Lifes A Stage...

Cliche No.2: To get the best out of people, you have to 'empower them.

Cliche No.3: "The most important role of the CEO is that of the facilitator".

Most corporations are still struggling to turn those cliches into living, flesh-and-blood

principles of behaviour. What is

driving them is the realisation that where speed, agility and front-line innovation are critical, the

shift-supervisors, front-office executives and design managers matter as much as the board members. Some of the most critical decisions are taken everyday

in places where the CEO's eyes and hands don't reach.

In a sense, The CEO is powerless.

As powerless as a theatre director, who becomes a mere spectator once the drama gets under way. Since motivating, mentoring and guiding people aren't things that can be taught in institutes of management, the best practitioners of the art have often turned to other disciplines for inspiration.

In this issue of The Strategist, we look at how the theatre directors do it. It would be silly to look for close parallels; there aren't any. The intention is merely to goad the corporate mind along paths that are not normally travelled.

The leveller

Come on, Ritu, let's see you do a jig with an inkpot on your head. And how about you, Mayenk, doing cartwheels while holding forth on existential philosophy? Stop giggling, Nilanjana. You can recite Mark Antony's Friends, Romans, Countrymen! as you sweep the floor.

A sample of the routines that Anamika Haksar's group undergoes as part of what the theatre director calls breaking the pomposity of personalities. Her point: I deliberately bring in the element of ridiculousness in these sessions. The idea is to get the body and the mind to work in contradiction. It does amazing things to the egos of various people -- shattering some, doing wonders to some others.

Anamika Huksar is the great leveller of personalities. Before launching into any group activity, every personality needs to be brought down on an even keel, she says emphatically. The group takes precedence over the individual - the first lesson handed out to her group.

Stare at your hands and feet. Think about your legs, thighs, hips...Describe your feelings about them... Now I want you to look at your partner's hands and feet. Tell us what do you feel about them.

Her group is now well into the trust sessions. The aim is to get people to talk about themselves. It is while that person is sharing thoughts with the team that a sudden vulnerability happens. Many people break down and pour out their most intimate thoughts. At that point of time they begin to feel one with the group. And that's how trust is created, she says. When you see blindfolded actors flinging themselves from cupboard tops (in the hope that the group below will catch them), you desist from questioning her techniques.

So is Anamika Huksar a leader who looks for flexible individuals who can be molded according to the requirements of the group? This description would only be partially correct.

After taking the group through these get-to-know exercises, she changes gear. The forceful style in the initial stages helps to

communicate guidelines for teamwork unambiguously. But then I let them loose while I withdraw to the background, merely observing them and taking notes, she explains.

In her recent production,

Drama of Reason based on the life of Goya, she started the group on to a personal discovery of the play. They were poring over historical texts on the Spanish Inquisitions. They were discussing Goya. Why did Goya react so violently? Where is the violence in me? How would I have reacted in such a situation -- arguments on such questions raged for days. I don't believe in the earlier school of thought, especially Badal Sarkar, who believed that the individual is anonymous. The team should be a group of expressed people. Allow each individual to contribute in a

substantive manner.

At this stage, Huksar is all patience. I give enough time to this process. It is important that everyone is given a chance to

contribute to the development of the play. This is a gradual process of building consensus. And

I know this is time well spent especially when it comes to

chalking out the final interpretation of the text.

There are disagreements. One such dissentor shot back, I think the violence in this siutation should be underplayed. We

have got it all wrong. Her

resolution: Show us your interpretation. Prove it by enacting it

out. Soon enough, we were all nodding our heads. And that is more important. Not the process of resolving what is right and who is right but the fact that in the end everyone thought so.

Anamika Huksar's blend of forceful and consensual leadership has got fantastic results for her so far. But if you thought this was the last word in the art of consensual leadership, read on through this backstage conversation.

The facilitator

I think Tubby should play The Fool, chirps Simrit, amidst the raucous guffaws that follow Tubby's rendition of Winston Churchill endorsing the pink briefs in the '40s. He's soooo funny!" And so stupid, adds Vivek, wryly. Such naturals are hard to find. And Vivek should play Mr Canon Throbbing, the celibate, says Tubby, plomping heavily on the stage after his calisthenics. "In fact, he won't have to adapt to the roleat all!

(Haa..haa..heee...heee...) And, of course, Barry can play Sir Percy Shorter, right Barry? says Tubby, smirking. Hmmm...but don't you think Bernard should be given that punishment, says Barry, what with his heavy-duty accent and leaden expressions? I'm more the Felicity Rumpus kind, don't you think?

The Delhi-based Theatre Action Group (TAG) is casting actors for its forthcoming production after a two-month-long workshop.

As always, Barry John is the director (although he would prefer a different tag). I'm essentially a facilitator, he says softly, as he feels the spotlight settle over him. I set things up, then sit back and watch... -- how the team members respond to each other, what kind of chemistry they create, who's the selfish actor trying to hog the limelight, who's the bully in the group, who's doesn't get along....

A good teacher does as little as possible, says John, moving upstage, letting the students discover the subject for themselves. So much so that his workshops often end with the particpants democratically casting themselves in the roles they are most suited for.

John participates with subtle suggestions, nudging a little here, pushing a little there. Observations keep getting filed. There is minimal interference in the natural progression. By imposing yourself on the group, you're severly limiting the avenues you can explore.

