EXPANDING YOUR COMFORT ZONE – the Effects of Artistic and Cultural Intervention on the Workplace by Tiago Prata

EXPANDING YOUR COMFORT ZONE – the Effects of Artistic and Cultural Intervention on the Workplace

A Study of AIRIS 2005-2008 (Including Genklang Vara 2006-2008)

Institute for Management of Innovation and Technology Michael Eriksson February 2009 Translation: Evert Wängberg, TILLT AB

Summary The objective of Artists in Residence, AIRIS, is establishing a deep and far reaching collaboration between Culture and Industry operating within private and public business sectors, and focussing upon the creative processes that are set in motion whenever a professional artist encounters people at a workplace. Before the 2005 AIRIS Project, the Institute for Management of Innovation and Technology (IMIT) was signed up by Skådebanan Västra Götaland for the task of performing a quantitative study of the specific effects of artistic and cultural intervention on the workplace that an AIRIS run would imply. We have a broad experience of change studies within all kinds of business sectors. Based upon conversation with half of the companies that participated in AIRIS 2004, we have selected an array of tools from the field of established and tested instruments. Quantitative data were assembled by a survey at project launch as well as project termination. By constructing the surveys using established indexes of prognostic validity we have obtained good comparison data. We used the following analytic parameters to captivate the effects of the intervention:      

Organizational Climate for Creativity and Innovation, (Ekvall, 1996) Patterns of interaction in work groups, (Kylén, 1999) Experimenting Managing Complexity and Uncertainty, (Adler, 1999) The Outlook on Planning and Efficacy, (Adler, 1999) Change Stategies, (Norrgren, Hart, Schaller, 1996)

Average short term sick leaves at the better part of workplaces showed a more positive trend in the Genklang Project compared to average in the Vara Municipality the year of the AIRIS run. However, subsequently to project termination, the trend does not seem permanent. The significant changes described in the quantitative study contain expressions such as “meeting new people and getting a new outlook on my work” and “breaking conventional patterns”. These expressions may be regarded as next of kin to characteristics often associated with artists, that is, the capability of working from alternative perspectives and managing things that evade prediction. Other trends from the quantitative material involve “decreased resistance to change” and attitudes toward leadership, “a good boss sees possibility and adapts his business accordingly”. Such trends signal increased inclination to change, both directly (decreasing resistance) and indirectly (embracing possibility). The supplementary quantitative material repeats a multi levelled experience of increased cooperation and cohesion as well as better workplace atmosphere. Through the AIRIS Project we may say executives and co-workers at the participant workplaces received an impulse that forced them out of their comfort zone, or in several cases, expanded it, thus potentially making for an expansion of change and innovation space. In order to develop their innovation processes organisations need, first, enhance their capability of embracing new knowledge by identifying and comprehending its value-generating potential, and second, develop new concepts and commercial innovations by experimenting and generating potentially valuegenerating knowledge. The integration of the two processes that embrace and generate knowledge of potential value, is seen as crucial for making effective and innovative product development possible.

Table of Contents

Summary Table of Content AIRIS Quantitative Results Organizational Climate for Creativity and Change Patterns of interaction in work groups Creative vs Efficacy Logic Project Effects and Contributions to Improving Indicators Backdrop Variables T Polls: Pre–Post Correlations of Index–Post Climate Index Efficacy and Creativity Indexes Defensive Index Effect-1 and Effect-2 Indexes Climate Index Efficacy Logics Index Creativity Logics Index Defensive Action Patterns Index Effect-1 and Effect-2 Indexes Conclusions Sick Leave Results Conclusions Qualitative Results What Did the Participation Achieve? PR Value According to Skådebanan’s assessment Housing Company Bostadsbolaget’s Estimations Conclusions References

2 3 4 5 5 5 5 6 7 8 9 9 9 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 20 21 21 22 22 23 25

AIRIS The objective of Artists in Residence, AIRIS, is establishing a deep and far reaching collaboration between Culture and Industry, operating within private and public business sectors, and focussing upon the creative processes that are set in motion whenever a professional artist encounters people at a workplace. AIRIS is run by Skådebanan Västra Götaland Kultur och Arbetsliv (today Tillt AB,www.tillt.se). Behind AIRIS stands the urge of utilising a special competence that involves knowledge of the creative processes and experiences of the unpredictable that is present in the culture sector, and using that competence in change and development work at a workplace. During this process the artist offers new and alternative approaches and modes of thinking. The AIRIS artists are hand-picked by Skådebanan1 and present at the workplace on average one day a week during a total of eight months. The artist and a project group will jointly determine the areas on which they are going to work prior to jointly forming a concrete action plan. Before the 2005 AIRIS Project, the Institute for Management of Innovation and Technology (IMIT) was signed up by Skådebanan Västra Götaland with the task of performing a quantitative study of the specific effects of artistic and cultural intervention on the workplace that an AIRIS run would imply. We have broad experiences of doing studies on change in all kinds of business. Based upon conversation with half of the companies that participated in AIRIS 2004, we have selected an array of tools from the field of established and tested instruments. Over a span of four years we have had the privilege of following the participant workplaces during their AIRIS project as well as the workplaces for two years under the sister project in Vara, known as Genklang2. Since 2006 we also have supplemented the quantitative data assembly with a limited qualitative data assembly done mainly by interviews at participant workplaces, but we also shared Skådebanan’s evaluating meetings with workplace participants. Since 2007 we have collected data concerning the sick leave trend developments at the participation workplaces.

1 2

The name was taken from the Shakespeare comedy As You Wish and means The Stage. Genklang means Resonance.

