“Insightful Encounters – Regional Development and Practice-Based Learning”
Conference on Regional Development and Innovation Processes
March 5th-7th 2008, Porvoo – Borgå, Finland
[Theme 7.]
DEVELOPMENT OF ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATION
CULTURE BY THEATRE-BASED METHODS
Pässilä Anne, Researcher and Oikarinen Tuija, Senior researcher
Lappeenranta University of Technology Lahti Unit
Saimaankatu 11, 15140 Lahti
anne.passila@lut.fi; tuija.oikarinen@lut.fi
(03) 876 910
Biografy of the author´s
MA Anne Pässilä (art and culture research) is a member of the regional innovation environment
research programme. It is a multidisciplinary co-operation programme aiming at establishing a
high-quality research community within the Lahti Region. Anne Pässilä`s research interest is in
creation and dynamics of innovation processes; creativity, learning and art-based interaction
methods in innovation processes.
M.Sc. Tuija Oikarinen (Econ. & Bus. Adm.) works as a researcher in School of Business at
Lappeenranta University of Technology in Lahti unit. Her research interest is in organizational
learning, development and renewal, and human resources management.
ABSTRACT
The accelerating rate of change in the environment of companies sets out new challenges for all
the members of the organization; they must be able to continuous improvement and renewal.
Both researchers and practitioners strive for finding ways to foster and facilitate innovation in
organizations. Discussion on applicable organizational designs and management tools on
different phases of innovation processes is vivid.
Organizational culture is noticed to be a key element in the innovation capability of the
organization. For the organization, its members are decisive to its ability to innovate. A culture
which is encouraging, open to debate and experimentation supports individuals and teams to
innovate and learn. Despite the recognized importance of culture, approaches and methods to
develop it are still scarce. There is an agreement only, that it is extremely difficult and timeconsuming to change organizational culture.
This study creates and explores new intervention practices directed to develop organizational
culture. The aim of interventions is to be communicative and concentrate on relationships
between people. The purpose is to find intervention practices which help members of
organizations to perceive, reflect, and cultivate their organizational culture.
The intervention methods are based on Augusto Boal’s theatre practices and applied theatre-based
techniques. We name this novel method as a research-based theatre. Research-based theatre most
typically focuses on inspecting social problems and it opens up a possibility to investigate habits,
language and social relationships. In this case the goals of research-based theatre are related to
“Insightful Encounters – Regional Development and Practice-Based Learning”
Conference on Regional Development and Innovation Processes
March 5th-7th 2008, Porvoo – Borgå, Finland
the learning and awareness process of an individual, the socio-cultural norms and tensions in a
community and becoming aware and changing these factors. The aim is humanistic: to support
the personal, social and cognitive learning of an individual, and enhance the culture of an
innovative community. Communicative actions are integral in everyday practices. Language and
communication processes are the key for change in social context at organizations development.
Methodologically, the study represents action research. Research-based theatre can be compared
to participatory action research. Action research process, as also research based theater, is a social
process; it involves social analysis which locates in the wider context of cultural action as
language, activities and relationships.
The paper concludes with suggesting an approach to develop organizational culture by theatre
based interventions. The suggested approach illustrates the use of research-based theatre first to
facilitate the participants’ reflection of their current social and cultural practices and then to
modify organizational culture. The modification of culture is encouraged by opening up new
experiences at individual level and facilitating discussions, interpretations and conceptualizations
at group level as social and collective actions.
Keywords: research-based theatre, organizational culture, innovation
1. Introduction
An organization’s capabilities for innovation are an essential source of its sustainable competitive
advantage. Nowadays, innovation i.e. generation and adoption of new ideas as well as transfer
and utilization of them into practice are incumbent on all the members of the organization.
Capabilities to foster collaboration, cooperation and participation – both inside and among
organizations are essential. Open innovation needs mechanisms for importing and exporting
knowledge, ideas and practices. In every stage of innovation process in- and outflow should be
enabled. (Chesbrough 2003, Amabile 1997, Axtell et al. 2000, Van de Meer 2007)
A major source of potential innovation arises in the course of working. It is the members of the
organization at all levels, who are in contact with customers, suppliers, partners and other
stakeholders. These interactions create potential for new idea generation. In order to innovate and
renew, an organization’s ability to grasp these new ideas is crucial. Equally, it is essential to
recognize alternative world views, practices and ideas distributed throughout the organization.
Bringing together these alternative world views generates potential for development and renewal.
The members of the organization at all levels should be involved in interpreting new ideas,
making sense, finding and adapting congruence. It is from any site of such interactions that new
insights for innovation can emerge. (Brown & Duguid 1991)
It is a problem of many organizations, that they are trapped within their own world view. They
socially construct their environment: organizations produce their enacted environment. (Weick
1979) In order to change, an enacting organization must be able to reconceive not only its
environment but also its own identity. By asking different questions, by seeking different sorts of
explanations, and by looking from different points of view, different answers and world views
may emerge. It is this process of seeing the world anew that allows organizations to see
themselves anew and to innovate and renew themselves. (Brown & Duguid 1991, 52, Weick
1979, 169).
“Insightful Encounters – Regional Development and Practice-Based Learning”
Conference on Regional Development and Innovation Processes
March 5th-7th 2008, Porvoo – Borgå, Finland
First, the existence of different world views and approaches and secondly, the process of
discussion, reflection and sense making are seen as premises for innovation. The challenge is how
to cultivate these in organizations which strive for effectiveness, tight-coupling, orderliness, core
competencies, shared world views and implementation of management strategies. The closure of
organization i.e. its inability to recognize and adapt to the current environment inhibits its
innovation (March 1991, Brown & Duguid 1991, Weick 1979).
