Some recent articles on the importantce of play at work

Posted on 2013-04-01 by Samuel West

During my semi-regular sloppy search for interesting articles on play at work I found three recent news articles about play. Could this be the beginning of a play revolution?

The Globe and Mail (Canada): a short article that describes how we as adults feel the need to justify everything we do in terms of them being instrumental or beneficial in some way “… our days are spent in utilitarian tasks, dominated by instrumental thinking – doing one thing for the sake of something else, which is in turn done for something else.  [Whereas] in its pure form, play has no external purpose or reward. We play just to play.”

CNN’s article Goofing off on company time? Go for it  is about how innovation driven companies want to get their oftern young talents to play more, but that it is ends up being a question of getting senior management to be the first to lean into play. ” It up to management to change that perception [that it is wrong to play at work.] One manager says “It has been a problem for many employees because they may feel that the idea ‘play’ is just given lip service by management. Knowing it’s required is the only way this works. And the only way this happens is for senior staff to lead by example. Top down. If you have a ping-pong table, but don’t play, your … employees will not play.”

CIO magazine interviewed Stuart Brown for the article How Play at Work Can Lead to IT Innovation. Here are the first two points:

What is play, compared to brainstorming or innovating?
Play is directed by the player and you’re not anxious or grinding toward some outcome. There’s improvisation potential and it takes you out of time and gives pleasure. It might feel purposeless. Getting into that state opens up a lot of avenues for innovation and creativity, but incorporating play in the workplace is not always easy. It often seems antithetical to productivity and responsibility.
Why should we play at the office?
There’s a sense of exploration, a search for novelty, an engagement. From these outcomes, you see increased mastery and skill, increased perseverance and lots of good byproducts–preparation for the unexpected and flexibility and adaptability when something unforeseen heads your way.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments Off

How Play and Games Transform the Culture of Work

Posted on 2013-02-18 by Samuel West

I just read a great article and want to share! This post consists of exerts from an interview with Ross Smith, (Microsoft Corporation) in recent article in The American Journal or Play

How can games build trust and inspire innovation?
The ability to innovate is a key component of successful companies; innovation requires experimentation and risk taking; and creating a cul- ture of risk taking is difficult. It is insufficient to encourage or command employees to take risks. Organizational culture must support employees who experiment. Many organizations claim they want employees to take risks, but performance-evaluation systems reward only success—or even worse—penalize and punish employees who experiment, fail, and learn. Risk taking and other behaviors that support innovation—freedom to fail, willingness to collaborate, and experimentation—all require significant organizational trust.

So game play is key to building trust, and trust is key to inspiring innovation?

Yes. In his classic work Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture, Johan Huizinga calls play “a free activity standing quite consciously outside ‘ordinary’ life as being ‘not serious’, but at the same time absorbing the player intensively and utterly” (p. 38). Using productivity games and play in the workplace is a successful technique to build organizational trust and, by extension, create a culture of innovation. Game play can provide structure and rules to support experimentation, risk taking, and failure. It’s hard to fail at work, but it’s culturally acceptable to lose the game. In Man, Play, and Games, Roger Caillois says that “play is essentially a separate occupation, carefully isolated from the rest of life, and generally is engaged within precise limits of time and place. There is a place for play: as needs dictate, the space for hopscotch, the board for checkers or chess, the sta- dium, the racetrack, the list, the ring, the stage, the arena, etc. Nothing that takes place outside this ideal frontier is relevant” (p. 6).

The “place for play”—or magic circle as some people call it—for members of an organization is a place to learn trust-building behaviors. Experimenting with new ways of working is acceptable within a game—in a place for play. If things don’t go well, the game is, as Huizinga suggests, outside ordinary life and not serious. Games offer a framework to support risk taking and experimentation, and in a game, someone can learn new skills by trying them out on their own. If they fail, well . . . OK, they lost the game, but there was no long-term impact, no risk to their careers. They just played a game. If I’m a computer programmer, I probably won’t ask my manager for permission to take a class in marketing, even if that’s my passion. I might spend hours in my spare time making marketing videos and showing them to no one, or posting them anonymously on YouTube. However, if you put together a game for the best ad campaign submission, I might be the top contributor.