Quantitative Results Quantitative data were assembled by surveys done at both project launch and project termination. By constructing the surveys using established indexes of prognostic validity we have obtained good comparison data. The following analytic parameters for catching the effects of the intervention were used:      

Organizational Climate for Creativity and Innovation, (Ekvall, 1996) Patterns of Interaction in Work Groups, (Kylén, 1999) Experimenting Managing Complexity and Uncertainty, (Adler, 1999) The Outlook on Planning and Efficacy, (Adler, 1999) Change Stategies, (Norrgren, Hart, Schaller, 1996)

Organizational Climate for Creativity and Change This instrument was developed during a research programme in Sweden during the 1980s on the organisation conditions that stimulate or hinders creativity and innovation. The instrument originally consists of fifty questions spanning ten different dimensions based upon several major factor analyses. These are: Challenge – involvement and feelings for the organisation and its objectives; Freedom – the kind of behavioural independence that the people in the organisation maintain; Idea-Support – how new ideas are received; Trust – the emotional security offered; Dynamism – the dynamics within the organisation; Playfulness – the prevailing level of ease; Debate – the extent to which meetings, clashes of views, ideas, alternative experiences, and knowledge occur; Conflict – the extent to which emotional tensions, as opposed to conceptual tension, occur within the organisation; Risk Taking – the inclination to tolerate insecurity within the organisation; Idea-Time – The amount of time allocated and used for working out new conceptions. Mats Sundgren, in collaboration with Göran Ekvall, developed a reduced instrument made of ten questions – one for each dimension and used in several studies (Sundgren 2004). Patterns of interaction in work groups Researching interaction patterns in workgroups Sven Kylén argued in favour of focussing on workgroup interaction patterns with the objective of learning to reduce defensive blocking behaviour in favour of developing the support of offensive behaviour. Kylén developed an instrument that measures the kind of behaviour of workgroups that impacts learning, capability of change, and efficacy. It contains twenty-five variables, out of which fifteen are defensive, and ten are offensive. Defensive interaction patterns are characterised by seclusion, non-disputability, and inconsistency between word and action. Lack of insights into the bigger picture and egocentricity are regarded as crucial interaction factors. Offensive interaction patterns, on the other hand, are characterised by receptiveness to new ideas, and make improvements of the interplay between group members in order to develop both labour methods and products/services. In collaboration with Kylén a reduced instrument was developed that overlap with Ekvall’s ten dimensions (see above). Creative vs. Efficacy Logics Studies of companies that have a high level of competition power reveal that they also have a clear focus on innovation, creative processes, and renewal. Increasing competition and concentration on cost cuts over the last decades have resulted in one-sided focus upon the Logics of Efficacy. Most organisations today are not particularly adept at discovering, choosing, and embracing new options. Organisations are often stuck in historical success formulas and strong processes, and wanting Creative Logics.

For many enterprises the presence and development of Creative Logics represent a basic condition for commercial innovation and a fundament for sustainable business, both from trade and human perspectives. Creative Logics has to do with organised ingenuity and is a mark of creativity in the context of business and its collaborating capacity with the rest of the organisation. A great part of the knowledge body ignores the context in which creativity arose and, because of this, it is useless. Creative Logics means thinking outside the frameworks and question what is. This is similar to what art and culture do. Efficacy Logics, on the other hand means effective execution of existing things, including improvements that seldom involves innovative development leaps. At the same time, sustainable and innovative growth demands a balance between guiding logics, creative, and efficacy logics. It is not a matter of either or, it is a matter of both. EFFICACY LOGICS Aiming at minimising deviation from plan and budget Uncertainty to be minimised by rigorous planning

CREATIVE LOGICS Plan and budget are necessary; however, more important are continual experimenting and the accumulated result Uncertainty perceived as a necessary condition for developing new concepts and options Complexity generates many overall views Boundary crossing meetings, combining competence and perspective are necessary conditions for success Decisions are based upon the results of experimenting

Complexity is best managed by breaking it down Efficiency is achieved by functional specialisation and minimised interdependence of workgroups Decisions are based upon predetermined quantitative economic data Figure 1 Comparison of Efficacy Logics and Creative Logics

Project Effects and Contributions to Improving Indicators The effects of more thorough change projects on several of the indicators are often delayed one to two years after project termination. However, we have found that the instrument used in the present study often will indicate areas of improvement, even while indicating nothing about its ultimate potential, i.e. the magnitude of change. The outcome shows appreciation from the participants in connection with the artist’s termination of the short year at the workplace. Two question categories were used, of which the first was the degree to which you believe the project would contribute to any the following:        

Better physical work environment Better working atmosphere Improved cooperation Enhanced work involvement Enhanced work quality More varying tasks Increased information exchange Increased overall view

The second question category was the extent to which the project would contribute to change concerning any of the following indicators:     

Productivity Quality Cost levels Sick leaves Stress levels

In order to draw more generalised conclusions from the quantitative outcome we estimated that observations from twenty-five to thirty workplaces would do, and that is what we have. This report is based upon responses from thirty-six workplaces, in total of 1,094 polls. The average post poll frequency was 76 percent. Statistical processing and interpretation were done in collaboration with Professor Joseph Schaller at the Department of Psychology, Göteborg University, and Professor Flemming Norrgren at Management of Organisational Renewal and Entrepreneurship (MORE), Chalmers University of Technology. Backdrop Variables Respondents Gender Female Male No information

70 % 29 % 1%

Age – 30 31 – 40 41 – 50 51 – 60 61 – No information

11 % 23 % 30 % 27 % 6% 3%

Capacity Manager Worker No information

11 % 87 % 2%

Ethnicity Nordic, incl. Swedish 88 % Extra-Nordic 2% No information 10 % This variable was missing 2005. The account is based on 80 percent of the collected responses.

T Polls: Pre–Post Below are the average values of Pre–Post Polls respectively, question by question. There are four indexes at the end of the table dealing with Climate, Efficacy, Creativity, and Defensive (for more information about index, see next section).