The innovation literature today identifies two ways how to stimulate innovation in an
organization. First, there is a structural approach which concentrates on creating organizational
structure and mechanisms supporting innovation. Secondly, there is a cultural approach which
concentrates on the creation of an innovative climate. (van de Meer 2007) We see these both
aspects – cultural and structural – essential. As Schein (1999, 171) emphasizes culture is
embedded in structure. From a social-cultural view, people and their actions are sources of
innovations. Company’s innovation sensibility is based on individuals and their capability of
interacting together and creating new knowledge and new meanings. Individuals need to have a
specific space and time for co-creation, forums for originating, composing and interacting, thus
they need a creative and invulnerable stage to meet each others. These forums for knowledge
creation do not arise automatically they must be built into an organizations’ everyday practices.
(Nonaka & Konno 1998)
The traditional hierarchical organizational structure has been noticed to be far too inflexible.
There is a common notion that the more permeable and organic the organizational structure, the
greater the potential for innovation. Greater organizational flexibility is sought by reduction in
hierarchy and decentralizing power, authority, responsibilities and resources to smaller units
based around core activities. Usually the change is launched by flattening hierarchies and
decentralizing structure; increasing teamwork, autonomy and self-conduct; encouraging
multiskilling and new kinds of co-operation. Typically, as determinants of innovative
organizational structure in addition to organic flexible design are named sufficient resources incl.
slack, communication channels, widely distributed high quality knowledge, shared vision and
risk-taking. (Wan et al. 2005, Tiernan et al. 2002, Paalanen et al. forthcoming).
The challenge is the transformation from a traditional mechanistic bureaucratic organization to an
open, dynamic and organic form. The restructuring initiatives create considerable cognitive
disorder (Schein 1999). Attempts to change organizational structure need to coevolve with
changes in social factors, in the ways the world is seen and made sense. A different way of
thinking is needed to be able to act and innovate in an open co-operative form (van de Meer 2007,
Tiernan et al. 2002, Dodgson, Gann & Salter 2006). Often the basic presumption has been that by
changing the structures the behavior will change and the change in attitudes will follow (Cyert &
March 1992, Fiol & Lyles 1985). But it has been noticed that the structural changes are
insufficient if the culture will not transform alike. The employees try to work as they are used to
if the culture does not change congruently with changes in structures (Tiernan et al. 2002,
Oikarinen 2008).
In order to be able to capitalize the potential of new organizational forms and open innovation the
organizational culture has to change correspondingly. The change of culture is crucial to support
new kind of action in organization. By changing the structure of the organization the behavior of
individuals can be adjusted. But if the changes of employees’ behavior are made only by
adjustment to organizational structures, their innovative behavior and initiatives to development
and renewal are endangered. (Oikarinen 2008) The role of the employees as agents of
organizational innovation and development is enhanced if structural changes are supported by
“Insightful Encounters – Regional Development and Practice-Based Learning”
Conference on Regional Development and Innovation Processes
March 5th-7th 2008, Porvoo – Borgå, Finland
cultural changes. In order to institutionalize and make the new ways of working permanent,
cultural and structural changes should be supportive. (Tiernan et al. 2002, Oikarinen 2008)
So the management of cultural transformation can be considered essential. But the extent to
which leaders can manage the change of recipients’ schemata, world view and culture is
questionable. Of course management is in central position in transforming but the socially
constructed perspectives suggest that instead of being passive acceptors, change recipients are
actually active change creators. They determine the outcomes through social processes of
interaction. In decentralized organizations the actions, behaviors, gestures and language of
colleagues, and their shared personal experiences, have important direct impact on employees’
culture development and change outcome. The horizontal interactions in organizations and their
contribution to cultural transformation have gained less attention in innovation management than
vertical interaction or management. (Balogun & Johnson 2004)
The aim of this paper is to study new intervention practices to develop organizational innovation
culture. Based on previous theories of organizational culture, learning and interventions we
construct a new method for intervention based on applied theatre and drama. We approach
innovative culture from a social-cultural perspective and are interested in how dialogues can be
enhanced by drama pedagogical processes. We are sketching a new pedagogical innovation tool
by constructing a new combination from existing techniques. The suggested approach illustrates
the use of research-based theatre first to facilitate the participants’ reflection of their own current
social and cultural practices and their understanding of practices and conceptions of colleagues
working in other functions. Eventually the aim is to modify organizational culture.
The paper begins with an overview on organizational culture, learning in organizations and
applied theatre and drama. Then we explore the possibilities to intervene in the framework of
research-based theatre (RBT) and describe our first impressions.
2. Organizational culture
How to cultivate organizational culture is a question without an unambiguous answer. In this
paper culture is defined according to Schein (1996) as a set of basic tacit assumptions about how
the world is and ought to be that a group of people share and that determines their perceptions,
thoughts, feelings, and, to some degree, their behavior. Culture is understood as an interaction,
communication and sense through symbolic forms. So culture is the whole complex system of
society: shared beliefs, knowledge, language, arts, values, behaviours, customs, and morals.
According to this definition, in culture the following elements are emphasized: action, awareness,
communication between subjects, interaction between symbolic forms and social institutions.
