Accepting vs. Agreeing

One of the core principles of improvisational theater is "Yes And" - which means accepting (the YES) whatever is given (called "offers") and adding a new piece of information (the AND). It is the cornerstone of improv, and that which help improvisers keep the creativity going in the face of the unknown - with no plans, scripts or strategies.

When I bring Applied Improv principles and practices to organizations, inevitably someone says, "But what if you really DON'T agree with the idea that is offered? Some ideas are simply not good ideas." A valid case.

There are points I would like to address to that regard: first, the practice of "Yes-Anding" as a creativity technique is used more in the divergence (expanding and generating) part of the creative process. Among a host of other things, yes-anding helps open up the "playing field" for more possibilities and novel connections that otherwise would never have been engaged by the conventional approach of finding out all the reasons an idea will not work. Once you get into the convergence (discerning and focusing) part of the creative process, then you begin to use the "no's" as appropriate to discern what will and will not work based upon the objectives and the parameters of your focus.

The second point is more subtle. It is the difference between accepting the "offer" and agreeing with it. In improv, it does not matter what you personally think about the offer - or the person offering it - you accept it. You may disagree, but you still accept it and add to it. By doing so, you are not saying, "I love your idea!" Instead, you are engaging in the experiment of taking a seed idea and creating forth something new with it. In doing so, more often than not, an entirely unexpected direction will emerge that is better than anyone could have imagined. With clear intention of purpose, a "bad idea" that is accepted and "anded" can transform into a spot-on relevant innovation just a few "ands" later. To an improviser, all offers are gifts.
 
Perhaps more significantly, the art of acceptance is profound when practiced with groups and work teams. Accepting what someone is saying creates a feeling of safety. Once the ground of safety is established, members of the group will allow themselves to take more creative risks, to experiment more, to think more expansively...which leads to more novel and workable ideas. You don't have to agree with someone's point of view to honor that it is theirs. The payoff: you get more flow from the creative well. In a time when innovation is the big buzzword, the practice of accepting - regardless of agreeing - is one more tool for the creative toolbox.

Comments

[Tom Graves]

"The second point is more subtle. It is the difference between accepting the "offer" and agreeing with it. In improv, it does not matter what you personally think about the offer - or the person offering it - you accept it."

In principle I do agree, and that's how I aim to work in most circumstances. Yet I don't know how to deal with a situation I'm aim to follow 'yes/and', yet the other person insists on 'yes/but' (or worse).

I see 'yes/and' as win/win, and 'yes/but' as a thinly-disguised version of win/lose. In that context, I want the other person to win, but they need me to 'lose' in order to gain the feeling that they've 'won'. (The inverse is also true - if less intense - with 'lose/win' players, people who believe that the only way they can help us win is by making themselves lose: for example, people who apologise too much for 'mistakes' in improv.) In my (painful) experience, this kills the improv flow stone-dead, which defeats the whole object of the exercise. The only solution I've found so far is the advice from old movie "War Games", that "the only way to win is to not play".

Do you have any other alternatives for improv circumstances where one or more of the people on-set have an apparently-obsessive 'need' to play 'win/lose'? And how would you suggest handling an improv-type business-context where there is no apparent choice to 'not play'?

[Michelle James]

Hi Tom. To answer you first point, one of the other "rules of engagement" in improv is keep the energy going (that is another way to yes-and - by not stopping to apologize for, judge, or evaluate your own or others' "offers" in the state of play. I have not seen what you described to be a problem if the principles are agreed upon.

Also, it does not meanly blindly accept everything all the time - it is a tool for expansion, like many other things to be used in context. Accepting offers and yes-anding are great for the divergent part of the creative process to expand the creative playing. At some point you get into convergence, (see my blog post on for the diagram on Divergence and Convergence) and you being to decrease, rather than expand, and in that, the no's emerge. For every generative yes, there are a series of no's that go with it. The problem is most people do not know how to sustain the yes-and long enough to get it really generative before going into the "but".

To answer your second question, the improv principles work best if everything is in agreement with them. If someone is playing "win/lose" they are already not in agreement with the basic principles. It does not mean YOU still can't use yes-and to try to transform the situation (which I have seen work) but if someone is coming from the foundation of win/lose, there is more involved than just learning how to accept. Like everything, there is no one answer to all things...but if acceptance, rather than agreement, is establishied as part of the co-creative "container",then the creative process will be more generative.

Warmly,
Michelle

Warmly,
Michelle