Using "Yes And" to Overcome Idea Chillers

From Day One of their training, performance improvisers are taught to say “Yes And” to onstage offers as a way to build interesting scenes and work collaboratively with their fellow players. For the Daily Improviser, taking a “Yes And” approach to life can go a long way toward keeping possibilities open while also maintaining positive relationships. By contrast, adopting a “No” attitude can keep us grounded in the status quo while blocking teamwork right out of the gate.

There are many subtle ways for people to say “No” without actually using the word. Listed below are some phrases and reactions people often use in meetings to immediately pour cold water on new ideas. These are usually used as a substitute for open-minded discussion of the idea, consideration of ways to make it work, and brainstorming of other ideas it might prompt. Chronic use of these Idea Chillers – especially when accompanied by dismissive laughter and sarcasm -  is guaranteed to stop innovation in its tracks, perpetuate Groupthink, and belittle and disrespect people. (To counteract the effect of Idea Chillers, try the responses in parentheses.)

"We tried that before and it failed miserably." (Let’s look at why it didn’t work and do it differently this time.) 
"It's too expensive." (How much do you think it will cost? What are the costs of standing still?)
"It isn't our responsibility." (Who is responsible? How can we work with them?)
"It’ll never work." (How can we make it work?)
"Management will never go for it." (How do we know unless we ask? How can we influence them to accept it?)

"We've never done it that way." (The old way may have worked fine in the past – but maybe it’s time for a change.)

"Great idea, but not for us." (Why aren’t great ideas for us?)
"That’s too much change, too quickly." (How much change is enough? How can we adapt the idea so it addresses the need?)
“People just aren’t ready for that.” (How can we gain acceptance for it?)

“Here’s why that won’t work …” (How can we address those challenges?)
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." (If we’re not moving ahead, we’re falling behind.)

”That won’t fly in our culture.” (Let’s consider if it will help us meet our strategic objectives and live our organizational values.)
“I don’t like it at all.” (What are your concerns, and how can we address them?)

"You have got to be kidding." (It might sound a little “out there” – a lot of new ideas do.)
"It's all right in theory, but..." (How can we turn theory into reality?)

Keep in mind that the process of innovation doesn’t usually start with a fully formed, practical idea. If that’s what we’re looking for, few breakthrough initiatives will ever get off the ground. Instead, most creative changes grow from the seed of an idea that might not work exactly as expressed but that are nurtured and shaped through open-minded, freewheeling discussion. For example, there can never literally be a “Beatles reunion,” but failure to capture the idea during a brainstorming session can prevent a company entertainment committee from identifying a related idea (e.g., a Beatles tribute band) that could work. (And if the idea is shot down with an Idea Chiller, you can bet that no similar “out there” ideas will ever come up again.)

Do You Want Your Experience Filtered or Non-Filtered?

Has it really been almost three years since I began The Daily Improviser blog?  As we approach the end of another year, I thought that it might be time for a summary of some of the improvisational “truths” – for both the performance improviser and the Daily Improviser – that I’ve been discovering in my blog journey:

1.      Improvisation is all about finding the connections among (seeming) incongruities.

2.      Improvisation involves holding multiple (seeming) incongruities in one’s mind at the same time and still being able to function.

3.      Improvisation does not involve directly experiencing one’s environment. Instead, the improviser uses various filters and useful structures (which I collectively call “The Layer”) to help make sense of his environment and guide his response.

4.      Improvisation involves supporting others as we work together to create a result. Support means saying “Yes and” to others – and “Yes and” means, not Agreeing with the Position, but Accepting the Person, Acknowledging the Possibilities, and Advancing with Positive Purpose.

In my reading on different topics – including history, politics, economics, science, performing arts, popular culture, and (yes) leadership – I’ve been finding examples of these truths time and again as they thread through the narrative. I admit I’m still struggling to resolve a few (seeming) incongruities (such as finding the right mixture of “Yes” and “No” in our daily thought and action), but I suppose those truths will emerge over time.

Today I’ll focus on another example of #3 above from the book Sway: The Irresistable Pull of Irrational Behavior, by Ori Brafman and Rom Brafman. Now, you might assume that behaving in an “irrational” way is a bad thing, a conclusion that the book’s jacket reinforces when it describes the book as “revealing the dynamic forces that derail our logical thinking and sabotage our decision-making.” In fact, though, the Brafman brothers echo much of what I’ve observed elsewhere about the utility of the filters through which we view the world.

The Brafmans cite a number of psychology experiments that show how difficult it can be for us to overcome the “diagnosis bias,” which they define as “our propensity to label people, ideas, or things based on our initial opinions of them.” In one study,  a group of MIT economics students - a population you’d expect to be paragons of rational thinking - were given a bio of a new professor who was about to conduct one of their class sessions. Unknown to the students, however, half of them received one version of the bio, while the other half received another version. The first version concluded with the following sentence.

"People who know him consider him to be a very warm person, industrious, critical, practical, and determined."

The second version was exactly the same except for two words (italics added) in the final sentence:

"People who know him consider him to be a rather cold person, industrious, critical, practical, and determined."

At the end of the class session, the students were asked to complete an evaluation of the professor – and, as the Brafmans observed, “Upon seeing the results, you’d think the students were responding to two completely different instructors.” Apparently, changing just two key words in the bio predisposed the first group of students to see the professor in a favorable, appealing light, whereas the second group saw him in a negative, off-putting light – even though both groups of students had experienced the same lecture!

But even though the Brafmans use this story to emphasize the dangers of putting filters on our perception of our environment, they also make the following statement that echoes the observations of Nassim Taleb in his book The Black Swan:

“Each day we’re bombarded with so much information that if we had no way to filter it, we’d be unable to function. Psychologist Franz Epting, an expert in understanding how people construct meaning in their experiences, explained, ‘We use diagnostic labels to organize and simplify.’”

Like Taleb, then, even the Brafmans recognize that filters such as diagnostic labels are essential to humans’ ability to comprehend the world around them. The goal is not to get rid of diagnostic labels. Instead, we need to be continually aware of the labels we’re using and be ready to challenge them in the moment to incorporate new information that might give the lie to them. 

In terms of the ExploreFlexSupport model I’ve previously described, this is one aspect of the “flexing” that the Daily Improviser needs to engage in: Continually reframing the useful structures he uses to make sense of his world when those structures are no longer useful.