Q 1: Challenge Q 2: Idea support Q 3: Trust Q 4: Freedom Q 5: Playfulness Q 6: Debate Q 7: Risk Taking Q 8: Dynamical Q 9 :Conflict Q 10: Idea Time Q 11: Focused and Effective Q 12: New Concepts Q 13: New People Q 14: Unconventional Q15: Reflections Q 16: Leaning From One Another Q 19: Clear Planning Q 20: Sticking to Plan Q 21A: Manager Sticks To Plan Q 21B: Manager Sees New options Q 21C: Quantitative Economical Decisions Q 21D: Testing of New Work Methods Q 21Manager: Seeks To Minimise Uncertainty Q 21F: Uncertainty As Possibility Q 21G: Independent Workgroups

Poll

MEAN

STD

Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

553 443 554 442 553 443 551 441 547 443 549 444 551 439 551 442 550 444 548 444 550 444 549 444 550 443 540 436 550 443 549 444 549 442 543 441 539 434 539 437 535 430 538 436 531 430 523 425 535 429

5.6311 5.5824 5.0776 5.1335 5.2333 5.1919 5.0708 5.0813 5.1024 5.0726 4.4062 4.4054 4.8276 4.7813 4.7114 4.8054 3.1891 3.3536 3.8394 3.8514 5.3527 5.4302 4.4772 4.5360 3.9018 4.1174 3.5167 3.6927 4.1745 4.1219 4.6612 4.6081 5.1913 5.1290 4.9871 4.9569 4.8720 4.9747 5.2263 5.0870 4.5159 4.5535 4.1004 4.0963 3.7043 3.6674 3.9178 3.9976 4.4916 4.4079

1.05873 1.13734 1.15496 1.09537 1.24739 1.17928 1.13637 1.09408 1.23759 1.20068 1.25595 1.21969 1.03276 1.05878 1.14027 1.20210 1.48749 1.40740 1.15829 1.15619 .87837 .92719 1.12452 1.03704 1.38078 1.39804 1.17239 1.13949 1.13340 1.10676 1.06793 1.13612 1.20591 1.25053 1.12413 1.07045 1.26003 1.18177 1.19041 1.31914 1.46214 1.40948 1.30647 1.35269 1.38631 1.32700 1.30242 1.18461 1.33219 1.32165

.04502 .05404 .04907 .05210 .05304 .05603 .04841 .05198 .05292 .05705 .05360 .05788 .04400 .05053 .04858 .05718 .06343 .06679 .04848 .05487 .03745 .04400 .04799 .04922 .05888 .06642 .05045 .05457 .04833 .05258 .04558 .05392 .05147 .05948 .04824 .05097 .05427 .05673 .05127 .06310 .06321 .06797 .05633 .06478 .06016 .06399 .05695 .05746 .05760 .06381

Q 21H: Clear Distribution Of Responsibility Q 21I: Boundary Crossing Meetings Q 22A: Resistance Q 22B: Ego Expansion Q 22C: Action Prior To Analysis Q 22D: Tactics Q 22E: Avoidance Climate Efficacy Creativity Defensive

Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

519 423 539 435 543 438 537 436 535 439 540 438 537 437 554 444 552 444 552 444 548 443

4.3526 4.3522 4.8887 4.7816 4.1713 3.8973 3.9516 3.7959 3.3645 3.2711 3.1296 3.3105 4.8603 4.7025 4.8502 4.8539 4.8332 4.8372 4.3191 4.3346 3.9009 3.7997

1.36452 1.33004 1.42816 1.43383 2.38037 2.36603 2.10399 2.14253 2.15240 2.09954 2.36272 2.32279 2.25291 2.31733 .82538 .83027 .69113 .68723 .70506 .74348 1.65854 1.63480

.05990 .06467 .06152 .06875 .10215 .11305 .09079 .10261 .09306 .10021 .10168 .11099 .09722 .11085 .03507 .03940 .02942 .03261 .03001 .03528 .07085 .07767

Figure 2. Pre–Post Poll Note that Q q7, 18, and 19 were used in Post only

Correlations of Index–Post The interpretation of each question, on the part of respondent as well as evaluator, contains the risk of “error”; therefore factors and dimensions are often built of several questions (observations). Statistical certainty of the emerging results and conclusions will that way be greater if index is used. This material uses separate questions from existing index, but it is, despite that, necessary to “remake” each index to obtain statistically valid conclusions. Climate Index The organisation climate of creativity and innovation instrument is made of ten dimensions with five questions from each. We are using here one question a dimension, and consequently, our Climate Index comprises one question per dimension, a total of ten questions. Efficacy and Creativity Indexes Based upon his research on experimenting, complexity, uncertainty, and outlook on planning and efficacy, Professor Niclas Adler developed the query array we are using and the questions relate to definitions of efficacy and creativity logics. Each query group forms each index. Defensive Index The instrument of offensive and defensive action comprises fifteen defensive variables that form groups of five factors each. We are using one question per factor and the defensive index will make up the defensive interaction pattern by using one question per factor, in all five questions.

Effect-1 and Effect-2 Indexes These indexes were developed by Norrgren et al in their research on Change Strategies, and we are using them in their original version. Climate Climate

Effective

Creative

Defensive Effect-1

Pearson 1 .369(**) .675(**) -.614(**) Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 N 444 444 444 443 Efficacy Pearson .369(**) 1 .461(**) -.229(**) Correlation Sig. (2-talied) .000 .000 .000 N 444 444 444 441 Creativity Pearson .675(**) .000 1 -.384(**) Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 N 444 444 444 443 Defensive Pearson -.614(**) -.229(**) -.384(**) 1 Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 N 443 443 443 443 Effect-1 Pearson .217(**) .113(*) .297(**) -.100 Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .018 .000 .036 N 436 436 436 436 Effect-2 Pearson -.124(**) -.121(*) -.116(*) .094 Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) .00 .012 .016 .050 N 432 432 432 432 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) * Correlation is significant at the 0.05evel (2-tailed) Figure 3. Correlations of Index–Post Note: Index hyphenation comes from “reversed” scale compared to other indexes.

