Recently, The New York Times published an article about something I never expected to see become a Silicon Valley conversation starter: improv. More specifically, Keith Johnstone’s 1979 book Impro.

Apparently, the book has become recommended reading in parts of the tech world, and its ideas around status, spontaneity, perception, and saying yes have found their way into conversations among founders and tech leaders.

As someone who has spent years teaching applied improvisation in workplaces, you might expect me to be thrilled. And honestly, I am. Sort of.

A lot of people in the improv community are not happy with the article. I’ve seen thoughtful critiques about what the author missed, where the comparison between improv and Silicon Valley’s “reality distortion” culture breaks down, and how some of Johnstone’s ideas were simplified. Many of those critiques are valid.

But I still don’t think the article is garbage.

One of the comparisons in the piece connects improvisation with the idea that reality is something we can shape. That gets tricky, because taken too far, “shaping reality” can start sounding like ignoring inconvenient facts, manipulating people, or simply telling a better story until everyone believes you.

That is not what I teach.

In improv, you do not get to pretend the thing that happened did not happen. If your scene partner gives you something unexpected, that is now part of the reality you are working with. If something goes wrong, you do not erase it. You notice it, accept it, and decide what happens next.

That is one of the things I love most about improvisation.

Improv does not teach us that reality is not real. It teaches us that reality is not finished.

Something happened. You cannot change that. But you still have choices about what you do next.

That matters far beyond the theater.

Work constantly gives us things we did not ask for. A project fails. A client changes direction. Someone leaves. A budget disappears. An idea does not land.

You can spend your energy arguing with reality, or you can accept what is actually happening and ask, “What can we build from here?”

That does not mean pretending everything is okay. Acceptance is not approval. “Yes, and” does not mean saying yes to every idea, request, or terrible decision someone throws at you. It means acknowledging what is actually happening so you can respond to it instead of wasting all your energy wishing you had received a different offer.

That is also where I think some of the criticism of the article is fair. Connecting theatrical reality-building too closely with misleading investors or misinformation creates an association that deserves more nuance. Those are not the same thing.

Good improvisation requires attention, listening, and a willingness to respond to what your partner actually gives you. It is collaborative, and when practiced well, it asks you to loosen your grip on controlling the outcome.

But here is where I part ways with some of the outrage.

I do not need The New York Times to teach applied improvisation exactly the way I would teach it. What interests me much more is this:

Why are people in technology, leadership, and business suddenly curious about a 47-year-old theater book?

That feels like the more useful conversation.

For years, those of us working in applied improv have tried to explain that improv is about much more than being funny onstage. It can help people practice listening, adaptability, communication, creativity, collaboration, and navigating uncertainty.

Those are not just acting skills. They are people skills.

And right now, those skills matter.

People have been sending this article around. Some probably read every word. Some probably just saw the headline and thought, “Wait, Silicon Valley is reading an improv book?”

I am okay with that.

Awareness usually comes before understanding. A leader does not need to know everything about Keith Johnstone before becoming curious about what improvisation could teach their team. An HR leader does not need to become an improviser before asking, “Could this help our people communicate differently?”

That question opens a door.

And once the door is open, those of us who actually do this work get the opportunity to add the nuance, show people what applied improv really looks like, and help them experience why these ideas matter.

So no, I do not agree with every conclusion in the article. But I also do not see it as a threat to the field.

For an industry that has spent years fighting the assumption that improv is just people making up silly scenes, having a major publication connect it to leadership, creativity, uncertainty, and the future of work feels like an opportunity.

Instead of spending all our time asking, “Did they get improv exactly right?” I am more interested in asking, “Why are these ideas resonating with people outside the theater right now?”

People are looking for better ways to operate when they do not know what happens next. They are trying to create without having all the answers. They are figuring out how to work together when the script keeps changing.

Improvisers know a thing or two about that.

Maybe our job is not to criticize everyone who enters the conversation without knowing all the terminology.

Maybe our job is to welcome them in.

Accept the offer, and build from there.

Want to experience some of this for yourself?

I put together a free guide with improv games you can use with your team to practice communication, creativity, connection, and thinking on your feet.

No improv experience required. No pressure to be funny. Just simple activities that help people practice the skills we’ve been talking about. Grab the free improv games guide here