On Tue, 1 Aug 1995 DwBuff@aol.com wrote:
> Replying to LO2258 --
>
> About 15 years ago I discovered my mind works in a way that new creations
> are constant, easy to come by and easy to make a reality. This is why I am
> intrigued with the Learning Organization. What I have wanted to find out
> was "How can I get teams of people to be like this"?
>
> One way I have found is to constantly use light humor in the work place.
> It keeps people relaxed and creates a starting point for human relations.
> I also use it with others when I am participating in a team creation on
> demand (which occurs infrequently). Last year four of us were asked to
> create a unique National Quality Month calendar for our company. We knew
> each other well having worked together on teams.
>
> We had 1 1/2 hours in the company of a creative arts person who would take
> our concept and polish it up. We got hung up at the end of 30 minutes. It
> felt like we were trying too hard. I started joking and teasing the
> others. After 5 minutes of absurd plays on words, we were on our way to
> creating an award winning calendar. This is probably the 10 time in the
> last 5 years of being a part of or facilitating a group needing creativity
> on demand. I have used humor a few times when people get tense. It seems
> to work to get them out of the box - really. I have felt it was the
> playfulness that made it work.
My goal, when I think about these things, is to try to understand the inner
logic of the situation, given the feelings and emotions being whatever they
are. That's where my earlier reference to Aristotle came from.
This story of yours is a good illustration. I can't stop with just a notion
like "playfulness makes it work" -- that sounds to me like just restating or
summarizing the story. I'd want to argue here that what the humor uniquely
contributes is a mindset, or social current, or group convention, that is
always prepared to see itself "from the outside". That's what comedy does.
The brief period when the group was "trying too hard" was what we'd have to
call a tragic moment (but let's not let ourselves get too serious about
that), in which the group was taking itself and its efforts very "seriously".
Plunging into a difficult problem, immersing oneself in it until nothing
else exists, is one of the great polar extremes of experience. This is what
I'd call identifying with a problem -- getting _inside_ it. The polar
opposite to this is getting _outside_ the problem: disengaging entirely
from whatever one's convictions had been, surveying the problem terrain
from some completely disembodied stance.
The humor we're talking about -- the _good_ humor -- is humor that assists
us in the latter kind of move: getting _outside_ the problem.
And by the same token, I guess, the situation I briefly alluded to, where
humor masked a lack of vision, needed _less_, not _more_, distance from
the problem.
>
> In the past, I used humor all of the time and found that some people do
> not like it during creativity sessions. I have been getting better at
> understanding when humor will be accepted and when it will upset other
> people.
>
Does what you've discovered relate in any way to this business of (tragic)
immersion versus (comic) distance? I'd be surprised if it didn't. I'd
like to hear your thoughts on that.
For what it's worth: the most exciting and provocative group experiences
I know (or can think of) alternate, sometimes with breathtaking speed,
between these two poles of immersion and distance.
--
Regards
Jim Michmerhuizen
web residence at http://world.std.com/~jamzen/
...........................................................................
: : : : : : : : "I planted flowers but nothing happened." : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : "Try planting seeds." : : : : : : : :