A Day in the Life of an Agent of Change

"The long and winding road / that leads to your door."

Paul McCartney

I love it when things Come Together!

I've been in a major Beatles groove this week, inspired by a friend who's been eagerly preparing to attend a Paul McCartney concert with her daughter in Phoenix this Sunday. As I was listening to one of the Fab Four’s signature tracks, Sergeant Pepper’s “A Day in the Life,” I was suddenly reminded of a story about the recording session for the track – one that provides a connection to the “change journey” topic I’ve been writing about in recent articles.

“A Day in the Life” is really made up of two separate songs, one written by McCartney, the other by John Lennon. Lennon, McCartney, and their producer, George Martin, wanted the two songs to comprise separate “movements” for the work but were stumped for a way to connect the pieces.

Finally, Martin hit upon a way to fill the gap. McCartney and Martin brought in a 40-piece orchestra to play a 24-bar improvised fill – a tough challenge for classically trained musicians accustomed to an orchestrated score. In order to facilitate the process for the musicians, Martin structured the fill by using a novel approach which he described as follows:

What I did there was to write ... the lowest possible note for each of the instruments in the orchestra. At the end of the twenty-four bars, I wrote the highest note...near a chord of E major. Then I put a squiggly line right through the twenty-four bars, with reference points to tell them roughly what note they should have reached during each bar.

As I read that, I thought: Get Back! (OK, so that’s another album.) Martin’s description struck me as a perfect integration of the two approaches to change that I described in my article about the Heath Brothers’ book Switch.

I had written that, when influencing other people to change, a change agent has a choice of two useful boundaries: Either focus on the first step just to get people started on the Change Road, or focus on the ultimate goal and leave it up to people’s improvisational abilities to blaze their own road to the destination.

Martin did both. He first made sure that the musicians had the same point of orientation before they began their 24-bar journey. But then he relied on each musician to choose his own improvised path to reach the predefined goal – the E major chord. (And not only that: He added rough “signposts” along the road to help them calibrate their progress throughout.)

Along with four lads from Liverpool, Martin – who in my estimation was the true “Fifth Beatle” – helped engineer one of the most momentous cultural changes of the 20th Century. And I think Martin’s creative solution to “A Day in the Life” provides a model for change agents in any field – especially when they're trying to influence seasoned people who might be anxious about the road ahead:

1) Paint a distinct, vivid picture of the ultimate goal;


2) Provide a clear starting point and first steps;


3) Set up rough milestones along the way in order to measure progress;


4) Then step back and let people improvise their way to success!

----------------------------------------------
 
Here is a video excerpt from the actual recording session for “A Day in the Life.” The 24-bar fill starts around 1:45.
 



PS - Enjoy your Magical Mystery Tour, Kathy and Kim!

ExploreFlexSupport ... and Keith Johnstone

As I sit at my keyboard today, I think I've been falling prey to something I cautioned against in an earlier article - namely the striving for originality.  So, as a remedy, I thought I would turn to that great crusader against the mania for originality, Keith Johnstone, and see what ideas I could draw upon from his book Impro: Improvisation and the Theatre.

Lo and behold, I ran across a passage that echoes my observations in my earlier article about people who try to impress others with the originality of their arguments and observations during problem-solving discussions.  Says Johnstone:

"My feeling is that the best argument may be a testimony to the skill of the presenter, rather than to the excellence of the solution advocated.  Also, the bulk of discussion time is [often] taken up with transactions of status which have nothing to do with the problem to be solved."

In other words, positioning, posturing, and one-upmanship, rather than using the ExploreFlexSupport Model:

Exploring the possibilities presented by others' perspectives;

Flexing one's viewpoints, assumptions, and (yes) biases; and

Supporting others in developing their ideas - and supporting the group in moving the group forward productively!

Are We There Yet? Embarking on the Change Journey

"The journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step." - Lao Tzu

In my previous article, I drew a parallel between the improv structure Finding the Game and the Heath brothers’ observation (in their book Switch) that effective change efforts require focusing people on specific, concrete actions. “Reach for 1% milk” is thus a much clearer call to action than “Eat healthier” (and more grammatical, too).

To bring all of this full circle, I’d like to refer to one of my earliest articles in The Daily Improviser blog, in which I discussed the Heath brothers’ previous book, Made to Stick.

In Made to Stick, the Heaths tell how to create “sticky” messages – that is, messages that are memorable, understood, and likely to inspire people to take action. The first step in creating a sticky message, say the Heaths, is to define the essence (or “Core”) of your message and then package it into a succinct (or “Compact”) form that can be readily communicated.

Probably the most powerful example of Core and Compact messages cited by the Heaths – and the one I covered in my earlier article – involves the concept of Commander’s Intent. Commander’s Intent is a brief statement of a military mission’s overall objective, framed so as to provide direction to soliders in the field while leaving them room to improvise as necessary to deal with unanticipated situations along the way. A sample statement of Commander’s Intent might be “Break the will of the enemy in Sector C.”

