Effective Offers and Assertive Behavior

Improv involves the making and accepting of offers. The onstage action grinds to a halt (or never gets going in the first place) if the players don’t alternate the offering of new ideas and the accepting of those ideas via “Yes And.”

While much of the focus of improv is on accepting (to the point that “Yes And” has become virtually synonymous with improv), the offering is equally important – otherwise, there would be nothing to say “Yes And” to. And, as I mentioned in my earlier article on Nikita Khrushchev, even the mere action of accepting is insufficient to keep an interaction moving forward. While the “Yes” constitutes acceptance, it must be accompanied by an “And” that offers new or additional information that builds on the original offer. Otherwise, as Khrushchev observed, the result is a situation where the offeror becomes “yessed to death” by the acceptor.

I’ve been thinking of offer-acceptance lately as I’ve explored the topic of assertive communication. Assertive communication involves stating one’s ideas, opinions, and needs in a way that respects others. Assertiveness is often contrasted with aggressiveness, which is marked by a disregard for others’ viewpoints and feelings and seeks primarily to win – whatever the impact on others.

I think a parallel can be drawn between assertive behavior and effective offer-making on the improv stage.  In order to make effective offers, a performance improviser must provide his ideas while respecting the contributions of his fellow players and acting collaboratively to build a scene. By contrast, the ineffective offeror tries to drive or control the action in order to feed his ego and draw attention to himself and away from the team. The former acts assertively, the latter aggressively.

As a Daily Improviser, what kind of offering behaviors do you employ in your day-to-day interactions? Do you directly and forthrightly assert your ideas and views in a way that respects the contributions of others? If another person says “Yes” to your offer and adds their own “And” offer, do you “Yes And” in kind? Do you Accept the Person, Acknowledge the Possibilities in what they offer, and Advance with Positive Purpose?

Or do you subscribe to the view that “Winning isn’t everything; it’s the only thing”? That is, do you try to steamroller others with your opinions in an aggressive way, dismissing their opinions as obstacles to progress? Do you treat their negative reactions to your behavior as reflective of someone who “Can’t take it”?

Or do you rarely if ever make offers at all? Do you passively allow others to determine the direction that the team - and you - will follow? If asked directly for your opinion, do you just nod your head and say “Whatever anyone else wants is ok with me”? Do you "yes" others to death?

The Daily Improviser, then, can see assertive behavior as a path between aggressive behavior (on one side) and passive behavior (on the other side).

Yogi Berra and the Daily Improviser

I just started reading Yogi Berra: Eternal Yankee, Allan Barra’s new biography of one of the most recognizable names and faces in baseball. Yogi was one of the greatest catchers (many say the greatest catcher) in Major League history. Yet his fame outside of the baseball world rests largely on his trademark “Yogiisms,” paradoxical or tautological observations that approach a Zen-like level of inscrutable wisdom.

Some of my favorite Yogiisms include:

“Nobody ever goes to that restaurant anymore; it’s too crowded.”

“You can observe a lot by just watching.”

“If people don’t want to come to the ballpark, how are you gonna stop ‘em?”

And of course his best-known saying:

"It isn't over til it's over."

One Yogiism bears a particular significance for the Daily Improviser. In describing the tendency of many players to get too far inside their heads when they’re at the plate, Yogi once said:

“You can’t think and hit at the same time.”

I think this perfectly anticipated Steve Zaffron and Dave Logan's concept of mastery, which I’ve explored a number of times in the Daily Improviser blog. Zaffron and Logan, in the book The Three Laws of Performance, describe mastery as “nothing between you and the thing you’re dealing with.”

Yogi’s observation about hitting conveys a sly insight into the nature of mastering a task. As Allen Barra says:

Yogi never said that being able to think wouldn’t help you to hit – quite the contrary. As he phrased it … “You do your thinking before you get up to bat. We used to spend a lot of time before the games talking about certain pitchers, what they threw, and what was the best way to hit them in certain situations…. We just didn’t stand there thinking when we were up at bat."

