From Workplace to Playspace: Innovating, Learning and Changing Through Dynamic Engagement

More praise for From Workplace to Playspace ‘‘This rich book is the map of a treasure hunt for those facilitating play...

Author: Pamela Meyer

29 downloads 928 Views 1MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

More praise for From Workplace to Playspace

‘‘This rich book is the map of a treasure hunt for those facilitating playful collaborative innovation. It is not a recipe book; it tells the success stories of famous companies that are exploring ‘what if’ in uncharted territories through playspace.’’ —Jean-Jacques Mermod, head of learning and development, Merck Serono ‘‘This book offers a practical and unique approach to enhancing adult learning and productivity in organizations by drawing on the concepts of play, improvisation, and the joy of relational engagement. As Meyer shows from examples in real organizations, facilitators and participants who embrace the art of play and improvisation are amazed at how learning and laughing together help them play their way into new organizational and individual realities. It’s a must-read for anyone looking to apply sound adult learning principles in a unique and creative way that leads workers on a new journey toward their own creativity, within and beyond the workplace and playspace!’’ —Elizabeth J. Tisdell, professor of adult education, Penn State University–Harrisburg ‘‘Invaluable for those seeking to bring more innovation into their organization, From Workplace to Playspace offers a view of the value of play in building adaptive responses to change, and in fostering the desire for individuals and teams to seek out the advantages of new opportunities!’’ —Kathy D. Geller, Ph.D., associate vice president, organizational effectiveness, Stanford University

‘‘There are many strategies to improve organizations in the business literature. Most recognize that change does not occur without creating discomfort. This book helps free our minds from the past so we can open up much-needed playspace for new possibilities. I applaud Pamela Meyer for looking at organizational improvement through a fresh improvisational lens.’’ —Kathleen Burke, CEO, Robert Crown Center for Health Education ‘‘Consultants, executives, academics—if you are interested in the art and science of building a vibrant work culture where people thrive, read this book!’’ —Dr. Tiffany von Emmel, founder and CEO, Dreamfish ‘‘Leaders who are looking to significantly increase the innovation and creative problem-solving ability of individuals and groups should read From Workplace to Playspace.’’ —Matthew P. d. Brown, president and play czar, Big BOING

From Workplace to Playspace

Join Us at

Register at www.josseybass.com/email for more information on our publications, authors, and to receive special offers.

From Workplace to Playspace Innovating, Learning, and Changing Through Dynamic Engagement

Pamela Meyer

Copyright © 2010 by Pamela Meyer. All rights reserved. Published by Jossey-Bass A Wiley Imprint 989 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94103-1741—www.josseybass.com No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400, fax 978-646-8600, or on the Web at www.Copyright.com. Requests to the publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, 201-748-6011, fax 201-748-6008, or online at www.wiley.com/go/permissions. Readers should be aware that Internet Web sites offered as citations and/or sources for further information may have changed or disappeared between the time this was written and when it is read. Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor author shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Jossey-Bass books and products are available through most bookstores. To contact Jossey-Bass directly call our Customer Care Department within the U.S. at 800-956-7739, outside the U.S. at 317-572-3986, or fax 317-572-4002. Jossey-Bass also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books. The quotation in Chapter One from F. J. Barrett is reprinted by permission. Copyright © 1998 by F. J. Barrett. Creativity and improvisation in jazz and organizations: Implications for organizational learning. Organization Science, 9(5), 617. The Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences, 7240 Parkway Drive, Suite 300, Hanover, Maryland 21076, U.S.A. The quotation in Chapter Three from M. Mayer is reprinted from the December 14 issue of BusinessWeek by special permission, copyright © 2008 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. The reference in Chapter Four from R. Ginnett is reprinted by permission. This chapter was published in E. L. Wiener, B. G. Kanki, & R. L. Helmreich (Eds.), Cockpit resource management (pp. 71–98). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Copyright © Academic Press. (1993). The quotation in Chapter Four from B. Cook is reprinted by permission from The New York Times, © 2002 The New York Times. All rights reserved. Used by permission and protected by the Copyright Laws of the United States. The printing, copying, redistribution, or retransmission of the Material without express written permission is prohibited. The playspace circle appearing on the cover and playspace icons used throughout the book were created by Brandy Agerbeck of Loosetooth.com and are used here with permission. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Meyer, Pamela. From workplace to playspace: innovating, learning, and changing through dynamic engagement / Pamela Meyer.—1st ed. p. cm.— (The Jossey-Bass business & management series) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-470-46722-0 (cloth) 1. Work environment. 2. Creative ability—Social aspects. 3. Play. I. Title. HD7261.M49 2010 306.3’4—dc22 2009041343 Printed in the United States of America first edition HB Printing 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Contents

Preface

xi

Acknowledgments

xv

Introduction 1.

Playspace: A New Mind-Set for Success

xvii 1

When organizations reclaim play as a key dynamic for success, they make space for all to develop their capacities for innovating, learning, and changing.

2.

Playspace Is Relational Space

39

By developing relational intelligence and tapping the power of relational space, organizations are innovating, learning, and changing by engaging and expanding social and relational networks.

3.

Playspace Is Generative Space

69

Organizations that consistently engage their generative core make space for intrinsic motivation and passion.

4.

Playspace Is Safe Space

95

Innovating, learning, and changing can be risky, uncomfortable, and disorienting processes. Playspace is safe for fresh perspectives, new discoveries, and positive change.

vii

viii CONTENTS

5.

Playspace Is Timeful Space

129

Organizations and work groups that negotiate the demands of the clock and make playspace for the possibilities available in the present moment create timeful space.

6.

Playspace Is Provocative Space

165

Provocative space stretches our familiar ways of thinking, being, and doing setting the stage for innovating, learning, and changing.

7.

Sustaining Playspace

197

Organizations that consistently bring playspace to life share common themes and best practices.

Epilogue: Living (and Playing) the Questions

209

Playspace lives in the questions and thrives on continued discovery.

References

211

The Author

221

Index

223

For you and the playspace you create

Preface

A few years ago I was sitting in a faculty meeting at the university where I teach. The meeting hadn’t yet started when a former student, whom I hadn’t seen in many years, walked in and sat next to me. I was happy to see him, and he shared that since taking my class, he had finished his undergraduate degree, gone on to complete his master’s, and, in addition to teaching (as a fellow visiting faculty member), was now living out one of his dreams: working as a volunteer chaplain for the state police. As I was expressing my delight in all that had transpired for him since our first meeting, he interrupted me and said, ‘‘Well, it all started with that class I took with you.’’ ‘‘Really?’’ I inquired. ‘‘How so?’’ He pointed down the hall, still remembering the classroom where he learned improvisation: ‘‘I found out what kind of man I am in that room.’’ The marathon meeting was starting, and I didn’t have time to ask him more about his experience learning improvisation, but his story has stayed with me. Our conversation inspired me to collect and reflect on more stories of such significant and transformative learning and eventually to do in-depth research on the spaces people create that make room for transformation and innovation.

Playspace Research Over the years I have witnessed adults’ fear of improvisation and creativity transform into excited anticipation and delight at their own and their colleagues’ capacity for collaboration, discovery, xi

xii PREFACE

and playfulness. Adding to the story of my former student, now a teaching colleague, I have heard numerous reports of the ways people’s improvisation experience in the facilitated sessions spilled over into other areas of their lives, including the busy professional who reported that she began playing with her three-year-old first thing in the morning rather than hurrying her into the morning routine, as she usually had, not because she felt she ‘‘should,’’ but because she wanted to start the day playing too; the commuter rail traffic manager who was able to avert a head-on train collision within minutes by improvising with his team; the factory worker who set aside the tattered bedtime stories he usually read to his son and began making up a new wild tale each night, to their mutual delight; the church administrative assistant who broke with tradition and routine and for the first time in her years of service, pushed back from her desk, walked down the long corridor to the executive office, and shared some new ideas with her boss. These are only a few of the stories I hear regularly in more than twenty years of working with adults in both organizational and classroom settings. While I have long appreciated the power of improvisation principles to spark creativity in the arts and business, these reports and my observations told me that this was only one aspect of their value. Clearly something much more subtle and mysterious was in motion—something that had very little to do with me as the facilitator and everything to do with what adults experienced as they learned improvisation. What, I wondered, was actually happening for these people in this cocreated space? And what, if anything, did their various stories of transformation have in common? What other spaces support this kind of engaged experience that delivers people to expanded creative capacities and new, more positive self-beliefs?

It’s Not Like Work To answer these questions, I designed an in-depth study of eight adults’ experiences as they were learning improvisation and their reflections on their learning and transformation several months

PREFACE

xiii

after the course ended (Meyer, 2006a, 2006b, 2009a, 2009b). As I began researching these adults’ experiences, I noticed that even before they could tell me what was happening for them or what their experience was like, they were able to tell me what it wasn’t like: work. In contrast to the constraining, rule-bound, enervating experiences that often characterized their workdays, they described the space they co-created for improvisation as energizing, free from judgment, and a place where they could be themselves. It was tempting to rationalize that it is easy to create this kind of environment in a facilitated setting and that it is different in the ‘‘real world’’; it was even briefly tempting for me to feed my own ego and believe that I had some magical power to create this environment. However, I only needed to look beyond my classroom to my client sites and to other organizations that generously opened their doors for this inquiry to know that such spaces for dynamic engagement are possible and exist in many organizations, work groups, and training rooms. Unfortunately, they are the exception rather than the rule of organizational life. As you will read in this book, these spaces, although they are rare, do exist across businesses, industries, government, and arts organizations. They exist in organizations that are highly regulated, as well as those that are high pressure and fast-paced. They exist in organizations that are well funded, as well as in those that make creative use of limited resources.

Naming the Space In my original research (Meyer, 2006a, 2006b, 2009a, 2009b), I used the term learning space to describe the engaged environments that many credit with their experiences of significant learning, transformation, and expanded creative capacities. The term seemed appropriate because the experiences I was researching first occurred in a literal learning space, a classroom, and because many of its dimensions related to learning and transformation. The term learning space also has some history in

xiv

PREFACE

adult learning theory (Englehardt & Simmons, 2002; Kolb & Kolb, 2005; Yorks, 2005) that has informed my thinking and confirms some of my own findings. More recently I have found the term learning space to be constraining; it tends to focus only on the learning within the space and obscures the many other important dynamics, including creative collaboration and the capacity to respond to and initiate positive change. Each of these dynamics often involves new learning, and learning itself is not always the entry point, motivation, or most prized outcome of the kind of dynamic spaces that people describe as ‘‘not like work.’’ Through a series of conversations with colleagues, clients, friends, and students, I discovered, somewhat chagrined, that I was avoiding the obvious: what is most not like work in our Western-socialized consciousness is play. I was avoiding calling the space playspace for the very reason it had to be called that: the spaces we create that allow the play of possibilities, fresh ideas, perspectives, and emergence of new capacities as we play new roles are counter to our view of what the workplace is supposed to feel like. When people experience playspace and, more important, experience themselves and each other in playspace, they describe being energized, inspired, and even astonished with themselves. For this reason, this book has been titled From Workplace to Playspace because in order to create such spaces in innovating, learning, and changing, we must first make a fundamental mindset shift from workplace, with all of its constraining connotations and habits of mind, to playspace, and the dynamic engagement it fosters.

Acknowledgments

The best part about researching and writing about playspace is that I got to engage with thoughtful and creative fellow players who helped create the playspace to incubate, explore, and develop the ideas, concepts, and practices that fill this book. They include dear friends, passionate colleagues, and curious thinking partners and mentors. Among them are Rita Balzotti, Frank Barrett, Cate Creede, Christian Kern, Danny Mittleman, Allison Morgan, Nancy Nickel, Michelle Sanford, Steve Schapiro, Carol Semrad, Jeremy Shapiro, Cheryl Small, Mari Pat Varga, Tiffany Von Emmel, and Donna Younger. A special thanks to my colleagues and students at DePaul University, School for New Learning, and the Center to Advance Education for Adults, whose courage to create spaces for learning and transformation has taught me much and has allowed me to see what is possible in playspace. I also thank the research participants who generously shared their descriptions of playspace with me, the individuals who agreed to share their experiences and best practices of playspace in their organizations, and my client organizations that daily recommit to making playspace for innovating, learning, and changing. More gratitude to Brandy Agerbeck at Loosetooth.com, with whom I have collaborated regularly over the years; she is a gifted graphic facilitator and valued thinking partner. Brandy created the playspace icons, first to represent my individual research participants and now, in this book, to communicate the dimensions and dynamics of playspace. I thank her for permission xv

xvi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

to include her work throughout the book and in the cover design. The homestretch of any creative process is a delicate balance between the life of the process and the demands of deadlines and production. The editorial team at Jossey-Bass is particularly adept at this and deserves special thanks for their guidance, expertise, and capacity for creative collaboration, especially my editor, Kathe Sweeney, and her editorial assistants. Thanks, too, are due to my agent, Esmond Harmsworth, who helped make this fruitful match. All ‘‘new’’ work is an evolution or extension of the work and contributions of those who have gone before, often laying the essential foundation in which more ideas can take root and grow. Although this is not intended as a scholarly text, I have done my best to create a road map between my conception of playspace and others who have contributed to or are working in this area. At times, in the interest of flow and concern for the reader’s patience, I have leaped over some of these contributions. In the spirit of playspace, I ask for your understanding and also welcome your input and thoughts as the theory and practice evolve.

Introduction

This book is about visionary, courageous, innovative, persistent, and, yes, sometimes playful organizational leaders, facilitators, and participants who challenge long-held preconceptions about the incompatibility of workplace and playspace. In the face of their stakeholders’, competitors’, and sometimes even their own employees’ and colleagues’ claims that their approaches were risky, inappropriate, and even ‘‘corny,’’ they forged ahead. You will read of a small community bank in the Northwest that overtook all competitors in its home market, of the ‘‘most entrepreneurial department’’ in the third largest public school system in the United States, of a high-end manufacturer that decreased its product development cycle by more than half while increasing profits, of an apparel company that harnessed the power of social networks for exponential growth, of a nonprofit theater company that has sustained its ensemble and innovative mission for more than twenty years, and the two-person start-up that grew to be an Internet giant and continues to create space for the play of new ideas with its more than ten thousand employees worldwide. No one calls these organizations corny today. Nor do they dismiss the efforts their leaders, facilitators, and participants make each day to create space for the play of new possibilities and discovery. They no longer tell them that ‘‘serious businesspeople don’t play.’’ Because of the results these organizations deliver and their capacity to respond to unexpected challenges and opportunities, those who once rolled their eyes at organizations xvii

xviii INTRODUCTION

that value playspace now want to know what they are doing that makes them consistently outperform their peers and regularly land on such coveted lists as Forbes 100 Best Companies to Work For.

What’s Their Secret? The organizations and the individual stories of transformation described in this book all have one thing in common: a shift in mind-set from workplace, in which the product is more important than the process, to playspace, where the lively, creative process of innovating, learning, and changing invites passionate commitment and enthusiastic participation. In playspace, people are free to take on new roles, experiment with new perspectives, and loosen their grip on tried-and-true ways of thinking and being. There is room in playspace for individuals to risk stepping out of their comfort zone, to see and be seen differently, and to make new discoveries. Playspace reclaims the very word play to open up more room for new ways of thinking and being. Playspace is the space for more play in the system, the play of new possibilities and perspectives, for people to play new roles and develop new capacities, as well as space for improvised play. When we reconceive innovating, learning, and changing as play, we breathe new life into these processes and create the very space needed to ensure that they thrive. Playspace helps organizations get results. The pace of change in everything from technology to consumer tastes is only increasing, along with the pressure of fluctuating global economies. In these conditions, responsive and innovative action is key. Such action is possible only where there is space for it—not constrained, routine, and habituated space but open, dynamic, and creative space. Playspace allows us to think creatively, question old assumptions, respond effectively to the unexpected, and engage all participants’ talents in collaboration.

INTRODUCTION xix

The Business Case for Playspace The most common challenge I hear from organizational stakeholders is that they need to be able to make the business case for the so-called soft strategies before they can get buyin from their colleagues. The idea that strategies that engage the whole person are soft, while those that target operational aspects of organizational life are worthwhile, overlooks the very core of organizational success—the living, breathing people who must fulfill its mission each day. Without engagement, without playspace for innovating, learning, and changing, the best that organizations can hope for is compliance. Unfortunately compliance is not enough to ensure organizational success. People do not challenge each other’s ideas, explore alternative scenarios, or persevere through complex issues and obstacles out of compliance; they do so out of commitment (Senge, Roberts, Boss, Smith, & Kleiner, 1994). Commitment is fostered by engagement, and engagement is fostered in playspace. A study conducted by Patrick Kulesa (2006), global research director at Towers Perrin, of 664,000 employees from around the world showed a significant difference in the business success of companies in which workers were highly engaged and those with low engagement scores. Their research showed a 52 percent gap in operating income between high- and low-engagement companies, a 13 percent growth in net income for high-engagement companies versus a 3.8 percent decline in low-engagement companies, and a 27.8 percent growth in earnings per share for high-engagement companies versus an 11.2 percent decline for low-engagement companies. There is a direct link between spaces that inspire high engagement and profitability. Organizational innovation, learning, and change also thrive when there is room for whole-person engagement. When we create playspace for intrinsic motivation and engagement, these business outcomes follow: decreased turnover, increased job

xx

INTRODUCTION

Figure I.1. Playspace to Profits

Playspace

Intrinsic Motivation and Engagement

Profitability

satisfaction, improved net income and earnings per share, to name only a few of the findings cited here. While it is sometimes hard to draw a straight line between whole-person, whole-systems approaches to organizational development, we can link playspace to intrinsic motivation and engagement and, in turn, these core dimensions to organizational success (see Figure I.1). Organizations across industries and with wide-ranging missions are discovering that playspace is the space they can and must create every day at work if they are to think creatively, question old assumptions, respond effectively to the unexpected, and engage all participants’ talents in collaboration. Each of the organizations profiled in this book, as well as the individual stories of transformation, support the need to balance innovation, learning, and change strategies with a commitment to playspace. There is not one yardstick by which to measure these organizations. The Chicago Public Schools department profiled in Chapter One measures its success by the number of new gifted and magnet programs it offers, the number of students served, and annual learning progress; other businesses take their employee satisfaction scores seriously and their ranking on Forbes 100 Best Companies to Work For, while watching their market share and shareholder value grow; the small arts organization measures its success in its ability to sustain a thriving creative ensemble and provoke its audiences’ thinking decades after many of its peers have closed their doors. What these organizations have in common is their ability to sustain their success by creating playspace.

INTRODUCTION xxi

Descriptions, Not Prescriptions It is often easiest to detect the presence of a magnetic field by the patterns of metal filings created in response to its forces. Similarly, playspace is most easily identified by the behaviors and experiences of those who co-create it; however, those behaviors and experiences alone are not the playspace, any more than the movement of the metal filings are the magnetic force. The outward representations of the energy in the system can alert us to the presence of dynamic power; however, if we mistake the movement or outward manifestations for the energy itself, we may assume that simply recreating the outward appearances of playspace will create the more illusive dynamic of the space itself. For this reason, here, and throughout the rest of this book, I warn of prescriptive approaches to playspace. One can no more prescribe a specific approach that works in all organizations than prescribe one way to fall in love that fits all relationships. The illustrations and examples offered throughout this book are not intended as prescriptions but as provocations that might inspire new ideas and approaches that fit your organization.

A Holistic Approach Scholar-practitioners can locate playspace in holistic management approaches, where the organization is viewed as a complex social system. While much of the theoretical lineage of playspace theory and practice has been omitted here for ease of reading, students of organization and management theory will see the link between playspace and interactionist views of creative behavior and organizational creativity (Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993); whole-person, organizational, and transformative learning (Cranton, 2006; Crossan, Lane, & White, 1999; Mezirow & Associates, 1990; Yorks, 2005); and organizations as dynamic systems (Daft & Weick, 1984; Gergen, 2002; Hatch, 1993; Hatch & Cunliffe, 2006; Tannenbaum, Marguies, & Massarik, 1985).

xxii INTRODUCTION

A whole-systems view of organizations acknowledges that we can name various dimensions and levels of the system, such as the individual, team, department, region, organization, structure, policies and procedures, and culture. However, if we attend to only one dimension without engaging the whole system, our attempts at bringing out the best in the organization will fail. This book takes a whole-systems view while concentrating on the dynamics that are within the span of influence of its leaders, facilitators, and participants.

Who Should Read This Book This book is for people who feel a need for more engaging, collaborative, and creative spaces in their organization and want to be more successful at innovating, learning, and changing. They have seen glimpses of the potential in their organizations and know they can do better. They are managers, executives, and internal and external training and development professionals. They are also educators and facilitators working with adults in businesses, universities, government, health care, and community organizations. This book is also for organizational participants who play many roles in the organization and may or may not have a formal position of authority but care about working (and playing) in ways that fully engage their talents and allow them to discover and develop new capacities. These participants are also willing to share responsibility for co-creating this experience for themselves and their colleagues. You should read this book if you care about making space for creative collaboration and significant learning and transformation because you have had glimpses of them in your own experience. You have worked on projects where everyone was contributing at the top of their talent and was appreciated for their perspective. You have enjoyed facilitated learning environments that challenged your thinking while stretching your skills in a supportive setting. You have worked in organizations where

INTRODUCTION

xxiii

everyone felt that they could be themselves and where they were able to discover new capacities and develop competence and confidence in ways they couldn’t have imagined. This book is for all people who know these spaces are possible and are frustrated that they are so rare. This book is for people who know it is possible to consciously and consistently co-create such engaging playspaces and understand they are the key to their success.

Overview Chapter One describes the mind-set shift that From Workplace to Playspace invites. Beginning with the reclamation of the word play itself as core to organizational success, Chapter One shows how playspace comes to life in the process of innovating, learning, and changing. The dynamic engagement in playspace is described as one of increasing individual awareness, acceptance, and appreciation in action. Chapters Two through Six show how leaders, facilitators, and participants are bringing playspace to life in their organizations every day. Each of these chapters highlights a different organization and describes how it is engaging a key dynamic of playspace. The facets of the dynamic are illustrated, followed by how they manifest in the creative processes of innovating, learning, and changing. The second half of each of these chapters provides coaching sections for leaders, facilitators, and participants that illustrate ways their counterparts are bringing the playspace dynamic to life in their organizations. The five dynamics of playspace described in Chapters Two through Six are interrelated and mutually reinforcing. When brought to life by committed leaders, facilitators, and participants, they make space for new possibilities, perspectives, and positive change to thrive. Chapter Seven surfaces a number of the themes and best practices of organizations that sustain playspace and consistently create it in their conversations, collaborations, learning, and strategy sections.

xxiv INTRODUCTION

Reading for Resources and Reminders Once you have read From Workplace to Playspace, you will find the closing sections of each chapter useful for examples and ideas to energize and revitalize playspace in your organization. These sections are designed to serve as quick references and will be useful to refresh your thinking and inspire your own approaches. You may choose to read only the sections that pertain to the role or roles you are playing at any given time on a team, collaboration, learning, or idea-generation session. The index will also lead you to situational references, such as ‘‘coaching,’’ ‘‘toxic players,’’ and ‘‘social networks’’ that can guide and inspire your thinking and approaches. Finally, the chapter summaries are intended as a quick refresher to reinforce your commitment and daily co-creation of playspace. I also invite you to visit playspace.biz to continue the conversation with others who are making space for innovating, learning, and changing through dynamic engagement and take advantage of additional resources to support your success.

1 PLAYSPACE A New Mind-Set for Success

From workplace to playspace is an invitation to shift from a mindset that conceives of work as separate from dynamic engagement to one where the workplace is a playspace for new ideas, perspectives, and possibilities. To make this shift, we must embrace our organizations as living, breathing, ever-changing systems. Social psychologist Karl Weick admonished that we ‘‘stamp out nouns’’ altogether and shift our conception from static organizations to human systems in a constant state of organizing (1979, p. 129). Consider the shift in orientation when we restore other nouns to their active state: relationships become opportunities for relating; communication becomes a process of communicating; knowledge becomes knowing. In this spirit, as you shift from a workplace mind-set to playspace, you are also invited to reclaim the generative and energizing experience of innovating, learning, and changing. Finally, you are invited to reclaim play itself as an essential dynamic of success. A child, as well as an adult, needs plenty of what in German is called Spielraum. Now, Spielraum is not primarily ‘‘a room to play in.’’ While the word also means that, its primary meaning is ‘‘free scope, plenty of room’’—to move not only one’s elbows but also one’s mind, to experiment with things and ideas at one’s leisure, or, to put it colloquially, to toy with ideas. —Bruno Bettelheim (1987)

1

2 FROM WORKPLACE TO PLAYSPACE

Reclaiming Play The mind-set shift from workplace to playspace does not come easily. Most of us have been socialized to devalue play altogether or to think of it as something we engage in after the serious business of work has been accomplished. Shifting from a workplace to a playspace mind-set is more than a language game. To make such a shift requires moving beyond our socialized understanding of play and revalue and reclaim it as an important dynamic of innovating, learning, and changing. Psychologists and child development experts from Freud to Piaget to Dr. Spock have extolled the importance of play for children. It is largely through play that we first develop our sense of ourselves, experiment with different roles, become socialized, build confidence, and explore our creativity. Many parents and teachers have an intellectual understanding of the importance of play at these developmental stages, and yet even they tacitly diminish its intrinsic value. Early on most of us got the message that play was for ‘‘free’’ time and was to be set aside when there was something important to do. The serious business of adult life always took precedence over the unimportant business of child’s play. This message is reinforced each time a child hears, ‘‘Not now, honey, I’m working,’’ in response to an invitation to play. This devaluation is further embedded in our everyday vocabulary. The term child’s play is heard as an immediate put-down when used in reference to adult endeavors. We say, ‘‘Enough playing around; it’s time to get to work,’’ in a way that both devalues play and sets up a dualism: play is frivolous; work is important. Well-meaning parents have further constrained their children’s experience of true play and playspace through overprogramming. Structured playdates, music lessons, soccer practice, and computer and language camps all have their place in moderation. Yet the obsession with learning outcomes and competition instills an orientation to activity as necessarily

PLAYSPACE: A NEW MIND-SET FOR SUCCESS

3

Table 1.1 The Work-Play Dualism Work Is . . .

Play Is . . .

Purposeful Serious Structured

Purposeless Fun Free

Draining Stressful

Energizing Relaxing

Hard Routine

Easy Unpredictable

Dry

Imaginative

purposeful—one in which play for its own sake and for the intrinsic reward of engagement is soon eclipsed by the need to demonstrate value. In my work, I sometimes ask people to list the words they associate with work and those they associate with play. Inevitably, as illustrated in Table 1.1, we see a dualism that demonstrates why it’s difficult for us to easily put the two together. Much of the challenge in valuing play in organizational contexts comes from our early socialization and the many ways the negative bias is reinforced in our culture. The Protestant work ethic (Weber, 1904/1930), though long disassociated with its religious underpinning, socialized Westerners to regard work as a moral obligation and one in which the task and productivity were exclusive of emotions and the human system in which work occurred (Sanchez-Burks & Huy, 2007). When we praise someone’s work ethic, we are likely admiring her productivity, not her capacity for improvisation, creative collaboration, new learning, or ability to respond to change. The legacy of the Protestant work ethic is a dualistic view of work that filters out information, emotions, and experience that are not immediately relevant to accomplishing the task at hand. A shift toward


a playspace orientation transcends the work-play dualism and makes room for both the task and dynamic engagement in it. When the interdependent and essential organizational dynamics of innovating, learning, and changing are framed as play, the focus shifts from a sole interest in the product to one that also values the process through which the shared space supports the free play of ideas, insights, and discovery, as well as individual and organizational learning. When we move beyond the work-play dualism, we see the possibility that emerges in a space where there is room for many of the qualities we associate as either work or play to come to life in a dynamic playspace. Not only does this playspace include apparent opposites, it thrives on them. Playspace can be free and structured, focused and dynamic, serious and fun.

Moving Beyond the Work-Play Dualism As we reclaim play as essential to organizational success, we shift our understanding from a static workplace to one in which there is space for play in the system, the play of new possibilities and perspectives, for people to play new roles and develop new capacities, and space for improvised play. Play in the System Play in organizations is only occasionally about toys, games, and funny hats. When playspace is embraced as an organizational mind-set, there is, quite literally, play in the system. This kind of play is necessary in a system that must respond to change or be able to shift rapidly to take advantage of a new opportunity. Just as flexible structures weather storms much better than those that were not designed to shift in strong winds, organizations with enough play in their system survive and thrive in rapidly changing conditions. There is also strong evidence that individuals and work teams are most successful when they have the flexibility


5

to choose how to approach a problem or implement their plan (Zuckerman, Rorac, Lathin, Smith, & Deci, 1978). Play in the organizational system allows for dynamic engagement. Play New Roles and Develop New Capacities Shakespeare’s line, ‘‘All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players,’’ has inspired sociologists and organizational developers to rethink the nature of the workplace as a playing space with sets, costumes, props, scripts, and roles (Goffman, 1959). Some practitioners analyze these representations in order to help the organization bring the values and beliefs it espouses into alignment with its behavior and other theatrical elements. This approach implies that we can and should control all of the outward representations of the organization and even monitor what happens backstage. In playspace, alignment is valued, but not at the cost of authenticity and discovery. The symbols and artifacts of the playing space are held lightly in playspace, allowing all to see that they are but one version of the story. Just as the classics continue to draw new audiences as they are reinterpreted and restaged each year, in playspace we can experiment with new interpretations, recast the roles, target new audiences, and, most important, co-create a space in which an authentic, spontaneous truth is brought to life by players who are working at the top of their talent. Shifting from a workplace to a playspace mind-set allows actors to become aware of what informs and motivates their performances, such as constraining self-concepts, beliefs, or habits, allowing them to discover those that are still serving them, and those that are limiting the possibilities for innovating, learning, and changing. In playspace, there is a shared commitment to supporting such dynamic exploration. All actors take responsibility for their roles and take their contribution to the success of the performance seriously, whether they are in the chorus or playing the


lead. The success of playspace rests on this shared responsibility and an understanding of the ways these roles play out. Each of the following chapters presents case study illustrations of organizational actors playing roles of leaders, facilitators, and participants, followed by a coaching section inspired by their lessons learned. These are intended to inspire and provoke your own thinking, not prescribe it. Because these roles are sometimes used in mutually exclusive ways in organizations, I briefly describe their more fluid relationships in playspace. Role Playing: The Leader, the Facilitator, and the Participant. While most people play all of these roles in the course of their careers, within their current positions, and even in a given day, I distinguish them here for clarity and simplicity. The three roles are defined with the understanding that the boundaries between them are blurry. Facilitators also often lead or participate; participants regularly facilitate and lead; and leaders also facilitate and participate. Figure 1.1 emphasizes the intersection of the roles. Role of the Leader. Margaret Wheatley (2009) defines a leader as ‘‘anyone willing to help, anyone who sees something that needs to change and takes the first steps to influence that Figure 1.1. Leader, Facilitator, and Participant Roles and Relationships

Leader

Facilitator

Participant


7

situation’’ (p. 142). Using this broad definition, playspace invites all organizational participants to identify and respond to leadership opportunities. In organizations, leadership roles are sometimes assigned by job title or status; at other times, people are viewed as possessing power by virtue of their access to information, their control of resources, their social network, or less formal influence. Leaders who have the most importance in playspace are those who not only espouse the values of innovating, learning, and changing, but also consciously align their behavior to make space for these values to be realized. Perhaps paradoxically, the leaders who are most effective in making such space are those who are willing to let go of control and power over people and processes so that the true force of the innovating, learning, and changing process can emerge. Just as the most significant learning in organizations is termed transformative because it includes the identification of limiting mental models and frameworks, leaders with the strongest impact are willing to reflect and move beyond their own constraining perspectives while inspiring others to do the same. Role of the Facilitator. The root of the word facilitator is facil, from the Latin facilis, or easy. Accordingly, a facilitator is one who makes the creative process of innovating, learning, and changing easier. Throughout this book, I use the term broadly to include educators and trainers in formal settings who have thoughtfully prepared for their role in the shared space, as well as those generous souls who, at a moment’s notice, are willing to take over the flip chart or otherwise support group collaboration, reflection, and learning. Facilitators inspire creative collaboration and learning by striking the right balance between structure and freedom. Role of the Participant. All who co-create shared spaces for innovating, learning, and changing are participants. Playspace does not confine responsibility to those in charge; true playspace is co-created by all participants, no matter how visible their roles or


how great their authority. Everyone has an impact on the quality of the shared space. Unless there is mindful cultivation of the space by all, there is little chance to create and sustain playspace where all are free to learn and grow, let alone collaborate and innovate. Throughout this book, I give special attention to the role of those who, at any given moment, may not view themselves as leaders or facilitators yet decidedly possess the most power to have an impact on the quality of the shared space. Too often facilitators and leaders do not respect the organizational participants themselves—whether they are trainees in a formal learning setting or employees in important functional roles—by giving them room and responsibility to co-create the playspace. Shifting from workplace to playspace means that the role of the participant is valued as much as that of the leader and facilitator. Each coaching section in the coming chapters provides examples and strategies for you to play an important role in creating playspace even, and especially, when you are not officially leading or facilitating innovation, learning, and change. Play of New Possibilities and Perspectives Playful describes an engaged, embodied, and lighthearted state. Artists, inventors, and high-performance teams are playful with purpose. One of the characteristics of these individuals and teams is that they are able to balance focus and freedom. This is also a core dynamic in what Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (1990) calls the ‘‘flow’’ state. At peak engagement and productivity, there is often an air of playfulness. Lab directors and theater ensembles alike often reflect on how much the team laughed, poked fun at each other, and enjoyed themselves on their way to brilliant work. Humor is a sign that there is room to experiment with unexpected combinations. Just as we delight in the surprising punch line or twist in a story, we become gleeful on discovering a solution to a vexing issue or finding a useful link between two seemingly unrelated ideas. University of North Carolina psychology professor Barbara Frederickson (2001) theorizes that


9

positive emotions broaden our access to our intellectual and creative capacities. Common sense and research confirm that there is a significantly greater relationship between creativity and positive feelings than negative (Amabile, Barsade, Mueller, & Staw, 2005). Conversely, under stress, playfulness rapidly declines. Studies of children in wartime show a marked absence of play. The human system instinctually conserves its energy for survival (Leavitt & Fox, 1993). Organizational systems respond in kind, often to their detriment. Under stress, when alternative perspectives and courses of action are most needed, executives often retreat to the safety of the known rather than create playspace for new possibilities to emerge. Playfulness, the state of being full of possibilities, is essential to organizational survival, yet rarely do organizations mindfully cultivate a climate of playfulness in the interest of the innovation and learning outcomes they seek. Each of the organizations profiled in this book understands the need to cultivate playspace daily and recognize that when playfulness is woven into the organizational fabric, it will be there to support the system in times of extreme stress and success alike. Improvised Play When we reconceive innovating, learning, and changing as play, specifically as improvised play, we breathe new life into these processes and create the very space needed to ensure that they thrive. All efforts at deep change are efforts in improvisation: There is a commitment to an important purpose, but there is no prior knowledge of how to get there. —Robert Quinn (2000, p. 168)

Downsizing and restructuring is one of the most popular responses to uncertainty. In an effort to cut costs, many

10

FROM WORKPLACE TO PLAYSPACE

organizations are now left with decimated departments or entirely new work groups that must meet ever greater challenges of productivity and revenue generation with limited resources and unfamiliar coworkers. Today managers must support collaboration like never before, and they must learn to improvise. To most business professionals who built their reputation on rationalism, analysis, problem solving, strategic planning, and other tenets of classical management, competence in improvisation doesn’t come easily, yet it is increasingly central to the success of executives, managers, and employees. Those who can respond positively to the unexpected and unplanned and who thrive in fast-paced and unpredictable environments are more likely to innovate. Just as scholars began introducing the language of learning into organizational conversations and practice over the past thirty years, they (and an unlikely network of artists) have begun to use the language of improvisation to describe the phenomena of organizational responsiveness and spontaneous action in changing and unpredictable conditions. Derived from the Latin improvisus (without provision), improvisation is unsettling to those who have staked their careers on their ability to analyze, predict, plan, control, and otherwise make provisions. Much of business school curricula are concerned with making provisions and understanding and strategizing environmental, resource, and operational elements that can be controlled. Little attention is given to building competence and confidence in responding to emergent situations. The neglect of improvisation in business school and training curricula continues, despite Henry Mintzberg’s famous 1973 study that found that 90 percent of verbal contacts, the primary vehicle for decision making and action, are ad hoc. Jazz pianist and organizational theorist Frank Barrett (1998) explains that part of the problem is the workplace mind-set: Managers often attempt to create the impression that improvisation does not happen in organizations, that tightly designed

PLAYSPACE: A NEW MIND-SET FOR SUCCESS 11

control systems minimize unnecessary idiosyncratic actions and deviations from formal plans. People in organizations are often jumping into action without clear plans, making up reasons as they proceed, discovering new routes once action is initiated, proposing multiple interpretations, navigating through discrepancies, combining disparate and incomplete materials and then discovering what their original purpose was. To pretend that improvisation is not happening in organizations is to not understand the nature of improvisation [p. 617].

Unexpected and unplanned developments requiring improvisation have not diminished since Mintzberg’s original study. Informally polling management audiences and client organizations over the years, I have found that most executives and managers rank the percentage of their daily improvised action at 75 percent or higher. This is an astounding number, and yet little attention is given to developing improvisation capacity. The MFA is the New MBA. . . . An arts degree is now perhaps the hottest credential in the world of business. —Daniel Pink (2006, p. 21)

No other work-related capacity that is required in more than two-thirds of the day has gone so undeveloped. This capacity, when developed, consists of three key facets (see Figure 1.2): competence, consciousness, and confidence. We can confer authority; but power or capacity, no man can give or take . . . genuine power is capacity. —Mary Parker Follett (quoted in Graham & Follett, 2003, p. 115)

12


Figure 1.2. Three Dimensions of Improvisation Capacity Improvisation

Competence

Consciousness

Confidence

Competence. Most who use improvisation in management training environments work to help others develop the competence to respond to the unexpected and unplanned. Improvisation competence includes the skills and conceptual knowledge of listening, collaboration, responsiveness, and flexibility, among others. Competence (what to do), it turns out, is only one dimension of improvisation. Consciousness. Improvisation capacity depends on presence in and consciousness of the moment. Consciousness in improvisation capacity emphasizes ‘‘how to be.’’ Without conscious presence, successful improvisation is impossible. This state of mind, London School of Economics professor Claudio Ciborra (2002) proposed, lies somewhere between panic and boredom (see Figure 1.3). If our response to the unexpected and unplanned is panic, effective improvisation is impossible. If we respond with boredom, effective improvisation is also unlikely, as it will be lacking a lively awareness of possibilities, as well as the care necessary for an engaged, spontaneous response. Figure 1.3. Improvisation Consciousness Improvisation Consciousness

Panic

Boredom


Improvisation—the ability to respond effectively to the unexpected and unplanned—requires us to be aware of and present in the possibilities of the current moment. The shift from workplace to playspace is a shift in consciousness. Ciborra (2002) emphasizes that improvisation consciousness is more than the acquisition of more skills and knowledge or a matter of intelligence; it is one in which ‘‘suddenly the world, its resources and people matter differently’’ (p. 7). In the age of knowledge, or as some have dubbed it, ‘‘The TooMuch-Information Age’’ (Achenbach, 1999), consciousness, or available attention, becomes at least as important as the available information. At any given moment, more is likely to be unknowable about an issue or situation than is knowable. Ironically, in the knowledge age, the presence, consciousness, awareness, and attention we bring are at least as likely to determine our success as the information we draw from. Confidence. The third dimension of improvisation capacity, confidence, is often overlooked even in the midst of experiential learning opportunities. Without space to develop the confidence by practicing newly rediscovered abilities to respond to the unexpected and unplanned, or to see innovative opportunities, all of the intellectual understanding of improvisation is wasted. Confidence grows in spaces in which the desired ways of being are reinforced and appreciated. When permission is given through example, or when individuals and teams receive a positive response for improvising, others soon feel empowered to risk improvising as well. A self-reinforcing cycle is set in motion as individuals develop competence through learning new skills and knowledge and have opportunities to improvise (see Figure 1.4). Improvisation is the capacity for and awareness of the room to play. We cannot improvise without the awareness of alternate possibilities that play affords, nor are we likely to have confidence in our ability to generate those possibilities or have room to explore them in a system where there is no play.

14


Figure 1.4. Improvisation Capacity Dynamic Consciousness

Competence

Confidence

Innovating, learning, and changing are expressions of improvised play and require improvisation capacity. Each demands the mind-set, competence, and context in which new knowledge, insight, and action can manifest. Each is dependent on the ability to conceive and act beyond the known, expected, and routine. The competence dimension—the ability to respond to the unexpected and unplanned using available resources—is core to innovating, learning, and changing, while consciousness is essential to see the innovative opportunities that emerge from the unexpected and unplanned or as old assumptions and habits are questioned. There is a mutually reinforcing relationship between capacity development and the playspace participants create through dynamic engagement. In other words, in order to step into the unknown, and uncomfortable, risk looking foolish, and experiment with new ways of thinking and being, we need a playspace that will hold us. That space comes to life as we begin to develop our capacity for improvised play. Capacity cannot develop without playspace, and playspace cannot come to life without commitment to capacity development (see Figure 1.5). We have long ago left the era when the mechanistic metaphors of the industrial revolution serve us. We are well into the knowledge revolution, in which our collective capacity to generate provocative ideas, concepts, and ways of perceiving is equally or more important than the actual goods and services we


Figure 1.5. Expanding Improvisation Capacity and Playspace Improvisation Capacity

Dynamic Engagement

Playspace

produce. In our transition from the industrial to the knowledge revolution, we have yet to fully embrace the transition that must accompany it, including new metaphors and associations. When we reconceive innovating, learning, and changing as forms of improvised play and our workplaces as playspaces for the emergence of new possibilities, we engage in an approach that fits the dynamic nature of the knowledge revolution.