(Fornäs 1998, 168-169, Schein 1996)
There are multiple traditions in literature on managing organizational culture: can it be managed
and what is meant by managing. Much of the literature on culture change is prescriptive and
managerial in orientation (e.g. Peters & Waterman 1982). Many approaches to culture change
recommend that employees are willing agents who are powerless and will respond positively to
management initiatives. Changes in behavior are seen as premises to cultural change. There is a
common presumption that by changing behavior and visible manifestations, changes in values
and basic assumption will follow. (Crossan, Lane & White 1999, Harris & Ogbonna 1998, Cyert
& March 1992, Fiol & Lyles 1985)
“Insightful Encounters – Regional Development and Practice-Based Learning”
Conference on Regional Development and Innovation Processes
March 5th-7th 2008, Porvoo – Borgå, Finland
That managerial approach can be criticized by noting that it is only managing behavior, not
culture. It has been noticed that formalized attempts to manage organizational culture can have a
range of unpredictable and sometimes unintended consequences. Such unintended consequences
can range from general acceptance to outright active rejection. So, the conscious management of
organizational culture is at worst an impossibility and at best extraordinarily complex. (Harris &
Ogbonna 1998)
In this study organizational culture is seen as organic. It grows or emerges within the organization
and emphasizes the activity of organizational members as culture makers. (Lindstead & GraftonSmall 1992) An organization provides the normative territory to which members identify. Firstly,
identification defines the conventions and rules by which individuals coordinate their behavior,
and secondly, it guides the process of social interaction and formation of values and convergent
expectations. The act of identification has important implications for the shared assumption and
values and thus to the creation of the organizational culture. (Kogut & Zander 1996, Weick &
Roberts 1993)
This interconnectedness of culture and identity as well as their tacitness makes their management
extremely challenging. As meaning, understanding and learning are situated in an identity,
unlearning is difficult. Identity rules out alternative ways to act and to exploit new avenues of
development. (Lave & Wenger 1991, Kogut & Zander 1996) It has been emphasized that the
attempts to develop behavior should start with the reflection of employees’ conceptions of work
(Sandberg 2000). The way an employee concepts his work exposes how he makes sense of his
work and what the meaning of work is for the organization. As has been noticed, the ways people
actually work usually differ fundamentally from the ways organizations describe that work in
manuals, training programs, organizational charts, and job descriptions (Brown & Duguid 1991).
And maybe that is one of the reasons to the failure of the attempts to change work practices and
thus the culture. As Scheeres & Rhodes (2006) noticed, the attempts to change organizational
culture by formal training actually cemented existing perceptions, beliefs and cultural norms.
Not only the strength of organizational culture but the existence of subcultures as well have been
proposed as major obstacles for the organizational change efforts (Detert, Schroeder & Mauriel
2000, Bechky 2003, Harris & Ogbonna 1998). Culture in an organization is pluralist with the
existence of subcultures. In one organization there can be many kinds of subcultures. As most
significant subcultures Harris and Ogbonna (1998) named those based on location, hierarchical
position and service conditions. Bechky (2003) states, that participation in occupational
communities structures the understanding of its members as it conducts their language, the locus
of their practices and their conceptualization of the product. Schein (1996) identified three
particular cultures: operator, engineering and executive culture. He proposes that until executives,
engineers, and operators discover that they use different languages and make different
assumptions about what is important, and until they learn to treat the other cultures as valid and
normal, organizational innovation efforts will continue to fail. To create alignment among the
three cultures is of creating enough mutual understanding among them to evolve solutions that
will be understood and implemented. Harris and Ogbonna (1998) emphasize that developing a
unified and strong organizational culture is not realistic. The feasible aim is to develop strong
multiple subcultures guided by overarching principles.
It has been criticized that most culture change efforts proceed with little attention to the pluralistic
reality i.e. the importance of subcultures should receive more attention (Detert, Schroeder &
Mauriel 2000). The existence of subcultural strenght is mentioned to be a key determinant of
employee responses to change efforts. For example, the stronger the extent to which values are
consistent and cohesive across the members of the group, the more difficult it is to change it. In
“Insightful Encounters – Regional Development and Practice-Based Learning”
Conference on Regional Development and Innovation Processes
March 5th-7th 2008, Porvoo – Borgå, Finland
order to accomplish organization-wide change, subcultural sensitivity and specific subcultural
change efforts are required. Particular emphasis is needed on the interplay between enhancing
subcultures (those that particularly embrace the new initiative) and countercultures (those that
actively oppose it) in order to understand why some cultural conflicts end with real changes and
others with return to status quo. (Harris & Ogbonna 1998)
Existing theories on organizational and cultural change commonly classify employee responses as
either adoption or rejection. The study of Harris and Ogbonna (1998) indicates that the majority
of employees will respond to change in a manner which is somewhere between total rejection and
complete acceptance. So this mid-range of employee responses largely determines the success or
failure of a given change effort. For example, when employees seem to have accepted new
culture they actually are recycling those aspects which are consistent with the past culture. So the
focus of change efforts should concentrate on creating forums for interpreting, discussion,
reflection and sense making, not to eliminate resistance and opposition.
3. Learning
The processes of seeing a world anew, innovating, developing and transforming expect learning,
both of individuals as well as of organizations. Learning is a process where the interactive
relationship between cognition and action is critical. According constructivism-based learning
theories individuals construct their own world views by grasping experiences, reflecting and
conceptualizing them in social context. Organizational learning is multilevel. New ideas occur
and problems are identified by individuals. But they are discussed, reflected, interpreted and
made sense with others. Social processes and group dynamics guide interaction. (Kolb 1984,
Crossan et al. 1999, Argyris & Schön 1978)
We all know that it is crucial to learn how to co-operate and communicate openly (Harmaakorpi
& Melkas 2005). An organization’s internal communications is the basis of innovation (Schein
1996). Gustavsen (1996, p. 8-15) points out the communicative action in everyday practices
arguing that language and communication are the key to change in a social context in an
organization’s development. Thus, it is imperative to get the workers engaged in an enriching
dialogue. The aim is to practice creative and reflective thinking; to exploit the innovation
potential hidden in the everyday activities of the employees.
