency that excels when it comes to creating stakeholder communications that engage, inform and inspire.

So might say a certain type of enlightened shareholder. And these are valuable people, no doubt, but not entirely relevant to this forum. Such is the importance of punctuation; but for a single hyphen, I would now be launching into a discussion about how we might all become not just valuable shareholders, but transcendent ones too. Which would not be such a bad thing, I guess: all shareholders could probably do with a little more enlightenment (though they should beware false profits, of course).

Given the absence of that hyphen, what we’re actually talking about here is an enlightened approach to company direction, for the good of shareholders. As UK Sustainable Investment and Finance (UKSIF) puts it: ‘long-termism and regard for other stakeholders can be achieved within current principles by ensuring that directors pursue shareholders’ interests in an enlightened and inclusive way’.

Is this an ‘alternative’ way of doing things in the corporate world? It certainly sounds like it. Benevolent guidance, consideration for others and an emphasis on working for the greater good: it seems that the concept of enlightened shareholder value isn’t so far removed from new-age thinking after all! So next time you smell incense in the boardroom, it probably means that those shares are getting really high.

Ryan Wallman is a Senior Writer at WellmarkPerspexa, a business-to-business communications agency with years of experience in what we like to think of as enlightening investor communications.

One critical consideration for those communicating this aspect of their business is that sustainability reports speak to a very broad audience. As KPMG point out in their 2008 guide ‘Sustainability Reporting’, the potential stakeholders addressed by these reports range from customers and employees right through to rating agencies, policymakers and the general community. Used in the right way, sustainability reporting can strengthen your external credibility, galvanise your workforce and contribute to a strong company culture – all of which help to build a sustainable brand (in every sense).

Therefore, it is imperative that your sustainability report gets to the people you want it to, gets their attention, and gets the right messages across.

To reach that point, the first step – no surprises here – is to make sure you have your communications strategy nailed down. The areas to consider at this stage include:

• Regulatory requirements: what do people need to know?
• Investor and other stakeholder relations: what do people want to know?
• Strategic alignment: how do you ensure that what you say is consistent with your broader business objectives?
• Engagement: where do you say it and to whom?

Your channels of engagement are important. As with other corporate reporting, print is the dominant format for sustainability reporting, but many organisations are now complementing their printed reports with other communication initiatives in order to broaden their stakeholder engagement. Online versions of sustainability reports are gaining in popularity, in part because they offer greater potential for two-way communication with audiences. And it is not uncommon for companies to take advantage of other opportunities such as AGMs and media releases to communicate their sustainability reporting.

Once you know what you’re going to say and to whom, the next challenge is how you’re going to say it. In this respect, a sustainability report is much like any other form of communication: great material doesn’t guarantee a great reception. (And let’s face it – crowds don’t come much tougher than a mix of investors, regulators, customers and employees.) So delivery counts. But how do you craft your message so that it:

• Appeals to a broad audience?
• Ticks all the regulatory boxes?
• Upholds your organisational values?
• And, after all that, builds your brand?

Well, it’s not impossible, but it takes care – and a bit of flair. Chris Raybould discusses some of the ways to achieve it here.

Ryan Wallman is a Senior Writer at WellmarkPerspexa, a business-to-business communications agency with years of experience in delivering award-winning investor communications.

For those less cynically inclined, it may even seem a rather prolix alternative to ‘thinking’; however, given that people do not generally describe their vocalisation of semi-considered opinions as ‘knowledge-managing out loud’, and since Rodin did not see fit to name his statue ‘The Knowledge Manager’, this interpretation assumes a fairly radical departure from linguistic norms.

Traditionalists can rest assured that the word ‘thinking’ has not been superseded. Knowledge management – a term largely confined to the organisational setting – doesn’t actually have much to do with brainy chemistry. Well, not unless you’re talking about the frisson that might accompany knowledge management among intelligent colleagues, and that would give ‘knowledge-managing out loud’ a different meaning altogether.

But I digress.

According to British CSR specialists Article 13, knowledge management is a system for using a particular type of knowledge that they define as a fluid mix of contextual information, values and experiences. In an organisation, this knowledge resides within employees (and is thus known as human capital) and represents a source of creativity, innovation and adaptability to change.

So the importance of the concept to business could not be clearer! Capitalist organisations must use their human capital to capitalise on the opportunities presented by the capitals ‘CSR’. Knowledge management? What a capital idea.

Ryan Wallman is a Senior Writer at WellmarkPerspexa, specialising in knowledge management for capitalist organisations (i.e. marketing communications for the B2B, corporate and healthcare sectors).