Can you give us other instances where games are better than other means for using employee skills?
Yes, there are two workplace scenarios where games are, in my opinion, better than other techniques. The first is in areas where employees can develop or expand skills that help with regular work. The second is in areas such as organizational citizenship where new skills might help the team but are not part of the regular job. By adding games and game elements, we can make both types of training more attractive and more rewarding, thereby encouraging and attracting effort.

Are there other ways in which games solve problems better or more effi- ciently than traditional management methods?
Games are excellent at attracting volunteer effort—encouraging organi- zational-citizenship behaviors (OCBs). OCBs are best thought of as going above and beyond the call of duty—things individuals can do to help the organization be a better place. A simple example is cleaning the coffee pot before people leave for the day. It’s a task that helps the organization— makes a better workplace—but requires some effort from someone. From a game-theory perspective, there’s a condition known as the volunteer’s dilemma—where any single individual can offer personal time to solve a problem or anyone can take a free ride. Everyone benefits from anyone’s willingness to volunteer, so using game mechanics to invite participation solves the issue and improves the quality of life in the organization while— most importantly—making everyone feel good about it. Games and game mechanics motivate players to make an effort towards a goal, and the orga- nization benefits.
As I mentioned earlier, we have learned that games are also incredibly successful at encouraging risk taking. The rules of the game are different from the rules of the organization. The stakes in a game are much lower than those in the workplace. Games are by definition voluntary, so whether players decide to take risks in the game or not doesn’t matter in the context of work. People are less fearful of losing (or not winning) a game than they are of failing at work.

What impact do games have at work—for example, do they create greater uniformity, or do they expand creativity?
I believe they expand creativity. Just as play helps kids pretend, experiment, and learn skills they will use later in life, games in the workplace help build a culture that is ripe for creativity and innovation. Again, I think it comes down to risk taking and a freedom to fail, which games and play facilitate. In 1996 about six years after he published his famous book on flow, Hungarian psychology professor Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi wrote a book on creativity. In it, he talks about the influence of environment on creative capacities and how many cultures—from the Chinese sages to the Hindu Brahmins to the Christian monks—sought out places of natural beauty in which to create. He goes on to talk about the influence of the macroenvironment—the broader context in which people work—ancient Athens, the Arab cities of the tenth century, Florence in the Renaissance, Venice in the fifteenth century, and so on. Obviously, we don’t operate at that level, but I’d like to believe that the spirit of freedom, fun, and whimsy surrounding our application of productivity games contributes to a creative atmosphere.

You said earlier that low-trust work environments discourage risk taking and innovation. Are there similar costs in a play-deprived environment?
The costs of a play-deprived environment are challenging to identify. We have data on cost savings resulting from introducing games and play into some of our business processes, but I don’t know if we could assume our experience would transfer to all environments. There are certain areas where games work well, and so depriving those areas of play and games could result in missed savings. An area that’s easy to quantify is employee morale and retention. On teams that encourage play and games, people generally enjoy their work more. Csikszentmihalyi’s concept of flow—a state where people move so deeply into their task that nothing else seems to matter—is more likely when play is present. People do better work when they are happy, engaged, and motivated, and play and games can increase the likelihood that people enjoy their work.

So, then, you equate the play-averse workplace with the risk-averse work-place?
For two reasons, yes. First, since play is typically unstructured and optional, a workplace willing to entertain the idea of play is, by default, willing to take risks. Just being open to the introduction of play at work implies a tolerance for risk. Second, and most importantly, play can provide a loose structure for experimentation and risk taking, so an organization that is averse to play, games, or fun does not offer the flexibility of outcome or tolerance for imperfect results. An organization that is amenable to play is likely to be a high-trust organization willing to show tolerance for experimentation and for provisional and imperfect results and, therefore, have creative behavior and innovative breakthroughs.