Playspace in Innovating, Learning, and Changing Innovating, learning, and changing are risky. They challenge us to venture into the unknown and unexpected and draw on capacities and competencies, both individual and organizational, that are often untested and undeveloped. Frequently the first response to organizational innovation, learning, and change is resistance, either tacit or explicit, because each requires us to step out of our comfort zones, away from the familiar. Each also potentially threatens our well-developed personal and professional identities and challenges us to play new roles in which we may not feel as confident and competent. Most approaches to these three key dynamics of organizational success separate them into discrete bodies of knowledge and distinct strategies, often designed and executed by very

16


different departments. For example, R&D may develop the innovation strategy, while training and development may create the organizational learning strategy, and other departments develop their own specific change strategies. By isolating these strategies, an essential element—the essential element—to their success is easily overlooked. Each depends on playspace to allow individuals, work groups, and entire organizations to successfully explore the unknown; play new roles; engage in new learning, thinking, and ways of being; and develop new capacities that are necessary for successful innovation, learning, and change. Playspace is the space we create as we engage in the risky business of looking further than our predecessors, learn in ways that may shift their perspectives and challenge long-held beliefs, and be open to significant change, both planned and unplanned, that may be as uncomfortable as it is rich with potential. To engage in any of these processes without consciously creating the playspace that both stretches and supports its leaders, facilitators, and participants is to ask individuals to unreasonably risk their emotional, psychological, financial, and even physical well-being. The well-researched and often-cited failure rates of most innovation, learning, and change strategies, many as high as 70 percent, highlight the need to attend to this essential missing element (Beer & Nohria, 2000; Marks & Mirvis, 1998; Staw & Epstein, 2000). Each of the organizations profiled in this book understands the necessity to create playspace to ensure continuous innovating, learning, and changing. Perhaps one of the most unlikely of these organizations is the Chicago Public Schools system, the third largest in the country, which administers more than six hundred schools and serves 435,000 children each year. Working within the significant constraints of federal mandates and strict accountability to metrics, one office has consistently managed to engage the best of its staff to continue innovating, learning, and changing each year. The Office of Academic Enhancement, with the leadership of chief officer Abigayil Joseph, values both


the process and outcome of their work and measures success not only in the number of new schools opened, innovative programs launched, and test score increases, but in the space created for people to work at the top of their talent. Abigayil Joseph reflects on the shift that has taken place because of this shared commitment: ‘‘People have now experienced what creative collaboration can be. They’ve experienced laughing together, they’ve experienced coming up with some really good ideas. They’ve experienced feeling inspired, like ‘Oh, we’ve got something here!’ And so now when they’re not feeling that, it feels wrong to them.’’

Beyond a Culture of Innovation A culture of innovation and a culture of playspace are not the same. Cultures are embedded in the fabric of an organization and often remain consistent even as individual participants come and go. Playspace must be mindfully created whenever people engage in creative collaboration, significant learning, and deep change. A culture of innovation can serve as the framework in which playspace comes to life, but only if there is explicit understanding and appreciation for the symbiotic relationship between the dynamics of innovating, learning, and changing. Playspace lives in the sweet spot of their convergence (see Figure 1.6). Playspace is at the core of each of these essential organizational processes in organizations that regularly engage in and sustain their commitment to innovating, learning, and changing through dynamic engagement. Participants in each of these creative processes must engage at least one of the others to be successful. Innovating cannot function without new learning. Similarly, the learning process cannot thrive without the spirit of discovery and openness to new perspectives and possibilities essential to innovating. Changing is also symbiotically connected to both the innovating and learning process; neither can come to life without a willingness to change.

18


Figure 1.6. Where Playspace Lives

Innovating

Changing

Learning

Playsp ace

All change also involves new learning. It necessarily catapults us into new territory where we may well encounter the limits of our current skills, knowledge, and understanding. In this new territory, we must be willing to ask questions, seek out new advice and perspectives, explore alternatives, and release our grip on ‘‘the way we have always done things.’’ The same core dynamics, then, are necessary for organizational success founded on innovating, learning, and changing.

Playspace in Innovating Everyone has experienced the opposite of playspace, where ideas and insights must be censored, in which colleagues who challenge or question the prevailing thinking are diminished, and in which maintaining the organizational norms and power structure is more important than creative thinking and tapping the full talent and energy of the system. Organizations cannot sustain themselves and grow in such space, nor can the people in them. Over time the most creative and energetic individuals in the organization will move on to spaces in which they can thrive, leaving the rest to survive in a setting that rewards those who


recreate the status quo and do not disrupt comfortable routines with new ideas. Whatever an individual’s talents, domain expertise, and creative thinking skills, that individual’s social environment—the conditions under which he or she works—can significantly increase or decrease the level of creativity produced. —Teresa Amabile (1996, p. 17)

Those who leave find their way to or create spaces where there is room to play and where work and play are not seen as opposite poles but as integrated elements of dynamic engagement. These individuals escape constraining spaces to experience the playspace for innovating, learning, and changing. While the capacity to innovate is a key component of sustained success, few organizational leaders know how to create a space in which these capacities can develop and thrive. Organizations see significant results when key stakeholders and participants commit to making space for the lively play of ideas. Two different studies in health care and banking show a significant decrease in turnover and an increase in job satisfaction when employees perceive room for innovation in their organizations (McFadden & Demetriou, 1993; Robinson, Roth, & Brown, 1993). With turnover costs running from one-half to two and a half times the salary of vacant positions, organizations that commit to creating space for innovation can realize a significant improvement in their bottom line. Each of the organizations profiled in this book attributes a significant portion of its success to its ability to innovate year after year. The Chicago Public Schools administrators innovate not only through new programs and services but through ongoing organizational learning. At a recent retreat, they linked their strategic plan to the organic social networks in which it is

20


implemented and are now using these networks to envision the school of the future. Dynamic engagement is also the hallmark of the innovation success of such diverse businesses and organizations as a fast-growing apparel company, a thriving Internet company, a long-lived arts organization, a high-end toy manufacturer, and an unlikely community bank, as you will soon read.

Playspace in Learning Most formal education and training, especially in organizations, does not make space for the play of new possibilities; it focuses on two types of learning: skills (know-how) and knowledge (knowwhat). Relative to other forms of learning, skills and knowledge are easier to organize, communicate, and measure. If you look at what produces learning and memory and well-being, play is as fundamental as any other aspect of life. —Stuart Brown, president, National Institute for Play (quoted in Henig, 2008, p. 40)

Less attention and value are given to two additional types of learning that are harder to design but essential to the life and success of any dynamic organization: relational and transformative learning. These types of learning, which need playspace to thrive, are becoming increasingly important organizational issues as budgets for learning and development initiatives shrink. Relational Learning After a conference or professional development workshop, it is likely that the most memorable experiences for you did not happen in the formal sessions themselves (unless they offered significant opportunities for interaction and shared reflection), but in the hallways, during breaks, and in the less structured social


events. Even in the most cutting-edge sessions, I consistently see evaluations in which the chance to get to know colleagues outranks the content, facility, meals, and other bells and whistles of many such experiences. As part of their commitment to playspace, Chicago Public Schools (CPS) administrators worked for weeks to identify the organization’s opportunities and challenges and develop specific departmental goals for the coming year. They decided to meet at Catalyst Ranch, an unusual meeting space in Chicago with brightly colored walls, beanbag chairs, mismatched couches, and an endless supply of modeling clay and toys. After playing improvisation games and learning new collaboration concepts (see Chapter Six), the participants were able to begin reframing their challenges as possibility questions. For example ‘‘lack of parental and community engagement’’ became, ‘‘How do we engage parents and community members?’’ With renewed enthusiasm and capacity, the staff began generating innovative ideas for a host of previously vexing issues in small groups. Soon I noticed people smiling, nudging each other, and pointing to Abigayil Joseph, the chief officer of the department, wearing a chicken hat, along with a few of her directors and several staff members donning sombreros, cowboy hats, purple wigs, and gigantic sunglasses. Her small group happened to be sitting near a rack of outlandish hats, and it was only natural, in the midst of their playspace, to wear them. They were so engaged in the playful exchange of new and innovative ideas that they barely noticed their colleagues’ appreciative stares. In crafting a supportive context, it is critical to bear in mind that knowledge-intensive work is largely emergent. Instead of attempting to design for an unknown future with great precision, managers are advised to create a context that supports effective innovation and collaboration. —Cross and Parker (2004, p. 129)

22


Amid the smiles and appreciation, something very serious was happening. Relational learning made Joseph’s chicken hat, and all of the connections and conversations it fostered, so meaningful. Months after the episode, the collective memory of their wellrespected director in a chicken hat opened up new doorways for connection and gave others permission to be themselves and share their ideas in ways they had not previously. This learning could happen only in relationship, not simply by telling the story of the experience. Off-site meetings, games, and playful attire are not necessary to create playspace. In fact, playfulness cannot happen without first creating playspace. Long before their day at Catalyst Ranch, CPS administrators had created the space in which it was safe to risk innovating, learning, and changing. This did not happen by chance; it happened because the leaders (several of whom emerged during the facilitated playspace sessions) and participants made a commitment to sustain the space they had created and extend it to their day-to-day collaborations. Within three weeks, they had developed ideas to elevate the visibility of their department’s work, build stronger partnerships with the community, and improve the quality of their workplace collaborations. When people experience the playspace in innovating, learning, and changing, they develop the capacity to see the interconnectedness of organizational actions and results. As Peter Senge (1990) noted, ‘‘At the heart of the learning organization is a shift of mind from seeing ourselves as separate from the world to connected to the world, from seeing problems as caused by someone or something ‘out there’ to seeing how our own actions create the problems we experience. . . . A learning organization is a place where people are continually discovering how they create their reality . . . and how they can change it’’ (pp. 12–13). In this way, individual and organizational learning are relational; we become aware of and shift or expand our


relationship to our familiar ways of thinking, being, and interacting. Transformative Learning While many lament the need for transformation in organizations, transformative learning is often overlooked. Transformative learning is learning that may shake our core beliefs and familiar ways of thinking and being and requires playspace both to hold the discomfort and realize its possibilities. When this form of learning occurs, our previous assumptions and belief system about how things work or are supposed to work no longer hold true or are no longer useful in helping us make sense of the world. In playspace, there is room for relational and transformative learning at each level of the organizational system: individual, group, and organization. Crossan, Lane, and White (1999) developed the 4-I framework (see Figure 1.7) to describe how, beginning with individual awareness, insight, and discovery, such learning eventually becomes integrated into the whole system. Playspace is an essential part of each dynamic, as individuals and groups first become aware of insight and new discoveries and then begin to make meaning of them. If the space is constrained, novel interpretations are unlikely. With playspace, even the familiar is seen in a new light. Fresh interpretations lead to fresh actions as people begin integrating their insights into their thinking, planning, decision making, and ways of being. The tension between the institutionalizing dynamic and the commitment to continue to foster a space in which people are free to bring new insight and discovery into the system highlights the need to continue to create playspace through continued dynamic engagement.

24


Figure 1.7. 4-I Model of Organizational Learning Individual

Group

Organizational

Feed forward Intuiting Individual

Group

Feedback

Interpreting

Integrating

Organizational Institutionalizing Source: Adapted from Crossan, Lane, and White (1999, p. 532). Copyright 1999 by Academy of Management (NY). Reproduced with permission of Academy of Management (NY).

Playspace in Changing Unplanned change strikes at the core of most people’s vulnerability; even the prospect of it can keep many people up at night (or be the stuff of which nightmares are made). While the unplanned can be anxiety producing, we are all operating to greater or lesser degrees of success in this space more often than we know. Comfort, competence, and confidence to respond effectively to and positively engage with change can develop only in spaces that allow room for the free flow of information and ideas, where trust and safety are consistently enacted and all individuals are stretched to work at the top of their creative and cognitive capacity in positive relationship with their colleagues.


Playspace for positive change is space in which individuals can be responsive and creative, even in the midst of uncertain or shifting conditions. As we enter the 21st century, organizations’ scarcest resource has become their dreamers, not their testers. —Nancy Adler (2006, p. 492)

Chicago Public Schools administrators must respond to changing government regulations, shifting demographics, demanding customers (parents, community members, and, of course, students), budget constraints, and the charge to do the seemingly impossible with limited resources. Joseph, the CPS chief officer who made a commitment to developing the improvisation capacity to respond to change, understands how important it is for all organizational participants—leaders, in particular— to have the playspace to develop such abilities. This is why, even in the midst of intensive work cycles when all staff members were busy administering and processing thousands of placement tests, Joseph chose to invest time and resources in a retreat for creative collaboration and learning. ‘‘When I took over the department,’’ she said, ‘‘I wanted all the areas to be working more cooperatively and more collaboratively. And I think that was the first step of really bringing the staff together and making some statements about the way that things are going to be, which is collaborative and trusting.’’ Some organizational changes are incremental and continuous, such as those that happen as an organization adjusts to market influences over time; others are radical and transformational, such as shifts in leadership or strategy that result in new structures, processes, operating assumptions, and organizational cultures (Ackerman, 1997). Organizational change can be planned or

26


unplanned and can affect the core of the organization or its periphery. All forms and conceptions of change, regardless of type or scope, require positive responses and engagement from all organizational participants. Many well-designed change strategies, such as Deming’s Total Quality Management, Senge’s Fifth Discipline, the most recent ISO 9000 standards, 360-degree feedback assessments, and Balanced Scorecard fail when they do not make playspace for the full engagement of those most affected by the change. Each of these strategies is well researched and designed, and each makes perfect sense—except when you consider the dynamics, vulnerabilities, and defenses of the living, breathing people who are asked to engage in, embrace, and execute these change efforts. It is clear from the collective track record that articulating the outcome and designing a strategy to reach the desired results are not enough to support successful change. Few approaches take into account the ferocity of individual and organizational defenses and the attempts to protect image and preserve status, power, and control. Fewer still mindfully create a playspace in which there are models for successfully letting go of, challenging, or reinventing the prevailing norms and in which it is safe to admit mistakes and question prior assumptions and decisions without having these be career threatening. For individuals and organizations to leave the routine, comfort, consistency, feeling of competence, confidence, and being in control to engage in innovating, learning, and changing, they must consciously shift their familiar ways of thinking, being, and relating to one where the rewards of engagement far outweigh the risks of change. This is the shift from workplace to playspace. When organizations shift their mind-set from workplace to playspace and reclaim the idea of play as a business essential, they can begin to engage full participation for successful innovating, learning, and changing.


Playspace Dimensions and Dynamics The dynamics of playspace come to life as they are enacted each day in the real-time spaces we create. I first discovered the power of playspace through the detailed descriptions of people who were developing their capacities for innovating, learning, and changing as they learned improvisation. As I analyzed their experiences, I saw two important interconnected phenomena. First, the individual capacities emerged as people developed increasing awareness, acceptance, and appreciation of themselves, their colleagues, and their context in action. Second, people’s individual experience came to life through dynamic engagement in the playspace they co-created. In the next section, I briefly describe the individual dimensions of playspace experience—awareness, acceptance, and appreciation in action—to set the stage for understanding its dynamics (Figure 1.8). Understanding how individuals experience dynamic engagement in playspace helps us attune to these dimensions in our own Figure 1.8. Individual Experience of Playspace

s

arenes Aw

on

Ap

p r e i a ti c

pt cce anc

e

A

Action

28


experience, as well as use them as a pathway to bring playspace to life in our own organizations more consistently. Awareness Playspace comes to life when the whole person is engaged and engages with awareness. In playspace, awareness extends beyond the cognitive (our thoughts and mental processes) and includes the entire scope of our experience, thoughts, feelings, sensations, sense of well-being, and intuition. This is embodied awareness, and through it we expand our capacity for and access to the sources of creative inspiration, improvised action, significant learning, and capacity for changing. It is highly possible that what is called talented behavior is simply a greater individual capacity for experiencing. —Viola Spolin (1999, p. 3)

Frank Barrett regularly employs the jazz metaphor in understanding organizations. This metaphor views organizations as jazz ensembles that play together using the underlying melody as a foundation for their creative explorations, riffs, and jam sessions. Barrett (2000) describes the possibilities in the ‘‘aesthetic of unfolding,’’ when all organizational participants, including managers, participate with embodied awareness: [The word] ‘‘aesthetic’’ originates from the Greek ‘‘athetis,’’ meaning ‘‘pertaining to perception by the senses.’’ Perhaps the closest meaning that remains in our vocabulary is its opposite, ‘‘anaesthesia,’’ which refers to the deadening of the physical senses, the inability to feel or perceive things. . . . Holding on to routines and stock responses obstructs immersion in the immediacy. To be open to the aesthetics of unfolding is to be vulnerable in the face


of the unknown—and indeed there is something quite touching about vulnerable human beings exploring the further reaches of their comfortable grasp, testing the limits of their understanding [p. 251].

Our education system, as well as business environment, has socialized many of us to protect ourselves from discomfort and to pay attention only to our experience from the neck up in ways that often cut us off from our embodied selves. When accomplishing the task is our singular focus, we filter out many rich sources of information and experience. This is one of the legacies of the Protestant work ethic. Such disembodiment can leave us numb to our gut feelings and insights and lead us to miss errors, as well as opportunities, and even abandon deeply held convictions. At its essence, every organization is a product of how its members think and act. Once we become conscious of how we think and interact, and begin developing capacities to think and interact differently, we have already begun to change organizations for the better. —Peter Senge, Charlotte Roberts, Richard B. Boss, Bryan J. Smith, and Art Kleiner (1994, p. 48)

Acceptance Organizations that make playspace for innovating, learning, and changing, as well as engaged participation, ownership, and new vision, also make room for everyone to bring their whole self to work. Conversely, when people feel constrained in the workplace, when they do not feel they will be accepted if they bring their authentic self to work, they censor out dimensions of their life that are significant and energize them, as well as their fresh

30


perspectives and ideas, for fear they may not fit the perceived norms. Diversity workshops are filled with heart-wrenching personal stories of the impact of such constrained workplaces, of people who do not put family photos on their desk because their family is nontraditional in some way (Rocco & Gallagher, 2006), of individuals who do not discuss their cultural or religious traditions for fear of judgment or discrimination, of those who don’t discuss their favorite hobby or pastime because it is a bit off the beaten path, or otherwise do not bring the full energy of their whole self to work because they do not feel there is room for it. The consequences of such tacit nonacceptance are significant and immeasurable. It is not possible to constrain the space in some ways and expect free-flowing creativity and engaged participation in others. When people feel acknowledged, accepted, and treated with respect, their feelings of worth are enhanced, and the possibility that they will contribute actively to the work of the group is maximized. —Ernest Stringer (1999, p. 34)

As people experience increasing acceptance of themselves and freedom from judgment in playspace, they become increasingly accepting of their colleagues, diverse perspectives, provocative ideas, and an ever-changing work context. Acceptance and freedom from a climate of evaluation (at best) or surveillance (at worst) have been shown to have a significant impact on creative output and participation (Amabile, Goldfarb, & Brackfield, 1990). Acceptance in playspace is more than giving everyone a chance to speak in a team meeting; it means that we value the process and quality of the playspace as much as what is discovered and accomplished there.


Appreciation What we appreciate increases in value. Through growing awareness and acceptance, people naturally start appreciating. They begin to appreciate what they are experiencing and find value in their insights, as well as in the frustration and discomfort that come with innovating, learning, and changing. They appreciate their own and others’ contributions and find ways to build on them. As leaders, facilitators, and participants transition from a workplace to a playspace mind-set, they begin to integrate this dynamic in both language and deed into everyday life. Whether it is leading with appreciative feedback in meetings and informal conversation or recognizing contributions at organization-wide events, positive acknowledgment amplifies engagement in playspace. Unlike acceptance, which is necessarily value free, appreciation is shamelessly value rich. Acceptance and appreciation, though, are symbiotically related, as I discovered in my research. As people experience more acceptance, they come to appreciate themselves and others; as they experience appreciation, their ability to accept themselves and others increases. The play of these two dimensions of experience creates a wonderfully amplifying loop where people experience themselves at their best (Figure 1.9). Figure 1.9. Acceptance-Appreciation Amplifying Loop

Appreciation Acceptance Appreciation Acceptance

32


Action While the experience of playspace is described here in sequence, it most typically comes to life as each dimension reinforces the others in action. Western culture, and our socialization in it, has biased us toward valuing only the explicit outcomes of action, not the full-bodied, whole-person engagement in action so necessary, ironically, to successful innovating, learning, and changing. When we value only the outcomes of action, we often miss the important, tacit, intangible aspects of what is happening. In my research, I found that the most significant experiences of innovating, learning, and changing occurred for some people as they began to experience themselves differently in action. This new experience of self was enabled by a playspace that made room for them to take new risks, develop new competencies and capacities, and, quite frankly, play around a bit. Well before they could articulate the significant transformation and learning that they experienced, participants were enacting new, more dynamic, courageous, and engaged versions of themselves. CPS officer Joseph reflected on the value of infusing play into professional development strategies: ‘‘I think play too is a way to get to know people’s skills and attributes. It’s a different way of looking at people. And I know that others were seeing them in a whole new light. So I think it gives people the opportunity, too, to be successful in different ways and to allow for people to see different strengths and skills in people.’’ By discovering and appreciating each other’s capacities in playspace, the CPS administrators’ confidence in their innovating, learning, and changing abilities grew. Playspace values both the insight and learning that translate into language, as well as those that are embedded in action itself and are played out in shifted self-concepts and new ways of thinking, perceiving, or being. When we value innovating, learning, and changing, we must make space for both their explicit and tacit dimensions and trust that they can come to life in the


midst of engaged action. Organizational innovation, learning, and change often begin with just such an elusive, intuitive insight. Crossan, Lane, and White’s 4-I model (1999) of organizational learning (see Figure 1.7) is one of the few that acknowledge the extrarational roots of these processes. Beginning with individual intuition, often bubbling up in the midst of action, organizational learning occurs as people play with and make sense of, or interpret, what they are doing, seeing, and experiencing. Only then can the intuition become integrated and finally institutionalized as a new innovation, learning, or change. Just as we access untold resources by making room for nonrational ways of knowing, in playspace we do not separate action and cognition or give one more value than the other. Cognition is a form of action in significant and transformative learning; new ways of thinking and perceiving are one of the indicators of a significant shift in mind-set and way of being, as are new ways of experiencing, behaving, and responding. One of the limitations of representational knowledge in the functional form is that it is incapable of addressing the meaning that humans attach to events and experiences as actors and partners in interactions. —Peter Park (1999, p. 144)

When thinking is disengaged from the whole person, knowledge is reduced to data and people are reduced to data processors. Data processors cannot bring enthusiasm, fresh perspectives, courage, ethical judgment, intuition, leadership, or human values and context to the playspace. Beginning with the embodied awareness invited in playspace, individuals become more attuned to all of the dimensions of their experience and forms of knowledge, tacit and explicit. With this

34


heightened awareness, in and through action, they also experience greater acceptance and appreciation. These dimensions are core to making space for the play of new perspectives, insight, and new ways of thinking, perceiving, and being. By appreciating the dimensions of the experience of playspace, we can become more attuned to and responsible for making room for them in our organizations. The individual experience of playspace grows through dynamic engagement. The dynamics of playspace itself are relational, generative, safe, timeful (honoring both the outer time of the clock and the inner time of presence), and provocative. They are holographic in nature in that each contains aspects of the other. As you read about each dynamic in the following chapters, you will recognize that although only one dynamic is highlighted at a time, it can come to life only if the others are present as well. As individuals engage in playspace, they also expand their individual capacities for innovating, learning, and changing as they experience increasing awareness, acceptance, and appreciation of themselves, their colleagues, and their context in action. The rest of this book is dedicated to celebrating the people and organizations that are finding success through the playspace they create each day and to offering you hope and inspiration to bring playspace to life in your own organization.

Chapter Summary The shift from workplace to playspace is an invitation to shift from the static organization to dynamic processes of organizing, innovating, learning, and changing. This mind-set shift reclaims play as an essential dynamic of healthy organizational systems and business success. By transcending the work-play dualism, we can create and enjoy playspace that is both productive and energizing, purposeful and fun, structured and free. When we expand our associations with the very word play, we also reclaim its power to make space for new perspectives


and ways of thinking and being. This chapter invites you to create space for more play in the system, for the play of new possibilities and perspectives, to play new roles and develop new capacities, and for improvised play. Improvisation is a core dimension of play, and the development of improvisation capacity is given far too little attention in business schools and training and development programs. Improvisation capacity consists of competence (the ability to respond to the unexpected and unplanned using available resources), consciousness (a lively awareness of possibilities), and confidence (a belief in one’s own and other’s abilities). Each dimension of improvisation capacity is essential for individuals and organizations to respond effectively to emerging opportunities and to generate new approaches in challenging times. Improvisation capacity and playspace are symbiotically related and mutually reinforcing. As individuals and work groups develop their capacity for improvised play, they expand the space available for new possibilities to emerge, for people to play new roles and develop new skills, knowledge, and talents. As they co-create playspace in their daily conversations and collaborations, people have more freedom and support to develop new capacities and play new roles, which enhances the likelihood of innovation, learning, and positive change. By previewing the range of business, industry, and government organizations that are making space for the play of new perspectives, possibilities, and capacities, this chapter identifies playspace as a key factor for organizations that thrive even (and especially) during turbulent times. Through the case study of the Chicago Public Schools Office of Academic Enhancement, you read how a high-intensity, resource-strapped organization makes space for innovating, learning, and changing by embracing both the corny and serious dimensions of playspace. Playspace is distinct from a culture (assumptions, values, and artifacts or behaviors) of innovation, though many organizations committed to fostering such cultures quite naturally want to be

36


mindful of the playspace they create in their everyday interactions. Playspace is at the core of innovating, learning, and changing and lives in the sweet spot of their convergence. By showing how each of these core elements of organizational success thrives in playspace, this chapter begins to make the case for play as serious business. This chapter also introduces important concepts that push beyond traditional perspectives on learning and change and shows how relational and transformative learning are as important as the practical and technical learning at the core of most training and development programs. Playspace also complements and enhances the success of familiar approaches to learning and change and the less familiar 4-I model by making room and creating support for the risky experience of learning and changing. As individuals co-create playspace through engaged participation, they experience increasing awareness, acceptance, and appreciation in action: • Awareness of what we are experiencing; our available resources; the skills, knowledge, and talents of our colleagues; the group dynamic and context: these are all essential to effective creative collaboration and learning. • Acceptance of ourselves, including our particular talents and perspectives and those of others, fosters the free flow of ideas and increases the possibility of positive change. Growing awareness and acceptance naturally lead to appreciation. • Appreciation is respecting and valuing our own and others’ gifts, perspectives, and provocative insights. It shifts our mind-set to one in which boundaries are appreciated for their possibilities, and differing points of view and diverse talents are valued for the ways they amplify the shared potential. • Action in playspace is not separate from thinking and being; rather, it is the dynamic field in which new discoveries and


positive change occur. In playspace, individuals experience growing awareness, acceptance, and appreciation in action, not separate from action. The individual experience of playspace is not separate from the space itself, but comes to life through engagement in each of its relational, generative, safe, timeful, and provocative dynamics described in the following chapters.

2 PLAYSPACE IS RELATIONAL SPACE

Relational space is the space between us. Playspace is relational space, because in it, people value and engage their relationships with each other, their rich life experiences, and their immediate context. In playspace, the relational core is not limited to coworkers but extends to customers and professional and personal networks. Relational space values the way we relate to one another and acknowledges that we make meaning in relationship. The individual experience of awareness, acceptance, and appreciation in action also comes to life in relational space (see Figure 2.1). This dynamic core of playspace began to come to life in 2000 when Jake Nickell and Jacob DeHart entered an online T-shirt design contest and won. Their success gave them the idea of starting Threadless, an online apparel company, out of the Jake’s 450-square-foot studio apartment. Instead of commissioning a handful of designers and taking their chances on sales, Threadless decided to tap the wisdom of the crowd by allowing visitors to its site to vote on designs that are submitted each week by a growing community of artists from around the world. Today Threadless continues to foster relational space in the daily interactions between coworkers and in the overall business strategy that ensures that the organization is continually innovating, learning, and changing. I am linked therefore I am. —Kenneth Gergen (2002, p. 110)

39

40


Figure 2.1. Relational Space

lational e R

Winning designers are awarded a combination of cash and T-shirt credits, and their winning designs are printed on shirts and posted for sale on the Threadless site. Threadless’s innovative business model has been termed ‘‘crowd-sourcing’’ because it links into an ever-growing network of participants as designers invite their friends to the site, many of whom then invite their friends or submit designs of their own. This, along with the many ways Threadless engages with its customers through social media such as Facebook, Twitter, and its weekly videos produced by Threadless TV, creates a sense of community that almost makes their apparel business seem incidental.

PLAYSPACE IS RELATIONAL SPACE

41

Their returns on this community are anything but incidental. The business model is revolutionary and has taken them from their initial start-up investment of $1,000 to a $30 million a year company, shipping more than 100,000 shirts worldwide each month. It would be a stretch to say that this growth was part of Nickell and DeHart’s grand vision. When they started out, their core business was designing Web sites for other people. Threadless was ‘‘more of a hobby’’ that kept them connected to their friends and the artist community in which they thrived. Nickell reflected, ‘‘We knew we were creating a community of artists and they were submitting designs and it was a community project, but we just never thought it would be profitable. But then when it was, you know it started doing real well, we stopped doing client work and really started focusing on this, and then thinking of how to have a community be a business model too.’’ The business success Threadless now enjoys is a happy outgrowth of the relational core Nickell and DeHart have continued to nurture even as they continue to expand into retail stores and other businesses through their parent company, SkinnyCorp.

Gangwork A blogger jealously lamented, ‘‘If only my office looked like a gang was living in it.’’ The Threadless space is decidedly casual and playful, with a found-object, garage sale, graffiti wall aesthetic. Located in a warehouse space on Chicago’s North Side, the Threadless gang is used to people wandering in to see what is going on. It is not unusual to encounter staff members or customers enjoying a game of pool or to see Ping-Pong balls flying past the glass-walled conference room in which other team members are engrossed in a lively presentation of another new business idea. The blogger’s description of the ganglike atmosphere describes much more than the Threadless physical space. The Threadless model is successful because it extends the playspace beyond the

42


bounds of the organization to its customers, designers, and growing community with, in many cases, each group being inclusive of the other. Nickell explained: Everybody who works at the company respects our customers so it kind of starts there. It starts in art basically because everybody on the team that designs for Threadless are artists and designers, and so right off the bat there’s kind of a strong sense of aesthetic between everybody, the way that everybody feels about the way the Web site looks, the way the designs look on the T-shirts, and so I think that’s the main underlying factor. It’s just kind of like an art community, even though it’s a business. But then from there, I guess everybody kind of has some sort of friendship. . . . So right off the bat, it . . . had this real tight community. We were even up to fifteen or twenty employees; we all kind of either knew each other from a long time ago or we knew each other through the Internet, through different art forums, or even through Threadless. So really everybody, especially like the first five or six years, kind of already knew who everybody else was, and it was just a real personal connection. And since then, we’ve tried to maintain that even though we’ve had to hire outside of our friends’ circle.

The playspace at Threadless is dynamic and relational; it is dynamic because it is relational. In relationship, we make meaning of the intuition and insight as we develop growing awareness and experience acceptance and appreciation in action. It is the relational space that creates the value of engagement and participation, and it is in the relational space that values surface and come to life. It is also only in relationship that we discover limiting self-beliefs and self-concepts, and only in relationship that we experience and construct new, liberating beliefs and conceptions as we give and receive feedback and construct our sense of self in relationship to others, as well as our beliefs and environment. In the relational space created by playspace, people


43

are free to play new roles and develop new capacities as they venture beyond the safe and familiar. We cannot separate individuals from the relational context within which they experience, make meaning, position themselves, observe, and are observed. The process of innovating is by its very nature relational, relying on the free exchange of ideas, encouragement, and provocation. Likewise, organizational learning and change are embedded in the relational networks in which individuals and groups experience, reflect, make meaning, and act. Relational space is distinct from relationships. Relationships define our connection to another person (aunt, colleague, partner); relational space is the space between us. Relational space also includes the space between us and our environment, as well as the space between us and our ideas and mental models (Figure 2.2). In a playspace, some of the most significant learning, creative discoveries, and transformation emerge from the group’s shared experience. Relational space is space in which we make meaning

Figure 2.2. Individual Relational Space

44


of our experiences, beginning with awareness of its tacit, intuitive dimensions. In relational space, we may also transform or be transformed through the process of interaction. Two recurring themes that emerge in the research on organizational success highlight the relational dynamic of playspace: (1) experience of direct supervisor and coworkers is the strongest determinant of individual success, and (2) people in work groups tend to have similar perceptions of space available for innovation, learning, and change (Amabile, Barsade, Mueller, & Staw, 2005; Buckingham & Coffman, 1999; Edmondson, 2003). This means that playspace is both local and relational; we create it in each interaction, conversation, and collaboration. Each of our individual life spaces does not exist in isolation; when we come together in shared time and space, we co-construct our experiences and make meaning of them in relationship to one another and within our current context. We experience the shared space in the context of all of our individual past experiences, associations, beliefs, and, of course, our present, embodied state. In other words, whether conscious of it or not, we are always in relationship. In my own organization, I have seen the power of relational space play out in our team meetings. At a recent retreat, one member arrived having just received a call that her mother in Florida was on her way to the hospital with breathing trouble; another member was sleep deprived from caring for her elderly father who was staying with her while recovering from surgery; our developer, a German expatriate, had become engaged over the weekend; and Passover was starting at sundown, which was important to some members of the group. Everyone also brought their individual passions for the work and relationship to our emerging vision and mission, based on where they were in their lives, and with whom and how they were engaged in relationship with each other, as well as to the physical space. Had we not created the relational space and become aware, accepting, and appreciative of some of these key ways we were in relationship,


45

we would have severely constrained the space for the free flow of ideas.

Emotional Intelligence and Relational Space While we are always in relationship with our self, our experiences, others, and our environment, our level of awareness of our relationality may vary at any time. Awareness of our relational space can vary not only from moment to moment but from context to context and from person to person. Those studying the value of emotions in everyday life acknowledge that intelligence is much more than a cognitive function or IQ. The work of Howard Gardner (1993) and Daniel Goleman (1996) brought the theory of multiple intelligences and emotional intelligence, respectively, into the popular consciousness and vocabulary. Emotional intelligence is the awareness of our whole-person experience, especially our emotional experience, as well as our awareness of others’ emotional states and the ability to use this awareness appropriately. With awareness of our own and others’ emotional context, we can experience and express empathy; deepen our relationships; and develop trust, friendships, and intimacy with others. Emotional intelligence cannot be separated from interpersonal, social, or relational intelligence. Awareness of our own experience often grows as others respond to our emotional expressions. If you have ever been surprised to hear a colleague tell you that you look tired or sad, and then on reflection discovered that you were in fact feeling low energy or a little down, you have had this experience. Our very operational, outcomeoriented culture often invites us to become disembodied from one of our most important ways of knowing: our emotional response to our current life space, another legacy of our Protestant work ethic socialization. Many people can develop their emotional intelligence by simply slowing down enough to notice what they are feeling and

46


how others are expressing themselves. This regularly occurred in my research as participants were asked to reflect on their experiences creatively collaborating. As the weeks passed, Tony reflected, ‘‘I started to become more open to this idea that maybe I have some feelings, and what were they? And . . . then it became easier and easier. ‘Okay, fine, and I do have a feeling about this.’ Once I was open to the fact that I had feelings, I could then be open to thinking about the feelings and have more feelings from those feelings.’’ As Tony became more aware of what he was feeling, he also became more aware of what was happening with his colleagues and with the group process in general. In essence, as Tony’s emotional intelligence increased, so did his relational intelligence.

Efficiency and Relational Space It may seem counterintuitive, but the time invested in building relationships actually improves efficiency and productivity. People are much more likely to respond to e-mails and calls from someone with whom they have formed some level of personal connection than someone they do not know. We are also much more likely to share ideas and insights and make the extra effort to connect someone we care about with a useful contact or resource than we would for a stranger. A growing body of research shows that emotional and relational awareness translates to significant increases in the bottom line. Cary Cherniss (1999) from Rutgers University compiled nineteen research studies showing that those who had, or developed, higher degrees of emotional/relational awareness were much more likely to be top performers, exceed sales goals, increase profits, and rise to leadership positions. John Lee, former CEO of Learning Curve, a high-end toy company featured in Chapter Five, reflected on one of the most important leadership lessons he learned early in his career while


47

in an executive training program at Gimbels department store in Philadelphia in which trainees rotated through each department: When it came for my stint in the buying office, they assigned me to a guy who was the gift, housewares buyer. And there was almost this bragging right that if you could survive him, you could survive anything. And he had gone through something like six assistant buyers in a year and a half. . . . He’d eat people up and spit them out, but [was] very, very talented. Very gifted. You were just thrown in, and you either made it or you didn’t. I was number seven and survived to the point where it was time for me to move on, and they moved me on, and he and I actually developed a decent rapport. A year or two later when I was in an HR assignment, about every six months the CEO would take me out to lunch. He had a list of seven or eight people who he’d take out to lunch and stay close to, and I was on that list. And one day, at lunch at this private club, he asked me to name the six most talented people that I had met in the organization and worked with, and I named my six. He said, ‘‘Why not [the housewares buyer]?’’ He said, ‘‘You worked for him for six months, and you guys still have a decent relationship. He’s one of the top performers in the company.’’ I said, ‘‘No, he’s not.’’ He said, ‘‘What do you mean? His gross margin this, and his sales growth. . . .’’ I said, ‘‘You’re not taking the discount for the people cost. . . . Of the six assistant buyers that he went through, three of them were very, very talented.’’ I said, ‘‘What did it cost us to recruit those people? We paid them up front. You’ve got six months worth of training. And two of them now I think are doing very well at Macy’s, aren’t they? So what’s the cost?’’ He said, ‘‘You know, I really hadn’t thought of it that way.’’ I said, ‘‘Well you need to.’’ I said, ‘‘I’m going to do an analysis and I want you to extract the cost from [his] gross margin, and then you tell me where he falls in your pecking order.’’ A year later [he] was fired. The organization was not looking—and the consumer

48


products business, retailing, is particularly guilty of this—where the superstars are allowed great latitude in their interpersonal ways and they’re often very abusive, but protected because they’re highly creative and they produce results. And my view from that experience is that you can have both, but you’d better be prepared to coach and do the best you can to mitigate the damage they do. And you certainly want high degrees of talent, but the collateral damage and body count is a cost.

Lee’s formative lesson has continued to guide his success through several entrepreneurial business ventures. He, as do an increasing number of executives, understands that the bottom line may mask the hidden costs and collateral damage of toxic players in the space. Not only do they affect the recruiting and retention of top talent, but they often constrain the space further with their egocentric agendas and unwillingness to make room for others to collaborate and contribute to business success.

Informal Networks and Relational Space As Lee’s story illustrates, the neatly constructed organization chart of any business tells only a fraction of the story of how things get done. These charts (see Figures 2.3 and 2.4) may represent the formal reporting relationships or provide a rationale for the Figure 2.3. How We Like to Think Work Gets Done

49


Figure 2.4. How Work Really Gets Done 43

6

59

56

4

38

62

19

18

12

11

20

60

58

25

37 47

31

29 24

5

48 34

28 57

66

22 3

2 14

39 1

61

44

36

63 55

46

33 21

7

32

49 26

53

35

54

45

16

50 30

27

40

8

17

42

13

51

52

23

41

65

15

9

allocation of office space, but they do not reflect the relational nature of how we work. The network chart in Figure 2.4 depicts the actual working relationships identified by members of a department in the execution of just one aspect of its strategic plan. When it comes to actually getting work done, we rarely consider the organization chart, but turn to those with whom we are relationally connected. Studies showed that engineers and scientists were five times more likely to turn to another person for information and resources than to a knowledge management system or even the Internet (Cross & Parker, 2004). In other words, if I am having trouble accessing a particular database, I am much more likely to reach out to my colleague down the hall who seems to have mastered

50


it than to call the help desk or pull up the users’ guide. Quite simply, we get things done in relationship. Networking has long been a path to business success; however, until a few years ago, no one could have envisioned the global phenomenon of online social networking. With two-thirds of Americans aged eighteen to twenty-nine now using social networking sites, the trend will only grow as the next generation establishes itself in the workforce. These organizational participants are not only aware of and engaged in their personal social networks, they understand their value in contributing to their quality of life, finding interesting opportunities, connecting with a wide range of people, and sharing ideas and perspectives—all fundamental dimensions of innovating, learning, and the ability to respond to change.

Only Connect The online social networking phenomenon reflects a core human need: our need to connect and make meaning of our world in relationship to others. The earliest social science studies linked our very sense of well-being to belonging and connectedness (Durkheim, 1997). More than a century later, researchers James Fowler and Nicholas Christakis (2008) followed 4,739 participants for twenty years and found an even more nuanced relationship between happiness and people’s social networks. They found that people are much more likely to be happy if their friends, family, and neighbors in their network are happy. In fact, happiness is contagious, and can spread up to three degrees removed from the social network. Even more important than the number of people in one’s social network is the emotional state of those people. Public health and policy experts are now recognizing that the ‘‘health and well-being of one person affects the health and well-being of others’’ (p. 8). Well-being is relationally based, and, not surprisingly, the health of organizations, as human systems, is also relationally based.


51

The fundamental human need to connect, along with our tendency to make meaning and make sense of the world with and through others, is finally getting the attention of organizational leaders. More and more organizations are realizing that making room for the development of social ties and human connection directly affects how thoughtfully, creatively, and efficiently things get done. The rapid growth of online social networking and enterprise software designed to map organizational networks and connect people across boundaries is not a substitute for the multifaceted connections people make in person or by building social ties in direct collaboration. The act of ‘‘friending’’ someone in response to his or her personal profile, knowledge inventory, or outside interests is no substitute for becoming friends with that person; however; many people, myself included, are experiencing a renewal or deepening of friendships as they weave their online connections into their real-time, in-person interactions. For example, because I have tracked the recent reorganization of my friend and colleague Brandy’s living and working space through her Facebook posts, I have a richer understanding of her context and feel more connected when we meet over coffee to discuss a project. Relational knowledge develops over time and is often rich with shared experiences, tacit connection, and mutual regard. With the aid of emerging technology, we now have the opportunity to find people whom we otherwise might never have begun to get to know, or we can now stay more consistently linked by regular reports on what we are doing and working on. Online networks alone do not fulfill the deeper dimensions of relational knowledge, which is contextual and embedded in our entire lived experience and all of the dimensions of that experience to which we relate. Our informal networks are part of our contextual experience and provide context for our experience. This is mutually beneficial for the participants, as well as the organizations in which they thrive. Harper Reed, chief technology officer of Threadless, put it simply: ‘‘They give us their designs; we give back community’’

52


(Reed, 2009). Thanks to technology, the Threadless/SkinnyCorp community has now grown to international proportions; however, it began as a group of friends who genuinely enjoyed being and working together and continues to thrive by virtue of this very connected core.

