Archive for the ‘Agreement Principle’ Category

Power and Powerlessness

Friday, March 5th, 2010

TheNewHow1This is from a blog post by our friend, Nilofer Merchant, author of the new book The New How: Creating Business Solutions Through Collaborative Strategy:

The challenge with people feeling powerless is this: we don’t see how we can contribute to solve problems. We believe it is “someone else’s” to own rather than something any of us can contribute to. Powerlessness leads to apathy on global issues and disdain on local issues.

Now check out this from Mick Napier’s classic book, Improvise:  Scene from the Inside Out:

Two people…staring at each other and wondering who’s going to make the first move.  Two people being nice to each other and allowing the other to start doing something.  In that short amount of time, two humans have created themselves as powerless…Who has time?  The audience is waiting.  They don’t care about your support.  They care about what you do.  What you do now.

These two statements, made miles and years apart, reflect the timelessness of the concept:  Do something!  Participate!  Add to the conversation!  When you’re just getting started don’t worry about what the solution will be, or where the scene will take you.  No one knows, and your audience doesn’t care.  The most important thing is to bring to the scene whatever you’ve got.

The saying in improvisation is ‘take care of yourself first.’  This is not the same as being selfish.  It is, rather, the recognition that making the first move, even if we are not always the one to make it, is always our responsibility.

Cyberhouse Rules

Monday, February 8th, 2010

I speak occasionally to Steven Lisberger, who directed the landmark motion picture, TRON.  Naturally enough, the conversation usually comes around to cyberspace and how, as Steven puts it, “TRON came true.”  Lately, we’ve been talking a lot about the role of story and storytellers in the networked world.   Steven has a way of boiling things down to their essence.  Sometimes I call him Obi-Wan.  Here’s some Jedi from our most recent conversation:

Lisberger and Me

Lisberger and Me

“For most of mankind’s existence, our subconscious mind has been hidden.  Now it’s on full display in the network.  Everything you can dream of is there and accessible instantly.  And the question is, what are we going to do with it?”

“People need a new way in.”

“If one aspect of work, access to information, has gotten infinitely easier, the laws of physics tell us that another aspect, one that maybe we don’t recognize yet, has gotten infinitely harder.  We expect things to always get easier, but that’s not necessarily true.”

“On one side of the equation you have the swarm, the hive mind, whatever you want to call it.  And on the other, you have all these tools, and this demand for productivity.  If you don’t know what you’re doing, it will get revealed quicker.  So you have to really know what you’re doing.  The swarm has to be grounded in capability.”

“The network and the tools are amazing.  If people learn how to use the network and the tools, they’ll be amazing, too.”

“One result of networks is the democratization of quality.  When all content is pumped out and made accessible, it creates a kind of middling format.  It leads to a common denominator effect.  This is why elitism matters.  Not just anyone can tell a good story, or create a good design.”

“Intellectual bullying perpetuates the wrong argument.”

“With improvisation, you can do a scene where one person plays the landlord and the other person plays the tenant who’s behind on the rent.  Then those two people reverse roles, and from that process, you learn how to go about resolving the problem.  In business, that never happens.  No one switches sides or changes roles.  If you play for the Blue Team, that’s the team you stay on.  If you’re on the Yellow Team, you stay on that team, and you argue for that side.  And you just keep on having the same argument, and it’s terrible, because nothing changes, and nothing ever gets resolved.”

“What you’re doing with GameChangers is fracturing and realigning the sides of the argument so that problems can get solved.”

“The subconscious mind doesn’t recognize time.  It exists in a permanent state of ‘now.’  In this sense the subconscious mind is like a child, who doesn’t know anything but ‘right now.’  When the subconscious mind makes itself visible and instantly accessible in the network, and everything exists in a state of now, it breeds immaturity.  We begin operating at the level of awareness of an 11 year old.  Maturity is something you can only get to over time.  It’s linear in that sense.  The ethics and perspective that come with time and maturity are what’s missing in this environment.”

“Maturity comes from mastery in the physical realm.”

‘The President’s Question Time’ Scene

Saturday, January 30th, 2010

There’s a great tradition in British government that, if you’ve never seen it, you ought to.  It’s called The Prime Minister’s Question Time, and it is wonderful political theater.  Watch some of this.