John, however, fully appreciates the attendent risk of running amuck with the freewheel approach. Intervention, therefore, comes in at the desired level, at

a propitious moment. Let's say the group is going to cast a unsuitable actor in a prime role, he explains. I have to step in and raise an objection. But the objection comes in the form of raising questions regarding the appropriateness of the decision rather than a brusque scotching. However, if an actor is deluded about his abilities, John is

open and honest with him.

It works, he says. Team building has a lot to do with.

opening up and developing

trust. In most cases, in fact, what causes interpersonal friction is people getting bottled up. They need to loosen up, express

themselves, come to terms with themselves.

Therefore, John asks his team members to enact a disturbing experience they have had recently. He then switches their roles, and eventually asks them to direct that piece. In the process, they acquire emotional distance which makes them look at the experience objectively. Just like an audience!" he says, smiling.

Besides, it helps to know about the personal lives of the players involved -- who's coming by bus (he might get late for rehearsals), who has hassles at home (and can't keep late nights) -- which helps understand them better. Basically, you need to 'touch people, says John, as he sits on the stairs.

The martinet's whip hardly serves the purpose. So John falls back on his teaching experience with children. (Adults are, after all, nothing but grown-up

children). You let them do their own thing, have confidence in them, and they'll be better

motivated, he says. The weak director tag hardly disturbs him. Empower people; let the opinion evolve, he speaks. People are not stupid, you know; it's

amazing...but there's always a consensus!

The stickler

Faisal Alkazi does not believe in mincing words. Get a flavour of his welcome talk to the new members. We do serious theatre, no cheap-thrill, sex comedies. There are no airconditioned halls for rehearsals. Everyone is expected to do all kinds of work --- from sweeping the floor to making chai. You may be a lead actress in one show but could be selling tickets in the next. Anyway, in your first play with the group, you will only do back-stage work. We have rules that apply to all, including the director," he intones, darkly.

It is another matter that not many would have had the opportunity to listen to it. Alkazi prefers to work with closed set of people -- people he knows intimately and are familiar with his style of work. Many conflict areas can be avoided if the operating framework for the group is laid down very clearly. It also answers, quite effectively, what-is-in-it-for-me question for the individual in the group, goes the director's rationale.

A no-nonsense style of leadership?

Yes. No play can be put up before at least 10 run-throughs. Nobody is a star. Everyone does backstage work. Everyone sits in the rehearsals whether he or she is on stage or not,

A stickler for rules is fine. But a dictator? In the great tradition of Utpal Dutt and Ibrahim Alkazi, two theatre doyens known for their mercurial tempers? In fact, Utpal Dutt would use the

foot-ruler on his team with impunity. But Alkazi and his group have worked out an interesting format.

In Ruchika Theatre Group, the banner under which Alkazi directs plays, leadership is rotated between two directors.

Arun Kuckreja, the other director explains, We keep tabs on each other. We knew that a closed group of people working together for long periods (twenty-four years in their case) would break down into coteries. So we decided to take turns to direct plays. And we tolerate each other because both of us are successful.

In their group, the director alone cannot decide which play to choose. Atleast 2-3 people are involved in the process. Everyone has biases, myopic visions. Any one person's understanding of the environment cannot be all correct, says Arun Kuckreja.

Alkazi has another point: Why, even when the group is well into the production, we get outsiders to sit in and suggest changes. Any group will inevitably develop its own biases. It is the job of the non-participating members of our group to point them out.

And what if certain attitudes are difficult to change?

Identify early, and change it, that is Alkazi's prescritpion. Each member of the group enacts a moment of their lives --- the first minute of waking up in the morning, the first few moments after getting back home from work... Sure enough, a lot of attitudes spill out in such sessions. In one of these sessions, it was evident that the girl was used to bossing around --- ordering servants at home to do this and do that. Soon enough, she was doing odd-jobs for the production -- sending mailers, sticking up posters.

But understanding people and their motives becomes a much more complicated task if you are dealing with new groups all the time.

The psycho-leader

Hey! I don't mess around. Why should we do a play on AIDS?, Rahul was questioning. Little did he realise that from now on, he was the The Dissentor.

No, but look at it this way guys. If we do it well, learn about the subject, talk to experts, we will be so much more informed and richer by the experience, Mr.Das points out.

There is my motivator.

Come on guys. We have to do something. Let's just get on with this super idea from our director, piped in Mona.

She is out. The Yes-Men have no place in this team.

And thus were they all judged by their director, Stephen Marazzi, who was merely participating in the discussion.

Marazzi goes for the sub-text, so to say. I have to find out the person's motives. Why he or she is saying that? Why do they want a particular role? Why do they want to work in that play? Only then can I deal with them effectively, he says.

Marazzi's group, Teamwork (yes, that is how strongly they feel about team spirit in drama) learnt it the hard way. People would walk in pretending to be interested in the play, observe us rehearse, and then walk out and put up their own acts, he says.

In yet another way, Marazzi realised that it was important to categorise people and allocate responsibities accordingly. We started out with a governing council - a core group of motivated people who were supposed to put together the entire show.

But it did not work. The most passionate lover of drama was a good motivator for the team but not necessarily the best organiser. People have to be given roles that best fit them. Today, our lighting specialist is a 19-year old who was once an aspiring actor. He loves his job."

Marazzi works more like an enabling agency, a facilitator in a more activist role - initiating discussions, steering them towards specific topics, eliciting responses, and assigning roles.

Then it is just a matter of

sensitising the group to the project in hand, he says. Before starting on the play on AIDS, we had discussions, got authentic documents on the subject, the cast interacted with several experts on the issue.

They went through the process of discovery, knowledge, interaction and exchange of ideas. That was my pitch.`That is what the play offers to you, I told them.