Relational Space in Innovating Threadless is not the only business or even the first to tap the power of relational space in innovating—learning and changing. It was through relational space that a small bakery in Bologna, Italy, helped Procter & Gamble cut its product development cycle in half, save untold thousands of dollars in R&D costs, and achieve double-digit growth for its Pringles brand in just two years. With increasing pressure to deliver sustainable growth and shrinking funds to invest in new product development, Larry Huston, vice president of innovation and knowledge, and Nabil Sakkab, vice president of corporate research and development, were given a charge: reinvent the company’s innovation business model. They had long known that some of their most important innovations came from cross-business collaborations and knowledge sharing; however, even in a multibillion-dollar-a-year global company, these opportunities had limitations. With an assignment from new CEO A. G. Lafley to acquire at least 50 percent of the innovations outside P&G, Huston and Sakkab replaced their emphasis on R&D with a new focus on C&D (connect and develop). When the Pringles group began brainstorming ways to make their snack chips more fun, they began playing with the idea of printing each chip with trivia questions, fun facts, and jokes. The technology to print high-resolution images for high-speed mass production did not exist within the company. Using their new C&D strategy, product developers wrote a problem brief for distribution throughout its global network of institutions, partners, and associates. The brief made its way to a university


53

professor who also owned a bakery in Bologna and manufactured baking equipment. He had developed a technology that used an ink-jet method for printing images on bakery goods that could be quickly modified. This is how Pringles Prints went from concept to new product launch in less than a year, with a relatively small investment—something that would have been impossible with a traditional R&D process (Huston & Sakkab, 2006). P&G’s relationally based innovation strategy is representative of the growing trend toward open innovation. Open innovation is not only an innovative model for finding experts and sharing knowledge; it is an excellent approach to creative collaboration and idea generation. When we are attuned to our relational space, we become aware and appreciative of the novel and surprising connections between concepts, perspectives, and approaches. We loosen our grip on the familiar and open ourselves to the possibilities in the unknown, unplanned, and unexpected. For this dynamic of playspace to yield innovation, we must first make the connections and then develop them.

Relational Space in Learning The risk of innovating, learning, and changing can be heightened or lowered in relational space. In both informal and formal learning settings, I have seen how the ‘‘fear of looking stupid’’ in front of peers keeps individuals from exploring unfamiliar territory to build new skills and capacities. As the playspace comes to life through dynamic engagement, I have witnessed the happy opposite of this phenomenon: as individuals begin to risk stepping out of their comfort zone, they often receive immediate and positive feedback from their peers. With this encouragement, they begin to experience themselves as increasingly spontaneous and creative, which generates more positive feedback. This relational learning cycle (see Figure 2.5) is central to expanded improvisation capacities and expanded self-beliefs about their capacities and competencies.

54


Figure 2.5. Improvisation Capacity Development Through Relational Learning

Risk

Transformative Learning: New Self-Concept

Expanded Capacity Through Practice

Positive Feedback

Increased Confidence

This relational learning cycle can be set in motion when there is space that allows the initial risk taking and experimentation. The space itself is relational, and the experience of expanded capacity and new self-concepts is constructed relationally. Most of our formal education did not value this core aspect of learning, let alone did it consciously make room for its transformative potential. Much of adult learning theory and practice is biased toward the cognitive, and educational institutions are increasingly pressured to emphasize rational knowing and that which can be measured on standardized tests. Learning experiences that make room for the development of new capacities and talents to emerge do not fit so neatly onto multiple-choice tests.


55

In shifting from a workplace to a playspace mind-set relational knowledge is acknowledged for its intrinsic value as well as for its value it provides the meaning-making framework for the understanding and interpretation of a wide variety of information, data, phenomena, and experience. As meaning is being made the relational space supports responsive action. Relational knowledge, unlike skills (know-how) and representational knowledge (know-what), cannot be transferred from person to person; the knowledge is embedded in the relationship itself. The brain is a social organ, innately designed to learn through shared experiences. —Louis Cozoline and Susan Sprokay (2006, p. 11)

The link between relational knowledge and business success is becoming more and more apparent. In their study of high performers, Rob Cross and Andrew Parker of IBM’s Knowledge and Organizational Performance Forum found that what distinguished high performers from their counterparts was not their use of technology or expertise but the size and diversification of their personal networks: ‘‘Whom you know has a significant impact on what you come to know, because relationships are critical for obtaining information, solving problems and learning how to do your work’’ (2004, p. 11). The value of such relational knowledge and the space it fosters for innovation is borne out in successful research and development teams. Teams whose leaders actively network, build relationships, and communicate the features and benefits of their R&D projects outside the team are shown to be more innovative and successful (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992). It is of course important not to reduce the relational space to a conduit for data and skills. This is one quantifiable benefit of healthy relational space at work. Trust and safety, as well as dynamic space for innovation, learning, and change, also come

56


to life in relational space. This space, and the ineffable dimensions of connection that sustain it, form the positive core of organizational health.

Relational Space in Changing Just as we learn, share ideas, and make sense of the world in relationship, we negotiate our way through life and organizational changes in relationship. Change, even planned change, brings much uncertainty. We may experience ourselves in new and unfamiliar ways as we find ourselves in new and unfamiliar circumstances that challenge our familiar ways of making sense of the world. Such change is transformative. Transformative change is relational change. It calls us to change (or at least become aware of and reflect on) our relationship to our beliefs, ways of thinking, and habitual responses, as well as our role in the organizational system. In my research, I discovered that not only is transformational change relational in this way; it most often occurs in relationship with others. It is in the context of our relationships, both our close and weak ties, that we make meaning of our experiences and events. It is also in relationship that we are reflected back to ourselves through people’s responses to our presence, behavior, and ideas. Transformative change, then, includes a shift in our relational dynamic as well. Robert Quinn (1996) terms this ‘‘deep change’’ because it transcends the incremental, superficial, and controllable dimensions of change that are often the focus of organizational strategy. It is rare because it ‘‘distorts existing patterns of action and involves taking risks. Deep change means surrendering control’’ (p. 3). That achieving the highest level of organizational innovation and learning requires surrendering control is a vexing paradox: to achieve our desired outcome, we must let go of control of the outcome. Reflecting on years of experience working with organizations that gave lip service to their commitment to innovation and


57

learning, Peter Senge (2003) shared his version of the challenge: ‘‘The fantasy that somehow organizations can change without personal change, and especially without change on the part of people in leadership positions, underlies many change efforts doomed from the start—such as investing in new technologies to produce change, or ‘change programs’ that get ‘rolled out’ through the organization, or consulting that advises clients on ‘how to get people to change,’ without ever inquiring about how they themselves may be a big part of the changes needed’’ (p. 48). In relationship to others and with a changing context, we may discover new capacities and limitations. We may also have to find the compassion to accept ourselves and others in our sense-making process. The relational dimension of playspace gives us the opportunity to receive feedback from a dynamic system. When we loosen our grip on our self-image enough to let this feedback in, we can respond more fluidly and effectively to change. For it is through patterns of discourse that we form relational bonds with one another; that we create, transform, and maintain structure; and that we reinforce or challenge our beliefs. —Frank Barrett, Gail Thomas, and Susan Fann Hocevar (1995, p. 353)

Meaning making in organizations is a dynamic, relational process. It is created and reinforced in our everyday exchanges, as well as through formal communications. The relational theme runs through the spaces we create to make room for innovating, learning, and changing. Few organizational strategies take into account, let alone centralize and engage, the relational power of playspace for success. Active support from leaders is essential to the success of this new approach, and playspace depends on the

58


engagement of all participants. The next few sections highlight the roles all can play to bring this dimension to life.

Bringing Relational Space to Life As I emphasize throughout this book, it is dangerous to take a prescriptive approach to playspace, as it is quite possible to do all the right things and have all of the pieces in place, and still be missing the organic, intrinsic energy that brings life to the space. For this reason, it is important to approach many of the examples and suggestions offered here, and throughout the rest of the book, as ways to get out of the way so that the playspace and the people constructing it can come to life. Each of the guiding principles in this section is offered in this spirit. Role of the Leader: Make Space for the “We” to Emerge It is not possible to force, coerce, or otherwise prescribe a community to take responsibility for its own welfare; it emerges as a result of an authentic commitment to fostering the relational space in which the community thrives. The turning point from self-interest to community focus, or from ‘‘I’’ to ‘‘we,’’ happens when individuals realize that the two are linked. While most are familiar with the well-worn phrase, ‘‘There is no ‘I’ in team,’’ they are equally aware that their ultimate evaluation is often based on individual performance. When mindful leaders hold and allow others to hold the playspace, they make space for the ‘‘we’’ to emerge as participants shift their orientation from the self-consciousness of risk taking and new learning to selfand-other awareness, reflected in a dynamic relational space. In this spirit, strategies that convey informal appreciation for individual contributions while celebrating the success of the group or emerging ‘‘we’’ energize the relational space. When these


59

strategies are implemented, the shared energy and success of the collaboration eclipse individual self-consciousness, self-interest, and self-centeredness. A group exists when people in it realize their fate depends on the fate of the group as a whole. . . . What is more, a person who has learned to see how much his own fate depends upon the fate of his entire group will be ready and even eager to take over a fair share of responsibility for its welfare. —Rupert Brown (1988, p. 29)

Protect the Pool Tables. Because of its rapid growth, Threadless has needed to move to a larger space almost every year. One sure sign that another move is imminent is when the operation begins to encroach on the pool tables. Nickell shared, ‘‘We’ve always had some kind of, like, entertainment space. And in fact the space before the one we’re in now, the warehouse was starting to overrun the pool table area. And instead of letting that happen, we moved to a bigger space.’’ Pool tables are a metaphor for all of the open, informal, relational spaces where people connect, relax, play, and bond. The few minutes team members spend talking about their weekend, inquiring about the status of an ill child before a meeting, or the coffee breaks with friends and the hallway basketball hoop inviting a break from routine are all pool tables that need to be fiercely protected for the relational health of the organization. Increase Awareness and Access. Leaders can encourage people to make use of informal organizational networks, as well as boundary-spanning connections and collaborations, by embedding structures and practices into the life of the organization that increase awareness of the networks and improve access

60


to potential collaborators. Cross and Parker’s research (2004) highlighted some commonsense though often overlooked realities of organizational life: • People will connect with others whose skills, knowledge, and talent they value. • People must be aware of others’ skills, knowledge, and talent. • Even when they value and are aware of their colleagues’ skills, knowledge, and talent, people ‘‘must have the ability to gain timely access’’ to them (p. 35). To expand their organization’s informal networks, leaders can enact practices and provide resources that break familiar social patterns. It is hard to become aware of others’ skills, knowledge, and talent if you have little exposure to those beyond your familiar work group and social network; it is hard to gain access to people with whom you have few or no social ties, as it often takes some degree of social currency to have an e-mail or voice mail returned. In addition to the literal and metaphorical pool tables, many organizations are implementing practices to break this catch-22 in these ways: • New-employee orientations or ‘‘onboarding’’ programs that include meeting informally with people from other departments. Some organizations make this a ‘‘treasure hunt’’ process that leads new employees through a wide range of the organization’s resources and collaborators. • Mentoring programs that match new employees with longerterm employees from another area. • Let’s do lunch programs that give people incentives (lunch vouchers, gift certificates) to socialize with people outside their work group. • Social outings and volunteer projects that provide opportunities for employees to get to know each other outside their work


61

context and to experience and express themselves in new ways with their colleagues. • Off-sites that give people a chance to step back and look at big picture organizational issues or use new creative collaboration strategies provide a business context as well as a chance to break out of routine ways of relating. • Enterprise social networking systems, such as the system developed by Playspace LLC, provide a structure for people to map their strategic networks and find others whose skills, knowledge, talents, and interests could contribute to their success and advance the organization’s goals. When funds are scarce, activities and resources that strengthen an organization’s social ties are often the first to go. But when limited resources are used as an excuse not to attend to the relational core of the organization, the entire organization suffers immeasurable losses in productivity and innovation, as well as in opportunities for learning and increasing responsiveness. It is easy to see the losses incurred when a server goes down or the department’s photocopier is out of order, and money to bring these operating systems back to life can always be found. When leaders understand the business value of their relational space, it becomes equally imperative to ensure that it remains dynamic and life giving. With such a commitment, many creative strategies can be implemented with limited resources and significant returns so that all organizational participants experience the value of the ‘‘we’’ in their own and the organization’s success. Role of the Facilitator: Provide Relational, Not Just Experiential, Activities When the workplace is reconceived as a playspace for ideas, insights, and learning, there is new room for connection and risk taking. This space can be brought to life in informal settings, team

62


meetings, and structured learning environments. Most training and development professionals are well aware of the value of experiential learning. Unfortunately, they rarely attend to its relational essence. While insight and experience may facilitate or serve as a catalyst for transformation, what we call transformative learning occurs and is constructed in relationship with others and in relationship to our context. Individuals do not develop their new capacities, such as improvisation, or have transformative experiences separately from their colleagues, but do so with and through them. Inviting adults to attune to the group process and their experience within the group through discussions and journal reflections supports attunement to the relational dimension of their learning. At the same time, whether relational learning is explicitly surfaced or articulated by the learners, it is happening: it is how we make meaning. Because of this, facilitators need not force this to a cognitive awareness, but they can make room for it through their own attunement and approaches. As all of us in the playspace trust (and get out of the way of) the group process, we may be surprised at the transformative possibilities it can hold. Facilitators often feel the pressure of outcomes, deadlines, and operational goals and can easily use them to overlook or diminish the importance of the relational space. Process and product need not be competing values. In fact, as the many examples in this chapter illustrate, they are complementary in the most successful organizations. Check-In. In the midst of dynamic collaborations and learning experiences, facilitators can periodically check in on the group process, level of energy, and engagement in several ways: • Ask the group to report on its own experience with such questions as: How are we doing? How is the energy? How is everyone feeling about how we are working together?


63

• Regularly ask the group to reflect on how they are bringing their values to life through their collaboration. • Hold a mirror up to the group process. The degree of willingness to honestly reflect on the group process will depend on the mix of the group and their comfort level with one another. In cases where some may be withholding their experience, it can be useful to reflect what you notice back to the group. I may notice that some people haven’t spoken and ask if they feel that their point of view has been heard. Noticing that the energy seems to be flagging or that there is tension in the room is often enough to create space for others to begin to name their own experience. These check-ins need not hijack the collaboration or learning experience, and a few minutes of reflection can often raise awareness of and invite all to take responsibility for the relational space they are creating together. Coach for Relational Intelligence. None of us, no matter how self-aware, can always be in touch with our impact on others and on the group dynamic. Even people who are well intentioned can become self-absorbed, rigid, and irritable in the midst of high stress or even during high-flying collaborations. When such behavior begins to have a negative effect on the playspace, respectful feedback and coaching can raise individual awareness and begin to develop relational intelligence, as well as restore the play to the playspace. Carol Semrad was the human resource director at Learning Curve and oversaw much of its rapid growth. As the head count increased, new creative teams quickly formed and were expected to work well together from day one. In this fast-paced organization, many coaching opportunities emerged. Semrad explained: We worked very hard to build a coaching culture throughout the company. In addition to providing coaching training to help

64


people understand its value and be open to feedback, we integrated coaching skills feedback into our performance appraisals. Some of the most important opportunities were in the moment. Our goal was to protect the needs of the business, whatever the business need was, and to protect the self-esteem of the person who was receiving the feedback. At the end of the day, I wanted people to feel that whatever was happening, they were okay. The idea is not the person. And on a design team for them, actually, the idea is them. So we have to be able to protect their self-esteem and help them feel good about themselves, even if the idea gets squashed, and that’s a challenge.

Because we are meaning-making organisms and we often make meaning in relationship, facilitators need not be heavy-handed in employing processes to make such relational connections happen. The facilitator role is one of custodianship of the relational space. By gently holding the space and supporting participants’ awareness of their role, responsibility, and impact on the space, facilitators clear the way for the creative, relational energy to flow. Role of Participants: Commune The business card for SkinnyCorp, the parent company of Threadless, reads: ‘‘SkinnyCorp creates communities!’’ This is much more than a company slogan; it is the lifeblood of the entire organization. When I asked Jake Nickell to tell me more about what community looked like on a day-to-day basis at Threadless and what kinds of things reinforced it, he told me about Charlie: I’ve actually known Charlie for quite a while. . . . We were in Cub Scouts together. Have you heard of the Pinewood Derby? Well, Charlie got a track and coordinated this event where everybody, all the staff members, created cars and actually got some of our vendors . . . we got UPS to make up the car and Google to make a car. And then we even got our community members to make cars like our designers. And then we had a big two-day session where


65

there would be others, like a hundred cars, that we were racing. And it was this event that was really created by Charlie, who started out working in our warehouse. And right now he’s a community manager.

The event, the ‘‘Thread Le Mans,’’ engaged members of the entire Threadless community in the creative, collaborative, and playful spirit that is the company. The event was not organized to create the playspace, but was a reflection of the lively space that already exists. One of the key themes of such playspace is that its members share responsibility for and take great pleasure and pride in communing with each other. Be Response-able. Participants who wait for formal initiatives to be generated from HR or the training and development department are not actively taking responsibility for the shared space and the important connections that are made there. Rather than assuming such initiative is unwelcome in their organization, participants can foster the space they crave through their own efforts; they are quite literally response-able. A spontaneous Pinewood Derby may not be appropriate in all (or even most) businesses; however, there are few limits on the ways individuals can foster new connection within their organization. Not taking such responsibility can set in motion a negatively reinforcing loop—or something Karl Weick called ‘‘avoided tests’’ (1979). People avoid testing a perceived limit and thereby reinforce the perception that the limit exists simply because no one has ever tested it. By communing in ever more creative ways, organizational participants create relational space on which their individual and organizational success depends and make room for the intrinsic motivation that fosters collaborative learning, innovating and changing. Attune. Attunement extends the individual awareness described in the playspace model to the relational social dynamic of the space. Attunement to the relational dimension elevates

66


how we experience and co-create the space to equal value of what we create or accomplish in the space. When attunement is practiced, those who do not share the majority culture, language, perspective, or power are included. With attunement, there is room for all voices to be heard and respected. There is space to notice if the group dynamic is shifting in a direction that is no longer generative and expansive because there is no longer play in the system. By pursuing attunement, participants make space to pause, breathe, and restore possibilities. Earlier sections described ways those in formal or informal leadership and facilitation roles can draw attention to the quality of the relational space participants are co-creating. When individuals are response-able for the practice of attunement, the space becomes engaging for all. Just as facilitators can mirror the relational space back to the group, so can individual participants. When statements such as, ‘‘I am noticing . . . ’’ or ‘‘I wonder . . . ’’ become common practice, all are invited to attune to both the process and product of their collaborations, inquiries, and learning. If such explicit practice is not appropriate for the context, participants can still attune to their own experience within the relational space and adjust their own participation accordingly.

Chapter Summary Relational space is the space between us in which we make meaning of our experiences and new information, process our insights and discoveries, and respond to and initiate change. Both the individual experience of playspace—increasing awareness, acceptance, and appreciation in action—and the supporting generative, safe, timeful, and provocative dynamics come to life in relational space. Threadless/SkinnyCorp developed an entire business model by creating relational space not only for its employees, but for its active and engaged customer and designer community. Research links each of the core dimensions of organizational success to the


67

quality of its relational space and the health of its social networks. Innovation, learning, and change strategies that succeed and organizations that continue innovating, learning, and changing do so by attuning and attending to the relational space. Guiding Principles for Leaders, Facilitators, and Participants Role of the Leader: Make Space for the ‘‘We’’ to Emerge. By creating opportunities and space for informal connections, people throughout the organization can build the relational knowledge and social networks that enable them to shift their attention from self-consciousness to self- and other-awareness (acceptance and appreciation in action). While the ‘‘we’’ cannot be coerced, it naturally emerges when there is playspace for it: • Protect the pool tables. Place a premium on the informal gathering spaces, both physical and interpersonal. They are incubators for innovation, learning, and positive change. • Increase awareness and access. People will collaborate with those whose skills, knowledge, and talent they value. They must have the space, systems, and processes that enable them to become aware of, build relationship with, and have access to potential collaborators. Role of the Facilitator: Provide Relational, Not Just Experiential, Activities. Most significant innovations, learning, and positive change happen in relational space. Facilitation and learning strategies that allow people to expand their awareness of the relational space and build relational knowledge as part of the innovating, learning, and changing process lay the foundation for success. • Check-in. Facilitators can expand the relational space by periodically calling the group’s attention to it, holding up

68


a mirror, and noticing the quality of the space that is being co-created. • Coach for relational intelligence. No one is aware of the impact they have on the relational space 100 percent of the time. Facilitators are uniquely positioned to provide feedback to individuals and groups to support the relational space. Role of Participants: Commune. All share responsibility for the quality of the relational space. Charlie at Threadless did not wait to be appointed community manager; he took the lead in creating an event in which all could participate. Communing, and the relational space it generates, is a simple human need and does not require an organized event; it can come to life in hallways, over coffee or lunch, and in the many informal opportunities that present themselves each day. • Be response-able. A hallmark of organizations that successfully create and sustain playspace is participants who share response-ability for bringing the relational space to life. Rather than waiting for permission, those with response-ability boldly initiate creative ways to engage their colleagues and customers. • Attune. Participants can develop awareness of the relational space and increase their relational intelligence by slowing down and attuning to the dynamics of their interactions and the quality of their collaborations. By attuning to the relational space, participants can take greater responsibility for creating playspace in which there is room for all to work at the top of their talent.

3 PLAYSPACE IS GENERATIVE SPACE

The Google offices are legendary for their exercise balls and rolling collaboration-friendly desks, as well as the gourmet cafeteria with abundant choices of free food and other envy-invoking perks. These, in addition to regular playful events, such as the recent ‘‘pimp my cubicle’’ contest in which participants attempted to one-up each other by decking out their workplaces with strings of lights, garlands, and wild photo displays, are the outward expressions of a serious commitment to making space for the free play of ideas and possibilities. The Google workplace is designed to inspire play, innovation, inquiry, and continuous discovery, but most would agree that physical surroundings alone cannot transform a workplace into a playspace. Playspace comes to life through engaged participation in relationship with other people, as well as in relationship with our own experience, and context. This dynamic of playspace is generative (see Figure 3.1) because it generates both energy and possibilities in all who participate. The founders of Google knew of the power of generative space from the start and continue to be committed to fostering all of the dynamics of playspace throughout the organization. With a two-thirds share of the search engine market (‘‘A Conversation with Marissa Mayer,’’ 2009) and net revenue of $5.52 billion (Investor Relations, 2009), their sustained success is due in large part to the playspace they consistently create for innovating, learning, and changing.

69

70


Figure 3.1. Generative Space

Relational Gen e ive rat

Number four on the list of ‘‘Top 10 Reasons to Work at Google’’ (2009) on the company Web site is: ‘‘Work and play are not mutually exclusive: It is possible to code and pass the puck at the same time.’’ Organizations that consistently engage the best of their employees transcend the work-play dualism. Often referred to as ‘‘employee number 20,’’ Marissa Mayer, vice president of search product and user experience, is one of the more public faces of Google’s playspace. She regularly speaks at tech conferences, lectures at her alma mater, Stanford, and is featured in the business media, where she often discusses her ‘‘nine notions of innovation.’’ Mayer is the first to put Google’s

PLAYSPACE IS GENERATIVE SPACE

71

physical space in perspective when people ask her how they can bring some of the seemingly magical energy to their organizations: You don’t need to build brightly colored campuses filled with toys and then offer free food. It’s important to realize each company is different and the benefits they offer their employees need to [be] customized to their culture and their unique situation. But there clearly are things that can be replicated, like having small teams, awarding a lot of ownership to those teams so you stretch and grow those people. Or really focusing on and demanding that innovation come from everyone and everywhere throughout the organization. One of the worst things you can do in a company is to have an R&D segment or an innovation group. Once you have some people whose job it is to innovate, everyone else stops innovating [‘‘Google’s Mayer,’’ 2008].

Mayer is describing the generative dynamic of playspace. A space is generative when those who engage in it are actively generating energy and possibilities. Generative space is also life giving; it gives life to both the participants and their ideas. You have experienced generative space when you leave a meeting more excited about what is possible than when you arrived; you have experienced generative space if you find yourself settling back into your body with optimism, even in the midst of chaotic times; you have experienced generative space when you rediscover your sense of humor while exploring alternative perspectives; and you have experienced generative space when you become energized through your participation. Generativity is a key quality of playspace. Like the gas- and solar-powered generators that deliver energy to homes, businesses, and hospitals in emergencies, playspace generates energy for new ways of thinking and being as its participants engage with the positive core of their experience. Most describe their experience of playspace as energizing and invigorating. Organizational scholar-practitioner Cate Creede (2008) researched the nature

72


of the spaces people create in everyday interactions. She found that the most generative interactions ‘‘energize and enhance our sense of who we can be—as singular self or as collective—and what we can do as a result’’ (p. 32).

Open Systems From a whole-systems perspective, the second law of thermodynamics is a useful metaphor to understand generative space. A closed or isolated system will eventually distribute its energy to a point of greatest equilibrium, dispersing the available energy that might be harnessed for work. The second law proposes that closed systems will tend toward increasing entropy and has been borne out in biological as well as human systems. Open systems, however, freely exchange energy and matter with their environment and other systems, which provide energy for the system to sustain its generativity. Metaphorically individuals, teams, departments, and entire organizations can operate as either open or closed systems, based on their ability to exchange resources, ideas, and life energy with their context. Systems that are less open to this exchange will eventually devolve and lose their ability to harness energy for innovating, learning, and changing. Systems that actively cultivate generativity are open and able to tap endless sources of energy and ideas. Open systems can contain closed systems; however, a closed system cannot contain an open system. This has important implications for those who champion generative space. An individual, team, or division that operates from a rigid framework, mental model, or belief system has difficulty accepting (collaborating with or being influenced by) others whose ways of thinking and being challenge their own; however, people who operate with an awareness of their frameworks can be open to, influenced by, and creatively provoked by others, making for an evolving context in which all have the opportunity to transform and be transformed by and within the system.


73

Such generativity consistently breathes energy into our individual and collective capacity for positively contributing to the life of our organization, work groups, collaborations, and relationships. While many organizations came to be in generative spaces over late-night conversations and in legendary dorm rooms and garages, companies such as Google understand that they must foster this space if they want to continue to innovate. Generative space is characterized by the energy it generates and the possibilities it ignites. In fact, in generative space, it takes more energy to resist full creative engagement than to surrender to its magnetic force. It is created in real time in the midst of human engagement and collaboration. Generative space can come to life in structured settings such as meetings, presentations, and learning settings; often it emerges when there is literally room for it and informal space for the natural energy of engagement to flow. More and more organizations understand and value this space, and they are creating the conditions for generativity. Google offices around the world have informal gathering spaces and cafeterias (with the fabled free gourmet food) throughout the corporate campus. These are here not only to ensure Googlers don’t go hungry or waste valuable time off campus on meal breaks, but to make room for informal and spontaneous connection. Google’s Chicago office human resource business partner, Sally Anderson, reflects, ‘‘Sometimes the discussions you have over food are different than you have in the workplace. So that was really what generated that, and opening that space of collaboration, and gathering knowledge and information sharing. And it’s funny, around lunchtime . . . different teams [of] people meet, or . . . everybody just bellies up to the different tables.’’ She continued, ‘‘I think there’s just such an . . . awe about them, especially the free lunches, but that’s not really the meaning behind it. It’s really about collaboration and having another work space that’s not here. [The] reason why Google really started with that was to facilitate that collaboration,

74


having people have those opportunities to have this more casual conversation.’’

Productivity and Generative Space When researchers Rob Cross and Andrew Parker (2004) analyzed the use of information networks and databases in a global corporation, they also identified those who positively affected energy levels, and they found something surprising: the highest performers were not necessarily those who most consistently tapped the information resources of the organization. By far, the highest performers were those who served as energy hubs for others. An energy hub in a social network is someone whom others identify as energizing them when they collaborate. People seek out such attractors when they have fledgling ideas or a new insight, or they are looking for a collaborator on a new venture. Cross and Parker also found that generativity is contagious; those who worked for attractors were also more likely to be high performers. Generativity, then, is contagious and expands the capacity of individuals and the organizational system in which they participate. Anderson confirms this: ‘‘I think some of the things were consistent that if you ask people why they enjoy working here, it’s the people; it’s the people they work with.’’ In fact, Google’s generative space is such an attractor to prospective new hires that Anderson describes it as a ‘‘mystique,’’ and for the jealous friends of ‘‘Googlers,’’ as Google employees call themselves, ‘‘it’s, ‘How do you get hired at Google?’ ’’

Organizational Degenerates If generativity is contagious, its opposite is also contagious. It would be hard to find a person who has not experienced the opposite of generative space. If you have felt your energy draining in the midst of a collaboration or project meeting, or if you dread the monthly committee meeting because it always leaves you


75

exhausted and deadened, you have experienced the opposite of generative space: enervative space. As leaders, facilitators, and participants become more attuned to the quality of the energy in their spaces, they become less tolerant of those who do not give life to their thinking and work. This inner divining rod can help leaders, facilitators, and participants monitor whether a particular space is serving its purpose and to take responsibility when it is flagging. When the energy and possibility begin to drain from a lively space, it is degenerating. We commonly call those who do not contribute to society or actively detract from it ‘‘degenerates.’’ This use tends to have a moral connotation, though at its simplest, it describes an individual’s impact on the generative capacity of a relationship, group, organization, or society. Most of us can point to experiences we have had of such individuals in the midst of an ideation, problem-solving, planning, or strategy session. They are the ones who prematurely judge emerging ideas, inject sarcasm and cynicism, and generally poison the waters of possibility. When a meeting, venture, or relationship degenerates, we know its possibilities are shrinking. In playspace when people experience and begin to trust the generativity, the need to hoard information and ideas, censor questions and insights, and monitor the environment for threats dissipates. Generativity, then, implies a positive dynamic—one that expands possibilities and the likelihood that people will contribute at the top of their capacity and be able to live and act from their best self.

Generations in Generative Space Another increasingly relevant iteration of the root ‘‘generate’’ is generation. Common use describes generations by epochs, time spans, and the societal forces that have shaped their values and perspectives. We have separated those currently in the workforce into the boomers, Gen X, Gen Y, and, most recently, millennials.

76


A growing number of books and workshops have emerged coaching managers on how to motivate, engage, and collaborate with each generation and to support an increasingly generationally diverse workforce. It is certainly a positive development when efforts are made to surface and understand the experiences, frameworks, values, and assumptions that guide any group’s ways of thinking and being. As noted in Chapter One, growing individual awareness of self and others and their context is the entry point for most who describe a deepening capacity for improvised play. Awareness provides a dynamic relationship to all aspects of playspace. However, when generalizations of large swatches of human experience are used as the basis for prescriptive approaches, the dynamic nature of individual experience and relationships is lost. For example, if as a manager, I assume that because my employee is a millennial, I should reward him at every turn (because I think this is what he expects), I may miss the opportunity to challenge him in an area in which he needs to develop new skills or discover his individual passion and motivations. With awareness, we can appreciate both the life experiences and the social and cultural influences that may have shaped the mind-set of members of a generation and make room for individual differences, personalities, and unique perspectives. A more useful approach to understanding generational differences is to restore the word itself, generation, to its active state. Just as incubation, creation, and transformation describe processes or verbs (incubating, creating, and transforming), if we understand generations in terms of their contributions to the shared playspace, we restore the dynamic nature of the word to its capacity for generating possibilities for discovery, emergence, and growth. I regularly work with generationally diverse groups in organizational and classroom settings. Over the years, I have noticed that as people begin to trust the space as a place where their experience and perceptions are valued and where there is room for all voices to be heard, each person begins to emerge as a complex and


77

creative contributor. As each participant experiences acceptance and appreciation for his or her contributions, the playspace becomes increasingly generative. Energy is no longer spent protecting self-image and proving status, expertise, or value; energy is generated as everyone engages with the positive core of their capacities. Many organizations I work with report that when they become more aware, accepting, and appreciative of the contributions each of their participants makes, including those informed by their generational reference points, experience, wisdom, and enthusiasm, each generation benefits and realizes its true generative capacity.

Generative Space in Innovating Just as it is impossible to get very far driving with the brake on, spaces that impede the sharing and exploration of new perspectives will have little innovation success. Generative space for organizational innovation is space not only for the organization itself to be innovative, but to generate innovative approaches, services, and products. Rite-Solutions, a software company that builds classified systems for the U.S. Navy, has found a novel way to tap the generative capacity of its organization for innovation. In 2005 it launched an internal stock exchange called Mutual Fun and gave each employee ten thousand dollars in virtual ‘‘opinion money.’’ New ideas are posted on the exchange with an opening value of ten dollars per stock and a brief description. The company keeps track of rising stocks and regularly harvests those that attract the most investors for further development. Chief executive James R. Lavoie noted, ‘‘We’re the founders, but we’re far from the smartest people here. At most companies, especially technology companies, the most brilliant insights tend to come from people other than senior management. So we created a marketplace to harvest collective genius’’ (Taylor, 2006, p. 3). Google has developed its own ‘‘predictive market system’’ or futures market that allows employees to bid on ideas and projects,

78


as well as product launch dates. The system’s value is twofold: it actively engages all organizational participants in the creative life of the company, and it helps decision makers value and evaluate its emerging ideas (Austin, 2005). Rite-Solutions and Google have created playspace by making room for the generous sharing of new ideas and by making the sharing playful and engaging. Rather than participate in a new product development session in which flip charts are filled with wild ideas and then left to gather dust, they have created a generative space for anyone in the organization to share their ideas and for others to invest in those ideas. At Rite-Solutions and Google, each virtual ‘‘investment’’ generates additional energy and enthusiasm, fostering more space for others to build on the existing ideas or post their own.

Generative Space in Learning The essence of much organizational learning is the ability to surface and examine the assumptions, frameworks, and mental models that guide our conscious and unconscious behavior and decision making. We don’t need to look very far to see what happens when entire industries fail to reexamine the beliefs on which their once-successful strategies were founded. As I write, the U.S. auto industry is actively reinventing itself after years of failing to respond to environmental, economic, and geopolitical concerns that did not exist when it set its original strategic course. All organizations, large and small, operate within constraints; however, when those constraints are the beliefs themselves, stagnation and degeneration are the likely outcomes. Rigidity in perspectives and thinking are at least as debilitating as rigid operating systems and processes. Organizations are as susceptible to inflexible thinking as individuals. Like addicts who become obsessively attached to getting their fix, organizations become attached to the approaches that led to their early success. Just as the original strategy that led to a once enjoyable high for the addict is soon


79

ineffective, organizations often see diminishing results when the same strategy is used again and again. It is no coincidence that the definition of insanity oft repeated by recovering addicts applies here: doing the same thing and expecting different results. A singular focus on the outcomes and an unyielding attachment to one way to get there is a combination destined for failure. At Threadless, Jake Nickell is well aware of the siren’s song of prior success and purposely guides his company to focus on the generative process: I think that by having an open community, we’re creating an open environment for the artwork. Threadless has always been just, ‘‘Hey, I made this piece of art. I’m gonna put it on a T-shirt and submit it to Threadless,’’ not, ‘‘I’m gonna make this piece of art for Threadless because I know the Threadless community’s gonna like it. I don’t have any use for it other than submitting it to Threadless because that’s what I made it for.’’ I think that our culture has to be able to maintain that you’re a free agent, design for the sake of design, art for the sake of art, just there are no rules necessarily and we’ll try not to be real rigid when it comes to both the culture and the types of art that we’re printing.

When I asked Jake to describe how this commitment plays out in their day-to-day operations, he admitted, ‘‘It’s very difficult to maintain.’’ The temptation to capitalize on past successes at the cost of the generative space is great. Nickell admits, ‘‘We’ve had situations like that occur. I mean the ones that we haven’t let actually happen have been [when] we did a Star Wars parody shirt once, and then all of a sudden we got this huge influx of Star Wars parody designs. They all scored really well too, or a lot of them did. But we didn’t want to become the Star Wars parody T-shirt company.’’ When organizations have a death grip on the outcomes, they often kill the very intrinsic, generative life that fuels their

80


innovative success. Improvisers learned of this deadly force early in the development of the contemporary manifestation of the art form. A seasoned improviser once told me, ‘‘I know I’m in trouble if I start a scene thinking I know where I want it to go.’’ When the process is the product, as it is for improvisers, the value is placed on the dynamic, engaging, generative nature of participation, and quite often, the product takes care of itself.

Generative Space in Changing Many organizational change initiatives fail not because of poor strategy, but because they have not attended to the capacities and space necessary for positive change to occur. The shift from workplace to playspace is from thinking of change as a neatly controlled process with a beginning, middle, and end, to a dynamic, ongoing process of changing. By fostering the generative capacity of aspects and participants in the system, organizations can support the success of both planned and unplanned experiences of changing. Much of early strategic thinking was inspired by military operations and conceived for a command-and-control environment. The dynamic change necessary in today’s organizations requires a level of intrinsic engagement and responsiveness that is rarely inspired by purely directive approaches. Increasingly practitioners are employing approaches that engage the life, passion, and positive lived experiences of organizational members. Appreciative inquiry (Cooperrider, Sorensen, Whitney, & Yaeger, 2000), for example, generates energy and possibility as participants discover what gives life to the organization. With a simple invitation to share a story about a successful innovation, learning, or change experience, I have seen large groups come alive. People become more animated, energized, and engaged as they recount their experience saving the day for a customer, learning a new operating system, discovering a previously untapped talent, or finding the growth opportunities


81

in organizational change. When they reexperience the life-giving energy that was available to them in their successful experience, the energy and the lessons learned are generative: they seed the ground for new possibilities. Responsibility for making space for such generativity can and must be shared by members across the organization, many of whom will find themselves playing the role of leader, facilitator, and participant as they bring playspace to life each day. This is the energy that attracts bright, talented, and motivated people to Google and other organizations that foster playspace. It is evident the moment you walk in the door and radiates from engaged participants throughout the organization. They are given space to take responsibility for their own experience, and they take it.

Bringing Generative Space to Life Each of the dynamics of playspace is brought to life by the wonderfilled, curious, and generous human beings in relationship with each other and their context. The quality of the energy that emerges from the co-created space is often a barometer for the available room for innovating, learning, and changing. The following coaching sections offer ideas for taking responsibility for the quality of the energy and the available generative space in your role as leader, facilitator, and participant. Role of the Leader: Be a Secretary of Energy In recent years leaders have been held accountable for their organization’s financial dealings, whether they were actually aware of or fully understood the complex strategies their accountants and financial officers used to show the desired return for their shareholders. The standard of accountability is whether these leaders could have or should have known of the decisions for which they are accountable. The list of leaders in business and government

82


who are paying for their lack of attunement or complicity in illegal or unethical activity grows each month. Leaders are increasingly held accountable for the transactions that occur on their watch and are considered complicit even if they were not aware of them. Financial transactions, however, are only one dimension of organizational dynamics; leaders who wish to foster and sustain innovation, learning, and an ability to respond to change must be accountable to the transformational, relational, and energetic dimensions of their organizations. While it is unlikely that leaders will ever be prosecuted for their lack of awareness of flagging morale and motivation or growing cynicism and enervation, these are indicators of degeneration that they truly could have or should have known about. When leaders think of their role as the secretary of energy, like their government counterparts, they take responsibility for monitoring and supporting the development of new sources of energy. To play this role, they pay attention to the energy hubs and match people, projects, and passion. Pay Attention to the Energy Hubs. Many effective leaders are naturally attuned to the level of generativity among their colleagues, teams, departments, and divisions. Before the playspace has a chance to degenerate, they intervene. There are a number of signs of degeneration—for example: • Low participation or participation by a select few in team meetings • Decrease in ideas for new products, services, and business strategies • Flagging energy in conversations and group collaborations • A marked and unexplained increase in the use of paid time off and sick leave benefits • Tension and defensiveness between colleagues • Information and resource hoarding


83

Leaders who are less naturally attuned to the generativity of their organizational spaces can implement practices that give them feedback on the overall level of engagement, as well as on the generativity of a given project team or collaboration. One strategy is to simply ask for informal feedback from group leaders, facilitators, and participants. A simple, ‘‘How’s it going?’’ or even a more pointed, ‘‘What’s the current level of engagement and energy?’’ can often yield valuable feedback. I am no fan of overreliance on company surveys or culture inventories, because they can easily reduce complex issues to bullet points and are often used as justification for prescriptive, mechanistic approaches that only compound the very issues the surveys identify. In proper perspective, however, they can provide some broad-brush information that can serve as a starting point for bringing the playspace to life. A few examples that can yield useful information, if used thoughtfully, are the KEYS creative climate survey (Amabile, 1995), Denison Organizational Culture Survey (Denison, 1990), and Gallup’s Q12 survey of customer and employee engagement (Wagner & Harter, 2006). More and more organizations are also using data from social networking maps to identify the energy hubs and help focus opportunities for regeneration. Match People, Projects, and Passion. The research on innovation, learning, and intrinsic motivation—‘‘the inherent tendency to seek out novelty and challenges, to extend and exercise one’s capacities to explore, and to learn’’ (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 70)—shows that when people are aligned with their interests and talents (their individual positive core), they are much more likely to generate novel ideas, as well as to persevere through the trials and tribulations of the creative and learning process (Amabile, 1996, 1998; Baer, 1987). When managers regularly engage with their team members to understand their skills, knowledge, and talents, as well as their interests, aspirations, and motivations, they can actively support their

84


growth and continued engagement by connecting people to other people, projects, and prospects. Some of the most innovative organizations make room for people to pursue the projects that spark their passion and curiosity and allow them to work at the top of their talent. Google’s 20 percent time is a big attractor for many of the world’s most creative thinkers in technology. By encouraging all employees to spend 20 percent of their time on pet projects and personally interesting endeavors, Google makes space for all to engage in generative space and generate new possibilities for the organization and the culture. Google Serv, a day of community service organized by and for Google employees, is one such outgrowth of 20 percent time, as is the Employee Happiness Committee. There is no mandate that employees prove the quantifiable outcomes of their 20 percent time, as this would easily censor all but the most obvious ideas; however, the program has spawned a number of innovations, including AdSense for Content and Orkut, Google’s social networking site. Today 50 percent of Google’s new product releases can be traced to projects that were explored during 20 percent time. Role of the Facilitator: Engage the Positive Core In my early years of facilitating organizational change initiatives, I often found myself inadvertently making space for participants to describe all of the problems they perceived in their organization, the personality flaws of the people who were getting in the way of anything good ever happening, and the outdated systems and processes with which they did battle daily. As I listened, I would notice the energy draining from the room, and I would leave these sessions exhausted, as, I imagine, did those who shared their tales of woe with me. With each challenge-filled story, I felt the growing burden and expectation, as organizational ‘‘expert,’’ that I would ride in and ‘‘fix it.’’


