Borrowing From Professional Theatre Training to Build Essential Skills in Organization Development Consultants

Abstract

This article explores the relationship between the interpersonal skills required by professional actors and those required by organization development (OD) practitioners. The objective is not to turn OD practitioners into actors but rather to indicate what might be a useful source of skill development for OD professionals. Although the end uses for the skill sets diverge, the skills themselves seem similar if not the same, especially the foundational skills of self-awareness, listening, and observing. Traditional methods of learning interpersonal skills may only address traditional OD problems that require diagnostic, positivistic control of behavior change. However, acting training such as improvisational techniques may develop more advanced skills such as reciprocity and collaborating, which are needed to practice dialogic forms of OD grounded in postmodern premises of shared meaning making, multiple realities, and collaborative solutions as proposed by Bushe and Marshak.

Keywords

theatre interpersonal skill development consultant skill training improvisational techniques organization development skill competency

The organization development (OD) consulting discipline explicitly demands the ability to perform with a high degree of self-awareness, interpersonal skills, and communication skills, or what are termed human behavior skills (Sullivan, Rothwell, & Worley, 2001; Varney et al., 1999). Actors face the same needs: developing interpersonal skills in a world where technologically mediated interpersonal interactions lack the richness of face-to-face communication (Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010). Debate is ongoing about an appropriate, current definition of OD (Bradford & Burke, 2004; Greiner & Cummings, 2004; Worley & Feyerherm, 2003 Worren, Ruddle, & Moore, 1999). Cummings and Worley (2009) suggest that “organization development is a systemwide application and transfer of behavioral science knowledge to the planned development, improvement, and reinforcement of the strategies, structures, and processes that lead to organizational effectiveness” (pp. 1-2). This definition reflects the attempt to capture OD from several perspectives, such as behavioral, cultural, and organizational. Bushe and Marshak (2009, p. 357) propose that a classic definition of OD such as Cummings and Worley’s (2009) is influenced by “positivism and modernist philosophy” and that it views organizations as “living systems”; “reality is objective fact”; “change can be created, planned, and managed”; and the focus of change is on “changing behavior and what people do.”

However, Bushe and Marshak (2009) also suggest that OD has morphed into two separate forms grounded in different theoretical and philosophical foundations. Bushe and Marshak (2009; Marshak & Bushe, 2009) identify a shift in OD to a more socially constructed meaning of change, or what they term “dialogic” in organizations, rather than a positivistic control of behavior change, or “diagnostic” approach as reflected in the Cummings and Worley (2009) definition. Bushe and Marshak (2009, p. 357) propose in part that a dialogic form of OD is influenced by “interpretive approaches, social constructionism, and postmodern philosophy.” They proceed to say that organizations are “meaning-making systems” (p. 357) and the focus of change is “on changing mindsets” (p. 357) rather than changing behavior. They argue that basic values and aspirations remain the same in both forms of OD theory; however, a philosophical shift has occurred away from the classic OD practice taught in mainstream textbooks and classes. Nevertheless, consensus exists about a foundational human behavior skill set needed to practice OD. Due to the evolving nature of various OD practices such as appreciative inquiry (Cooperrider, Barrett, & Srivastva, 1995) and narrative, conversational approaches to change, perhaps now more than ever before OD practitioners need a systematically acquired set of interpersonal skills to be able to cope with the more interpretivist and subjectivist perspectives currently surfacing in the discipline of OD.

Theatre has a long, well-established system of learning interpersonal skills. Not only do actors require human behavior skills in their work lives, but additionally actors have to understand how to enact basic interpersonal skills in the roles they portray to audiences. Professional actors, who are trained in well-respected institutions such as New York University, Copenhagen University, DePaul University, and Yale, systematically develop interpersonal skills in their training as collaborative team members and as they enact characters onstage.

The theatre has been present in OD consulting almost since its inception as a discipline. Richard Beckhard, a pioneer in OD, started his career as an actor and Broadway stage manager (Beckhard, 1997). Through personal connections from his work in the theatre, Ron Lippitt and Lee Bradford invited him to stage and organize the processes for the National Training Laboratories’ (NTL) training workshops. Beckhard (1997) wrote that

Lippitt and Bradford felt that the communication could be improved if the staging were more creative. Knowing of my theatre background, they asked me to do [a] study. As a quid pro quo, they offered me a scholarship to attend the session and join a T-group. (p. 16)

This participation in T-groups at NTL where “process became the content of the discussion” (Beckhard, 1997, p. 16) nourished his interest between group functioning and management issues (MIT News Office, 2000). Later, when he focused on facilitating large-scale change processes in organizations with Douglas McGregor, Beckhard’s early work in the theatre and its communication processes may have influenced the burgeoning OD discipline. Edgar Schein (1999), with whom Beckhard later collaborated, acknowledged that “managing human affairs is largely a matter of designing and managing processes” (p. xiii) and that Beckhard had come by his “design skills naturally from his days as a stage manager” (p. xiv).

