Should We Focus on Problems or Solutions?

I’ve developed a hard-earned reputation as a music trivia expert – a status achieved through 10,000-plus hours of passion, toil, and training in some of the grungiest hole-in-the-wall record stores from San Francisco to London.

About ten years ago, in Columbus, Ohio, I ran across one of my best finds – a 1978 UK import cd by Andy Mackay, the sax player for the band Roxy Music. Mackay intended the album as an amalgamation of traditional Chinese music and the progressive rock sound reflected in his work with Roxy. (And, I might add, he succeeded brilliantly.)

I mention the album because its title – Resolving Contradictions – perfectly expresses one of my primary goals with this blog: To show how, by applying the improv mindset, the Daily Improviser can find common ground between ideas, opinions, and concepts that might at first blush appear to be irresolvable. (In this regard, see also my prior article No Contradictions – Just Paradoxes.)

I must admit, though, that sometimes the Resolving Contradictions path can be a rocky one. And I’m currently having to step carefully around two sets of concepts relating to Change Leadership that could potentially trip me up.

On one side, we have the words of Chip Heath and Dan Heath in their book Switch:

“What if [we] had a more positive orientation [toward our world]? …Imagine a world in which after a husband forgot his wife’s birthday, she gave him a big kiss and said, ‘For thirteen out of the last fourteen years you remembered my birthday! That’s wonderful!’ This is not our world. But in times of change, it needs to be. [We have] a problem focus when we need a solution focus…. We need to switch from archaeological problem solving to bright-spot evangelizing…. These flashes of success – these bright spots – can illuminate a road map for action and spark the hope that change is possible.”

On the other side we have William Bridges, who says in his book Managing Transitions:

“[When you’re attempting to change the organization], you may discover that people have trouble understanding the purpose [behind the change] because they do not have a realistic idea of where the organization really stands and what its problems are. In that case, you need to ‘sell the problems’ before you try to sell a solution to those problems. If that wasn’t done during the ending phase – when it should have been done – now is the time to provide answers to these questions: What is the problem? What is the situation that requires this change to solve it? Who says so, and on what evidence? What would occur if no one acted to solve this problem? And what would happen to us if that occurred?”

So – do we line up with experts like the Heaths who advocate a solutions-focused approach to organizational change? Or do we adopt the thinking of an expert like Bridges and instead clarify and “sell” the problem that the change is intended to overcome? Is this yet another case of “pick your expert”?

Well, like Andy Mackay, I think this is a situation where Resolving (seeming) Contradictions would be a worthwhile exercise. I’ll take us further down this rocky path in future articles.

Puppies, Pizzas ... and Improv (Part 2)

In my previous article, I described the improv game Word at a Time Story, which I conducted as part of a leadership class in Orlando, Florida. The participants successfully (and spontaneously) created a story that made some semblance of sense but left hanging in the air the question: What is a puppy pizza?

Well, as I mentioned last time, improv is the gift that keeps on giving – and in this case it provided me a huge present, neatly wrapped and tied with a bow.

As I drove back to my hotel after Day One of the two-day class, I noticed a storefront by the roadside with a large sign out front: Just Puppies. This being my first time in the Orlando area, I wondered what sort of a business it was - puppy seller, puppy doctor, puppy supply store?

As I absentmindedly considered the possibilities, my attention was suddenly seized by something that immediately revealed the meaning of “puppy pizza”!

The next day, the leadership class continued with great engagement and involvement on the part of the participants – as well as several references to the outcome of the previous day’s Word at a Time Story. As we approached the end of the day (and the session), I launched into a wrap-up speech that I’d sketched out on the proverbial piece of scrap paper just that morning:

“In the last two days, we’ve introduced you to many tools and concepts that will help you be a more effective leader. As you’ve seen, leadership is not about giving orders and trying to seize and maintain control. There’s really no better way to lead than to develop your people, empower them, and then stand back and see what great things they create.

“As we saw with the Word at a Time Story, there’s a lot of benefit to just letting go and seeing what emerges from the combined efforts of a group of people. Even though you successfully made it to the end of the story, though, I know everyone was still wondering: What is a puppy pizza?

“Well, I found out!

