SHAPING INNOVATION PROCESSES THROUGH HUMOR Marcel Bogers University of Southern Denmark
[email protected] Trine Heinemann University of Helsinki
[email protected] Paper presented at the 3rd Participatory Innovation Conference (PIN-C) Lahti, Finland June 18-20, 2013
Abstract In this paper we present a case study of how humor is employed at the micro-level of collaborative innovation processes. Based on data from workshops in which participants work together to construct new business models for a particular company, we employ the method of Conversation Analysis to find that humor (laughter) may be an important condition for the acceptance of proposals at the interactional micro-level of innovation processes. A particular finding is that company-internal representatives’ use of humor differs from company-external participants in terms of their orientation to having different rights and responsibilities in the innovation process.
Keywords Humor, laughter, innovation, process, proposals, conversation analysis
1
Introduction Innovation processes increasingly rely on the collaboration between different stakeholders across various boundaries, including functional, hierarchical and organizational boundaries (Bogers & Horst forthcoming). Such boundary-crossing collaborations rely on different mechanisms, activities and boundary objects. In this paper, we explore the role of one such mechanism, namely humor, which consists of a humorous stimulus and reaction (Malone 1980), in collaborative innovation processes. During the innovation process, small incremental actions are taken that cumulatively serve to shape the future of a product, process or service (Bogers, 2009; de Brentani 2001; Murray & O’Mahoney 2007). In this case study, we consider the role played by the individual in the micro-management of a collaborative innovation process. Specifically, we use conversation analysis to identify how proposals for future actions are designed and received in the context of an innovation workshop and what role humor plays in such proposals. We show that participants in such workshops orient to the shaping of the future as a joint task, rather than as something that can or should be done unilaterally by one participant. Thus, though proposals for future action can in principle be formulated and designed in a variety of ways, participants largely rely on a very specific pattern of proposing and accepting future actions, a pattern in which humorous expressions and laughter play a significant role. Slight variations in who of the participants makes a proposal, who produces humorous expressions and who laughs, however, reveal how individual participants position themselves relative to others within these workshops, in terms of who has equal, primary and secondary rights to shaping the innovation process.
2
Background Innovation can be seen as a social and communicative process (Leonard & Sensiper 1998), where interdisciplinary teams are a necessary condition for success (Dougherty 1992). It is only through diversity among team members that participants can “overcome possible blind spots” (Holzer 2012: 50) and create more and different insights (Jehn et al 1999), allowing for a more comprehensive analysis of the problem at hand (Akrich et al 2002). In this view, innovation becomes a social construction, shaped and negotiated through an “evolving pattern of interaction between people that emerges in the local interaction of those people with its fundamental aspects of communication, power, and ideology and evaluative choices” (Stacey & Griffin 2005: 19), where the individual social positions held by participants and the normative expectations associated with such positions (Tsoukas 1996) can influence the overall organization of the innovation process as well as the potential outcome. The employment of humor and the proposing of future actions constitute two interactional activities that each in different ways encompasses the social positions held by individuals as well as the relationship between them. Hatch (1997) thus argues that cultural and emotional contexts of contradictions, i.e. the complexity of “open social construction processes” (p. 277) are constructed through humorous discourse. Moreover, even though laughing together may be a way to reduce power distance, asymmetrical use of humor in organizations reveals the local constraints and obligations of individuals (Glenn 2010), where hierarchical and organizational positions and relevancies can be “laughed into being” (Vöge 2010, p. 1556). These same relevancies can be oriented towards when participants propose future actions in the context of organizations. Asmuss & Oshima (2012) thus demonstrate how institutionally defined positions such as being the CEO or the HR manager are made relevant 3
through the way in which the participants negotiate proposal sequences, so that “institutional roles are local achievements and are subject to continuous renegotiation throughout interaction” (p.83). Similarly, Stevanovic and Peräkyllä (2013) argue that authority, i.e. “the exercise of power that the subject of authority understands as legitimate” (p. 297) is exercised and recognized through interaction. Landgrebe and Heinemann (in press) illustrates that knowledge and authority are intertwined, so that participants “in the know” have the authority to determine future joint actions.