85

This approach was quite logical from the mechanistic framework described in Chapter Two that guided much early management thinking. However, organizations are not machines, and most often the challenges encountered are very human in nature. Over time and with guidance from others in the emerging field of positive organizational scholarship (Wagner & Harter, 2006), I came to question the assumptions behind this approach. Not only was I positioning myself as expert, fostering a dependency that would not be helpful to the organization in the long run, I was failing to engage the generative core of the organization by this approach. Research and several years of practice using generative approaches show that when people discover and work from their own and the organizational system strengths, they expand their capacity for innovating, learning, and changing while generating positive strategies to respond to complex organizational issues. Bring the Best Forward. This shift in mind-set from workplace to playspace does not mean ignoring reports of organizational challenges. Complaints, voiced frustration, and even anger can actually be good signs—signs that people care about something and that there is an ideal that, if surfaced, is worth pursuing. For example, in lamenting the lack of leadership, risk taking, or collaboration, organizational participants and stakeholders are communicating that they care about these qualities and will likely engage when given the chance to bring them to life. Appreciative approaches to engagement ask participants to identify their experiences of visionary leadership, bold risk taking, or rewarding collaboration and mine them for guiding their lessons. Although these qualities and lessons are aspirational, they are firmly rooted in the lived experience of the organizational members. They are not theoretical. A core concept guiding

86


appreciative inquiry is that ‘‘if we carry parts of the past forward, they should be what is best about the past’’ (Hammond, 1998, p. 21). Rather than inadvertently amplifying the negative energy by engaging in freewheeling gripe sessions, strategies that engage the positive core of people’s experience create a generative space in which innovative ideas and insights can light the way to transformation. Coach for Generativity. Even well-intentioned people can be unaware of the impact they are having on the energy and engagement in the space. In organizations with strong coaching cultures and some training and experience in giving feedback to people at all levels of the organization, coaching may be easily given and received. However, in most organizations, feedback is seen as a code word for criticism; at best, it may not be welcome, and at worst, it may be met with defensiveness. Those in the role of formal or informal facilitator often have the opportunity to give feedback without being perceived as a threat by the recipient. Facilitators who understand the importance of fostering generative space are quick to respond when the energy shifts. As a human resource partner, Sally Anderson shares this responsibility. She described a situation recently with one of the managers at Google: ‘‘She seemed a little short and wasn’t quite herself. I could just tell there was something different. And then she just confided in me recently [that] a family member is seriously ill. So it’s knowing that, and I said, ‘It’s impacting how you are; just be aware of that.’ ’’ By taking the time to discover what was going on with the manager, Anderson was able to be both empathetic and provide valuable feedback that could be received without defensiveness. This type of responsiveness not only supports the individual manager but everyone else in the system to trust that its generativity will be monitored and cultivated at each opportunity. Regardless of the source, we all respond more favorably to input when it is couched in appreciative terms. Here are a few


87

suggestions for coaching for generativity inspired by the appreciative inquiry stages of discover, dream, design, and destiny (Orem, Binkert, & Clancy, 2007). These are admittedly truncated and meant to provide some insight into a process that might well occur in a series of longer conversations: • Discover what gives life to or energizes the individual: • Notice the behavior and inquire about the intention: Facilitator: I noticed you kept cutting Fred off in the meeting. Participant: I guess I am just tired of hearing ideas that we have no hope of ever implementing. • Appreciate the intention or challenge: Facilitator: I can certainly understand your frustration, and your desire to work within the constraints that have been established. • Dream: Ask the person to tell you more about her ideal scenario or outcome: Facilitator: Can you tell me what it might look like if everyone shared an understanding of the boundaries they needed to work within? Participant: Well, I suppose we wouldn’t be wasting time and energy on unrealistic projects and could be generating ideas that we have the means to implement now. • Design: Ask the person if she is willing to generate ideas for alternative approaches: Facilitator: Would it be helpful to develop some approaches that could help the team move in this direction? Participant: Sure. I’d like to start by giving everyone a current snapshot of our financial situation and get some agreement on our available resources for new initiatives. I’d also like to see us do a better job of evaluating ideas in relationship to our current goals.

88


• Destiny: Co-create strategies to implement and sustain the positive results once progress has been made. A generative approach to coaching, such as those employed at Google and guided by an appreciative attitude of inquiry, engages the positive core at the root of individual and group thinking and behavior. When this generative space is reestablished, positive alternatives to negative behavior soon emerge, and play is restored to the system. Listen. People in leadership positions can easily miss their facilitation opportunities, especially informal and spontaneous opportunities. Not Marissa Mayer; she has purposely positioned her office near the snack room in her Google building to be available for drop-in sessions to hear about people’s latest pet projects and vexing issues. Mayer also holds office hours three times a week to ensure space for less spontaneous conversations: ‘‘I keep my ears open. I work at building a reputation for being receptive’’ (‘‘Managing Google’s Idea Factory,’’ 2005). Mayer understands that listeners are often energy hubs in their organizations. It is easy to underestimate the power of listening in opening up more generative space and to reenergize flagging or overwhelmed individuals and teams. This lesson was reinforced for me recently when working on-site at a large municipal organization. After I had met with several administrators, word had spread about what was going on behind the conference room doors. The next administrator in line walked in with a big smile on her face: ‘‘Everyone is saying how great they feel after talking to you,’’ she announced. ‘‘They say it’s like therapy!’’ I was surprised and delighted (and a bit unsettled with the expectation) to hear that people were feeling so energized, when all I was doing was listening to them talk about their experiences negotiating their day-to-day challenges and opportunities. I was there to get to know the people and personality of the organization, and had forgotten how refreshing it can be for people to simply be listened to.


89

If we are to break the deadly cycle of escalating violence—of strike and counter-strike, atrocity and enraged reaction—we must listen intently to what everybody, even our enemy, is saying, and be sincerely ready to let it change us: to get beyond the rhetoric, decode the imagery, and hear the subtext of rage, grief, fear, pain, hatred and despair. —Karen Armstrong (2006)

Entire movements have emerged, such as the Compassionate Listening Project, which began as a strategy for Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation and is now used around the world, to address this fundamental human need, grounded in the belief that much healing can come for both the listener and the listened-to in the process. More than great ideas and insights are lost when there is no listening; so, too, are opportunities for connection, mutual appreciation, and engagement. At best, this translates into organizational enervation and cynicism; at worst, it can escalate to subtle and not-so-subtle acting out as people resort to more and more creative and even dangerous tactics in their attempt to be heard. Geopolitically we see such attempts every day as people who feel voiceless resort to increasingly extreme and violent forms of protest. Such extreme behavior in organizations is rare; however, attuned leaders, facilitators, and participants will do well to consistently make space for listening, a practice that can transform degenerative frustration into generative possibility. Role of the Participant: Be a Generous Generator The antidote to degenerative influences is generosity. Like the more-than-ample portions enthusiastically served at holiday meals, generosity describes abundance—always having more than enough to give gifts freely without coercion or strings attached. Generosity breeds generosity and easily eclipses stinginess and protectionism. Actors who give their fellow players rich responses,

90


emotions, and behavior to play off of are described as generous. Similarly, generous players in other playspaces freely share their experiences, resources, and ideas with their fellow players, always with an interest in expanding possibilities and supporting shared success. The success of all forms of collaboration, especially improvisation, thrives on agreement. Rather than dull the generative space, agreement allows all to contribute and continue to provoke new thinking and ways of being. Improvisers must collaborate without the benefit of preplanning (if it was planned, it wouldn’t be improvisation), and in front of a live, paying audience (whose members may be in various stages of inebriation). When the improvisation begins, the players agree with the first suggestion from the audience. At a recent performance at a local improvisational club in Chicago, an audience member yelled out, ‘‘Sandworms!’’ in response to a request for a title of a new musical. Immediately one of the eight players on the team began improvising riding on the back of a giant worm in a sandstorm. Almost simultaneously his teammates joined in, adding new discoveries and improvising flowing robes and headdresses, water jugs, and saddlebags as the scene unfolded. There is an important distinction between agreement and being agreeable. The former is a valuable principle for structuring collaborative action, while the latter connotes an almost codependent desire to please others and discard one’s own beliefs, values, and ideas. In fact, the success of collaboration depends on individual passion and commitment and thrives on the generous sharing of unique individual talents. Organizations that consistently foster playspace recruit generous generators. Google’s Anderson describes what this looks like from her purview: [It’s] someone who . . . has a good educational background, but also, for example, they really are the go-getters. They’re not just . . . showing up because it’s a job; it’s someone that definitely


91

wants to make an impact, and maybe has contributed outside of work, not just internally. . . . It’s a highly educated workforce, and so you anticipate people knowing their game, so to speak. They’re very smart. If you ask someone for something, they’re going to help you out. And especially if you have something big going on or there’s a big deadline. Definitely all hands and people will pitch in, and I’ve never had any resistance to me like, ‘‘Oh, I can’t do that.’’

Generators have something to contribute, and they know it; they are generous with their contributions because they know there is always more where that came from and that the tide of generosity flows both ways. Be Fearless. Jake Nickell, founder of Threadless, had this advice for people working in organizations that may not outwardly seem as freewheeling as his: ‘‘I think a lot of the reasons why people don’t try to have their voices be heard is because of fear or they’re just afraid of what are they gonna think. . . . I mean, if you think that it’s a good idea, there’s no reason why you shouldn’t tell your boss about it or . . . try to do it yourself. I mean, don’t be afraid to do something that you’re excited about.’’ By not speaking up, sharing your ideas, or playing out alternative possibilities, you may inadvertently be responsible for some of the degenerative space in your organization. Taking responsibility for your own experience means helping to realize the ideal future in the present moment through engaging with the shared positive intentions of your colleagues. Give Appreciative Feedback. Positive attention is generative and can set in motion a new cycle of awareness, acceptance, and appreciation leading to generative action. Several of my research participants cited the role others played in helping them overcome negative self-beliefs about their capacity for improvised play. When they received appreciative feedback from their peers

92


for their forays into new territory, their confidence grew, along with their willingness to continue to develop their competence. Anyone can set this generative cycle in motion with a public or private round of applause, short e-mail, phone call, or comment. You may never know the impact you had, and you can be confident that your appreciation will contribute to the generative space, and all will enjoy its rewards.

Chapter Summary Generative space creates energy as it energizes its participants who generously contribute their passion, curiosity, and desire to co-create a positive future. Through participation in generative space, people experience themselves and their colleagues at their best. Generativity is contagious, and those who consistently engage it spread it to their colleagues and tend to be productive and innovative. As all become more aware of their impact on the shared space and share responsibility for it, they also become more accepting and appreciative of the diverse contributions of their colleagues, including those informed by generational differences. Organizational innovation is sustained by generative space and opportunities for engaged participation, as invited by Google’s predictive market system and Rite-Solutions’s internal stock exchange, Mutual Fun. Organizational learning succeeds when there is generative space to question long-held beliefs and practices. Positive organizational change also comes to life when people are given the opportunity to tap into and learn from their own experiences of successful change and use those lessons to guide future success. Guiding Principles for Leaders, Facilitators, and Participants Role of the Leader: Be a Secretary of Energy. In addition to the other responsibilities for the organization’s success, leaders


93

must share responsibility for the energy and engagement of all of its members to ensure generative space for innovating, learning, and changing: • Pay attention to the energy hubs. Monitor the level and quality of participation in collaborations and shared initiatives, as well the outcomes. For systemwide assessment, periodically and thoughtfully use surveys to monitor participation and engagement levels. • Match people, projects, and passion. When people are invited to work from their strengths and passion, they are naturally more intrinsically motivated for new learning and innovation and persevere through the trials and tribulations of the process. Regularly matching (and rematching) people, projects, and passion sets them up for success as generous generators. Role of the Facilitator: Engage the Positive Core. More often than looking for what works, and engaging that energy and wisdom for guidance, we have been trained to focus on what does not work. Facilitators can support shared success by engaging this positive core by focusing on what works: • Bring the best forward. Using appreciative practices that tap into people’s experiences of themselves at their best engages the positive energy of the group while allowing it to take ownership of its wisdom to guide future success. • Coach for generativity. Respectful feedback to those who are having a negative impact on the energy of the group and the available space for new perspectives can restore playspace, while letting participants know that they can trust that others care enough to ensure the quality of the space. • Listen. One of the most facilitative practices to create generative space is also the simplest: listening. People who feel

94


passionately about an idea or perspective need to be heard. Such passion is valuable for the organizational system, and gone unheard, it can shift into degenerative energy. Listening to the passion at the heart of the idea provides an opportunity for engagement and transformation, and it expands the generative space. Role of the Participant: Be a Generous Generator. People are attracted to those who contribute, build on others’ ideas, and support the shared success of the group. Interestingly, those who generously focus on making others look good also tend to be more successful in their individual efforts: • Be fearless. Rather than waiting for permission to make a contribution or share a fresh idea or provocative perspective, generous generators fearlessly initiate, take responsibility, and build. • Give appreciative feedback. Positive response to others’ contributions expands the generative space and increases the likelihood it will be sustained. Generous generators do not look to others in formal leadership roles to provide such feedback; they take responsibility to appreciate the ways in which their colleagues are supporting the shared success. Playspace is the generative relational space for innovating, learning, and changing. To fully describe the dynamics of relationality and generativity, I devoted separate chapters to each; however, in playspace, they cannot be separated. Spaces become generative relationally, while generativity breathes life into the relational space. Together they enliven playspace for innovating, learning, and changing.

4 PLAYSPACE IS SAFE SPACE

‘‘I can be myself here’’ is a theme that runs through work groups, departments, and entire organizations that make room for organizational innovation, learning, and change. Playspace is safe for people to bring their whole selves to work. Safe space (see Figure 4.1) means that they experience acceptance as a given, which frees them to get on with the serious business of passionate, creative collaboration, spirited debate, and engaged execution of the organization’s vision. Theater companies have a reputation for making space for a diverse cast of characters, though the diversity itself is not enough to sustain creative engagement and artistic excellence year after year. The internationally known Theater Oobleck in Chicago has been creating original theater for more than two decades, an achievement itself in the precarious world of small nonprofit arts groups. Ensemble members report that they return to production after production, year after year, because they have found a creative home at Theater Oobleck. Where do we tend to feel most at home? Where we experience unconditional acceptance and safety. Theater Oobleck is also unique for its directorless approach to creating theater. In an art form that tends to be very directorcentric, Oobleck’s process is bold and courageous and demands a determined commitment to creating a space in which many passionate, creative people can express their viewpoints and come to consensus. In addition to their fierce commitment to a collaborative, consensus-based process, Oobleck has cultivated 95

96


Figure 4.1. Safe Space

Relational Gen e

af

e

ive rat

S

this space for more than two decades by following a few simple guidelines: • Actor’s prerogative. After all of the debates and explorations, it is the actor on stage who has to say the line or perform an action. In the end, the actor is responsible for his or her performance, and so has the final voice in what he or she performs. • The playwright always has to be in the play. ‘‘When the playwright is in the play, the playwright immediately has solidarity with their fellow actors,’’ explains founding member David Isaacson. Having the playwright in the play

PLAYSPACE IS SAFE SPACE

97

ensures that no one is dominating the collaboration: ‘‘There always has to be respect for the playwright because they’ve been working on it a long time and they know the work very well, and at the same time, [there is] a willingness to challenge the playwright and augment the playwright’s vision. [This] works best when the playwright’s in the play because then the playwright is dealing with people in an inherently collaborative way.’’ • Outside eyes. To mediate any possibility of groupthink that could emerge from this kind of collaboration, Oobleck regularly invites outside eyes in to provide feedback along the way. Invited guests sit in on rehearsals and preview performances and offer their responses in a lively session with the actors and entire creative team, facilitated by an ensemble member. ‘‘And the earlier we bring people in, the better things go,’’ reports Isaacson. ‘‘Sometimes we wait too long to bring people in. [It’s important to be] getting fresh perspective all the time, and it’s fascinating perspective because it’s [an] audience perspective and that is, in the end, who you’re gonna be performing for.’’ While Oobleck’s guidelines are meant to support the work of co-creating original theater, they can be translated to create safe space for innovating, learning, and changing in many other settings. Organizations, work groups, and interactions that model and encourage shared responsibility, respect, and openness to constructive feedback foster the dynamic space in which all can work at the top of their talent free from fear of reprisal for sharing their passionate ideas and whole selves.

Let Your Freak Flag Fly Acceptance is the foundation for safety. In shifting from a workplace to a playspace mind-set, people experience increasing acceptance of themselves, others, and their work context as they develop the capacity for improvised play and engage in

98


innovating, learning, and changing. Acceptance naturally grows from engagement in generative relational space. Safety is the actionable dynamic of acceptance. Leaders, facilitators, and participants share responsibility for creating a space that is safe for the play of ideas, alternatives, and new iterations. When people at all levels of the organization know they will not be judged or penalized in some way for bringing their whole self to work, sharing ideas that may seem a bit crazy at first, and risking enthusiasm for team and organizational projects (in some organizations, it is actually risky to appear enthusiastic), the likelihood that they will generate exciting ideas, be willing to challenge outdated thinking and practice, and be responsive to change increases significantly. In short, people need to feel safe enough to let their freak flags fly, as Jimi Hendrix called to a generation. The Chicago Public Schools officer, Googlers, Threadless founders, and the ensemble members of Theater Oobleck all make the space in which it is safe not only to fly their freak flags, but to fly outrageous new ideas, playful suggestions, and bold strategies. If I ‘‘accept’’ you, but know nothing of you, this is a shallow acceptance indeed, and you realize that it may change if I actually come to know you. But if I understand you empathically, see you and what you are feeling and doing from your point of view, enter your private world and see it as it appears to you—and still accept you—this is safety indeed. In this climate you can permit your real self to emerge, and to express itself in varied and novel formings as it relates to the world. —Carl Rogers (1961, p. 359)

In playspace, there is room for the real self to emerge and for all to learn, collaborate, co-create, lead, and follow at their


99

best. Many similar stories of emergence can be found in highly engaged, productive organizations. Stacey rediscovered her sense of humor and confidence in the law office where she worked as she experienced and co-created more playspace in her life and work: ‘‘I’m more open . . . and they love that. . . . It really, really helped me [be] myself, and not be serious, quiet, you know, more vocal. And I’m more confident about myself with anything I do, almost anything,’’ she reported. With renewed confidence from her experience of playspace, Stacey’s organization now has the benefit of her whole self. Safety and the trust that complements it are essential qualities of any space that fosters organizational innovation, learning, and change. Without safety and trust, individuals’ risk of exposure far outweighs its potential rewards, especially in organizational settings.

What Do I Mean by “Safe”? Those who describe significant success in their creative, learning, and personal change endeavors cite safety as one of the most important factors. Whether the innovating, learning, or changing happens in a team project, classroom, support group, or intimate relationship, the safety that they experience supports their exploration into the unknown. At Theater Oobleck, safe space is not taken for granted; it is created from the first gathering of collaborators. Founding member Isaacson describes what this feels like: One of the nice things about our process, because we work with all original works, is usually the first time everyone gets together is at a play reading, and people are used to that kind [of] context. It’s kind of like getting together for a book group . . . or a class getting together and there’s open discussion about a text or something like that. So that actually aids the initial collaborative impulses because [at] the initial readings, the plays tend to be obviously kind

100


of rough, and the playwright is nervously presenting it. They’re going, ‘‘Oh, this needs a lot of work, this needs a lot of work,’’ which is an invitation to people who are new to the process—an invitation to then go, ‘‘Oh, yeah, and I can give comments. I can discuss it like I would at my book group or I would in the class or something like that, and here I am in this cozy living room and there’s nice cheese and crackers and tea,’’ and so that immediately provides some space for people to feel comfortable collaborating.

The safety Isaacson describes is a natural and necessary progression from the first dimension of playspace described in Chapter One, awareness, because we must be aware of our various contributions and differences before we can accept them. Kahn (1990) defines psychological safety as an employee’s ‘‘sense of being able to show and employ one’s self without fear of negative consequences to self-image, status or career’’ (p. 708). As people become more aware of themselves, others, and their context and as they experience greater acceptance and appreciation, they increasingly want to show and employ their true self, which results in a positive spiral. Many people, however, do not enjoy safe space and all of the benefits that come with it because of the many psychological land mines in their organizations. Harvard School of Business professor Amy Edmondson (2003) has identified four types of psychological risks people take at work: being seen as ignorant, incompetent, negative, or disruptive. If safety is not perceived as a given, few will risk venturing into territory that could have serious negative consequences to their image, credibility, status, or even job security. The consequences for any organization whose continued success is dependent on innovating, learning, and changing are equally devastating when its members do not experience the safety necessary to engage in the risky business of exploration, questioning, discovering, and changing, as the disappointing success rates of organizational initiatives attest.


101

Trust and Safe Space Trust is related to, yet distinct from, safety. Trust is now a common part of the business vocabulary and cannot exist without safety. It is also one of the most vexing organizational issues because it doesn’t respond positively to directive or coercive strategies; managers cannot send their reports to ‘‘trust training’’ and hope they will return ready to trust their leaders and each other. Trust is established over time as it is enacted in relationship with others. Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, and Camerer, in a special edition of the Academy of Management Journal, describe trust as ‘‘a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another’’ (1998, p. 395). In this sense, trust is based on our perceptions of what we believe others will likely do or say in the future; for example, if I tell my boss about an ethical dilemma I am mulling over, can I trust him not to use it against me in my performance review? Safety is concerned with the risk to one’s self in the moment: ‘‘What will happen to me if I say or do this now?’’ In an organization, when someone chooses personal good over collective good, trust begins to wither. —Robert Quinn (2000, p. 125)

Trust and safety are distinct, but they are also interdependent. Those who do not feel safe are unlikely to trust, and those who do not trust are unlikely to feel safe. Conversely, when organizational members co-create and experience safety in playspace, trust follows. In addition to improving the success of collaborative efforts, high levels of trust are associated with a number of organizational benefits. Andrew C. Wicks, Shawn L. Berman, and Thomas M.

102


Jones (1999) describe three benefits that are key to innovating, learning, and changing: • Active involvement in team or interdependent relationships. A basic level of trust allows these relationships to ‘‘function smoothly and realize the strategic objectives behind their creation.’’ • Willingness to learn. Trust in management’s intentions and wisdom motivates individuals to continue to learn, as they believe there is something in it for them to develop their expertise and make new discoveries for the organization. • Support in and participation in change efforts. Trust translates into a willingness of ‘‘stakeholders [to] engage in more complex tasks, act as willing partners who readily adapt to change, cooperate without explicit incentives, and act in the firm’s interest’’ (pp. 108–109). These benefits are amplified in organizations that rely less on strict hierarchy and tightly coupled relationships. Individuals working in networked, matrix, and other less structured organizational forms must rely on implicit, rather than explicit, direction, as well as their colleagues in order to achieve organizational goals. In more fluid work settings, trust may be particularly important for the ability of workers to self-organize. —Denise Rousseau, Sim B. Sitkin, Ronald S. Burt, and Colin Camerer (1998, p. 401)

A leap of faith is required to realize these benefits. Trust in collaboration requires a willingness to let go to the mystery of the collaboration itself, to the dynamic space between individual control and competence and the often chaotic and unpredictable process characteristic of collaboration. This unknown


103

territory often provokes fear and an attempt to control the process in response. Success, however, demands surrendering to the unknown and trusting the actions and intent of collaborators, oneself, and the process itself. Trust in improvisation is fundamentally the same as it is in the workplace; it even looks much the same: trust is having a reasonable expectation that your collaborators will support your success and that you will not be left twisting in the wind if you take a risk on stage, as was my colleague, Brendan Sullivan. Brendan, who teaches improvisation to business people by day and performs with a local improv troupe by night, recently shared this anecdote: I was in a Harold [a long-form improvisation based on an audiencesuggested theme, with recurring scenes and characters], and one of the other players, this guy who was filling in on the team who I hadn’t worked with before, kept popping up in scenes and using the same gag: he would be schmoozing a woman, and at some point in the conversation, he’d say, ‘‘You know, not many people know this, but I’m Helmut Kohl’s grandson.’’ After he had used this a few times, I started a new scene by coming out on stage as this old guy with a walker, calling out in a German accent, ‘‘Grandson! Is that you? Grandson!’’ Well, the guy who had initiated the gag didn’t come out to play the scene with me. I was hanging out there for a while when two of my other teammates got what I was doing and joined me onstage as fellow Germans in a home for retired politicians, but it really didn’t go anywhere.

In reflecting on the experience, Sullivan allowed that his fellow player (Helmut Kohl’s grandson) may have simply been distracted or was not listening when Sullivan made his entrance. The act in itself may not have been intentional, but the result was a clear violation of trust. The absent player’s action also contributed to the perception of his lack of trustworthiness by his fellow players. In an art form based on trust, it does not take

104


much to build a reputation as a stingy or unreliable player. Few players would risk playing a scene with another who could not be trusted to accept and return their gifts. The result is the same whether on an improv stage or workplace collaboration: missed opportunity for creative collaboration and exploration and, very likely, immeasurable organizational cost in terms of inefficiency and wasted time.

The Speed of Safety It would be difficult to find an executive today who would deny the need for his or her organization to improve its ability to respond quickly to emerging opportunities and challenges. While the economic environment appears increasingly volatile and uncertain, business goals remain the same: improve profitability, efficiency, and market share. Such an environment demands new approaches. Laborious analysis and strategic planning do not work well when individuals and organizations need to respond quickly to opportunities and threats (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001). The experience of safety is essential in organizations that must be responsive to unexpected challenges and opportunities. Analysis of the emergency response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks by the New York City fire and police departments revealed a significant lack of communication, coordination, and collaboration between the departments. These gaps had been initially identified after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, but few measures were taken to improve the situation—measures that would most certainly have saved lives on 9/11. Those interviewed cited finger-pointing and territory disputes for the stalemate (Wachtendorf, 2004). The government response to Hurricane Katrina was similarly troubling for its lack of responsiveness (Wachtendorf & Kendra, 2006). Customer service issues, errors, tactical opportunities, and unexpected results all present themselves and demand response in the moment. People in a position to respond make lightningfast microassessments of the level of risk they are undertaking if


105

they respond to these opportunities. If the risk is perceived to be low, the likelihood that the respondent will take the initiative to creatively solve the problem, bring an error to a supervisor’s attention, point out a new marketing or product development opportunity, or question what led to the unexpected results in an experiment increase dramatically. When the space is safe for such risky responses, organizational innovation, efficiency, and productivity increase.

Unsafe at Any Speed The consequences to organizations and their stakeholders, including their customers, of workplaces that are not safe can be significant and severe. When people do not feel safe, they naturally protect themselves. Self-protection can take on many forms: withholding ideas, not sharing insights counter to the prevailing thinking, not questioning authority, or risking failure of any kind. Brain research is telling us more about the chemical neurological reaction that can be triggered in response to fear. When people sense they are not in emotionally or physically safe surroundings, an area of the brain, the amygdala, can be triggered and flood the individual with self-protective fight-or-flight impulses. Rapid heart rate, perspiration, and strong emotions often attend the triggering, along with habituated thinking learned as a protective response when the brain was still developing. In the midst of even a mild triggering, it is nearly impossible to think and respond with awareness of the true circumstances; the system is flooded with its perceived reality. With growing awareness and the experience of a consistently safe environment, we can develop the ability to witness this process unfolding and make new choices. The perception of psychological risk has significant and potentially dire consequences in high-risk environments. Patient safety studies show that a number of fatal incidents resulted when nurses did not feel comfortable reporting a mistake or questioning the authority of their supervisors

106


or doctors (Leape and others, 1991). A special commission investigating the 1986 Challenger space shuttle disaster found that the culture at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration played a role when managers disregarded warnings of potential serious flaws in the O-rings and failed to pass these concerns on to their supervisors. Safe space for confronting fear, noticing and reporting errors, and questioning authority is essential in playspace.

Safe Space in Innovating Few innovations would ever see the light of day without safe space for their seeds to germinate, be nurtured, and grow. Most true innovations—those that don’t just improve or extend an existing product or service but break the current paradigm altogether—begin as crazy, risky, half-baked ideas. Those who identify these opportunities must possess the personal courage, passion, and commitment, as well as find support to incubate their fragile seedlings. In their study of forty-seven midsized German companies, researchers Baer and Frese (2003) showed a significant relationship between psychological safety and the success of innovation strategies. Companies that attempted innovation but were not perceived by their members to be safe for ideas and risk taking were actually worse off than had they not attempted to innovate at all. Their study also showed a strong relationship between initiative and psychological safety. This supports Ryan and Deci’s (2000) findings that link intrinsic motivation and creativity. When people experience the space in which their intrinsically motivated curiosity and initiative can thrive, they are more likely to persevere through the inevitable twists and turns of the creative process. Baer and Frese describe psychological safety and initiative as ‘‘complementary assets without which process innovations may not be realized to their full potential’’ (p. 61).


107

Safe Space in Learning To the degree that a [colleague] can provide this safety-creating climate of unconditional positive regard, significant learning is likely to take place. —Carl Rogers (1961, pp. 283–284)

Looking inward to understand and perhaps question the assumptions or unconscious frameworks that guide our thinking or the role we play is neither easy nor particularly safe—if safety includes feeling comfortable and confident in our way of thinking and being. It is certainly not safe if the space in which we work does not welcome the free play of ideas and possibilities. Why would anyone dare question themselves, their thinking, or the underlying assumptions that guide their behavior and decisions in a culture that rewards steadfastness? In the midst of heated political campaigns, the worst attack one can level is that an opponent changed his or her thinking over the course of time. Questioning assumptions or shifting positions in response to new information or insight is seen as a sign of weakness in most Western cultures, and yet societies and organizations want the outcome of the ability to be open to multiple perspectives, question old mind-sets, and take risks. We cannot have the outcomes associated with transformative change if we do not learn to make spaces in which it is possible for such change to occur. People resist new learning for similar reasons: they avoid the risk of sharing insights and ideas that might contribute to innovation and change efforts. Guy Claxton (1984) identified this resistance as the ‘‘four ‘commandments’ ’’ of how we are socialized to be and the ‘‘exact antithesis of the ways of being that are required of a learner’’ (p. 145). New learning, especially learning that challenges our familiar perspectives and ways of doing things, may well put us in a situation where

108


we are no longer comfortable or appear competent, threatens our need for consistency, and challenges our desire to maintain control. New learning is most likely to occur when we are willing to venture out of our comfort zone and acknowledge other valuable perspectives and ways of understanding. When the need for selfprotection drops away and these students begin to share their life experiences and questions, we all benefit from a richer learning environment. In a recent session at a global electronics company, a participant described his experience of ‘‘forgetting himself’’ as he became less worried about what his colleagues thought of him and more engaged in the process of creative exploration and inquiry. People also become willing to take the risk of new learning and weather the frequent failures that come with it when they see their colleagues risking revealing their own learning process. When they see others receiving positive feedback and encouragement rather than punishment for venturing into new territory, they are much more likely to venture there themselves. Playspace is safe for learning—not only for its absence of judgment but for its active and mindful creation of support.

Safe Space in Changing In the same way that significant and transformative learning challenges us to move beyond the familiar, most significant change efforts require all who are affected by them to identify and push past habitual ways of thinking and doing. The centerpiece of any change process in companies should be to increase climate factors such as psychological safety and initiative before larger changes and innovations are tackled. —Marcus Baer and Michael Frese (2003, p. 63)


109

Without intentional creation of safe space in which to do so, most will respond to change with resistance and what organizational learning pioneer Chris Argyris (1999) calls ‘‘defensive routines’’ or ‘‘any policies or actions that prevent organizational players from experiencing embarrassment or threat and, at the same time, prevent the organization from uncovering the causes of the embarrassment or threat to reduce or get rid of them. Organizational defensive routines are anti-learning at the most profound levels and overprotective of mediocrity’’ (p. 42). Defensive routines that block learning also block opportunities for positive change. When individuals and teams fear the unknown more than they embrace the possibilities of change, such resistance will thrive. For those who have enjoyed the space and support to develop their improvisation capacity, both planned and unplanned change are welcomed for the possibilities they offer. A capacity for improvisation not only benefits organizations that need to undergo rapid change and improve their responsiveness to customer needs; it is crucial for individual employees to feel they can weather the storms of change—even if the storm threatens to throw them out of the boat. No organization today can guarantee long-term job security. Safety for innovating, learning, and changing means that people know they will not be punished or risk their image or status for embracing and pursuing these values. It does not mean that they have a guarantee that other unrelated factors will not threaten their job security. This reality was brought home to me in living color recently when I arrived a bit early for a session I was to lead for an international firm on ‘‘Creating the Responsive Organization.’’ As I sat in my car in the parking lot, I scanned the business section of The New York Times. One of the headlines announced that the company just that day had reported record losses and would be laying off thousands of workers. When my client walked me to our meeting room, he let me know that the entire company was in a town hall meeting about the layoffs with the CEO and

110


that our session participants would leave the meeting early to make it to their long-scheduled program with me. This scenario is the stuff of facilitator nightmares. I admit my first impulse was to suddenly remember an urgent scheduling conflict. Rather than run for the door, I thought about the real opportunity that this offered—both for me to put my money where my mouth was and be responsive to this unexpected and unplanned development and to frame the session as an invitation to develop a more responsive organization, as well as for participants to rediscover their own individual capacities to improvise. As it turned out, the session was one of the more rewarding I have experienced. As the participants filed in, they were still digesting what they had just heard and had not yet drawn conclusions. Perhaps this state of disequilibrium contributed to their willingness to quickly co-create a space for mutual support and discovery. At each reflective opportunity, I heard philosophical insights about the opportunities in change and a reaffirmation of their shared human capacity to embrace rather than deny the unexpected, without preconditions for the implications of the changes on any one individual. Without prescription or conscious intention, the group naturally created playspace for mutual support in the midst of change.

Cross-Cultural Safe Space One of the criticisms of much organizational development and management practice is that it is biased toward a Western mind-set. It assumes certain shared values of individualism and competition, and often uses words such as maverick, pioneer, and hero to describe those who embody its ideals. It is one thing to have an intellectual understanding of how others perceive your culture and its limitations, and quite another to come face-to-face with it. I found myself with an opportunity to confront my own culturally informed mental models recently when I was invited to lead a two-week seminar on


111

organizational change for Thai graduate students in Bangkok. By day the seminar participants taught K–12 students in a private English-language Catholic school; by night they participated in an intensive graduate program, often rushing to class from their own teaching responsibilities. Colleagues had prepared me for the experience of teaching in a culture where teachers are revered and questions and comments are considered an insult to the teacher’s authority. I was also aware from my international work of the high value many Asians put on saving face, which further limited the willingness to reveal any lack of understanding in front of peers. I was particularly nervous about leading a seminar in this context, as my style in the West relies heavily on open discussion and the sharing of personal experiences. After some trial and error, including awkward silences after I mistakenly asked an open question of the group, I began to learn to work within the cultural norms and still engage the students in co-creating playspace for innovating, learning, and changing. I found that while they were reluctant to engage in large-group discussion, the Thai students joined in small-group experiential learning activities with abandon. When I risked inviting them to experiment with some improvisational exercises, they played together with much less self-consciousness than I often witness with predominantly Western groups. These improvisation breaks were so successful that although they were not part of my original plan, I made them a regular part of each class session. In their small-group discussions, learning journal reflections, and papers, they identified their own cultural bias toward not questioning authority or tradition and their desire to be positive contributors to their school and country’s evolution. As they developed their own improvisation capacity and understanding of organizational change dynamics, they began to engage in generative critical reflection that both honored their culture and probed for new opportunities. Geert Hofstede (1991, 2003) has conducted comprehensive research that plots country cultures by the degree to which they

112


are risk averse, respect authority and autonomy, and other social dimensions. These findings can provide useful insight to guide business practice. It would be a mistake, however, to prescriptively respond to them and deny either culturally homogeneous or heterogeneous groups their invitation to co-create their own culturally appropriate spaces to engage in lively inquiry and exploration. Had I made assumptions about the Thai graduate students’ ability to engage in such discovery and reflection based solely on a generalized cultural understanding, we all would have missed the opportunity to create the playspace in which truly significant learning and capacity development could occur.

Safe Enough When we are creating spaces for new possibilities to emerge, it is important to share responsibility for creating a safe space. It is impossible to pad all of the corners and smooth all of the sharp edges in every context to ensure that no one will feel uncomfortable. Such an effort would, in fact, be counter to the very generative spirit of playspace. Safety is not about creating comfort; it is creating space in which it is safe to be uncomfortable. Charlie Seashore, a social psychologist and professor at Fielding Graduate University, encourages leaders, facilitators, and participants to strive not for perfect safety but for ‘‘safe enough’’ space. When I asked David Isaacson of Theater Oobleck about the role of safety in the often chaotic and passionate directorless rehearsals, he reflected, ‘‘I’ve never been in a situation where I think that people feel 100 percent safe. . . . For us it’s definitely not a space where people feel they have to make nice. People have to feel safe to say no. It’s not like we have to say yes all the time to each other. People should also feel safe to say no, and whomever they’re saying no to has to understand that doesn’t mean it’s a personal attack or anything like that. Arguing is okay. Disagreeing is okay.’’


113

Not only is disagreeing okay, it can be useful. In their study of climates that support creative collaboration, Göran Eckvall, Jouko Arvonen, and Ingrid Waldenstrom-Linstrom (1983) at the Swedish Council for Management and Organizational Behaviour found that debate and challenge were necessary components of a lively environment for discovery. Such lively environments can be extremely uncomfortable, as I witnessed when leading an off-site for the global marketing team of a manufacturing company. During a break, two managers engaged in a heated argument about a key strategy issue. Someone overhearing this debate without understanding the relational context of the team might have found it disturbing and a sign of a team on the brink of collapse. When the two returned from break, they were still visibly agitated; however, in the weeks following the meeting, this disagreement led to a thoughtful new strategy that would not have emerged had the original plan gone unchallenged. Heated debate can be a sign that a system is safe enough to hold passionate disagreement.

Bringing Safe Space to Life As is the case with each of the dynamics of playspace, safety is created when leaders, facilitators, and participants share responsibility for it. Role of the Leader: Be a Permission Giver In my research, I discovered a consistent theme from those who experienced the playspace to be safe for risk taking and developing new capacities. Each described a number of experiences in which they received permission from either the group leader or their colleagues. These permission givers exert a highly positive impact on the creation of playspace. They do not just give lip service to espoused values; they model these values and recognize others who risk doing so.

114


Permission givers are important not only in the process of creating original theater but in the process of making space for everyone in an organization to play at the top of their talent. Abigayil Joseph, the Chicago Public Schools officer whose spontaneous impulse to don a chicken hat during a retreat (described in Chapter One) was not fully aware of the impact this simple act had on the rest of the department until months later when it returned in a slide show of memorable experiences from the year. The chicken hat is now a symbol for playful risk taking and innovative thinking in a department that was dubbed ‘‘the most entrepreneurial’’ in the Chicago Public Schools system by its CEO, Arne Duncan. While all can serve in this role, those in formal and informal leadership roles have the greatest influence on the degree to which others experience the space as safe for innovating, learning, and changing. Not only do leaders have the power and authority to make decisions that affect others’ employment, financial security, and role in the organization, they are also looked to in setting the organizational norms and for signals of approval or disapproval. The tacit influence of leaders can sometimes be more threatening to the generativity of the space than explicit policies and practices. All can work within transparent norms, but sussing out the invisible and sometimes contradictory boundaries of acceptable behavior can be a stressful field of professional land mines. Be Yourself. The slide show celebrating the tool company finance division’s successful year included several images of the director engaged in his favorite pastime, cycling. Although he was enthusiastic and fit, few middle-aged people, as he was, look as good as, say, Lance Armstrong in their bike shorts, yet there he was in large-scale living color, beaming with joy. The assembled group broke into spontaneous appreciative applause at the sight. One of the managers standing near me whispered, ‘‘It is hard to lead from your ego once you’ve been seen in your bike shorts.’’ We both smiled and agreed that that was the very point. By


115

risking being himself, the director took the lead and invited all to celebrate their whole selves and the passions and possibilities that make us so uniquely human. Broadway legend Barbara Cook addressed a master class of singing students on this point when she was asked to reveal her ‘‘big secret.’’ Her response: ‘‘To be as authentic as we know how to be at the moment, so that we can be more and more present in what we do. The more we can do that, the safer we are. The problem is it feels most dangerous, because what I ask people to do is in effect undress emotionally, so that’s very frightening and new. But this very thing that seems most dangerous is where safety lies’’ (quoted in Purdum, 2002, p. B3). This is the paradox: authenticity, which can feel so dangerous, is in fact where safety lies. Authenticity not only is safest for the person who risks it; it helps create safe space for others’ new ideas and perspectives. Authenticity cannot be faked—at least not for long—and it gives permission to others to be themselves as well. Just as long-time Theater Oobleck ensemble members attest, when people feel safe to be themselves, they also feel safe to be able to work to their full, uncensored potential and unleash the passion and potential of their colleagues. Be Consistent. While safety is created in the moment in playspace, people come to trust its existence over time. Leaders bear particular responsibility for maintaining a consistent space for imaginative thinking and questioning. If others in the organization must gauge their leader’s mood or whether he had an argument with his spouse that morning, they are not in safe space. Many raised in dysfunctional households are all too well attuned to the unpredictable behavior of those who were responsible for their well-being. For many, the safety radar naturally sweeps the environment for signs of threat, and while this radar will likely never be totally disabled, its intensity can be lowered as it is no longer needed. Experiencing consistent participation by leaders in playspace, as well as giving permission to others to venture

116


into the unpredictable waters of discovery and learning, goes a long way toward creating safe space. Acknowledge and Encourage Those Who Risk. As a leader, you can give permission by not only modeling the inquiry and collaboration you seek, but acknowledging and encouraging others who risk asking questions, asking for help, and questioning assumptions. You also give permission when you appreciate the lively exchange of new ideas and the initiative to learn new skills and borrow ideas from other fields. I saw this in action at Theater Oobleck during a preview performance when I, and a number of other outside eyes, participated in a feedback session after the show. The facilitator, playwright, and others cycled into the role of permission giver as they appreciated the responses offered, as well as the risks their fellow players took onstage that night. This acknowledgment gave others permission to share appreciative and developmental feedback in the context of a safe space in which it could be openly received. Role of the Facilitator: Acknowledge Fears and Expectations In formal learning settings such as the training room or classroom, the facilitator sets the initial tone and expectations for the space. All eyes are on the facilitator as he or she enters the room, makes contact with participants, and begins the session. Facilitators in both formal learning settings and informal collaborations can establish a framework and acknowledge and mediate the fears and expectations participants bring to the space. With mindful attention, facilitators can begin to develop the safety necessary to transform formal learning spaces or informal workspaces into playspaces that stimulate creative collaboration and learning. The facilitator who spontaneously steps up to the flip chart can also help create a playspace that is safe for learning and exploration by coaching participants to maintain a generative


117

attitude and keeping the focus on the agreed-on topic or objective. Rather than shut down exploration that extends beyond the shared purpose, facilitators can note these items on a separate ‘‘playground’’ (more commonly called a ‘‘parking lot’’) for another time. This practice serves the important function of allowing all voices to be heard while keeping the focus of the current playspace. Confirm Process Agreements. It is much easier to surrender to the free play of discovery when the facilitator takes the time to confirm shared agreements. As important as gaining agreement on the topic of exploration, idea generation, inquiry, or problem solving, facilitators must be custodians of the ‘‘how.’’ Sometimes referred to as ground rules, simple guidelines for participation can help all share responsibility for creating a safe space for learning and discovery. These guidelines may vary somewhat depending on the shared purpose, stage of the process, and makeup of the group. Here are some guidelines I have found useful for a number of contexts: • Responsibility: Be responsible for yourself, your ideas, and your own experience. • Respect: Respect the ideas, perspectives, and experiences of others. • Curiosity: Take an attitude of inquiry. Check your assumptions, and ask generative questions. For idea generation sessions, it can be useful to remind people to: • Suspend judgment • Build on each other’s ideas After sharing your own version of universal guidelines, invite others to add to the list by asking, ‘‘What other guidelines will support our success today?’’

