From Workplace to Playspace: Innovating, Learning and Changing Through Dynamic Engagement Author: Pamela Meyer
I have heard numerous reports of the ways people´s improvisation experience in the facilitated sessions spilled over into other areas of their lives. (Page xii)
What, I wondered, was actually happening for these people in this co-created space? And what, if anything, did their various stories of transformation have in common? What other spaces support this kind of engaged experience that delivers people to expanded creative capacities and new, more positive self-beliefs? (Page xii)
I was avoiding calling the space playspace for the very reason it had to be called that: the spaces we create that allow the play of possibilities, fresh ideas, perspectives, and emergence of new capacities as we play new roles are counter to our view of what the workplace is supposed to feel like. (Page xiv)
The organizations and the individual stories of transformation described in this book all have one thing in common: a shift in mind-set from workplace, in which the product is more important than the process, to playspace, where the lively, creative process of innovating, learning, and changing invites passionate commitment and enthusiastic participation (page xviii)
Playspace helps organizations get results. (Page xviii)
Responsive and innovative action is only possible where there is space for it –not constrained, routine, and habituated space but open, dynamic, and creative space. Playspace allows us to think creatively, question old assumptions, respond effectively to the unexpected, and engage all participants’ talents in collaboration (page xviii)
The idea that strategies that engage the whole person are soft, while those that target operational aspects of organizational life are worthwhile, overlooks the very core of organizational success –the living, breathing people who must fulfill its mission each day. (Page xix)
People do not challenge each other´s ideas, explore alternative scenarios, or persevere through complex issues and obstacles out of compliance; they do so out of commitment (senge, Roberts, Boss, Smith, Kleiner, 1994) (page xix)
Commitment is fostered by engagement, and engagement is fostered in playspace (page xix)
Organizational innovation, learning, and change also thrive when there is room for whole-person engagement (page xix)
While it is sometimes hard to draw a straight line between whole-person, whole-systems approaches to organizational development, we can link playspace to intrinsic motivation and engagement and, in turn these core dimensions to organizational success (page xx)
Playspace is most easily identified by the behaviors and experiences of those who co-create it; however those behaviors and experiences alone are not the playspace (page xxi)
Scholar-practitioners can locate playspace in holistic management approaches, where the organization is viewed as a complex social system (page xxi)
Social psychologist Karl Weick admonished that we “stamp out nouns” altogether and shift our conception from static organizations to human systems in a constant state of organizing (page 1)
Most of us have been socialized to devalue play altogether or to think of it as something we engage in after the zeros business of work has been accomplished. (Page 2)
Often is largely through play that we first develop our sense of ourselves, experiment with different roles, become socialized, build confidence, and explore our creativity. (Page 2)
Yet the obsession with learning outcomes and competition instills an orientation to activity as necessarily purposeful –one in which play for its own sake and for the intrinsic reward of engagement is son eclipsed by the need to demonstrate value. (Page 2-3)
When we praise someone´s work ethic, we are likely admiring her productivity, not her capacity for improvisation, creative collaboration, new learning, or ability to respond to change. (Page 3)
The legacy of the Protestant work ethic is a dualistic view of work that filters out information, emotions, and experience that are not immediately relevant to accomplishing the task at hand. (Page 3)
Not only does this playspace include apparent opposites, it thrives on them. Playspace can be free and structured, focused and dynamic, serious and fun. (Page 4)
When playspace is embraced as an organizational mind-set, there is, quite literally, play in the system. (Page 4)
There is also strong evidence that individuals and work teams are most successful when they have the flexibility to choose how to approach a problem or implement their plan (Zuckerman, Rorac, Lathin, Smith, & Deci, 1978) (page 5)
Shifting from a workplace to a playspace mind-set allows actors to become aware of what informs and motivates their performances, such as constraining self-concepts, beliefs, or habits, allowing them to discover those that are still serving them, and those that are limiting the possibilities for innovating, learning and changing (page 4)
Margaret Wheatley (2009) defines a leader as “anyone willing to help, anyone who sees something that needs to change and takes the first steps to influence that situation” (page 142) (page 7)
Playspace invites all organizational participants to identify and respond to leadership opportunities (page 4)
A facilitator is one who makes the creative process of innovating, learning, and changing easier (page 7)
Unless there is mindful cultivation of the space by all, there is little chance to create and sustain playspace where all are free to learn and grow, let alone collaborate and innovate (page 8)
Shifting from workplace to playspace means that the role of the participant is valued as much as that of the leader and facilitator (page 8) (and for a child that learns playspace would he be more inclined towards an egalitarian society if he sees everyone´s contribution as having the same value?)