The beauty of Commander’s Intent, say the Heaths, is that it “aligns the behavior of soldiers at all levels without requiring play-by-play instructions from their leaders.”

Commander’s Intent is also a perfect everyday example of Finding the Game. Both Commander’s Intent and Finding the Game involve compact statements that can guide people’s collaborative actions without having to script every move. In this way, both structures place useful boundaries on people’s thinking, giving them a loose framework (to provide focus and direction) within which they can improvise at will (to let them shift with the vagaries of circumstance).

The Heaths’ “Reach for 1% milk” example also illustrates Finding the Game, but in a way that differs from Commander’s Intent. The "1% milk" message is similar to a Commander’s Intent message in that it uses clear, simple language to put a useful boundary on people’s thinking and prompt them to act in a desired direction. However, whereas the Commander’s Intent message focuses on the ultimate goal, the 1% milk message focuses instead on the first step.

The difference, I think, lies in the context in which the two messages are being conveyed. The battlefield represents a fluid, ever-changing environment that is almost a pure example of improv being played in daily life. Soliders don’t need to be convinced of the importance of accomplishing their mission: They just need to know what that mission is and then be given the leeway to make choices that will achieve it.

In the 1% milk message, though, people do need to be convinced of the value and attainability of the goal – especially since it represents a change in their long-ingrained behavior. Since they’re likely to be either indifferent or resistant to the goal, they need to be shown a small, easily implemented action that will start them on the road to change. Trying to show them the ultimate goal (“Be healthier”) right off the bat may make the journey appear too daunting and thus entrench them in their old familiar habits.

In mobilizing people to take action, then, you have a choice of two useful boundaries you can apply: Either focus people on the goal as a way to guide their actions, or focus them on the first action as a way to start them toward the goal. Your choice will depend on their existing level of commitment to the goal.

The Daily Improviser Finds the Game!

Last time I described the loose improv framework called Finding the Game, a guideline that performance improvisers use to create useful boundaries around their creative efforts. Today I’ll begin addressing the question: How does “Finding the Game” apply to the Daily Improviser?

If you think about it, the performance improviser’s onstage challenge is no different from the Daily Improviser’s challenge in his everyday dealings: How, from the infinite universe of choices available to me at any moment, can I move forward in a productive and satisfying way?

Granted, you don’t always have to be “moving forward productively.” If you think you do, then you’re likely to lose the benefit of just sitting in quiet contemplation or deep meditation. And even then your thoughts don’t have to be directed toward any particular end. As a popular poster from my college days put it, “Sometimes I sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sits!”

But I think most of us would also own up to the saying, “Other times I stands and acts!” We need to periodically gather those kaleidoscopic mental sensations and begin sorting through them, putting them into categories, sequencing them into a blueprint for action, and slapping them on a calendar.

Very simply, we periodically need to focus. The performance improviser needs to - in rapid fashion - both run through the Rolodex of the mind and make selections from the spinning cards in order to create a coherent scene. Similarly, the Daily Improviser must continually (though not so rapidly – in most cases) alternate analysis and action.

I’ve been thinking about this mental balancing act as I’ve been reading Switch: How to Change Things When Change is Hard, the long-awaited sequel to Made to Stick by Chip Heath and Dan Heath. One of the Heaths’ first observations about influencing people to change is:

If you want people to change, you must provide crystal-clear direction.

The Heaths describe the case of two West Virginia University researchers who were trying to conduct a campaign to promote healthier eating. “Eat Healthier!” of course provides no direction for people, since the ways in which people can interpret such advice is almost limitless.

So where to start? What should people be encouraged to do? As the Heaths say, this is exactly the kind of situation that lends itself to spinning of the mental wheels, resulting in “analyzing and agonizing and never moving forward.”

The researchers could easily have gotten bogged down in the complexities of the issue and never launched the campaign at all. Or, they might have moved ahead with a campaign that tried to address all of the complexities but which would have overwhelmed the target audience. (As the Heaths said in a similar context in Made to Stick, “If you say three things, you don’t say anything!”)

Instead, the researchers decided to zero in on one specific dietary habit – milk-drinking – and conduct a campaign to encourage people to buy 1% or skim milk rather than whole milk, a change that by itself would cause the average diet to attain the USDA recommended levels of saturated fat. The general ho-hum message “Eat healthier” was replaced by the message “Next time you’re in the dairy aisle of the grocery store, reach for a jug of 1% instead of whole milk!”

Simple. Crystal clear. Focused.

You could say that the WVU researchers were successful at Finding the Game in their campaign – stating a simple, concise message that would focus people's attention and mobilize them to act in a desired way.

How do you go about your own “campaigns” to encourage change – in your organizations and in your personal lives? Do you try to address the full scope of the issues in all their complexities – and get bogged down as a result? Or, instead, do you Find the Game by focusing on those few key actions that afford the most leverage and lend themselves to crystal-clear, focused calls to action?