118


Name the Contradictions. Many fears and expectations are based on unconfirmed rumors, free-floating anxiety, or past experience that may have no bearing on the current situation. Facilitators of learning and collaboration can silence much of the noise that this produces by surfacing fears and expectations, as well as naming the contradictions. Most professional, and many learning, situations include such contradictions. Employees are asked to take risks, and yet are evaluated on their productivity and contribution to the bottom line; students are encouraged to step out of their comfort zone to develop new skills and knowledge, and yet are graded on their performance; work groups are asked to collaborate, and yet people are evaluated individually. Rather than problematize these contradictions, facilitators, managers, and coaches can name them and help people harness their creative tension. Working with teams to identify how each individual’s skills, knowledge, and abilities support the group success, establishing the boundaries within which people can freely take risks, or establishing both process and product (qualitative and quantitative) evaluation criteria can help shift participants from an either-or workplace mind-set to a both-and playspace mind-set. Facilitate. A commitment to collaboration, especially one as robust as Theater Oobleck’s consensus approach, may imply that there is no role for a facilitator at all. Quite the contrary, reports Isaacson: ‘‘When we have larger groups in a particular project, often we’ll have a rotating facilitator that does the kind of things a facilitator would do in any group: make sure everyone’s getting heard, making sure you’re not getting off too much on tangents or something like that. Having someone take that role definitely increases group safety.’’ Most group processes benefit from facilitation and feedback. When there is no formal facilitator, ask for a volunteer to rotate into that capacity. Be sure to share this responsibility so that one or two individuals do not by default have undue influence.


119

Role of the Participant: Be a Permission Giver, Permission Taker, and Permission Getter While leaders and facilitators can have a significant impact on establishing the norms guarding the perimeter of safe space, it is the participants who have the power to truly bring the space to life at its core by the ways they give, take, and get permission. Leaders and facilitators most commonly play the role of permission givers to others in the organizations, and participants benefit greatly from those who clearly and consistently give permission to take the many large and small risks involved in new learning, discovery, and change. Until I began researching people’s experiences developing improvisation capacity, I did not fully understand the crucial role other participants played in creating safe space as permission givers, permission takers, and permission getters. Give Permission. In the workplace, participants who encourage their colleagues to share ideas, develop new capacities, play new roles, and bring their own brand of play-fullness to the space are permission givers. Stacey, an initially shy and nervous participant who later blossomed into a courageous and playful improviser, reflected on the role other participants, and particularly Tony, played in establishing safe playspace. Stacey reflected on the role of permission takers months after she first encountered them: I learned from them. Their mannerisms, characteristics, especially what’s his name [Tony], he was very, very crazy. Oh my god, he was fantastic, I liked his, his—I guess his energy. And that gave me more, I guess—more confidence within myself to do, not exactly what he does but to be myself like he is. And he goes and does his own improv in front of the class. It was fantastic. Yeah, he’s a free spirit. You know, he enjoys doing it. It’s like, oh, I wish I could be more like him . . . live more dangerously, I guess.

120


If you look around your workplace, you will find opportunities for giving and taking permission to create playspace for innovating, learning, and changing. Take Permission. You may even find yourself playing the role of permission taker, as Tony did. He did not wait around to see what level of participation, humor, or physicality was acceptable. Without hesitation, he took permission, often playing at the outer limits of good taste and other participants’ comfort. The discomfort of Tony’s boundary-pushing behavior was offset by the space he created for others to step outside their familiar ways of being. Tony represented the outer limits of possibility through his wild physicalizations, bawdy humor, and a volume level much louder than anyone else’s. By improvising dangerously, as Stacey described, he opened up a vast terrain between his outer limits and the comfort zones of his colleagues. This made it safer for others to venture a bit further than they might have otherwise. Permission takers can be found in almost every corner of a thriving organization. Like Tony, they do not wait for others to set the tone but jump in with fresh ideas, insights, and provocative questions. They are opening up more space for others who are less confident to risk bringing more of themselves to the playspace, even if this is not their primary motivation. In this way, permission takers also serve as permission givers for others who may be sitting on the sidelines thinking, ‘‘I didn’t know we could do that here!’’ Get Permission. Less active than the giving or taking of permission, permission getting occurs when participants observe others whose ability to create playspace was second nature. I frequently witness participants jump to a whole new level of improvisation capacity after a field trip to a local improv club in which the players perform long-form improvisation. There they delight as they witness a single suggestion from the audience provoke a half-hour-long complex story. When the participants


121

return to the classroom to continue their own experimentation with improvisation, many report a newfound sense of confidence and permission. In organizations, permission getting can also occur through field trips. Businesses regularly visit other companies outside their industry with reputations for pushing past familiar boundaries and consistently creating playspace for innovating, learning, and changing. Disney received so many requests for such field trips that it established the Disney Institute, offering experiential training and leadership development. Lego Serious Play, a training and development company inspired by Lego building toys’ long history in play, has worked with more than 250 companies around the world to create more space for innovation. Management teams regularly tour the Kohler Design Center and Company Factory in Kohler, Wisconsin, where resident artists work alongside foundry workers. These are just a few examples of many opportunities for participants to get permission to move beyond the bounds of their familiar ways of thinking and being. A quick search of possibilities in your area will turn up any number of options. During playspace off-sites, we often visit a local art museum or manufacturing facility to help us think differently about vexing organizational issues or to seed innovative thinking. When time and resources are limited, individuals and teams can take virtual field trips by reviewing and discussing case studies and reports of organizations that are expanding the space for new possibilities and capacities to emerge. Harvard Business Review, FastCompany magazine, and Good are just a few publications that regularly feature such organizations. Communicate. One of the tacit agreements of improvisation is that each player will be generous in sharing information (which may manifest in various ways as the improvisation unfolds). The free flow of information is crucial for collaborative success in improvisation on the stage, as well as in the field. Weick and Sutcliffe (2001), in their study of high-reliability organizations

122


in which errors can have severe and lethal consequences, arrived at the conclusion that many lives could have been saved if those involved in disasters had (1) consistently shared information as it arose, (2) paid attention to ‘‘weak signals’’ (information that may not seem relevant or particularly compelling at the time), and (3) not assumed that everyone had access to the same information or understood the communication available (Weick, 1993). Unfortunately, control of information is one of the primary ways individuals establish and maintain power in organizations. This phenomenon manifests in dysfunctional organizations where individuals regularly put their self-interest above the interest of the group. Just as the guidelines developed by the ensemble members of Theater Oobleck call for shared responsibility, those who are committed to the success of their team and organization must take responsibility for both the gathering and sharing of salient information. Based on his research on flight crews, Robert Ginnett (1993) proposes four social imperatives necessary for communication in effective teams, each of which can establish psychological safety and even ensure physical safety: • I need to talk to you. • I listen to you. • I need you to talk to me. • I expect you to talk to me [p. 88]. Each of these imperatives involves sharing and receiving information. When collaborators do not share relevant information in the interest of gaining or maintaining power and control, they are working against, not with, each other and lose valuable time, as well as opportunities to discover serious errors and significant opportunities. This dysfunctional strategy can thrive only in a dysfunctional organization where the ends are justified


123

by any means and the negative impact is overlooked as necessary collateral damage. In organizations that espouse values of innovation and risk taking but allow such degenerative behavior, few will feel safe to release the control necessary to create enough play in the system for the free flow of communication. Take Care. When we offer the pleasantry, ‘‘Take care,’’ to friends or colleagues, we are likely encouraging them to take care of themselves in some vague way. If we ourselves truly take care, we must extend that care beyond our immediate selfinterest to others. When we do not take care in this way, we can constrain the space for all to participate.

People need to ask themselves whether their actions are consistent with the organization they are attempting to create. . . . We will have to change the way we . . . treat each other if we really want to change the culture of this organization. —A senior nurse, quoted in Paul Bate, Raza Kahn, and Annie Pye (2000, pp. 204–205)

In a 1997 commencement speech at DePaul University, Elie Weisel called intolerance ‘‘the enemy of learning, and it is the enemy of progress, the enemy of humanity.’’ He went on, ‘‘Now what is the opposite of intolerance? Not tolerance. Tolerance is a word that has a condescending tone. ‘I tolerate you.’ The opposite of intolerance is respect.’’ It is next to impossible to create safe space in a climate of disrespect, at worst, and tolerance, at best. In playspace, everyone experiences the unconditional positive regard and respect that enable them to work at the top of their talent and feel safe to venture into unknown territories of innovation, learning, and change.

124


Take Responsibility. Regardless of our formal role in the organization or our informal role in any given moment, we all can take responsibility for our experience and behavior. This theme runs throughout the descriptions of playspace in this book and is brought to life every time the participants of Theater Oobleck gather to create and learn together. For space to be safe for learning, all participants need to take responsibility for an attitude of inquiry and exploration in the playspace. This is a clear shift in mind-set from the workplace in which only a few are responsible for the exploration and its outcome. Theater Oobleck’s Isaacson explains: People are very used to that model, and it’s easier to not take that responsibility for yourself and to have the director and give that up to them. If things go wrong, you have someone to blame. So I think that it’s not for everyone, but I think that in groups of all kinds, not just in theater groups . . . when people embrace collaboration . . . it helps come up with good solutions.

What does shared responsibility for inquiry look like? Isaacson expands: ‘‘Everyone should constantly be asking, What is this play trying to communicate? What is the historical context? What are they talking about here? And everyone should be researching it and figuring out and trying to communicate it to other people. So even more than in our process, even more than everyone being a director, I think that [it] should be a given that everyone is a dramaturge.’’ It might be easy to rationalize this as an exclusive domain for artists, but if you listen closely as Isaacson describes it, you may find a vision for your own organization’s playspace: So the first thing, when things are cooking and creativity is really happening in our theater is when we have a group of people who embrace what they are bringing to it and take complete responsibility for what they’re bringing . . . to a creative process. As soon as somebody in a traditional theater setting says, ‘‘Well,


125

you know, I’d really like to be able to do it this way, but it’s the director’s choice and I’m just going to go with what the director says,’’ . . . then they are not bringing everything that they can bring to the process. And even in our process, where we actually have no director, people often will stop short of taking responsibility for all that they can bring. So they’ll think, ‘‘Well, I would like to do this, but I don’t want to ruffle any feathers with the other actors. I don’t want the playwright to be mad at me,’’ or ‘‘I know this won’t work, but it will be the playwright’s fault. What can I do? I’m just an actor.’’ So when things really work is when everyone gets it that everyone is equal and responsible, that the theater is an inherently collaborative form, and that it’s gonna work best when everyone’s diving in and taking responsibility for all the creativity they can bring.

Just as Isaacson describes, there is no utopian world in which all take responsibility for their thoughts, feelings, and behavior all the time. And when responsibility is an explicit agreement, even those who choose not to speak up are responsible for their choices and the consequences. In playspace people cannot sit on their frustration in a meeting and count on pulling aside an accomplice to grumble. Instead, he or she is likely to be met with, ‘‘That’s an interesting perspective. I’d encourage you to share it in the next meeting.’’ In this way, playspace is co-created when all take responsibility.

Chapter Summary Innovating, learning, and changing can be risky, uncomfortable, and disorienting processes. Playspace makes room for success as participants co-create its generative, relational dynamics; they create the network and sense of shared purpose that is safe for fresh perspectives, new discoveries, and positive change. Safe space is co-created when people do not feel that their credibility, status, emotional well-being, or job security will be threatened if they contribute new ideas that threaten the status quo or simply bring their whole selves to work.

126


Safe space is described through the experiences and practices of Theater Oobleck, a long-lived theater ensemble that continues to thrive by making space for each of its members to contribute to the shared vision. Safe space is not space in which all of the corners are padded and no one’s feelings ever get hurt. Playspace is safe for passionate debate; it is safe for people to speak and act from their deeply rooted values and convictions. Playspace must also be safe to question fundamental assumptions in the interest of innovating, learning, and changing. Safe space comes to life through the twin themes of giving permission and taking responsibility that inform this chapter’s guiding principles. Guiding Principles for Leaders, Facilitators, and Participants Role of the Leader: Be a Permission Giver. Leaders throughout the organization must do more than espouse the desire for others to take risks, develop new capacities, and be open to change; they must model and reinforce the behaviors that create safe space for innovating, learning, and changing: • Be yourself. Authenticity builds trust and a sense of safety. People are most effective and open to new ideas, learning, and change when they can be themselves. Permission to bring your whole self to work starts with leadership and spreads throughout the organization. • Be consistent. Playspace is safe all the time, not just when the system is without stress or people have received good news. Leaders who model consistent behavior for safe space support consistent participation in the risky business of innovating, learning, and changing. • Acknowledge and encourage those who risk. Not only do acknowledgment and encouragement reinforce desired participation in the person receiving the feedback, they inspire courage in the entire organization.


127

Role of the Facilitator: Acknowledge Fears and Expectations. Nothing breeds fear in a risky situation like pretending there is no reason for fear. Facilitators can have a significant impact on the safety of the space by surfacing fears and expectations: • Confirm process agreements. Establishing the shared goals and ways in which the group can support its own success provides the framework for a safe space for innovating, learning, and changing. • Name the contradictions. Rather than ignore competing values such as teamwork and individual evaluation, freedom and structure, process and product, facilitators can help the group name the contradictions and agree on an approach that makes room for the contradictions. • Facilitate. The willingness to step in as needed to improve a process, help a group clarify its goals, shape its vision, and allow all voices to be heard is crucial to any group’s success. Anyone can take on this role, and it can rotate in the course of a conversation or collaboration. The important thing is that the group is attuned to the need and attends to it as it arises. Role of the Participant: Be a Permission Giver, Permission Taker, and Permission Getter. Participants have significant impact on the degree to which the space is safe for others to share their ideas and perspectives, ask questions, and risk new learning. All can take responsibility for co-creating the space by playing the role of the permission giver, permission taker, and permission getter: • Give permission. By encouraging others who are stepping out of their comfort zone, testing new ways of thinking, and expanding their capacities, participants increase the likelihood that the safe space will be sustained.

128


• Take permission. Waiting around for permission to explore new territory only reinforces the perception that it is not safe to explore new territory. Those who simply take permission do more than contribute to innovating, learning, and changing strategy success; they also give permission to others to do the same. • Get permission. Seeking out other organizations, businesses, industries, and arts organizations that are successfully pushing boundaries is a powerful way to get permission to do so in your own field. • Communicate. Playspace is safe because participants know they are not at risk if they share information, insight, and wild hunches. Safety increases for all participants when all know they can trust their colleagues to be current with them. • Take care. In playspace, people respect the differences and diversity that fuel the space for innovating, learning, and changing. • Take responsibility. For playspace to come to life, all must share responsibility for their safety in it. Taking responsibility means attending to our own behavior and being willing to respectfully respond to others whose behavior is constraining the space. Playspace is dynamic and risky, and it must be safe enough to enable its co-creators to risk showing up with their whole selves, their provocative ideas, their still-forming vision of possibilities, and their passionate convictions.

5 PLAYSPACE IS TIMEFUL SPACE

In the shift from workplace to playspace, something interesting occurs: many describe an entirely different relationship to and awareness of time as they fully engage in the present moment and the generative, relational, and safe space they co-create with their fellow players. They begin to experience timeful space (Figure 5.1). This dynamic of playspace allows heightened engagement in the present while honoring the boundaries of the clock. All organizations work within the constraints of deadlines and the limits of available time. Few are more time sensitive than manufacturing, which depends on an intricate network of suppliers and transportation, production schedules, and sales cycles. John Lee founded Learning Curve International, a highquality toy company, in 1993 with Dick Rothkopf, and in a decade, the company had become one of the top specialty toy companies in the United States. Its respected brands include Thomas the Train, Lamaze, Small Miracles, and FeltKids. Lee described how his organization fostered timefulness while meeting aggressive production and profit goals by never forgetting the spirit of play at the center of their mission: So to what extent do we honor a sense of playfulness, even in the heat of the moment, the deadlines, to somebody thinking about how . . . we make this more fun and more playful and still get the job done? The fear, I think, that many productivity-oriented managers and entrepreneurs have is that play must be a time

129

130


Figure 5.1. Timeful Space

Relational Gen e

ul

af

e

ive rat

Ti m

ef

S

dedicated to do something like having a game or a pizza party or taking a break. You know, it’s seen as an isolated activity where the right mind-set is there’s a spirit of playfulness that goes to how you go about doing what you do, and not how you schedule it.

Timeful space honors the boundaries of nonnegotiable deadlines and makes room for the play of new ideas, discoveries, and transformation as well. The leaders at Learning Curve created playspace to engage people throughout the organization; they also did so to improve the bottom line. Through an integrated approach in which all participants in the organization were

PLAYSPACE IS TIMEFUL SPACE 131

given the opportunity to develop their improvisation capacity, Learning Curve shortened its product development cycle from eighteen to six months, resulting in shorter time to market and sales that increased by 14 percent. The shorter development cycle also improved their ability to respond to competitor tactics and market shifts. While it may seem counterintuitive, improving the quality of time at Learning Curve also increased the value of the quantity of time. It is easy to operate with the illusion that the other dynamics of playspace—relationality, generativity, and safety—are at odds with efficiency. On the contrary, when we are aware of our relational context, generatively engaged, and safe, we are much more likely to be able to respond quickly and appropriately. Donna Younger teaches teamwork and emotional intelligence and specializes in adult learning and development. She described her experience in the classroom with adults: ‘‘One of the pushbacks you get from students is that it takes too long to develop relationships. It takes too long to make room to get to know each other. It takes too long to build in things that are not task related. And the thing that strikes me is how terribly linear we are in thinking about what’s relevant in how things get done, because what is seen over and over and over and over again is [that] opportunities for play are relational . . . and just being relational to each other creates efficiency.’’ None of the dynamics and qualities of playspace described in the previous chapters can emerge without full participation in the present moment. This chapter shows how the predominant focus on clock time limits what is possible in time in the same way that valuing only the product of creative collaborations can limit the dynamic life of the creative and learning process and, in turn, the quality of its products. By complementing the boundaries established by the available quantity of time with an appreciation for the quality of time, timeful space brings new life and consciousness to the time dimension of the space-time continuum. We have been socialized to a mostly clock-oriented

132


relationship to time, a relationship that so permeates almost everything we do in a day that we rarely stop to question it. We may catch ourselves rushing and remind ourselves to slow down, or lament how quickly or slowly time appears to be passing, but we do not question our relationship to time itself. These are only a few familiar constructions of time, of which there are many variations that extend to individuals, organizations, and work groups. Leading time scholar Allen Bluedorn (2002) suggests that our relationship to time is socially constructed. All you need to do is traverse several time zones or cross hemispheres to see how pace, rhythm, and conceptions of being ‘‘on time’’ differ radically from culture to culture. If time is socially constructed, we have more power than we know to reconstruct our relationship to time. In playspace, the reconstruction of time and the experience of timefulness happen organically. Through engaged participation, we enter what Purser and Petranker (2002) call ‘‘the flow of time,’’ where we are no longer measuring our worth only by what we have accomplished in clock time but are able to value fullness and engagement in the moment itself. Many describe their experience of playspace as actually occurring ‘‘outside of time.’’ In fact, the word extemporaneous, often used as a synonym for improvisation, comes from the Greek ex tempo, or ‘‘outside of time’’ (Ciborra, 2002). In playspace, many are not aware of time passing at all, only of the present moment. Being at once in the flow of time and outside time may appear to be contradictory experiences, yet playspace is able to hold both the urgency of clock time and the fullness of the present moment to make more room for innovating, learning, and changing.

Outer Time When we use such phrases as, ‘‘Time is money,’’ ‘‘Wasting time,’’ ‘‘Time is slipping away,’’ or my favorite cowboy western movie line, ‘‘We’re burnin’ daylight!’’ we are focused on outer time.


Outer time is any time measured by external quantifiers: the ticks of the clock, the dollars earned, the number of widgets produced. Time theorist Barbara Adam (1998) links our obsession with outer time to the rise of industry and a more mechanized society. Industrial time ‘‘is centrally structured to a) the invariable beat of the clock b) the economic commodification of time and c) the scientific use of time as a measure of abstract motion’’ (p. 11). For most Westerners, the outer orientation to time is so pervasive that we may never have considered any alternative time at all. Outer time has an important place in our lives and business. We use it to schedule our work hours, arrange appointments, develop production schedules, and generally create some sense of order in our lives. But we take outer time for granted and forget that it is only relatively recently in human history that we could count on a consistent, universally shared framework for marking the passage of time. Another useful yet taken-for-granted outer time phenomenon is that of the zeitgeber, a German term translated as ‘‘time giver.’’ Bluedorn (2002) catalogues many examples of such recurring external events to which we synchronize our lives, the most obvious of which are sunrise and sunset, though it extends to everything, from the clock in the town square, to Monday morning team meetings, birthdays and holidays, and production cycles. Learning Curve was highly attuned to its zeitgebers. Lee shared, ‘‘There’s a cycle to every business and every industry that becomes a master of the clock and the calendar. You know, the Toy Fair [the annual new toy showcase at which retailers place their orders for the coming year] for us is always the big event. [It] was when . . . the veil was lifted on what was new for that year, and you just damn well better be ready. . . . Missing that cycle was not very healthy.’’ Outer time, and our many zeitgebers, can either constrain or free us depending on the relationship we construct. When we relate to outer time as simply a set of boundaries within which we are free to experiment with possibilities, ideas, and alternative

134


perspectives, we are in timeful space, in playspace. When outer time is constructed as the driver of all of our actions, we abandon the possibilities in the present moment in service of the deadline. Organizations that value only outer time sacrifice the quality of the space for innovating, learning, and changing in order to meet or beat the clock. When we are solely oriented to outer time, we measure success only by what we have done, produced, or earned. Outer time orientation rarely invites us to consider how we are doing it or how we are showing up to the task or process. Organizations that consistently create playspace have found a healthy balance between the what and the how of organizational success, and they balance the constraints of outer time with the freedom of inner time.

Inner Time We all experience inner time. We have experienced the minutes passing like hours during a boring meeting or uncomfortable encounter; we have also had the happy experience of losing track of time in the midst of a lively conversation, energizing collaboration, or any other activity that fully engaged us. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (1990) has spent years researching people’s experiences working and playing at the top of their talent or in their ‘‘flow’’ state. The experience of being outside of time, or losing all sense of time, runs through descriptions of being in flow and playspace. The experience of timefulness is not a rare or isolated experience; in fact, for organizations committed to fostering lively spaces for creative collaboration and discovery, it is one of the indicators of success. Carol Semrad, the human resource director at Learning Curve, summarized this concept: ‘‘As with anything, when it’s going well and you’re loving it, time flies. And I think that part of what we experienced at Learning Curve was the time that it actually took us to build [the company] seemed relatively short because we—everybody was having a really good time doing


it. I think when John [Lee] talks about these hard stops for Toy Fair, that was when reality set in, and we had to respond to the business demand of those stops, but the other times, it was flying by. It was fun.’’ When people are given the space and support to work at the top of their talent and bring a compelling vision to life, they naturally shift their relationship from either an exclusively outer or inner time orientation to one of timefulness. Perhaps paradoxically, many also experience self-consciousness, ego, and even narrow conceptions of identity dropping away, as described in the following account: ‘‘The suspension of time and the loss of identity as the individual merges with the whole. . . . That which we know ourselves to be—individuals that are delineated against others and the environment with boundaries of space, time, and matter—gets absorbed and enfolded back into the whole. The physically and temporally bounded being which we conceptualize as a material entity, emerges as neither separate nor separable from the whole that constitutes it. The cosmic whole in turn reveals itself not as timeless but timeful’’ (Adam, 1990, p. 130). This description of timefulness was inspired by a woman’s near-death experience in the moments before and after a headon collision. Sometimes it takes extraordinary heart-stopping experiences to shake us out of our familiar, unconscious relationship to the habitual and taken-for-granted dimensions of everyday life. Few other dimensions are more permeating and potentially angst provoking than time. In shifting our mind-set from workplace to playspace, we are invited to become more aware of our relationship to time and more mindful of its role in both constraining and expanding the space for innovating, learning, and changing. You don’t live for the moment, but you live in the moment. —Kelly Milani, improviser (quoted in Meyer, 2000)

136


Time Management Ironically, the only true form of time management is not the management of time at all but the management of ourselves within time. Except in rare instances, such as the papal bull of 1582, which effectively cancelled ten days on the calendar in order to reconcile the Julian calendar, then in use, with the true length of days measured in solar time (Bluedorn, 2002), or daylight savings time, no one has the power to manage time itself. Individuals and organizations can make choices about how they show up in time and the degree to which they value presence and the present moment. Under normal conditions no person or organization is aware of the fact that acting is possible only in the present moment. —Christian Noss (2002, p. 50)

Organizational Timefulness Organizations that develop their capacity for improvised play shift their relationship to time from one that is ruled by outer time to one that also respects the value of inner time. With an exclusively outer time orientation, organizations can have an undue attachment to memories of the past and how things have been done before. They also may be so overly focused on the future, or on the outcomes of their actions, that they miss important discoveries in the present. In timefulness, the past is held lightly as all engage fully in the possibilities of the moment. I witnessed such a shift with an ad agency creative team in the midst of generating ideas for a new major marketing plan for its biggest national client. Going into the campaign, it was burdened with memories of twelve years of


previous campaigns for the client, as well as preconceptions of the client’s expectations. They decided to give themselves a creative vacation and invited not only the usual members of the creative team but people who worked on many of the more operational and administrative aspects of the account. Beginning with competence development in improvisation skills and language, the individual team members started to shift their focus from the past or future to the opportunities in the moment and the generative energy of the team. They stopped censoring their ideas with such familiar idea-killing comments as, ‘‘We tried that before’’ (past focus) or ‘‘The client will never go for that’’ (future focus) and allowed even the craziest ideas time to incubate. Today I continue to receive reports of marketing campaigns that are bearing fruit from seeds nurtured by this team. Not only does our relationship to time shift in playspace, entire teams and departments report experiencing time differently. Abigayil Joseph described what this feels like during department meetings in her Chicago Public Schools office: One of the things that I think happens when you do have a really good collaboration going on is that time flies. . . . I started to have these monthly meetings with the staff, and we started to incorporate ice breakers, and things that we were learning about creative collaboration. You know those meetings were supposed to be from . . . 1:00 until 3:00; . . . that’s a long meeting. . . . I think that the sort of group experience when those meetings really worked was that all of a sudden it was, like, 3:00, and we were still . . . in a natural flow of things, and people wanted more time—you know, instead of people looking at their watches and thinking to themselves, ‘‘I’ve got to get out of here.’’ And that’s got to be because people feel like things are getting accomplished. There’s something constructive, there’s something positive, there’s something meaningful, there’s something valuable happening here in

138


this space. So I’m not looking at my watch, I’m not looking at the clock, I’m not annoyed about the fact that the meeting was called from 1:00 to 3:00, and now all of a sudden it’s 3:00, and now all of a sudden, it’s 4:00, and now all of a sudden, it’s 5:00.

At Learning Curve, the commitment to playspace was organization-wide. The external demands of the calendar, quarterly goals, and the national conventions at which it showcased new products still set the rhythm of much of the product development cycle. But this was not allowed to overshadow the experience of inner time, in which all became more attuned to real-time collaborative and coaching opportunities. When we shift our mind-set from workplace to playspace, we expand the Protestant work ethic beyond what we accomplish in time to how we accomplish it. The irony is played out in organizations and work groups around the world: the more we value the quality of time, the more we realize its quantitative potential.

Timeful Space in Innovating Lack of time is the one of the most common obstacles to innovating I hear from people at all levels of organizations. ‘‘I am so busy answering e-mail, returning calls, and putting out fires that I barely have time to think, let alone think creatively!’’ is the lament. This is usually a tip-off that the relationship to time, not time itself, is the issue. Organizations need systems and processes that ensure space for new ideas to incubate, refine, and find their way to implementation. Yet many innovative opportunities are lost because people were not present to them in the moment they appeared. If anyone has learned to generate and implement ideas without the luxury of careful planning and deliberation, it is theatrical improvisers. When they receive a suggestion from the audience or witness a new discovery unfolding onstage between fellow players, improvisers do not have time to huddle offstage to assess the situation, consider the risks and benefits of various courses of


action, and plan how they will respond. Improvisers simply accept what they are given and begin exploring generative possibilities. The givens serve as an organizing framework, not as limiting constraints. In organizations, the timeful capacity of seasoned improvisers need not translate to abandoning plans and strategy; it means that such plans are used as guides in the same way improvisers use their givens, yet they are not allowed to overshadow the opportunities of the present moment. Too great an attachment to strategy or to memories of the past takes organizational players away from the possibilities of the moment. In their study of ninety-two new product development projects, researchers Miner, Moorman, and Bassoff (1996) and Moorman and Miner (1998a, 1998b) found a positive correlation between memory dispersal (particularly of organizational beliefs, knowledge, frames of reference, models, values, and norms, as well as organizational myths, legends, and stories) in an organization and the creative and financial success of new products; however, they found a negative relationship between high levels of procedural memory and new product development. In other words, an undue awareness of or attachment to the past constrains innovative possibilities in the present. In a fluid world, wise people know that they don’t fully understand what is happening right now, because they have never seen precisely this event before. —Karl Weick (1993, p. 636)

The Tyranny of the Plan ‘‘Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans,’’ sang John Lennon. Life will happen to you whether you are showing up for its gifts or not. As useful as the planning

140


process may be in helping us clarify our values and intentions, following the plan too closely may keep us from discovering what is right in front of our noses. I have seen this play out many times in the games I play with people who are developing their capacity for improvisation. To protect themselves from embarrassment or being caught without an idea, they begin planning what they will do or say before it is their turn to play. Planning is their response to this anxiety. Better to have a plan, they reason, than risk looking foolish or unprepared or, as Claxton (1984) warned, risk the loss of comfort, confidence, consistency, or competence that attends most innovating, learning, and transformation. Unfortunately, the casualty of planning for improvisation is improvisation. Lost is the opportunity for discovery, emergence, possibility, and a heightened experience of self that can discover and process information that arrives just in time (Purser & Petranker, 2002).

Timeful Space in Learning It is no coincidence that John Lee and Dick Rothkopf called their company ‘‘Learning Curve.’’ The name itself implies that learning happens over time and through continued engagement. Not only was this the philosophy that guided their toy designers and product managers to create products that fostered learning, it was understood that the organization itself was a learning organization and would continue to learn and evolve. Inner and outer time must also be accommodated in individual and organizational learning. This is especially true today as organizations face increasing pressure to improve the speed and efficiency of knowledge acquisition and competence development. If, however, the quality of inner time is ignored in the interest of using the least amount of outer time, the learning itself will be lost. Timeful space in learning respects that when people are present in their bodies in the moment, they are more likely to have insight, as well as take in new information. Both inner and


outer time are essential in creating timeful space in learning. Research on learning shows that the more present we are to the task, experience, or new information, the more likely we are to retain, make meaning of, and ultimately make use of the learning. Despite the increasing technology-driven trend in multitasking, it is clear that being present in the moment, or having a quality experience of inner time, contributes to the quality of learning (‘‘Study,’’ 2006). New brain research reinforces that information without context, emotional significance, personal relevance, and processing time literally cannot be remembered (Wolfe, 2006; Zull, 2006). The synaptic pathways are not laid without the experience of timefulness during learning and thus cannot be reconstructed. Chief learning officers are constantly experimenting with ways to fit the most learning into the least time, a battle with outer time that often backfires. Making meaning of insight and information and developing new capacities often does not happen in the moment; it needs time for processing and integration. This is especially true of learning that challenges the status quo or asks people to push beyond their comfort zones. Intellectual understanding can come quickly; whole-person integration of the understanding that translates into new behavior or ways of thinking and perceiving has a time horizon. This plays out again and again with adults who are expanding their improvisation capacity. Many of the core concepts of improvisation are quite simple and can be learned in a matter of hours. Developing the confidence and competence to consistently practice these principles requires time for experimentation, reinforcement, permission giving and taking, and the revision of self-beliefs. All of this happens over time and in relationship with others. Timeful space for learning is also necessary at the level of teams, work groups, and organizations (see Figure 5.2). The 4-I model introduced in Chapter One emphasizes that the learning process often starts on the preconscious level as intuition. For intuition to be valuable beyond the individual who experiences it, it must be interpreted, then integrated, and finally,

142


Figure 5.2. Timeful Space for Organizational Learning in the 4-I Model of Learning Intuiting Interpreting

Outer Time

Integrating

Inner Time

Institutionalizing

Source: Adapted from Crossan, Lane, and White (1999, p. 532).

institutionalized (Crossan, Lane, & White, 1999). The last three stages are relational and dynamic. When new learning progresses to the level of institutionalization, an interesting creative tension arises between the stabilizing potential of routine, which provides comfort, and the constraining influence the very same comfortable routines can have on innovating, learning, and changing. Timefulness can mediate the tension between organizational routines and the commitment to learning by allowing organizational memory to be held lightly, just as seasoned improvisers do. The importance of memory becomes readily apparent to the audience during any long-form improvised theatrical performance. One of the best-known long-form improvisations, ‘‘The Harold,’’ was developed by Del Close (Halpern, Close, & Johnson, 1994) and is performed several nights a week at Chicago’s IO (formerly the Improv Olympic). Based on a single suggestion from the audience, the players begin to ‘‘jam’’ together as they explore


the interesting dimensions and associations with the suggestion. This jam session may start with a motion, sound, phrase, exclamation, or any number of responses. As the players accept and explore these discoveries, the first scene and characters emerge soon and the players not directly involved onstage retreat to the sidelines as intent participant-observers to the unfolding action. Collectively the players must hold both the original given (the audience suggestion) and all of the discoveries that emerge from that given. Their challenge is to use this organizational memory to fuel their discoveries, improvised characters, and action over the next forty-five or so minutes. If their relationship to this memory is overly procedural (tied to successful bits and characters from past performances), they will not be able to continue to unfold the action and mine the givens for increasingly surprising discoveries, but will play out the obvious by enacting the original assumptions and one-dimensional dynamics. Organizations are similarly challenged, and they are impeded in their ability to improvise when they are overly tied to routines and procedures. However, memory of past routines and approaches can be useful raw material for a novel response to the unexpected (Moorman & Miner, 1998a). Memory of the givens in improvisation—the original inspiration, the organizational vision, the boundaries of available resources, and ready access to various dimensions of knowledge (representational, reflective, and relational), as well as past organizational routines and effective responses—are all dependent on a heightened awareness of the present that includes a relationship to the past and (in the case of vision and goals) the imagined future. For improvisers in the theater and organizational settings, memory of the past itself does not impede successful improvisation. What can do this is the individual’s relationship to memory and the context (and culture) within which the improvisation is occurring. In other words, memory of the ‘‘way we’ve always done things’’ can be either a limiting routine (workplace) or a springboard to a novel response (playspace).

144


Timeful Space in Changing An exclusive focus on outer, or clock, time can limit the space available for innovation and learning; it can also cripple planned change efforts, as well as an organization’s ability to respond to the unexpected and unplanned. This is in part because when the clock is the enemy, so is change. The techniques and assumptions that guide management are geared toward . . . re-constructing the identity of the organization so it can maintain its illusion of permanence. In this respect, time and change must be kept at bay, for they are viewed as a threat to self-existence. —Ron Purser (2004, p. 4)

Timeful space for change allows for more fluidity and responsiveness to emerging insight and opportunity; this dynamic of playspace comes to life with an improvisational mind-set that must hold identity and fixed outcomes lightly if it is to respond fully to unexpected opportunities and information. Responsive Versus Reactive With improvisation capacity, individuals, teams, and entire organizations are able to be responsive rather than reactive. If you have ever said or done something you later regretted, you know the difference between reactive and responsive behavior. Reactive behavior tends to be defensive of the status quo; we may be defending our identity, ego, opinion, honor, idea, or plan, to name a few. When we react, we are likely to do so habitually, with little access to novel alternatives. Responsive behavior can happen in the same amount of clock time but is grounded in the presence of inner time. In timeful space, we have access to our intellect, as well as our intuition and creativity. We can


more consistently live and work in timeful space when we have developed the competence, consciousness, and confidence in our improvisation capacity. Reactive and outer time-driven strategies are the norm rather than the exception in most organizations. In his research on the common management practice of setting urgent, and sometimes arbitrary, deadlines in an attempt to improve productivity, Quy Huy (2004), associate professor of strategy at INSEAD, found such efforts often backfired. Referring to a group of top managers who used such strategies, he reported, ‘‘Their emotional states began with optimism about their stimulating actions and ended in regret when they realized that the artificially imposed time pressure led to costly, superficial changes as opposed to deep, sustainable change’’ (pp. 1–2). Deep, sustainable change is dynamic; it is more similar to a living organism than to the metaphorical ice block of Lewin’s unfreezing-changing-freezing model (1947). Entertainers with long careers, such as Madonna, as well as many of the organizations mentioned throughout this book, have developed such a capacity to continually reinvent themselves without precious attachment to their previous identity. Sustainable change does not mean that a new state of stasis is achieved and maintained, as appealing as that may seem; it means that the organization has developed and continues to develop its improvisation capacity for innovating, learning, and changing in response to both the planned and unplanned. John Lee, who has now moved on from Learning Curve to head Callaway Arts and Entertainment, publisher of fine art books and other media, continues to create playspace in which he and his team can be responsive to unexpected opportunities. Lee described how his team responded to a recent unexpected opportunity. When it became clear that Barack Obama would be elected the forty-fourth president of the United States, The New York Times approached Callaway to collaborate on a book commemorating this moment in history: ‘‘So they said the catch is,

146


it’s got to be ready to go to the printer the day after inauguration, with the inauguration being the last chapter. Two hundred and forty pages, three hundred plus photographs, 40,000-word book. Jill Abramson [is] the author, plus there are contributing pieces from the various New York Times writers. And that’s not all folks. They wanted a young reader’s edition. So two books . . . in just over two months.’’ Lee knew this was an opportunity not to miss, and he also knew his team had the capacity to respond. In addition to improvisation capacity, the ability to respond to an unexpected opportunity centers on shared agreement about what the organization stands for and what it cares about: We spent a lot of time on the front end of our business determining what our core values were. And we had a filter that every product and every brand decision had to pass through, or it just didn’t cut it. . . . If it’s something that really hits all the core values and we just know it’s going to be great, [and] your instincts tell you it’s right, then you know your decision-making metrics say this is right on the money, then when the team has participated in building that kind of decision-making protocol, bam. You know then you can open things up and turn on the gas and get things done. . . . Everyone who participated said . . . we’re participating in a moment of history in a very meaningful way. We’re making something that’s going to be around for generations. We have to do this.

Agreement on their core values and the value of their collaboration fostered a collaborative space in which everyone was able to work at the top of their talent, using all available resources. The book sold more than 300,000 copies in the first two weeks and reached number three on The New York Times bestseller list, an especially significant result for an expensive book in a tough economy.


Bringing Timeful Space to Life Even more so than the relational, generative, and safe dynamics of playspace, timeful space is a mind-set and way of being. There is no magic wand to catapult us back into our bodies and the present moment without fail (partly because we need to be in the moment in order to realize we have left it). With this understanding, the coaching sections that follow describe practices that are grounded in an attitude of timefulness and can also invite others to experience the full possibilities of the present moment. Role of the Leader: Allow the Boundaries to Free You Leaders feel the greatest pressure to deliver results on or before deadlines. The term deadline comes from the days before highsecurity prisons peppered the nation. Makeshift fences and lines were drawn in ad hoc prison yards and prisoner-of-war camps. Prisoners knew that if they crossed one of these lines, they would be shot; the boundary was a literal dead line. Today’s use of the term may have lost this morbid connotation, but it has retained its seriousness in business. When time is related to a deadline, it can do little but morbidly constrain any life-giving process that leaders hope to encourage. Confirming Huy’s findings that executives respond negatively to arbitrary time pressures, Harvard University researchers Teresa Amabile, Constance Hadley, and Steven Kramer (2002) found that creative thinking is unlikely when people feel that they are under the gun. They may work longer hours, but the possibility that their contributions will result in innovation, learning, or change is significantly diminished with extreme time pressure. Leaders need not, of course, throw the clock out the window in an attempt to make more space for new discoveries. In fact, disregarding outer time would have the opposite effect. Organizations that succeed in making playspace are guided by

148


leaders who are respectful of both outer clock time and the need for quality inner time. In playspace, the relationship to time shifts from one of a threatening deadline to a life-supporting boundary within which many things are possible; this is timefulness. Learning Curve’s John Lee described how he practiced timefulness in the clock-driven toy industry: In our business and most, you have the realities of the market that say I’ve got to feed it. I’ve got to feed my marketplace on schedule. We always had the events of Toy Fair in February that had to be fed. So it was your . . . showtime. It was Broadway. I think the pressure of a life cycle is a good thing. And I think what’s important is to have a pipeline of ideation that exceeds the need of the events that you’re driving toward. You’ve got this sense of reserve. ‘‘Okay, well, this one isn’t quite baked enough. I have something over here that is. Well, so what if it misses the train? We’ll get it next time.’’ If leadership doesn’t have the right mind-set about that . . . if perfection is your priority, you may never get to market . . . It’s important to have an excellent product, but it’s important to meet your market.

