Spontaneity

“Spontaneity is the moment of personal freedom when we are faced with a reality and see it, explore it, and act accordingly.” - Viola Spolin

“As soon as you say ‘failure is not an option,’ you’ve just said, ‘Innovation is not an option.’ – Seth Godin [Blog, 4/28/11]

The Principle

One of the staples of improv training is a game called “Soundball." The exercise is taught in many beginning improv classes, played as a warm-up in virtually all improv companies, and utilized in applied improv workshops around the world. In “Soundball”, the participants stand in a circle and throw an imaginary ball back and forth. Each time a participant tosses the ball, she makes a sound. Her partner, the person to whom she has thrown the ball, repeats the sound as he catches it. There are no rules about what kind of sound to make, no parameters around what sounds are acceptable or prohibited. Anything goes.

At first, learners often express a surprising amount of discomfort playing “Soundball”. After all, there is no real ball, so one need not be coordinated. The exercise demands no specific sounds, so one cannot fail. But regardless of the lack of skill required or of rules of right and wrong, people find all sorts of ways to evaluate their input.

“How many people worried about creating a ‘good’ sound?” the facilitator asks. At least half the participants raise their hand.

“How many thought that one or more of the sounds they made were ‘bad’?” Almost as many cop to this.

“Who felt that someone else made a better sound than they did?” Everyone laughs and nods.

“What were some of the reasons you judged your sounds as bad?” the facilitator probes.

The participants pipe up, “It was too soft.” “It had too many consonants.” “It was too similar to the sound I made the first time.” “It wasn’t interesting.”

“Soundball” highlights the arbitrary nature of our judgments. Usually, when we reject a product or an idea, we feel we have substantial reasons for doing so. We would love to say, “yes” and follow our impulses, but they are wrong! The idea is just bad! Soundball illustrates how capricious our internal judge can be.  

Learning to identify and follow impulses is the foundation of creativity. Virtually, all literature on initiating the creative process counsels this: find ways to stimulate yourself and then spew forth ideas without evaluation. There will always be time to edit later. Julia Cameron, in her classic, The Artist’s Way, recommends that those who wish to be more creative write three pages of uncensored, unshared prose each morning. Anne Lamott, in her spunky and supportive book on writing, Bird by Bird, encourages “shitty first drafts”. Business consultants and creativity experts all talk about separating idea generation from evaluation, about engaging in divergent processes before converging on a solution. That spontaneity is an important ingredient for creative output is well known. Embracing spontaneity in practice, however, can be a struggle.

We are trained from the earliest of ages to resist our impulses, and of course, this can be a good thing. We don’t want our children (or ourselves) to wear diapers forever. Patience and self-discipline and aligning ourselves with social convention (a.k.a. emotional intelligence) set the foundation for success in life at least as much as I.Q. [Goleman, D. 1996] and they are skills that must be learned and practiced. But it is all too easy to throw that diaper-wearing little bundle of spontaneous babyhood out with the bathwater.

Most of us have some story about a parent or a teacher somehow discouraging our creative impulses. Johnstone, writing in the late 1970’s, railed against educational institutions for destroying innate creativity.  As our cultural norms have changed, we might be shocked to hear that a teacher told our child that they cannot color their trees orange, or instructed them to mouth the words to a song, rather than to sing along with the group. However, we often cut arts programs completely and trumpet curricula guided by standardized tests - a move away from autonomous learning and creative thought. Even as we recognize creativity and flexibility as important foundational skills for the 21st century, we force educators to restrict, criticize and control learning environments. Sir Ken Robinson is one of the most vocal advocates for reforming our whole educational system. He makes no bones about the fact that he feels traditional education misses the mark: “Imagination is the source of every form of human achievement. And it's the one thing that I believe we are systematically jeopardizing in the way we educate our children and ourselves."

In business settings, the same sorts of contradictions persist. Movements to support creativity have been growing in business settings, and yet there are many companies that resist. Why? Deci and Flaste, authors of Why We Do What We Do,  and experts in self-determination theory, assert that in order to be intrinsically motivated, a person must have Confidence, Autonomy and a sense of Belonging. They advise that teamwork, empowerment and opportunities for self-expression result in higher worker satisfaction and therefore in higher productivity and retention. Ironically, though we know intellectually that spontaneity is desirable, actually being spontaneous can feel like a threat to all three of the important aspects of motivation above. If we do not know how and why we are responding in certain ways, how can we feel confident of our competence? If we do not evaluate our ideas before we articulate them, how can we have a sense of control – even over ourselves? If we are willing to think and act outside of the generally agreed upon parameters of a situation, what guarantee do we have that we will be accepted?