This article’s objective is not to turn OD practitioners into actors but rather to indicate a potentially useful source of skills development for OD professionals. Because of the OD practitioners’ need to develop human behavior skills, and professional theatre schools’ systematic training of these skills, this article examines the relationship between the interpersonal skills that actors need to be successful in the theatre and the interpersonal skills OD professionals need to be successful practitioners.

First, I offer a brief review of OD practitioner skills over the past 30 years to illustrate their need to respond to increasingly complex organizational issues. Next, actors’ skills are presented and paralleled with OD practitioner competencies. Third, I discuss how the skills are taught by traditional methods in the classroom and how actors learn them in their discipline. Also included is how some management educators have already set precedents by incorporating some of the acting methods into the classroom.

OD Practitioners’ Interpersonal Skills

In the ongoing discussion about consulting skills, Lippitt and Lippitt (1986) represent the 1980s decade, Burke (1994) signifies the decade of the 1990s, and Eisen, Cherbeneau, and Worley (2005) characterize the first decade of the 21st century. Lippitt and Lippitt (1986) cite multiple consultant competencies under topics such as “knowledge, skills, and attitudes” (pp. 170-172). In part, they include knowledge of oneself, communication skills, and relational skills such as forming relationships based on trust and being sensitive to the feelings of others. Similar to Lippitt and Lippitt’s (1986) extensive competencies list, Burke (1994, pp. 177-179) suggests “10 primary abilities” that relate to skills. Burke (1994) recommends self-awareness skills, listening and communication skills, and skills that sustain healthy and ethical relations such as supporting, nurturing, and empathizing with others.

Eisen et al. (2005, p. 206) characterize OD skills in this first decade of the 21st century as “future-responsive awareness.” According to Eisen et al. (2005, p. 193), practitioners need to “modify and evolve our practice continually in response to anticipated changes in the needs of client systems.” Eisen et al. present a competency list for what Bushe and Marshak (2009) term a dialogic form of OD. Their list comprises approximately 30 action verbs in the practitioner competency category. These 30 skills could be grouped under larger headings of self-awareness, listening, observing, and skills that support positive relations with others. Table 1 illustrates the parallels among Lippitt and Lippitt (1986), Burke (1994), and Eisen et al. (2005). Lippitt and Lippitt (1986) and Burke (1994) represent the classical OD skills, and Eisen et al. (2005) represent a view of skills in the first decade of the 21st century and possibly beyond. All three monographs identify skills that continue to be relevant in the current context, even as OD may be morphing into a separate form from its classical roots (Bushe & Marshak, 2009).

Table 1.

Interpersonal Skills Review.

Lippitt and Lippitt (1986)	Burke (1994)	Eisen et al. (2005)
Knowledge of oneself—motivations, strengths, weaknesses, and biases	Recognizing one’s own feelings and intuitions quickly	Awareness, reflect
Communication—listening, observing, identifying, and reporting; sensitivity to the feelings of others	Listening well and empathizing, supporting, and nurturing others	Communicate, collaborate, support, join, dialogue, network, facilitate, coach
Being self-confident, open-minded, and honest	Being self-confident and interpersonally competent	Be fully available
Developing and sharing one’s own charisma	Being able to discover and mobilize human energy, influencing others	Catalyze wisdom
Being flexible in dealing with all types of situations; willing to take risks; coping with rejection, hostility, and suspicion	Confronting difficult issues, tolerate ambiguity	Adjust, adapt, respond
Forming relationships based on trust	Sense of humor	Bridge-building, developing trust, team-building
		Create meaning and action, deep understanding, commitment
		Learn on-the-fly, anticipate, recognize
		Explore, generate, disseminate
		Do not rush

Overall, an examination of the skills over three decades shows a deepening understanding of the activation of skills in complex contexts of human behavior, making a plausible argument for OD practitioners to be well grounded in the use of basic interpersonal skills. Since the works of Lippitt and Lippitt (1986) and Burke (1994) were published, the social sciences have recognized interpersonal skills from different discipline-based perspectives. Goleman (1995) takes the view that these skills constitute, at least in part, “emotional intelligence,” and Fletcher (1999) discusses “relational skills.” Fletcher (1999) and Goleman (1995) use different constructs; however, both acknowledge the importance of skills that facilitate social connection to attain mutual goals. According to Goleman (1995, p. 96), “empathy builds on self-awareness; the more open we are to our own emotions, the more skilled we will be in reading feelings.” Self-awareness, as Goleman (1995, p. 46) defines it, is “the sense of an ongoing attention to one’s internal states. In this self-reflexive awareness mind [sic] observes and investigates experience itself, including the emotions.” Therefore, to have empathy for another’s feelings, one must first be aware of one’s own feelings—a notion inferred also from Fletcher (1999). Once a person is self-aware, then she or he has the ability to identify similar emotional cues in others, therefore recognizing the displayed emotion (Kemper, 1993). Gardner and Hatch (1989, p. 6) discussed interpersonal intelligence as a cover term for the capability “to discern and respond appropriately to the moods, temperaments, motivations and desires of other people.” Goleman (1995, p. 118) suggests that to enter into an encounter or to recognize and respond fittingly to people’s feelings and concerns—the art of relationship—means being able to “detect and have insights about people’s feelings, motives, and concerns . . . lead[ing] to an easy intimacy or sense of rapport.” Actors and OD practitioners both must be skilled to recognize and promote appropriate emotional intelligence and relational skills in their work to achieve organizational goals. Actors cooperate to bring the play to performance and OD practitioners work with client systems to solve problems.

