Many if not most people (especially those who have seen Whose Line Is It Anyway?) probably equate improv with thinking fast and making audiences laugh. When regarded this way, improv can seem as relevant to the lay person’s daily life (especially on the job) as the Three Stooges. But the entertainment factor is really a byproduct of the skills involved in improv – for example, listening fiercely, being completely present, and fully supporting troupe members. These types of skills are most definitely applicable to the everyday effectiveness of organizational “performers.”
But even more central to the improviser’s art (either onstage or in the meeting room) is a skill I call the ability to resolve contradictions.
On the improv stage, contradictions usually take the form of incompatible roles and situations that audiences pitch to the perfomers (e.g., a first-grade teacher as a master drill sergeant). Savvy audiences know that the entertainment comes, not from hearing wisecracks and jokes based on the situation, but from seeing how the performers weave the incongruities of the situation into a seamless scene.
Similarly, a leader’s effectiveness in his organizational performance is largely determined by how well he can resolve the jumble of contradictions presented to him each day. For example:
· Being drivingly collaborative. Influencing the direction of events – while being open to the influence of others.
· Being doggedly flexible. Being resolute in following a certain course of action – while staying alert to the need for course corrections as events warrant.
· Being skeptically accepting. Showing trust in others at the start of a working relationship – before they’ve demonstrated how trustworthy they really are.
· Being deliberately authentic. Flexing a natural behavioral style in order to adapt to certain situations and certain people – without becoming insincere or manipulative.
A leader’s success in navigating these shoals is largely a matter of shifting her responses between the two incongruous actions at different times to meet the needs of different situations. For example, she might follow her natural take-charge style when urgent action is needed but defer to another person’s ideas and judgment when she’s coaching the person to develop his problem-solving abilities. In most cases, this is preferable to taking the easier course of always applying the same style in all situations with all people – an approach guaranteed to fail at least some percentage of the time.

No comments:
Post a Comment