Finally, what is your fondest hope for the future use of play and games in the workplace? How would you like to see play and work grow to more closely resemble each other?
I believe productivity games will be viewed as a business process—a twenty-first-century business management strategy—and applied widely across a variety of industries. We’ve already seen more companies start to pilot the use of game mechanics as part of their work, and with the success of social games, it’s only natural that games and play will perme- ate the workplace over the next few years. There are distinct areas where games work tremendously well in the modern organization, and there’s an opportunity for everyone to start experimenting. The future world of work will be a better place by incorporating play and games as part of the daily experience.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

A great quote about how creativity happens

Posted on 2013-01-25 by Samuel West

“There’s a temptation in our networked age to think that ideas can be developed by email and iChat. That’s crazy. Creativity comes from spontaneous meetings, from random discussions. You run into someone, you ask what they’re doing, you say ‘wow,’ and soon you’re cooking up all sorts of ideas.”
- Steve Jobs

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Lek på jobbet

Posted on 2012-11-09 by Samuel West

I likhet med tidigare studier på barn och hur lek främjar deras kreativa prestationer har forskare undersökt hur lek påverkar vuxnas kreativitet. Ett exempel på detta är ett experiment som visade hur ett energiskt dataspel där spelare tävlar i dans förbättrade kreativiteten hos unga vuxna. Ytterliggare studier har visat att olika rollspels- och improvisationslekar leder till ökad kreativiteten hos medarbetare.

En annan studie om hur en lekfull inställningen påverkar vår arbetsprestation undersökte hur presentationen av en arbetsuppgift påverkar hur den utförs. Presenterades en utmanande arbetsuppgift som “arbete” fokuserade försökspersonerna på att göra sakerna rätt, på kvantitet och var måna om att jämföra sig med andra i gruppen. Presenterades samma uppgift som “lek” blev deltagarna mer motiverade, fokuserade mer på kvalitet och gjorde mycket mer kreativa arbeten. Så själva inramningen av aktiviteten som lekfull eller som arbete påverkar inte bara kreativiteten, men också arbetskvaliteten och arbetsglädjen under tiden.

Att bara föreställa sig själv som barn verkar aktivera vår lekfullhet och öka kreativiten. I en mycket intressant studie bad forskare sina vuxna studiedeltagare att skriva en berättelse om vad de skulle hitta på om skolan/arbetet var inställd i dag. En grupp fick dock instruktioner att de skulle föreställa sig att de var sju år gammal. Efter skrivuppgiften fick de göra kreativitstester. De personer som hade föreställt sig som sjuåring under skrivuppgiften blev mer kreativa än de som skrev som vanligt. Forskarna tror att processen att tänka på sig själv som ett barn, även under en kortare tid främjar en lekfullt, utforskande och ett kreativt tankesätt.

När det gäller lärande som vuxen så finns det också stöd för att även här hjälper det om man har leksinnet kvar i vuxen ålder. Studier som har tittat närmare på lekfullhet hos vuxna har kommit fram till att en lekfull personlighet leder till bättre skolprestationer hos universitetsstudenter, samt det finns ett starkt samband mellan en lekfull personlighet och psykologisk hälsa och välbefinnande.

Lek och kreativitet
Ett område där lekfullhet verkligen kan tillföra något till arbetslivet är när den används för att främja kreativiteten hos medarbetarna. Genom lek skapas en miljö där nya beteenden kan utformas och testas utan att hotas av kritikens hinder. Du har säkert sett bilder eller reportage från något coolt företag där medarbetarna spelar basket eller pingis på arbetstid eller där kontoren ser ut som en lekplats. Syftet med att föra in leken är först och främst för att släppa loss medarbetarnas kreativitet, att få dem att experimentera och tänka i nya banor.

Idén om att lek främjar kreativitet är inte all ny. Sigmund Freud tyckte att källan till all kreativitet fanns i leken, och hans efterföljare Winnicott ansåg att leken äger rum i gränszonen mellan personens inre värld och den externa verkligheten och att leken därför var central för kreativiteten. I sin omfattande genomgång av forskningen om sambandet mellan lek på jobbet och kreativitet drar forskarna Mainemelis & Ronson 1 slutsatsen att det är i leken som kreativiteten föds.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off

Posted on 2012-10-15 by Samuel West

The following is a summary of my most recent study. The author is innovation consultant Claudia Suraga who is better presented here: www.claudiasuraga.se

PERMISSON TO PLAY

Few people familiar with corporate innovation are unaware of Google’s 20% rule. It states that one fifth of the time of the work week can and, in fact, should, be devoted to the development of new ideas. These should be aligned with what one believes would be of value for Google Inc, and has rendered the company not only a reputation of being one of the best at innovation; it has also set free the mind of the company’s coworkers. At a closer glance, this might seem a little peculiar. Is that all it takes? Some free time to do whatever you deem Google-fit, and then innovation will show its creative face?