Playful describes an engaged, embodied, and lighthearted state. Artists, inventors, and high-performance teams are playful with purpose (page 8)
Humor is a sign that there is room to experiment with unexpected combinations (page 8)
University of North Carolina psychology professor Barbara Frederickson (2001) theorizes that positive emotions broaden our access to our intellectual and creative capacities. (Page 8-9)
All efforts at deep change are efforts in improvisation; there is a commitment to an important purpose, but there is no prior knowledge of how to get there (Quote from Robert Quinn (2000 p.168)) (page 9)
Today managers must support collaboration like never before, and they must learn to improvise (page 10)
People in organizations are often jumping into action without clear plans, making up reasons as they proceed, discovering new routes once action is initiated, proposing multiple interpretations, navigating through discrepancies, combining disparate and incomplete materials and then discovering what their original purpose was. To pretend that improvisation is not happening in organizations is to not understand the nature of improvisation (Frank Barret (1998 p617)) (page 10-11)
The MFA is the New MBA… An arts degree is now perhaps the hottest credential in the world of business. (Daniel Pink (2006 p.21) page 11)
This capacity, when developed, consists of three key facets (improvisation capacity): competence, consciousness, and confidence. (page11)
Three Dimensions of Improvisation Capacity
The competence dimension –the ability to respond to the unexpected and unplanned using available resources –is core to innovating, learning, and changing, while consciousness is essential to see the innovative opportunities that emerge from the unexpected and unplanned or as old assumptions and habits are questioned. (Page 14)
In other words, in order to step into the unknown, and uncomfortable, risk looking foolish, and experiment with new ways of thinking and being, we need a playspace that will hold us. (Page 14)
Frequently the first response to organizational innovation, learning and change is resistance, either tacit or explicit, because each requires us to step out of our comfort zones, away from the familiar. Each also potentially threatens our well-developed personal and professional identities and challenges us to play new roles in which we may not feel as confident and competent. (Page 15)
To engage in any of these processes without consciously creating the playspace that both stretches and supports its leaders, facilitators, and participants is to ask individuals to unreasonably risk their emotional, psychological, financial, and even physical well-being (page 16)
Innovating cannot function without new learning. Similarly, the learning process cannot thrive without the spirit of discovery and openness to new perspectives and possibilities essential to innovating. Changing is also symbiotically connected to both the innovating and learning process; neither can come to life without a willingness to change. (Page 17)
Whatever an individual´s talents, domain expertise, and creative thinking skills, that individual´s social environment –the conditions under which he or she Works- can significantly increase or decrease the level of creativity produced. (Teresa Amabile (1996p17) page 19)
Most formal education and training, especially in organizations, do not make space for the play of new possibilities; it focuses on two types of learning: skills (know-how) and knowledge (know-what). Relative to together forms of learning, skills and knowledge are easier to organize, communicate, and measure. (´page 20)
Less attention and value are given to two additional types of learning that are harder to design but essential to the life and success for any dynamic organization: relational and transformative learning. (Page 20)
Even in the most cutting-edge sessions, I consistently see evaluations in which the chance to get to know colleagues outranks the content, facility, meals, and other bells and whistles of many such experiences (page 21)
In crafting a supportive context, it is critical to bear in mind that knowledge-intensive work is largely emergent. Instead of attempting to design for an unknown future with great precision, managers are advised to create a context that supports effective innovation and collaboration. (Cross and Parker 2004 p129)(Page 21)
As Peter Senge (1990) noted, “At the heart of the learning organization is a shift of mind from seeing ourselves as separate from the world to connected to the world, from seeing problems as caused by someone or something “out there” to seeing how our own actions create the problems we experience… A learning organization is a place where people are continually discovering how they create their reality… and how they can change it (p12-13) In this way , individual and organizational learning are relational; we become aware of and shift or expand our relationship to our familiar ways of thinking, being, and interacting. (Page 22-23)
As we enter the 21st century, organizations ´scarcest resource has become their dreamers, not their testers (Nancy Adler (2006 p493) page 25)
Playspace comes to life when the whole person is engaged and engages with awareness. In playspace, awareness extends beyond the cognitive (our thoughts and mental processes) and includes the entire scope of our experience, thoughts, feelings, sensations, sense of well-being, and intuition. (Page 26)
This is the embodied awareness, and through it we expand our capacity for and Access to the sources of creative inspiration, improvised action, significant learning, and capacity for changing (page 26)
It is highly possible that what is called talented behavior is simply a greater individual capacity for experiencing (Viola Spolin (1999, p3))