Although many of us profess to dislike repression, when it comes down to it, we are not sure we want more freedom. Johnstone claims, “Most people I meet are secretly convinced that they’re a little crazier than the average person.” If that is what we believe, do we really want to let others in on the fact? If we, ourselves, were really free to do and speak and think, unfettered, then what would we learn about ourselves? What would we be compelled to follow through on? How would we know if we belonged?

In addition, some of us like the idea that creating is hard work - that only the most brilliant, tenacious and experienced individual can come up with the next best product or process. If spontaneously following our most ludicrous or most mundane whim is the way to success, then what kind of security does seniority and expertise offer?

An improv colleague of mine shared the following story illustrating the threatening aspect of spontaneous creation. We had just performed the opening night of a new, completely improvised musical format, “Spontaneous Broadway”. Her father, a classically trained musician, expressed both amazement and doubt about our show. “You couldn’t really have improvised all that,” he claimed. “You must have planned the story. At least you already knew the music, right?” My friend had been improvising for years. Her father had heard about her endeavors for close to a decade. He had seen plenty of shows. But when he saw a group of improvisers succeed at creating songs with structure and rhyming lyrics and metaphors and melodies, he was dumbfounded. Composing was supposed to be difficult. If this ragtag group could do it on the spot, what did that say about him and his colleagues? How could he value his years of education and toil?

In other words, being spontaneous is both the most natural and the most difficult of behaviors. It is both delightful and risky. So, as trainers and leaders in business settings, there are two questions: do we wish to foster spontaneity (read creativity and adaptability), and if so, what can we do to support it?

I assume for now that the answer to the first question is “yes”- at least in theory, at least in some contexts. The case for the increasing importance of creativity in the workplace due to accelerated timeframes, increased competition, and new markets and technologies has been documented repeatedly, and you must have picked up this book for some reason. Let us discuss the second question: How can individuals and organizations become more spontaneous?

Here are the improvisers’ secrets for creating environments that foster spontaneity:

Spend time exercising the spontaneity muscle

Use warm-up exercises to get the juices flowing, before applying your creativity where it counts. Through games and exercises that are “content-less”, individuals can practice following their impulses while the stakes are low.

Provide Structure

Create a structure within which individuals can feel free to explore. As, MacKenzie points out in his earlier quote, there are limits to the amount of freedom that is useful. Sometime too few restrictions, even if the result is not actually dangerous, can inhibit creativity. Laura Livingston says that her job as the Artistic Director of Freestyle is to provide the jungle gym for the performers to swing on. To this end, many of the formats improvisers have developed set parameters within which the improvisers must create. By limiting the options, and focusing creative attention, improvisers can feel grounded and inspired, rather than unmoored. The limits themselves provoke ideas. In professional contexts, the same applies. Be clear about your objectives and parameters. Not only do explicit restrictions not have to hamper creativity, often they can inspire it. (Think Apollo 13.)

Do not Censor

Just because we say we are in idea generation mode, we do not automatically shut down our inner judge. The internalized voice of our parents, our teachers, our managers, and our peers can be very strong. Terry Sommer, my first improv teacher, once said, “If you can’t think of anything, it’s because you’re censoring what you’re thinking of.” Sometimes, our internal judgments are so powerful that we stifle our impulses even before we are aware of them. We censor ourselves because we think we will be deemed inappropriate, stupid, silly, or dull. If not by others, than by ourselves. In Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind, a book on Zen meditation and practice, Suzuki suggests that the beginner is closer to the ultimate Zen state than practitioners who have been meditating for years, because they have no preconceptions about the right way to meditate, or what  their experience should be. He says, “In the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert’s there are few.”

Here are some specific tips for bypassing your censor:

• Be foolish. Risk sounding silly. That’s the whole point, really. For an idea to be creative, it must be somehow fresh, either in content or application. But, ideas that are new, by definition, challenge the status quo. It is those ideas that are most likely to be dismissed. How many stories are there of genius ideas being rejected? Van Gogh sold one painting his entire lifetime; the Swiss scoffed at the crazy idea of digital watches; even Einstein scorned quantum theory.
  