I think that any performance improviser would recognize the same effect at work with respect to improvising onstage. While offstage, improv performers can endlessly hash over the subtleties and philosophical aspects of their art. Yet once they hit the boards, the best improvisers follow the advice of Viola Spolin:

"Shut off the mind. When the rational mind is shut off, we have the possibility of intuition."

Similarly, the Daily Improviser masters her art by first putting in her thousands of hours of preparation - thinking, analyzing, evaluating, practicing - and then getting into flow with her surroundings as she fluidly and instinctively applies her skills.

In future articles I'll continue to share some Yogi wisdom as it applies to the Daily Improviser. However, as for this article ...

It's over.

Saying "No" to "No Negativity" - Part 2

In my previous article, I referred to two prominent motivational speakers who – in the name of positive thinking – advocated eliminating “negative people” from one’s life. This view is criticized on two counts by Barbara Ehrenreich in her book Bright-Sided.

First, says Ehrenreich, if we eliminate negative people from our lives (including our organizations), we risk becoming “cut off from reality.”

Her second criticism deals with a much more personal concern: What it means to be a friend. As she says:

“Purge everyone who 'brings you down,' and you risk being very lonely …. The challenge of family life, or group life of any kind, is to keep gauging the moods of others, accommodating to their insights, and offering comfort when needed.”

Offering comfort. Lending an ear and a shoulder. Gauging and inquiring into moods. Sensing when to give advice, when to ask the soul-searching question, when to just be quiet and let the other person vent. These are the marks of being a good friend – and a mature adult.

I think, then, that shunning “downer” people in the name of protecting our own sunny dispositions reveals another limit of positivity. Such a move not only restricts our growth but also sells us short – by overlooking the possibility that, rather than our being infected by their gloomy outlook, we could infuse the “Yes And” spirit in them and make a difference in their lives.

Saying "No" to "No Negativity" - Part 1

“Get rid of negative people in your life. They waste your time and bring you down.”

“Negative people suck! Avoid them at all costs. If you have to cut ties with people you’ve known for a long time because they’re a negative drain on you, so be it.”

So say two prominent motivational speakers and coaches as quoted by Barbara Ehrenreich in her new book Bright-Sided, a critical look into the world of positive thinking.

So – sounds like good advice, right?

Not surprisingly, Ehrenreich says: No. And her observations may help us continue exploring the question I raised earlier: Are there limits to “Yes And” – and to positivity in general?

I’ve already mentioned one limit to the “Yes And” concept for the Daily Improviser when she attempts to collaborate with another person. In my view, “Yes And” means Accepting the Person, Acknowledging the Possibilities, and Advancing with Positive Purpose – but it does not necessarily mean Agreeing with the Position or Accepting the Proposal. The Daily Improviser shouldn’t ignore a deeply held value of hers in the name of “being positive.” There are times when NO is an appropriate stance to take – as long as it’s a NO that keeps the door open for further dialog.

But what’s wrong with applying positivity to our personal relationships in the way the motivational gurus suggest above? Why not avoid people who represent a toxic influence in our lives?

Two reason, says Ehrenreich. First:

“[P]urge everyone who brings you down and you risk being … cut off from reality.”

Individuals and organizations need people who will sound the cautionary note, who will prevent others from marching off a cliff, who will head off the momentum of rampant Groupthink. By pointing out the value of continual reality checks, Ehrenreich echoes what Jim Collins in his book Good to Great refers to as the Stockdale Paradox: “Confront the brutal facts - yet never lose faith.”

Just as there is a time and a place for NO in the “Yes And” collaboration context, so does NO have a place in evaluating an individual’s or organization’s situation, performance, and options. Yet, just as in the collaboration context, it must be the type of NO that keeps dialog flowing – that suggests possible solutions, that supports others in their search for a better future, that maintains a faith in the ability to move forward productively.