In sum, the requisite OD skills appear to be taking a more external or relationally based perspective as illustrated by Eisen et al. (2005) rather than the internal or self-based perspective from the past as signified by Lippitt and Lippitt (1986) and Burke (1994). As OD continues as a discipline, its skill set is also becoming more specific in application to cope with interpersonal issues in demanding global strategic processes.

Actors’ Interpersonal Skills

Actors must be aware of and trained in the use of their bodies and voices to communicate the message of the playwright. The theories of Stanislavski (1976), Hagen (1973), Meisner and Longwell (1987), Adler (2000), and Grotowski (1968) form the conceptual framework for performance art in schools such as the Tisch School of the Arts at New York University, The Theatre School at DePaul University in Chicago, Yale School of Drama, and the American Conservatory Theatre in San Francisco. Actors also work to develop skills in listening and self-awareness, using Spolin-based improvisational work (Spolin, 1999) that encourages spontaneity and relationship-building (cf. Corsun, Young, McManus, & Erdem, 2006; Dominguez, Howell-DePew, & Walters, 2007; Huffaker, Robertson, Hirsch, & Poynton, 2003). Actors also develop individual (vocal) expressiveness, trouble-shooting skills for application within the rehearsal process, emotional awareness, preparation and personalization, and instruction in the technique that “gives actors a step-by-step progression of structured improvisations designed to stimulate instincts and impulses, sharpen concentration and listening skills and strengthen the imagination” (The Theatre School at DePaul University, 2009). This last technique is termed the Meisner Technique, after Sanford Meisner, a member of the Group Theatre and early teacher of “Method” acting (a theory that grew out of Stanislavski’s theoretical approach). The Meisner Technique focuses on the scene partner (“I want you to . . .”) and on changing him or her in some way (Pope, 2000, p. 152). The Stanislavski theory of acting instructs a more self-centered (“I want . . .”) and personal emotional perspective. Pope (2000, p. 152) states, “[Meisner’s focus] also adds a sense of ensemble play, reinforcing the give-and-take (talking and listening) that results when actors are working as a part of a larger whole.”

It is impossible to find comprehensive and summative lists of skills for actors, because the process of learning acting is entirely constituted of skill building, and therefore each theorist addresses the above methods with his or her own terminology and manner of approach as a means of learning how to act. However, certain fundamental skills figure in nearly every skill-building exercise: listening, observing, and self-awareness. To illustrate the similarity of skills between actors and OD consultants, below is a brief view of skills from the explicitly stated OD competencies by Varney et al. (1999), Guidelines for Entry Level Competencies to Organization Development and Change, and the comparable sources for skills in the acting profession (see Table 2).

Table 2.

OD Practitioners’ and Actors’ Skills Comparison.

OD practitioner skills (Varney et al., 1999)	Acting Skills
Listening	Listening (Boal, 1992, pp. 88-102; Meisner & Longwell, 1987, pp. 16-85; Spolin, 1999, p. 57)
Giving feedback and articulating	Giving feedback (termed “evaluation” by Spolin, 1999, pp. 26-28)
Collaborating/working together	Collaborating (addressed in two out of “seven aspects of spontaneity”: “approval/disapproval” and “group expression”; Spolin, 1999, pp. 6-12)
Problem solving	Problem solving (Boal, 1992, pp. 230-231; Spolin, 1999, pp. 20-21)

Further consideration of the three basic skills of listening, observing, and self-awareness leads to another triad of skills that actors develop—reciprocity, collaboration, and internal group harmony—all skills that are necessary for achieving the actors’ organizational goal of bringing a script to performance. Without the basic abilities of listening, observing, and self-awareness, the relational skills of reciprocity, collaboration, and internal group harmony cannot develop. Goleman (1995) implies a hierarchy of interpersonal skills, proposing the “rudiments of social intelligence” (p. 148) as “teamwork, open lines of communication, cooperation, listening, and speaking one’s mind” (p. 148). Unless actors can develop these foundational skills, they cannot graduate to the more complex skills of reciprocity, collaboration, and internal group harmony to achieve their particular organizational goals. The notions of reciprocity (Fletcher, 1999), collaborating (Goleman, 1995), and internal group harmony (Goleman, 1995) are important to actors in the context of performance. I will take each of these factors in turn, beginning with reciprocity.