Timefulness can hold the competing values of excellence and allow the boundaries to free creativity and learning capacity. Improvisers play in this way every night on stages around the world. With a suggestion or two from the audience, they begin to co-create characters and complex plotlines on the spot. They do so by being fully present to the givens of their available resources: the audience suggestion, the physical space, the number and capacity of their fellow players, and time. Rather than fight against the boundaries (‘‘If only we had more time, we could really come up with something brilliant!’’), they use them as facilitative boundaries to unleash their collective creativity. Google’s Marissa Mayer, echoes this sentiment with her credo, ‘‘Scarcity brings clarity’’ (‘‘Google’s Mayer,’’ 2008). When resources, including time, are scarce and presence is practiced,


priorities and opportunities can rise to the top while unnecessary distractions drop away. Googlers have referred to the highly structured process new ideas must survive as the ‘‘Marissa gauntlet.’’ These regular pitch meetings are timed with a giant countdown clock that gives each presenter ten minutes to make a case (‘‘Marissa Mayer,’’ 2006). At Google, the boundaries of outer time free people to be fully available to inner time. Mayer’s practice is integrated into an organization that practices timefulness in many dimensions. Leaders are cautioned not to cherry-pick one method in hopes that it will produce similar results, as it will be sure to create a climate in which the product is more important than the process. When the ends are used to justify the means, both will suffer in the long term. Beware of Urgency. Sometimes the best response is no response. This is not easy in our action-oriented society. When we rush to respond out of ‘‘don’t just stand there, do something!’’ programming, we may miss the quiet voices and deeper feelings. If anything, the essence of intelligence would seem to be in knowing when to think and act quickly, and knowing when to think and act slowly. —Robert Sternberg (quoted in Gleick, 1999, p. 114)

When awareness is sacrificed for action, the action is more likely to be reactive than responsive. Awareness in action is more likely to be responsive and to draw on all available resources, including the tacit knowledge and intuition that are easily drowned out when urgency prevails. There is a difference between the external urgency of a house fire and the more relative urgency of closing a deal, or responding to a one-time offer. Those who have shifted their mind-set to timefulness can discern the difference.

150


Learning Curve’s John Lee and his business partner, Dick Rothkopf, developed a regular practice of taking a two-hour walk on Sunday mornings that enabled them to create timeful space, as well as balance each other’s very different management styles and head off decisions that might be guided by a false sense of urgency. Lee reflected: There was little time during the week for Dick and me to sync up on bigger strategic decisions, so we would often get together on the weekend and, many times, a long Sunday walk, and have our priority list of things that we needed to try to get in sync on and make decisions on. Sometimes it was people, and sometimes it was some new opportunity we thought we were going to pursue and introduce to the team, or some investment we wanted to make [or] something new or something it was time to kill. . . . Dick and I were compatible in many ways, but we also . . . had stark contrast. He was much more prickly and tough and quick. And I would be more prone to let things germinate a little longer, so we tried to resolve those dynamic tensions on our Sunday walk [by] him talking me into taking action or me cautioning [him] to take a little more time. And we would usually come to a healthy compromise. . . . So there was that dynamic between the two of us that influenced both the timing and the way in which we would make decisions about what to move ahead on or not.

Lee and Rothkopf appreciated their own and each other’s gifts; they also knew that these gifts could be liabilities. Together they fostered an orientation to time that kept the business innovating and growing without compromising quality. Role of the Facilitator: Enrich and Extend the Time Horizon Organizational cultures have their unique relationships to and metaphors for time. When organizations talk about the time horizon, they are employing a special metaphor; time is measured


in distance, from near to the far-off future. Most Western organizations measure their distance in three- to five-year stretches, while some Native and Asian cultures extend their horizon for many generations. How organizational leaders, facilitators, and participants conceive of their time horizon often guides their decisions in the present moment. For example, organizations functioning under a short time horizon will make decisions that favor short-term results rather than long-term impact. Many believe our current economic crisis is a result of focusing on the horizon of the next quarter rather than the next decade or even the next generation. Organizational, let alone cultural or societal, sustainability is not achieved with a singular attention on a short time horizon. Facilitators cannot create more clock time; they can, however, cultivate richer, more meaningful experience in time. Horizons prompt us to think of time in terms of its length; timefulness invites us to also explore time’s width and depth. Most of us have had facilitated experiences in which the time was not wide or deep at all. Perhaps you sat in a workshop in which an endless parade of slides were read to you (slides you likely had in front of you in handout form and had read yourself in the first five minutes of the session). You spent your time looking around the room, reading other conference materials, perhaps even furtively checking your e-mail on your mobile device. By 10:15 in the morning, you were already drained of energy and ready for a nap. When the facilitator announced a fifteen-minute break, the room came to life; people began connecting across tables, moving their bodies, engaging in their relational space through technology. You had just gotten into a lively conversation by the coffee break area when the facilitator began herding you back into the room to another lifeless, narrow stretch of outer time. This is the opposite of timefulness. As the descriptions throughout this chapter suggest, people experience timefulness when they are engaging, connecting, creating, discovering, stretching, learning, and changing. Those

152


charged with facilitating learning experiences, idea generation, or change processes will increase the value of the quantity of time by enriching the quality of that time. For many, shifting their relationship to time also means shifting their role in time. For example, if I see my role as the expert who needs to transmit my knowledge, I have left little room for participants to engage in the process, make their own discoveries, or learn from each other (in fact, I am not likely thinking of them as participants at all but as attendees). However, if my role is to guide the process, provide opportunities for others to make their learning relevant to their own lives and work, and even generate new knowledge, there is endless playspace for engagement. Enrich the Time Horizon. The workshop example reminds me of one of the worst theater reviews I ever read. After suffering through a particularly dismal production, the critic wrote, ‘‘I finally figured out what’s wrong with this show! All of the seats face the stage.’’ There are so many strategies to engage participants in dialogue, idea generation, decision making, and learning that there is no excuse for even those who occasionally step into the role of the facilitator not to find ways to tap into the generative potential of groups. Gardner’s research on multiple intelligences, Kolb’s work on learning styles, and many who have extended our understanding of how people learn beyond the purely cognitive have led to the development of countless facilitation strategies, very few of which require that ‘‘all of the seats face the stage.’’ I wholeheartedly encourage drawing on a range of methods as the group goals suggest and warn you to beware of falling in love with the method itself lest you find yourself using it because it suits you rather than the needs of the group or the moment. That said, here are some overarching principles to keep in mind whether you design planned sessions or jump in to facilitate at a moment’s notice that will enrich the time horizon. • Agree on the shared generative goals, purpose, or questions. It can take only a few minutes to ask for input or confirmation


on your reason for coming together, and makes a world of difference in how much value people put into in the time. When creative learning, planning, or problem-solving sessions are framed as generative questions, the possibility for engagement increases significantly. For example, ‘‘What’s wrong with our research and development strategy?’’ will engage a very different energy from, ‘‘How can we create a more innovative approach to research and development?’’ • Use multiple strategies to accommodate the learning styles and intelligences in the room. Invite people to toss a spongy ball to the person who wants to share an idea; put a sheet of craft paper on the table with markers, pipe cleaners, and playdough, and ask people to create an image of their solution or collaborate on a map of the future; give participants a chance to physicalize a movement phrase that expresses their hopes or worst fears; pass a paper around the conference table for people to build on the idea above; show a brief YouTube video to serve as a conversation starter; introduce a scenario that includes a similar issue you are engaging with and invite participants to analyze it as a critical incident and imagine alternative approaches; or provide a prompt, such as ‘‘I wish . . . ,’’ ‘‘I wonder . . . ,’’ or ‘‘What if . . . ,’’ for a five-minute free-write on your topic. These are only a handful of literally hundreds of ways you can engage the embodied, visual, reflective, observational, tactile, experiential (to name only a few) ways people take in information, process ideas, and imagine possibilities. Inviting such engaged participation helps create timeful space. • Get everyone ‘‘in the room.’’ Just because the physical bodies are in the room does not mean that everyone’s whole self has arrived. I often invite people to take three long, deep breaths in through their nose, out through their mouths, followed by thirty seconds of silence to simply notice what is going on and accept their physical, mental, emotional state exactly as it is. You may also want to playfully ask people to

154


‘‘throw away’’ anything that is distracting them by shaking off their limbs, writing it on a scrap of paper and tossing it into a basket, or otherwise letting go. Before you dismiss these as too hokey for your group, I have seen bankers, research scientists, information technology professionals, and scholars from around the world welcome this opportunity to get in the room (no one had ever asked them before!). These few minutes at the start of a session go a long way toward bringing the full awareness, talent, and creative potential of the group into the space. Tap into the Wisdom in the Room. Once everyone is in the room, it is important to remember that even if you are the content or process expert, there is much life experience and wisdom in the room that, once tapped, will make space for even more possibilities and learning. Giving pairs or small groups a generative question is an excellent strategy. Formats such as open space (Owen, 1997) and world café (Brown & Isaacs, 2005) also make room for groups to tap into their shared wisdom. More important than the approach is remembering that the space will be timeful only if people find value and are valued in it. Keep It Relevant. Both research and common sense remind us that adults are more likely to engage when the topic is relevant to their immediate life and work issues. This does not mean that we must short-circuit the discovery process in which we cannot quantify the outcome at the start; it does mean that as facilitators, we must provide a framework that makes room for reflection and action either during or at the conclusion of collaborative processes. One of my favorite, because it is so easy to remember and intuitive, is the What? Gut? So What? Now What? framework created by Jim Troxel and his colleagues at Millennium Consulting. What? invites participants to report what they noticed about the topic, process, or group dynamic; Gut? invites deeper awareness of the feelings people had or values that were surfaced in response to the topic or process; So what? invites people to


begin to make meaning of and interpret the ideas, learning, or lessons from the group process; and Now what? invites people to begin translating their insights and lessons into action. You may notice that this facilitated meaning-making process reflects the more organic 4-I model of organizational learning: intuiting, interpreting, integrating, and institutionalizing (Crossan, Lane, & White, 1999). Both processes require and create timeful space for innovating, learning, and changing as they provide space for people to make meaning of their experiences and insights. Extend the Time Horizon. While it is possible to see glimpses of safety and relational engagement within short periods, the seasoning and ripening of transformation occur over time as participants learn that they can trust each other as they assume increasing responsibility for co-creating the space and grow in comfort and confidence with their newly discovered capacities and frameworks. Adults need the horizon of time to reflect on their experiences; experiment with new approaches, modes of thinking, and ways of relating to themselves and each other; and, for some, emerge from the shadows of former self-beliefs. We cannot find opportunities in the fullness of time if we value only the outcome of our time. The 4-I model of organizational learning takes time and begins with the quiet, discerning stages of intuition and interpretation. Individuals and groups need time to make meaning of their experiences and integrate them into their lives. They need time to make the shift from workplace to playspace. Transformational outcomes and the development of significant new capacities such as improvisation cannot be achieved through purely transactional strategies or the narrow time frames increasingly allotted to training and development. I cannot, in integrity, suggest that there are strategies to force the complex processes of transformation and learning into ever smaller spaces; I can suggest ways that facilitators can extend the time horizon and encourage their stakeholders and participants

156


to conceive of learning not as an event but as a process. Here are a few suggestions: • Engage participants before and after they gather. Whether the purpose is learning, discovery, creative collaboration, problem solving, or planning, engaging participants before and after they come together will extend the value of the experience. Asking participants to develop their personal learning goals in advance of a training session and report back on their learning afterward; inviting team members to prepare for an ideation session by finding inspiring images, provocative articles, or research; or imagining various what-if scenarios will extend the time horizon, as well as the creative engagement. Sending surveys before and after the session using an online tool such as SurveyMonkey.com and sharing the results will continue to generate valuable knowledge. These are only a few examples that can fit your purpose and particular group dynamic. • Create relational space early and often. For planned sessions with an outside facilitator, make the time to have conversations with at least several representative participants to understand their opportunities and challenges, their hopes and dreams. If the participants do not know each other in advance of gathering, a number of social networking spaces, such as Ning.com and intronetworks.com, can enable participants to meet each other, discover shared interests, and begin building the relationships that will support their success. Nurture these connections during face-to-face time, and make space for informal connections to grow. As internal leaders emerge, invite them to rotate responsibility for continuing to engage the network over time. • Make space for self-organizing learning. The most successful learning and engagement are intrinsically motivated. If


you have helped participants link their learning, creative engagement, or problem solving to their own passions, skills, knowledge, and talent, you have already begun to make space for an ongoing community of practice. Depending on the nature of the group and its geographical distribution, offer a number of options for the group to continue to connect. Whether it is the executive conference room, a self-organized brown bag lunch series, online collaboration space and tools, or a simple listserv, often the generative energy will continue to flow if it is given space and minimal support. Individual and organizational capacity development, as well as significant learning and transformation, need an extended time horizon. These are only a few strategies that can extend the horizon and shift the focus from episodic or event-based learning and creative collaboration to one that is ongoing and integrated and makes space for something truly meaningful to come to life. Role of the Participant: Be Timeful If we cannot manage time but can manage ourselves in time, what choices can we make that will enable us to be more timeful? One of the most challenging individual issues in our overly stimulated Western society is that of multitasking. When we are overly focused on outer time, we are easily tempted to multitask in an attempt to get more done in the available time. Unfortunately, the research doesn’t support this strategy. There is really no such thing as multitasking; rather, the brain cycles as quickly as it can between tasks, often losing much in the process. During this switching time, we must not only shift our attention decisively, as in ‘‘I am no longer doing this; I am now doing that,’’ but also shift to the rules of the new activity (Rubinstein, Meyer, & Evans, 2001). For example, the rules of listening to a coworker’s story about his weekend are different from the rules needed to balance a spreadsheet.

158


Anyone who has become frustrated trying to carry on a phone conversation with a colleague who is clearly distracted by her e-mail knows that the switching process is rarely smooth or complete. In fact, an increasing number of studies show that even the slightest distraction while driving, including talking on a cell phone, increases the risk of an accident by as much as 40 percent regardless of whether the driver is using a hands-free device (Caird, 2008; Redelmeier & Tibshirani, 1997). Multitasking can be rather innocuous when the tasks are relatively simple or habitual: folding laundry and talking on the phone, watching TV and combing the cat, or washing the car and talking with your neighbor. Tasks that involve any degree of complexity or through which we hope to make new discoveries, connections, or decisions require our full presence in the moment. To be more timeful, participants can choose to give such tasks, processes, and interaction the pleasure of their full presence. Be. Here. Now. When we do not give our presence to the present moment, we either do not value the possibilities of the moment or are operating under the mistaken belief that we will be more productive if we engage in a secondary activity as well. Abigayil Joseph, the Chicago Public Schools officer and an avid rock climber, wondered what it would feel like if we each thought of our interactions as ones in which our life depended on our presence. Scaling the side of a mountain, she explained, you ‘‘can’t afford not to be in the moment’’: Literally you are suspended, but where time is suspended and because you’re physically challenged, you’re in the moment because you can’t afford not to be in the moment. And sometimes to get up a mountain, you know to scale a mountain, to be in the Himalayas and to be trying to get past a glacier, you don’t really know how much time has gone by, but time is going by. And afterward, you do just feel totally—inspired is one word—but it’s more than that. It’s like a feeling of being almost ecstatic. . . . You


almost feel high. It’s the combination of a sense of accomplishment and, I think, being in the flow of not thinking about anything but what you’re doing right there and now.

When outer time rules, the amount of work we accomplish within its constraints is valued over how we show up in time. Joseph reminds us of the exhilaration and generative energy available when we show up as if our life depended on it. Ironically our productivity would likely escalate, along with the quality of our attention. In practice, I have found that one of the fastest ways to be restored to the present moment is to take three long, deep breaths (the same deep breaths suggested for facilitators) and simply notice what I am experiencing in the moment. You can do this practice many times a day without disrupting your own or anyone else’s flow. (The worst anyone can accuse you of is breathing!) Another excellent be-here-now strategy is to keep a journal and periodically pull it out or pull it up on your screen and do a brief check-in with yourself. Focus these brief free-writing sessions on describing what you are experiencing and noticing in the present moment. As you draw your attention to your physical state, mental state, emotional state, and immediate context, you will invite new awareness and presence. Claim Your Quiet Time. It is next to impossible to block out all distractions, especially in fast-paced organizations. Those who make space for interruptions, as well as claim time that is interruption free, are more productive. Leslie Perlow (1997), a professor at Harvard Business School, studies how people spend their time at work. She studied a team of software engineers at a Fortune 500 company that scheduled periods of ‘‘quiet time’’ in which interruptions were forbidden. Because the time was scheduled in advance, the engineers were able to prepare for and use it when they were at their best for focused work, which resulted in increased productivity. Claiming your quiet time not

160


only makes space to give more complex projects your full creative attention; it frees you to be more fully present to the spontaneous interactions that happen outside this time. Make Banana Time. In 1959, Donald Roy, a young sociologist, studied how his fellow factory workers passed their time and battled boredom during their monotonous twelve-hour days on the shop floor. He catalogued a series of rituals that broke up the day, built relationships, and brought some levity to the routine. One such ritual was ‘‘banana time,’’ in which Ike regularly snuck the banana out of Sammy’s lunch box. Roy described the scenario: ‘‘Each morning, after making the snatch, Ike would call out, ‘Banana time!’ and proceed to down his prize while Sammy made futile protests and denunciations. George would join in with mild remonstrances, sometimes scolding Sammy for making so much fuss. The banana was one which Sammy brought for his own consumption at lunch time; he never did get to eat his banana, but kept bringing one for his lunch. At first this daily theft startled and amazed me. Then I grew to look forward to the daily seizure and the verbal interaction which followed’’ (p. 162). The ritual silliness of the shop floor extends to boardrooms and lunchrooms in many organizations. Those who instigate, participate in, and appreciate these brief interludes know that they serve an important purpose, fostering the relational connections and engagement necessary in even the most routine jobs. Donna Younger often found herself in what she referred to as ‘‘Dilbert moments,’’ or full-blown meetings at the community college where she serves as an administrator. She and a small band of merry colleagues regularly kept themselves creatively engaged and intellectually intact through a series of in-jokes and rituals. Reflecting on the value of such banana time, she shared: I think [it] is interesting because your willingness to play means you have to be, really be, in the moment—I mean, at the same


time you have to see it as a moment. . . . But to be able to see, to be in the moment interacting with someone and making sense of things, using play to do it, and it’s noticed that you’re doing it . . . It feels good, because it’s effective, because you like each other, because you’re involved in something you really don’t want to do and don’t believe in, and the best way to live through it is . . . to make your own meaning out of it. So there is that immediacy in order to be playful, and there’s a distancing in order to appreciate the function of play.

Banana time cannot be scripted or prescribed. It grows organically out of moments and opportunities as participants appreciate its value in creating playspace. When the organizational mind-set shifts from workplace to playspace, the orientation to time naturally shifts to one of timefulness. The leaders, facilitators, and participants at Learning Curve experienced this as heightened engagement in the present moment and as ‘‘time flying.’’ Their creation of timeful space was supported by the aggressive boundaries of time, and it was through embracing the boundaries set by the clock and a commitment to the present moment that they shortened their product development cycle and increased profits, while making playspace in which everyone could work at the top of their talent.

Chapter Summary Timeful space inspires full engagement in the possibilities of the present moment while working within the boundaries of the clock. Our experience of time is socially constructed, as the many examples in this chapter illustrate. We can commodify time as money and value time by the number of widgets produced or tasks accomplished. When the value of time is measured solely by the outcomes of the activity within it, we devalue the way we are participating in time or the quality of our experience in time.

162


Learning Curve International, a high-end toy company, found a way to value both the demands of outer (or clock) time and the quality of inner time. Timeful space invites a new relationship to time in which time management does not focus on the illusion that we can literally manage time but on the very real prospect of managing ourselves in time. The benefits of timeful space for innovation, learning, and positive change are highlighted through a series of examples in which individuals and organizations made new discoveries, processed insights, and integrated successful change strategies by valuing the quantity as well as the quality of time.

Guiding Principles for Leaders, Facilitators, and Participants Role of the Leader: Allow the Boundaries to Free You. Drawing lessons from improvisers who create engaging performances in the present moment based on a single suggestion from the audience, leaders are guided to shift their relationship to the boundaries of time in a way that frees innovation, learning, and change rather than constrains it: • Beware of urgency. Showing up fully in the present moment offers an important gift: the awareness of when action is necessary and appropriate and when it is not. Leaders who create timeful space become attuned to the difference between the urgent need for action and action fueled by a false sense of urgency. Role of the Facilitator: Enrich and Extend the Time Horizon. In a culture that commodifies time as money, facilitators in formal and informal settings feel increasing pressure to accomplish more in less time. Timeful space can create a more


valuable experience in the available time through approaches that engage the attention and talent of all participants: • Enrich the time horizon. The following strategies enrich the value of our experience in time: • Agree on the shared generative goals, purpose, or questions. • Use multiple strategies to accommodate the learning styles and intelligences in the room. • Get everyone ‘‘in the room.’’ • Tap into the wisdom in the room. The most effective methods to enrich the time horizon invite all participants to draw from and share their wisdom in service of the shared goal. • Keep it relevant. When participants are able to link their creative collaboration, learning, and change strategies to their current context, the value of the experience and the time spent increases exponentially. • Extend the time horizon. While few organizations meet uncertain conditions by investing more time in facilitated innovating, learning, and changing sessions, they can extend the time horizon for these activities by engaging participants before and after their collaborations. Consider using these strategies: • Engage participants before and after they gather. • Create relational space early and often. • Make space for self-organizing learning. Role of the Participant: Be Timeful. Timeful participation debunks some of the myths associated with multitasking, and invites participants to make more of their experiences in time: • Be. Here. Now. Breathing (literally) into the present moment allows participants to become restored to their

164


own awareness of possibilities and to the unexpected and unplanned opportunities of the moment. Five-minute journal breaks can also increase awareness and presence. • Claim your quiet time. Research shows that those who regularly schedule uninterrupted time are more productive overall. They are able to give complex issues their full attention by shutting out interruptions and are able to be more fully present to their colleagues because they are less distracted. • Make banana time. Understanding and appreciating the value of silliness and the room it makes for people to bring their whole selves into the playspace delivers people to the present moment with the levity and awareness necessary for new discoveries and openness to new perspectives. Timeful space values both inner and outer time. Individuals and organizations that cultivate it understand that the quality of the experience of time is as important as the quantity of its outcomes.

6 PLAYSPACE IS PROVOCATIVE SPACE

If at this point in reading this book, you are still finding reasons that playspace can’t come to life in your organization and thinking to yourself, ‘‘Sure, you could do it in an apparel company, at Google, in a theater ensemble, toy company, or even with public school administrators, but it would never work in my organization,’’ you will want to learn more about how Ray Davis, CEO of Umpqua Bank, headquartered in Portland, Oregon, has made playspace part of the way his organization does business. In addition to the relational, generative, safe, and timeful dynamics of playspace, Davis understands that innovating, learning, and changing thrive in the final dynamic, provocative space (Figure 6.1). Walk into any Umpqua Bank store, and you will notice something different. Depending on the location, you may be struck by the open space inviting you to preview a local merchant’s colorful handmade bags, the free coffee bar serving Umpqua’s special blend, the Internet café, casual seating and magazine racks, or even the huge media wall with a state-of-the-art touch screen featuring photos submitted by members of the local community, along with links to the bank’s products and services. As innovative as all of this is, it is not what creates Umpqua Bank’s playspace; that can be created only by its people and their commitment to provoking new ways of thinking and being in each other, their customers, and their community. Each morning Umpqua’s 1,850 executives, managers, and associates throughout its 151 locations begin the day by bringing

165

166


Figure 6.1. Provocative Space

ul

af

Ti m

ef

Gen e

e

tive ca

ive rat

Prov o

Relational

S

their playspace to life. Called ‘‘motivational moments’’ by CEO Ray Davis, these five minutes of time together can be anything that energizes, motivates, or brings a sense of levity and community to the work group. Individual store locations have been known to kick off their day dancing to the Rolling Stones’s ‘‘Start It Up’’ blasting through the sound system, solving a puzzle together, or playing an improvisational game. The lobby of Umpqua Holdings Corporation headquarters in Portland has hosted rousing games of marshmallow dodge ball, Halloween apple bobbing, sing-a-longs, and the more subdued report on fun things to do in the community over the weekend.

PLAYSPACE IS PROVOCATIVE SPACE

167

What impact does this commitment to playspace have on the day-to-day experience and operations of the bank? Barbara Baker, executive vice president of cultural enhancement, reflects: I can’t describe any more than people seem lighter. And it just sets the tone for the rest of the day, and we do it every day. [It’s] just seeing people smile or you go to their desk and people say ‘‘thank you’’ more often. They’re more conscious of other people around them. I think that is so important. . . . [When] I walk by somebody’s desk in career strategies, . . . I say, ‘‘Well, we got you [with a flying marshmallow] this morning!’’ Now if we didn’t have those moments, I’d walk by them with my head down and keep going to see Ray or to the ladies’ room or the lunchroom. It creates opportunities to create memories, and it creates opportunities to find more ways to communicate with each other.

The playspace at Umpqua Bank is not only about the lightness it creates; it is serious business. At a time when many banks are struggling and bankers are under fire for their ill-advised, shortsighted lending practices, Umpqua has consistently fared better than its counterparts. In 1994 when Davis took over as CEO, Umpqua was a $140 million bank with six locations (Davis & Shrader, 2007); by the end of 2008, Umpqua had grown to be the largest regional bank in the Northwest, with more than $8.8 billion in assets and 151 branches in Oregon, Washington, and California, according to the FDIC. On Davis’s watch, Umpqua has also taken over the market in the Portland area community banking, moving from third to first. In addition to its healthy bottom line, Umpqua has been recognized for three years in a row on Fortune magazine’s list of the country’s ‘‘100 Best Companies to Work For,’’ and for twelve years on Oregon Business magazine’s ‘‘Oregon’s Best 100 Companies to Work For.’’

168


Everyday Playspace Umpqua has discovered how to bring playspace to life each day throughout its organization. It does so with the understanding that if a space is only relational, generative, safe, and timeful, it is quite possible that nothing of great interest will happen there. Such a space could certainly offer a pleasant place to work and conduct our lives, but it would not likely be a space for significant creativity, let alone transformative learning and insight. Just as great dramas thrive on unexpected plot twists, obstacles, and conflicts, playspace becomes play-full through provocation. The word provocative is often associated with titillation or sexual intrigue, but it has a much broader meaning here; provocative space describes the generative, relational experience of being awakened out of the familiar, comfortable, and predictable. We pay attention in new ways in provocative space, and we expect to be surprised and to discover new things about ourselves, each other, and the possibilities we can generate together. No wonder the word is often associated with the possibility of romance! We should not, however, use this connotation to shy away from using provocative space in association with innovating, learning, and changing; it is still the most accurate descriptor of this dynamic of playspace. At Umpqua, the physical space itself is provocative and emphasizes the customer experience and community, not the transaction. The first thing you notice walking into an Umpqua store is the open space; next your eye goes to a display of a local merchants’ wares, the coffee bar, and Internet stations. At the flagship store in Portland, known as the Innovation Lab, the large video wall displays photos of the local community, as well as touch screens for product and service information, which are also connected to DVD players for regular community movie nights and to a system for frequent Wii bowling tournaments. Lani Hayward, executive vice president of creative strategies, explains how the space is designed to welcome the customer and also to provoke Umpqua associates into new ways of relating


169

and thinking. ‘‘It’s like ‘Oh! I see that there’s space here for me to do things.’ There might be events going on, so it’s inviting, and it immediately sets you in a different feeling and hopefully a relaxed feeling about hanging out in there. When you work in a space that has these different elements, it’s a big difference to the customer and to the associate because they get to be more creative about what they can do in that space for their customers or for the community at large.’’ Hayward, like all others who consistently create playspace in their organizations, is quick to put the physical setting in context: So every single location that you walk into you feel . . . something very different from the moment you walk in because the people get it . . . Anybody can go build a pretty store if they get a good architect who has some ideas. But how do you get your people to do and behave and operate in a different manner? We have banks from all over the world that come [visit us] all the time—big, small—and they come because they see a pretty picture of the stores. But immediately they know and understand that the magic is with the people, and it’s the culture. Those two things, when they’re at play together, are good because one helps the other. So we think that the store environment, or any environment really that people work in, is terribly important. It encourages you to think differently.

Those committed to making playspace in their everyday interactions, conversations, and collaborations have a particular commitment to encouraging people to think differently, whether this is accomplished through the stimulation of their physical surroundings, provocative challenges, learning opportunities, or new perspectives.

Trust and Provocative Space In Chapter Four, I described the central role trust plays in making space safe for people to step out of their comfort zone and into new territory, where innovating, learning, and changing can

170


thrive. Trust is also essential in provocative space, where the unexpected and unplanned are seen as opportunities rather than threats. Hayward and Baker both link the level of trust at Umpqua to its success and the freedom their associates have to improvise solutions and innovative strategies in the moment. Hayward described it as ‘‘a trust factor that’s built up right away, and it starts with Ray saying, ‘You can ask me anything, and I’ll give you an answer.’ . . . Ask me anything, and I might not have the answer right now, or I may not even have the answer you want to hear, but I’ll give you one. That in and of itself is huge. It gives you a new sense . . . of freedom I think, but also just trust that I [can] believe in this company and in a different way of operating right from the get-go.’’ Trust has to swing both ways in playspace. Umpqua associates must trust their leaders, and the leaders trust their associates and consistently give them permission to make decisions that will be in the best interest of the customer and the organization. Umpqua lore and blogs are filled with stories in which associates went to extraordinary measures to serve a customer or execute a provocative ‘‘handshake marketing’’ strategy. Pointing to photos of some examples, Baker beamed with pride: We don’t tell them to do this. We go out and say, ‘‘Okay we’re going to have Summer Swarm,’’ and summer swarm sounds like bees. ‘‘Make it your own.’’ So we have people handing out Bit-OHoneys [candy bars]. Honey on a stick. They had . . . people [at] a park across the street from the store sing bee songs. These guys dressed up like bees. The way to make it fun is let them have some free rein, let them take that sales campaign and make it their own, have fun with it. [With] motivational moments, we don’t tell people what to do. We just said, ‘‘Hey, stay away from politics and religion, but make motivational moment something exciting.’’ And I think that’s driven through everything we do: make it your own.


171

Umpqua associates have the freedom to make it their own and play within the boundaries because they have been clearly established. Hayward adds that the trust and freedom create a sense of entrepreneurism: ‘‘And it’s superpowerful, and we gain so much by that, and the customer feels it. So it’s sort of this nice little reciprocal thing happening. The customer feels it. You get the feedback back, and you keep doing it.’’ In this way, provocative space creates generative space, which expands the improvisational capacity of each individual and team as they grow in competence, consciousness, and confidence to respond to each new opportunity.

Provocative Space: The Antidote to Groupthink Provocative space ensures against blind enthusiasm or groupthink. In provocative space, people do not stir the pot just because they can, but because they feel passionately about their values and vision for what is possible. They care about their ideas and will heartily engage in spirited debate about them. When do you know if you have struck the right balance between provocative and safe space? David Isaacson of Theater Oobleck explains: You know when it’s really working when you can see the passion of people, and there’s a number of people in a room passionately arguing about things, and when it doesn’t reach the point where some people are going to shut down, where people can come back the next day and everyone is still engaged . . . You have a lot of passionate opinions being exchanged back and forth, and . . . yet there’s still full engagement for something. It doesn’t mean that everyone’s going to participate in every passionate discourse, but hopefully the next day, that person will be participating in the passionate discourse.

‘‘When people can come back the next day and everyone is still engaged’’ is a key barometer that the balance between safe

172


and provocative space has been achieved. We continue to engage when there is room for our personal passion and our individual skills, knowledge, and talents to thrive and expand. We engage when our perspectives are respected and others care enough to enthusiastically debate them with our collaborators. We engage when we share a vision that stretches us beyond our familiar ways of thinking and being and collaborate with others who believe we can make a difference. Provocative visions and passionate debate ensure that we do not fall into lockstep but continue to poke around for previously unseen, unheard input and remain open to being changed by it.

Provocative Space in Innovating Organizational innovation is often sparked by a provocative challenge or problem. When resources are limited, the challenges can seem insurmountable. The give-and-take of improvisation is fueled by provocative gifts—the unexpected discoveries that provoke a new direction in a story, a new character development or relationship, or the discovery of a new capacity. In playspace, these provocations are the most valued gifts because they enliven the exchange and challenge participants to stretch beyond the expected and familiar. Provocative space can be created by gifts large and small. Consider these gifts, offered in the spirit of generosity and with full confidence in the receiver’s ability to realize their potential: President Kennedy’s challenge to put a man on the moon, the Sony president who challenged his R&D team to make a personal audio player the size of a small block of wood, the CEO who asks his entire organization to rethink what business they are really in, the coworker who encourages you to speak up, and the friend who asks you to consider, ‘‘What if you went back to school [or ‘left your job’ or ‘followed your gut’]?’’ At Umpqua, the spirit of play itself often serves as provocation, as does the free play of new ideas. In this regard, play is seen as economic stimulus. In a recent rally to support growth and


173

sustainability, the bank’s financial integrity department asked all leaders to meet with their associates and generate ideas. This ‘‘stimulus plan’’ has generated more than 350 provocative and viable ideas. Hayward noted, ‘‘And then within two days, the executive team comes back to all of these people to say, ‘Here’s what we heard. Here’s what we’re gonna move on right now. And this is when we think we’ll have it done by.’ . . . It’s a matter of asking, responding, acknowledging and that more ideas will just keep flowing in.’’ Imagination as Provocation Imaging is the process of generating images of possibilities yet to be realized. Generating a shared, aspirational vision of the future, an image of unbridled success, provokes positive action in the present. Soon after Ray Davis was appointed CEO, Umpqua boldly began calling itself the ‘‘world’s greatest bank’’ (Davis & Shrader, 2007, p. 33). Call any direct number to the bank, and you will hear, ‘‘Thanks for calling the world’s greatest bank.’’ If you think this doesn’t take guts and commitment, try answering your phone by claiming you are the world’s greatest at your business. To make such an aspirational claim, you have to believe it. You also have to be willing to challenge yourself each day to realize the claim. Imagination is provocative because it provokes action. Umpqua’s imagination extends throughout the organization. Rather than settle for the traditional operational names of its departments, Davis renamed each department to reflect what it must create. At Umpqua, the human resources department is called Cultural Enhancement; marketing is Creative Strategies; information technology is Technology Advancement; and accounting is Financial Integrity (Davis & Shrader, 2007, p. 83). Such imaginative titles provoke imaginative action. Imagination provokes innovative strategies throughout business, government, and community organizations. Such provocations include LinkedIn’s goal to sign up one in four of the

174


world’s population to its professional networking service (‘‘Interview with Reid Hoffman,’’ 2009), the U.N. goal to reduce world hunger by 50 percent, and Barack Obama’s promise of universal health care for all by the end of his first term. Each of these claims imagines a radically different future. Commitment to a radical new image of the future provokes action that begins to bring that future to life in the present. At Umpqua Bank, this means that all employees have an opportunity to enact what makes their bank the world’s greatest in each interaction with their customers and colleagues. They need not wait for an executive to translate the strategic plan into metrics disassociated from the meaningful relational context. Instead, they are given permission to bring the vision to life each day. Provocative space is also space in which comfortable routines may be disrupted, making room for new discoveries and learning.

Provocative Space in Learning Provocative space stretches our familiar ways of thinking, perceiving, and being. For this stretching experience to translate into learning rather than just discomfort, we must become aware of our current frames of reference and our taken-forgranted ways of thinking and perceiving. Being invited to surface and question our comfortable ways in exchange for the new and uncomfortable is a risky proposition. Human nature is to resist when we feel attacked or criticized. We begin defending the familiar because we feel on some level that we are defending our very being. When such defenses emerge in organizations, they stymie all possibility for new insight and innovation, and they certainly constrain the space for learning. For people to realize the value of provocative space, they must feel safe. Safe space naturally emerges as individuals experience growing awareness, acceptance, and appreciation in action. Safety balances the discomfort of provocation and leads to growth.


175

Figure 6.2. Provocative Learning Equation

Safety

+

Provocation

=

Growth

While it may not be quite so simple as the provocative learning equation (see Figure 6.2) implies, human and organizational development scholars have been tracking variations on this catalytic combination for decades (Fisher-Yoshida, Geller, & Schapiro, 2009; Kegan, 1982). They have found that significant learning and transformation—learning that expands our perspectives and allows us to question the familiar assumptions that guide our actions—are possible when there is no need to defend the status quo. The need to defend can be released when people experience some degree of confirmation. Rather than being attacked or diminished for their ways of seeing the world, people are asked to talk about how they came to their understanding or point of view. This often leads to greater appreciation for our deeply embedded perspectives and the whole-person nature of our learning. Umpqua Bank has recently added its designation as one of Training magazine’s ‘‘125 Best Training Departments’’ in the United States to its list of awards. Its commitment to training is a big part of its success and its ability to sustain playspace throughout a growing network of locations. Confirmation of shared values begins in the interview process and continues throughout an associate’s tenure at the bank. Through its many awards and recognition programs, Umpqua also confirms each associate’s value to the bank and the value through empowerment to make decisions on behalf of the bank and its customers.

176


When confirmation, or unconditional positive regard, is a given, contradiction is not a threat. Contradiction occurs when new perspectives are introduced that challenge previously held beliefs. New data can contradict, as can new experiences, relationships, and cultures. At this moment in history, we are experiencing contradiction in ways that are calling for large-scale revisiting of long-held assumptions about the economy and about the boundaries between government and corporate responsibility. CEO Ray Davis began contradicting long-held beliefs that banks had to be boring, impersonal, transactional environments when he took over at Umpqua. It began at the associate level with a number of strategies to reinforce a customer’s first commitment. Rather than sit at desks waiting for customers to come to them, Umpqua associates regularly step around the desk or counter to greet customers. Davis also bucked the trend of sending customers to various departments depending on their needs (Davis & Shrader, 2007, p. 159). Every Umpqua associate in the local stores is trained as a ‘‘universal associate,’’ with the ability to open a CD, process a loan application, take a deposit, or, in the case of my visit to a local store, talk about the local merchant’s custom-designed handbags on display in the lobby. Hayward described how contradiction became a part of their strategy: We gain a lot by looking outside the company and looking outside the industry for better ideas. We bring those ideas back, talk about sharing or bringing somebody in or going out and doing field trips or whatever it is, and that’s play in and of itself as well. It’s incredibly inspiring, and that’s really how the company was built. . . . The whole strategy . . . was built on looking outside of banking to say, ‘‘Okay what could we do? I see these retailers doing this over here. I see the hospitality of industry over here.’’ And how do you bring that into banking? . . . We’re pushing the boundaries a lot.


177

Pushing the boundaries is provocative, but in and of itself, it does not result in innovation or new learning without attention to continuity of the brand, customer experience, culture, and playspace, which is also something Umpqua leaders take seriously. Continuity is the reintegration of the new, disruptive, or contradictory information or experience. Just as confirmation occurs through the fostering of relational space, so does continuity. When new perspectives are integrated in relationship, they remain dynamic and can be held lightly rather than erected as new monuments. Umpqua gives special attention to new associates who join the bank through an acquisition. In addition to surfacing shared values, stretching their familiar ways of thinking and behaving, they work to reintegrate and reinforce new attitudes and approaches. Confirmation, contradiction, and continuity is not a transition from one static framework to a new static framework; it is a shift to a new dynamic state where the vision is shared and there is still playspace for new ideas and insight. Dynamic continuity helps organizations avoid the groupthink that can come with institutionalizing new learning and insight. For the space to be truly provocative for learning and transformation, Steven Schapiro adds a fourth dynamic: creativity (2009). When people are invited to build on the new ideas and information and create something that is in alignment with the values and culture and adds new life to them, they will own their new learning at a much deeper and more meaningful level. At Umpqua, associates throughout the system are invited to create new ideas and share them through the Pulse Point system, an electronic forum for employee ideas that are outside of their ability to implement, as well as with Ray Davis himself. Davis not only keeps his door open to new ideas from associates, but has a dedicated phone in the lobby of each of his banks for customers to call him directly with any issue or idea. These ideas do not disappear into the ether, but are regularly implemented and then celebrated in both informal and formal ways throughout the year.

178


Provocative Ways of Knowing In earlier chapters, I have vented my frustration with facilitators who do not bother to think about how to engage their participants and are content to blather on through endless slides with little concern for whether any learning is actually occurring. Provocative space for learning extends beyond our preconceived notions of teaching and learning, and well beyond any formal, designed learning experience. Provocative space for learning includes the space in which customers engage to learn how your product or service might make their life easier; it is the space that provokes a new employee to discover what is unique and meaningful about your company culture and want to contribute to it; and it is the space in which colleagues engage with each other to stretch the familiar ways of seeing a problem or issue. In the time I spent at Umpqua, I had the opportunity to directly experience, observe, and hear descriptions of provocative space in each of these manifestations. Umpqua’s practice of motivational moments not only starts the day with an engaging, often playful opportunity to connect with colleagues but they also create a space for heightened awareness, acceptance, and appreciation in action where new learning can thrive. Baker expands: You’re part of something bigger than yourself and it, and people have a lighter spirit and because we’ve had the motivational moments, and we have a good time, then if I’m doing a speech, I would be more inclined to go over to [the Creative Strategies] group and say, ‘‘I’m really struggling with how to phrase this,’’ or ‘‘Get the right picture for this.’’ ‘‘Oh we’ll help you,’’ because we’re part of a team. So it translates in the workplace in that camaraderie and that helpfulness and that having fun together just become part of being more approachable in the way we work with each other.


179

Bringing playspace to life and life to the playspace at the very start of the day establishes the generative, relational space in which it is safe to offer new ideas, ask questions, and invite people to fully participate in the present moment while honoring their agreed-on time commitments. This playspace extends beyond the individual experience to colleagues and customers and makes room for new learning and ways of knowing.

Provocative Space in Changing In playspace, we value innovating over innovation, and rather than learn and change, we engage in learning and changing. And when the new terms are used, provocative opportunities arise for discovering, learning, and changing. Opportunities often present themselves in the form of disruption and can foster personal as well as organizational change. The change catalyst may come in the form of Mezirow’s (2000) ‘‘disorienting dilemma’’ in which our familiar ways of making sense of the world no longer serve us. Television, personal computers, cell phones, and the Internet were once disruptive technologies that caused us to engage with the world and each other differently. Market upheavals and emerging trends such as social networking are also disruptive, and potentially provocative, possibilities in playspace. Not only do such disruptions create provocative space for learning and innovating, they can shift our mind-set from a static workplace to an ever-changing playspace. Those who have developed improvisation capacity are better able to find the opportunities in unexpected and unplanned disruption. Visionary leaders do not wait for such provocations and then respond; they seek them out and consistently create playspace in which their people can develop the improvisation capacity to thrive in a changing organization. Improvisation capacity is not only the competence, consciousness, and confidence to respond to the unexpected and unplanned; it is the ability to provoke life-giving change.

