The Institutional YES!

In my previous article, I referred to a Harvard Business Review article "The Institutional Yes" in which Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos described Amazon’s approach to setting strategy: Generate new ideas by asking “Why not?’ and then test those ideas through the least-expensive experiments possible. As Bezos said, “You should be making guesses and then finding out at lowest cost whether or not they are needle movers.”

Or, as I would put it in improv lingo: Leap boldly while aiming for a mattress.

But, as Bezos makes clear, sometimes you have to focus more on the leaping, less on the mattress:

“[Y]ou have to recognize that there are times when you can’t put a toe in the water; you have to leap in with both feet…. You allow that you might take lots of twists and turns on the details, but you really commit yourself to the objective.”

I can’t think of a better description of an improv show. As I described it earlier, improv is all about Exploring, Flexing, and Being Spontaneous on Purpose. It means totally committing to your goal and accepting that many winding roads can take you there.

Bezos then goes on to say:

“And by the way, it’s very fun to have the kind of culture where people are willing to take these leaps – it’s the opposite of the ‘institutional no.’ It’s the institutional yes. People say, ‘We’re going to do this. We’re going to figure out a way.’”

Here Bezos echoes two other improv imperatives: Supporting each other (by saying “Yes And”) and Having Fun (aka “The Wow”). Finding big challenges, treating them as problems to be collectively solved, gaining energy from the power of saying Yes!

Finally, Bezos says:

“It’s important to be stubborn on the vision and flexible on the details.”

If this is all starting to sound like institutional improvisation around a Commander's Intent – you’re right! Shades of Southwest Airlines’ Herb Kelleher saying to employees: “Have fun while keeping fares low!” The Institutional YES! creates a clear purpose and a loose framework within which organizational performers can exercise all of their improvisational skills – and have fun in the process!

Boldly Go! (But Carefully Plan)

A well-known improv tenet says: “Fall first – then, on the way down, figure out what you’re going to do next!” In other words, take action – any action – and trust that your native wit and intuition will solve the problem of what to do afterward.

This is probably the one improv tenet that prospective YES! Leaders have the most trouble accepting. With visions of Wile E. Coyote firmly in mind, they might say: “What?! Throw myself into the void, without a net, no lifelines? Leave myself to the mercy of hope, luck, and the vagaries of the Universe and the Acme Company? You go first!”

Well, to take a "both-and" approach here, I think we can respect both sentiments – “fling yourself headlong into an uncertain future”AND “keep your ankle tied to a bungee.” Even performance improvisers don’t expect to splat against a blank canvas when they leap. They rely on multiple supporting structures – ideas they’ve used in the past, aspects of their character, rules of the game being played, heuristics such as "Yes And" – as a loose framework within which they can improvise a solution to their onstage challenge.

These thoughts were prompted by an intriguing Harvard Business Review article titled “The Institutional Yes.” The article comprises an interview with Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos in which he describes many ways in which Amazon keeps its sights on both imperatives: “leap” and “aim for the mattress.”

As to the Leap Imperative, Bezos says:

“One useful habit [in setting strategy] is to ask the question ‘Why Not?’ When something seems like an opportunity … you will always get asked the question ‘Why? Why do that?’ But ‘Why not?’ is an equally valid question.”

But if that sounds like the voice of the thrill-seeking, ready-fire-aim, leap-think-act personality, consider Bezos’s follow-on statement:

“And there may be good reasons why not …. In that case, if somebody asked ‘Why not?’ you would say ‘Here’s why not.’”

And even if you proceed, it’s not with reckless abandon, as Bezos makes clear:

“[S]ince the outcomes of all these things are uncertain, if you can figure out how to conduct an experiment, you can make more bets. So the key, really, is reducing the cost of the experiments.”

Experiments. Prototypes. Parallel processes. As you boldly go forth with your strategy, these are your supporting structures, your lifelines, your Institutional Mattresses. The YES! Leader must not be afraid to take the leap, but, as Bezos indicates, she also needs to consider how to mitigate the possible dangers of the landing.

