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

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

2

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 value-

generating 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.

3

Table of Contents

Summary 2 Table of Content 3 AIRIS 4 Quantitative Results 5

Organizational Climate for Creativity and Change 5 Patterns of interaction in work groups 5 Creative vs Efficacy Logic 5 Project Effects and Contributions to Improving Indicators 6 Backdrop Variables 7 T Polls: Pre–Post 8 Correlations of Index–Post 9

Climate Index 9 Efficacy and Creativity Indexes 9 Defensive Index 9 Effect-1 and Effect-2 Indexes 10

Climate Index 11 Efficacy Logics Index 12 Creativity Logics Index 13 Defensive Action Patterns Index 14 Effect-1 and Effect-2 Indexes 15 Conclusions 17

Sick Leave Results 18 Conclusions 20

Qualitative Results 21 What Did the Participation Achieve? 21 PR Value According to Skådebanan’s assessment 22 Housing Company Bostadsbolaget’s Estimations 22

Conclusions 23 References 25

4

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

2 Genklang means Resonance.

5

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.

6

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 CREATIVE LOGICS

Aiming at minimising deviation from plan and budget Plan and budget are necessary; however, more

important are continual experimenting and the

accumulated result

Uncertainty to be minimised by rigorous planning Uncertainty perceived as a necessary condition for

developing new concepts and options

Complexity is best managed by breaking it down Complexity generates many overall views

Efficiency is achieved by functional specialisation and

minimised interdependence of workgroups

Boundary crossing meetings, combining competence

and perspective are necessary conditions for success

Decisions are based upon predetermined quantitative

economic data

Decisions are based upon the results of experimenting

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

7

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 70 %

Male 29 %

No information 1 %

Age

– 30 11 %

31 – 40 23 %

41 – 50 30 %

51 – 60 27 %

61 – 6 %

No information 3 %

Capacity

Manager 11 %

Worker 87 %

No information 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.

8

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).

Poll N MEAN STD SE

Q 1: Challenge Pre 553 5.6311 1.05873 .04502 Post 443 5.5824 1.13734 .05404 Q 2: Idea support Pre 554 5.0776 1.15496 .04907 Post 442 5.1335 1.09537 .05210 Q 3: Trust Pre 553 5.2333 1.24739 .05304 Post 443 5.1919 1.17928 .05603 Q 4: Freedom Pre 551 5.0708 1.13637 .04841 Post 441 5.0813 1.09408 .05198 Q 5: Playfulness Pre 547 5.1024 1.23759 .05292 Post 443 5.0726 1.20068 .05705 Q 6: Debate Pre 549 4.4062 1.25595 .05360 Post 444 4.4054 1.21969 .05788 Q 7: Risk Taking Pre 551 4.8276 1.03276 .04400 Post 439 4.7813 1.05878 .05053 Q 8: Dynamical Pre 551 4.7114 1.14027 .04858 Post 442 4.8054 1.20210 .05718 Q 9 :Conflict Pre 550 3.1891 1.48749 .06343 Post 444 3.3536 1.40740 .06679 Q 10: Idea Time Pre 548 3.8394 1.15829 .04848 Post 444 3.8514 1.15619 .05487 Q 11: Focused and Pre 550 5.3527 .87837 .03745 Effective Post 444 5.4302 .92719 .04400 Q 12: New Concepts Pre 549 4.4772 1.12452 .04799 Post 444 4.5360 1.03704 .04922 Q 13: New People Pre 550 3.9018 1.38078 .05888 Post 443 4.1174 1.39804 .06642 Q 14: Unconventional Pre 540 3.5167 1.17239 .05045 Post 436 3.6927 1.13949 .05457 Q15: Reflections Pre 550 4.1745 1.13340 .04833 Post 443 4.1219 1.10676 .05258 Q 16: Leaning From Pre 549 4.6612 1.06793 .04558 One Another Post 444 4.6081 1.13612 .05392 Q 19: Clear Planning Pre 549 5.1913 1.20591 .05147 Post 442 5.1290 1.25053 .05948 Q 20: Sticking to Plan Pre 543 4.9871 1.12413 .04824 Post 441 4.9569 1.07045 .05097 Q 21A: Manager Sticks Pre 539 4.8720 1.26003 .05427 To Plan Post 434 4.9747 1.18177 .05673 Q 21B: Manager Sees Pre 539 5.2263 1.19041 .05127 New options Post 437 5.0870 1.31914 .06310 Q 21C: Quantitative Pre 535 4.5159 1.46214 .06321 Economical Decisions Post 430 4.5535 1.40948 .06797 Q 21D: Testing of New Pre 538 4.1004 1.30647 .05633 Work Methods Post 436 4.0963 1.35269 .06478 Q 21Manager: Seeks To Pre 531 3.7043 1.38631 .06016 Minimise Uncertainty Post 430 3.6674 1.32700 .06399 Q 21F: Uncertainty As Pre 523 3.9178 1.30242 .05695 Possibility Post 425 3.9976 1.18461 .05746 Q 21G: Independent Pre 535 4.4916 1.33219 .05760 Workgroups Post 429 4.4079 1.32165 .06381

