Signs of the Times

"Sign, sign, everywhere a sign / Blockin' out the scenery, breakin' my mind"

"Signs," by The Five Man Electrical Band

Today I’d like to introduce you to Jake Straw, a man who, when confronted with the very idea of improv theater, is guaranteed to say:

What? Throw away the script? Have the actors interact with the audience and let them drive the scene? Give up control of the performance? That sounds like a recipe for … total chaos!

Thank goodness, Jake will say, that the real world is more controlled than the improv stage. I mean, what would happen if we got rid of signs, stoplights, curbs, medians, and other regulating devices from our city streets?

Hans Monderman’s answer to that question: Safer streets and a more livable city.

In his book Traffic, Tom Vanderbilt describes the legacy of Monderman (who died in 2008), a traffic engineer in the Netherlands who became known as “the guy who hated traffic signs.”

According to Monderman, most traffic signs are unnecessary, since they attempt to convey messages that drivers should be able to comprehend on their own (“Slippery When Wet,” “Children at Play,” “Deer Crossing”). Indeed, held Monderman, signs and other instruments of traffic control actually detract from the safety and livability of cities by: (1) Ceding the city to automobiles by separating people (i.e., pedestrians) from their surroundings and each other; (2) Lulling drivers into a false sense of security by providing the appearance of well-regulated “safe zones” for driving and reducing drivers’ alertness to road hazards (i.e., pedestrians); and (3) Creating roadside clutter and obstructions, making it less likely that drivers will see the dangers (e.g., pedestrians) being communicated by the signs.

Monderman’s radical solution: Remove most traffic signs and road markings, eliminate or minimize the barriers between cars and pedestrians, and have drivers and walkers coexist in a “shared space.” As the Wikipedia entry for “shared space” puts it:

"The reasoning behind the idea [of shared space] is that it will result in improved road safety by forcing users to negotiate their way through shared areas at appropriate speeds and with due consideration for the other users of the space, using simple rules like giving way to the right."

Monderman’s “shared space” concept strikes me as a perfect example of applying to the social world the improvisational imperative of giving up control. Performance improvisers must negotiate their way through a scene, not by following a script or stage directions, but by hyperfocusing on the cues being sent by their fellow players and responding accordingly in the moment. Similarly, Daily Improvisers in a shared space must remain alert to their environment and adjust their behavior to accommodate what they see and hear, rather than relying on the dictates of traffic signs.

How far can we extend this idea of a self-regulating shared space to other aspects of the social world? I think we’ve already seen an example of it in a concept I described earlier – Commander's Intent – in which the leader sets the overall goal and then, rather than trying to control the details of how to achieve it, stands back and lets the team negotiate the route on their own. Another example: the crowdsourcing phenomenon described by Jeff Howe in his book of the same name.

The shared space concept is also reflected in the Open Space conferencing method, in which participants collectively organize the conference themselves, in the moment. Open Space follows a few basic rules and structures but essentially leaves it to the participants to navigate their way through the day. (The Open Space method has been incorporated into the Applied Improvisation Network’s annual conferences almost since their inception - and will again be included in the 2009 AIN Conference, Nov 13-15 in Portland, OR.)

Hmm ... I suppose there's something happening here but you don't know what it is ... do you, Mr. Straw?

Things You Don't Expect to See in Dayton, Ohio

In my last few posts, I’ve been noting the widespread reach of the “looked but did not see” syndrome described by Tom Vanderbilt in his book Traffic. Last week I experienced a perfect illustration of the syndrome in action.

As I was walking along a street in downtown Dayton, Ohio, I approached a midblock pedestrian crosswalk, primed for my daily “enorme” size cup of coffee waiting for me on the other side. Dayton has several of these midblock crosswalks, each of which is regulated by a traffic light. Having become more aware of the “looked but did not see” syndrome, I now always check to make sure cars stop at the red light before I proceed across.

Sure enough, last Wednesday as I got ready to cross with the green, an SUV blew through the crosswalk (I saw him coming, mom!), completely oblivious to the red light and to the indignant pedestrian yelling and shaking his fist. (If my own bias filters had been in place, I’d also report that he was chattering away on a cell phone – it would somehow fit, but having been fully in “The Now!” as he roared by me, I can’t say that I saw that.)