  As much as we say we value creativity, often what we mean is that we value the successful results of creative endeavors. People who create have a special gift. Not talent, I would offer – some do, some don’t - but courage. If we are going to “think outside the box”, then, like a Jack-in-the-box, we must pop out of one, not hunch protected inside.
  
  Finally, let us look at the word “foolish” itself. The fool in the archetypical sense is the innocent, childlike in his curiosity. And his power lies in his willingness to take risks. The universe protects him as he takes “fool-ish” risks, indulges in sensual pleasures and discovers new, exciting adventures. It was the Fool in the royal courts who, not only entertained the monarchs, but also was able, through wit and charm, to tell truths that the most powerful advisors feared relaying. A willingness to be silly is the key to the fool’s power, and to our creative selves.
   
• Be Obvious. Nothing will kill the creative process quicker than trying to be “creative”, and trying to be “interesting” is a surprisingly ineffective way to come up with original thoughts. When you search for something “original” you reject idea after idea that pops into your head because it is obvious TO YOU. “Well that’s dull,” you think. Or “Everyone else must have already thought of this.” Or “That was too easy; it must be stupid.” The truth is, what is obvious to you is the most organic, authentic impulse. That means it may also be the most valuable, since it is probably based on what is happening in the moment. By trusting the obvious and articulating it, there are two possibilities: You are voicing something that everyone is thinking, but no one else has the courage to say (for example, the child who tells the emperor that he has no clothes.) Or something that seems very obvious to you, no one else has thought of.
  
  An example of the latter remains legend at Freestyle Repertory Theatre. During a Theatresports performance, Laura Livingston and her team were challenged to a scene in which someone plays an inanimate object. Laura accepted the challenge and asked the audience for a location in which the scene could take place. Someone shouted out, “a zoo”. Let’s pause here. Take a moment to list all of the inanimate objects that come to mind. Got them? There are lots, right? Laura thought of something immediately. It was the only thing that came to mind. In fact, she was a little worried that if she didn’t speak first, someone would take on the role of the only obvious choice, and she would be left with nothing. She rushed to take her place and start the scene. What object did she choose to be? Monkey poop. That’s right, a monkey’s excrement. Needless to say, no one else had thought of that particular object. But Laura swears it was absolutely the first and only thought in her head. The scene, by the way - between the monkey and his poop - was very funny and rather sweet. And it was much more “original” than whatever Laura might have come up with by rejecting her first idea as either too obvious or too gross.

Celebrate failure

In The Art of Play, a drama therapy text, Adam and Allee Blatner say, “Permitting yourself to plunge into improvisation can be helpful by reminding yourself that in play there is endless room to make ‘mistakes’. … Allow what might otherwise seem like a mistake to become transformed into an opportunity for further creativity.” The only way to maximize creative risk is to celebrate the brave failure as well as the triumphant success. If failure is punished, then the risk of risking is just too high. Of course, there are times when following an innovative path will result in defeat. That defeat must be acknowledged and valued as a necessary cost of implementing the right process, or the process will be discarded with the result.

A favorite story that I have heard from a number of creativity consultants recounts how a vice-president at IBM during its hayday was summoned to CEO Tom Watson’s office after an innovative project of his has failed miserably and cost the company over $10 million. The VP’s colleagues had warned him off the project from the beginning, but he had fought for it, rejecting the current wisdom and taking a wild risk. Now, all the naysayers had been proven right. The mortified employee handed Watson his resignation upon entering the office. “What’s this?” Watson asked.

“My resignation,” the VP replied.

“Your resignation!” Watson said. “You can’t resign. We just invested $10 million in your education.” Now that’s supporting failure. [Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1996]

The best part of embracing failure is that failure is not just a necessary evil. It can result in the most exciting ideas of all. Books on “mistakes” that became huge successes, like Mistakes that Worked by Charlotte Jones and John O’Brien, have proliferated in the last decade. Perhaps you have heard that Post-it™ notes were the result of a failed attempt to make a traditional adhesive. Alexander Graham Bell set out to create a hearing aid. Flubber was intended to be a new energy source. Improvisers talk about “mistakes as gifts”. Sometimes failures can offer the greatest rewards.