180


Umpqua has found opportunities during these challenging times in the banking industry. Baker described how they were using the unplanned to create provocative space for growth: This is a time when most banks are shutting down their residential mortgage [department]; we doubled ours. We went out there and said, ‘‘Okay, we think there’s an opportunity. We think this is a re-fi [refinancing] haven.’’ We make great credit decisions; we’ve never written a subprime loan in our lives. And so people believe in Umpqua Bank. And so we’re going to look at this as an opportunity. So even though a lot of people aren’t hiring or [are] laying off, we put out forty job openings just for mortgage, and we had a record-breaking month. So I think it’s looking at business opportunities and thinking differently from the rest of the pack.

Thinking differently from the rest of the pack is a direct result of the playspace Umpqua makes for innovating, learning, and changing. Much of the change Umpqua provokes is a result of its direct engagement with the community. Going well beyond the traditional definition of a community bank designed to serve the needs of local customers and businesses, Umpqua has become a community space where people gather for coffee and a chat to find out what is going on in the neighborhood, convene a meeting, or bring their family to watch a free movie. One local store heard from a number of its women-owned businesses that they wished there were more opportunities to connect with each other, so the manager held a pajama party overnight in the store. Another store responded to its community by starting an after-work fitness class in its lobby. In addition to making space for its community at the bank, Umpqua associates are encouraged to go into the community during work hours and volunteer at local schools and communitybased organizations through its Connect Volunteer Network. Full-time associates are given forty hours of paid time off annually to work in the nonprofit organization of their choosing. Not


181

only do their efforts pay off for the bank, bringing them national recognition on the Center for Companies That Care’s honor role, a nonprofit dedicated to fostering employee-community engagement and building relationships with its community members, such provocative engagement offers new opportunities for its associates to play new roles, stretch their skills, and expand their capacities at the same time that they are making a difference. In this way, the meaning of their work is enhanced through community engagement. Had Umpqua not made a commitment to playspace and the development of improvisation capacity throughout the organization, its associates would likely not even have heard about the provocative opportunities in its community, let alone responded. It is all too easy to respond by defending the status quo or blaming some abstract authority for why ‘‘we can’t do things like that here.’’ When each participant in the organization is aligned in support of the vision and has the competence, consciousness, and confidence to realize it, responsiveness becomes an everyday practice. This is more than provocative space for change; this is provocative space for changing. To ensure that the space remains lively for ongoing innovating, learning, and changing, Davis sees to it that no one gets too comfortable with the status quo and that there are ample opportunities to keep the improvisation capacity of Umpqua at its best. He admits, ‘‘I know I am going to catch hell for saying this, but sometimes I find it useful to change things around just to change things around—just to keep people on their toes so they don’t get set in their ways’’ (Davis & Shrader, 2007, p. 41).

Bringing Provocative Space to Life Striking the balance between safety and provocation, support and challenge, is a distinctly human responsibility. This balance can tilt into either mollifying comfort or paralyzing risk in the course

182


of a conversation or team meeting. As with all other dimensions of playspace, the responsibility for creating this healthy balance rests with those engaging the skills, knowledge, and talent of their colleagues in real time. The sections that follow show how leaders, facilitators, and participants can take responsibility for the provocative space in their organizations. Role of the Leader: Give Gifts Barbara Baker calls her leadership team’s commitment to developing an engaged, empowered workforce Umpqua’s ‘‘secret sauce.’’ One theme runs through Umpqua and all other organizations that consistently make space for innovating, learning, and changing: ‘‘It has to start at the top.’’ When leaders embody the beliefs and behaviors that make room for everyone to work at the top of their talent, they set the tone and create the space for others throughout the organization to do the same. Regardless of the lip-service paid to risk taking, others in the organization take their cues from the actual behavior of their leaders: those with the authority or social capital to influence decisions and direction. A mounting body of evidence shows that leaders have by far the biggest impact on the space available for innovating, learning, and positive change (Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta, & Kramer, 2004; Oldham & Cummings, 1996). Leaders also play essential roles in striking a balance between safety and provocation. If the space is safe but not provocative, it is unlikely to spur creative collaboration; if it is provocative but not safe, it is also unlikely to allow creative collaboration and transformative learning to thrive. Leaders who want to consistently foster provocative space for innovating, learning, and changing by modeling positive behavior can learn a few more lessons from seasoned improvisers. The essence of successful improvisation is the generous exchange of gifts. Players in an improvisation offer each other gifts of delightful and absurd characterizations, outrageous objects,


183

unexpected relationships, and magical, otherworldly capacities. They do so freely and generously because they have made an agreement, before they ever dared step onstage, to accept whatever gift they were given and, in return, to offer something of equal or greater value. Gift giving is the energy that powers all creative collaborations and significant learning. Leaders give gifts to their organizations’ playspace in the form of provocations. ‘‘Find the Revolution Before It Finds You.’’ This is Ray Davis’s advice. For him, a revolution is ‘‘anything that is changing the industry you do business in, whether it’s cosmetics or finance or pharmaceuticals’’ (Davis & Shrader, 2007, p. 141). Revolutions can take root only in provocative space. People who consistently foster such space don’t do it from behind their desks; rather, they go out and look for provocations. To find the revolution for Umpqua, Davis and his associates scope out compelling retail stores and continue to pay attention to other retail and social trends. They also listen to customers to discover what is changing in their lives. Social media are the most recent revolutions Umpqua is finding. While other businesses and industries were early to leverage Facebook, Twitter, blogs, and other Web 2.0 strategies to engage their customers, banking has shied away. Umpqua is one of the first to jump in and expand reach to its virtual community. The point is not the specific strategy or tactic but the importance of consistently scanning the environment for provocative ideas that change customers’ ways of thinking, being, and doing, as well as their expectations. Launch Early and Often. Google’s Marissa Mayer would applaud Umpqua’s courage, which reflects her own philosophy: ‘‘I like to launch [products] early and often. That has become my mantra. . . . Nobody remembers the [Madonna’s] Sex book or the [Apple’s] Newton. Consumers remember your average over time.

184


That philosophy frees you from fear’’ (‘‘Managing Google’s Idea Factory,’’ 2005). Chaotic action is preferable to orderly inaction. —Karl Weick (quoted in Pugh & Hickson, 2007, p. 185)

Leaders set the tone with the provocative gifts and green lights they give. Whether it is provoking people to stretch their capacities by asking for the ‘‘impossible’’ or giving permission to venture into uncharted territory, they are making playspace for new possibilities to emerge. Find the Right Fit. Umpqua executives agree that responsiveness to provocations such as their stimulus plan did not happen simply because they asked. It happened because they are committed to making space for people and provocative possibilities each day in each interaction with each other and their customers. Such commitment does not happen by accident. Baker explains that it starts before a new associate is even hired; it starts with the reputation of the bank itself. The reputation attracts great people; the hiring process ensures those people are a good fit for the culture. From the first interview, Baker asks applicants, ‘‘Do you think it’s corny that you have to say, ‘Thanks for calling the world’s greatest bank’? Cause if you do, it’s probably not a place for you. And some people said, ‘Oh, you know, it sounds a little bit like a cult.’ And I said, ‘Well, it’s not a cult; it’s a state of mind that this is how we are. We love working here, and it doesn’t feel corny to us, but if it feels corny to you, that’s okay. Because there’re lots of other places where you’re going to feel more comfortable.’’’ Finding the right fit for an organization committed to making space for innovating, learning, and changing is not about finding


185

people who blindly follow their leaders. Playspace thrives on enthusiasm for a shared vision, as well as a fierce appreciation for individuality. Role of Facilitator: Be Provocative Previous chapters guided facilitators in setting the tone for a safe and relational environment for discovery and learning. In this section, facilitators are also coached to become provocateurs by introducing unfamiliar points of view, learning strategies, and collaborative opportunities that challenge participants to step outside their comfort zones. Warm Up the Space. Dancers, singers, and athletes would never think of stepping onstage or on the playing field without stretching and warming up, yet we regularly ask our fellow players to jump into creative collaborations and learning without any opportunity to get their generative energy flowing. In working with learning and work groups that are developing their improvisation capacity, I find that participants need some transition time to let go of the many distractions they brought into the shared space. Warming up the space allows people to transform their workplace into a playspace and become present in it. Research also shows that people are more creative and intrinsically motivated when they have such warm-up opportunities (Conti, Amabile, & Pollack, 1995). Umpqua’s daily practice of motivational moments serves this very purpose. These lighthearted, playful, and often physical activities deliver people to the present moment, engage them with each other, and give them permission to play with new possibilities. When the space is warmed up, people warm to each other and then let go of their constraining inhibitions and mind-sets, as well as the self-consciousness that often limits idea generation and new learning.

186


Although there is no one right way to warm up the space, I have found that it is useful to include a few key elements: • Embodied awareness—brief stretching, a few long deep breaths, or other opportunities to be-here-now—to invite people into their whole bodies • Interaction—a brief collaborative game, discussion, or chance to connect outside traditional roles • Playfulness—an attitude of levity, silliness, and discovery to make room for the unexpected There are countless descriptions of excellent exercises and games to warm up the space. You can find more game descriptions and video demonstrations in the Facilitator’s Guide at playspace .biz. Provoke a Healthy Disrespect for the Impossible. Google’s Marissa Mayer advocates ‘‘healthy disrespect for the impossible,’’ while Umpqua’s Ray Davis has a sign prominently displayed on his desk reminding all who enter, ‘‘Nothing is impossible.’’ Such provocations not only warm up the space, they attune collaborators to reach well beyond the familiar and expected. In her 2008 keynote speech at the annual Google I/O Developer Conference, Mayer described one such exercise in which she and her colleagues began a meeting by imagining how they could build a suspension bridge between two buildings not because its useful, not because it’s even necessarily the best use of time, but because it actually keeps you thinking about what’s possible. And when we brainstorm at Google we look at things that are very similar to that. We used to do brainstorming sessions at Google, where we’d always open up with almost an absurd question . . . back to that healthy disrespect for the impossible . . . so we would do things like, [ask] should we build a suspension bridge between two buildings and we would actually


187

brainstorm it out. How would we do it? What would we make it out of? How high should it be? All of those different elements. . . . not because we were actually going to build a suspension bridge but because, it’s good just to get the imagination and the creativity going. So when you need to think about an impossible problem or you need to solve a problem where you have to be really scrappy and think inside constraints you really have that creative notion working.

When entire organizations provoke a healthy disrespect for the impossible, they open up possibilities that others don’t dare imagine. Disrespecting the impossible is provocative, and only organizations with the playspace to respond to the possibilities that emerge will be consistently innovating, learning, and changing. Provoke the Premise. Ray Davis asks his people to ‘‘look for conventional wisdom and challenge it’’ (Davis & Shrader, 2007, p. 20). By challenging the conventional wisdom that banks should be drab and conservative physical spaces in which fun and financial success are incompatible, Davis captured the majority share of Umpqua’s home market, remains solid in a challenging economic climate, and consistently ranks among the top employers in the nation. Reflective openness starts with the willingness to challenge our own thinking, to recognize that any certainty we ever have is, at best, a hypothesis about the world. —Peter Senge (1990, p. 277)

Facilitators are in a unique role to provoke the premise of conventional wisdom and help people become aware of the assumptions, frameworks, and preconceptions that guide their

188


ways of thinking and being. Facilitators can provoke the premise improvisationally in response to opportunities in the moment by asking questions such as these: • What new opportunities are inspired by this information or obstacle? • Whose voices or perspectives are not represented? How can we hear them? • What perspectives or interests were concealed, minimized, or undervalued? How can we include them? • Who benefits from this approach, perspective, or strategy? • Who does not benefit or is harmed? How might we shift this? • What are the unintended consequences of this approach? How can we address these consequences? • What preconceptions about yourself or the organization or customers are being challenged (or can we challenge) by this new information or trend? • What assumptions are no longer useful or cannot account for what is happening? These are just a few examples of questions that can provoke the premise of your team or work group’s thinking. As you and your colleagues make such provocations part of your regular practice, you will generate many new questions to add to this list. Facilitators should also design such provocation into planned learning and collaboration sessions. Many organizations and work groups regularly conduct lessons-learned sessions after completing a project, or after-action reviews, originally developed to review military operations. Developing in adults a sense of their personal power and self-worth is seen as a fundamental purpose of all education and training efforts. Only if such a


189

sense of individual empowerment is realized will adults possess the emotional strength to challenge behaviors, values, and beliefs accepted uncritically by a majority. —Stephen Brookfield (1986, p. 283)

To avoid these sessions being reduced to a list of what worked and what didn’t work, facilitators can guide participants through a more provocative critical reflection of the content, process, and premise of the experience, inspired by the work of educator Patricia Cranton (2006). Because truly provocative space is continually created, facilitators should not wait until the end of important projects but regularly invite such reflection. Figure 6.3 sets out a framework that can help participants provoke the premise. When playspace has come to life, all can and should share responsibility for provoking the premise and expanding the view of what is possible. Shared responsibility is particularly important in the creation of this final and most important dynamic of Figure 6.3. Provoking the Premise • What are we hoping to

• Is everyone working at

accomplish? • What are we accomplishing?

• Are all voices being

the top of their talent? heard? • Are we using the most

• What if we use

What are we doing?

How are we doing it?

What if we did it differently?

How did we come to do it this way?

different assumptions to guide us? • What if we use different strategies to achieve our goals?

provocative strategies and processes?

• What assumptions are

guiding our objectives? • What assumptions are

guiding our strategies?

190


playspace. Once it has been modeled by organizational leaders and reinforced by facilitators, participants will soon join in the fun of co-creating the space. Role of Participants: Say, “Yes, and . . . ” Playspace provocateurs seed new ideas, instigate new collaborations, and energize their fellow players with just the right spark for creative collaboration and learning by practicing the improvisation technique of ‘‘Yes, and . . .’’ The phrase ‘‘Yes, and . . .’’ is both a principle and a user-friendly way to practice the gift giving described previously. Just as ideas and inspirations can come from anywhere in a dynamic organization, so too can generous gifts and inspiring provocations. All participants in organizational playspace share responsibility for being positive provocateurs. The capacity for saying, ‘‘Yes, and . . .’’ by accepting (saying ‘‘yes’’) the provocation of a fellow player, and then building on it (saying ‘‘and . . .’’) is highly valued on the improv stage. Recently I brought a group of students to a performance at a local Chicago improv club. During the discussion after the show, a student asked the improvisers, ‘‘What quality or competence do you think makes someone a great improviser?’’ A seasoned player responded, ‘‘A high point of reference. By that, I mean someone who is well read, is up on current events and popular culture, and can draw on any of it at just the right moment. That makes for a very rich improvisation.’’ This player was describing another form of saying ‘‘yes, and . . .’’—the ability to consistently add to the unfolding collaboration by building and expanding on what has already been created and by drawing on their available resources. The more compelling the gifts, the more interesting the improvisation is for both the players and audience. Players who have developed their improvisation capacity (competence, consciousness, and confidence) are playing in the present moment, with access to everything from a memory of a childhood vacation, to their study


191

of medieval history and the leading story on the evening news. As players say yes to others’ gifts and build on them with provocative responses, they create more space for innovating, learning, and changing. This dynamic then feeds on itself by inspiring other players to contribute at a higher level as well. Agree to Accept. The critical success factor of agreement is the foundation on which all successful collaboration is built. Agreement is the willingness to accept the current reality, commit to a shared purpose, appreciate one’s own value, and build on the contributions of others and appreciate the talents (or gifts) others bring to the collaboration. When players on the improvisation stage and on organizational stages agree to accept the ideas and insights of their fellow players, they are enacting each of the dimensions of the individual experience of playspace: awareness, acceptance, and appreciation in action. Saying, ‘‘yes, and . . .’’ and agreeing to accept the gifts of a fellow player does not mean you are agreeing to implement the idea or even adopt a new perspective. It simply means that you are acknowledging it (accepting it as a gift) and are willing to explore its value. Adopt an Attitude of Inquiry. Sometimes the gifts we give and the questions we ask not only serve to expand our own awareness; they provoke others’ thinking and the group process. In playspace, such provocations are seen not as cause for defense but as opportunities for inquiry. Theater Oobleck founder David Isaacson described what this attitude looks like in action: Often there will be one person in the room who will disagree with everyone else and you can’t just say, ‘‘Oh, well, you disagree, but you’re gonna have to put up with it and we’ll move on,’’ because then that person feels alienated from the process and they [might say], ‘‘Well, I don’t want to be a part of this group.’’ So the idea is to investigate [that] person’s concerns and either address them in some way as a group or if you get to the point where you can’t

192


address them, usually at least if the attempt is made to address them, that person will feel comfortable enough and say, ‘‘Okay, we can move on. I’ll go along.’’

Being provocative is risky and is dependent on the dynamics of safe and generative space discussed in previous chapters. Isaacson admits there is no prescription for its success: It’s constantly finding that line, constantly recreating that line between being accepting of others’ ideas and being able to pursue your own ideas passionately, and I think that line’s going to get moved and it’s gonna get obliterated sometimes, and sometimes it’ll get crossed. And often the argument or disagreement will take you to interesting places. Sometimes not. Sometimes it’ll just be a source of blocking creative energy, but that’s the risk you’ve got to take, I guess. And I think that . . . if you can find that balance between . . . respect for other ideas and also being able to passionately pursue your ideas, if you can find that balance just like 25 percent of the time, then that’s enough to make the process work.

Provocations come in all shapes and sizes. They can be wild events like Threadless’s two-day Pinewood Derby Le Mans or Google’s ‘‘pimp my cubicle’’; they can be challenges, such as Umpqua’s vision to be the world’s greatest bank; they can be big external disruptions, such as those posed by a turbulent economy, or seemingly small ideas, such as provoking the premise of a long-standing strategy. What all provocations have in common is that they stir the organizational pot, giving all players a chance to see the world from a new perspective, discover new capacities and innovative approaches, and make new connections. When leaders, facilitators, and participants share responsibility for creating provocative space and bringing playspace to life, they are likely to feel the same way about their jobs. Umpqua’s Barbara Baker said that after several years at the bank, ‘‘I still leap out of bed to come to work.’’


193

Chapter Summary Provocative space, when balanced with the other relational, generative, safe, and timeful dynamics of playspace, provides the spark that ignites innovative thinking, new learning, and positive change. By spotlighting a small community bank that has grown exponentially by challenging prevailing assumptions, this chapter shows how provocative space translates to business success. Provocative space stretches our familiar ways of thinking, doing, and being. Just as improvisers learn to accept unexpected gifts from the audience and their fellow players and build on them to advance the action on stage, organizational players can learn to respond to unexpected and unplanned developments as provocations to see and do things differently. Agreeing to accept and build on such gifts is key to success. Provocative space is co-created through the paradox of disruptive, disorienting gifts and acceptance. When all players know they can trust each other to accept the gift of their ideas, perspectives, and insights and continue to explore their possibilities, the likelihood that more provocative ideas will follow increases. In this way, trust expands provocative space, and provocative space expands trust. Provocative space minimizes groupthink by encouraging and rewarding fresh voices and original thinking. Although the physical space alone will not create provocative space, organizations that are committed to provoking new ways of thinking and being give it special attention. When the physical space is complemented with mindful attention to the quality of the conversations and collaborations that happen within it, it can be a supporting player in playspace. Provocative space for innovating, learning, and changing includes a balance of safety and challenge. People must feel supported in the risky business of innovating, learning, and changing. Without support, human nature is to protect the status quo; with support, the energy of creating, discovering, and engaging in positive change enables all to play freely at the top of their talent and intelligence.

194


Guiding Principles for Leaders, Facilitators, and Participants Role of the Leader: Give Gifts. Leaders play a key role as provocateurs when they consistently give gifts that provoke new thinking and ways of being: • Find the revolution before it finds you. Rather than waiting to react to new trends, leaders create provocative space by actively seeking them out and monitoring other industries, cultures, and social trends for opportunities. • Launch early and often. Perfection is not the goal in playspace. Leaders who are committed to innovating, learning, and changing are not overly precious about each new product and are willing to provoke the market with new products and services. • Find the right fit. Organizations committed to shifting their workplace mind-set to one of playspace for dynamic engagement start by recruiting people who share their enthusiasm and vision. This does not mean that they are looking for blind followers; rather, they seek people who are passionate about bringing their whole selves to work and innovating, learning, and changing to bring the vision to life. Role of Facilitator: Be Provocative. The facilitator role in playspace is to make it easier for all players to stretch their thinking and ways of being and to support their success in venturing into the risky territory of innovating, learning, and changing: • Warm up the space. Taking lessons from dancers and athletes, facilitators can engage collaborators in brief warm-up activities that help everyone get back in their bodies and loosen up their imagination for the play of new possibilities. • Provoke a healthy disrespect for the impossible. Regularly playing with what appear to be impossible challenges stretches the imagination, as well as the limits of what is possible.


195

• Provoke the premise. Developing the capacity for critical reflection and provocative questions that challenge comfortable ways of thinking and being make room for new possibilities to emerge. Role of Participants: Say ‘‘Yes, and . . .’’ The secret to improvisation success is the ability to accept the gifts offered by the unexpected and unplanned and build on them: • Agree to accept. Before they ever set foot on stage, improvisers know they can trust each other to make themselves look good because they have agreed to accept their new discoveries and ideas. Acceptance does not always mean implementation; it simply means the gift is acknowledged and appreciated for how it might provoke yet more possibilities. • Adopt an attitude of inquiry. When all participants in playspace view their role as inquirers, the space remains open to new possibilities. Provocative space, the final dynamic of playspace, ensures that new ways of thinking, doing, and being will emerge and that everyone is engaged to contribute at the top of their talent, intelligence, and creativity.

7 SUSTAINING PLAYSPACE

Individuals experience playspace through growing awareness, acceptance, and appreciation in action, and it comes to life in organizations as people engage its relational, generative, safe, timeful, and provocative dynamics (see Figure 7.1). Playspace is space for more play in the system, for the play of new possibilities and perspectives, for people to play new roles and develop new capacities, and for improvised play. It comes to life through dynamic engagement and in the space shared by key organizational processes of innovating, learning, and changing. Throughout this book you have seen how individuals experience the power of playspace in transforming their work and how leaders, facilitators, and participants bring it to life each day in informal interactions, team meetings, spontaneous events, and learning and change initiatives. This chapter draws attention to sustaining playspace beyond the occasional energizing experience so that dynamic engagement becomes a hallmark of your organization as you continue innovating, learning, and changing. Anyone who has led, facilitated, or participated in organization-wide innovation, learning, and change strategies will tell you that the challenge is not in the conceiving, planning, or even the implementing but in sustaining the positive momentum once begun. Not unlike the challenge dieters face, the shift from a workplace to playspace mind-set must become a lifestyle, not a short-term solution or quick fix. Sustaining playspace for the life of the organization is like sustaining good health. There may be lapses along the way, but 197

198


Figure 7.1. Playspace Dimensions and Dynamics

Gen tive ca Aware- e ness

ul

af

Ti m

Appreciation

e

Acceptance

Action

ef

ive rat

Prov o

Relational

S

the overall commitment never waivers and guides organizational practices and strategic direction through ever-changing circumstances. In this chapter, I briefly summarize the recurring themes of organizations that sustain playspace through both good and challenging times.

Reputation, Recruiting, Reinforcing, Recognizing, and Retaining Many of the themes for sustaining playspace in the daily life of the organization foster a strong organizational culture in general, such as best practices for recruiting, recognizing, and retaining

SUSTAINING PLAYSPACE 199

top talent. Beyond reinforcing a culture of innovating, learning, and changing, what distinguishes those who consistently cocreate playspace in their daily interactions is the way they recruit, recognize, and retain their best players, beginning with reputation. Reputation All of the organizations represented in this book take their reputation as a top employer, innovator, or creative home very seriously. This reputation allows them to attract top talent whether the economy is expanding or contracting. They take their ranking on regional and national preferred employer lists seriously, and each year they work to improve their reputation as a place where energetic and creative people have the space to work and play at the top of their talent. Recruiting Organizations with a reputation for playspace already have an advantage in attracting top talent. Because of the reputation, they take extra care in the interview process to be sure that candidates understand the culture and the day-to-day dynamics, and are a good fit for the spirit and mind-set of the organization. Rather than wait to see if a prospective employee will be a strong leader, facilitator, or participant, some organizations make improvisational games and collaboration exercises part of the interview process. Experiential interviewing allows decision makers to get a sense of a prospect’s mind-set for innovating, learning, and changing and sets the stage for playspace from the start. Reinforcing Reinforcing the dimensions and dynamics of playspace through developing a coaching and training environment are key to sustaining playspace.

200


The innovation at Learning Curve was defined not just by product innovation. We acknowledged people who . . . had some great idea or did something that had a real impact on the company’s potential, no matter where they happened to work. And the majority of those awards went to folks that had nothing to do with making a toy. —John Lee, former CEO, Learning Curve International

Organizations that truly value the playspace do not back off when the system is stressed. In fact, they redouble their efforts, knowing that it is the very capacity for improvised play and the playspace itself that enable new perspectives and strategies to emerge and are key to surviving and thriving in turbulent periods.

During the difficult times, we’ve never stopped anything. We never stopped the awards and recognition. We’ve never stopped the training; we’ve never stopped encouraging them to have more fun and camaraderie. —Barbara Baker, executive vice president, cultural enhancement, Umpqua Bank

Recognizing Appreciation is a theme of each participant’s experience of playspace, and it is key to sustaining the active co-creation of playspace over time. What we appreciate increases in value. When people are recognized for bringing their whole selves to work and for enhancing the dimensions and dynamics of playspace through their positive contributions, the chances


that these perspectives and behaviors will continue and spread throughout the organization increase significantly. Retaining ‘‘They make it hard to leave,’’ reported a store associate at one of Umpqua’s Portland locations. Between the benefits, such as free bus passes, paid volunteer time, giving employees playspace to work on their pet projects, in addition to the benefit of working in a dynamic, creative environment, organizations that sustain playspace over time do so because their space is one that people continue to find generative and energizing.

Everyone Sustaining Playspace for Everyone Sustaining playspace extends well beyond human resource practices to the everyday mind-set and behaviors of each person in the organization. The following themes are widespread in organizations that consistently create playspace in their conversations and collaborations, as well as in their learning and strategy sessions. Leadership Commitment All of the organizations that successfully sustain playspace and a lively environment for the exchange of new ideas and perspectives are led by people who embrace the process of innovating, learning, and changing and understand the need to create playspace for people to develop the capacity for these key organizational dynamics. Such leaders model an attitude and behavior that make playspace for creative collaboration and learning, and they hold others accountable for their attitudes and behavior. If you have a leader that is not buying in, it’s death. —Barbara Baker, executive vice president, cultural enhancement, Umpqua Bank

202


Shared Responsibility Playspace must be supported, modeled, and reinforced by an organization’s leaders. However, they alone cannot sustain playspace over time, and especially over great distances, as must global corporations or retail operations with many locations. Sustaining playspace requires that everyone share responsibility for its co-creation in each conversation, meeting, customer interaction, learning opportunity, collaboration, and change strategy.

I think that sense of coming in [with an attitude of ] ‘‘I’m going to take responsibility and it really matters, my perspective really matters and it really matters what I do from moment to moment within this thing’’ [is key]. And if people are always kind of half-involved—that is, half of them are involved, half of them are saying, ‘‘Ultimately, it’s not my responsibility and whatever happens, the gods . . . will determine it . . .’’—then you’re not going to have the most effective collaboration. —David Isaacson, founding member, Theater Oobleck

Respect Players on the stages of business, government, health care, community-based organizations, and arts organizations know that they deliver their best performance when they experience respect for the skills, knowledge, and talent they bring to the playspace. They are not simply tolerated for their unique perspective or background, but respected and appreciated. When people see respect enacted, they are more likely to feel safe to offer their own provocative gifts to the playspace and to respect others for doing the same.


Intrinsic Motivation Research strongly supports the relationship between intrinsic motivation and successful innovation and learning. A theme that runs throughout organizations that sustain playspace is the room they make for people in all corners of the organization to match their passion with their work and to make each project and collaborative opportunity their own, as well as to find and make meaning in the day-to-day operations of the organization. When people have a clear understanding of the boundaries (goals, time, budget, policy, and so on) and the freedom to play within the boundaries, they are invested in the success of the organization and their immediate collaborators. Attitude Playspace is not cynical, coercive, or programmed space, and it cannot come to life, let alone be sustained, without an attitude that embraces its spirit. Organizations that sustain playspace over time and throughout their organizations have a consistent and authentic attitude of generosity and an expectation of positive engagement.

Our [Western] culture is so obsessed with productivity [that] play is at the opposite end of being productive. And you know, my view is just the opposite, I think. And to me it’s not play. It’s playfulness. We spawned a nonprofit organization called Playing for Keeps. And you know, the core message is how you play is for keeps. [It’s] your attitude about play that makes a difference. —John Lee, former CEO, Learning Curve International

204


Swift Response to Toxic Players When sustaining playspace is the highest value, those who threaten its life and spirit must be responded to immediately. Throughout this book, I have shared examples and ideas for coaching the toxic players whose acid remarks, attitude, eye rolls, or otherwise negative behavior threaten to constrain the space for the free play of possibilities to emerge. Lack of swift response to these space invaders not only harms the interaction; tolerating degenerative behavior sends a message to others that the organization is not all that committed to playspace. Equally damaging is the message that dynamic engagement is expected of some players, but not all. Organizations that sustain playspace over time respond immediately to toxic players, provide coaching opportunities and team support, and ultimately part ways with those who are unwilling to create playspace for all to work at the top of their talent. Minimal Structure To ensure maximum capacity to respond to the unexpected and unplanned and maximum playspace for new learning and discovery, organizations that are committed to playspace implement only the necessary structures and policies. Playspace thrives when there is sufficient play in the system. The degree of structure, of course, varies from organization to organization depending on its size, industry, and nature of its operations. No structural prescription fits all organizations—only the notion that structure that does not support the greatest possible playspace and directly support intrinsically motivated engagement, collaboration, and learning should be minimized. Organizations that trust their participants thrive when they create as much playspace as possible to allow them to make good decisions on behalf of their customers and the organization. I think that our culture has to be able to maintain that you’re a free agent and design for the sake of


design, art for the sake of art. There are no rules necessarily, and we’ll try not to be real rigid when it comes to both the culture and the types of art that we’re printing. —Jake Nickell, founder, Threadless

Informal Space When organizations conceive of themselves as machines whose singular responsibility is efficiency and productivity, they ironically constrain the space for innovative approaches to efficiency and productivity. Organizations interested in making playspace for new perspectives and ideas consciously create informal space for them to emerge, incubate, and be explored. Informal spaces include the lounge areas at Google and Threadless, as well as the informal space for human connection created before groups begin addressing the task at hand. Providing some breathing room between and before meetings and in the midst of high-velocity operations allows participants to increase their relational knowledge and make the connections that contribute to idea and knowledge sharing. Transparency Playspace comes to life and is sustained through respectful, passionate engagement. Such engagement is risky. It requires that participants trust that they will not be punished for their provocative ideas or perspectives, and that organizational leaders are providing them with all of the necessary information and context to support their success. Transparent decision making and information sharing of both good news and bad reinforce the values of trust and respect essential to sustaining playspace. Authentic Community Beware of those who claim their organization is just one big happy family. Not only is the metaphor of family problematic

206


for many; it quickly breaks down, especially when applied to for-profit ventures. Anyone can be a leader. —Sally Anderson, human resource business partner, Google

Playspace fosters authentic community, and authentic community fosters playspace. Making space for people to connect organically, whether through social ties, work groups, or communities of practice, reinforces the playspace dynamic in which participants shift their focus from self-consciousness to self- and other-awareness, without imposing a false and baggage-laden construct. In authentic community, people are naturally oriented to the well-being of others and support shared success. Learning and Reflection In playspace, learning and reflection are not separate from ‘‘the way we do things around here’’; they are an integrated part of how things get done. Whether creating a new performance piece or honing the performance of a search engine, those who sustain playspace make room for new insights, information, and discovery in each conversation and collaboration. By integrating action-reflection cycles into all aspects of innovating, learning, and changing and developing the capacity for reflecting-in-action (Schön, 1983), organizations actively invite all participants to increase their awareness, acceptance, and appreciation of themselves, each other, and the possibilities of the moment. Alignment Sustaining playspace requires attention to the language and artifacts that represent the organization’s values. When mind-set and behavior shift from workplace to playspace, so too must their language and artifacts. Organizations that make space for


the free play of new perspectives, learning, and changing use language and images that reflect its commitment. Umpqua’s department of cultural enhancement reflects a very different mind-set than other organizations’ more traditionally named human resource departments. Similarly, those who choose to move beyond the work-play dualism reflect it in their spaces, language, and organizational practices, making more playspace for new ways of perceiving and being. The Physical Space The physical setting itself is not enough to shift the mind-set and behaviors of individuals and groups that feel the need to defend their ideas and identities at the expense of making playspace for new perspectives. I have seen vibrant playspace come to life in the most unassuming physical settings and witnessed very constrained space for creative collaboration and learning in interesting settings. While the physical setting alone will not create and sustain playspace in any organization, most of the organizations profiled here include the physical space as part of a larger commitment to innovating, learning, and changing. Over many years of designing and facilitating off-site sessions for groups wanting to develop new capacities and provoke their thinking, I have observed an interesting phenomenon that is supported by research: when people are given new visual stimuli, they literally begin to see things differently (summarized in Amabile, 1996). In addition to new visual surroundings, the physical playspace can invite people to experience themselves differently in their bodies and relate to each other differently. For example, at Catalyst Ranch, the unusual Chicago meeting space I described in Chapter One, breakout groups may find themselves generating ideas with colleagues while swinging in basket chairs, reclining in beanbags, or draped over mismatched couches and chairs. When thinking about your physical space, consider whether you feel more expansive or constrained in it. Does it provoke new

208


thinking and invite you to play with new ideas and perspectives, or does it reinforce comfortable and habitual ways of thinking and being? When thoughtfully integrated, the physical space can complement an overall commitment to playspace. Systems and Processes That Support Playspace In addition to aligning the language, behavior, and environment to support playspace, organizations must ensure that their systems and processes align to make space for creative collaboration, resource sharing, and responsiveness. The organization chart may represent formal reporting relationships, but it has little to do with how work actually gets done. A growing number of technology and intranet-based systems facilitate collaboration, knowledge, and resource sharing beyond formal organizational structures and work groups. Sustaining playspace in the daily life of an organization depends on the conscious awareness and commitment of all who engage in real-time conversations and collaborations. For such dynamic engagement to extend beyond the occasional energizing experience to sustained business success, the commitment must transcend the stresses and strains of the business cycle, market upheavals, and changes in leadership. The good news, illustrated in countless examples offered in this book, is that playspace fosters dynamic engagement, and dynamic engagement fosters playspace. When playspace comes to life in the creative processes of innovating, learning, and changing, so do individual and organizational success.

Epilogue: Living (and Playing) the Questions

As leaders, facilitators, and participants in organizational life, we can take some comfort and guidance from Rilke (1934), who counseled the young poet with whom he conducted a years-long correspondence to ‘‘have patience with everything unresolved in your heart and to try to love the questions themselves’’ (p. 21). We can neither settle for simplistic answers to complex questions nor ignore the competing and contradictory values embedded in our organizational spaces. If there is one constant that runs through the examples of playspace I have shared in this book, it is that there is no one prescription for making room for innovating, learning, and changing in organizations; indeed, prescriptions assume the possibility of controlling much that cannot and should not be controlled. All of the leaders, facilitators, and participants who bring playspace to life each day in their organizations know that what worked yesterday may not be appropriate today. Each new interaction provides the opportunity to co-create a new dynamic and discover new perspectives and ways of thinking, being, and acting. Living and playing with the question of how we can continue to make lively space for all to engage at the top of their talent is a way to create playspace. Living the questions will ensure that you continue to bring your space to life and life to your space. Because playspace is constructed in real time, by engaged and inspired leaders, facilitators, and participants, I invite you to join

209

210

EPILOGUE: LIVING (AND PLAYING) THE QUESTIONS

in a lively conversation with others who are living and playing with the questions. By sharing your ideas, examples, and provocative questions, you can create more playspace for others and discover more ways people are creating playspace in their organizations. Visit playspace.biz/livingquestions to continue the conversation.

References

Achenbach, J. (1999, March 12). The too-much-information age: Today’s data glut jams libraries and lives. but is anyone getting any wiser? Washington Post. Ackerman, L. (1997). Development, transition or transformation: The question of change in organisations. In D. Van Eynde, J. Hoy, & D. Van Eynde (Eds.), Organization development classics. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Adam, B. (1990). Time and social theory. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Adam, B. (1998). Timescapes of modernity: The environment and invisible hazards. New York: Routledge. Adler, N. (2006). The arts and leadership: Now that we can do anything, what will we do? Academy of Management Learning and Education, 5(4), 486–499. Amabile, T. M. (1995). KEYS: Assessing the climate for creativity. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 76–87. Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. (2005). Affect and creativity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 367–403. Amabile, T. M., Goldfarb, P., & Brackfield, S. C. (1990). Social influences on creativity: Evaluation, coaction, and surveillance. Creativity Research Journal, 3, 6–21. Amabile, T. M., Hadley, C. N., & Kramer, S. J. (2002). Creativity under the gun. Harvard Business Review, 80(8), 52–61. Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. (2004). Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 5–32.

211

212

REFERENCES

Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 634–665. Argyris, C. (1999). The next challenge for TQM—taking the offensive on defensive reasoning. Journal for Quality and Participation, 22(6), 41–43. Armstrong, K. (2006). The power of forgetting [Electronic version]. Guardian. Retrieved December 19, 2008, from http://tinyurl.com/ylo8nte. Karen Armstrong: Deliberately starving our minds to achieve spiritual acuity is repugnant | Comment is free | The Guardian. Austin, I. (2005, September 26). At Google, the workers are placing their bets. New York Times, p. C8. Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 45–68. Baer, S. (1987). Teaching for creativity, teaching for conformity. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 14(3), 195–204. Barrett, F. J. (1998). Creativity and improvisation in jazz and organizations: Implications for organizational learning. Organization Science, 9(5), 605–622. Barrett, F. J. (2000). Cultivating an aesthetic of unfolding: Jazz improvisation as a self-organizing system. In S. Linstead & H. J. Hopfl (Eds.), The aesthetics of organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Barrett, F. J., Thomas, G., & Fann Hocevar, S. P. (1995). The central role of discourse in large-scale change: A social constructionist perspective. Journal of Applied Behavorial Science, 31(3), 352–372. Bate, P., Kahn, R., & Pye, A. (2000). Towards a culturally sensitive approach to organization structuring: Where organization design meets organization development. Organization Sciences, 11(2), 197–211. Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Breaking the code of change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Bettelheim, B. (1987, March). The importance of play. Atlantic Monthly, 35–46. Bluedorn, A. C. (2002). The human organization of time: Temporal realities and experience. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Brookfield, S. D. (1986). Understanding and facilitating adult learning: A comprehensive analysis of principles and effective practices. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brown, J., & Isaacs, D. (2005). World caf e´: Shaping our futures through conversations that matter. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Brown, R. (1988). Group processes: Dynamics within and between groups. Oxford: Blackwell. Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First break all the rules. New York: Simon & Schuster.

REFERENCES

213

Caird, J. (2008, Oct.). A meta-analysis of the effects of cell phones on driving performance: Implications for policy and legislation. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Distracted Driving, Arlington, VA. Cherniss, C. (1999). The business case for emotional intelligence. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Ciborra, C. (2002). Design, kairos and affection. Paper presented at Managing as Designing: Creating a Vocabulary for Management Education and Research, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, June 14–15. Claxton, G. (1984). Live and learn: An introduction to the psychology of growth and change in everyday life. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco. Conti, R., Amabile, T. M., & Pollack, S. (1995). The positive impact of creative activity: Effects of creative task engagement and motivational focus on college students’ learning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1107–1116. A conversation with Marissa Mayer, VP of search product and user experience, Google. (2009, March 5). Charlie Rose [Television broadcast]. New York: WNET. Cooperrider, D. L., Sorensen, P. F., Jr., Whitney, D., & Yaeger, T. (Eds.). (2000). Appreciative inquiry: Rethinking human organization toward a positive theory of change. Champaign, IL: Stipes. Cozoline, L., & Sprokay, S. (2006). Neuroscience and adult learning. In S. Johnson & K. Taylor (Eds.), The neuroscience of adult learning (pp. 11–19). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cranton, P. (2006). Understanding and promoting transformative learning: A guide for educators of adults (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Creede, C. E. (2008). Relational eloquence: Identity stories and conversational practices in relationally generative interactions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fielding Graduate University, Santa Barbara, CA. Cross, R., & Parker, A. (2004). The hidden power of social networks: Understanding how work really gets done in organizations. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Crossan, M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 522–537. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: HarperCollins. Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 284–295. Davis, R., & Shrader, A. (2007). Leading for growth: How Umpqua Bank got cool and created a culture of greatness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

214

REFERENCES

Denison, D. (1990). Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Durkheim, E. (1997). Suicide. New York: Free Press. (Original work published 1897). Eckvall, G., Arvonen, J., & Waldenstrom-Linstrom, I. (1983). Creative organizational climate: Construction and validation of a measuring instrument. Stockholm: Swedish Council for Management and Organizational Behaviour. Edmondson, A. G. (2003). Managing the risk of learning: Psychological safety in work teams. In M. A. West, D. Tjosvold, & K. G. Smith (Eds.), International handbook of organizational teamwork (pp. 255–275). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Englehardt, C. S., & Simmons, P. R. (2002). Creating an organizational space for learning. Learning Organization, 9(1), 39–47. Fisher-Yoshida, B., Geller, K. D., & Schapiro, S. A. (Eds.). (2009). Innovations in transformative learning: Space, culture, and the arts. New York: Peter Lang. Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2008). Dynamic spread of happiness in a large social network: Longitudinal analysis over 20 years in the Framingham Heart Study [Electronic version]. British Medical Journal, 337. Retrieved December 4, 2008, from http://tinyurl.com/563wmj. Frederickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology. American Psychologist, 56, 218–226. Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences (10th ed.). New York: Basic Books. Gergen, K. J. (2002). Self and community in the new floating worlds. In K. Nyiri (Ed.), Mobile democracy: Essays on society, self and politics (pp. 103–114). Vienna: Passagen. Ginnett, R. (1993). Crews as groups: Their formation and their leadership. In E. L. Wiener, B. G. Kanki, & R. L. Helmreich (Eds.), Cockpit resource management (pp. 71–98). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Gleick, J. (1999). Faster: The acceleration of just about everything. New York: Pantheon. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor. Goleman, D. (1996). Emotional intelligence. Why it can matter more than IQ. Learning, 24(6), 49–50. Google’s Mayer: Staying innovative in a downturn. (2008, December 14). Retrieved February 14, 2008, from http://www.businessweek.com/ technology/content/dec2008/tc20081214 636046.htm. Graham, P., & Follett, M. P. (2003). Mary Parker Follett: Prophet of management. Frederick, MD: Beard Books. Halpern, C., Close, D., & Johnson, K. H. (1994). Truth in comedy: The manual of improvisation. Colorado Springs: Meriwether.

