Theatre Design & Technology - Fall 2021 - 21

conversation. A " NO! " with an exclamation
mark (or even a period) abruptly
ends the conversation, which is not the
goal. When the " no " is delivered effectively
and respected, it can be a gateway
to finding ways around the current obstacles
by creating an environment of
predictable outcomes.
The final " yes " is an opportunity to
bridge the gap and mitigate a firm " no. "
It is the point in the conversation where
we can identify and explore new options
and possible solutions. The final " yes "
is an opportunity to support the core
intent of the design when looking for
alternatives (Ury 2008, 147-152). The
deeper your level of understanding of
the other's interests, the easier it is to
make the conversation less adversarial
and ultimately more productive. It allows
us to choose a path rather than
feel trapped by an imposed decision.
The journey to " no " can be even more
challenging and potentially crippling for
young managers. Internal questions
and doubts like, " Are my numbers accurate? "
" Do I have the right to disagree? "
can create reluctance. Concerns like,
" I don't see the solution, " or " There
isn't time to alter the design " can also
leave the nascent shop manager feeling
like there is no choice but to accept
the design as presented. But to take on
a project without addressing legitimate
concerns is an abdication of the manager's
responsibility and potentially harmful
to the project and the institution as
a whole.
" No " is hard to say because we know
it is a word that hurts feelings that
no one likes to hear it. This is why so
many of us try to avoid saying it. In " The
Power of No, " Dr. Judith Sills states,
" No is not a warm send. It's tough to
deliver, in large part, because we have a
gut sense of how it will be received-not
well. Neuroscience supports our hunch
that No is going to register far more
harshly than we may have intended. The
human brain is hardwired to respond to
No more quickly, more intensely, and
more persistently than to a positive signal "
(Sills, 10).
The discomfort related to protecting
our interests might be mitigated
by considering the interconnectedness
between the individual's interest and
the larger group's goals. Enlightened
self-interest is an economic theory that
suggests human nature drives people
to pursue their self-interests and states,
" it is in the best interests of each individual
to do things that benefit the
group " (Ikerd), suggesting that one way
to achieve success is to support the
narrow self-interest of the individual
to strengthen the group. The theory
accepts that any organization must address
the needs of the individuals making
up the organization (Ikerd). In other
words, we are serving the greater good
by considering the realistic capabilities
of the individuals who comprise the
organization.
It's in the best interest of the institution
to adopt a bottom-up perspective
when considering scope. By doing so,
the organization can be more predictable
within a system fraught with uncertainty
and provide more confidence that
the delivered product will match the objectives
laid out at the beginning of the
project. Both the organization and the
current production can benefit from a
smoother process, potentially allowing
the organization to gain a reputation for
producing quality work with fewer missteps
and unforeseen crises.
This approach may also provide the
institution with a much-needed reality
check. If focusing first on the capabilities
of the shops identifies inconvenient
limitations on what the organization can
produce, there may be deeper problems.
Perhaps the staff needs more training
or needs to be replaced. Whatever
the consequences of the investigation,
these are issues that must be addressed
if the organization wants to grow.
Without a shared understanding of
organizational values, managers are
still likely to fall into what Ury describes
as the " three A trap " of accommodate,
attack, and avoid.
Accommodate: Saying " yes " when
we want to say no " (Ury 2008, 11-12).
When we accommodate, we are agreeing
to a plan that is not viable. We are
sacrificing our fundamental interests
for the sake of saving or protecting the
relationship. The subsequent peace is
usually short-lived and is even possibly
unhealthy, making accommodating a
" destructive yes " a bad choice.
Attack: We say it poorly (Ury 2008,
12-13). " Speak when you are angry,
and you will make the best speech you
will ever regret, " said Ambrose Bierce
(quoted in Ury 2008, 12). Attacking is
the counterpoint to accommodation
and is an answer based in anger. This
reaction occurs most often when a
person is experiencing a great deal of
stress. When the " attack " is observed, it
would be useful to determine if the response
is based on a specific situation,
in line with the how this person reacts
in similar situations, or if this is typical
to the person's character. Regardless of
the cause, or how we justify attacking,
this is not the path to a healthy discussion,
making this a bad choice and an
unproductive " no. "
Avoid: Say nothing at all (Ury 2008,
13-14). Avoid is a trickier word to unpack.
With the context of risk assessment
or the OSHA hierarchy of controls,
avoiding is the first, best choice when a
risk is identified. But in these instances,
to avoid means to eliminate. In Ury's
discussion, avoid means to ignore the
issue by saying nothing with the hopes
that the conflict will go away. This never
works.
I see a tendency for this avoidance
reaction in the young TDs I teach.
Sometimes, a nascent TD will avoid a
confrontation or a part of the particularly
troublesome, complex, or generally
unpleasant process. If the discomfort
caused by confronting the issues results
in pushing hard conversations or decisions
toward the bottom of the list, the
problems compound, leaving less time
to find solutions. Shop managers must
engage in these difficult conversations
as early in the process as possible. " Fail
faster " is a healthy motto to adopt because
it advocates for a mindset that
does not fear the hard questions but instead
faces them head on.
The three As are not always mutually
exclusive. Too often, they become
part of a repeating cycle. If we accommodate
(suppressing our concerns), we
can begin to resent our choice, thus increasing
our tension. What can follow is
guilt and embarrassment, maybe even
more anger. Ironically, in response to
our shame, we may feel even less empowered
to say no in the future, leading
us back to either accommodation or
avoidance. Additionally, if we repeat this
stress-inducing cycle enough, our amygdalas
may code it as a bad experience,
priming us to be fearful the next time
we are in a similar situation.
FALL 2021 | THEATRE DESIGN & TECHNOLOGY | 21
Theatre Design & Technology - Fall 2021

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Fall 2021