“Yesterday, as I was driving back to my hotel, I saw this store called Just Puppies. I have no idea what kind of a store it is – but as I drove by, something very distinctive about the building caught my eye. And then it hit me. Do you know what used to be in that space?”

Immediately the light bulb went on above one of the participants as she answered: “A PIZZA HUT!”

“YES! I’d know an old Pizza Hut building anywhere! So … Just Puppies … Pizza Hut … PUPPY PIZZA!”

As laughter erupted in the room, I concluded by saying:

“So this shows another benefit of letting go and letting things happen: It can just add some unexpected fun to our daily lives! Thanks for a great two days – now go forth and lead!”

So this was really a double gift: One for the participants (to reinforce the points from the previous day) and one for me (to give me the perfect wrap-up for a great two days).

Puppies, Pizzas ... and Improv

I’m always amazed at the power of improv to surprise, delight, and … well, amaze.

Last week I conducted a two-day leadership program in Orlando, Florida. On Day One, I had the 14 participants play the improv game Word at a Time Story. In this game, players spontaneously create a story by taking turns calling out only a single word when their turn comes around. The players keep the story going until one of them feels that it’s reached its logical conclusion, at which time he says “The End.”

In last week’s activity, the first four players had it easy:

“Once”
“Upon”
“A”
“Time”

[Full Disclosure Department: I don’t actually recall the exact words of the story, except for the two key words below, so the following is a re-creation that should still provide a flavor of the experience.]

Each of the next few players then had to come up with words (one at a time, of course) to begin forming characters and a plot:

“My”
“Sister”
“Went”
“To”
“The”
“Store”

[Side Comment #1: By now it should be clear that no individual person can possibly control the direction of the story – it truly has to be a collaborative effort, requiring total presence in the “now” and a reliance on gut instinct to come up with a word. The players with control issues usually have the hardest time just going with the flow of the group and letting the story emerge on its own. Back in the workplace, this controlling attitude can take several forms: unwillingness to rely on the wisdom of the team, failure to delegate, micromanagement, a need to direct and dominate, and a tendency to solve problems for others rather than coach them on how to come up with their own solutions.]

“And”
“Bought”
“A”
“Puppy”

[Side Comment #2: At this point, I figured that some of the next players in line were formulating ideas about what they might say when it became their turn, with a likely focus on playing with the puppy, feeding the puppy, walking the puppy, etc. This reflects a common practice that people engage in during business meetings – i.e., scripting and rehearsing their responses in their heads while they should be fiercely listening to the other participants in order to truly understand the “story line” of the meeting as it unfolds.]

“Pizza”

[Side Comment #3: PIZZA??!! Now the next person has a challenge: To keep the story going in the face of the weird combination the previous player created. This is another workplace lesson from the game: Rather than treating seemingly incongruous ideas, opinions, and perspectives as irresolvable conflicts, proceed with positive purpose and see how you can integrate all the elements into a constructive result.]

“Which”
“Really”
“Surprised”
“Us”
“All”
“THE END”

At this, the participants let out a huge collective laugh at their success in reaching “The End,” at the rough sense of the story that they had collectively created - and at the idea of a “puppy pizza.” (In fact, one woman was laughing so hard that she had to call “time out” and leave the room.)

We then debriefed by discussing some of the points in the “side comments” mentioned above. However, we never did answer the lingering question: What is a “puppy pizza”?

If that had been the end of the “story,” that would have been enough – but improv is the gift that keeps on giving, as I discovered after the day’s session was over - and as I'll reveal in my next article.

The 80/20 Rule and Strengths-Based Development

This past week, as I was reading Howard Gardner’s book Changing Minds, I came upon a description of a commonly held attitude about the way in which people should expend their efforts:

"From early childhood on, most of us have operated under the following assumption: When confronted with a task, we should work as hard as we are able and devote approximately equal time to each part of that task. According to this '50/50 principle,' if we have to learn a piece of music, or master a new game, or fill out some role at home or work, we should spread our effort equally across the various components." [Italics added]

I think this description relates directly to the commonly held belief in business that a person should focus his development efforts on identifying and improving his weaknesses. That is, he should try to raise his skill levels in his weakness areas to reach parity with his areas of proficiency. In doing so (as the belief holds), he should aspire to become well-rounded in his particular job or position.