Now there might be (and most probably is) a lot more to it in terms of culture and a history of innovations; perhaps a strategy, a feeling originating from the founders, a common corporate mindset, and all that other very important stuff that would make business and creativity researchers spend decades trying to capture the essence of what makes Google tick. But if we drop all that for a sec, and only focus on those famous 20%; that narrow scope alone gives us a clue of what innovation is all about.

“This is also where Google’s “20% time” comes in — if you want innovation, it’s critical that people are able to work on ideas that are unapproved and generally thought to be stupid. The real value of “20%” is not the time, but rather the “license” it gives to work on things that “aren’t important”. ”

Paul Buchheit, creator and lead developer of gmail
The creator of gmail clearly and distinctively catches the very soul of the 20% – it’s about freedom, and the license, or permission. Now how about that? Strange it seems, to be given freedom, as if this was something taken from us as we enter into our professional roles. If this is the case, who is taking it?

The blunt and somewhat annoying answer is: we are. Concentrating on getting things done, it seems, has left us efficient and executive, but limited our capacity for innovation. With the 20%, we are given back something that originally belongs to us. Used properly, this is the thing that is of most value to the corporations we join: our free spirit, our independent thinking, and the capacity to create. The permission of the 20% reminds us of this; it reinstates the full space needed for us to unfold our potential, and gives us the humble opportunity to be ourselves, our full selves.

Samuel West, creativity researcher at the psychology department at Lund University in Sweden, has included this phenomenon in his latest article on the relevance and importance of play at work, studying play as facilitator of workplace creativity. Permission to play, in his work, is one of four encouragers for creativity in the workplace; the other three being Setting an Example, Structure and Matching (the latter referring to tuning in adequately to the group to set an appropriate level for the play). An interesting observation, penetrating the core of the Google reference, is the one he makes about Structure, in which he quotes one of the interview respondents of the study as follows:

The structure of the game allows the participants to feel safe in that they know what to do and what to expect, however once they have gotten started, they start to ignore the rules and create new ones.

As our more creative ideas silently linger on the side of to do-lists of daily operations, like the forgotten children of priority, they never really get the chance to show their true selves. A permission to create, to innovate, to play, is their cue; a chance to rise to their potential, show us what they’ve got. Usually, this neglected side of us doesn’t get much room to play; no time, and no space. It gets lost and forgotten, which is why permission is a form of revival button. As we push it, something happens. Mildly at first, we try out this new territory, once so familiar to our younger selves, now a stranger. But as we get reacquainted, and the structure that West has brilliantly grasped the quintessence of, starts its supporting; we regain confidence. And at one magic point, we transcend into a state where structure changes from support function, to milestone function. It is no longer used to hold us up, it is used to let us go farther, to let go of the rules and to break, remodel and ignore them.

This process, as West is quick to point out, can be triggered only if the level of play is matched with the character of the participants. Responsiveness to guidance from management or a consultant, the preferred rationality in the play, and the level of “crazy”, should be carefully considered and monitored. A well- prepared session can elevate the group to wonderful levels as quickly as an ill-prepared can seriously backfire and significantly delay the positive effects. The ‘cure’ for this, or at least the accelerator to get things started, is the modeling of senior management of wanted behavior, setting an example, signaling that play is OK.

Hard core number crunchers may raise their eyebrows in sheer confusion of what this play thing has to do with business. How about business value and the effect on bottom line results? Legitimate questions, especially when we are dealing with multibillion dollar conglomerates whose sole existence depend on the crude market forces of demand and supply. Play? What for? This is serious stuff that we are dealing with, there’s no room for play here. Right?

Not so fast. A dear friend of mine, professor Alf Rehn, means it’s all relative. He claims that the matters of fun, seriousness and business can be viewed differently depending on how we attach meaning to it. He writes:

At the very core of social being lies the fantastic human capacity to imbue almost anything with meaning, no matter how insignificant the thing in itself may seem. People have killed and died over things such as stamp collections, cartoons, the number of Michelin stars that a restaurant holds, and so on. Seriousness, in this way, is not something essential pre-existing in the world, but rather something we fill the world with. However, much of business studies seems to think that concepts such as utility and need are given, and that frivolity is something that it does not need to bother itself with.