9

Q 21H: Clear Distribution Pre 519 4.3526 1.36452 .05990 Of Responsibility Post 423 4.3522 1.33004 .06467 Q 21I: Boundary Pre 539 4.8887 1.42816 .06152 Crossing Meetings Post 435 4.7816 1.43383 .06875 Q 22A: Resistance Pre 543 4.1713 2.38037 .10215 Post 438 3.8973 2.36603 .11305 Q 22B: Ego Expansion Pre 537 3.9516 2.10399 .09079 Post 436 3.7959 2.14253 .10261 Q 22C: Action Prior Pre 535 3.3645 2.15240 .09306 To Analysis Post 439 3.2711 2.09954 .10021 Q 22D: Tactics Pre 540 3.1296 2.36272 .10168 Post 438 3.3105 2.32279 .11099 Q 22E: Avoidance Pre 537 4.8603 2.25291 .09722 Post 437 4.7025 2.31733 .11085 Climate Pre 554 4.8502 .82538 .03507 Post 444 4.8539 .83027 .03940 Efficacy Pre 552 4.8332 .69113 .02942 Post 444 4.8372 .68723 .03261 Creativity Pre 552 4.3191 .70506 .03001 Post 444 4.3346 .74348 .03528 Defensive Pre 548 3.9009 1.65854 .07085 Post 443 3.7997 1.63480 .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.

10

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 Effective Creative Defensive Effect-1 Effect-2

Climate Pearson Correlation

1 .369(**) .675(**) -.614(**) ,217(**) -.124(**)

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .010 N 444 444 444 443 436 432 Efficacy Pearson

Correlation .369(**) 1 .461(**) -.229(**) .113(*) -.121(*)

Sig. (2-talied) .000 .000 .000 .018 .012 N 444 444 444 441 436 432 Creativity Pearson

Correlation .675(**) .000 1 -.384(**) .297(**) -.116(*)

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .016 N 444 444 444 443 436 432 Defensive Pearson

Correlation -.614(**) -.229(**) -.384(**) 1 -.100(*) .094

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .036 .050 N 443 443 443 443 436 432 Effect-1 Pearson

Correlation .217(**) .113(*) .297(**) -.100 1 -.627(**)

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .018 .000 .036 ,000 N 436 436 436 436 437 432 Effect-2 Pearson

Correlation -.124(**) -.121(*) -.116(*) .094 -.627(**) 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .00 .012 .016 .050 .000 N 432 432 432 432 432 433

** 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.

11

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 Climate

Pre Post Change

Std Std

Average Deviation Average Deviation (Post-Pre)