Method and Data In this case study, we consider how the individual’s social position and the normative expectations associated with this position emerge through the local interaction of participants within an innovation process, specifically by investigating humor and its relation to the proposal for future action. For this purpose, we use conversation analysis (CA), an ethnomethodological approach that focuses on how members interpret each other’s actions and display that interpretation moment-by-moment (see e.g. Heritage 2010). Our study is based on video-recordings of three workshops organized for a national industry network for middle- and top-managers from various companies in Denmark. The goal of the workshops was for the participants to jointly create a tangible business model (Buur et al forthcoming) for new markets for one of the involved companies, here referred to as Lightoman. The process that the participants in these workshops were involved in can thus be viewed as a process of innovation, in which each group develops a possible future business model for Lightoman. Following the principal method of “unmotivated looking” (Psathas 1995) that is usually employed in CA, a first exploration of the video-recorded data showed an noticeable pattern: humor and laughter were almost exclusively employed within one particular type of
4
activity within these workshops, namely when a participants was making what we here term a “proposal for future action”. In the workshops, such proposals typically take the following form: a participant identifies an object as a good representation of a particular stakeholder in the value network being constructed, subsequent to which the co-participants either accept or reject this proposal. The following steps illustrate the typical pattern that these proposalsequences followed in the case investigated: 1. A stakeholder is identified and named as relevant for the value network 2. An object is selected and proposed to represent that stakeholder 3. Participants orient to the proposal as humorous by giving the object a label in the form of a pun-like expression, and/or by smiling and laughing 4. The object is placed on the table as part of the value network 5. Participants move on to identifying the next relevant stakeholder Figure 1 provides a transcript of an actual proposal sequence, which follows the pattern described above. (1) Tangible business 1: Bank 01 B: hvordan ser en bank ud what does a bank look like 02 (2.9) 03 C: Ja den ska vi li' ha (k-) positioneret Yes that we just need to position 04 først banken first, the bank 05 (0.2) 06 B: *måske* *maybe* 07 +(2.1) 08 geB: +picks up the ball 09 B: Slippery.+ 10 geB: +smile 11 B: heh [heh +heh heh +heh heh 12 A: [ye:s +heh +huh heh heh 13 gaB: +to C +to A 14 gaC: +to B 15 geC: +smile 16 C: +hah hah hah hah [hah hah €Slippery€ 17 B: [.hhe hhe Figure 1: Transcript of proposal sequence
5
The proposals found in our data are all similarly designed as in Figure 1: participants first identify the need for a particular representative to be part of the value network, in Figure 1 this is done by B and C in lines 01-04 in which they agree that a bank need to be part of the network. Subsequent to this, one participant typically finds and grabs and object, sometimes verbally proposing to use that object for the representation, sometimes, as here, doing the proposal non-verbally, by way of holding the object up for inspection by the others, as B does with the silvery ball he has selected and picked up in line 08. B’s labeling of the ball (and hence the bank) with the humorous expression “slippery” (line 09) and the other participants’ reactions to this in the form of laughter, smiling etc. in lines 12-16) are other, constitutive, features of the proposals found in the data. Operationalizing humor as a “laughable” (Jefferson 1979), i.e. as actions that participants themselves treat as funny through smiling, laughing or in other ways indicating the humorous nature of the proposal, our data reveals that humor is a constitutive feature of proposals for future actions in the cases investigated. Based on these initial observations, we subsequently collected all proposal sequences in the data and coded these with respect to how the proposals were designed as humorous or not, whether they were treated by recipients as humorous or not and whether the proposals were accepted or not. A total of 38 proposals across the three workshops were found. The overall results are illustrated in Figure 2 below.