The existence of play, as West explores in his article, in concurrence with Rehn’s statements, is not that common in organizations, and when it happens, it is seldom easy to define; it is more of a feeling, seemingly a state of mind or an approach. How are we to grasp it fully? And how – if possible at all – could this be linked to explicit results? Should it even?

West explains the functions of play with three concepts: openness, intrinsic motivation and building collaborative relationships. As concepts are described in full text paragraphs, I cannot help but to play with them, establishing some dimensions. In my own approach, based on West’s findings, dimensions with a spectrum ranging from individual effects on one end, and group effects, respectively, appear. The schematic sketch below shows the model of my mind.

Figure 1. A plausible explanation of West’s functions of play

Although these dimensions are not explicitly stated in West’s analysis of the collected data, they can be found somewhat implicitly. My choice of putting them up like this is with the purpose to shed some light on both the individual and the group. West’s research draws no specific lines between the two, although this could render an interesting discussion. Visible under the surface in West’s article are features in a continuum rather than in two different boxes. As the text presenting the results unfolds, West firmly guides us through a landscape where group and individual play interacts and interferes with one another, but his writings would benefit from some additional clarification of individual and group perspectives. It is the psychological safety gained by each individual that builds up to the courage to break hierarchal barriers in a larger group. It is the mental flexibility that expands in each participant to the point where non-judgment is fully exercised, through the allowance to make mistakes. This equilibrium intertwining both the individual and the group is what makes play work; it is the feeling and the mindset I wrote about earlier, broken down into pieces and examined thoroughly and extensively. This interplay is important, and under a magnifying glass, it would add another dimension to West’s otherwise excellent piece.

Looping back to that imagined demanding number cruncher, this exploration might render a deeper understanding for play as a qualitative phenomenon, and we might sense that there is something of value here, but for a quant junkie, that just won’t do for satisfaction. And in this case, unfortunately, probably nothing will. Just the mere effort of trying to attach results to play activities could disrupt the actual potential of generating those results in the first place. West refers to this as one of the major controversial elements in his report – making play serious. As some of his empirical sources state, results oriented efforts can both stimulate play and make participants engage more when they understand the link to the business. In other instances, the opposite is true, where players will refrain from playing if the connection to results is stressed too much. Knowing the difference is the tricky part.

In the vicinity of business and results lies competition, another controversial element of West’s. Opposing views on whether to add competitive elements split groups into two, but with slightly different views on the type of competition that could be beneficial. A striving towards a purpose is seen as motivating, but a right/wrong approach to the same to a lesser extent so. Both this controversial element of competition and making play serious is interesting, because it emphasizes the contextual dependencies of what works and what doesn’t work. As it is easier to adhere to the one way pointing encouragers, the controversial elements must be calibrated even more carefully to get the most out of play activities.

Before taking a concluding look at West’s proposed model, a short insight into the discouragers of play is in place. West mentions three discouragers explicitly: a fun-phobic culture, non- voluntary play and stress. The non-voluntary part harmonizes well with the freedom previously dealt with, associated with the permission to play aspect: built into the concept of permission to play, is also the permission not to play. This reduces stress associated with the specific activity of play, and opens up an exit for those who wish not to engage in play of any kind. Just knowing that there is such an exit, or emergency break, seems to make participants more keen to get involved – there’s always a way out, which makes it nice to stay in. The final discourager – a fun-phobic culture – relates to strict and sober organizational cultures, with difficulties to identify with any part of the induced play. Such organizations seem to rely on seriousness in a dominating way; hence penetration of play is hard.

Through the classification of encouragers and discouragers derived from his interviews, West is able to produce a novel approach to play interventions in the workplace. The proposed model sketches out the beginning of a possibly powerful map of how play can be used, and how to navigate through its different dimensions to get the most out of it. In its current form, the proposed model opens the door to a plethora of research opportunities, as well as more practical approaches suitable for consultants and other practitioners.

Posted in English | Comments Off

Swedish companies need more playfulness at work – but are afraid

Posted on 2012-09-04 by Samuel West

Recently I have been busy doing workshops and giving talks at conferences here in Sweden, mostly in Stockholm but also closer to home here in Malmö/Helsingborg. It seems as if every company in the country wants to know how they can boost employee creativity by encouraging a more playful work environment. I am thrilled that my research has gotten so much attention, and really enjoy doing the workshops and speaking gigs.