The Principle in Action:

There are substantial payoffs for increasing spontaneity in the workplace, not just in formal brainstorming session, but in any moment when you wish to capture something new, fresh, or honest. The concept of not censoring input during the divergent portion of idea-generation and problem-solving sessions has become commonplace. However, as we have discussed, even during formal sessions set aside for brainstorming, offering up ideas without judgment is easier said than done. Trainers and leaders can support the process in a number of ways. And, what many trainers and leaders have already implemented in formal idea generation sessions can prove just as important to other aspects of professional life.

At this writing, the idea of recognizing failure as a necessary ingredient in building an organization that can learn, grow, adapt and create has taken hold. Thought leaders such as Kathryn Schulz, Seth Godin Rosabeth Moss Kanter and Ken Robinson in the Harvard Business Review, TED talks, and Fast Company have touted a willingness to fail as a necessary quality of innovative organizations within the last year alone.

Create a Developmental Environment

As trainers and instructional designers, we often have conversations about creating a safe environment for learners. What we realized at some point was that “safe” should not mean “comfortable”. An environment that supports growth is one in which individuals feel all right being Uncomfortable. It is only when discomfort is acceptable that people can stretch and develop. Creating such a space for being comfortable with discomfort involves the following:

Warm Up

Before asking people to generate content or learn in new skills, engage them in warm-up activities. Through games like “Invisible Balls” (page ____) or “Word Drill” (page ___), participants can practice circumventing their censors in risk-free situations. Just like athletes stretch physical muscles before running, participants can warm up their creativity and problem-solving muscles before focusing on a specific issue.

Separate idea generation from idea evaluation

If you want to encourage spontaneity, especially in an atmosphere that generally has rules, processes and tangible measures of success (like the bottom line), you must create the space for ideas to be born and nurtured without testing and examining them too closely at first. Having officially sanctioned brainstorming sessions is one way to accomplish this. Another is to hang out with colleagues after hours at bars. You would be amazed how many show formats were created in these venues.

The opposite is also true. Evaluation is not a bad thing. If individuals feel that they will be stuck with crazy ideas, they will not share them. Assuring participants in idea generation sessions that there will be time to examine and assess at another time will allow them to offer and accept wild ideas in the moment.

Remind People of the Rules of the Game

When asking for ideas, reiterate the rules of the divergent phase of creative problem-solving:

• Table evaluation
• Quantity over quality
• Record ideas without discussion
• Build on previous ideas

Be vigilant about insisting that group members stick to these rules. As soon as someone begins to evaluate an idea, the safe space for generating risky ideas can be poisoned. If a group feels uncomfortable, they may try to censor individuals who are not censoring themselves.

A note here about formal brainstorming: As anything else, idea generation sessions can be done well or badly, and because they are sometimes done haphazardly, without enough focus, preparation or follow-up, the process of formal brainstorming has attracted some criticism of late. Additionally, as the study of creativity and innovation has grown, evidence has emerged that much real innovation and creative problem-solving happens outside of formal idea-generation session. We do not take this to mean that brainstorming sessions are not valuable. Although solutions may emerge in other settings at other times  (the importance of incubation, or down time, is increasingly recognized, for example), gathering people together to focus on a problem, hear each other’s ideas, and seed new ways of thinking adds to the soup out of which innovation emerges. Regardless, recognizing your impulses, daring to notice and express your “irrational” thoughts, and separating the generation of ideas from the evaluation of ideas, can be thought of as “muscles” that benefit from a workout in any context.

Provide Escape Hatches

It is possible to devise ways for participants to abdicate responsibility for their ideas. This allows people to separate themselves from something that sounds foolish or risky, and therefore makes them more willing to share those ideas. The simplest method for detaching individuals from their ideas is to make the input anonymous. Have people write down ideas and post them. Have them write ideas on 3x5 cards and exchange them. Invite small groups to brainstorm and then share their ideas collectively.

Another technique is to provide virtual “masks” or alternate personas. For example, while brainstorming ideas for making meetings more effective, I have asked clients to think about what Oprah might do were she running a meeting. Or Arnold Schwartzenegger. Or Mickey Mouse. Or the CEO of the company. Or their wackiest relative. In that context, participants can share ridiculous thoughts and say, “Hey, I don’t think that is a good idea, but Mickey Mouse might.” Other sorts of “what-if” scenarios can be used to similar effect. “What if it were the year 2020?” “What if money were no object?” “What if people had no hands?”