Less-experienced actors learn reciprocity from the more-experienced actors largely through collaboration. Ideally, give-and-take occurs in the performance of scenes. Often actors say, “She or he was so wonderful to work with. She or he gave me so much.” This refers to the giving actor who provides many rich, deep, and textured nuances to his or her performance, to which the other actor can respond. In that way, both actors appear to be performing their best and both are credited with fine acting skills. They are, in fact both acting well, but one is actually leading the way for the other. What makes this instance an example of reciprocity is that usually the giving actor does not take credit or even acknowledge that he or she is acting generously. It is merely the professional work ethic of a fine actor. This way of working also encourages a collaborative environment on the set or stage.

Collaborating to achieve positive effects demands internal group harmony. Working well together and trusting fellow actors is necessary, often because of the highly charged emotional states that are required for rehearsal and performances. Collaboration at this level requires an environment of psychological safety among the cast and crew. An actor who knows he or she can plumb emotional depths and come out safely on the other side is placing a high degree of trust in fellow actors and crewmembers. Collaboration is difficult to separate from internal group harmony. Those who are collaborating positively are also achieving internal group harmony, and this internal group harmony supports a working event that actors seek throughout their careers: It is basic to the notion of “flow” as described by Csikszentmihalyi (1996), which is an optimal group effect as a direct result of reciprocity, collaboration, and internal group harmony.

Frequently, the lead character is the actor on whom the largest responsibility rests in the play. This person, along with the director, often sets the tone for the rehearsal process. The leading actor models behavior for the other actors to follow. This person does most of the giving, but in receiving from other actors, the cycle repeats and builds on itself: give and take, then receive and give; give and take, then receive and give (Pope, 2000).

In applying these examples from theatre to the business environment, the OD practitioner can be seen as the giving actor. He or she sets the tone for the project, gives unselfishly to the recipients, and encourages everyone to respond in authentic ways. This means of working is rooted in the preparation of the actor’s training in self-awareness exercises. An actor must know himself or herself to subjugate the ego enough to allow for another to meet him or her on the same level of performance. In doing so, the reflective practitioner, as Schön (1983) describes, encourages and engages collaboration in the most positive sense.

As stated previously, collaboration is difficult to separate from internal group harmony. Trust is a major factor in the OD consulting role, as it is in the actor’s rehearsal process. Actors must risk taking emotional chances, and they can only do this if there is a trusting environment with a rich give and take. Slowly, trust is developed, collaboration increases, and internal group harmony prevails in rehearsal and performance. Similarly, in an organization, all participants are involved in collaborative exchanges in a business group or team. This is not to say that all goes smoothly and there is no conflict. Indeed, conflict is often deliberately fostered in rehearsals so actors might further plumb emotional responses. Conflict is contained within the internal group harmony and is not allowed to threaten it. The group members must trust each other enough to be able to challenge one another constructively. In business groups, challenge to groupthink (Janis, 1982) is important. However, for all to achieve the best from each other, internal group harmony is maintained by all.

Self-awareness, listening, and observing are primary skills for both actors and OD professionals. As with actors, if developing OD practitioners are not skilled to be self-aware, to listen and observe, they do not graduate to the more complex notions of interpersonal skill applications, and they may miss important and possibly critical cues from clients that may negatively affect the outcome of the change event.

Methods for Learning Interpersonal Skills

Methods used for learning interpersonal skills in the classroom are cognitive analysis, interactive techniques, role-play, and case simulations. In acting, training methods also involve cognitive analysis and interactive techniques, but include Stanislavskian and Boalian exercises as well, which are now finding their way into the classroom.

Cognitive Analysis

Actors analyze play scripts to identify key interpersonal interactions in the script and discuss possible options and choices depending on the vision of the director. They also critically identify interpersonal interactions that are only indicated in the dialogue of the written drama. Part of the actors’ homework is to understand overall character motivations and situational motivations that help the character to achieve his or her goal in the play. This is accomplished through breaking the script into beats; broadly defined, a beat occurs every time a character changes a want or a need. These beats may range from a few lines to several pages of text.

Actors also observe other professional actors play out situations and discuss what was or was not authentic in a given situation. This provides an opportunity to develop an awareness of fundamental skills in situational contexts and to develop problem-solving skills by making suggestions for how the actors could have played the scene differently.

OD practitioners also use analytical means to become aware of interpersonal interactions. By having to discuss particular situations in case examples, OD students must become aware of interpersonal problems that lead to business operational dysfunctionality. Many OD textbooks offer rich examples of problems that have been encountered in OD projects. By analyzing how they would have handled the problem in the context of the project, emerging OD practitioners develop a sense of what sensitivities one needs when consulting to others. In this way, OD students mirror acting students and vice versa as both attempt to learn appropriate human behaviors in crisis situations.

Interactive Techniques

Actors use interactive drama to develop their skills in a scene study class through the stop/discuss/rework technique. Interactive drama in the classroom is a means of exploring complex issues by enacting self-reflection of the performance. Boggs, Mickel, and Holtom (2007) describe interactive drama being used in the classroom as

a style of live theatre wherein a scene is performed by trained actors and then stopped so the audience can interact . . . [by] (a) discussing the scene just witnessed . . . (b) suggesting changes to the scene and then actors replaying it, and (c) . . . joining the scene as performers to try out alternative solutions. (p. 835)

Being involved enables the audience to participate with the performers and to engage with the situation or concept experientially in real time. The benefit of this experience is that people can learn from the immediacy of live performance. Those students who are uncomfortable with role-play may engage more in this activity since they are not all expected to perform per se.