One thing I’ve noticed is that most companies say they value creativity and want to be different, but that they then don’t dare go full out. Typically, when I am contacted by an event organizer or whoever is in charge of booking speakers for the conference or personnel meeting they are initially happy to have found an exciting new subject (play at work) and they really want to hire me to do “something different.” Then, after discussing my suggestions with their bosses they get cold feet and ask me to do something lagom different. Lagom is Swedish for ‘just enough.’ They want a workshop that is different, fun, interesting etc but still traditional. Don’t get too creative…

How crazy can it be?
To avoid misunderstandings I’ve started to ask organizational clients  “How different/crazy do you want it to be on a scale from 1 – 10. 1= normal lecture with powerpoints with a few  discuss-this-with-your-neigbor type activities thrown in. This is of course excruciatingly boring. 10 = it is so far out there that you will refuse to pay my invoice. A surprising number of companies think about it and then reply that a 6 is probably best. Swedish lagom-ness again. Every now and then someone actually requests a 9! Another idea I have is to start charging customers on a sliding scale, those who want regular boring lectures or workshops will be charged double and those who dare into the unknown (crucial for genuine creativity!) will be charged nothing at all. And since I am almost a Swede by now, those who want lagom will of course get charged “just enough”.

 

 

 

Posted in English | Comments Off

Playful work environment enhances creativity

Posted on 2012-09-04 by Samuel West

I’ve been busy writing a chapter for an academic Handbook of creativity… it isn’t that much fun to write because it has to “meet academic standards” but it will hopefully be god for my academic career…. anyway here is the introduction:

When we are at work we ought to be at work. When we are at play we ought to be at play. There is no use trying to mix the two. The sole object ought to be to get the work done and to get paid for it. When the work is done, then the play can come, but not before.  – Henry Ford

According to the above quote from Henry Ford’s memoir My Life and Work from 1922, play was certainly not acceptable behavior in his factories. The Puritan work ethic, embraced by industrialists, has been blamed as the strongest and longest lasting anti-play movement. Sutton-Smith (1997) recounts that play was more prevalent during the pre-industrial Middle Ages where time for playful festivals was a substantial part of life. He argues that play became the enemy of organized factory work during the industrial revolution. Could it be that as we move further away from the industrial era that play is welcomed back into the workplace?

Play may be making a comeback, becoming less unwelcome in the workplace. Newspapers recently reported that office workers in cities around the world were engaged in Post-it wars. In these “wars” offices competed to create the best and most advanced artwork made of colorful Post-it notes on their windows. The mosaics of Post-it notes depicted anything from video game figures to monsters, and the silly pictures served no apparent purpose other than to have fun. The creation of the ‘artwork’ and the ensuing ‘wars’ are an excellent example of play in the workplace. Management of some of the warring organizations viewed taking time out from work for childish arts and crafts as a waste of time; the use of office paper supplies in such a way as wasteful, and ultimately saw the playful behavior as a productivity loss. Other organizations encouraged these wars and saw value in the playful behavior and thought that it was beneficial for employee creativity.

I think it is obvious that the organizations that encourage the frivolous play also enjoy a much healthier and more creative climate than the nay-sayers.

Posted in English | Comments Off

Kreativitet och innovation och lek

Posted on 2012-05-30 by Samuel West

Kreativitet och innovation spelar en allt viktigare roll i organisationers överlevnad. Företagsledare börjar också förstå att de aktivt måste jobba med att främja kreativiteten bland sina medarbetare för att bibehålla en konkurrensfördel. Det bästa sättet att främja kreativitet bland sina medarbetare är att se till att de gillar sina jobb!