6
Figure 2: Proposals in relation to the use of humor
Findings As Figure 2 illustrates, the use of humor and the production of laughter is an almost constitutive feature of proposing future actions in this particular context, as it is employed in one way or another in 31 out of 38 proposal sequences. Our findings do not, however, suggest a direct correlation between whether a proposal is humorous or not and whether the proposal is ultimately accepted, since non-humorous proposals are at least just as likely to be accepted as their humorous equivalents. If humor is not, in these cases then, employed for the sake of creating alignment between participants, what other role may it serve in proposal sequence? In order to investigate this, we looked in more detail at the way in which different participants in the workshops made use of humor in relation to the proposals. Most notably, the three participants who are also representatives of the company Lightoman, for whom the business models were being built, behave in ways that deviate from the other participants, 7
who were network partners from other companies. In one workshop, the Lightoman representative refrained entirely from participating in the construction of the business model, instead merely taking notes of the others participants’ contributions. The other two representatives for Lightoman, each in their own workshop group participated more actively in the construction of the business model, making their own proposals, selecting objects for representing stakeholders, producing humorous expressions and laughing. But even when engaging in the construction of the business model, Lightoman representatives did so in ways that differed in the following ways from the other participants in the workshop:
Marking a proposal as humorous: As illustrated in the description of the five steps above, proposals in this case study were treated as humorous by the participants, either through smile and laughter, or through accompanying the proposal with a humorous expression, for instance in the form of a pun that ascribed a physical property of the object to a more cognitive or behavioral property of the stakeholder the object was proposed to represent. Such puns were regularly produced by all participants, but whereas other participants typically did so to accompany their own proposals, Lightoman representatives were the only participants who would produce puns to accompany other participants’ proposals, either when such a pun had not been made by the proposer, or to replace a pun produced by the proposer. Puns and other humorous expressions that accompany proposals function as a type of account, in serving to imply and explicate why and how a particular object should serve as the representation of a certain stakeholder. In Figure 1 above, for instance, the pun-like expression “slippery” serves to articulate why the ball is a good representation of a bank, since many might consider banks “slippery”. Producing a pun is thus as way of creating meaning, by establishing a direct relationship between the selected object and the stakeholder
8
it is proposed to represent. When producing a pun on behalf of other participants’ proposals, Lightoman representatives can thus be heard to support the other’s proposal by making sense of it. At the same time, the production of a pun on behalf of others also constitutes a claim of independent recognition of the relationship between object and stakeholder, something which is particularly apparent when a pun is produced to replace or correct an already existing one. Through producing puns on behalf of other participants’ proposals or replacing other participants’ puns. Lightoman representatives thus seem to orient to or demonstrate their special social status as being someone who is ultimately responsible both for making sure other participants’ proposals are accepted and that they are accepted in the right way, i.e. as appropriate sense-making proposals.
Pushing for laughter: As illustrated in the description of the steps above, a requirement for a successful proposal is that others have received it with laughter. Laughter can thus be seen as the participants’ orientation to the proposal sequences overall being joint accomplishments. When laughter by others is not produced, most participants simply abandon their proposal, looking either for a new object or suggesting another stakeholder. The Lightoman representatives, however, did not abandon their proposals when these were not responded to with laughter by others. Instead, they pursued laughter or other types of acceptance/evaluation of their proposal until this was finally given and the object could be placed on the table. Since laughter and acceptance of the proposal are overall connected, the Lightoman representative’s pursuit of laughter and hence acceptance thus becomes a way of invoking a
9
certain social status in which you as an individual has the right and authority to insist on and pursue acceptance at a point where this has otherwise not been produced.
Joining the laughter: Though Lightoman representatives clearly orient to the relevancy of laughter when making their own proposals or constructing puns for others’ proposals, as recipients, they laughed considerably less than other participants, notably failing to laugh even in contexts where participants made clear that their contributions were designed to receive laughter, not just in general, but specifically from a Lightoman representative. Laughter in the case studied here appears to be a constitutive feature of proposal sequences and something that is required to make the proposal come about as a joint social construction, rather than a unilateral decision. In not joining the general laughter and not laughing when clearly selected as the recipient of a humorous proposal, Lightoman representative can thus be seen to exclude themselves from the more general participation framework, assigning themselves a different role than that of the other participants, i.e. as someone who is not as the others jointly responsible for establishing consensus.
Conclusion In this study, we find that proposal sequences are constituted by participants, treating the proposals as humorous and joint constructions upon which acceptance by other participants is contingent (Hatch 1997; Stacey & Griffin 2005). Though there is a constitutive pattern for these sequences, small variations in the participants’ behavior reveal something of the kind of roles and responsibilities they assign themselves and each other (Asmuss & Oshima 2012; Stevanovic & Peräkyllä 2013; Landgrebe & Heinemann in press). We thus
10
conclude that humor (laughter) may be an important condition for the acceptance of proposals at the interactional micro-level of innovation processes. A particular finding is that humor plays a particular role in inter-organizational relationships. Our case study shows that internal representatives from Lightoman behave differently from other participants, who are more external contributors, in relation to the construction and use of humor in proposal sequences. In doing so, they assign themselves particular roles within the workshop more generally and within the decision making (proposing future action) sequences more specifically. As such, they act as someone who is not as the others responsible for making the future actions a joint action, but rather as someone who is ultimately responsible for (and able to determine whether) the proposal being “just right”. Thus, while humor appears to play an important role in the cross-fertilization of knowledge across organizational boundaries, it would be useful for future research to explore whether and how the type of boundary matters (cf. Asmuss & Oshima 2012; Bogers & Horst forthcoming). In particular, it would be useful to investigate how humor affects the obtaining and integration of external knowledge (West & Bogers forthcoming) and also how such an effect may differ for various stakeholders in the value network (Bogers & West 2012). Finally, our findings highlight some conditions that are important when “managing” humor. Previous research in the area of management and organization has identified humor as a managerial tool, with both positive and negative elements (Malone, 1980). Our study illustrates how such a tool may be used for the micro-management of interactional processes between individuals. Moreover, given that suppression and manufacturing of humor are two overlapping managerial control strategies, in which humor can be linked to “power relations and management control through joking relations“ (Collinson 2002: 269), further exploration is required to identify how such strategies relate to individual social positions and rights of
11
the interacting participants (Asmuss & Oshima 2012; Stevanovic & Peräkyllä 2013; Landgrebe & Heinemann in press). Other perspectives, such as phycology, may also add to a more complete understanding of the attributes and types of humor (Martin 2007). More generally, we hope that our findings offer a basis for a better understanding and further investigation of the enabling and/or constraining role of humor in collaborative innovation processes.