Watching films has also become a popular classroom teaching method. It offers an opportunity for spectators to stop the action and discuss interpersonal interactions and the skills involved, but film does not allow for interaction with the performers, only among audience members.

Role-Play

Traditional role-play in the classroom is a familiar technique for developing interpersonal and relational skills. It illustrates a problem and provides a setting for discussing conceptual changes according to the given script or scenario. Students can use role-play “to apply their knowledge in a risk free situation, stimulate . . . discussion, dramatize rhetorical principles and [allow] for reflection of their own behavior” (Griggs, 2005, p. 60). Role-play is scripted to some extent; short explanations of character and/or situation are described and followed by the actors, who have only a little room for the discovery of deeper moral and ethical conflicts between the characters. They must “stick to the script,” as they would with any dramatic text, except that the lines are largely absent. Using this type of guided script addresses problem solving but only on a somewhat superficial level. Argyris (1980, p. 291) warns of “single-loop learning” or “learning that results in the detection and correction of error without changing the underlying policies, assumptions, and goals.”

Case Studies

Case studies, as defined by Ballantine and McCourt Larres (2003, p. 172, adapted from Easton, 1992), are “a means to provide practice in problem-solving and decision making of a semi- or unstructured nature in a simulated situation.” According to Ballantine and McCourt Larres (2003, p. 172), they are “used to develop generic skills [self-confidence, self-awareness, and the ability to learn] in addition to those that are delivered implicitly when teaching technical accounting skills and theoretical knowledge.” Although Ballantine and McCourt Larres (2003) are using case studies, in the accounting classroom in this instance, they credit case studies with encouraging students to examine wider business issues by additional generic skills such as “judgment, problem-solving and critical analysis” (p. 172). These generic skills, popularly termed soft skills, are “communication skills, written skills, interpersonal skills, critical, problem-solving, judgment and analytical skills . . . which are transferable across disciplines” (Ballantine & McCourt Larres, 2003, p. 171).

Ballantine and McCourt Larres (2003) justify the use of case simulations as an appropriate means for teaching generic skills; however, their research reveals that verbal communication is among the lowest scoring factors of perceived worth of skill development.

Improvisation

Vera and Crossan (2004) propose several skills from theatrical improvisation exercises as helpful for OD practitioners in organizations. Among them are agreement, which is defined as the ability to accept information without dispute; awareness, meaning being present in the moment with what develops and being responsive to it; and collaboration. All three are relevant for encouraging nimbleness and adaptability to change in organizations. These skills shift the focus of problem solving from outcomes to process. This shift of focus is extremely relevant for OD practitioners whose concern is to facilitate the process of change in organizations. Skills that increase the ability to focus on process lead to values highly rated by organizations—harmony, responsiveness, and collaboration.

The “Yes, and . . .” (Moshavi, 2001) improvisational exercise encourages complex interpersonal communication skills. In this exercise, actors are given a character, a situation, and a task or problem that is usually offered from the audience and that they must enact on the spot. The challenge for the actor is to accept all the terms given by the audience and companion actors as the scene develops. None of the actors involved can dispute, ignore, deny, or negate any piece of information, no matter how outrageous the information or behavior; hence the name of the exercise, “Yes, and . . . .” For example, when an actor receives a piece of information, she or he replies with “Yes” inferring the acceptance of the information, and then says “and” and adds to the information thus spurring the action of the scene. The information given by the receiving actor is then received by the first actor and is accepted (“Yes”) and built on (“and . . .”) and the process repeats itself back and forth always preceded by “Yes, and . . . .” The technique of “Yes, and . . .” encourages listening, creativity, and problem-solving skills (Moshavi, 2001). Additionally, it forces actors to accept the unexpected and be creative, flexible, resourceful, and spontaneous—all desirable skills that correlate to OD skills in Table 1.

OD practitioners can use “Yes, and . . . ”and other improvisational exercises to develop key skills such as being self-confident, listening, observing, collaborating, trusting, anticipating, and having a sense of humor. Improvisation demands acute listening skills to receive and process the information given by the other actor. Sharpened listening enhances a performer’s sense of self-confidence in being able to receive, react, and respond in a matter of seconds. The skill of observing develops in the same way. Communication not only depends on the spoken word but also—and perhaps to a greater degree—on the support of nonverbal communication. Freedom from a script as in the technique of improvisation allows for “double-loop” learning or “the detection and correction of error requir[ing] changes in the underlying policies, assumptions, and goals” (Argyris, 1980, p. 291) as actors develop the scenario. They may replay it several times in different ways, to explore the dynamics of interpersonal interactions when various skills are implemented or withheld.