Sambandet mellan lycka och kreativitet är mycket starkt. I mina intervjuer inför boken Konsten att vara kåt på jobbet frågade jag om specifika tillfällen då personer kände sig lyckliga på jobbet. Ett återkommande tema i deras berättelser var att arbetsglädjen var på topp när de fick utlopp för sin kreativitet. Detta var lika sant för industridesignern, ekonomikonsulten som för sjuksköterskan och vårdbiträdet. Jag tror att de flesta håller med om att jobbet är roligt och stimulerande när vi är kreativa. När jag jobbar som terapeut tycker jag att det är det roligast när jag får använda mina kunskaper och erfarenhet på nya sätt. Att noggrant följa en behandlingsmanual eller hålla mig strikt till något behandlingsprogram är lättare och i många fall har det ett större vetenskapligt stöd, men det är också oerhört tråkigt för mig och för mina klienter. De roligaste terapisessionerna är när jag använder de olika psykologiska verktygen och klientens resurser på nya kreativa sätt. Jag är övertygad om att dessa roliga och kreativa behandlingssessioner tenderar också att bli de mest effektiva.

Professor Teresa Amabile vid Harvard Business School har forskat om kreativitet och innovation i över trettio år. I hen- nes största studie följde hon närmare 300 personer i branscher där kreativitet är speciellt viktigt. Hon såg ett mycket starkt samband mellan positiva känslor och kreativitet. Precis som negativa känslor som oro, rädsla och ilska minskar kreati- vitet så ökar kreativiteten när vi är lyckliga. Människor är som mest kreativa när de är lyckliga, vilket gör en arbetsplats som genomsyras av arbetsglädje och lekfullhet till en perfekt grogrund för innovation. Amabiles forskning visade dessutom att medarbetarnas stora kreativa genombrott ofta kom dagen efter att han eller hon varit särskilt lycklig dagen innan. Så en lycklig dag i dag kan bidra till ett innovativt genombrott i morgon, vad härligt!

Frågar man företagsledare var i deras organisation de tycker att det är viktigast att ha kreativa medarbetare är det förväntade svaret att det är viktigt inom utvecklings- och marknadsföringsavdelningarna. Om man frågar samma företagsledare om det finns någonstans i deras organisation där de inte vill ha kreativa medarbetare blir det däremot tyst, tills någon kanske skrattande svarar att de inte vill ha kreativa bokförare… Faktum är att innovation och kreativitet är önskvärd inom hela organisationen och samtliga medarbetare har förmågan att vara kreativa.

Många tror att det bara är kreativa människor som är kreativa; konstnärstyper och designers. Detta är nonsens. Alla normal- begåvade människor kan vara kreativa. Enligt expertisen behöver organisationer inte göra så värst mycket för att stimulera kreativitet mer än att eliminera eller minimera hinder. Exempel på kreativitets-barriärer kan vara långvarig stress eller överarbete, rädsla för att misslyckas, byråkrati samt en ”men så har vi alltid gjort” mentalitet som så brutalt saboterar ny- tänkandet. När människor har förutsättningarna och är engagerade i vad de gör så föder det kreativitet och innovation. Det behövs ingen magi eller konstiga kurser för att öka kreativiteten – det ligger i vår natur att vara kreativa och skapa. Arbetsgivaren behöver “bara” se till att skapa möjligheterna och uppmuntra kreativiteten när den kommer igång.

Kreativitet stimuleras genom ökad frihet, lagom utmaningar, frekvent feedback och genom att matcha arbetsuppgifter och medarbetarens egna intressen och styrkor så bra som möjligt. Med den inre motivation som uppstår när man utvecklar något man är intresserad av samt genom att uppnå och uppleva framsteg minskar behovet av externa belöningar. Amabiles forskning visar att stressande deadlines och ekonomiska bonusar hade en negativ effekt på kreativiteten. Istället rekommenderas en bra men framförallt rättvis lön och stora möjlig- heter att använda och utveckla sina färdigheter parallellt med att man ser nyttan av framstegen. Hon sammanfattar alla åren av forskning med att konstatera att när människor arbetar med något som de bryr sig om och tillåts att engagera sig samtidigt som de får uppskattning så flödar kreativiteten – även i kristider.

Posted in Svenska | Comments Off

Playful work environment

Posted on 2012-04-27 by Samuel West

A conference facility in Sweden has developed a new cutting edge meeting enhancer. Watch the video!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments Off

SERIOUSLY! The future depends on play

Posted on 2012-04-18 by Samuel West

Watch this!
This is a creative documentary that turns the work ethic on its head and reveals how vital play is to our health, happiness, and the future of life. Enjoy this short trailer!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9ygz1PlqDzk#!

Posted in English | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off