Such disembodiment can leave us numb to our gut feelings and insights and lead us to miss errors, as well as opportunities, and even abandon deeply held convictions. (Page 29)
At its essence, every organization is a product of how its members think and act. Once we become conscious of how we think and interact, and begin developing capacities to think and interact differently, we have already begun to change organizations for the better (Peter Senge, Charlotte Roberts, Richard B Boss, Bryan J. Smith, and Art Kleiner (1994, p.48)) (page 29)
Conversely, when people feel constrained in the workplace when they do not feel they will be accepted if they bring their authentic self to work, they censor out dimensions of their life that are significant and energize them, as well as their fresh perspectives and ideas, for fear they may not fit the perceived norms. (Page 30)
The consequences of such tacit non acceptance are significant and immeasurable. It is not possible to constrain the space in some ways and expect free-flowing creativity and engaged participation in others. (Page 30)
When people feel acknowledged, accepted, and treated with respect, their feelings of worth are enhanced, and the possibility that they will contribute actively to the work of the group is maximized. (Ernest Stringer (1999, p.34)) (Page 30)
As people experience increasing acceptance of themselves and freedom from judgment in playspace, they become increasingly accepting of their colleagues, diverse perspectives, provocative ideas, and an ever-changing work context. Acceptance and freedom from a climate of evaluation (at best) or surveillance (at worst) have been shown to have a significant impact on creative output and participation. (Amabile, Goldfarb, & Brackfield, 1990) (Page 30)
What we appreciate increases in value. Through growing awareness and acceptance, people naturally start appreciating. They begin to appreciate what they are experiencing and find value in their insights, as well as in the frustration and discomfort that come with innovating, learning, and changing. They appreciate their own and others ‘contributions and find ways to build on them. (Page 31)
Unlike acceptance, which is necessarily value free, appreciation is shamelessly value rich. (Page 31)
As people experience more acceptances, they come to appreciate themselves and others; as they experience appreciation, their ability to accept themselves and others increases. The play of these two dimensions of experience creates a wonderfully amplifying loop where people experience themselves at their best. (Page 31)
While the experience of playspace is described here in sequence, it most typically comes to life as each dimension reinforces the others in action. (Page 32)
Well before they could articulate the significant transformation and learning that they experienced, participants were enacting new, more dynamic, courageous, and engaged versions of themselves (page 32)
Playspace values both the insight and learning that translate into language, as well as those that are embedded in action itself and are played out in shifted self-concepts and new ways of thinking, perceiving, or being. When we value innovating, learning, and changing, we must make space for both their explicit and tacit dimensions and trust that they can come to life in the midst of engaged action. (Page 32-33)
Beginning with individual intuition, often bubbling up in the midst of action, organizational learning occurs as people play with and make sense of, or interpret, what they are doing, seeing, and experiencing. Only then can the intuition become integrated and finally institutionalized as a new innovation, learning, or change. (Page 33)
When thinking is disengaged from the whole person, knowledge is reduced to data and people are reduced to data processors. (Page 33)
Beginning with the embodied awareness invited in playspace, individuals become more attuned to all of the dimensions of their experience and forms of knowledge, tacit and explicit. (Page 33)
As individuals engage in playspace, they also expand their individual capacities for innovating, learning, and changing as they experience increasing awareness, acceptance, and appreciation of themselves, their colleagues, and their context in action. (Page 34)
Relational space values the way we relate to one another and acknowledges that we make meaning in relationship. The individual experience of awareness, acceptance, and appreciation in action also come to life in relational space (page 39)
I am linked therefore I am. (Kenneth Gergen (2002, p.110)) (Page 39)
Playspace is dynamic and relational, it is dynamic because it is relational (page 42)
We cannot separate individuals from the relational context within which they experience, make meaning, position themselves, observe, and are observed. The process of innovating is by its very nature relational, relying on the free exchange of ideas, encouragement, and provocation. (Page 43)
In a playspace some of the most significant learning, creative discoveries, and transformation emerge from the group´s shared experience. (Page 43)
This means that playspace is both local and relational: we create it in each interaction, conversation, and collaboration. (Page 44)
Many people can develop their emotional intelligence by simply slowing down enough to notice what they are feeling and how others are expressing themselves (page 45-46)
Cary Cherniss (1999) from Rutgers University compiled nineteen research studies showing that those who had, or developed, higher degrees of emotional/relational awareness were much more likely to be top performers, exceed sales goals, increase profits, and rise to leadership positions. (Page 46) (So this is providing significant skills to kids in Colombia)