4. Applied theatre and drama
The roots of the theatre rest in the rituals used to strengthen the social activities and belief
systems of communities. Through these rituals the functional and performative script was passed
on from one generation to another. Modern western theatre could be categorized to Aristotelian
dramaturgy and to open dramaturgy. Raymond Saner (1999) uses concepts modern and post
modern theater. Aristotelian dramaturgy, conventional modern theater, is linear and causative, in
which episodes are constructed through hero’s actions and core narrative (plot). Open dramaturgy
is like a post-modern puzzle, episodes are constructed through theme and protean protagonists.
The narrative is fractured and unfinished. (Schechner 1988, 25 – 26; Saner 1999, 6-9.) This open
dramaturgy could be called also as an example of postmodern dramaturgy. Open dramaturgy
inherits narration from the epic drama of Bertolt Brecht. Applied theatre is partly based on
Augusto Boal`s theatre practices (Boal 1992, 1995 and 1996). Boal`s theatre practices are a
continuum to what Piscator and Brecht have created; art is to be seen as raising awareness. The
theatre has in different ways demonstrated “The Great Story”, up till the present day. The applied
“Insightful Encounters – Regional Development and Practice-Based Learning”
Conference on Regional Development and Innovation Processes
March 5th-7th 2008, Porvoo – Borgå, Finland
theatre appears as a theatrical tradition which breaks The Great Story. At the heart are the multivoiced personal, local and culture-bonded stories. (Nissley, Taylor & Houden 2004; Paavolainen
2002.)
Previous studies and practices of art-based methods have been based on community art, applied
theatre and organization theatre (Darsø 2004; Meisiek 2002, 2004; Clark & Mangham 2004;
Kantonen 2005; Lacy, 1995; Jacob 1995; Boal 1992, 1995 and 1996). Irving Goffman´s (1959)
influence is undisputed when it is a question of life as a theatre. Ian Mangham (1996) advanced
that metaphor to a training program and practises of management skills within an organizational
setting. Mangham (since 1973 till 2005) has developed the use of theatre in organizations.
Mangham anchors his ideas to the work of Kenneth Burke´s (1968) dramaturgical perspective on
social and organizational life and the work of Bertolt Brecht´s theatre philosophy. Mangham has
studied the idea of aesthetic distance, which has much common with Brecht`s
Verfremdungseffekt. (Mangham, 2005, 943-953.) Stefan Meisek (2004) has used the concept of
catharsis when studying the possible effects of organization theatre.
Applied theatre most typically focuses on inspecting social problems, communication and
relationships. Very often the goals of applied theatre are related to the learning and awareness
process (Asikainen 2003). With the use of applied theatre, analogies to social reality can be
created, and the meta-language of the theatre enforces the generation of dialogue (Heikkinen
2002, 129).
Schechner states it possible to transform the social system, and by a certain system of rules
construct an event referring to reality, thereby creating a meaning referring to reality. (Schechner
1988, 11.) This is also related to the analysis of the relationship between theatre and reality
(Frontier 1997, 101-130). An aesthetic context, a theatrical scene, helps to generate a framework
and tools to observe the existing situation (“as is”) and create a future vision (“as if”), as well as a
reorganization of the relationship between the existing and the imaginary situation. Applied
theatre, forum theatre and imagine theatre, provide an opportunity to investigate habits, language
and social relationships. The aesthetic space is formed in theatre contexts; it is a specific place of
representation in situated time and reality. (Boal 1995, 16-20) One could consider this
transformation as a multi-dialogue consisting of “experiencing the other side” (Buber 2002). For
example Boal`s theatre techniques, still images, offer an opportunity to handle problems in an
fragmatic time. In a still image (one technique of Boal) time and reality is conceptual; linear time
is modified and checked as episodes. One episode is scanned in a spiral; the past and the future.
(Neelands 1990, 4)
In applied theatre, the participants’ interpretations play a crucial part. The applications, narrative,
performative and theatrical techniques are based on the notion that in postmodernism, identity
must be continually reconstructed through narrative. Applied theatre does not seek to determine
the culture norms of an organization; they are used to observing and interpreting the internal
socio-cultural climate and actions. In a dramatised situation the participant is given an active role,
he or she is able through the character to examine the problem and produce different points of
view on the subject at hand. The form of applied theatre is referring to a constructivist concept of
learning (Rauste-von Wright & von Wright 1994) and, to be more specific social constructionism.
In where the learner-actor is active, participating and empowered to change. Thus, knowledge is
not merely transferred; it is a diverse system of searching, selecting, organising and interpreting
knowledge whereby the learner, building on prior knowledge and through subjective experiences,
interprets the social reality. From the socio-cultural point of view, thinking also happens
collectively between and within people. The dialogue takes place in the action of giving and
receiving meanings according to commonly agreed rules. This emphasizes that we think in a
“Insightful Encounters – Regional Development and Practice-Based Learning”
Conference on Regional Development and Innovation Processes
March 5th-7th 2008, Porvoo – Borgå, Finland
group and social representation is formulated in interactions. (Burr 2004, 114-123, Säljö 2001,
108-109.)