And then compare this.

Quite a difference.

The first is improvised.

The second is scripted.

Improvisation is active.  It is alive.  Members of Parliament are energetically engaged in the conversation about the matter at hand, supportive of, but not bogged down by, their various ideologies and positions.  Their actions and reactions are immediate, emotional and visceral.  This honors the problem.  American politicians dishonor a problem, and obfuscate it, when they use it as a foil for politicking, which is how almost every problem faced by the federal government is regarded now.  An excuse for campaigning.

ObamaRepubs1This is the big point President Obama underlined yesterday in his meeting with the Republicans.  That 66-minute conversation may be the best thing that’s happened in American politics since the Watergate hearings.  Obama changed the game by calling out the current political game for what it is.   Let’s call the current game “Our Way or No Way.”  It is played by Democrats and Republicans alike, with equal vigor.  This game is toxic.  Limiting.  Stultifying.  Divisive.  And ultimately it’s unproductive.  This is not about blaming one party or the other.  The bad game is to blame.

Yesterday, Obama not only called out the current game for the quicksand pit it is, he suggested a better, more liberating, more productive game.  You might call the game he’s proposing, ‘Part of a Pie is Better Than None.’  In other words, the invitation to the Republicans (Dems, you’re next!) is to find an area of agreement and agree on it.  Do it knowing that some, but not all, and probably not not 80% of what you’ve got scripted, will come to pass.  Don’t be greedy.  Be generous instead.  Don’t place blame.  Accept responsibility.  Don’t point fingers.  Shake hands.  And then come out fighting.  Let’s relish the good fight, one where we fight together to solve the problem, not the bad fight, where we fight over who’s right and who’s wrong about how to solve it.  Let’s pick battles we can win instead of battles we can make the other guy lose.

Cheers to the GameChanger in Chief for changing the game once again.  Our political discourse needs more of the kind of energetic, intelligent, articulate, performances that the Brits demonstrate in their ‘Question Time With the Prime Minister” and Obama and the Republicans staged yesterday.  It will be a healthy transformation.  And it’ll make great TV.  Nothing we Yanks like better than that!

Do not get locked into your script for success.  Be prepared, instead, to improvise your way there.  Remember that other people have scripts, too.  As I can tell you from working in the entertainment business, when all we do is fight over whose script we’re going to follow, the show does not go on.

We Will Be Brilliant

Wednesday, January 13th, 2010

Haiti2There is a terrible rip in the fabric of the planet. The Earth has buckled under Haiti. Hundreds of thousands of people are dead, suffering, homeless, hungry, helpless in the streets. The alarm ripples across networks in waves of emotion produced by a billion links and images knitted together by tens of thousands of stories. The global disaster relief game is on. We will play it brilliantly.

We will give money via mobile phones. We will send medical help and heavy equipment and food and tents and fuel. Some of us will catch a plane or a boat there ourselves. We will take time off from helping in New Orleans to give Haiti a hand. We will triage this awful wound that anyone who is truly attuned cannot help but feel. It is nature of networks that when people anywhere are hurting, we hurt, too. And so in helping the people of Port-au-Prince, we are also helping ourselves.

Disasters bring out the best in us. Neighborliness. Empathy. Selflessness. Soul. We will be focused and energetic. We will be purposeful. We will honor our instincts. Our differences will vanish, our collaborative natures take over, our shared destiny will be made, for a time, more clear.

And after the rubble no longer echoes with the cries of those it has buried alive, after those who have been hurt have been treated and those who are hungry have been fed and those on the streets have been sheltered…after the aid and energy we’ve sent toward the stricken parts have exhausted themselves and the survivors have settled into a freshly impoverished routine…we must remember this:

Our brilliance is always with us, and does not require a disaster like this one to make its presence known.