REFERENCES

215

Hammond, S. A. (1998). The thin book of appreciative inquiry (2nd ed.). Plano, TX: Thin Book Publishing. Hatch, M. J. (1993). The dynamics of organizational culture. Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 657–693. Hatch, M. J., & Cunliffe, A. (2006). Organization Theory: Modern symbolic and postmodern perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press. Henig, R. M. (2008, February 17). Taking play seriously. New York Times Sunday Magazine, pp. 38–45, 60, 75. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G. (2003). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Huston, L., & Sakkab, N. (2006). Connect and develop: Inside Procter & Gamble’s new model for innovation. Harvard Business Review, 84(3), 58–66. Huy, Q. N. (2004, July). Time pressure in strategic change. Paper presented at the Second Improvisational Conference on the Future of Time in Management and Organizations, INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France. Interview with Reid Hoffman. (2009, March 4). Charlie Rose [Television broadcast]. New York: WNET. Investor Relations. (2009). Google announces second quarter 2009 financial results. Mountain View, CA: Google. Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724. Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problems and process in human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kolb, A., & Kolb, D. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4(2), 193–212. Kulesa, P. (2006). Engaged employees help boost the bottom line [Electronic version]. HR.com, 2. Retrieved April 15, 2009, from http://tinyurl .com/qyw45x. Leape, L. L., Brennan, T. A., Laird, N., Lawthers, A. G., Localio, A. R., Barnes, B. A., et al. (1991). The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients: Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II. New England Journal of Medicine, 324(6), 377–384. Leavitt, L. A., & Fox, N. A. (Eds.). (1993). The psychological effects of war and violence on children. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method, and reality in social science. Human Relations, 1(1), 5–42. Managing Google’s idea factory. (2005, October 3). BusinessWeek, pp. 88–90.

216

REFERENCES

Marissa Mayer: The talent scout. (2006, June 19). BusinessWeek Online Retrieved February 28, 2009, from http://tinyurl.com/ooodc. Marks, M. L., & Mirvis, P. H. (1998). Joining forces: Making one plus one equal three in mergers, acquisitions and alliances. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mayer, M. (2006, June 30). Marissa Mayer at Stanford University, YouTube. McFadden, M., & Demetriou, E. (1993). The role of immediate work environment factors in the turnover process: A systemic intervention. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 42, 97–115. Meyer, P. (2000). Quantum creativity: Nine principles to transform the way you work. Chicago: Contemporary Books. Meyer, P. (2006a, June). Learning space and space for learning: Adults’ intersubjective experiences of improvisation. Paper presented at the Adult Education Research Conference, Minneapolis. Meyer, P. (2006b). Learning space and space for learning: Adults’ intersubjective experiences of improvisation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fielding Graduate University, Santa Barbara, CA. Meyer, P. (2009a). Learning space/work space: Can we make room for transformative learning at work? In B. Fisher-Yoshida, K. D. Geller, & S. A. Schapiro (Eds.), Innovations in transformative learning: Space, culture, and the arts. New York: Peter Lang Meyer, P. (2009b). Improvising learning space. In C. Hoggan, S. Simpson, & H. Stuckey (Eds.), Creative expression in transformative learning: Tools and techniques for educators of adults (pp. 145–155). Malabar, FL: Krieger. Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mezirow, J., & Associates (Eds.). (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Miner, A. S., Moorman, C., & Bassoff, P. (1996). Organizational improvisation in new product development. Unpublished manuscript. Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: HarperCollins. Moorman, C., & Miner, A. S. (1998a). The convergence of planning and execution: Improvisation in new product development. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 1–20. Moorman, C., & Miner, A. S. (1998b). Organizational improvisation and organizational memory. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 698–723. Noss, C. (2002). Taking time seriously: Organizational change, flexibility, and the present time in a new perspective. In R. Whipp, B. Adam, & I. Sabelis (Eds.), Making time: Time and management in modern organizations. New York: Oxford University Press. Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607–634.

REFERENCES

217

Orem, S. L., Binkert, J., & Clancy, A. L. (2007). Appreciative coaching: A positive process for change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Owen, H. (1997). Open space technology: A user’s guide. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Park, P. (1999). People, knowledge and change in participatory research. Management Learning, 30(2), 141–157. Perlow, L. (1997). Finding time: How corporations, individuals, and families can benefit from new work practices. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press. Pink, D. H. (2006). A whole new mind: Why right-brainers will rule the future. New York: Berkley. Pugh, D. S., & Hickson, D. J. (2007). Great writers on organizations (3rd ed.). Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Purdum, T. S. (2002, August 15). Not just singing, but soul-baring, too; The hardest thing is to be yourself, Barbara Cook tells her students. New York Times, p. E1. Purser, R. (2004, July). Being time and being change: Dogen’s contribution to understanding the temporality of change management. Paper presented at the Second Improvisational Conference on the Future of Time in Management, INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France. Purser, R., & Petranker, J. (2002, June). Unfreezing the future: Using dynamic time for deep improvisation in organizational change. Paper presented at the Dynamic Time and Creative Inquiry in Organizational Change, Essex, MA. Quinn, R. E. (1996). Deep change: Discovering the leader within. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Quinn, R. E. (2000). Change the world: How ordinary people can accomplish ordinary things. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Redelmeier, D. A., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1997). Association between cellulartelephone calls and motor vehicle collisions. New England Journal of Medicine, 336, 453–458. Reed, H. (2009, March). MIT Enterprise Forum. Panel discussion on Web 2.0 marketing. Chicago. Rilke, R. M. (1934). Letters to a young poet (M. D. Herter Norton, trans.). New York: Norton. Robinson, S. E., Roth, S. L., & Brown, L. L. (1993). Morale and job satisfaction among nurses: What can hospitals do? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 244–251. Rocco, T. S., & Gallagher, S. J. (2006). Straight privilege and moral/izing issues in career development. In R. J. Hill (Ed.), Challenging homophobia and heterosexism: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer issues in organizational settings (pp. 29–39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

218

REFERENCES

Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404. Roy, D. F. (1959). Banana time: Job satisfaction and informal interaction. Human Organization, 18, 158–168. Rubinstein, J. S., Meyer, D. E., & Evans, J. E. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(4), 763–797. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and wellbeing. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. Sanchez-Burks, J., & Huy, Q. N. (2007). Emotional aperture and strategic renewal: The accurate recognition of collective emotions (Ross School of Business Working Paper Series). Ann Arbor: Ross School of Business, University of Michigan. Schapiro, S. A. (2009). A crucible for transformation. In B. Fisher-Yoshida, K. D. Geller, & S. A. Schapiro (Eds.), Innovations in transformative learning: Space, culture, and the arts. New York: Peter Lang Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization (First Currency Paperback, 1994 ed.). New York: Doubleday. Senge, P. M. (2003). Taking personal change seriously: The impact of organizational learning on management practice. Academy of Management Executive, 17(2), 47–50. Senge, P. M., Roberts, C., Boss, R. B., Smith, B. J., & Kleiner, A. (1994). The fifth discipline field book: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday. Spolin, V. (1999). Improvisation for the theater. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Staw, B. M., & Epstein, L. D. (2000). What bandwagons bring: Effects of popular management techniques on corporate performance, reputation, and CEO pay. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 523–556. Stringer, E. T. (1999). Action research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Study: Multitasking hinders learning: Distraction-free studying is more efficient and effective, new brain research suggests. (2006). eSchool News [Electronic version]. Retrieved July 15, 2008, from http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/top-news/index.cfm?i=37130& CFID&1011162&CFTOKEN=84140576. Tannenbaum, R., Marguies, N., & Massarik, F. (1985). Human systems: New perspectives on people and organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Taylor, W. C. (2006, March 26). Here’s an idea: Let everyone have ideas. New York Times, C3.

REFERENCES

219

Top 10 reasons to work at Google. (2009). Retrieved January 21, 2009, from http://www.google.com/support/jobs/bin/static.py?page=about .html&about=top10. Wachtendorf, T. (2004). Improvising 9/11: Organizational improvisation following the World Trade Center disaster. Newark, DE: University of Delaware. Wachtendorf, T., & Kendra, J. M. (2006, June 11). Improvising disaster in the city of jazz: Organizational response to Hurricane Katrina. Understanding Katrina: Perspectives from the social sciences Retrieved October 29, 2008, from http://understandingkatrina .ssrc.org/Wachtendorf Kendra/. Wagner, R., & Harter, J. K. (2006). Twelve elements of great managing. Washington, DC: Gallup. Weber, M. (1904/1930). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. Winchester, MA: Allen & Unwin. Weick, K. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Weick, K. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(4), 628–652. Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2001). Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance in turbulent times. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Weisel, E. (1997). Learning and respect. Commencement address at DePaul University, Chicago. Wheatley, M. (2009). Turning to one another: Simple conversations to restore hope to the future. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Wicks, A. C., Berman, S. L., & Jones, T. M. (1999). The structure of optimal trust: Moral and strategic implications. Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 99–116. Wolfe, P. (2006). The role of emotions and meaning in learning. In S. Johnson & K. Taylor (Eds.), The neuroscience of adult learning (pp. 11–19). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293–321. Yorks, L. (2005). Adult learning and generation of new knowledge and meaning: Creating liberating spaces for fostering adult learning through practitioner-based collaborative action inquiry. Teachers College Record, 107(6), 1217–1244. Zuckerman, M., Rorac, J., Lathin, D., Smith, R., & Deci, E. L. (1978). On the importance of self-determination for intrinsically motivated behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 443–446. Zull, J. E. (2006). Key aspects of how the brain learns. In S. Johnson & K. Taylor (Eds.), The neuroscience of adult learning (pp. 11–19). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

The Author

Pamela Meyer speaks and consults internationally. She came to her passion for playspace through her years working with creative teams in the theater as a director and producer. She now uses the lessons she learned in rehearsal halls’ performance spaces and in her research to work with organizations around the world that want to create playspace for innovating, learning, and changing through dynamic engagement. In addition to her consulting and speaking practice, Meyer teaches courses in business creativity, organizational change, and adult learning at DePaul University’s School for New Learning in Chicago, where she is a faculty fellow at both the Center to Advance Education for Adults and the Center for Creativity and Innovation. She holds a doctorate in human and organizational systems from Fielding Graduate University. Meyer is also the author of Quantum Creativity: Nine Principles to Transform the Way You Work. For more resources and to continue the conversation, visit playspace.biz. Follow playspace on twitter: PlayspaceLLC. Become a fan of playspace on Facebook: http://tinyurl.com/ yz67rbs. Visit the playspace channel on YouTube: http://www .youtube.com/PlayspaceLLC.

221

Index

A Abramson, J., 146 Academy of Management Journal, 101 Acceptance: in generative space, 76, 77; as a playspace dimension, 27, 29–30, 31, 34, 36, 198; and provocative space, 178, 191, 193, 195; in relational space, 39, 42, 44; and safe space, 95, 97–99 Access, increasing awareness and, 59–61, 67 Accounting, imaginative title for, 173 Achenbach, J., 13 Ackerman, L., 25 Acknowledgement: of fears and expectations, 116–117; of risk taking, 116, 126 Action: as a playspace dimension, 27, 32–34, 36–37, 198; and provocative space, 178, 191; in relational space, 39, 42; and timeful space, 149 Action-reflection cycles, integrating, 206 Activities, relational and experiential, providing, 61–62, 67 Adam, B., 133, 135 Addict analogy, 78–79 Adler, N., 25 AdSense for Content, 84 Adult learning theory, 54 Agreement: meaning of, in accepting gifts, 191, 193, 195; seeking, 152–153 Alignment, 206–207, 208 Amabile, T. M., 9, 19, 30, 44, 83, 147, 182, 185, 207 Amplifying loop, 31 Ancona, D. G., 55 Anderson, S., 73–74, 86, 90–91, 206 Apple, 183

Appreciation: in generative space, 77; as a playspace dimension, 27, 31, 34, 36, 198; and provocative space, 178, 191; in relational space, 39, 42, 44; and sustaining playspace, 200 Appreciative feedback, 91–92, 94 Appreciative practices, 85–86, 93 Argyris, C., 109 Armstrong, K., 89 Armstrong, L., 114 Artifacts and language, aligning, 206–207 Arvonen, J., 113 Asian cultures, 151 Attitude: of inquiry, adopting an, 191–192, 195; for sustaining playspace, 201, 203 Attunement, 65–66, 68 Austin, I., 78 Authentic community, 205–206 Authenticity, 114–115, 126 Auto industry, U.S., 78 Avoided tests, 65 Awareness: and generative space, 76, 77; as a playspace dimension, 27, 28–29, 31, 33–34, 36, 198; and provocative space, 178, 186, 191; in relational space, 39, 42, 44, 45, 46, 59–61, 65, 67; and safe space, 100; and sustaining playspace, 208; and timeful space, 149

B Baer, M., 83, 106, 108 Baker, B., 167, 170, 178, 180, 182, 184, 192, 200, 201 Balance, 181–182, 193 Balanced Scorecard, 26 Banana time, 160–161, 164 Barnes, B. A., 106

223

224

INDEX

Barrett, F., 10–11, 28–29, 57 Barsade, S. G., 9, 44 Bassoff, P., 139 Bate, P., 123 Be. Here. Now. strategy, 159, 163–164 Beer, M., 16 Berman, S. L., 101 Bettelheim, B., 1 Bias, 3, 110, 111 Binkert, J., 87 Blogs, 183 Bluedorn, A. C., 132, 133, 136 Boomers, 75 Boredom, 12 Boss, R. B., xix, 29 Boundaries, leaders and, 147–150 Brackfield, S. C., 30 Breathing, deep, 159, 163–164 Brennan, T. A., 106 Brookfield, S. D., 188–189 Brown, J., 154 Brown, L. L., 19 Brown, R., 59 Brown, S., 20 Buckingham, M., 44 Burt, R. S., 101, 102 Business case, xix–xx Business school curricula, 10

C Caird, J., 158 Caldwell, D., 55 Callaway Arts and Entertainment, 145, 146 Camerer, C., 101, 102 Capacity for improvisation: developing, 27, 35, 53, 54; dimensions of, 12–15, 35; players who have developed, 190 Catalyst Ranch, 21, 22, 207 Center for Companies That Care, 181 Challenger space shuttle disaster, 106 Change efforts, supporting and participating in, 102 Change, sustainable, 145 Changing: generative space in, 80–81; opportunities for, 179; playspace in, 24–26; provocative space in, 179–181; relational space in, 43, 56–58; safe space in, 108–110; timeful space in, 144. See also Innovating, learning, and changing Check-ins, 62–63, 67–68

Cherniss, C., 46 Chicago Public Schools (CPS), xx, 16–17, 19–20, 21–22, 25, 32, 35, 98, 114, 158 Chicago’s IO, 142 Christakis, N. A., 50 Ciborra, C., 12, 13, 132 Clancy, A. L., 87 Claxton, G., 107, 140 Clock-oriented relationship to time, 131–132, 161 Close, D., 142 Closed system, 72 Coaching, 63–64, 68, 86–88, 93, 199 Coffman, C., 44 Cognition, 33, 54, 55 Command-and-control environment, 80 Commitment, xix, 14, 17, 23, 58, 95, 184, 201, 208 Communication, importance of, 121–123, 128 Communing, 64–65, 68 Community, authentic, 205–206 Community engagement, 180–181 Compassionate Listening Project, 89 Competence, 12, 14, 35, 190 Confidence, 12, 13, 14, 35, 54, 190 Confirmation, importance of, 175, 176, 177 Connect Volunteer Network, 180 Connection, need for, 50–52, 180 Consciousness, 12–13, 14, 35, 190, 208 Consistency, 115–116, 126 Constrained workplaces, 29–30, 205, 207 Conti, R., 185 Continuity, value of, 177 Continuous change, 25 Contradictions, 118, 127, 176, 177 Conventional wisdom, premise of, provoking the, 187–190 ‘‘Conversation with Marissa Mayer,’’ 69 Cook, B., 115 Cooperrider, D. L., 80 Cozoline, L., 55 Cranton, P., xxi, 189 ‘‘Creating the Responsive Organization,’’ 109 Creativity, 106, 177, 185 Creede, C., 71–72 Cross, R., 21, 49, 55, 60, 74, 155 Crossan, M., xxi, 23, 24, 33, 141–142, 155

INDEX 225 Cross-cultural safe space, 110–112 Crowd-sourcing, 40 Csikszentmihalyi, M., 8, 134 Culture: of innovation, moving beyond a, 17–18, 35; organizational, strong, fostering a, importance of, 198–199 Cummings, A., 182 Cunliffe, A., xxi Curiosity, as a ground rule, 117

D Daft, R. L., xxi Davis, R., 165, 166, 167, 173, 176, 177, 181, 183, 186, 187 Deadlines, leaders and, 147–150 Deci, E. L., 5, 83, 106 Deep change, 56 Defensive routines, 109, 174, 175 Degenerates, 74–75 Degeneration, 78, 82 DeHart, J., 39, 41 Demetriou, E., 19 Deming, W. E., 26 Denison, D., 83 Designing, 87 Destiny, 88 Devaluation of play, 2 ‘‘Dilbert moments,’’ 160 Disagreement, safe space for, 112–113, 126 Discovering, 87 Disney Institute, 121 Disrespect, healthy, for the impossible, provoking, 186–187, 194 Disruption, opportunities in the form of, 179, 193 Diversity, generational, 76 Downsizing, effect of, 9–10 Dreaming, 87 Duncan, A., 114 Durkheim, E., 50 Dynamic engagement, xiii, xiv, 1, 4, 5, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 23, 27, 34, 208. See also Generative space; Provocative space; Relational space; Safe space; Timeful space

E Eckvall, G., 113 Edmondson, A. G., 44, 100

Educational systems: constraints faced by, example of, 16; focus of, 29, 54. See also Chicago Public Schools (CPS) Efficiency, 46–48, 131, 205 Embodied awareness, 186 Emotional intelligence, 45–46 Emotional state, importance of, 50 Employee Happiness Committee, 84 Encouragement, 116, 126 Energy, 81–82, 92–93 Energy hubs, 74, 82–83, 93 Enervative space, 75, 82 Engagement: community, 180–181; of participants before and after gathering, 156; positive, expectation of, 203; surveying, 83; value of, creating the, 42; whole-person, benefits of, xix–xx. See also Dynamic engagement Englehardt, C. S., xiv Enterprise social networking systems, 61 Epstein, L. D., 16 Evans, J. E., 157 Experiential and relational activities, providing, 61–62, 67 Experiential interviewing, 199 Experiential learning, 62 Extemporaneousness, 132

F Facebook, 40, 51, 183 Facilitation, rotating, 118, 127 Facilitator role: in generative space, 84–89, 93–94; in playspace, 6, 7, 8; in provocative space, 185–190, 194–195; in relational space, 61–64, 67–68; in safe space, 116–118, 127; in timeful space, 150–157, 162–163 Failure rates, 16 Fann Hocevar, S. P., 57 Fast Company magazine, 121 Fearfulness, 105 Fearlessness, 91, 94, 184 Fears and expectations: acknowledging, 116–117; surfacing, 118, 127 Feedback: 360-degree, 26; appreciative, 91–92, 94; positive, 53, 54 Field trips, 121 Fifth Discipline, 26 Fisher-Yoshida, B., 175 Fit, the right, finding, 184–185, 194

226

INDEX

Flow, 132, 134 Follett, M. P., 11 Forbes magazine, xviii, xx Fortune magazine, 167 4-I model, 23, 24, 33, 36, 141, 142, 155 Fowler, J. H., 50 Fox, N. A., 9 Frederickson, B. L., 8–9 Frese, M., 106, 108 Freud, S., 2 Full presence, 158–159, 161

G Gallagher, S. J., 30 Gallup survey, 83 Gangwork, 41–45 Gardner, H., 45, 152 Gathering spaces, protecting, 59, 67 Geller, K. D., 175 Gen X and Gen Y, 75 Generations, 75–77 Generative space: in changing, 80–81; generations in, 75–77; in innovating, 77–78; in learning, 78–80; as open systems, 72–74; opposite of, 74–75; overview of, 69–72; and playspace dimensions and dynamics, 198; productivity and, 74; and relational space, 70; roles in, that bring life to the space, 81–92; summary of, 92–94; and timeful space, 131 Generosity, 89–91, 92–93, 94, 203 Gergen, K. J., xxi, 39 Getting everyone ‘‘in the room,’’ 153–154 Gifts: accepting, 191, 193; consideration of, 172; exchange of, 182–183; giving of, practicing the, 190, 194 Gimbels executive training program, 47 Ginnett, R., 122 Gleick, J., 149 Goffman, E., 5 Goldfarb, P., 30 Goleman, D., 45 Good magazine, 121 Google, 64, 69–71, 73, 74, 77–78, 81, 84, 88, 90, 92, 98, 148–149, 183–184, 186, 192, 205, 206 Google I/O Developer Conference, 186 ‘‘Google’s Mayer: Staying Innovative in a Downturn,’’ 71, 148 Graham, P., 11

Griffin, R. W., xxi Ground rules, 117 Group learning, 23, 24 Groupthink, antidote to, 171–172 Growth, aspects necessary for, 174–175 Guidelines, 117

H Hadley, C. N., 147 Halpern, C., 142 Hammond, S. A., 86 Happiness, 50 ‘‘Harold, The,’’ 142 Harter, J. K., 83, 85 Harvard Business Review, 121 Hatch, M. J., xxi Hayward, L., 168–169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 176 Health, 50, 56, 59 Hendrix, J., 98 Henig, R. M., 20 Hickson, D. J., 184 Hoffman, R., 174 Hofstede, G., 111 Holistic approach, xxi–xxii Holographic dynamics, 34 Human resources department, imaginative title for, 173 Huston, L., 52, 53 Huy, Q. N., 3, 145, 147

I IBM, 55 Ice-block metaphor, 145 Idea-killing comments, 137 Imagination as provocation, 173–174 Imperatives, social, 122 Improv Olympic, 142 Improvised play: capacity for, 12–15, 27, 35, 53, 54, 190; described, 9–15 Incremental change, 25 Individual experience, dimensions of, 27–34, 36–37, 39 Individual health and well-being, 50 Individual learning, 23, 24 Individualism, 110 Industrial revolution, 14, 15 Informal networks, 48–50, 51, 59, 60–61, 124 Informal space, 205 Information age, 13

INDEX 227 Information sharing, 121–123 Information technology, imaginative title for, 173 Initiative, taking, 65 Inner time, 134–135, 136, 138, 140–141, 142, 162 Innovating: generative space in, 77–78; playspace in, 18–20; provocative space in, 172–173; relational space in, 43, 52–53; safe space in, 106; timeful space in, 138–139; valuing, 179 Innovating, learning, and changing, xix, xx, 15–17, 44, 138, 155, 182, 197, 199, 208. See also Changing; Learning Innovation Lab, 168 In-person interactions, connecting with, 51 Inquiry, attitude of, adopting an, 191–192, 195 INSEAD, 145 Institutionalizing, 23, 24, 33, 141, 142 Integrating, 23, 24, 33, 141, 142, 155, 206 Interaction, warming up with, 186 Interpreting, 23, 24, 33, 141, 142, 155 Interview process, 199 ‘‘Interview with Reid Hoffman,’’ 174 Intrinsic motivation, xix, xx, 106, 156, 185, 203 Intronetworks.com, 156 Intuiting, 23, 24, 33, 42, 141, 142, 155 Inventories, 83 Investor Relations, 69 Isaacs, D., 154 Isaacson, D., 96–97, 99–100, 112, 118, 124–125, 171, 191–192, 202 ISO 9000 standards, 26

J Jazz metaphor, 28 Job satisfaction, xix–xx, 19 Johnson, K. H., 142 Jones, T. M., 101, 101–102 Joseph, A., 16, 17, 21, 22, 25, 32, 114, 137–138, 158–159 Journaling, 159, 164

K Kahn, R., 123 Kahn, W. A., 100 Kegan, R., 175

Kendra, J. M., 104 Kennedy, J. F., 172 KEYS Creative Climate survey, 83 Kleiner, A., xix, 29 Knowing, provocative ways of, 178–179 Knowledge age, 13 Knowledge and Organizational Performance Forum, 55 Knowledge focus, 20, 55 Knowledge revolution, 14–15 Kohl, H., 103 Kohler Design Center and Company Factory, 121 Kolb, A., xiv Kolb, D., xiv, 152 Kramer, S. J., 147, 182 Kulesa, P., xix

L Lafley, A. G., 52 Laird, N., 106 Lane, H. W., xxi, 23, 24, 33, 141–142 Language and artifacts, aligning, 206–207 Lathin, D., 5 Launching, early and often, 183–184, 194 Lavoie, J. R., 77 Lawthers, A. G., 106 Leader role: in generative space, 81–84, 92–93; in playspace, 6–7, 8; in provocative space, 182–185, 194; in relational space, 58–61, 67; in safe space, 113–116, 126; and sustaining playspace, 201; in timeful space, 147–150, 162 Leape, L. L., 105–106 Learning: generative space in, 78–80; new and provocative ways of, 178; opportunities for, 179; playspace in, 20–23, 24; provocative space in, 174–177; and reflection, 206; relational space in, 43, 53–56, 62; safe space in, 107–108; self-organizing, making space for, 156–157; space for, xiii–xiv; timeful space in, 140–144; willingness for, 102. See also Innovating, learning, and changing Learning Curve, 46, 63, 129, 130–131, 133, 134, 137, 138, 140, 145, 148, 150, 161, 162, 200, 203 Learning styles, 152, 153

228

INDEX

Leavitt, L. A., 9 Lee, J., 46–48, 129, 133, 135, 140, 145, 145–146, 148, 150, 200, 203 Lego Serious Play, 121 Lennon, J., 139 Let’s do lunch programs, 60 Lewin, K., 145 LinkedIn, 173–174 Listening, 88–89, 93–94 Living the questions, 209–210 Localio, A. R., 106

M Madonna, 145, 183 ‘‘Managing Google’s Idea Factory,’’ 88, 184 Marguies, N., xxi ‘‘Marissa Mayer: The Talent Scout,’’ 149 Marketing, imaginative title for, 173 Marks, M. L., 16 Massarik, F., xxi Mayer, M., 69, 70–71, 88, 148–149, 183–184, 186–187 McFadden, M., 19 Memory dispersal, 139 Memory, importance of, 142, 143–144 Mentoring programs, 60 Metaphors, 28, 59, 67, 72, 145, 150–151 Meyer, D. E., 157 Meyer, P., xiii, 135 Mezirow, J., xxi, 179 Milani, K., 135 Military operations, thinking inspired by, 80 Millenium Consulting, 154 Millennials, 75, 76 Mind-set shift, xiv, xviii, 1, 2, 26, 34, 197, 206, 207. See also Playspace Miner, A. S., 139, 143 Minimal structure, implementing, 204–205 Mintzberg, H., 10, 11 Mirvis, P. H., 16 Modeling, 201 Moneta, G. B., 182 Moorman, C., 139, 143 Motivation, xix, xx, 106, 156, 185, 203 ‘‘Motivational moments,’’ 166 Mueller, J. S., 9, 44 Multiple intelligences, 45, 152, 153 Multitasking, 157–158 Mutual Fun, 77, 92

N National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 106 National Institute for Play, 20 Native cultures, 151 Networking, 48–52, 59, 60–61 New learning, 107–108 New product development projects study, 139 New roles, playing, 5–8, 43 New self-concept, 54 New York Times, 109, 146 New-employee orientations, 60 Nickell, J., 39, 41, 42, 59, 64–65, 79, 91, 204–205 NING.com, 156 Nohria, N., 16 Noss, C., 136

O Obama, B., 146, 174 Obstacles, 138 Office of Academic Enhancement, 16–17, 35 Off-sites, 61 Oldham, G. R., 182 Onboarding programs, 60 ‘‘100 Best Companies to Work For’’ lists, xviii, xx, 167 ‘‘125 Best Training Departments’’ list, 175 Online social networking, 50, 51, 156 Open innovation, trend toward, 53 Open systems, 72–74 Opportunities, in the form of disruption, 179 Oregon Business magazine, xviii Orem, S. L., 87 Organization charts, 48–49, 208 Organizational culture, strong, fostering a, importance of, 198–199 Organizational Culture Survey, 83 Organizational health, 50, 56, 59 Organizational learning, 23, 24, 33, 142 Organizational memory, 142, 143 Organizational timefulness, 136–147 Orkut, 84 Outcomes-oriented, 32, 45, 62, 79 Outer time, 132–134, 136, 138, 140–141, 142, 145, 151, 157, 162 Owen, H., 154

INDEX 229 P Panic, 12 Paradox, 7, 115, 135, 193 Park, P., 33, 55 Parker, A., 21, 49, 55, 60, 74 Participant role: in generative space, 89–92, 94; in playspace, 6, 7–8; in provocative space, 190–192, 195; in relational space, 64–66, 68; in safe space, 119–125, 127–128; in timeful space, 157–161, 163–164 Passion, making room for, 83–84, 93 Perlow, L., 159 Permission getters, 120–121, 128 Permission givers, 113–114, 119–120, 126, 127 Permission takers, 120, 128 Peter, F., 80 Petranker, J., 132, 140 Physical space, 207–208 Piaget, J., 2 Pink, D. H., 11 Planning, tyranny of, 139–140 Playfulness: meaning of, 8–9; warming up with, 186 Playspace: in changing, 24–26; culture of, moving beyond a culture of innovation to a, 17–18; dimensions and dynamics of, 27–34, 198; everyday, 168–169; in innovating, 18–20; and innovating, learning, and changing, 15–17; in learning, 20–24; and living the questions and continued discovery, 209–210; and moving beyond the work-play dualism, 4–15; overview of the shift to, 1; and reclaiming play, 2–4; summary of, 34–37; sustaining, 197–208. See also Generative space; Provocative space; Relational space; Safe space; Timeful space Playspace LLC, 61 Pollack, S., 185 Pool table metaphor, 59, 67 Positive core, engaging the, 84–85, 93 Positive feedback, 53, 54 Premise, provoking the, 187–190, 195 Prescriptions, issue with, xxi–xxii, 209 Present moment, giving our full presence to the, 158–159, 161 Pringles, 52–53 Procedural memory, 139

Process agreements, confirming, 117, 127 Processes, aligning, 208 Procter & Gamble, 52–53 Productivity, 74, 205 Profitability, xix–xx Protestant work ethic, 3, 29, 45, 138 Provocative space: as the antidote to groupthink, 171–172; in changing, 179–181; for everyday playspace, 168–169; and imagination, 173–174; in innovating, 172–173; and knowing, 178–179; in learning, 174–177; overview of, 165–167; and playspace dimensions and dynamics, 198; and relational space, 166; roles in, that bring life to the space, 181–192; and safe space, 174; summary of, 193–195; trust and, 169–171, 193 Psychological risks, 100, 105 Pugh, D. S., 184 Pulse Point system, 177 Purdum, T. S., 115 Purser, R., 132, 140, 144 Pye, A., 123

Q Q12 survey of customer and employee engagement, 83 Quality learning, 141 Quality time, 131, 134, 138 Quantity time, 131, 138 Questions, living the, 209–210 Quiet time, claiming, 159–160, 164 Quinn, R. E., 9, 56, 101

R Radical change, 25 Reactive vs. responsive behavior, 144–145, 149 Real time, 209 Reclaiming play, 1, 2–4 Recognizing, 198, 199, 200–201 Recruiting, 198, 199 Redelmeier, D. A., 158 Reed, H., 51–52 Reflecting-in-action, capacity for, developing, 206 Reinforcing, 199–200 Relational and experiential activities, providing, 61–62, 67

230

INDEX

Relational learning, 20–23, 36 Relational space: in changing, 56–58; creating, early and often, 156; efficiency and, 46–48; emotional intelligence and, 45–46; as gangwork, 41–45; and generative space, 70; individual, 43; informal networks and, 48–50; in innovating, 52–53; in learning, 53–56; and the need to connect, 50–52; overview of, 39–41; and playspace dimensions and dynamics, 198; and provocative space, 166; roles in, that bring life to the space, 58–66; and safe space, 96; summary of, 66–68; and timeful space, 130, 131 Relationships: active involvement in, 102; charting, 48, 49; vs. relational space, 43 Relevancy, 154–155, 163 Reporting relationships, charting, 48 Reputation, 199 Research, xi–xii Research and development (R&D): and generative space, 71; and relational space, 52–53, 55 Resistance, 15, 26, 107, 109 Respect: as a ground rule, 117; and sustaining playspace, 202, 205 Response-able, being, 65, 66, 68 Responsibility: as a ground rule, 117; sharing, 124–125, 128, 189, 192, 202 Responsive vs. reactive behavior, 144–145, 149 Retaining, 198, 199, 201 Revolution, industrial and knowledge, 14–15 Revolutions, finding, 183, 194 Rigidity, 78 Rilke, R. M., 209 Risk taking, 53, 54, 58, 61, 116, 126, 192, 193, 205 Rite-Solutions, 77, 78, 92 Roberts, C., xix, 29 Robinson, S. E., 19 Rocco, T. S., 30 Rogers, C. R., 98, 107 Roles: in generative space, 81–92; playing new, 5–8, 43; in provocative space, 181–192; in relational space, 58–66; in safe space, 113–125; in timeful space, 147–161

Rorac, J., 5 Roth, S. L., 19 Rothkopf, D., 129, 140, 150 Rousseau, D. M., 101, 102 Roy, D. F., 160 Rubinstein, J. S., 157 Ryan, R. M., 83, 106

S Safe space: in changing, 108–110; cross-cultural, 110–112; foundation of, 97–99 in innovating, 106; lacking, consequences of, 105–106; in learning, 107–108; meaning of, 99–100; overview of, 95–97; and playspace dimensions and dynamics, 198; and provocative space, 174, 181, 182, 193; and relational space, 96; roles in, that bring life to the space, 113–125; and the speed of safety, 104–105; summary of, 125–128; that is safe enough, 112–113; and timeful space, 131; trust and, 101–104 Sakkab, N., 52, 53 Sanchez-Burks, J., 3 Sawyer, J. E., xxi Schapiro, S. A., 175, 177 Schatzel, E. A., 182 Schön, D. A., 206 Seashore, C., 112 Self-concept, new, 54 Self-organizing learning, 156–157 Semrad, C., 63–64, 134–135 Senge, P. M., xix, 22, 26, 29, 57, 187 Shakespeare, W., 5 Shrader, A., 167, 173, 176, 181, 183, 187 Simmons, P. R., xiv Sitkin, S. B., 101, 102 Skills focus, 20, 55 SkinnyCorp, 41, 52, 64, 66. See also Threadless Smith, B. J., xix, 29 Smith, R., 5 Social imperatives, 122 Social media, using, 183 Social networking, 50, 51, 61, 74, 84, 156 Social outings, 60–61 Sony, 172 Sorensen, J., 80 Spock, B., 2 Spolin, V., 28 Sprokay, S., 55

INDEX 231 Stagnation, 78 Status quo, defending the, 174, 175 Staw, B. M., 9, 16, 44 Sternberg, R., 149 Strategic thinking, early, 80 Stress, effect of, 9 Stringer, E. T., 30 Structure, minimal, implementing, 204–205 ‘‘Study: Multitasking Hinders Learning,’’ 141 Sullivan, B., 103 SurveyMonkey.com, 156 Surveys, 83, 156 Sustainability, 145, 151 Sustaining playspace, 197–208 Sutcliffe, K. M., 104, 121 Swedish Council for Management and Organizational Behaviour, 113 Systems: aligning, 208; open, 72–74; play in, 4–5; social networking, 61. See also Educational systems

T Take care, extending, to others, 123, 128 Talent, top, acquiring and retaining, 199–201 Tannenbaum, R., xxi Task focus, 3, 29 Taylor, W. C., 77 Theater Oobleck, 95–97, 98, 99, 112, 115, 116, 118, 122, 124, 126, 171, 191, 202 Thermodynamics metaphor, 72 Thomas, G., 57 Threadless, 39–41, 41–42, 51, 52, 59, 64, 65, 66, 79, 91, 98, 192, 205 360-degree feedback assessments, 26 Tibshirani, R. J., 158 Time: clock-oriented relationship to, 131–132, 161; lack of, 138; quality, 131, 134, 138; quantity, 131, 138; quiet, claiming, 159–160, 164; real, 209; transition, need for, 185. See also Inner time; Outer time Time givers, 133 Time horizon: enriching the, 150–155, 163; extending the, 155–157, 162–163; metaphor of the, 150–151 Time limits, focus on, issue of, 131–132 Time management, 136 Time pressures, leaders and, 147–150

Timeful space: in changing, 144; inner time in, 134–135; in innovating, 138–139; in learning, 140–144; organizational, 136–147; outer time in, 132–134; overview of, 129–132; and playspace dimensions and dynamics, 198; and relational space, 130; roles in, that bring life to the space, 147–161; summary of, 161–164; and time management, 136 Tolerance, 123 ‘‘Top 10 Reasons to Work at Google,’’ 70 Top talent, acquiring and retaining, 199–201 Total Quality Management, 26 Toxic players: cost of, example of the, 47–48; swift response to, importance of a, 204 Training environment, developing a, 199, 200 Training magazine, 175 Transformational change, 25, 56 Transformative learning, 23, 24, 33, 36, 54, 62 Transition time, need for, 185 Transparency, 205 Troxel, J., 154 Trust: and provocative space, 169–171, 193; and safe space, 101–104; and sustaining playspace, 205 Turnover costs, 19 Turnover rate, xix, 19 20 percent time, 84 Twitter, 40, 183

U Umpqua Bank, 165–167, 168–169, 170–171, 172–173, 174, 175–177, 178, 180–181, 182, 185, 186, 187, 192, 200, 201 Umpqua Holdings Corporation headquarters, 166 Unfreezing-changing-freezing model, 145 UPS, 64 Urgency, beware of, 149–150, 162

V Virtual field trips, 121 Vision, bringing, to life, 174 Volunteer projects, 60–61, 180

232

INDEX W

Wachtendorf, T., 104 Wagner, R., 83, 85 Waldenstrom-Linstrom, I., 113 Warming up the space, 185–186, 194 We, making space for, 58–59, 67 Web 2.0, 183 Weber, M., 3 Weick, K. E., xxi, 1, 65, 104, 121, 122, 139, 184 Weisel, E., 123 Western mind-set, 110, 151 Wheatley, M., 6 White, R. E., xxi, 23, 24, 33, 142, 155 Whitney, D., 80 Whole-systems perspective, 72 Wicks, A. C., 101 Wisdom: conventional, premise of, provoking the, 187–190; in the room, tapping into the, 163 Wolfe, P., 141 Woodman, R. W., xxi

Work ethic, Protestant, 3, 29, 45, 138 Work space, experiences unlike, study of, xii–xiii Working relationships, actual, charting, 49 Workplace mind-set, traditional, problem of, 10–11. See also Constrained workplaces; Mind-set shift Work-play dualism: described, 3; moving beyond the, 4–15, 34

Y Yaeger, T., 80 ‘‘Yes, and . . .’’ phrase, 190–191, 195 Yorks, L., xiv, xxi Younger, D., 131, 160, 160–161

Z Zeitgebers, 133 Zuckerman, M., 5 Zull, J. E., 141

From Workplace to Playspace: Innovating, Learning and Changing Through Dynamic Engagement

Innovating to Learn, Learning to Innovate

From WorkPlace to Workspace

Improving Research through User Engagement (Improving Learning)

Research, Advocacy, and Political Engagement: Multidisciplinary Perspectives Through Service Learning (Service Learning for Civic Engagement Series)

Latino Culture: A Dynamic Force in the Changing American Workplace

Political Engagement Through Debates

Improving Workplace Learning

Workplace Learning in Context

Dynamic alignment through imagery

Dynamic Alignment Through Imagery

Extraordinary Learning in the Workplace

Changing Software Development: Learning to Become Agile

Gender Identity, Equity, and Violence: Multidisciplinary Perspectives Through Service Learning (Service Learning for Civic Engagement Series)

Changing Software Development: Learning to Become Agile

Innovative Reward Systems for the Changing Workplace

Innovative Reward Systems for the Changing Workplace

Changing Workplace Relations in the Chinese Economy

Innovating Democracy

Learning and Memory: From Brain to Behavior

Learning to Learn from Experience

Water Engineering and Management Through Time: Learning from History

Dynamic Bayesian Networks Representation, Inference And Learning

Innovating Democracy

Dynamic-Clamp: From Principles to Applications

Learning Through Child Observation

Learning Through Knowledge Management

Dynamic-Clamp: From Principles to Applications (

Changing Places?: Flexibility, Lifelong Learning and a Learning Society

The Dynamic Workplace: Present Structure and Future Redesign

Workplace Vagabonds: Career and Community in Changing Worlds of Work

From Workplace to Playspace: Innovating, Learning and Changing Through Dynamic Engagement

Innovating to Learn, Learning to Innovate

From WorkPlace to Workspace

Improving Research through User Engagement (Improving Learning)

Research, Advocacy, and Political Engagement: Multidisciplinary Perspectives Through Service Learning (Service Learning for Civic Engagement Series)

Latino Culture: A Dynamic Force in the Changing American Workplace

Political Engagement Through Debates

Improving Workplace Learning

Workplace Learning in Context

Dynamic alignment through imagery

Dynamic Alignment Through Imagery

Extraordinary Learning in the Workplace

Changing Software Development: Learning to Become Agile

Gender Identity, Equity, and Violence: Multidisciplinary Perspectives Through Service Learning (Service Learning for Civic Engagement Series)

Changing Software Development: Learning to Become Agile

Innovative Reward Systems for the Changing Workplace

Innovative Reward Systems for the Changing Workplace

Changing Workplace Relations in the Chinese Economy

Innovating Democracy

Learning and Memory: From Brain to Behavior

Learning to Learn from Experience

Water Engineering and Management Through Time: Learning from History

Dynamic Bayesian Networks Representation, Inference And Learning

Innovating Democracy

Dynamic-Clamp: From Principles to Applications

Learning Through Child Observation

Learning Through Knowledge Management

Dynamic-Clamp: From Principles to Applications (

Changing Places?: Flexibility, Lifelong Learning and a Learning Society

The Dynamic Workplace: Present Structure and Future Redesign

Workplace Vagabonds: Career and Community in Changing Worlds of Work

Recommend Documents