In theatrical action, in the world of fiction, observations are made of reality and vice versa; reality
is observed and its elements are dramatised into fiction. The outcome is an understanding; a
system of new meanings opened up by observation and interpretation, where an individual
experience is an important observation. The key factor in learning is aesthetic distance in which
the outcome at best is an multivoiced understanding. An aesthetic context is a system of new
meanings opened up by observation and interpretation, where an individual experience is
important. It could be described as a dialogue as in Martin Buber’s (2002) definition; observing,
looking on and becoming aware. As we have already earlier pointed, experience alone is not
enough; the generation of a new understanding necessitates systematic observation and critical
consideration, as well as a conscious understanding and conceptualisation of the experience
(Mezirow 1991, Kolb 1984, Lintunen 1995, 111). In theatrical action, knowledge absorption
needs active generation (Lintunen 1995, 113). It takes place in a group, as a social and collective
action. The group work and group talk is directed by social and aesthetic rules, in a theatre
context the social norms could be exposed through different voices. Group action is emphasized
and with it, the new provision of meanings. (Heikkinen 2002, 95). Unfortunately this also offers
an opportunity of using manipulative learning methods, thus it is exceedingly important to expose
the “politics of performance” of theatre in an organization. It is essential to understand that
theatre must not be a manipulative tool for management, control and power relationships must be
taken into account when scripting performances and techniques in organization theatre. (Nissley,
Taylor & Houden, 2004, 819-825)
5. Research-based theatre interaction
In this case theatrical approach is based on Augusto Boal´s theatre practices and applied theatrebased techniques, of which we in this study use the concept research-based theatre (RBT). RBT
can be compared to participatory action research (Kemmis & Wilkinson 1998; Kemmis &
McTaggart 1988) process. RBT connects dramatic art work, research documentation and
education. By using RBT, socio-cultural norms and tensions are attempted to be highlighted
between different people in an organization, and thus make them aware of work practices and
social representation After that it might be possible to change the culture. This kind of a change
process is more social and humanistic than technical. (cf Taylor 2003, 1-4; Darsø 2004, 86-90;
Sydänmaanlakka 2003).
The concept of Organization theatre is adopted as a name for the team of applied theatre workers
in our research and development project. Professional applied theatre workers are Pirre
Toikkanen and Raili Heikkilä. According to them the identity of theatre workers is based on
theatre practices of Brecht and Boal. Organization theatre aims at drafting a learning script which
will involve employees during and between theatre-based training sessions. The work of
Organization theatre is a part of RBT.
RBT interest is focused on how to see social representations (Helkama, Myllyniemi & Liebkind
2001) in own organizations. We assume that through narrative and theatrical stories participants
create codes which they can use in an introspective way when interpreting interactions and
relationships in work situations and also in their own organization culture. Research material is
collected by applying episodic interview. In episodic interview several methods are included in
the same research. It is based on the theory of social representation formed by Moscovici, thus
“Insightful Encounters – Regional Development and Practice-Based Learning”
Conference on Regional Development and Innovation Processes
March 5th-7th 2008, Porvoo – Borgå, Finland
being appropriate for research problems which examine how the different subcultures interpret
social reality and experiences. (Saastamoinen 1999.)
RBT data (work stories) are analyzed by using Kenneth Burke`s (1968) dramatistic perspective.
Via follow-up questions all the group stories are retold and plotted into three different
perspectives (which are marketing, pre-developing and production).
1. ACT: what is done?
2. SCENE: when and where is it done?
3. AGENT: who does it?
4. AGENCY: how does he or she do it?
5. PURPOSE: why is it done?
Problem formulation through stories
Theatre in organizations in our research and development project could be defined as a learning
interaction in which learning is understood as a knowledge creation process of interaction and
sense making between workers. It could be described as learning by doing (John Dewey) and
when theatre method is used it could also be described as thinking by doing (as Allan Owens has
described it). Knowledge creation environment is constructed through applied theatre, whereas
learning methods in organization theatre are applied from self-directed learning in which
participants improve their ability to work together in a collaborative way as well as their
understanding and awareness of practices and situation related to innovativeness. Figure 1
describes the three elements of theatre in organizations.
“Insightful Encounters – Regional Development and Practice-Based Learning”
Conference on Regional Development and Innovation Processes
March 5th-7th 2008, Porvoo – Borgå, Finland
Art:
aesthetic distance
Innovation:
novel narratives
Learning :
collective
and sociocultural
approach
Figure1. Elements of theatre in organizations
Our assumption is that innovation capability in an organization requires more social and
collaborative methods among different teams and units inside the organization as well as
information brokerage outside it. With help of research-based theatre we enquire what kind of a
transforming script is to be modified from applied theatre. Research-based theatre is a method
used in this study to enquire and construct a transformation script from a combination of theatre,
collective learning and innovation business. Previous research projects have encouraged creating
novel approaches to culture change. (Paalanen, Pässilä & Paalanen forthcoming)
In our research and development project we construct and pilot a new intervention method based
on theatre and Schein’s (1999) framework of phases in problem solving. Schein has developed a
basic model from sensitivity training programs of Richard Wallen, presented in Figure 2. The
model consists of two cycles of activity – actions that occur before and after the decision to be
taken. The first cycle consists of three phases: problem formulation, generating proposals for
action and hypothesizing meanings of proposed solutions or testing and evaluating them before
action. The second cycle also consists of three phases: action planning, action steps and
evaluation of the action steps. According to Schein, every phase needs to be managed in a
particular way. (Schein 1999, 152-153) In this paper we concentrate on the first phase, i.e.
problem formulation.