Detroiticulture

Monday, January 4th, 2010

FarmingDetroitOur friend Rasul Sha’ir of Cnvrgnc.com sent us a story about John Hantz, a wealthy money manager who wants to build a large farm inside the city limits of Detroit:

The theme of Farming is a strong one, especially in the context of a post-industrial city like Detroit.  It’s interesting that urban gardeners who farm quarter-acre plots of land in Detroit have come out against Hantz’s plan.  The anti-Hantzers are, according to the article, seizing on their own themes:  Racial Bias (Hantz and most of his team are white; Detroit’s population is 92% black) and Big Business vs. the Little Guy.

Comment:  We don’t have time or energy to spend on being racially or economically divided, it doesn’t matter what color the finger being pointed is or the size of the rock on the ring it’s wearing.  Themes can help us find the agreement that transcends race, religion, income level and personal history–all those things that divide us–thereby liberating new avenues for communication, learning and growth.  John Hantz and the urban gardeners of Detroit can unite around the theme of Farming to be productive and move the ‘Saving Detroit’ scene forward.

Context Sensitivity

Friday, November 20th, 2009

From David Brooks’ column in today’s NY Times:

…you would also have to say that Geithner, like many top members of the Obama economic team, is extremely context-sensitive. He’s less defined by any preset political doctrine than by the situation he happens to find himself in.

‘Sensitivity to one’s situation’ is a quality you find in any good improviser. Dogma (e.g. “political doctrine”) by contrast, doesn’t do much to move a scene forward; instead, it usually results in one of two less-than-desirable outcomes:  1)  a groupthink decision by people who let their dogma do their talking; or 2) the scene bogs down in a circular debate about how to move the scene forward.

The only thing that will move a scene forward is moving the scene forward.  You can’t talk about it.  You can’t write a prescription for it.  You just have to do it.

Woody Allen once said, “Ninety percent of life is just showing up.”  Woody was 55.55% right.  Fifty percent of life is showing up.  The other fifty percent is what you do when you get there.  And the only way to know what to do when you get there is to be sensitive to the context of your scene.

Mr. Context Sensitive

Mr. Context Sensitive

Disagreeable, That’s What We Are

Tuesday, September 29th, 2009

I get the New York Times on my Crackberry at 1:48 AM and I almost always scan the headlines and read a story or two before getting out of bed in the morning.  Some stories make me cringe and I want to crawl back under the covers  (”FBI Arrests Idiots Plotting to Do Something Stupid”), some inspire me (”Young People Overcome Odds, Kick Ass”) into jumping up and being productive straightaway. That’s how it is with the news, how it always has been.  In the most meta sense, all journalism consists of reports from the front in the neverending battle between What Scares Us and What Inspires Us.

I’m cool with that.  I think it is a worthy battle, well-joined, count me in.  (Inspire all the way, baby!)

AngryBaby1ALately, however, I have noticed a new factor in this fray.  Disagreement.  Every story in the headlines lately seems to be about some kind of impasse between disagreeable people disagreeing.

Anti-Abortioners disagree with Health Care Reformers.   Congress disagrees with the Senate, and they all disagree with the White House.  Nuclear inspectors disagree with one another over Iran.  Capitalists disagree with Socialists.  Cadbury disagrees with Kraft.  Dairy farmers disagree with cow breeders.   Teabaggers disagree with Treehuggers.   If the news is any barometer of American culture, all we do is disagree.  We litigate.  We opine.   We argue.  It is what we are famous for.   It’s what we’re good at.  There is nothing we can’t disagree about.  Al Sharpton and Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olbermann and Ann Coulter are all the same guy–the guy who got wealthy by complaining.

The problem with disagreement is that it doesn’t move a narrative forward.  The story always bogs down, because nothing changes.  If the story is about disagreement, that’s all it’s ever going to be about.  Disagreement is a road to nowhere, a recipe for nothing.  One of disagreement’s more disabling qualities is that it tends to play itself out and get amplified by the media.  Jon vs. Kate?  Feds vs. Polanski?   Chris vs. Rhianna?  Our fixation with what’s in the media is, in itself, a form of disagreement with anything that’s not in the media.

Because it sets up win-lose outcomes, a disagreement’s only avenue for growth is into deeper and broader divisions, an escalation of the conflict.  As the stakes get higher and the balance of power shifts, players get more strident, hysterical even, as those defined by the narrative as winners press their advantage and those labelled losers get more desperate.  If it ends, it will not end well.