Does Jeff Bezos have something to say about initiatives that do require leaping in with both feet? Will Wile E. Coyote survive his latest precipitous cliff dive?

To find out, tune in again next time!

The Serious Business of Play in the Workplace

I’ve been associated with a group called the Applied Improvisation Network since its inception in 2001. One of the main areas of focus of the AIN is helping organizations realize the benefits of play – that is, using games and other similar activities in training, teambuilding, and problem-solving, and just generally adopting a more playful, lighthearted approach to the challenges of organizational life.

Play in the workplace can take many forms – from quick teambuilding games at the start of a staff meeting (such as Word at a Time Story) to the type of near-chaotic playground atmosphere pioneered by Google in its offices. The benefits of play in the workplace include:

·         Reduced stress

·         Increased employee engagement

·         More creative ideas (by stimulating the right brain)

·         A more positive work environment

·         Ultimately, better service and solutions for customers, resulting in bottom-line impact for the organization

Still, though, the benefits of play can be a hard sell in business organizations. Many people seem to think that “work” and “play” are two distinct activities, with “work” being the domain of serious, no-nonsense, analytical thinkers, and “play” being regarded as a frivolous, time-wasting activity that gets in the way of efficient operations. Even where play is allowed into an organization, it’s often grudgingly seen as a necessary (but temporary) diversion from the serious business of … business.  

In a classic article titled “What Is Team Building, Really?”, Peter Grazier suggests another way to view the role of “playing” in organizations – a view that highlights the integral link between playing and getting the job done.

Grazier points out that business organizations are increasingly recognizing the importance of teamwork among its members in generating innovative ideas, making good decisions, and carrying out tactical and strategic plans. As Grazier says:

“Teaming isn’t something we do because it creates harmonious work groups, or is neat to do. It is a way to formalize the power of collaboration among individuals. It is a way to blend the talents, skills, and inherent creativity of diverse people. It is a way to use this collaboration so that the work group leverages its skills, time, and resources for their own benefit and that of the organization.”

To reinforce team-based attitudes and actions, many people in organizations use teambuilding activities. In essence, a teambuilding activity is a form of play - a form that uses such structures as games, challenges, skits, and (yes!) improvisational-theater activities to generate fun, energy, and (most important) learning about one’s team members and about oneself.

I think it’s fair to say that teamwork in organizations is a concept that most people support. However, even people who agree with the importance of teamwork often deride teambuilding as a “feel good” activity that has little to do with what happens back on the job. According to this view (which I’ve frequently heard expressed), the only way people can really learn to work together is to jump in and do actual work on actual projects.

The problem with that view, says Grazier, is that teamwork often has a hard time naturally emerging from our actual on-the-job interactions due to the continuing emphasis that organizations tend to place on individual accomplishment. Grazier points to the “psychic dissonance” that often arises when organizations say they want teamwork but continue to evaluate and reward people in terms of their individual results.  As a result, people find it difficult to truly embrace and pursue a collaborative approach to their work.

This is why taking people out of their normal work environment and having them collaborate on non-work-related activities in a spirit of play is a central aspect of teambuilding. Grazier notes that this is an echo of our experience from schooldays, in which we learn about collaboration and the satisfaction of joint accomplishment, not so much in the classroom, but on the playground. As he says:

“We moved through our school system learning that the way to succeed in the classroom (or ‘the real world’) was to do it ourselves in an ongoing competition against others. On the playground, the system favored teaming.”

A logical conclusion to draw from Grazier’s observations is that engaging each other in a spirit of play through teambuilding activities isn’t just a good way to create teamwork. Play is essential in order for a group of people to develop the trust, respect, understanding, and joint celebration of common achievement necessary to sustain the motivation to put aside individual agendas in favor of realizing team goals. Truly, teamwork and play go hand-in-hand.