“Insightful Encounters – Regional Development and Practice-Based Learning”
Conference on Regional Development and Innovation Processes
March 5th-7th 2008, Porvoo – Borgå, Finland
In our research and development project we understand theatre as collective learning, where the
understanding of an individual is developed in a co-operative social context, and meanings are
made of the experiences of the participants. The key factor here is a collective growth of common
and shared understanding constructed using theatre as a narrative approach. The theatre method
offers an opportunity to create forums where people can join and share a common vision of
change and the changing practices. Therefore, we try to characterize problem formulation through
the narrative method.
Figure 2. A Model of the stages in problem solving (Schein 1999, p. 153)
Narratives can be helpful when the goal is to become aware of the causes of problems or
symptoms, as Schein would say. In this case, the core of cultural transformation is in the microlevel learning process: how to recognize the identity of one’s own group, roles and social norms,
in other words, tracking the symptoms.
For tracking the symptoms we are gathering knowledge from social relationships by using a
narrative method; we call this story telling technique “work story”. With help of the work story,
the story teller can step outside the problem. It is more a collective story than a story of one
“Insightful Encounters – Regional Development and Practice-Based Learning”
Conference on Regional Development and Innovation Processes
March 5th-7th 2008, Porvoo – Borgå, Finland
individual. Through narration the participants can learn from their own experience, and make
their own experience accessible to others.
Work story – training session with different work units and teams
We test this methodology in a big Finnish industrial company in winter 2008. So far we have had
five training sessions. In one session all the participants (9 – 28 persons) represent the same
department. During the session the participants are further divided into smaller groups (4 – 7
persons). We consider these groups represent subcultures. With help of theatrical pictures each
group constructs a story which describes a problematic event step by step. It is an attempt to
reconstruct the process of problematic situation with the focus more on symptoms than on
consequences.
Following picture (Fig. 3) is an example of the theatrical pictures used in activating the story
telling. There are also questions in theatrical pictures i.e. what has just happened?
Mitä tilanteessa on juuri tapahtunut?
Figure 3. Example of a theatrical picture
Theatrical pictures are produced in a drama workshop by professional theatre workers, Minna
Partanen and Mari Kanervaniemi along with their students. Drama workshop was a process of an
experimental session held in May 2006. During the sessions we linked three different drama
techniques. The foundation was Image theatre of Boal to which we linked elements of mask
theatre and Keith Johnstone`s technique of low and high status.
The storytelling, work story, leads employees to issues which should be changed. Stories are told
in three steps. Firstly, individual stories are told by writing (4 pictures and one “free” story
altogether 30 minutes), secondly, a verbal story is gathered together in groups (eight pictures are
to be reorganized to a description of a problematic episode which ends in a situation where client
is not satisfied; altogether 45 minutes) and thirdly, the groups narrate their own story to each
other (45 minutes). In the end reflective discussion is held, facilitated by researchers (15 30minutes).
“Insightful Encounters – Regional Development and Practice-Based Learning”
Conference on Regional Development and Innovation Processes
March 5th-7th 2008, Porvoo – Borgå, Finland
The aim of this first training session is to clarify what are the problematic issues defined by
different work units (marketing, pre-developing and production) and which are the symptoms
they pinpoint. Through work stories three different perspectives bring difficulties to light. This is
an employee-orientated way of defining the turning points of problematic situations, seen from
perspectives of the different subcultures. The goal is to find opportunities and invent practises for
future. The training session is a participatory and interactive learning event, in which the
employees are activators. The learning target is to recreate significant episodes of the workers
experiences and learn from experiences.
The next training session will be focused on producing proposals for solution, and the tool for
that is organization theatre. Through theatre, different stories will be exposed and together with
participants we will construct a common new story – how to do things differently. The learning
agenda is focused on increasing co-operation between work units and co-creation by a
constructed and shared interpretation.
6. Conclusions
Our research and development project has just begun and any far-reaching conclusions are
impossible to make. However, our first impressions are very encouraging. Firstly, the feedback of
participants was very positive. The discussion during the training sessions was active and various
viewpoints were highlighted. The participants told us this was such a new approach they had not
experienced before. Secondly, the empirical data – narratives – we have gathered is very rich.
Narratives are detailed, animated descriptions of various series of events. Many of those stories
do not only picture occasions, they also illustrate the feelings and thoughts of participants. We
considered our first steps in developing organizational innovation culture by theatre-based
methods worth continuing.
Refereces:
Amabile, T. 1997. “Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and loving
what you do.” California management review, Vol. 40, n° 1, p. 39-58.
Argyris, C. and D.A. Schön. 1978. Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective.
Massachusetts, USA: Addison-Wesley, Reading.
Asikainen, S. 2003. Prosessidraaman kehittäminen museossa. Joensuun
kasvatustieteellisiä julkaisuja ISSN 0781-0334 ; n:o 94. Joensuu: Joensuun yliopisto.
yliopiston
Axtell, C., D. Holman, K. Unsworth, T. Wall and P. Waterson. 2000. “ Shopfloor innovation:
Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas. “ Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 73, n° 3, p. 265-285.
Balogun, J. and G. Johnson. 2004. “Organizational restructuring and middle manager
sensemaking.” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 2004, n°4, p. 523-549.
Bechky, B. A. 2003. “Sharing meaning across occupational communities: the transformation of
understanding on a production floor.” Organization Science, Vol. 14, . n° 3, p. 312-330.
Boal, A. 1992. Games for actors and non-actors. Trans. by A. Jackson. London: Routledge.