In my next article, I’ll cover the second reason that Ehrenreich cites for negating the notion of “no negativity.”

Put Me In, Coach! Developing Your People's Strengths

In The Daily Improviser, I’ve talked quite a bit about the power of focusing on strengths in creating personal development plans. Again, too many individuals (and their managers) tend to think of development planning as only a matter of shoring up one’s weaknesses. However, as the Strengths Based Development movement says, the best leverage comes from identifying your strong points and getting even better at using them.

This equating of “areas for development” with “weaknesses” has another downside as well: It undermines the power of performance coaching (usually referred to as simply “coaching”) as a tool for helping people succeed in their work and their personal lives.

Coaching is a collaborative process based on the foundational belief that people have the ability to solve their own problems and achieve their own goals. The role of a coach – whether a manager, a peer, or even a direct report who “coaches up” – is to help the coachee define his goal, clearly define the gap between that goal and the current reality, and then determine specific ways in which he can – and will – bridge that gap.

In a true coaching situation, the coachee identifies and drives toward his own solutions, while the coach facilitates the process through the use of powerful questions such as: What will success look and feel like? How important is this to you? What could you do to achieve it?

Coaching is particularly powerful when used in conjunction with a strengths-based approach. If a coachee has already clarified her own strengths and has charted her own development path toward a goal that utilizes those strengths, she is already thinking in terms of “owning” her own career plan. This makes the coach’s work both easier and more impactful, and the coachee’s success more likely – true leverage in action.

Unfortunately, many managers only attempt a coaching approach once an employee becomes a “Problem” with a capital “P.” By this point, the leverage opportunity is usually lost – the coach and coachee are now so focused on the coachee’s shortcomings (often in an adversarial, highly charged way) that any notion of the action as a collaboration is often quickly dispensed with. “Coaching” then becomes more of a performance-management event, something done to the employee rather than with her. In addition, the “coaching” becomes much more time-consuming for the manager.

When applied in this way, “coaching” gets a bad rap. Yes, if an employee reaches the true Problem stage, the manager must take action – but usually the action that’s taken can’t accurately be described as “coaching.”

To paraphrase the old ad tagline, “You can pay now or pay later.” Are you leveraging your coaching efforts early enough in your people’s development journey so that you can avoid the Problem pitfalls later on?

(For more information on Coaching, see the website of Corporate Coach U.)

Behavioral Economics Shocker! SuperFreakonomics Authors Reveal All

In the book Freakonomics, co-authors Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner lied!

But I was way ahead of them.

Some background: In my November 8 article, I noted how Levitt and Dubner claimed a lack of a unifying theme in Freakonomics. Instead, they took what they called a “treasure-hunting approach” that allowed them to admit any number of disparate topics into their tent.

Then, in my previous article (November 17), I zeroed in on one statement in Freakonomics that seemed particularly salient to me: “People respond to incentives.” I then noted how these incentives complicate the quest for the ideal set out in the book The Three Laws of Performance: “Seeing [and saying] things as they are.”

Last week I eagerly started to read Levitt and Dubner’s sequel, SuperFreakonomics, and was greeted with the following first sentence:

"The time has come to admit that in our first book, we lied."

A preemptive strike before an upcoming Oprah appearance? I wondered. They went on to explain:

"The … lie appeared in the introduction [to Freakonomics], where we wrote that the book had no ‘unifying theme.’ … But in truth, the book did have a unifying theme, even if it wasn’t obvious at the time, even to us. If pressed you could boil it down to four words: People respond to incentives." [emphasis in original]

Ahem. Well, yes, of course – perfectly obvious.

It's obvious too (I hope) that I have tongue planted firmly in cheek as I write this. Yet I do think that Levitt and Dubner's point about incentives was a revelation as regards the reasons why we cooperate and collaborate with each other – and why (as I described in my previous article) taking such a “Yes And” approach can only go so far.