Not to give the guy a break, but … having read Traffic, I can understand how a driver would expect to see a stoplight only at an intersection, not stuck in the middle of a city block. Clearly, as Tom Vanderbilt put it, the fellow in the SUV was “looking through” the light (and me) because it didn’t fit his “mental picture” of what he thought he should be seeing.

OK, so to make sure he sees me next time, I think I’ll put on a bear costume and go moonwalking backwards through the crosswalk. (Hmm, on second thought, he probably wouldn’t see that, either.)

Driving, Flexing, and Staying in "The Now!"

In recent posts, I’ve described the “looked but did not see” syndrome that commonly affects people when they get behind the wheel of a car – or, for that matter, when they do anything else during their daily routine.

You can relate the “looked but did not see” syndrome to the improv model I created and previously described – ExploreFlexSupport (with The Now! and The Wow!). Using this model, you can see that the tendency to let assumptions, expectations, and distractions come between you and what’s in front of you can be overcome particularly by applying “Flex” skills and attitudes and by attending to “The Now!”

All five elements of the model really work seamlessly together, but I think that “Flex” and “The Now” are especially interrelated. How, for example, can you empty your mind of preconceived notions and truly consider what that person across the table is saying (“Flex”) if you’re not fully present and truly attending to her (“The Now”)? As Patricia Ryan Madson says in her book Improv Wisdom:

"The improviser's lifeline is his attention. Those on stage often appear clever simply because they have been paying attention to what has been said and remember it when most of the audience has forgotten. This is the real magic of the art of improv."

Can You "See a Situation as It Is"? (Continued)

In my previous post, I described a study cited by author Tom Vanderbilt in his book Traffic. The study dealt with a category of traffic mishaps called "looked but did not see" accidents, in which automobile drivers failed to see motorcyclists primarily because the drivers were scanning the road for other cars and were not expecting to encounter cyclists.

I generalized from this study to observe that much of our perception - not just in the traffic context - results from the expectations we bring to a situation rather than from our processing what's actually in front of us.

So how well can you process what's actually in front of you? I invite you to run the following video to find out:

Did you "master" the test? If so, congratulations! If not ... then the next time you take to the freeways - or to the meeting room - consider how much you may be missing due to the thoughts, assumptions, and expectations that come between you and the real situation before you.

Can You "See a Situation as It Is"?

Consider an activity in which:

...you throw yourself into an arena with a few basic rules but which largely involves making up your every move on the spot.
...you must stay flexible so you can react immediately to the unpredictable moves of your fellow participants.
...you must process rapid-fire input, staying focused on your ultimate goal while avoiding unproductive tangents.

I’m talking, of course, about driving, probably the truest form of improvisational activity that the typical Daily Improviser regularly experiences. In his book Traffic, Tom Vanderbilt reveals some intriguing physiological and psychological aspects of navigating the highways that can also shed some light on the concept of mastery that I discussed in earlier posts.

In the book The Three Laws of Performance, Steve Zaffron and Dave Logan define “mastery” as “nothing between you and the thing you’re dealing with.” In Zaffron and Logan’s view, “If you have beliefs, expectations, hopes, fears about [a] situation, mastery means putting these on the shelf so you are not looking through them at what is in front of you.” Masters commit to seeing a situation as it is, tearing down the intervening “screens” of assumptions, problems, and past baggage.

Seeing a situation as it is. This may sound like a somewhat daunting challenge – and judging from our experiences with our daily driving routines, as Tom Vanderbilt points out in Traffic, it may be even more daunting than we realize.

Vanderbilt refers to studies of an entire category of crashes, those known as “looked but did not see” accidents. In these types of accidents, “drivers were looking directly at a scene but somehow missed a vital part – perhaps because they were looking for something else, or perhaps because something came along that they were not looking for.”

To illustrate this “looked but did not see” syndrome, Vanderbilt cites a study concerning the frequency of car-motorcycle collisions:

“Many people assume that ‘failure to see’ [the motorcycle] means that the motorcycle itself was difficult to see because of its size or its single headlight. But it may also be that car drivers tend to be on the lookout for other cars when entering an intersection or turning across a lane of oncoming traffic. They may be in a sense ‘looking through’ the motorcycle, because it does not fit their mental picture of the things they think they should be seeing.”