Effect-2

,217(**)

-.124(**)

.000 436 .113(*)

.010 432 -.121(*)

.018 436 .297(**)

.012 432 -.116(*)

.000 436 -.100(*)

.016 432 .094

.036 436 1

.050 432 -.627(**)

437 -.627(**)

,000 432 1

.000 432

433

Climate Index Below are the polls of each of thirty-six workplaces that comprise the study. According to the Climate Index Table, Pre–Post changes generally are minor. Workplace

PR1 PR2 PR3 PR4 PR5 PR6 PR7 PR8 PR9 PR10 PR11 PU1 PU2 PU3 PU4 PU5 PU6 PU7 PU8 PU9 PU10 PU11 PU12 PU13 PU14 PU15 PU16 PU17 PU18 PU19 PU20 PU21 PU22 PU23 PU24 PU25

Climate Pre Average 4.39315 4.128917 5.020174 4.240847 4.752632 4.383877 4.905 5.113618 4.273513 3.945 3.782172 4.870514 4.662382 5.229166 4.522865 4.995411 4.944737 5.264595 4.973415 4.799277 5.39069 4.169565 4.945731 4.49476 4.825118 5.406061 4.425905 5.221739 4.499617 4.001487 5.455 4.674964 5.285714 4.701299 5.41042 3.480435

Post Std Deviation 1.090628 1.155459 1.115093 1.293271 1.230994 1.37143 1.165611 0.928414 1.165967 1.256942 0.895939 0.874079 1.06365 0.741974 1.48285 1.234134 1.077758 1.007161 0.900481 0.906504 1.006554 0.930356 0.867987 1.37283 0.830874 0.71206 0.850319 0.98667 1.005422 1.279016 0.903649 1.170538 0.9778 0.939515 0.926218 1.634027

Average 4.8 4.281842 4.84207 4.075211 4.338739 4.136679 4.642704 4.71707 4.369231 4.324265 4.57 4.743527 5.187864 4.968494 4.81 4.853556 4.571429 5.478655 5.005882 4.379338 5.40976 4.255348 4.73416 4.626041 4.811023 5.4 4.457377 4.489992 5.217155 4.42759 5.304386 5.311438 4.783333 4.696154 5.705 3.857143

Change Std Deviation (Post-Pre) 1.137927 0.406850395 1.103937 0152924726 0.97737 -0.178104026 1.069594 -0.165635755 1.135114 -0.413892512 1.023521 -0.247197954 1.129312 -0.262295754 1.08553 -0.396548018 0.873227 0,095718187 1.221715 0.379264706 0.956798 0.787827663 0.886806 -0.126987248 1.062938 0.525482419 0.949108 -0.260672431 1.138456 0.287134906 1.179172 -0.141855422 1.025272 -0.373307995 0.815624 0.214060476 1.132075 0.032467498 1.044758 -0.419939217 1.013739 0.019070213 1.031992 0.08578261 0.882713 -0.211570273 1.375812 0.131281097 1.177738 -0.014094434 0.993373 -0.006060606 1.168921 0.031471178 0.984209 -0.731747502 0.890879 0.717537836 0.931535 0.42610276 1.069702 -0.150614035 1.022799 0.63647387 0.969096 -0.502380952 1.144728 -0.005144855 0.701171 0.294579832 1.030273 0.376708075

Average PRIVATE Workplaces 4.448991 1.151795 4.463437 1.064913 Average PUBLIC Workplaces 4.826035 1.027297 4.859386 1.024916 Figure 4. Climate Index Average Values from Pre–Post Polls, All Workplaces. Note that PR refers to private workplaces, and PU refers to public workplaces.

0.014446514 0.033351112

Efficacy Logics Index Below are the polls of each of thirty-six workplaces included in the study. According to the Efficacy Index Table, Preâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Post changes generally are minor. Workplace

PR1 PR2 PR3 PR4 PR5 PR6 PR7 PR8 PR9 PR10 PR11 PU1 PU2 PU3 PU4 PU5 PU6 PU7 PU8 PU9 PU10 PU11 PU12 PU13 PU14 PU15 PU16 PU17 PU18 PU19 PU20 PU21 PU22 PU23 PU24 PU25

Efficacy Pre Average 4.590902 4.518519 4.73892 4.483987 5.300752 4.86646 4.904135 4.738649 4.897708 4.267126 4.489708 4.602286 4.695174 4.591417 4.414705 4.631154 4.470301 5.006616 4.828513 4.844627 4.672659 4.770186 4.266088 4.748348 4.154934 4.961404 4.578818 5.049689 4.382276 4.701533 5.470301 4.552068 4.489796 4.801793 5.26652 4.301013

Post Std Deviation 1.057071 1.132043 1.356374 1.351157 1.222847 1.098992 1.023873 1.069989 1.189398 1.298371 1.12415 0.870194 0.962024 0.878902 1.430307 1.339082 1.299934 1.111981 1.178661 1.106093 1.484278 1.025395 1.328545 1.077512 1.156731 0.932557 0.772342 0.891177 1.146133 1.504206 1.220075 1.143138 1.313265 1.056777 1.074686 1.461546

Average 4.828571 4.434879 4.648166 4.277793 4.640507 4.318989 4.626053 4.598964 4.991592 4.757878 4.557143 4.757368 4.883228 4.517259 5.1 4.504861 4.252781 4.939421 5.285714 4.457455 5.073056 4.514459 4.288209 4.942161 4.440789 4.775103 4.628773 4.581518 4.580657 4.66149 5.298835 5.108043 4.285714 4.771868 5.327444 4.397959

Change Std Deviation (Post-Pre) 1.104401 0.237669904 1.198681 -0.08363965 1.039104 -0.09075376 1.495893 -0.20619344 0.931521 -0.66024492 0.985525 -0.54747024 1.120399 -0.27808217 1.256155 -0.13968531 1.137212 0.093884142 1.107779 0.490752003 0.93441 0.067435116 0.745905 0.155081678 1.113336 0.188054469 0.930681 -0.07415806 1.250212 0.685295139 1.262211 -0.12629278 1.32343 -0.21751972 1.102286 -0.0671956 1.000077 0.457200822 1.191227 -0.38717185 1.151388 0.40039683 1.175611 -0.25572692 0.883448 0.022121031 0.768067 0.193813023 1.018695 0.28585474 1.137445 -0.18630005 0.916484 0.049954682 1.086303 -0.46817192 1.03108 0.198380982 1.14066 -0.0400439 1.296228 -0.17146543 0.98837 0.555975612 1.11971 -0.20408163 1.029351 -0.02992531 1.062769 0.060924098 1.261338 0.096946559

Average PRIVATE Workplaces 4.708806 1.174933 4.607321 1.119189 Average PUBLIC Workplaces 4.690089 1.150622 4.734967 1.079452 Figure 5. Efficacy Index Average Values from Pre-Post Polls, All Workplaces. Note that PR refers to private workplaces, and PU refers to public workplaces.