PR1 4.39315 1.090628 4.8 1.137927 0.406850395

PR2 4.128917 1.155459 4.281842 1.103937 0152924726

PR3 5.020174 1.115093 4.84207 0.97737 -0.178104026

PR4 4.240847 1.293271 4.075211 1.069594 -0.165635755

PR5 4.752632 1.230994 4.338739 1.135114 -0.413892512

PR6 4.383877 1.37143 4.136679 1.023521 -0.247197954

PR7 4.905 1.165611 4.642704 1.129312 -0.262295754

PR8 5.113618 0.928414 4.71707 1.08553 -0.396548018

PR9 4.273513 1.165967 4.369231 0.873227 0,095718187

PR10 3.945 1.256942 4.324265 1.221715 0.379264706

PR11 3.782172 0.895939 4.57 0.956798 0.787827663

PU1 4.870514 0.874079 4.743527 0.886806 -0.126987248

PU2 4.662382 1.06365 5.187864 1.062938 0.525482419

PU3 5.229166 0.741974 4.968494 0.949108 -0.260672431

PU4 4.522865 1.48285 4.81 1.138456 0.287134906

PU5 4.995411 1.234134 4.853556 1.179172 -0.141855422

PU6 4.944737 1.077758 4.571429 1.025272 -0.373307995

PU7 5.264595 1.007161 5.478655 0.815624 0.214060476

PU8 4.973415 0.900481 5.005882 1.132075 0.032467498

PU9 4.799277 0.906504 4.379338 1.044758 -0.419939217

PU10 5.39069 1.006554 5.40976 1.013739 0.019070213

PU11 4.169565 0.930356 4.255348 1.031992 0.08578261

PU12 4.945731 0.867987 4.73416 0.882713 -0.211570273

PU13 4.49476 1.37283 4.626041 1.375812 0.131281097

PU14 4.825118 0.830874 4.811023 1.177738 -0.014094434

PU15 5.406061 0.71206 5.4 0.993373 -0.006060606

PU16 4.425905 0.850319 4.457377 1.168921 0.031471178

PU17 5.221739 0.98667 4.489992 0.984209 -0.731747502

PU18 4.499617 1.005422 5.217155 0.890879 0.717537836

PU19 4.001487 1.279016 4.42759 0.931535 0.42610276

PU20 5.455 0.903649 5.304386 1.069702 -0.150614035

PU21 4.674964 1.170538 5.311438 1.022799 0.63647387

PU22 5.285714 0.9778 4.783333 0.969096 -0.502380952

PU23 4.701299 0.939515 4.696154 1.144728 -0.005144855

PU24 5.41042 0.926218 5.705 0.701171 0.294579832

PU25 3.480435 1.634027 3.857143 1.030273 0.376708075

Average PRIVATE Workplaces 4.448991 1.151795 4.463437 1.064913 0.014446514

Average PUBLIC Workplaces 4.826035 1.027297 4.859386 1.024916 0.033351112 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.

12

Efficacy Logics Index

Below are the polls of each of thirty-six workplaces included in the study. According to the

Efficacy Index Table, Pre–Post changes generally are minor.

Workplace Efficacy

Pre Post Change

Std Std

Average Deviation Average Deviation (Post-Pre)