Boalian and Stanislavkian Techniques

Boal’s (1992) Theatre of the Oppressed performance theory emphasizes the audience’s instrumentality in the creation of the drama so that “everyone acts” as “spect-actors” (pp. 17-21). Monks, Barker, and Mhanacháin (2001) report how Boalian exercises encourage empowerment. They describe several ways the exercises are enacted in specific contexts and suggest that “the techniques are . . . suitable for the development of leadership skills, communications, confidence, team-building, listening skills and trust, and [exploring] unfamiliar feelings in a safe environment” (p. 415).

More recently, Ladkin and Taylor (2010) have articulated how the Stanislavski (1976) method of acting training can be used to train leaders to be “authentic” (p. 65). Stanislavski (1976) suggests that one must start with a playable action rather than with the aim to recreate an emotion. Very simply, he asks questions such as “What does the character want?” “What does the character do?” and “What is the obstacle that prevents the character from obtaining his/her goal?” In this way, the actor taps into the emotion through playing an action. Stanislavski’s (1976) theory is a means of putting oneself in a situation and truthfully presenting how someone would behave in that situation, being what Ladkin and Taylor (2010, p. 65) call “authentic.” Using Stanislavski’s (1976) method, Ladkin and Taylor (2010, pp. 70-72) suggest a theory of “embodied authentic leadership” through “self-exposure, relating, and making leaderly choices.”

Implications for Change Theory and Practice

Bushe and Marshak (2009) argue that OD is developing in a direction that is more meaning-centered and grounded in postmodern premises (Bushe & Marshak, 2007; cf. Bushe & Marshak, 2008, 2009; Marshak & Bushe, 2009). These postmodern premises include that

reality is a co-constructed social phenomenon . . . experience is mediated through language . . . multiple realities [exist] . . . intersubjective truth is negotiated . . . [and] ways of analyzing discourse, including the analysis of organizational stories, narratives, conversations, metaphors, rhetoric, texts, etc., provide insights into key organization issues, processes, and actions. (p. 2)

They also suggest that OD is moving away from purely behavioral diagnoses and interventions toward more negotiated and flexible perspectives of thought, thereby leaving the behavior change to the people affected (Bushe & Marshak, 2007). Given Bushe and Marshak’s (2009) argument that OD is changing into a more dialogic form, OD consultants must also reconsider how they develop their skills to remain effective practitioners.

Improvisational exercises such as “Yes, and . . . ,” for example, encourage intense listening and observation so that conversations can develop into narratives. The communicative nature of theatre leads to a natural discursive analysis of issues as performers delve into their characters and the meanings of plays. Just as actors learn how to mine the meanings underlying the script that they must portray authentically to communicate the playwright’s message, OD practitioners also rely on various exercises and tools to be mentally acute with regard to organizational issues. Not only does improvisation help build individual foundational skills of listening, observing, and self-awareness, but also it develops the very skills that are needed to uncover discursive meanings in dialogs within organizations. In improvisation, reality is co-constructed, intersubjective truth is negotiated, and experience is mediated through language. This is a point where using the theatre and its training methods may enhance the advanced skill training of OD consultants.

Another contribution from acting exercises to the dialogic theory of OD suggested by Bushe and Marshak (2009) is the increased ability to think in a nonlinear fashion. The “Yes, and . . . ” exercise illustrates how improvisation techniques encourage open, nonjudgmental, responsive communication. The free flow of ideas that the exercise generates allows new options to surface by which to solve problems. New reactions and ideas come to the fore when communicators are open and responsive to what happens during the exercise without internal judgment. Nonlinear thinking can provide room for new perspectives that allow for multiple simultaneous realities. However, this is an area of considerable room for explanation and ongoing exploration. Employing improvisational, Stanislavskian, and Boalian forms of theatre training can help develop the required skills—foundational and advanced—demanded by the dialogic forms of OD currently being used.

It is simple enough to suggest to those who are currently in the classroom, both student and teacher, that there is a ready outlet to access these techniques. In fact, several institutions have adopted a cross-disciplinary approach using theatre methods to train students, for example, Case Western Reserve University, The Ashridge Business School, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the University of Virginia. A trend toward this type of instruction appears to be gaining momentum in mainstream business education. However, for practicing OD professionals who have concluded their formal classroom education, access to reputable sources of this training may be more difficult. Additionally, finding venues that cater to using these techniques specifically for business may be even more challenging. That said, a growing number of organizations have successfully incorporated theatre techniques into their OD practices, and they may be called on for assistance. One such organization is the Ariel Group located in Massachusetts. The Banff Centre in Canada lists among its programs Leadership Development and incorporates theatre techniques into its Coaching for Performance course.