However, as Gardner notes, this development strategy may be wrongheaded:

"Now consider another perspective on this issue. Early in the last century, the Italian economist and sociologist Vilifredo Pareto proposed what has come to be known as the '80/20 principle' or rule. As explained by Richard Koch in a charming book, The 80/20 Principle, one can in general accomplish most of what one wants – perhaps up to 80 percent of the target – with only a modest amount of effort – perhaps only 20 percent of expected effort…. It is important to be judicious about where one places one’s efforts, and to be alert to ‘tipping points’ that abruptly bring a goal within (or beyond) reach. Conversely, one should avoid the natural temptation to inject equal amounts of energy into every part of a task, problem, project, or hobby." [Italics added]

In this view, the application of equal effort to all parts of your “toolkit” constitutes a misguided approach to a personal development strategy. (To paraphrase the Heath brothers in Made to Stick, if you’re focusing on ten skills, you’re not really focusing on any skills.)

As I read this, it suddenly struck me: The strengths-based development approach is a perfect example of the 80/20 Principle! Placing your development focus on optimizing your key strengths provides you the leverage you need to succeed, while at the same time ensuring that you don’t spread yourself too thin in your development efforts.

And, yes, you could choose to focus your “20%” on your major weaknesses – but the payoff for the effort would probably be only (as Peter Drucker said) the attainment of mediocrity in those areas.

Why not instead be more "judicious" - and strategic - in your 20% focus by placing it on your strengths?

Ducky's Dilemma Resolved! The Role of Passion, Toil, and Training

I left off last time by asking the question: How can Ducky reconcile the two seemingly contradictory pieces of advice given by Marcus Buckingham ("Focus on your strengths!") and Carol Dweck ("Adopt a growth mindset!")?

Well, Ducky can reflect a bit more on the Dweck quote I cited last time: "It’s impossible to foresee what can be accomplished with years of passion, toil, and training."

I think the key word here is “passion,” a word that Dweck repeatedly uses in citing examples of people who prevailed after years of hard work and practice. I think that Dweck recognizes that toil and training only make sense if you employ them to get better at something you really want to do. In this, Dweck echoes Buckingham in his description of one of the hallmarks of a strength: Something for which you have an Instinct. As Buckingham says:

"Your strengths have an I-can’t-help-but quality to them. You can’t articulate why, but you find yourself drawn to certain activities repeatedly. Even though you may be just a little scared to do them, just a little nervous – 'Maybe I’m not good enough, maybe I’ll fail' – you nonetheless feel a pull toward them."

A passion … a calling … something you must do … as Buckingham notes, these all precede the desire to start pursuing one’s chosen path. And I think that Dweck’s concept of the growth mindset can provide reassurance for the Daily Improviser as he starts on this “must do” path. Even with a burning passion behind him, the Daily Improviser’s path won’t always be easy. Especially in the early going, he’ll likely be confronted with doubts (of both his own and others’ making) and challenges that may well make him feel like giving up. 

By keeping the growth mindset in mind, the Daily Improviser can avoid feelings of futility and realize that "passion, toil, and training" are enough to get him to his goal.

No Contradictions - Just Paradoxes!

We left off last time with my former class participant Ducky standing at a fork in the road, with two pieces of seemingly contradictory expert advice staring him in the face – that of Marcus Buckingham (“Just focus on your strengths!”) and Carol Dweck (“Adopt a growth mindset!”).

I suggested that Ducky instead adopt a third piece of advice, from that Daily Improvising expert Yogi Berra: “When you come to a fork in the road, take it!”

In saying that, Yogi was touching on what I believe to be an essential point about the improvisational attitudes: Rather than look upon apparent disagreements as contradictions that require an either-or choice, instead regard them as paradoxes that can be integrated with further reflection and creative thinking.

This attitude lies at the heart of all improv, I believe. It’s what allows a performance improviser to take an audience suggestion such as “You’re a Sumo wrestler performing Swan Lake” and create a scene that seamlessly weaves the incongruities together. It’s what allows him to take an off-the-wall offer from his partner, say a vigorous “Yes,” and deftly integrate it into his next action, as if it were the most natural thing in the world.