PR1 4.590902 1.057071 4.828571 1.104401 0.237669904

PR2 4.518519 1.132043 4.434879 1.198681 -0.08363965

PR3 4.73892 1.356374 4.648166 1.039104 -0.09075376

PR4 4.483987 1.351157 4.277793 1.495893 -0.20619344

PR5 5.300752 1.222847 4.640507 0.931521 -0.66024492

PR6 4.86646 1.098992 4.318989 0.985525 -0.54747024

PR7 4.904135 1.023873 4.626053 1.120399 -0.27808217

PR8 4.738649 1.069989 4.598964 1.256155 -0.13968531

PR9 4.897708 1.189398 4.991592 1.137212 0.093884142

PR10 4.267126 1.298371 4.757878 1.107779 0.490752003

PR11 4.489708 1.12415 4.557143 0.93441 0.067435116

PU1 4.602286 0.870194 4.757368 0.745905 0.155081678

PU2 4.695174 0.962024 4.883228 1.113336 0.188054469

PU3 4.591417 0.878902 4.517259 0.930681 -0.07415806

PU4 4.414705 1.430307 5.1 1.250212 0.685295139

PU5 4.631154 1.339082 4.504861 1.262211 -0.12629278

PU6 4.470301 1.299934 4.252781 1.32343 -0.21751972

PU7 5.006616 1.111981 4.939421 1.102286 -0.0671956

PU8 4.828513 1.178661 5.285714 1.000077 0.457200822

PU9 4.844627 1.106093 4.457455 1.191227 -0.38717185

PU10 4.672659 1.484278 5.073056 1.151388 0.40039683

PU11 4.770186 1.025395 4.514459 1.175611 -0.25572692

PU12 4.266088 1.328545 4.288209 0.883448 0.022121031

PU13 4.748348 1.077512 4.942161 0.768067 0.193813023

PU14 4.154934 1.156731 4.440789 1.018695 0.28585474

PU15 4.961404 0.932557 4.775103 1.137445 -0.18630005

PU16 4.578818 0.772342 4.628773 0.916484 0.049954682

PU17 5.049689 0.891177 4.581518 1.086303 -0.46817192

PU18 4.382276 1.146133 4.580657 1.03108 0.198380982

PU19 4.701533 1.504206 4.66149 1.14066 -0.0400439

PU20 5.470301 1.220075 5.298835 1.296228 -0.17146543

PU21 4.552068 1.143138 5.108043 0.98837 0.555975612

PU22 4.489796 1.313265 4.285714 1.11971 -0.20408163

PU23 4.801793 1.056777 4.771868 1.029351 -0.02992531

PU24 5.26652 1.074686 5.327444 1.062769 0.060924098

PU25 4.301013 1.461546 4.397959 1.261338 0.096946559

Average PRIVATE Workplaces 4.708806 1.174933 4.607321 1.119189 -0.10148439

Average PUBLIC Workplaces 4.690089 1.150622 4.734967 1.079452 0.04487786 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.

13

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 Creative Logics

Pre Post Change

Std Std

Average Deviation Average Deviation (Post–Pre)

PR1 4.001553 1.30249 4.133333 1.313112 0.131779951

PR2 3.782368 1.242158 3.889766 1.287262 0.107398244

PR3 4.278713 1.346802 4.153407 1.119485 -0.125306274

PR4 3.635791 1.273988 3.643734 1.445613 0.007942995

PR5 4.37037 1.325273 4.038025 1.038887 -0.332345262

PR6 4.021739 1.209623 3.770064 1.069197 -0.251674927

PR7 4.268194 1.211279 4.312819 1.167822 0.044625422

PR8 4.566303 1.112897 4.184211 1.199217 -0.382092375

PR9 3.956878 1.096412 3.881766 1.039231 -0.075111701

PR10 3.637509 1.320548 4.026144 1.436264 0.388634713

PR11 3.735435 1.118527 4.077778 1.18477 0.342342318

PU1 4.240675 0.928908 4.360147 0.889914 0.119472691

PU2 3.95719 0.959047 4.588542 0.947736 0.631351785

PU3 4.394254 1.051055 3.95237 0.979687 -0.441883918

PU4 4.080371 1.267525 5.044444 1.123778 0.964073496

PU5 4.242111 1.117019 3.799066 1.420808 -0.443045104

PU6 4.638596 0.971058 4.165578 1.336338 -0.473018035

PU7 4.566467 1.11628 4.901488 1.172396 0.335021241

PU8 4.204344 0.902482 4.474673 1.075171 0.270329197

PU9 4.491863 1.165024 4.105987 1.304227 -0.385875518

PU10 4.294484 1.095251 4.551539 1.153333 0.257055031

PU11 3.826087 1.062485 3.957574 1.004737 0.131486694

PU12 4.342983 1.057933 4.319253 0.865766 -0.023729822

PU13 3.88824 1.197771 4.243004 1.166129 0.354764087

PU14 4.2838 0.909186 4.338208 1.040706 0.054408334

PU15 4.62381 0.915199 4.675444 0.904459 0.051633987

PU16 3.961437 0.984234 4.146532 1.360911 0.185094588

PU17 4.676329 1.092369 4.09077 1.10181 -0.585558544

PU18 4.014339 1.024935 4.553694 0.843506 0.539354975

PU19 3.818483 1.360789 3.818813 1.155665 0.000330513

PU20 5.072807 1.110426 4.948506 0.97479 -0.124301494

PU21 4.295668 1.225784 4.687259 1.0638 0.391591099

PU22 4.174603 1.016178 4.092593 0.959195 -0.082010582

PU23 4.116162 1.079242 4.051111 1.019762 -0.065050505

PU24 4.807362 0.938435 4.949708 0.93253 0.142345466

PU25 3,450373 1,61506 3,52381 1,203922 0,073436748

Average PRIVATE Workplaces

4.023169 1.232727 4.010095 1.209169 -0.013073354

Average PUBLIC Workplaces 4.258513 1.086547 4.333605 1.080043 0.075091056

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.