References Akrich, M., Callon, M. & Latour, B. 2002. The key to success in innovation, Part II: the art of choosing good spokespersons, International Journal of Innovation Management 6(2): 207-225. Asmuss, B. & Oshima, S. 2012. Negotiation of entitlement in proposal sequences, Discourse Studies 14(1): 67-86. Bogers, M. 2009. The Sources of Process Innovation in User Firms: An Exploration of the Antecedents and Impact of Non-R&D Innovation and Learning-by-Doing, Unpublished doctoral thesis. Lausanne: Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne. Bogers, M., & W. Horst. forthcoming. Collaborative prototyping: Cross-fertilization of knowledge in prototype-driven problem solving. Journal of Product Innovation Management Bogers, M., & J. West. 2012. Managing distributed innovation: Strategic utilization of open and user innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management 21(1): 61-75. Buur, J., Ankenbrand, B. & Mitchell, R. forthcoming. Participatory business modeling. CoDesign. Collinson, D. L. 2002. Managing humour. Journal of Management Studies, 39(3): 269-288.
12
de Brentani, U. 2001. Innovative versus incremental new business services: Different keys for achieving success. Journal of Product Innovation Management 18(3): 169-187. Doughtery, D. 1992. Interpretative barriers to successful product innovation on large firms, Organization Science 3(2): 179-202. Glenn, P. 2010. Interviewer laughs: Shared laughter and asymmetries in employment interviews, Journal of Pragmatics, 42: 1485-1498. Hatch, M. J. 1997. Irony and the social construction of contradiction in the humor of a management team. Organization Science, 8(3): 275-288. Heritage, J. 2010. Conversation analysis: Practices and methods. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative Sociology (3rd Edition): 208-230 London: Sage. Holzer. J. 2012. Construction of meaning in socio-technical networks: Artefacts as mediators between routine and crisis conditions, Creativity and Innovation Management|, 21(1): 49-60 Jefferson, G. 1979. A technique for inviting laughter and its subsequent acceptance declination. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology: 79-95. New York: Irvington Publishers. Jehn, K. A., Nortcraft, G. B. & Neale, M. A. 1999. Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups, Administrative Science Quarterly 44(4): 741-763. Landgrebe, J. & Heinemann, T. in press, 2014. Mapping the epistemic landscape in innovation workshops, Pragmatics and Society Leonard, D. A. & Sensiper, S. 1998. The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation, California Management Review 40(3): 112-132. Malone, P. B., III. 1980. Humor: A double-edged tool for today's managers? Academy of Management Review, 5(3): 357-360.
13
Martin, R. A. 2007. The Psychology of Humor: An Integrative Approach. Burlington, MA: Elsevier. Murray, F., & S. O'Mahony. 2007. Exploring the foundations of cumulative innovation: Implications for organization science. Organization Science, 18(6): 1006-1021. Psathas, G. 1995. Conversation Analysis: The Study of Talk in Interaction. Sage Publications. Stacey, R. & Griffin, D. 2005. A Complexity Perspective on Researching Organizations. Routledge: London. Stevanovic, M. & Peräkylä, A. 2013. Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(3): 297-321. Tsoukas, H. 1996. The firm as a distributed knowledge system: A constructionist approach. Strategic Management Journal 17, 11-25. Vöge, M. 2010. Local identity processes in business meetings displayed through laughter in complaint sequences, Journal of Pragmatics, 42: 1556-1576. West, J., & M. Bogers. forthcoming. Leveraging external sources of innovation: A review of research on open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management
14