-0.10148439 0.04487786

Creativity Logics Index Below are the polls of each of thirty-six workplaces that comprise the study. According to the table Creativity Index changes of Pre–Post polls are in general minor; however, some questions display significant changes. Workplace

PR1 PR2 PR3 PR4 PR5 PR6 PR7 PR8 PR9 PR10 PR11 PU1 PU2 PU3 PU4 PU5 PU6 PU7 PU8 PU9 PU10 PU11 PU12 PU13 PU14 PU15 PU16 PU17 PU18 PU19 PU20 PU21 PU22 PU23 PU24 PU25

Creative Logics Pre Std Average Deviation 4.001553 1.30249 3.782368 1.242158 4.278713 1.346802 3.635791 1.273988 4.37037 1.325273 4.021739 1.209623 4.268194 1.211279 4.566303 1.112897 3.956878 1.096412 3.637509 1.320548 3.735435 1.118527 4.240675 0.928908 3.95719 0.959047 4.394254 1.051055 4.080371 1.267525 4.242111 1.117019 4.638596 0.971058 4.566467 1.11628 4.204344 0.902482 4.491863 1.165024 4.294484 1.095251 3.826087 1.062485 4.342983 1.057933 3.88824 1.197771 4.2838 0.909186 4.62381 0.915199 3.961437 0.984234 4.676329 1.092369 4.014339 1.024935 3.818483 1.360789 5.072807 1.110426 4.295668 1.225784 4.174603 1.016178 4.116162 1.079242 4.807362 0.938435 3,450373 1,61506

Post Average 4.133333 3.889766 4.153407 3.643734 4.038025 3.770064 4.312819 4.184211 3.881766 4.026144 4.077778 4.360147 4.588542 3.95237 5.044444 3.799066 4.165578 4.901488 4.474673 4.105987 4.551539 3.957574 4.319253 4.243004 4.338208 4.675444 4.146532 4.09077 4.553694 3.818813 4.948506 4.687259 4.092593 4.051111 4.949708 3,52381

Change Std Deviation (Post–Pre) 1.313112 0.131779951 1.287262 0.107398244 1.119485 -0.125306274 1.445613 0.007942995 1.038887 -0.332345262 1.069197 -0.251674927 1.167822 0.044625422 1.199217 -0.382092375 1.039231 -0.075111701 1.436264 0.388634713 1.18477 0.342342318 0.889914 0.119472691 0.947736 0.631351785 0.979687 -0.441883918 1.123778 0.964073496 1.420808 -0.443045104 1.336338 -0.473018035 1.172396 0.335021241 1.075171 0.270329197 1.304227 -0.385875518 1.153333 0.257055031 1.004737 0.131486694 0.865766 -0.023729822 1.166129 0.354764087 1.040706 0.054408334 0.904459 0.051633987 1.360911 0.185094588 1.10181 -0.585558544 0.843506 0.539354975 1.155665 0.000330513 0.97479 -0.124301494 1.0638 0.391591099 0.959195 -0.082010582 1.019762 -0.065050505 0.93253 0.142345466 1,203922 0,073436748

Average PRIVATE 4.023169 1.232727 4.010095 1.209169 Workplaces Average PUBLIC Workplaces 4.258513 1.086547 4.333605 1.080043 Figure 6. Creativity Index Average Values from Pre-Post Polls, All Workplaces. Note that PR refers to private workplaces, and PU refers to public workplaces.

-0.013073354 0.075091056

Two questions from the Creativity Index, i e number 13 and 14, show significant improvement subsequently to the AIRIS run: 1. At the post-poll one (more) often meets new people and get new perspectives on oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s work (t=2.43, p<.05). Question 13 2. At the post-poll one (more) often breaks with conventional patterns (t=2.36, p<.05). Question 14 Another question from Creativity Index shows a tendency towards ensured improvement: 3. At the post-poll there is a tendency for describing as a good one a boss that sees new possibility and adapts the business accordingly (p<.10). Question 21b Defensive Action Patterns Index Below are the polls of each of thirty-six workplaces that comprise the study. According to the table, changes in the Defensive Index of Preâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Post generally are minor; however, one question shows a significant change. Workplace

PR1 PR2 PR3 PR4 PR5 PR6 PR7 PR8 PR9 PR10 PR11 PU1 PU2 PU3 PU4 PU5 PU6 PU7 PU8 PU9 PU10 PU11 PU12 PU13 PU14 PU15 PU16 PU17 PU18 PU19 PU20 PU21 PU22 PU23 PU24

Defensive Action Pre Std Average Deviation 4.296002 2.118531 4.234667 2.204394 2.940312 1.765412 5.33395 2.196699 4.357895 2.310711 5.058333 2.620673 4.28 2.534579 3.929149 1.971385 4.618383 2.655336 5.665789 2.08476 5.018097 2.219563 3.246724 1.653651 2.682868 1.940084 2.801408 1.892877 3.865694 2.062016 2.648243 1.667564 3.88 1.972291 3.76888 2.369079 2.936986 1.788536 3.246574 1.683065 2.386973 1.48027 5.12253 2.005874 3.292637 2.038849 4.149782 2.589678 3.455414 1.797329 2.761905 1.490958 4.140223 1.685019 3.504348 1.868771 3.933577 2.212051 3.875446 2.174722 4.1 2.308727 3.296401 2.280376 2.885714 1.596425 3.581385 1.852097 3.022584 1.802141

Post Average 4.026667 4.010526 2.680406 4.555861 4.14285 4.428625 4.258057 4.694737 4.284615 4.364706 3.871111 3.467631 2.37497 3.034063 4.22 3.147677 4.111189 2.734591 3.270588 4.212091 2.322356 4.532737 4.010554 3.376132 4.031536 3.666667 3.381665 3.999617 2.437991 3.676388 3.531871 2.950101 3.733333 3.320308 2.607368