The problem with Just Saying No, is that we’re not Saying Yes to anything.  If we spend all our time spinning our story, we have no time to live it, spend all our time disagreeing with someone else’s story and we’re never creating one of our own.  A fight about a narrative is not the same as a narrative about a fight.

Disageeable people are unproductive.  They’re against whatever.  Oh no.  Shut your mouth.  Stop.  Don’t.

Productive narratives, by contrast, are built on agreement.   It does not matter whether you’re talking about how to deal with Afghanistan, how to get a pothole filled in Kokomo, or how to build an application, agreement moves the scene forward and makes it productive.

GameChangers continually seek the agreement that moves the scene forward and they are not picky, judgmental or expectant about what this agreement needs to be.  Often, the simpler the agreement, the more potential it has.  In the transpo department:  Agreement about the weather can result in a better dispatch strategy.  In the art department:  Agreement about a color can lead to a new campaign.   In the PR department:  Agreement about a headline can result in a better press release.

As you go about your business,  instead of fixating on what’s wrong, embrace what is working.   Seek common ground.  Play win-win games.   Speak up.  Move.  Go.  Do.

Agree?

Obama the Improviser

Wednesday, January 21st, 2009

(This is a version of a piece I wrote for the Huffington Post early in 2008.  The context is even more appropriate today than it was then.)

ObamaImproviser1Barack Obama is an improviser.  His campaign, his platform, his history, draws on a spirit kindled in the same Chicago South Side neighborhoods where modern improv was born in the 1930s.

How does Barack Obama improvise?

He says “Yes and…” Like any good improviser, President Obama understands that agreement enables a scene to progress, and new, shared realities to emerge from it.  “I know that the hardening of lines, the embrace of fundamentalism and tribe, dooms us all,” he writes in the preface to Dreams From My Father.   As an improviser, Obama understands that erasing the lines that divide us–enabling “Your situation” and “My situation” to  become “Our situation”  is what makes any kind of progress possible. (more…)

Yes is Not Enough

Wednesday, January 7th, 2009

MarriageProposal1The most basic concept in all of improvisation is ‘Yes and’. If we are in a scene together and you make a statement, it is my obligation as an improviser to ‘yes-and’ your statement. By ‘yes-anding’ you, I not only agree to your reality, I add to it with perspective of my own. In this way, we can ‘triangulate’ on the problem to be solved, and also bring dimension, and new levels of collaboration to the scene.

The words ‘yes’ and ‘and’ do not have to be spoken literally, of course. It is the spirit of the phrase that matters. A common improv exericise invokes this spirit by having players begin every exchange of dialogue with those two powerful words, spoken literally.

If we are in a scene together and are ‘yes-anding’ one another, by the third line of the scene, it will not be about your reality, or my reality, it will be about our reality. Now we have the ability to work together toward an objective. It is the ‘and’ that makes all the difference. Anyone can say ‘yes’. It might get me a reputation as a being a positive person around the office, but it will not necessarily make me a productive player. (more…)

Surfi Culture

Tuesday, December 9th, 2008

The idea that two seemingly unrelated or conflicting points of view can be synthesized into a new and rewarding perspective is at heart of improvisation. The ability to resolve conflict by identifying and playing productive games is the secret to creativity, innovation and, ultimately, entrepreneurship.

Warm heart of Disney animation meets Steve Jobs’ cool tech to produce Pixar.

Choir songbooks plus moribund 3M R&D project yields PostIt notes.

Simplicity of a 32-word landing page plus complexity of human language brands Google.

Here’s a great example that surfaced this week on the BBC showing how improvisers resolve conflict to conjure up fresh ideas. Thanks to our friend James Dean Conklin (iconic actor meets bop on the head to shape a uniquely evolved human being) for calling it to our attention.

Phillip George, a designer from Australia, was ‘inspired’ by a series of riots on Sydney beaches in 2005, in which the Surf crowd attacked the Sufi crowd. George has produced a series of surfboards featuring beautiful Arabic designs that’s being shown right now in Australia as a museum exhibit. Right on, duddah!

Surfi1