Research-based Theater as a Facilitator of Organizational Learning

Chapter
Part of the Knowledge and Space book series (KNAS, volume 6)

Abstract

The authors address key questions: whether polyphonic learning space can be constructed by combining theater techniques and applying them to that space, and what kind of knowledge creation process might arise from that endeavor. In polyphonic learning spaces a key element of change and organizational events is seen as a continuous, emergent process. This perspective makes learning a collective and interpretive action process in which the members of an organization construct meanings together and change itself is a pattern of endless modifications in day-to-day work and social practices. By means of aesthetic distancing, which posits that narratives encourage engagement, the authors demonstrate how to focus on the social infrastructure of an organization. The study and intervention presented in this chapter show that it is possible to gain knowledge by interpreting personal experiences. The role of management thereby changes from the setting of goals to the shaping of directions.

Keywords

Organizational Learning Knowledge Creation Participatory Action Research Sales Manager Applied Theater 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Abma, T. (2000). Fostering learning-in-organizing through narration: Questioning myths and stimulating multiplicity in two performing art schools. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9, 211–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abma, T. (2003). Learning by telling storytelling workshops as an organizational learning intervention. Management Learning, 34, 221–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  4. Asikainen, S. (2003). Prosessidraaman kehittäminen museossa [Development of process drama in a museum]. Joensuu, Finland: Joensuun yliopistopaino.Google Scholar
  5. Barry, D. (2008). The art of …. In D. Barry & H. Hansen (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of new approaches in management and organization (pp. 31–41). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barry, D., & Hansen, H. (2008). Introduction: The new and emerging in management and organization: Gatherings, trends, and bets. In D. Barry & H. Hansen (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of new approaches in management and organization (pp. 1–10). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barry, D., & Meisiek, S. (2010). Seeing more and seeing differently: Sensemaking, mindfulness, and the workarts. Organisation Studies, 31, 1505–1530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berthoin Antal, A. (2009). Research report: Research framework for evaluating the effects of artistic interventions in organizations. Göteborg, Sweden: TILLT Europe. Retrieved from http://www.wzb.eu/sites/default/files/u30/researchreport.pdf
  9. Boal, A. (1992). Games for actors and non-actors (A. Jackson, Trans.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Boal, A. (1995). The rainbow of desire (A. Jackson, Trans.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Boal, A. (1996). Politics, education and change. In J. O’Toole & K. Donelan (Eds.), Drama, culture and empowerment (pp. 47–52). Brisbane, Australia: IDEA Publications.Google Scholar
  12. Boje, D. M. (2001). Narrative methods for organizational and communication research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Boje, D. M., Luhman, J. T., & Cunliffe, A. L. (2003). A dialectic perspective on the organization theatre metaphor. American Communication Journal, 6(2), 1–16. Retrieved from http://ac-journal.org/journal/vol6/iss2/articles/boje.htm Google Scholar
  14. Boje, D., & Rosile, G. A. (2003). Theatrics of SEAM. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16, 21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Boonstra, J., & de Caluwé, L. (2007). Looking for meaning in interactions. In J. Boonstra & L. de Caluwé (Eds.), Intervening and changing – Looking for meaning in interactions (pp. 3–28). Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Brecht, B. (1964). Brecht on theatre. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  17. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2, 40–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Bruner, J. (1996). Culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Burke, K. (1969). A grammar of motives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  22. Clark, T. (2008). Performing the organization: Organization theatre and imaginative life as physical presence. In D. Barry & H. Hansen (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of new approaches in management and organization (pp. 401–411). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Clark, T., & Mangham, I. (2004). Stripping to the undercoat: A review and reflections on a piece of organization theatre. Organization Studies, 25, 841–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24, 522–537.Google Scholar
  25. Czarniawska, B. (2001). Anthropology and organizational learning. In M. Dierkes, A. Berthoin Antal, J. Child, & I. Nonaka (Eds.), Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge (pp. 118–136). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Czarniawska, B. (2008). A theory of organizing. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  27. Darsø, L. (2004). Artful creation: Learning-tales of arts-in-business. Frederiksberg, Denmark: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
  28. Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (1995). The role of conversations in producing intentional change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20, 541–570.Google Scholar
  29. Gergen, K. J. (1994). Realities and relationships: Soundings in social construction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Gergen, K. J., Gergen, M. M., & Barrett, F. (2004). Dialogue: Life and death of the organization. In D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick, & L. Putnam (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational discourse (pp. 39–60). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hänninen, V. (1999). Sisäinen tarina, elämä ja muutos [Inner narrative, life, and change]. Tampere, Finland: University of Tampere.Google Scholar
  32. Hargrave, T. J., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2006). A collective action model of institutional innovation. Academy of Management Review, 31, 864–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Heikkinen, H. (2002). Draaman maailmat oppimisalueina: Draamakasvatuksen vakava leikillisyys [Drama worlds as learning areas: The serious playfulness of drama education]. Jyväskylä, Finland: University of Jyväskylä Studies in Education, Psychology and Social Research.Google Scholar