14

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 one’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 Pre–Post generally are minor; however, one question shows a

significant change.

Workplace Defensive Action

Pre Post Change

Std Std

Average Deviation Average Deviation (Post-Pre)

PR1 4.296002 2.118531 4.026667 2.169609 -0.269335394

PR2 4.234667 2.204394 4.010526 2.21679 -0.224140351

PR3 2.940312 1.765412 2.680406 1.839103 -0.259905907

PR4 5.33395 2.196699 4.555861 1.867911 -0.778089816

PR5 4.357895 2.310711 4.14285 1.757893 -0.215044283

PR6 5.058333 2.620673 4.428625 2.488585 -0.629708538

PR7 4.28 2.534579 4.258057 2.129718 -0.021942574

PR8 3.929149 1.971385 4.694737 2.020509 0.765587914

PR9 4.618383 2.655336 4.284615 1.947933 -0.33376722

PR10 5.665789 2.08476 4.364706 2.227642 -1.301083591

PR11 5.018097 2.219563 3.871111 2.234414 -1.146986

PU1 3.246724 1.653651 3.467631 2.097065 0.220906586

PU2 2.682868 1.940084 2.37497 1.846532 -0.307898458

PU3 2.801408 1.892877 3.034063 2.037672 0.232654374

PU4 3.865694 2.062016 4.22 2.450099 0.354306361

PU5 2.648243 1.667564 3.147677 1.808902 0.499433528

PU6 3.88 1.972291 4.111189 2.242533 0.231188563

PU7 3.76888 2.369079 2.734591 1.432418 -1.034288872

PU8 2.936986 1.788536 3.270588 2.17469 0.333602251

PU9 3.246574 1.683065 4.212091 2.091025 0.965516695

PU10 2.386973 1.48027 2.322356 1.253815 -0.064616846

PU11 5.12253 2.005874 4.532737 2.082715 -0.589792482

PU12 3.292637 2.038849 4.010554 1.732697 0.717916589

PU13 4.149782 2.589678 3.376132 2.639888 -0.773649799

PU14 3.455414 1.797329 4.031536 2.302318 0.576122665

PU15 2.761905 1.490958 3.666667 2.364063 0.904761905

PU16 4.140223 1.685019 3.381665 2.885474 -0.758557438

PU17 3.504348 1.868771 3.999617 1.926188 0.495269569

PU18 3.933577 2.212051 2.437991 1.723623 -1.49558561

PU19 3.875446 2.174722 3.676388 1.965912 -0.19905855

PU20 4.1 2.308727 3.531871 2.22285 -0.568128655

PU21 3.296401 2.280376 2.950101 2.544558 -0.346300549

PU22 2.885714 1.596425 3.733333 2.443077 0.847619048

PU23 3.581385 1.852097 3.320308 2.032204 -0.261077589

PU24 3.022584 1.802141 2.607368 1.514462 -0.415215613

15

PU25 5.239526 2.576708 4.542857 2.543795 -0.696668549

Average PRIVATE Workplaces 4.521143 2.243822 4.119833 2.081828 -0.401310524

Average PUBLIC Workplaces 3.513033 1.951566 3.467771 2.094343 -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 Effect-1