Additionally, the practitioner can use improvisational techniques as tools for gathering information or delving into problem options. For example, the “Yes, and . . . ” technique could be employed as a supplementary tool during brainstorming. The addition of “and” suggests a further push into deeper solutions. A suggestion is proffered and the facilitator responds with “Yes, and . . . ,” which is meant to encourage the speaker to go further and deeper into his or her solution. Likewise, when seeking organizational information from its members, by saying “Yes” the practitioner acknowledges the information offered by the client, and then may prompt him or her with other words implying “and” from the exercise such as “go on,” “can you explain this,” or “tell me more.” In this way, the practitioner is accepting the information without judgment and asking for more information on which meaning can be built. The purpose of engaging in any exercise is to gain skill with a necessary tool so when a situation presents itself, the practitioner is ready and able to grapple with the issue.

In sum, exercises from theatre training can enhance not only basic foundational skills for OD practitioners such as listening, observing, and self-awareness, but they may also build skills that are being demanded by developing forms of OD that Bushe and Marshak (2009) term dialogic. The communicative nature of the theatre encourages discursive analysis of issues that is consistent with postmodern premises, and therefore, acting exercises may be a fruitful means to develop the specific skills required by OD practitioners today.

Future investigation into this area could focus on how acting exercises encourage nonlinear thinking skills as a way to open new avenues for solving organizational issues. Several educational institutions and organizations are already employing theatre techniques for just these purposes. However, OD practitioners can also use improvisational techniques in their practices to encourage clients to offer more information or encourage problem solving. Acting and improvisational exercises encourage shared meaning making, multiple realities, and collaborative solutions that are all asserted in postmodern premises.

Conclusion

Because of the OD practitioner’s need to develop human behavior skills, and professional theatre schools’ systematic training of these skills, this article considers the relationship between the interpersonal skills that actors need to be successful in the theatre and the interpersonal skills OD professionals need to be successful practitioners in the dialogic development of change management that Bushe and Marshak (2009) suggest. OD practitioners, like actors, need a fundamental base of interpersonal skills grounded in the basics of self-awareness, listening, and observing. This foundational base supports more complex interpersonal interactions increasingly demanded by today’s multifaceted economic climate. Both disciplines require the same foundational skills, although their end applications diverge. Therefore, managing in the increasing complexity of organizational environments requires a solid foundation of interpersonal skills. As the number of appropriate skills expands to meet the needs of changing organizational structures and issues, a strong skill base from which to work is more important than ever. Culture, integration, conflict negotiation, and trust are issues the consultant must be prepared to manage in the global organization, and a solid foundation of basic skills leading to the more complex relational and emotional skills becomes imperative.

Borrowing from the theatre and its disciplined means of skill development, OD practitioners can tap into an early cognitive thread of Beckhard, one of the discipline’s founders, as well as engage in a systematic means of learning these skills from professional actor training. Additionally, instead of using single-loop learning methods such as case simulations and role-play, as the discipline of OD morphs into a more socially constructed meaning of change in organizations, double-loop learning methods, such as improvisation, interactive drama, or Boalian techniques, are called for to address complex organizational issues. Traditional methods of learning interpersonal skills may only address traditional OD problems that require diagnostic, positivistic control of behavior change. The future proposition of OD may require new methods of learning foundational interpersonal skills that can address Eisen’s et al.’s (2005, p. 206) “future-responsive awareness.”

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Grateful thanks to Richard Woodman, Greg Clydesdale, and especially Linda Beamer and the three reviewers for their insightful notes and suggestions that helped to shape this idea.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Leslie Stager Jacques earned her doctorate in Organizational Psychology from the California School of Professional Psychology in San Francisco and her MFA in Acting from the Goodman School of Drama/DePaul University in Chicago. It is her interest in and love of performing arts that drives her teaching and research activity in the business and theatre arenas. She seeks to validate the contributions of cross-disciplinary methods for business and theatre participants.

References

Adler

(2000). The art of acting ( Kissel

, Ed.). New York, NY: Applause Books.

Argyris

(1980). Some limitations of the case method: Experiences in a management development program. Academy of Management Review, 5, 291-298.

Ballantine

J. A.

McCourt Larres

(2003). A critical analysis of students’ perceptions of the usefulness of the case study method in an advanced management accounting module: The impact of relevant work experience. Accounting Education, 13, 171-189.

Beckhard

(1997). Agent of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Boal

(1992). Games for actors and non-actors ( Jackson

, Trans.). London, England: Routledge.

Boggs

J. G.

Mickel

A. E.

Holtom

B. C.

(2007). Experiential learning through interactive drama: An alternative to student role plays. Journal of Management Education, 31, 832-858.

Bradford

D. L.

Burke

W. W.

(2004). Introduction: Is OD in crisis? Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40, 369-373.

Burke

W. W.

(1994). Organizational development: A process of learning and changing (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bushe

G. R.

Marshak

R. J.

(2007, August). Revisioning organization development: A post-modern perspective. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference, Philadelphia, PA.

10.

Bushe

G. R.

Marshak

R. J.

(2008). The postmodern turn in OD. OD Practitioner, 40(4), 9-11.

11.

Bushe

G. R.

Marshak

R. J.

(2009). Revisioning organization development: Diagnostic and dialogic premises and patterns of practice. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 45, 348-368.