Change Std Deviation 2.169609 2.21679 1.839103 1.867911 1.757893 2.488585 2.129718 2.020509 1.947933 2.227642 2.234414 2.097065 1.846532 2.037672 2.450099 1.808902 2.242533 1.432418 2.17469 2.091025 1.253815 2.082715 1.732697 2.639888 2.302318 2.364063 2.885474 1.926188 1.723623 1.965912 2.22285 2.544558 2.443077 2.032204 1.514462

(Post-Pre) -0.269335394 -0.224140351 -0.259905907 -0.778089816 -0.215044283 -0.629708538 -0.021942574 0.765587914 -0.33376722 -1.301083591 -1.146986 0.220906586 -0.307898458 0.232654374 0.354306361 0.499433528 0.231188563 -1.034288872 0.333602251 0.965516695 -0.064616846 -0.589792482 0.717916589 -0.773649799 0.576122665 0.904761905 -0.758557438 0.495269569 -1.49558561 -0.19905855 -0.568128655 -0.346300549 0.847619048 -0.261077589 -0.415215613

PU25

5.239526

2.576708

4.542857

2.543795

-0.696668549

Average PRIVATE Workplaces Average PUBLIC Workplaces

4.521143 3.513033

2.243822 1.951566

4.119833 3.467771

2.081828 2.094343

-0.401310524 -0.045261635

Figure 7. Average Defensive Index Values from Pre–Post Polls, All Workplaces. Note that PR refers to private workplaces, and PU refers to public workplaces.

One question from Defensive Index, resistance (number 22a in our poll), shows significant improvement subsequently to the AIRIS run: 1. There is a tendency toward reduced resistance during post-poll (p<.10). Question 22a Effect-1 and Effect-2 Indexes Workplace

Effect-1 Post

PR1 PR2 PR3 PR4 PR5 PR6 PR7 PR8 PR9 PR10 PR11 PU1 PU2 PU3 PU4 PU5 PU6 PU7 PU8 PU9 PU10 PU11 PU12 PU13 PU14 PU15 PU16 PU17 PU18 PU19 PU20 PU21 PU22 PU23 PU24 PU25

Average 2.175137 1.960197 2.142196 1.644375 1.438868 1.732039 1.43693 2.059211 2.409455 1.742188 2.120536 2.094573 2.002519 1.635193 2.143056 1.802268 2.010649 2.440022 1.878156 1.98401 1.630658 1.303796 1.760458 1.855497 1.812174 2.158208 2.102595 2.050175 2.405918 1.974988 2.194079 2.145821 2.0625 1.226852 2.23125 2.134524

Std Deviation 0.667275053 0.625698699 0.898719049 0.704797502 0.770471241 0.655465434 0.557908077 0.742484685 0.665002832 0.711134905 0.64010185 0.794021375 0.794376115 0.560816552 0.643342786 0.805397943 0.76888288 0.678332813 0.797094155 0.757041335 0.787170481 0.481386435 0.585434055 0.632654386 0.757826968 0.736984382 1.025745754 0.693205689 0.704012556 0.663974242 0.731368772 1.012062793 0.737733013 0.522909363 0.560167339 0.607571353

Average 2.641026 2.900877 2.433595 2.697962 2.769791 2.770141 2.900939 2.736842 2.411616 2.770833 2.619048 2.546396 2.497631 2.615863 2.566667 2.53009 2.609936 2.350502 2.973389 2.529087 2.536794 2.746783 2.742939 2.643526 2.65095 2.592105 2.499769 2.397705 2.425473 2.641997 2.581546 2.551663 2.666667 3.098765 2.7 2.809524

Std Deviation 0.49770794 0.39379674 0.58756529 0.36920841 0.69044197 0.52243935 0.35572469 0.45902241 0.41534547 0.45222601 0.48233648 0.53327426 0.43028123 0.2580973 0.48836036 0.64671285 0.74366457 0.49228712 0.66334468 0.49205724 0.42056449 0.68747071 0.17213259 0.22222222 0.53944611 0.42688479 0.69716312 0.47787926 0.49132385 0.54050248 0.76183089 0.57735027 0.82724922 0.4078334 0.33325942 0.41462633

Average PRIVATE Workplaces Average PUBLIC Workplaces

1.896466 1.961598

0.694459939 0.713580541

2.695697 2.620231

0.47507407 0.50983275

Figure 8. Average Effect-1 and Effect-2 Indexes Values from Pre–Post Polls, All Workplaces. Note that PR refers to private workplaces, and PU refers to public workplaces.

Although the Index level does not show great effects, we can do some interesting observations at single question level. Eight out of ten respondents think that AIRIS contributed to working climate as well as co-operation improvement in the company (four out of ten say AIRIS contributed to a large extent). Four out of ten say AIRIS contributed to productivity and quality enhancement. These results have not been validated statistically, although the work climate and co-operation variables concord well with interviews and other evaluations (see qualitative results below).

Conclusions Assembled qualitative data was statistically processed in order to identify significant changes and correlations. There are two significant preâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;post diversities (p<.05), and there are two tendencies toward difference (p<.10). 1. At post-poll one (more) often meets new people and get new perspectives on oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s work (t=2.43, p<.05). Question 13 2. At post-poll one (more) often breaks with conventional patterns (t=2.36, p<.05) Question 14 3. At post-poll there is a tendency to describe as a good one a boss who sees new possibility and adapts the business accordingly (p<.10). Question 21b 4. There is a tendency toward reduced resistance at post-poll (p<.10). Question 22a In addition, we can conclude that four out of five respondents believe that AIRIS made a positive contribution to the working climate and co-operation at the workplace and more than a third of coworkers say AIRIS contributed to medium or high degree of qualities such as: Improved cooperation Improved working climate Enhanced quality Enhanced productivity In general, the results indicate reduced resistance against change and space expansion for creative logics. These workplaces demonstrate better capabilities of managing unpredictability and alternative perspectives. More comfort and improved cooperation at the company are other common effects. We may also note that the effects during the project term seem to be greatest at the individual level.