  34. Jarnagin, C., & Slocum, J. W., Jr. (2007). Creating corporate cultures through mythopoetic leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 36, 288–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johnstone, K. (1981). Impro: Improvisation and the theatre. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Josendal, K., & Skarholt, K. (2006). Communicating through theatre: How organizational theatre engages researchers and industrial companies. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 20, 65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kemmis, S. (2001). Exploring the relevance of critical theory for action research: Emancipatory action research in the footsteps of Jürgen Habermas. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research (pp. 94–105). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 567–606). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. Kemmis, S., & Wilkinson, M. (1998). Participatory action research and the study of practice. In B. Atweh, S. Kemmis, & P. Weeks (Eds.), Action research in practice: Partnership for social justice in education (pp. 21–36). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning—Experience as the source of learning and development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  41. Lämsä, A.-M., & Sintonen, T. (2006). A narrative approach for organizational learning in a diverse organisation. Journal of Workplace Learning, 18, 106–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lester, R. K., & Piore, M. J. (2004). Innovation—The missing dimension. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  43. March, J. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Marshak, R. J., & Grant, D. (2008). Organizational discourse and new organization development practices. British Journal of Management, 19, 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Meisiek, S. (2002). Situation drama in change management: Types and effects of a new managerial tool. International Journal of Arts Management, 4(3), 48–55.Google Scholar
  46. Meisiek, S. (2004). Which catharsis do they mean? Aristotle, Moreno, Boal and organizational theatre. Organization Studies, 25, 797–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Meisiek, S., & Barry, D. (2007). Through the looking glass of organizational theatre: Analogically mediated inquiry in organizations. Organization Studies, 28, 1805–1827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. In J. Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 3–33). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  49. Mienczakowski, J. (1995). The theater of ethnography: The reconstruction of ethnography into theater with emancipatory potential. Qualitative Inquiry, 1, 360–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mienczakowski, J., & Morgan, S. (2001). Ethnodrama: Constructing participatory, experiential and compelling action research through performance. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research (pp. 176–184). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  51. Mienczakowski, J., Smith, R., & Sinclair, M. (1996). On the road to catharsis: A theoretical framework for change. Qualitative Inquiry, 2, 439–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Neelands, J. (1990). Structuring drama work. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Nissley, N. (2010). Arts-based learning at work: Economic downturns, innovation upturns, and the eminent practicality of arts in business. Journal of Business Strategy, 31(4), 8–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nissley, N., Taylor, S. S., & Houden, L. (2004). The politics of performance in organizational theatre-based training and interventions. Organization Studies, 25, 817–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Oddey, A. (1994). Devising theatre a practical and theoretical handbook. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. Oswick, C., Anthony, P., Keenoy, T., Mangham, I., & Grant, D. (2000). A dialogic analysis of organizational learning. Journal of Management Studies, 37, 887–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Palmer, I., & Dunford, R. (2008). Organizational change and the importance of embedded assumptions. British Journal of Management, 19, 20–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pässilä, A. (2012). Reflexive model of research-based theatre—Processing innovation at the crossroads of theatre, reflection and practice-based innovation activities. Doctoral dissertation, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland.Google Scholar
  59. Pässilä, A., Oikarinen, T., & Kallio, A. (2013). Creating dialogue by storytelling. Journal of Workplace Learning, 25(3), 159–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pässilä, A., Oikarinen, T., & Vince, R. (2012). The role of reflection, reflection on roles: Practice-based innovation through theatre-based learning. In H. Melkas & V. Harmaakorpi (Eds.), Practice-based innovation: Insights, applications and policy implications (pp. 173–191). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Reissner, S. C. (2008). Narratives of organisational change and learning making sense of testing times. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  62. Rhodes, C. (1996). Researching organizational change and learning: A narrative approach. The Qualitative Report, 2(4), 17. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR2-4/rhodes.html
  63. Schechner, R. (1988). Performance theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  64. Schein, E. H. (1999). Process consultation revisited: Building the helping relationship. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  65. Schiuma, G. (2011). The value of arts for business. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schreyögg, G., & Höpfl, H. (2004). Theatre and organization: Editorial introduction. Organization Studies, 25, 691–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Taussig, M., & Schechner, R. (1994). Boal in Brazil, France, the USA: An interview with Augusto Boal. In M. Schutzman & J. Cohen-Cruz (Eds.), Playing Boal: Theater, therapy, activism (pp. 17–32). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  68. Taylor, P. (2003). Applied theatre: Creating transformative encounters in the community. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  69. Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20, 510–540.Google Scholar
  70. Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (2005). Alternative approaches for studying organizational change. Organization Studies, 26, 1377–1404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Van de Ven, A. H., Rogers, R. W., Bechara, J. P., & Sun, K. (2008). Organizational diversity, integration and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 335–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  73. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sense-making in organizations. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  74. Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 361–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LUT Lahti School of InnovationLappeenranta University of TechnologyLahtiFinland

Personalised recommendations