12.

Cooperrider

D. L.

Barrett

Srivastva

(1995). Social construction and appreciative inquiry: A journey in organizational theory. In Hosking

Dachler

Gergen

(Eds.), Management and organization: Relational alternatives to individualism (pp. 157-200). Aldershot, England: Avebury.

13.

Corsun

D. L.

Young

C. A.

McManus

Erdem

(2006). Overcoming managers’ perceptual shortcuts through improvisational theater games. Journal of Management Development, 25, 298-315.

14.

Csikszentmihalyi

(1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York, NY: HarperPerennial.

15.

Cummings

T. G.

Worley

C. G.

(2009). Organization development and change. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.

16.

Dominguez

Howell-DePew

Walters

(2007). Advancing the scene: Using improv as an organization intervention. OD Practitioner, 39(3), 40-45.

17.

Easton

(1992). Learning from case studies. Hemel Hempstead, England: Prentice-Hall.

18.

Eisen

Cherbeneau

Worley

C. G.

(2005). A future-responsive perspective for competent OD practice. In Rothwell

W. G.

Sullivan

(Eds.), Practicing organization development (pp. 188-208). New York, NY: Wiley-Pfeiffer.

19.

Fletcher

(1999). Disappearing acts. Cambridge: MIT Press.

20.

Gardner

Hatch

(1989). Multiple intelligences go to school. Educational Researcher, 18(8), 4-10.

21.

Goleman

(1995). Emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam Books.

22.

Greiner

L. E.

Cummings

T. G.

(2004). Wanted: OD more alive than dead! Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40, 374-391.

23.

Griggs

(2005). A role play for revising style and applying management theories. Business Communication Quarterly, 68, 60-65.

24.

Grotowski

(1968). Towards a poor theatre. New York, NY: Touchstone.

25.

Hagen

(1973). Respect for acting. New York, NY: Macmillan.

26.

Huffaker

J. S.

Robertson

Hirsch

Poynton

(2003). Improv culture: Using practices from improv theater to help organizations evolve successfully over time. OD Practitioner, 35(3), 30-34.

27.

Janis

I. L.

(1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. New York, NY: Cengage Learning.

28.

Kemper

T. D.

(1993). Sociological models in the explanation of emotions. In Lewis

Haviland’s

J. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 41-51). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

29.

Ladkin

Taylor

S. S.

(2010). Enacting the “true self”: Towards a theory of embodied authentic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 64-74.

30.

Lippitt

G. L.

Lippitt

(1986). The consulting process in action (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer.

31.

Marshak

R. J.

Bushe

G. R.

(2009). Further reflections on diagnostic and dialogic forms of organization development. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 45, 378-383.

32.

Meisner

Longwell

(1987). Sanford Meisner on acting. New York, NY: Random House.

33.

MIT News Office. (2000, January 26). Sloan Adjunct Professor Richard Beckhard dies at age 81. Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2000/beckhard-0126.html

34.

Monks

Barker

Mhanacháin

A. N.

(2001). Drama as an opportunity for learning and development. Journal of Management Development, 20, 414-423.

35.

Moshavi

(2001). “Yes, and…”: Introducing improvisational theatre techniques to the management classroom. Journal of Management Education, 25, 437-449.

36.

Myers

K. K.

Sadaghiani

(2010). Millennials in the workplace: A communication perspective on millennials’ organizational relationships and performance. Journal of Business Psychology, 25, 225-238.

37.

Pope

B. L.

(2000). Redefining acting: Implications of the Meisner method. In Krasner

(Ed.), Method acting reconsidered (pp. 147-157). New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

38.

Schein

E. H.

(1999). Process consultation revisited. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

39.

Schön

(1983). The reflective practitioner: New York, NY: Basic Books.

40.

Spolin

(1999). Improvisation for the theater. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

41.

Stanislavski

(1976). An actor prepares ( Hapgood

E. R.

, Trans.). New York, NY: Theatre Arts Books.

42.

Sullivan

Rothwell

Worley

(2001). 20th edition of the organization change and development competency effort. Retrieved from http://www.odnetwork.org/aboutod/OD_Competencies.pdf

43.

The Theatre School at DePaul University. (2009). Acting curriculum. Retrieved from http://theatreschool.depaul.edu/pdf/curriculum/MFA_Acting_Curriculum.pdf

44.

Varney

Worley

Darrow

Neubert

Cady

Guner

(1999). Guidelines for entry level competencies to organization development and change. Retrieved from http://division.aomonline.org/odc/index.php?view=article&catid=47%3Aodc-competencies&id=66%3Aodc-competenciesreport&option=com_content&Itemid=70

45.

Vera

Crossan

(2004). Theatrical improvisation: Lessons for organizations. Organization Studies, 25, 727-749.

46.

Worley

C. G.

Feyerherm

A. E.

(2003). Reflections on the future of organization development. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39, 97-115.

47.

Worren

N. A. M.

Ruddle

Moore

(1999). From organizational development to change management: The emergence of a new profession. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35, 273-286.