Of course, maybe I really wasn’t so far ahead of Levitt and Dubner at that. After all, in my first Freakonomics article, I grabbed onto their coattails and claimed not to have a “unifying theme” for The Daily Improviser blog either. I now feel challenged to see if I can discern such a theme myself.

Then again, maybe I’ll just leave that for the sequel.

What's My Motivation?

In several earlier articles, I discussed the importance for the Daily Improviser of “seeing things as they really are.”

However, as I was reading the book Freakonomics, by Steven Levitt & Stephen Dubner, I realized the importance of a corollary theme: “saying things as they really are.”

Levitt and Dubner describe at length one reason why people can be less than upfront with the truth – a condition called information asymmetry, a fancy way of saying “I know something you don’t know!” The condition particularly afflicts experts of all stripes – realtors, insurance agents, physicians – whom we daily entrust with our health and well-being, under the assumption that they will use their expertise to serve our best interests.

However, Levitt and Dubner cite numerous instances where such trust is misplaced – where the experts don’t act in our best interests. For example, the home sellers’ agent who settles for less than top dollar, since the effort required to get that extra $5,000 for the seller is not worth the small additional commission the agent would realize.

The point, Levitt and Dubner say, is not that the experts are bad people “but that they simply are people – and people inevitably respond to incentives.”

“Incentives,” though, doesn’t necessarily equate with “lining one’s pockets.” As Maslow would probably agree, people have many different types of interests they try to serve in addition to economic interests – being accepted by a group, maintaining a relationship, being perceived as a fair-minded person. Each of these interests can lead a person to “not say what they see.” (Think of this the next time your Significant Other asks you “How does this look?”)

Again, like Levitt and Dubner, I leave aside the question of whether this state of affairs is inherently good or bad. I would just note that their observation – “People respond to incentives” – is another factor to keep in mind when considering the barriers to seeing – and saying – things “as they are.”

Are There Limits to Positivity?

I’ve been writing quite a bit in this blog about the role of positivity in improvisation and the ways in which the Daily Improviser can benefit from adopting a “Yes And” attitude in his day-to-day life.


So it was with great interest that I read an article that’s been making the cyber-rounds lately about a new study that says: Negativity can be good for you.

The study, by psychology professor Joseph Forgas of the University of New South Wales, observed:

"Positive mood is not universally desirable: people in negative mood are less prone to judgmental errors, are more resistant to eyewitness distortions and are better at producing high-quality, effective persuasive messages.”

This article was a timely find for me, because lately I’ve been considering the larger question: Are there limits to positivity?

Right off, I’d say: Yes! And here’s one example – involving the “Yes And” principle itself.

As I’ve mentioned before, I see “Yes And” as consisting of the following:

1) Accepting the Person


2) Acknowledging the Possibilities


3) Advancing with Positive Purpose

But “Yes And” does not necessarily mean Agreeing with the Position or Adopting the Proposal! “Say Yes And” does not mean “Say Yes to Anything.”  In fact, if the other person puts forth a view that runs up against a firmly held conviction of yours, then “Yes And” would counsel you to say an emphatic “NO!” – followed by 1, 2, and 3 above.

Unfortunately - to paraphrase Dizzy Dean - a lot of people who ain’t sayin’ "Yes" ain’t doin’ the other three either. A flat "NO!", without more, stops all progress in its tracks and inevitably leads to unproductive conflict – for both the performance improviser and the Daily Improviser.

So, viewed in this way, the "Yes And" concept illustrates that, yes, there is a limit to positivity - and yet the alternative is not negativity but a demilitarized zone somewhere in the middle where Yes and No can coexist.

(For a further discussion of "Yes And" as applied to conflict resolution, see my earlier article on the And Stance.)

The Daily Improviser: Coming Attractions!

