By Kat Koppett

In a recent LDA debate, Matt Richter and Clark Quinn faux-sparred over whether or not learning should be “fun”. Of course, as in all LDA debates, the format itself existed just to increase the entertainment quotient (how meta), and they mostly agreed on a number of valuable points. It was an insightful and useful conversation by all measures. (See the debate- click here.)

And - both in the conversation itself, and in the chat - the idea of employing “silly” or “contentless” games was held up as the negative example of “fun in learning”. Ugh, everyone agreed! That is always bad.

Where does that round dismissal leave an applied improviser? Using activities from the world of improvisational theatre in organizational learning settings counts as the poster child for mindless fluffy play, no? Well… sometimes. Anyone who has watched “The Office” knows what applied improvisation can look like when it goes wrong. But also, no.

Two different questions arose for me around the use of improv in learning as I listened to Clark and Matt debate. First, how is improv being actually used in learning contexts? And second, if and when it is being used “just for fun”, could there be any benefit to that?

So, how is improv used? In three ways:

1. As Frame Games: At the most basic level, the world of improvisational theatre is simply one more source of interactive activities to employ as wrappers around generic content in order to increase engagement, understanding or retention of information. When used in this way, improv functions similarly to a “Jeopardy” gameboard or Thiagi’s “Thirty-Five”. Although the world of improv is a treasure trove of activities that can be used in this way, this is also the most superficial way improv can be applied, and it does not differentiate improv from any other source of games for learning.

2. As Exercises: Improv activities also act as exercises that work various “muscles”. In order to collaboratively create live shows on-the-spot with no pre-planning, improvisers need to activate certain skills that are also useful in many other situations. Listening, generating ideas, accepting and building with offers, storytelling, establishing presence, and giving and taking control are as relevant inside organizations to build high-performance as they are on a stage for entertainment. Most improv games, dating back to the work of Neva Boyd and Viola Spolin, were designed as exercises, in the literal sense, to build these skills. This is a much more robust use of applied improvisation. The activities ARE the content, and whether or not they are fun and engaging, is surprisingly, no more or less the point than in any other learning design context. The question when employing one of these activities becomes, “Does it help build the skill I am trying to build? Does it serve the development purpose of the moment?”

3. As Jolts: At an even more differentiated level, applied improvisers introduce tenets and philosophies meant to shift mindsets. Decades ago, when using improv in business was a new and bizarre practice, these ideas sounded weird. Now many of them border on cliche - things like “celebrate failure” or “say, ‘yes, and’.”  But whether they retain their unique status, when presented effectively (and I will be the first to say they are often NOT), these concepts can change attitudes and cultural dynamics. Many improv activities can be used to illustrate the power of these principles in practice in ways that open people’s eyes to the value of doing things differently so that they are motivated to practice the skills above.

So, what about applying improvisation “just for fun?” Stay tuned for next month’s musings!