Getting to ”Yes And"

There’s an old saying that goes: “Faith is believing in something that you know isn’t true.” I think a similar paradox underlies a common objection to the improv concept of “Yes And.”

“Yes And” says that an improv performer must not deny the reality asserted by her onstage partner but must accept it and build on it during the course of the scene. In introducing this concept to the organizational world, I’ve received the following pushback more than once: “You mean I’m supposed to agree with someone even if I don’t agree with him?”

When put like that, the “Yes And” concept certainly sounds indefensible, so my usual response is to reframe the question by pointing out that “Yes And” doesn’t necessarily mean Agreeing with the Position, but it does mean:

(1) Accepting the Person,
(2) Acknowledging the Possibilities in what the person says, and
(3) Advancing with a Positive Purpose.

The “Yes And” attitude can be contrasted with the approach many people take instead: Disagreeing with the Position – period! People who take this approach usually get stuck in a no-win battle of hammering each other with their Positions, rather than inquiring into the interests, values, and perspectives that underlie the other’s Position – and their own as well. As pointed out in the book Getting to Yes, the seminal work of the Harvard Negotiation Project, this volleying back and forth of Positions is the very definition of impasse and stalemate. (In fact, it’s a perfect example of the Definition of Insanity: “Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time.”)

In my next post, I'll describe the concept of the "And Stance" from the book Difficult Conversations, which continues the theme of "Yes And" as applied to conflict situations.