After conducting a quick cost-benefit analysis in the aisle of my local Target store, I decided to purchase the book Freakonomics, by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. I was immediately taken with the range of topics they cover - the inner workings of a crack gang, the truth about real estate agents, the secrets of the Ku Klux Klan - certainly an unorthodox approach for a book about economics. And Levitt and Dubner readily acknowledge as much:

“In some regards, this is a strange concept for a book. Most books put forth a single theme, crisply expressed in a sentence or two, and then tell the entire story of that theme: the history of salt; the fragility of democracy; the use and misuse of punctuation. This book has no such unifying theme…. [We] opted instead for a sort of treasure-hunting approach.”

Well, I suppose that’s a fair description of what I’ve been (somewhat unconsciously) doing with the Daily Improviser blog: Hunting for the gems of improvisational wisdom lurking within such disparate topics as strategic planning, leadership, basketball, driving, movie-going, rock and roll, late-night monster movies, and talking to my cat. Rather than following a map and a set itinerary that track the final destination and the milestones along the way, I’ve been letting each new discovery provide clues to the next leg of the journey. Periodically I’ll stop, look back to see where I’ve been, and do some reckoning of where I am now and where I’d like to go.

As to where this journey might lead next, I’ll seek guidance from Levitt and Dubner’s thoughts about the scope of their book:

“Since the science of economics is primarily a set of tools, as opposed to a subject matter, then no subject, however offbeat, need be beyond its reach.”

If you replace “the science of economics” with “the art of improvisation,” then you (and I) can expect future Daily Improviser entries to cover … just about anything!

The Improvising Restaurant: Made (Up) to Order!

I was struck by an account I read in the book A Perfect Mess (by Eric Abrahamson and David H. Freedman) of a New York restaurateur named Danny Meyer – a classic Daily Improviser who’s shaken up the very concept of dining out with his various (and wildly varying) Manhattan eateries.

Abrahamson and Freedman describe the loose operational philosophy instituted by Meyer for his enterprises – an approach, say the authors, that runs against the traditional notion of the top chef as “absolute, heavy-handed ruler, if not raging tyrant” in the kitchen. As they describe it: “Meyer wants the kitchens of his restaurants to be scenes of rampant and collegial improvisation, not dictatorial consistency and rigidity.”

This improvisational spirit applies even more to the wait staff, who interact engagingly with patrons and make spur-of-the-moment offers such as free samples of menu items (to help the wavering diner decide) and complimentary bottles of wine.

Sounds like a total “just-wing-it” sensibility as applied to an organization, right? Well, not exactly – because, as the authors observe:

“[A] restaurant can’t run well as a glorious mess of improvisation…. [D]ishes have to be completed and delivered to tables with impeccable timing – a mechanically complex process that, if marred in any way, will ruin a dining experience no matter how brilliant the menu or engaging the waiters.”

So how do improvisation and structure coexist in Meyer’s restaurants? As the authors say, Meyer realized that spontaneous “happy surprises” could only be delivered to customers in the following way:

“[W]aiters would need to be able to rely on a highly ordered, highly predictable system of preparing and delivering food, leaving them free to improvise with customers on everything else. And that notion of a measure of randomness supported by a layer of order is the final pillar in [Meyer’s] philosophy.” [emphasis added]

This “layer of order” in Meyer’s restaurants can be found in exhaustive, explicit systems for preparing dishes and assigning waiters to tables, with processes facilitated by an expediter who manages the interfaces between the randomness and the order. As an associate of Meyer's says, "Danny's model for a restaurant is a jazz ensemble. There's a background theme that's predictable, and the instruments can improvise around it."

So maybe my angst over not being a “make it all up on the spot” kind of Daily Improviser is all for naught. Perhaps the improvising-within-a-structure model has its place, especially for Daily Improviser Organizations such as Danny Meyer's.

(For another example of a Daily Improviser Organization that reflects the improvising-within-a-structure model, see my earlier article on Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos.)