“Insightful Encounters – Regional Development and Practice-Based Learning”
Conference on Regional Development and Innovation Processes
March 5th-7th 2008, Porvoo – Borgå, Finland
Boal, A. 1995. The Rainbow of Desire. Trans. by A. Jackson. London: Routledge.
Boal, A. 1996. “Politics, Education and Change,”in Drama, Culture and Empowerment. J.
O´Toole and K.Donelan, eds., Brisbane: IDEA Puplications, p. 47–52.
Brecht, B. 1964. Brecht on theatre. London: Methuen.
Brown, J. S. and P. Duguid. 1991. “Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: toward
a unified view of working, learning, and innovation.” Organization Science, Vol. 2, n° 1, p. 4057.
Buber, M. 2002. Between Man and Man. Trans. Ronald Gregor-Smith. London: Routledge
Classics.
Burke, K. 1968. Dramatism. International encyclopaedia of the social sciences. Vol.VII. New
York. Macmillan.
Burr, V. 2004. Sosiaalipsykologisia ihmiskäsityksiä. Tampere: Vastapaino.
Chesbrough, H. 2003. Open innovation- the new imperative for creating and profiting from
technology. Boston: Harvard business school press.
Clark, T. and I. Mangham. 2004b. “Stripping to the undercoat: A review and reflections on a
piece of organization theatre.” Organisazation Studies, Vol. 25, n° 5, 2004, p. 841-851.
Crossan, M. M., H.W. Lane and R.E. White. 1999. “An organizational learning framework: from
intuition to institution.” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24, n° 3, p. 522-537.
Cyert, R. M. and J.G. March. 1992. A behavioral theory of the firm. Cambridge: Blackwell.
Darsø, L. 2004. Artful creation - Learning-Tales of Arts-in Business. Denmark: Narayana Press.
Detert, J. R., R.G. Schroeder and J.J. Mauriel. 2000. “ A framework for linking culture and
improvement initiatives in organizations.” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, n° 4, p.
850-863.
Dodgson, M., D. Gann and A. Salter. 2006. “The role of technology in the sift towards open
innovation: the case of Procter & Gamble. “ R & D Management, Vol. 36, n° 3, p. 333-346.
Fiol, M. C. and M. A. Lyles. 1985. “Organizational learning.” Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 10, n° 4, p. 803-813.
Fortier M. 1997. Theory/Theatre: an introduction. London: Routledge.
Fornäs, J. 1998. Kulttuuriteoria: myöhäismodernin ulottuvuuksia. Trans. M. Lehtonen.
Tampere:Vastapaino.
Goffman, E. 1959. The presentation of self in eveyday life. New York: Doubleday.
“Insightful Encounters – Regional Development and Practice-Based Learning”
Conference on Regional Development and Innovation Processes
March 5th-7th 2008, Porvoo – Borgå, Finland
Gustavsen B. 1996. “Development and the Social sciences. An uneasy relationship”, in Beyond
Theory. Changing Organizations through Participation, S. Toulmin and B. Gustavsen, eds.,
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, p. 5-30.
Harmaakorpi, V. and H. Melkas. 2005.”Knowledge Management in Regional Innovation
Networks: the case of Lahti, Finland.” European Planning Studies. Vol. 13. n° 5, p. 641-659.
Harris, L. C. and E. Ogbonna. 1998. “Employee responses to culture change efforts.” Human
Resource Management Journal, Vol. 8, n° 2, p. 78-9.
Heikkinen, H. 2002. Draaman maailmat oppimisalueina: draamakasvatuksen vakava leikillisyys.
Jyväskylä: Jyväskylän yliopisto.
Helkama, K., R. Myllyniemi and K. Liebkind. 2001. Johdatus sosiaalipsykologiaan. Helsinki:Oy
Edita Ab.
Kogut, B. and U. Zander. 1996. “What firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning. “
Organization Science, Vol. 7, n° 5, p. 502-518.
Kolb, D. A. 1984. Experiental learning – experience as the source of learning and development.
New Jersey:Prentice-Hall.
Jacob, M. J. 1995. ”An unfashionable audience” , in Mapping the terrain New Genre Puplic Art,
S. Lacy, eds.. Washington: Bay Press, p.50 – 59.
Kantonen, L. 2005. Teltta Kohtaamisia nuorten taidetyöpajoissa. Taideteollisen korkeakoulun
julkaisu A 54. Helsinki: Like.
Kemmis, S. and R. McTaggart. 1988. The action research planner. Third edition. Victoria:
Deakin University.
Kemmis, S. and M. Wilkinson. 1998. “Participatory action research and the study of practice,” in
Action Research in practice Partnership for Social Justice in Education B. Atweh, S. Kemmis
and P. Weeks, eds., London: Routledge, p. 21-36.
Lacy S. 1995. “Culural pilgrimages and metaphoric journeys,”in Mapping the terrain New Genre
Puplic Art, S. Lacy, eds., Washington: Bay Press, p.19 – 49.
Lave, J. and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated learning – legitimate peripheral participation. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Lintunen, J. 1995. ”Kokemuksellinen oppiminen ja pedagoginen draama,”in Draama. Elämys.
Kokemus. Kirjoituksia ilmaisukasvatuksen alalta II, J. Jaakkonen and J. Lintunen, eds.,
Jyväskylä:Jyväskylän yliopisto, opettajankoulutuslaitos, p. 109 – 122.
Manghama, I. 2005. “The Drama of Organizational Life.” Organization Studies, Vol. 26 n° 6,
London: Sage Puplication, p.941-958.
