Creative brainstorms - a lesson from the world of improv

The model in most large business is based on stand-up comedy, where individual performance counts, as opposed to improv comedy, which requires constant awareness of others.

There are actually rules to improv, without which the exchange would become an erratic process of bland stops and starts - instead of the entertaining theatre it has become.

Malcolm Gladwell, in his latest book, Blink, illustrates the difference with two examples of improvisation from a class taught by one of the founders of improv, Keith Johnstone:

A: I'm having trouble with my leg.
B: I'm afraid I'll have to amputate.
A: You can't do that, Doctor.
B: Why not?
A: Because I'm rather attached to it.
B: (Losing heart) Come on, man.
A: I've got this growth on my arm too, Doctor.

The two actors are struggling. Besides actor 'A' getting a bit of a laugh with "I'm attached to it', the process goes nowhere. It does not develop.

However, when they agree to a simple rule, the result is a lot richer:

A: Augh!
B: Whatever is it man?
A: It's my leg doctor.
B: This looks nasty. I shall have to amputate.
A: It's the one you amputated last time, Doctor.
B: You mean you've got a pain in your wooden leg?
A: Yes, Doctor.
B: You know what that means?
A: Not woodworm, Doctor!
B: Yes. We'll have to remove it before it spreads to the rest of you.
(A's chair collapses.)
B: My God! It's spreading to the furniture!

The difference is that they agreed on the following: Accept all offers made. In this case, it excised the word 'can't' from their exchange, allowing the conversation to gain breadth, depth and a good dose of entertainment.

Gladwell compares improv to basketball - it can be a highly creative and unique game, but only after the players have spent extensive amounts of time in highly repetitive and structured practice - perfecting the basics of shooting, dribbling, passing and running - and then agreeing to play a clearly defined role on the night.

Like life, we need to take what's given to us, embrace it and then give it a new dynamic. Adding value if you like. However, we spend most of our time suppressing action. Much of what we do is geared to prevent what we don't want to happen. And things do happen to us all the time, things that are neither planned nor desired. So, accepting all offers, is not something that comes naturally. And we tend to take this behaviour to work.

The symptom of this is protracted periods of silence during brainstorms, waiting for the leader in the group to look up from his private world of insights, proclaim the breakthrough idea, so we can all get out the room and produce the work. Or once in a while, we have a 'great idea' that we pitch to the group - with a response varying from the embarrassment of holding a lead balloon, to the euphoric buy-in of your brilliance.

Whether this is right or wrong, I don't know - many agencies do quite well using this method that relies on 'islands of creation' dependant on personal brilliance.

However, I'm not sure the best talent stays around very long. The lone challenge of stand-up is a lot more draining than the team synergy of improv.

Reference: Gladwell M. Blink, The Power of Thinking Without Thinking. Allen Lane, an imprint of Penguin Books, 2005.