Sick Leave Results Some workplaces that previously participated in AIRIS hold that the result of the participation was lower sick leave levels. Since 2006 we have tried to obtain relevant information from the workplaces; however, obtaining comparable figures over larger time spans proved difficult, probably depending upon a large number of non-verifiable factors. But the AIRIS sister project Genklang offered relatively favorable conditions. All units involved are part of Vara Municipality and are generally using a common account system. And in addition, the other non-participating municipal units exist as a control group. Totally, nineteen workplaces within the Vara Municipality each performed an AIRIS run over a span of two years. Therefore, we can compare changes of sick leaves between those units that participated in Genklang with all other units within the Vara Municipality. The changes refer to accumulated sick leaves from August 2006 to July 2007 compared to the period between August 2005 and July 2006, containing changes of short term leaves (one to fourteen days) as well as long term leaves (sixty days or more). Registered changes thus refer to the period of the Genklang run with the base value of the nearest preceding twelve month period (=100). Units Genklang 1 Genklang 2 Genklang 3 Genklang 4 Genklang 5 Genklang 6 Genklang (unit 1-6) Vara Municipality

Short Term Sick Leaves 150.0 190.0 51.3 127.0 99.7 81.5 106.0 118.7

Long Term Sick Leaves 100.0 62.6 35.9 58.8 301.9 75.5 62.9 105.7

Figure 9. Changes of short and long term sick leaves for the duration of the Genklang project (year 1) compared to the previous twelve month period

The statistics above show that the increase of short term sick leaves in units that fully participated in the Genklang Vara run were just a third of the average municipal increase. The Genklang units show considerable improvement of long term sick leaves while the municipality as a whole shows some degree of decline. We can also note that short term sick leaves declined in as many units as it improved while long term sick leaves improved in all units but one.

We see the development of the Genklang Vara units year two as follows: Units A B C D E F G H Genklang second year (Aâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;H) Vara Municipality

Short Term Sick Leaves -12 -24 -9 -16 170 -22 48 -7

Long Term Sick Leaves -71 -71 602 131 Nil previous year -100 34 Nil previous year

-8,9

16,6

-6,5

-3,6

Figure 10. Percent change of short and long term sick leaves the Genklang year two compared to the previous twelve months period.

Most workplaces that participated in the Genklang Vara project the second year also showed improved short term sick leave development compared to that of all municipal workplaces during the same period. Although the difference is not as large that of Genklang Vara the first year, it is clearer, and its value is estimated to about SEK 600,000 for the Vara Municipality. On the other hand, the changes of long term sick leaves indicate that they are probably due to other factors. We may also look at the development of workplaces that participated in the second Genklang Vara project previous to project launch, i e, parallel to the run of the first Genklang Vara. We may, correspondingly, also look at the sick leave development of the workplaces that participated in the first Genklang Vara project the year second to participation, i e, parallel to the run of the second Genklang Vara. Would this positive development prevail? Short term sick leave development the year prior to the Genklang Vara project Genklang Vara workplaces first year Genklang Vara Workplaces second year Vara Municipality all workplaces

Short term sick leave development the year subsequent to the Genklang Vara project 1,91

21,82 18,7

-6,5

Figure 11. Percent change of short term sick leaves for each year of the Genklang Vara project (six and eight workplaces respectively) in comparison with the total of Vara Municipality.

Here we see that the units, that through Genklang Vara second year showed more positive development than did Vara Municipality totally, also were worse off than Vara Municipality the year prior to the project. Moreover, we see that the workplaces, that participated in the first year, and then showed better development than Vara Municipality totally, were significantly worse off the year subsequent to the project, compared to Vara Municipality. The workplaces of Genklang Vara did not manage to maintain its positive development. Possible causes for this may be:

None of the workplaces managed to continue on/keep up with the line of action chosen (complete change is not achieved in one project year only but takes longer, and the relay race stick was handed over to the management/organization to take the process further). This development is an instance of the so called Hawthorne Effect (the everyday change that a project like Genklang Vara implies, with internal and external attention to the participating workplaces, gives a very positive impact that consequently vanishes when the project is terminated or becomes â&#x20AC;&#x153;normalâ&#x20AC;?)

Conclusions Changes of sick leave indicate that their short term decreased to a greater extent compared to Vara Municipality totally during the year of the AIRIS run. However, the change did not seem to leave permanent results subsequently to the project termination. Conclusions are uncertain, partly due to a limited number of observations, and also because sick leaves are probably subject of many causal factors.

Qualitative Results Phone interviews were performed with representatives of half the number of participating workplaces (about twelve) in AIRIS 2003–2006. We have consulted all participating workplaces; however, our selection was determined by those who responded. Every workplace we have contacted said they wanted to cooperate in the study. Workplaces that were involved in the Pilot Project are, however, not part of this study. The interviews featured questions about what one wanted to obtain by the project and the results achieved, what happened in the company after project termination, how the results are maintained, what position one takes today, and the effects AIRIS caused. What Did the Participation Achieve? Today, all workplaces we interviewed are very pleased with AIRIS. The objectives one say one entertained are consistent with the results one say one obtained. Many of the workplaces say that AIRIS had the following consequences: 

AIRIS united a group of coworkers or organised units, geographically or structurally separated. The project brought a sense of companionship and solidarity to the group. “AIRIS became an arena for encounters across boundaries, with social connections, within as well as without the workplace. We arrived at greater mutual understanding, and AIRIS meant a huge exchange of competence.”



AIRIS caused enhanced communication, within an organisation unit as well as between organization units.



AIRIS caused improved workplace climate.



AIRIS caused improved self-image among co-workers. Managers achieved knowledge about people and about their co-workers through the AIRIS project. “The Project made people grow. They coped better with the taxing challenges we faced during the years that followed.”



AIRIS caused co-workers to be more courageous and more open to new stuff, leading to greater conceptual “space” and a more open atmosphere. “If you do what you’ve always done you’ll get what you’ve always got. You have to look beyond the predictable.” “Following norms seldom lead to the high-quality solutions that would generate innovation. Instead, it is what you dare to do square to what is expected.”



AIRIS caused workplaces to adopt a broader perspective on their own business. AIRIS made the staff begin to challenge structures and patterns that proved less meaningful.