And, as I’ve mentioned before, it’s also the attitude that underlies the application of the And Stance by the Daily Improviser.  Rather than approach all issues with an either-or, I'm-right-and-you're wrong attitude, the Daily Improviser can adopt the "mindset" (all too rare these days, unfortunately) of "I'm right and you're right," that is, "We both have a piece of the truth in our possession."  The real question then becomes, not "Who's right?", but "How do we move forward productively?"

No contradictions, just paradoxes! With this in mind, next time we'll look at how Ducky might derive guidance from both Marcus Buckingham and Carol Dweck.

Ducky's Dilemma: Strengths vs. Mindsets

Today I’d like to revisit the story of Ducky, the class participant I described about a year ago. Ducky was a project manager who wanted to become more spontaneous in his interactions with others, which prompted my suggestion that he enroll in an adult improv class.

Lately I’ve been wondering: What if Ducky had begun an improv class and initially found enjoyment in it – but then ran headlong into an improv exercise that left him lost for words, tongue-tied, uncomfortable?

What advice should he be given?

A Strengths-based-development guru such as Marcus Buckingham might ask him whether the experience was making him feel strong or weak. For, as Buckingham says in his book Go Put Your Strengths to Work:

“Your strengths are those activities that make you feel strong…. ‘An activity that makes you feel weak’ is the best definition of a weakness.’”

So if Ducky were made to feel weak by the activity, Buckingham would probably say: “Drop the improv! Instead, focus on developing and leveraging those activities that make you feel strong.”

But if you were Carol Dweck, you’d probably give Ducky some very different advice.

In her book Mindset, Dweck draws a distinction between the growth mindset and the fixed mindset. The growth mindset, says Dweck, is based on the belief that one’s basic qualities can be cultivated through effort, and that anyone can change and grow through application and experience. As Dweck notes:

“[People with a growth mindset] believe that a person’s true potential is unknown (and unknowable); that it’s impossible to foresee what can be accomplished with years of passion, toil, and training.”

People with a growth mindset welcome challenges as learning experiences, as a way to find out their true capabilities. “The passion for stretching yourself and sticking to it, even (or especially) when it’s not going well,” says Dweck, “is the hallmark of the growth mindset.”

By contrast, says Dweck, people with a fixed mindset believe that one’s intelligence, skills, and other traits are predetermined and cannot change greatly over time. To people with a fixed mindset, says Dweck:

“Either you have ability or you expend effort…. [Fixed mindset people believe that] effort is for those who don’t have the ability. People with the fixed mindset tell us, ‘If you have to work at something, you must not be very good at it.’”

Fixed mindset people thus become easily discouraged and frustrated when a task starts to require significant effort. The need to expend the extra energy immediately confirms (to their minds) their innate inability and the likelihood of being proven a failure if they continue striving.

Given all this, Dweck would probably advise Ducky: "Don’t stop doing improv just because it’s becoming more difficult! Instead, adopt a growth mindset and keep plugging away. It’s the only way to discover your true improv ability."

So we find Ducky the Daily Improviser at a fork in the road, with one way marked Buckingham Boulevard (“Don’t try to develop your weaknesses!”) and the other marked Dweck Drive (“Keep going! Don’t stop just because it’s getting difficult.”) What should he do?

Well, he should follow the advice of the great Daily Improviser sage Yogi Berra, who said:

“When you come to a fork in the road, take it!”

(I'll elaborate next time, when "Ducky's Dilemma" continues.)

Cultivating Those "Micro-Moments" of Joy

In my previous two articles, I described the Negativity Bias - the disproportionate power of negativity in the world as compared with comparable positive occurrences. I left off last time by pointing to the use of Yes And as a way to counter the impact of the Negativity Bias.

So … how should you do this?

Perhaps the best place to start is to examine how the Negativity Bias operates in your own life. As another leading light of the Positivity movement, Barbara Fredrickson, says, you need three positive emotions for every negative emotion in order to flourish rather than languish in life. (Note again the unfair power advantage of Bad over Good here.)

The encouraging news is that you have the power to create and nurture these positive emotions – you don’t have to just wait for them to occur. Fredrickson refers to this as “cultivating” positive emotions and recommends that people focus on “micro-moments” of joy, happiness, and gratitude as a way to build their net surplus of Good over Bad. "A lot of times,” says Fredrickson, “ we get so wrapped up in thinking about the future and the past that we are blind to the goodness we are steeped in already, whether it's the beauty outside the window or the kind things that people are doing for you.”

