In this terrific interview at Google, Tina Fey explains one of the basic rules of improv (starting at around 2:46). Fey describes how actors and actresses use the "yes, and" rule in improv comedy. In other words, you are trained to build on others' ideas. Accept what they have said, and take the idea further. Do not reject what someone has said. Eliminate the "yes, but" mentality that can derail a sketch. The "yes, and" rule is instrumental for teams in the workplace too. It can help make brainstorming sessions more effective, and it keep debates constructive.
Showing posts with label conflict. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conflict. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Friday, September 14, 2012
Margaret Heffernan: Dare to Disagree
Posted on 11:23 AM by Unknown
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Resolving Team Conflict
Posted on 5:51 AM by Unknown
In Warren Bennis' terrific book, Organizing Genius, he suggests a simple method for intervening productively when conflict emerges within a team. He learned the method from Robert Taylor at Xerox PARC. Taylor used to refer to Class 1 and Class 2 disagreements. In a Class 1 disagreement, the "combatants" cannot even fully explain the other sides' position. In a Class 2 disagreement, the parties can clearly articulate the other side's views. When a conflict emerged, Taylor would urge group members to shift toward Class 2. In other words, he would ask them to articulate clearly and concisely the other side's point of view. That method seemed to take the temperature down a bit, and it often helped pave the way toward a resolution. Bennis argues that it helped the members find common ground. Moreover, he explains that it may have used the principle of cognitive dissonance to Taylor's advantage. In other words, the simple act of understanding and then stating the other side's position and rationale may have made opposing members more likely to embrace key elements of it.
Monday, January 23, 2012
General Petraeus: Welcoming Dissent
Posted on 8:22 AM by Unknown
I've enjoyed reading Tim Harford's excellent book, Adapt: Why Success Always Starts with Failure. I find the overall argument of the book quite compelling, and the I love the stories and examples that Harford uses. Some assertions are maddening, but you have to just push through on the occasional bizarre pronouncement. For instance, he writes that it's wrong to assume the Soviet planned economy failed because it lacked the profit motive or the creativity of private-sector entrepreneurs. Huh? He argues that the failure was due to an inability to experiment. Somehow, in Harford's mind, the inability to experiment didn't have anything to do with a lack of profit motives and private sector entrepreneurship. I don't get it.
The book is excellent overall though. He makes a great case for the importance of experimentation and the willingness to tolerate failure. Harford also makes a strong case for why leaders must embrace conflict and dissent. Take the story of General Petraeus that Harford tells us in the book. Petraeus organized a conference on counterinsurgency in Fort Leavenworth during the Iraq War. He invited many people, inside and outside the Army, who had been quite critical of the Army's strategy to that point. It was a highly unusual meeting for the U.S. Army. Petraeus also often invited lower level officers to email him directly about their observations and insights regarding how things were going in Iraq. He wanted to circumvent the usual gatekeepers and hear directly from those on the front lines.
Apparently, Petraeus learned the importance of inviting dissenting views from Major General Jack Galvin, a man to whom Petraeus reported back in the early 1980s. According to Harford, "Jack Galvin also taught Petraeus that it is not enough to tolerate dissent: sometimes you have to demand it." Music to my ears! I have argued that same point for years. Just telling people you want to hear from them doesn't always surface the full range of divergent views and perspectives that you need to hear. When he's telling these stories, Harford is at his best. I strongly recommend the book.
The book is excellent overall though. He makes a great case for the importance of experimentation and the willingness to tolerate failure. Harford also makes a strong case for why leaders must embrace conflict and dissent. Take the story of General Petraeus that Harford tells us in the book. Petraeus organized a conference on counterinsurgency in Fort Leavenworth during the Iraq War. He invited many people, inside and outside the Army, who had been quite critical of the Army's strategy to that point. It was a highly unusual meeting for the U.S. Army. Petraeus also often invited lower level officers to email him directly about their observations and insights regarding how things were going in Iraq. He wanted to circumvent the usual gatekeepers and hear directly from those on the front lines.
Apparently, Petraeus learned the importance of inviting dissenting views from Major General Jack Galvin, a man to whom Petraeus reported back in the early 1980s. According to Harford, "Jack Galvin also taught Petraeus that it is not enough to tolerate dissent: sometimes you have to demand it." Music to my ears! I have argued that same point for years. Just telling people you want to hear from them doesn't always surface the full range of divergent views and perspectives that you need to hear. When he's telling these stories, Harford is at his best. I strongly recommend the book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