(While driving, have you ever had this experience of “looking through” something that seemed to come out of nowhere but which, in retrospect, was in front of you the whole time – but which you just didn’t expect to see?)

Vanderbilt then quotes a researcher who concludes the following from the study:

“The common intuition is that we first see things in the world and then interpret the scene in front of us…. What this [study] shows is that it’s possible that the idea you have in mind actually precedes the perception and affects what you see. Our expectations … of what’s in a scene influence what we see in a scene.”

The Daily Improviser’s driving experience can reveal just how much we "create" our own reality (often unconsciously) based on preconceived ideas and expectations - and shows how much of a challenge it can really be to meet Zaffron and Logan’s “mastery” criteria of seeing a situation as it actually is.

Why Your Strengths Are "Areas for Development"

The idea of focusing on strengths in creating development plans tracks closely with the improv concept of "Yes And" by leveraging the power of agreement and positivity - that is, looking at what's right with a person rather than at what's wrong (and trying to fix it).

But the Strengths movement doesn't advocate ignoring one's shortcomings. In fact, Strengths writers like Marcus Buckingham and Tom Rath don't shy away from calling these what they are: weaknesses. Their point, though, is that rather than expend brute force on overcoming a weakness, a person is better served by directing his energies to developing his strengths and finding other compensating strategies for dealing with his weaknesses.

Is your own development plan centered only on your weaknesses? Do you think of strengths as areas where you've "made it" and which thus require no more attention? Or do you see your strengths as a springboard that can vault you (as Peter Drucker says) from first-rate performance to excellence?

The Hand Dance - Marx Style

In an earlier post, I described the Hand Dance improv activity as an example of the concept of mastery, defined as "nothing between you and the thing you're doing." However, I realize that written instructions aren't always the best way to convey the steps of a physical activity. So I'll draw on those paragons of organizational/human development expertise, Groucho and Harpo, to provide a visual demonstration of the Hand Dance (and Head Dance, and Foot Dance, and ...).







And seriously - was there ever a better example of "the dance of collaboration" than Groucho and Harpo demonstrate here?

Drucker on Leveraging Your Strengths

"It takes far more energy to improve from incompetence to mediocrity than to improve from first-rate performance to excellence."

Peter Drucker

So why do we spend so much of our energy trying to fix our areas of "incompetence" if the best we can expect is mediocrity? Why not focus our efforts on identifying and leveraging our areas of strength?

"Leverage" is defined as "the mechanical advantage of a lever." If your developmental efforts feel as follows, it's a good sign that you should quit trying to use brute force to improve performance and instead take advantage of the "lever" of strengths:

The Steady Drip-Drip-Drip of Negativity

Here's a simple remedy for drowning out that chorus of voices that say: "YOU CAN'T!"

• Focus on your Strengths
• Develop Mastery in your unique niche
• Get into a state of Flow

... then look up and greet your public!

In the meantime, I would highly recommend a dose of the following video - if you're being besieged by repeated assaults of negativity, then you're in good company!

How Can Improv Help?

I recently responded to a post on the Applied Improvisation Network website regarding issues in the business realm that improv can address. Between the original posting and my own additions, I thought this would provide a good summary of what I've been covering so far in the Daily Improviser blog.

Improv can help with:

ORIGINAL POST

• relating to others emotionally
• building collaborative team frameworks
• active listening
• presenting information in an accessible and engaging way
• thinking laterally in brainstorming sessions

MY ADDITIONS

• Dealing with conflict - applying "Yes And" as a way of overcoming the search for blame and instead exploring how to collaboratively resolve a situation
• Personal development planning - especially with a focus on leveraging one's strengths rather than fixing one's weaknesses
• Appreciative Inquiry - doing strategic planning and organization development by focusing on the positive aspects of the company/department/team
• Surfacing "undiscussable" issues in a company/dept/team - cueing in to the unspoken messages in our interactions and bringing them out into "center stage"
• Becoming aware of the messages we send through our body language (especially status messages)
• Developing flexibility and resilience in dealing with organizational change
• Avoiding groupthink - striking out into new areas of inquiry rather than falling back on the tried and true (in stage terms, making strong choices and avoiding falling back on "schtick")