A team can agree that the handover, customer journey or target process is clear while every person is holding a different picture of it. The disagreement only appears later, when one function builds the door where another expected a wall. Applied improvisation can make that invisible difference visible before it becomes expensive.

Shared words do not guarantee a shared picture

Complex work is full of apparently familiar words: customer, approval, complete, ready, owner and exception. People can repeat the same term and still connect it to different systems, responsibilities or moments in a process.

This is especially common across business, technology, finance and external partners. Each function sees a legitimate part of the landscape. The problem begins when a partial view is mistaken for the complete one.

A normal meeting often hides the difference because the discussion remains abstract. A physical or visual exercise slows the conversation down and asks participants to show what they mean rather than assume everybody sees it.

Alignment is not everyone saying the same word. It is enough shared meaning to coordinate the next action.

Space Painting builds an environment one offer at a time

In Putting Improv to Work, Greg Hohn describes Space Painting on print page 88. Participants create an imaginary environment by placing objects in the shared space. One person might establish a bookshelf; another can add the books, a ladder or the sound coming from a nearby radio.

The additions matter because they are not independent decorations. Every new contribution changes the environment available to everybody else. Participants need to remember what is already there, add something specific and resist replacing the emerging picture with a private one.

Hohn then extends the practice into Space Painting into Scenes on print page 89. Two players use the environment they created and allow its details to influence who they become and what happens. The setting is no longer background. It becomes shared information.

The workplace version is a shared mental model

For a team, I would replace the theatrical room with a fictional but recognisable workflow. The group could build the space of a successful customer handover, a reliable launch or a meeting where every dependency is visible.

An object can represent something concrete or relational. A locked cabinet might represent restricted data. A bridge could connect two functions. A clock in the centre might show that timing controls every other choice. The metaphor gives people permission to express a connection that is difficult to capture in a process box.

The aim is not to produce the correct picture. It is to notice where participants reinforce one another, where they introduce incompatible assumptions and which important elements nobody thinks to place in the room.

Add first, inspect second

During the construction round, each participant should treat existing objects as real. If someone places a narrow entrance, the next person may widen it, add a second entrance or explain what passes through it, but should not behave as if it was never offered.

Evaluation comes after the picture has enough material. That separation protects quieter or unfinished contributions from being corrected before the group understands what they might reveal.

In the debrief, normal critical thinking returns. The group can ask which objects represent real constraints, which are assumptions and which are missing. Improv keeps the picture open long enough to learn from it; it does not prevent the team from making a rigorous decision.

Use the scene to test the picture

A short scene makes the environment operational. Two participants can play a handover, decision or customer conversation inside the shared picture. They must use the objects rather than discuss them from outside.

Observers often notice that a beautiful process contains no place for an exception, that an important stakeholder is too far from the decision or that everybody uses the same information source differently. Those are useful discoveries precisely because nobody had to accuse another function of misunderstanding.

The final question is practical: what should become more visible in the real work? The group may choose one shared definition, one missing dependency or one handover question to carry into the next meeting.

Browse all improv exercises for listening, creativity, collaboration and leadership

Sources used

About the author

Max Grillo is an applied improvisation facilitator. He has participated in more than 700 improv workshops and accumulated more than 10,000 hours of improv practice. He co-manages and co-hosts Rice Cookie Improv, is cofounder of Monday Flow Improv and is a member of the Applied Improvisation Network. He has facilitated improv in Munich since 2017 and brings more than 25 years of experience in technology and transformation.

More about Max