Post Post

Std Std Average Deviation Average Deviation

PR1 2.175137 0.667275053 2.641026 0.49770794

PR2 1.960197 0.625698699 2.900877 0.39379674

PR3 2.142196 0.898719049 2.433595 0.58756529

PR4 1.644375 0.704797502 2.697962 0.36920841

PR5 1.438868 0.770471241 2.769791 0.69044197

PR6 1.732039 0.655465434 2.770141 0.52243935

PR7 1.43693 0.557908077 2.900939 0.35572469

PR8 2.059211 0.742484685 2.736842 0.45902241

PR9 2.409455 0.665002832 2.411616 0.41534547

PR10 1.742188 0.711134905 2.770833 0.45222601

PR11 2.120536 0.64010185 2.619048 0.48233648

PU1 2.094573 0.794021375 2.546396 0.53327426

PU2 2.002519 0.794376115 2.497631 0.43028123

PU3 1.635193 0.560816552 2.615863 0.2580973

PU4 2.143056 0.643342786 2.566667 0.48836036

PU5 1.802268 0.805397943 2.53009 0.64671285

PU6 2.010649 0.76888288 2.609936 0.74366457

PU7 2.440022 0.678332813 2.350502 0.49228712

PU8 1.878156 0.797094155 2.973389 0.66334468

PU9 1.98401 0.757041335 2.529087 0.49205724

PU10 1.630658 0.787170481 2.536794 0.42056449

PU11 1.303796 0.481386435 2.746783 0.68747071

PU12 1.760458 0.585434055 2.742939 0.17213259

PU13 1.855497 0.632654386 2.643526 0.22222222

PU14 1.812174 0.757826968 2.65095 0.53944611

PU15 2.158208 0.736984382 2.592105 0.42688479

PU16 2.102595 1.025745754 2.499769 0.69716312

PU17 2.050175 0.693205689 2.397705 0.47787926

PU18 2.405918 0.704012556 2.425473 0.49132385

PU19 1.974988 0.663974242 2.641997 0.54050248

PU20 2.194079 0.731368772 2.581546 0.76183089

PU21 2.145821 1.012062793 2.551663 0.57735027

PU22 2.0625 0.737733013 2.666667 0.82724922

PU23 1.226852 0.522909363 3.098765 0.4078334

PU24 2.23125 0.560167339 2.7 0.33325942

PU25 2.134524 0.607571353 2.809524 0.41462633

Average PRIVATE Workplaces 1.896466 0.694459939 2.695697 0.47507407

Average PUBLIC Workplaces 1.961598 0.713580541 2.620231 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.

16

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).

17

Conclusions

Assembled qualitative data was statistically processed in order to identify significant changes and

correlations. There are two significant pre–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 one’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 co-

workers 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.

18

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 Short Term Sick Leaves Long Term Sick Leaves

Genklang 1 150.0 100.0

Genklang 2 190.0 62.6

Genklang 3 51.3 35.9

Genklang 4 127.0 58.8

Genklang 5 99.7 301.9

Genklang 6 81.5 75.5

Genklang (unit 1-6) 106.0 62.9

Vara Municipality 118.7 105.7 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.

19

We see the development of the Genklang Vara units year two as follows:

Units Short Term Sick Leaves Long Term Sick Leaves

A -12 -71

B -24 -71

C -9 602

D -16 131

E 170 Nil previous year

F -22 -100

G 48 34

H -7 Nil previous year

Genklang

second year

(A–H) -8,9 16,6

Vara

Municipality -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

Short term sick leave

development the year sub-

sequent to the Genklang Vara

project

Genklang Vara work-

places first year

1,91

Genklang Vara Work-

places second year 21,82

Vara Municipality all

workplaces 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:

20

- 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 “normal”)

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.

21

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.

22

”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 17 press clips, corresponding value app SEK 8

million (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.

23

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.

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

Artist

Capability to Work With

the Unpredictable

Capability to Work With

Alternative Perspectives

Enhanced Cooperation

and Solidarity

Improved

Working Climate

Reduced Resistance to

Change

Increased

Inclination to

Change

24

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.

Figure 13. Managers and co-workers’ 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 Develop-

ment) process and the development of more innovative products (ibid).

Percieved to support and

solidify existing

dominant assumptions

Percieved to disturb or

threaten existing

dominant assumptions

Percieved to

support and solidify

contemporary work

procedures

Percieved to disturb

and counteract

contemporary work

procedures

Comfort Zone

25

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 of "Innovation Fields". Paper presented at the EIASM 8

th 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.