As a socially anxious person who took improv classes in my 20s, I found them hugely useful. The biggest thing I took away were specific attitudes. Like "yes and", where you accept what the person you're talking to starts with and then build on it. Or the the way to succeed is to make many attempts to start something going (what improv calls offers), to follow up on the ones that show promise, and not to worry about the ones that fall by the wayside. Or to not get in your head, to stay present in the moment.
And yes, it definitely trains you that there is no "right" way to have a conversation.
I think the main difficulty is that normal conversational success can be different than improv success. In improv, you want funny. Funny can be good in normal conversations, but most people are after other things. Understanding, support, connection, reflection. New improv people can be fantastically annoying if they use it as just another way to hide and deflect.
I think the better approach is to find a thing you both agree on and truly give a yes to that. E.g., if I disagree with somebody on the right way to solve a problem, I can at least say, "Yes, it's important we get this right."
From there, in improv terms, I'd probably abandon my first offer and find a new offer that is closer to acceptable. E.g., "So let's do a minimal test of both approaches and see what kind of data we get."
From there I'd again use the improv approach of not trying to control the flow, instead saying open to possibility. If the data goes my way, I can be gracious. If it hasn't, I have learned something, and can be generous with my praise. Either one heightens the chosen narrative direction of being on the same side.
Maybe it might be even better to find a thing you both agree on and truly give a yes to that. E.g., if I disagree with somebody on the right way to solve a problem, I can at least say, "Yes, it's important we get this right."
From there, in improv terms, I'd probably abandon my first offer and find a new offer that is closer to acceptable. E.g., "So let's do a minimal test of both approaches and see what kind of data we get."
From there I'd again use the improv approach of not trying to control the flow, instead saying open to possibility. If the data goes my way, I can be gracious. If it hasn't, I have learned something, and can be generous with my praise. Either one heightens the chosen narrative direction of being on the same side.
In this case I think it was worth contradicting his deeply manipulative approach.
Generally I'm for getting along. But when someone acts in ways that are abusive or manipulative, I think it's important to be clear how corrosive that is.
It depends on the person, and how you manage them. It’s embarassing to realize that you’re failing to communicate so badly that you require management. But if the manager handles it well, the managee has an opportunity to prevent that embarrassment from becoming public by changing their approach.
>It’s embarassing to realize that you’re failing to communicate so badly that you require management.
The other possibility in this situation is that the person doing the managing has just cast an unnecessary zero-confidence vote because of their own perceived superiority or excessive ego. Trying to manage people opens you up to some seriously negative social repercussions, unless those people are your kids.
An actor I really like claimed improv's "make the other person look awesome" notion helped her to be different, stand out.
Sounds like a fantastic philosophy.
I've never witnessed improv (live performances). I had ignorantly equated improv with standup comedy, which I mostly dislike, for being mean spirited and punching down.
And yes, it definitely trains you that there is no "right" way to have a conversation.
I think the main difficulty is that normal conversational success can be different than improv success. In improv, you want funny. Funny can be good in normal conversations, but most people are after other things. Understanding, support, connection, reflection. New improv people can be fantastically annoying if they use it as just another way to hide and deflect.