March, J. 1991. “Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning.” Organization Science
Vol. 2, n° 1, p.71-87.
“Insightful Encounters – Regional Development and Practice-Based Learning”
Conference on Regional Development and Innovation Processes
March 5th-7th 2008, Porvoo – Borgå, Finland
Meisiek, S. 2002. “Situation drama in change management: Types and effects of a new
managerial tool.” International Journal of Arts Management Vol. 4, n° 3, London: Sage
Puplication, p. 48-55.
Meisiek, S. 2004. “Which Catharsis Do They Mean? Aristotle, Moreno, Boal and Organizational
Theater.” Organization Studies, Vol. 25, n° 5, London: Sage Puplication p. 797-816.
Mezirow, J. 1991. Transformative Dimension of Adult learning. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
Neelands, J. 1990. Structuring Drama Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nissley, N., S.S. Taylor and L. Houden. 2004. The Politics of Performance in Organizational
Theter-Based Training and Interventions. London: Thousands Oaks Ca & New Delhi: SAGE
Puplications.
Nonaka, I. and N. Konno. 1998. “The consept of “Ba”: Builiding a foundation for Knowledge
Creation.” California Management Review, Vol. 40, n°3, p. 40-54.
Oikarinen, T. 2008. Organisatorinen oppiminen – tapaustutkimus oppimisprosessien jännitteistä
teollisuusyrityksessä. Lappeenranta: Acta Universitatis Lappeenrantaensis 299.
Paalanen, A., T. Oikarinen and M. Hyypiä. 2008. (Forthcoming) ”Yritykset uuden paradigman
pyörteissä,” in Innovaatiopolitiikkaa järjestelmien välimaastossa, V. Harmaakorpi and H.
Melkas, eds.
Paalanen, A. and M. Hyypiä. “Enhancing employees' innovation activity through motivational
factors.” Paper to be presented at the International Conference on regional development and
innovation processes, March 5-7th 2008, Porvoo, Finland.
Paavolainen, P. 1992. Teatteri ja suuri muutto ohjelmistot sosiaalisen murroksen osana 1959 –
1971. Helsinki: Kustannus Oy Teatteri.
Peters, T. J. and R.H. Waterman. 1982. In search of excellence: lessons from America’s best run
companies. New York: Harper Business Essentials.
Pässilä, A., S. Parjanen and A. Paalanen. 2007. Stimulating innovation sensibility. Paper
presented at the 10th European Conference on Creativity and Innovation, 14-17 October 2007,
Copenhagen, Denmark.
Pässilä, A. and A. Paalanen. Forthcoming. Developing a participative idea generation technique –
case rotational ideation.
Rauste-von Wright, M. And J. von Wright. 1994. Oppiminen ja koulutus. Juva: WSOY.
Saastamoinen, M. 1999. ”Narratiivinen sosiaalipsykologia – teoriaa ja menetelmiä,”in Hegelistä
Harrèen, narratiivista Nudistiin, J. Eskola eds., Kuopion yliopiston selvityksiä E.
Yhteiskuntatieteet, p. 165-192.
Sandberg, J. 2000. “Understanding human competence at work: an interpretative approach. “
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43, n°1, p. 9-25.
“Insightful Encounters – Regional Development and Practice-Based Learning”
Conference on Regional Development and Innovation Processes
March 5th-7th 2008, Porvoo – Borgå, Finland
Saner, R. 1999. ”Organizational Consulting What Gestalt Approach Can Learn from Off-OffBroadway Theater.” Gestalt Review Vol. 3, n°1, The Analytic Press, p.6-21.
Scheeres, H. and C. Rhodes. 2006. “ Between cultures: values, training and identity in a
manufacturing firm.” Journal of Organizational Change, Vol. 19, n°2, p. 223-236.
Schein, E.H. 1996. “Three Cultures of Management: The Key to Organizational Learning “ Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 38, n°1, p. 9-21.
Schein, E. H. 1996b. “Culture: the missing concept in organization studies. “ Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 41, n° 2, p. 229-240.
Schein, E. H. 1999. Process consultation revisited – Building the helping relationship. USA:
Addison Wesley OD Series.
Schein, E. H. 1999. “Empowerment, coercive persuasion and organizational learning: do they
connect?” The Learning Organization, Vol. 6, n° 4, p. 163-172.
Schechner, R. 1988. Performancy Theory. London: Routledge.
Sydänmaanlakka, P. 2002. Intelligent leadership and leadership competencies : developing a
leadership framework for intelligent organizations. Espoo : Teknillinen korkeakoulu.
Säljö, R. 2001. Oppimiskäytännöt sosiokulttuurinen näkökulma. Helsinki: WSOY.
Taylor, P. 2003. Applied theatre. Creating transformative Encounters in the Community.
Portsmouth (NH): Heinemann cop.
Tiernan, S. D., P.C. Flood, E.P. Murphy and S.J. Carroll. 2002. “Employee reactions to flattening
organizational structures.” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 11,
n° 1, p. 47-67.
Van de Meer, H. 2007. “Open Innovation: The Dutch Treat - Challenges in thinking in business
models.” Creativity and Innovation Management Vol. 16, n°2, p. 192-202.
Wan, D., C.H. Ong and F.Lee. 2005. “Determinants of firm innovation in Singapore.“
Technovation, Vol. 25, n° 3, p. 261-268.
Weick, K. E. 1979. The social psychology of organizing. New York: Random House.
Weick, K. E. And K.H. Roberts. 1993. „Collective mind in organizations: heedful interrelating on
flight deck.” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 38, September, p. 357-381.