Being aware of the Negativity Bias can remind you to take an active, vigilant role in the sustaining of your positive outlook. As Fredrickson says:

"You have to participate relentlessly in the manifestations of your own blessings. And once you have achieved a state of happiness, you must never become lax about maintaining it, you must make a mighty effort to keep swimming upward into that happiness forever, to stay afloat on top of it."

"Jerks Are Not Born - They're Made!" The Daily Improviser and the Fundamental Attribution Error

"When some guy cuts you off in traffic, you probably think instinctively: What a jerk.  (Or perhaps your inner voice is more vulgar.)  What you almost certainly don't think to yourself is, Gosh, I wonder what's wrong that he is in such a hurry."

In their book Switch, Chip Heath & Dan Heath use this example to make a point about the way in which our behavior (in this case, the "jerk" driver's) is often driven, not by any hard-wired personality characteristic, but by the situation we find ourselves in.  And unfortunately, as the Heaths note:

"We are frequently blind to the power of situations. In a famous article, Stanford psychologist Lee Ross ... noted that people have a systematic tendency to ignore the situational forces that shape other people's behavior.  He called this deep-rooted tendency the 'Fundamental Attribution Error.'  The error lies in our inclination to attribute people's behavior to the way they are rather than to the situation they are in."

I think that the Fundamental Attribution Error also represents another instance of the Negativity Bias ("Bad is stronger than good"), which I referred to in my previous article.

Think of the last time a driver cut you off (and I'm assuming everyone's had that experience).  Recall that sudden, reflexive, overwhelmingly negative feeling you had toward the "jerk" in the other car.  That's the Negativity Bias at work - the unfair power advantage of Bad over Good.

Now think of the last time someone "cut you off" at a business meeting, by interrupting you or ignoring your comment.  Did you immediately think, Poor guy, he must be having a bad day to be acting so cross.  Or did you think ... something else?
 
For the Daily Improviser in these instances, the Yes And approach would involve exploring the situational aspects of events rather than giving in to the knee-jerk "jerk" reaction.  The goal is not really to put a positive spin on the event but to at least find a more neutral explanation that puts you in a better frame of mind to Advance with Positive Purpose. 

Yes And vs. the Negativity Bias

Rule Number One for the performance improviser and the Daily Improviser is Yes And – that is, accept the offers of your fellow players and contribute something that advances the action. For the Daily Improviser, this doesn’t necessarily mean Agreeing with the Position put forth by your “partner,” but it does mean:

• Accepting the Person,
• Acknowledging the Possibilities in what he says, and
• Advancing with Positive Purpose.

For the Daily Improviser, though, it can often seem as if every positive impulse you put forth into the world is met by a battery of “No’s” pushing back. And this experience may not be just a product of your imagination, as Jonathan Haidt points out in his book The Happiness Hypothesis.

Haidt, one of the foremost scholars in the area of Positive Psychology, refers to a psychological tendency called the Negativity Bias, which can be simply stated as: For most people, bad is stronger than good. This is not a value judgment but a reflection of psychologists’ repeated finding that the human mind tends to react to bad things more quickly, forcefully, and persistently than to equivalent good things.

To illustrate the Negativity Bias in action, Haidt points to the following research examples:

• In marital interactions, it takes at least five good or constructive actions to make up for the damage done by one critical or destructive act
• In financial transactions and gambles, the pleasure of gaining a certain amount of money is smaller than the pain of losing the same amount
• In evaluating a person’s character, people estimate that it would take 25 acts of life-saving heroism to make up for one act of murder

(To demonstrate the Negativity Bias yourself, you can conduct your own unscientific study – just turn on the next installment of the evening news.)

The existence of the Negativity Bias sounds pretty depressing and negativity-inducing in itself, right? Well, I think this is another situation that calls for the application of the Stockdale Paradox: Confront the brutal facts, yet never lose faith!  You need to recognize the disproportionate strength of "No" in order to avoid being blindsided by the power it wields in the world.  Yet you also want to maintain your faith in the power of Yes And and be sure to cultivate, nurture, and repeatedly put its positivity principles into effect as a remedy for the “No” disease.

Next time I'll talk a bit more about becoming aware of the impact of the Negativity Bias on your own thinking and attitudes.