Theatre Design & Technology - Fall 2021 - 20

also required a time-consuming paint
treatment. I advocated for hiring a freelance
artisan to come in and build the
unit on a track separate from the official
build to get it to the paint shop as
early as possible. I was surprised by
the pushback I received from both the
carpenters and scenic artists. I thought
I had helped the process by identifying
a bottleneck that would adversely affect
the scenic artists and proposed a workable
solution. Apparently, I had stepped
on some toes. Perhaps, as the new guy
I should have brought more people into
my thought process, or perhaps the
master carpenter felt I was dismissing
his skill set. Regardless of how we got
there, we were at an impasse.
A meeting was held to discuss the
issue. As the meeting progressed and
everyone examined the build schedule
and the availability of the personnel, it
became clear that, given the staff's current
obligations and the time-consuming
nature of the project, my plan was
the right call. If we use the risk perception
factors outlined earlier as a way to
understand what the staff was experiencing,
we could conclude the following:
It was an environment of inherent
uncertainty. The shop was transitioning
from a trusted TD to a yet to be identified
permanent TD, with an interim
TD who they did not know at the helm.
They may have felt a lack of control
when I made the initial proposal, like
they were being denied the opportunity
to weigh in on the decision (choice).
They may also have felt slighted by the
implication that they could not handle
the project. All of these concerns were
answered, and resolved, when they got
the opportunity to review the date and
explore other solutions.
Transparency was
a
large
factor
in efficiently getting to this resolution.
Because the numbers providing
the basis of the conclusion were solid,
then there was no reason to hide them.
However, the numbers were only part
of what made this a successful problem-solving
process. Everyone involved
came into the meeting willing to look at
the problem with open minds and ready
for a productive conversation.
The " No, Yes, No " Sandwich
Understanding risk responses, the three
Cs, and attribution theory can lead to
20 | THEATRE DESIGN & TECHNOLOGY | FALL 2021
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.
productive conversations that result in
problem solving. However, because of
the budgeting and risk assessment process,
shop managers sometimes have to
say " no. " If a shop manager disregards
the systematic processes and says " yes "
to a project beyond the scope of the
shop, it is a decision that may adversely
affect the organization throughout the
production's life cycle and potentially
for months after the show is over. A
" no, " rooted in a thorough and systematic
process, indicates that the proposed
project exceeds the scope as defined by
the organization. Establishing a plan
to manage the project scope (including
managing expectations) is fundamental
to a production's success. Still, how to
communicate " no, " is critical.
In The Power of a Positive No,
William Ury describes a three-step process
for presenting the " no " -a " yes,
no, yes " sandwich. The first " yes " is an
" internal " yes " and a commitment to
what is important to us, such as more
time with family, staying on budget, not
overworking staff, or maintaining a safe
working environment. Whatever the
source, this is the foundation on which
the unpleasant " no " is based. The more
clearly, we identify our internal " yes, "
the easier it will be to support the public
" no " (Ury 2008, 101-104).
The " no, " in the second stage is the
public statement. It is a rejection of
something, and it can be intimidating.
Even when, as Ury suggests, we support
our " no, " with the knowledge we
are protecting something else, we are
denying someone of something (2008,
104). But this word is vital to what we
do in the theatre or any other creative
endeavor. Saying " no,'' can be an opportunity
to clarify parameters and set (or
re-set) essential boundaries. It may stop
a conversation, but it certainly does not
have to if we engage in active listening
techniques and the stakeholders within
the organization have the same or similar
levels of risk tolerance.
The " no " must be based on the results
of a thorough review of the proposed
design (including the perceived
risks) and not on arbitrary opinions, and
the results of the review must be shared.
Transparency at every stage of the discussion
is essential to maintaining the
proper focus; it is the numbers that indicate
the lack of resources, nothing
more. Transparency shows respect for
the effort the director and designer have
invested in creating the vision. They are
now being asked to adjust the design,
so it seems only fair for the manager to
share the numbers and potentially reconsider
their approach to the technical
design. The more transparent the managers
are about the bidding process,
the easier it will for everyone to explore
the numbers in a productive and impersonal
way-impersonal because it is
about the data, not the people involved.
Focusing on the data also makes the attribution
process easier, because we are
not defending our beliefs we are sharing
evidence. This can make us less susceptible
to the kinds of perceived slights
mentioned earlier. In a positive and collaborative
environment, the response
to a " no, " should shift from maintaining
the original vision to an exploration of
the core intent of the original vision as
the entire artistic team works to find
solutions.
The grammar and tone surrounding
use of the word " no " is an important factor.
A " NO! " is much different in tone
than " no, " where the comma suggests
that the " no " is not the final word but
rather a necessary word in an ongoing
Theatre Design & Technology - Fall 2021

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