  | ||||
The earliest social science studies linked our very sense of well-being to belonging and connectedness (Durkheim, 1997) Even more important than the number of people in one´s social network is the emotional state of those people. (Page 50)
Well-being is relationally based, and, not surprisingly, the health of organizations, as human systems, is also relationally based. (Page 50)
The risk of innovating, learning, and changing can be heightened or lowered in relational space. (Page 53)
I have seen how the “fear of looking stupid” in front of peers keeps individuals from exploring unfamiliar territory to build new skills and capacities. (Page 53)
 |
With this encouragement, they begin to experience themselves as increasingly spontaneous and creative, which generates more positive feedback. This relational learning cycle can be set in motion when there is space that allows the initial risk taking and experimentation (page 53)
Relational knowledge, unlike skills (know-how) and representational knowledge (know-what), cannot be transferred from person to person; the knowledge is embedded in the relationship itself. (Page 55) (Then each individual becomes valuable to the system, irreplaceable)
The brain is a social organ, innately designed to learn through shared experiences. (Louis Cozoline and Susan Sprokay (2006, p.11) page 55))
Transformative change is relational change. It calls us to change (or at least become aware of and reflect on) our relationship to our beliefs, ways of thinking, and habitual responses, as well as our role in the organizational system. (Page 56)
It is also in relationship that we are reflected back to ourselves through people´s responses to our presence, behavior, and ideas. Transformative change, then, includes a shift in our relational dynamic as well. (Then it already changes the structure of the system??) (Page 56)
To achieve our desired outcome, we must let go of control of the outcome (page 56)
Peter Senge (2003) “The fantasy that somehow organizations can change without personal change, and especially without change on the part of people in leadership positions, underlies many change efforts doomed from the start” (page 57)
For it is through patterns of discourse that we form relational bonds with one another; that we create, transform, and maintain structure; and that we reinforce or challenge our beliefs. (Frank Barret, Gail Thomas, and Susan Fann Hocevar (1995, p.353) (page 57)
The turning point from self-interest to community focus, or from “I” to “we”, happens when individuals realize that the two are linked. (Page 58)
When statements such as, “I am noticing…” or “I wonder…” become common practice, all are invited to attune to both the process and product of their collaborations, inquiries, and learning. (Page 66)
You have experienced generative space when you leave a meeting more excited about what is possible than when you arrived; you have experienced generative space if you find yourself settling back into your body with optimism, even in the midst of chaotic times; you have experienced generative space when you rediscover your sense of humor while exploring alternative perspectives; and you have experienced generative space when you become energized through your participation. (Page 71)
Cate Creede (2008) found that the most generative interactions “energize and enhance our sense of who we can be –as singular self or as a collective- and what we can do as a result” (page 32)(page 72)
An individual, team, or division that operates from a rigid framework, mental model, or belief system has difficulty accepting (collaborating with or being influenced by) others whose ways of thinking and awareness of their frameworks can be open to, influenced by, and creatively provoked by others, making for an evolving context in which all have the opportunity to transform and be transformed by and within the system. (Page 72)
The highest performers were those who served as energy hubs for others. An energy hub in a social network is someone whom others identify as energizing them when they collaborate. People seek out such attractors when they have fledging ideas of a new insight, or they are looking for a collaborator on a new venture. (Page 74)
Rate-Solutions and Google have created playspace by making room for the generous sharing of new ideas and by making the sharing playful and engaging. (Page 78)
Many organizational change initiatives fail not because of poor strategy, but because they have not attended to the capacities and space necessary for positive change to occur. (Page 80)
By fostering the generative capacity of aspects and participants in the system, organizations can support the success of both planned and unplanned experiences of changing. (Page 80)
Increasingly practitioners are employing approaches that engage the life, passion, and positive lived experiences of organizational members (appreciative inquiry) (page 80)
When leaders think of their role as the secretary of energy, like their government counterparts, they take responsibility for monitoring and supporting the development of new sources of energy. To play this role, they pay attention to the energy hubs and match people, projects, and passion. (Page 82)
If we are to break the deadly cycle of escalating violence –of strike and counter-strike, atrocity and enraged reaction- we must listen intently to what everybody, even our enemy, is saying, and be sincerely ready to let it change us; to get beyond the rhetoric, decode the imagery, and hear the subtext of rage, grief, fear, pain, hatred, and despair. (Karen Armstrong 2006) (Page 89)
By not speaking up, sharing your ideas, or playing out alternative possibilities, you may inadvertently be responsible for some of the degenerative space in your organization. (Page 91)