Reward Honesty

As leaders, managers and trainers we must allow people to voice confusion and resistance to our ideas. Otherwise we will not be able to gage the real effect of our communication. Often, those contrary thoughts are the kinds of thoughts that individuals may censor when faced with a power differential. When I taught English to Russian immigrants, my students would nod and assure me that they understood the lessons, even when they had no idea what I was talking about. They had been taught that the way to get by in school was to pretend to understand, publicly do whatever the authority figure said, and then cheat. These tactics may have worked in terms of avoiding conflict or circumventing bureaucracy. It certainly did not help them learn. I found that I could help the students by saying, “I will not continue until someone asks me a question.” Eventually, my students and I invented “Stupid Simon”. Students would say, “Kat, I do not have a question, but Stupid Simon would like to know…” (Stupid Simon became a virtual mask.)

Spontaneity games also work to gather needs. Many of the games we have discussed – “Stats”, “Invisible Balls” – can be modified to contain content. For instance, in training sessions play “Invisible Balls” tossing “The reasons you are here” or “Skills you expect to gain”. In informal settings ask, “What do you wonder about that you think you should already understand?” “If I forced you to come up with an objection to this plan, what would it be?”

Recognize That When You Are Sure You Are Right, You Are Wrong

In the exploding field of neuroscience, as well as in current sociological and psychological arenas, a profound truth has emerged: we are terrible judges of reality. Our experiences of the world are stunningly limited and skewed. In Mistakes Were Made (but not by me), for example, Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson explore research on cognitive dissonance and the deep impact it has on our lives individually and collectively. They say, “Most people, when directly confronted with proof that they are wrong, do not change their point of view or course of action but justify it even more tenaciously.” (p. 2) Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simon, in their entertaining and accessible book, The Invisible Gorilla, discuss half a dozen “cognitive illusions”, including the Illusions of Attention, Memory, Confidence, Knowledge, and Potential, that interfere with our assessment of ourselves and situations we find ourselves in. So, what do we do with this knowledge of our limitations? Many of these processes cannot be overcome by simply knowing they exist. But, ironically, knowing that we are fallible can help us. We can seek out other opinions, supporting research and technology. We can be open to new ideas.

Wait, what? Is this whole chapter touting the value of spontaneity? And now we are saying that our impulses and insights are wrong? Why should we trust our spontaneous impulses when we are so flawed in our cognition?

Two reasons:

1. If we remember that those little judging voices in our head biased at best, and most likely misguided, we allow ideas and insights to be aired and explored before they are internally evaluated and killed. We are as likely to reject useful stuff as to promote dreck.
2. When we evaluate ideas, we must get better at doing so rigorously. By separating the process of generating ideas and sharing instincts and impulses from the process of analyzing, choosing and assessing impact, we can be more value out of both processes. The censoring, judging and assessing that arises impulsively should not be trusted. Save that process for a time and place when personal opinions can be verified and tested. In the meantime, let the impulses flow. Who knows what gems are in there?

As much as we have focused on the stress of spontaneity, spontaneous expression can feel exhilarating. Implementation of these tools and techniques will contribute not only effectiveness, but joy to your work.

Behind the scenes

Being willing to be spontaneous is not an easy task, no matter how many years you spend working on it. The most experienced improvisers I know will admit that what has changed over the years is not that the little judging voices in their heads have gone away, but that the performers have become more willing to ignore them. Even as I am writing about spontaneity, I am aware how insistently the editor in my head judges what I write. It will not be assuaged by promises of later revisions or reminders that no one will have to see this draft. It plagues me. Here are just a few of the ways I am tempted to censor myself:

“You can’t write that. It’s too…

• …risqué
• …obvious
• …artsy
• …business-y
• …literary
• …clichéd”

“You can’t include that. Your colleagues will

• … disagree
• … feel competitive
• … be embarrassed
• … think you are self-egrandizing

Your mother will

• … criticize your grammar
• … misunderstand
• … think it’s bunk

What do the judges in your head say?

Key Points:

• Spontaneity is the heart of creativity
• Spontaneity is risky
• Socialization kills spontaneity
• To increase spontaneity:
• Do not Censor
• Be foolish
• Be obvious
• Celebrate failure
• Separate idea generation from evaluation
• Recognize the arbitrary nature of judgment
• Build the jungle gym
• Warm people up
• Reiterate the rules of brainstorming
• Provide escape hatches
• Reward honesty
• Recognize you are wrong