”AIRIS shakes your normal everyday routines; you’ll have to step out of your own problems and view matters in a new way.” Some of the workplaces talk about the implications of the project for the staff as a kind of mental maintenance; for example, the pros and cons of the nonexistent demand for “concrete results” in the project. This characteristic of the project; getting into something so open and liberating and being allowed to seize the moment, was described as a challenge both for the individual and the organisation. Other long term effects are more difficult to captivate. This is partly because AIRIS has often been a component in a development process parallel or sequential to other projects, and partly because the workplaces have undergone major and minor changes subsequently to AIRIS that it is today hard to say something other than that most people agree that AIRIS made a positive contribution to the development that did happen. From Skådebanan we received the estimated PR value of some of the workplaces, and one value assessment of the effects that the AIRIS project left them: PR Value according to Skådebanan’s Assessment SCA, Lilla Edet 4 minutes Swedish National Televised News 2007/04/11, corresponding to app SEK 6.5 million (estimate based on the cost of TV commercials at TV4 and Dagens Industri’s estimates of editorial material). AstraZeneca, Mölndal million

17 press clips, corresponding value app SEK 8 (based on Dagens Industri’s estimates of editorial material)

ABB Kabeldon, Alingsås

20 minutes at Swedish National Television Kobra corresponding to about SEK 10 Million; Goteborg’s Culture Party in a major paper Göteborgs-Posten, corresponding to SEK 0.5 Million. Other press clips in magazines corresponding to SEK 1 Million; in total about SEK 11.5 Million.

Housing Company Bostadsbolaget’s Estimations A SEK 200,000 AIRIS run produced the following yield distributed onto about 80 individuals: • Reduced health expenses about SEK 1.3 million distributed over 2 years. • The Satisfied Customer Index raised 10 % and Bostadsbolaget now topping the group. • The Satisfied Co-worker Index raised 16 %. • Media value estimated to about SEK 1.5 million. Total value for Bostadsbolaget: about SEK 5 million.

Conclusions Significant trends of the Quantitative Study speak of “seeing new people and getting broader perspectives on work”, and “breaking conventional patterns”. These phrases may be viewed as corresponding to characteristics often ascribed to artists, that is, the capability of working with alternative views and working with the unpredictable. The trends of the quantitative material also speak of “reduced resistance to change”, and “a good boss sees new possibility and adapts his business accordingly”. Such trends signal increased inclination to change, openness towards new things, both directly (less resistance) and indirectly (seizing new possibility). The supplementary qualitative material also repeats the experience, at various levels in the participating organisations, of increased cooperation and solidarity as well as a commonly enhanced working climate as a result of the AIRIS project. Artist

Capability to Work With the Unpredictable

Enhanced Cooperation

and Solidarity

Improved Working Climate

Capability to Work With Alternative Perspectives

Reduced Resistance to Change

Increased Inclination to Change

Figure 12. How a workplace is affected by an intervention based on art and culture

Here we may draw parallels to the discussion on Comfort Zones we have seen from other studies. There is certain reluctance among executives and co-workers to leave their comfort zone to test new approaches, or venturing to challenge dominant suppositions that govern decisions and actions.

Percieved to disturb or threaten existing dominant assumptions

Percieved to disturb and counteract contemporary work procedures

Percieved to support and solidify contemporary work procedures Comfort Zone

Percieved to support and solidify existing dominant assumptions

Figure 13. Managers and co-workersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; imprisonment in Comfort Zones (from Adler & Beer)

By the AIRIS project and the artists we could say that managers and co-workers at the participating workplaces received an impulse that forced them out of their comfort zones, or, in several cases, broadened them, possibly making larger space for change and innovation. According to Elmquist (2007), the processes of product development within large organisations are designed mainly for developing well defined products in an efficient way, and that innovative concepts have difficulties in impacting these processes. That leads to two problems; one, the assumption that the actors in the process possess enough knowledge to respond to the right signals; and two, that the organisations already have identified the opportunities and therefore are in a position to select among them. In order to develop innovation processes organisations need first, enhance their capability to absorb new knowledge through recognizing and understanding potentially valuable new knowledge, and second, develop new concepts and commercial innovations by actively experimenting and creating potentially valuable new knowledge. The integration between generative and absorptive processes is considered a fundamental dimension to enable both an efficient NPD (New Product Development) process and the development of more innovative products (ibid).

References Adler, N. (1999), Managing Complexity in Product Development – Three Approaches. EFI Stockholm School of Economics. Beer, M., Eisenstat, R. A. & Spector, B. (1990), The Critical Path to Corporate Renewal. Harvard Business School Press Beer, M. & Nohria, N. (2000), Breaking the Code of Change. Harvard Business School Press, Boston MA Ekvall, G. (1996), Organizational Climate for Creativity and Innovation European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 5(1): 105-123 Elmquist, Maria (2007) Enabling Innovation – Exploring the Prerequisites for Innovative Concepts in R&D, Chalmers tekniska högskola (Doctoral Thesis) Eriksson, M. & Sundgren, M. (2005), “Managing Change: Strategy or Serendipity – Reflections from the Merger of Astra and Zeneca”, Journal of Change Management, Vol 5 No 1: 15-28. Hatchuel, A. (2001), “The Two Pillars of New Management Research” British Journal of Management 12 (Special Issue): S33-S39. Hatchuel, A., Le Masson, P. & Weil, B. (2001). From R&D to R-I-D: Design Strategies and the Management th of "Innovation Fields". Paper presented at the EIASM 8 International Product Development Management Conference, Enschede, the Netherlands. Kylén, S. (1999). Interaktionsmönster i arbetsgrupper - offensiva och defensiva handlingsrutiner. Department of Psychology Göteborgs Universitet & FENIX Research Programme (Doctoral Thesis) Norrgren, F., Hart, H. & Schaller, J. (1996), Förändringsstrategiers effektivitet, CORE WP1996:3 Styhre, A. & Eriksson, M. (2007) Bring in the Art and Get the Creativity for Free – A Study of the Artists In Residence Project, Creativity and Innovation Management Sundgren, M. (2004). New thinking, Management Control & Instrumental Rationality - Managing Organizational Creativity in Pharmaceutical R&D. Gothenburg: Institute for Management of Innovation and Technology.