Mr Obama Needs Improvisation Training

In his recent interview with Jon Stewart on the Today Show President Obama scored an unnecessary own goal. The audience and host erupted into laughter as the President added “but” after the “Yes we can” slogan that had come to define his presidential campaign – a campaign built on the theme of hope and new beginnings. With a bit of basic improvisation training in the classic “Yes and…” exercise this moment would have been an opening for a positive message rather than what appeared to be a retraction. In practicing the discipline of “yes and” we develop the habit of being open to possiblities as they arise in the moment while trusting and engaging positively with another person. Every time we say “Yes and” and see what follows we rewire our neural pathways to be open to unexpected options. Automatically saying “Yes but” creates a mixed message and shuts down options. How different the outcome would have been if Mr Obama had begun his reply “Yes we can and ……..”

Posted on 1st November 2010 in General

Share the Story

Responses (2)

  1. Phillip Khan-Panni
    1st November 2010 at 6:26 pm · Reply

    Yes and … and Yes but … have such different meanings, that they are not interchangeable.

    For example you cannot say, Yes we can and we need to be cautious. It causes a cognitive dissonance.

    If Obama is currently adding a reservation to his campaign promises, he has no option but to add a ‘but’. To say Yes and … when you wish to enter a qualification amounts to casuistry, and is one of the greater sins a speaker can commit.

  2. Michael Dodd
    3rd November 2010 at 7:42 pm · Reply

    John Cremer’s thesis is correct. By saying “but” Obama walked straight into the trap which Jon Stewart had laid, which is why the audience instantly laughs. Saying “and” would have been incomparably smarter as it would utilise a principle I deploy when showing people how to respond to some tough questions in media interview training. By doing this you can capitalise on the same principle which Judo players use – utilising the force of one’s opponent’s thrust towards you to throw them in the direction they were heading while adjusting their trajectory.
    Philip Khan-Panni raises an interesting point about “casuistry” (“specious, deceptive or oversubtle reasoning”- Dictionary OnLine). Whether it was casuistry or not would depend on what Obama said after the “but” or the “and”. If the president had opted for the “and” he could have quite logically reminded his audience of what he said after his victory in the South Carolina primary on 27 January 2008 when he said: “If there’s anything, though, that we have been reminded of since Iowa, it’s that the kind of change we seek will not come easy.” When doing interviews – even if you’re not the US President – it’s always wise to plan for the worst questions you expect and in this instance Obama, the often-but-not-always-brilliant communicator, would have done better by consulting John Cremer first. michael@michaeldoddmedia.com

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published.

Back to Top