Development of creative and innovative organization – learning in organizational context as starting point comparison of Estonian and Finnish practices

“Development of creative and innovative organization – learning in organizational context as starting point: comparison of Estonian and Finnish practices” Stanislav Nemeržitski, MSc, Tal

“Development of creative and innovative organization – learning in organizational context as starting point: comparison of Estonian and Finnish practices”

Stanislav Nemeržitski, MSc, Tallinn University

Krista Loogma, PhD, Tallinn University

Correspondence address:

Department of Applied Creativity

Institute of Fine Arts

Tallinn University

Lai 13

10133 Tallinn

Estonia

stanislav.nemerzitski@tlu.ee

The current study is based on the results of the EU project “CREANOVA: Creative Learning and Networking for European Innovation” (project no: 143725-LLP-2008-ES-KA1SCR; 2008-3596) The aim of the project was to identify factors of transaction between individual and organization, which lead and support learning processes, related to creativity and innovation within organizational context

As a basis for theoretical background of the current study, ecological approach to learning is used According to this approach, development of individuals within certain environmental(organizational) settings is viewed as a co-constructive process, determined by the complex of relations and connections between the subject and the environment of activity (Kindermann

& Valsiner, 1997; Valsiner, 2001) The development is seen as an activity of the subject, transforming the environment, while the environment in turn influences the subject’s development (Bronfenbrenner, 1996; Lyng & Franks, 2002) Based on this approach, theory of expansive learning (Engeström,

2001, 1987) is used to conceptualize learning processes within organizations

Empirical study undertaken was based on 4 theoretical factors of creativity and innovation, identified by Creanova project: need, freedom, and interaction, with environment being as contextual frame, in which processes of learning were taking place Interaction (both, intra-personal and inter-personal) was seen as part of development and learning process, regardless

of cultural differences within organization These 4 factors were first controlled with quantitative study (n = 507), defining the relations and directions of effect these factors have on innovation and creativity within organizations Further, set of semi-structured interviews was conducted with representatives of creative and technical field in Estonia and in Finland, in order to identify the perceived meaning that individuals gave to creativity, innovation, their interaction, and the environmental (organizational) factors supporting them The conducted study was an attempt to compare, how representatives of different organizational cultures perceive learning in terms of creativity and innovation process, how Estonian and Finnish employees carried on innovative activities, and what type of managerial and leadership styles they find most supporting for organizational creativity and innovation

Findings of the current study enable us to better understand how individuals with different cultural background perceive and apply creativity and innovation

in the organizational context, and what role leadership and management support play in this This study provides cross-cultural comparison of meanings people attribute to the factors that can support learning and development within organizational context

Theoretical background

Human development within certain environmental (or, in case of this study’s focus, organizational) context can be seen as a co-constructive process, in which complexity of connections between the subject and the environment, determine the nature and the outcomes of these processes (Kindermann & Valsiner, 1995) Within the terms of ecological approach to acquiring new knowledge, learning can be seen as reciprocal, mutual influence process between individual and the environment (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1996; Lyng & Franks, 2002) Through all 4 distinctive levels of human activities (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), individuals affect and transform the environment around them, whereas on every level environment in turn influences individuals’ development:

learning process can be characterized as interaction process between individuals Input on this stage is coming directly from surrounding environment (working or learning context), and the outcome of acquired new knowledge is also directed towards the closest surrounding environmental layer (e.g organizational setting);

 At meso-level, we look primarily at organizational and regional factors surrounding the learning process (e.g possibilities within organizations

to support learning, acquiring of novel knowledge, expression of one’s original ideas);

 At exosystem level, the focus is on connections between different organizations, where the individual is a participant, e.g culture, organizational framework This echoes with Engeström’s (2001)

principle of multi-voicedness of activity systems, i.e the fact that any

activity system of an individual is always a community of multiple points

of view, interests and traditions; it is a source of innovation at a crossing point of individual’s roles within different contexts;

 Finally, macro-level serves as a societal or state level framework, which organizes and influences organizations, in which individuals do learn and obtain novel knowledge

Engeström, Engeström and Kärkkäinen (1995) used term “boundary crossing”

to illustrate the complexity and inter-relatedness of different social activity systems, while producing outcome of individual (or collective) development Konkola (2001, 2003) introduced term “boundary zone” to describe the territory where different activity systems meet, giving thus possibility to transfer novel ideas, original thoughts and innovative solutions from different systems, and resulting in cross-domain development As Konkola, Tuomi-Gröhn, Lambert, and Ludvigsen (2007) showed, it is possible to construct such “boundary zone” between learning and working environments, promoting thus creativity within both systems Transfer of learning and knowledge is accompanied with born of innovative, original ideas in the contact points of border zones of different activity systems (Engeström, 1999; Tuomi-Gröhn, 2003) This type of learning can be conceptualized as expansive learning, where all participants are engaged, and new knowledge is expanded from workplace to multiple levels, involving both individual and organizational layers (Engeström, 2001; Kerosuo & Toiviainen, 2011)

As theoretical starting point of this study, ideas of expansive learning are used, based on the ecological approach described above As Engeström (2001) stated, learning and knowledge transfer occur only in interconnected activity systems, whereas conflict (being a part of communicational processes), or inner contradiction, plays crucial part Finlay (2008) also brought up critical incident as one of cornerstones for expansive learning, bridging educational setting and workplace

In the circumstances of activity systems (i.e organizational setting for an individual), learning can become expansive transformation (Engeström, 2001) Qualitative transformations take time, and during the cycle of transformation, some participants of the organization may deviate from established norms (ibid) These transformations can take form of reinterpretation or adaptation of obtained knowledge (Eraut, 1994; Finlay, 2008) Expansive transformation takes place, when both motive and object of the activity is re-conceptualized so that it embraces radically wider (broader, more innovative, inclusive) range of possibilities, compared to the previous/ traditional mode of the activity (Engeström, 1987, 2001) In terms of working environment, boundary zones and boundary crossing can occur simultaneously, providing on one hand possibility to learn novel ways of doing things, and on the other hand, giving chance for participants to act as advocates and agents of change (Säljö, 2003) Several authors (e.g Tuomi-Gröhn & Engeström, 2003; Russell, 1998; Säljö, 2003) stress that in order to effectively produce and stimulate knowledge transfer, resulting in novel ideas and development, a complex activity system (organization) must provide learning opportunities for its members Therefore learning within workplace context is crucial prerequisite for both individual and organizational creativity and innovation

The context of the present study is within theoretical and empirical findings of

CREANOVA project (Creative Learning and Networking for European Innovation, project no: 143725-LLP-2008-ES-KAS1SCR; 2008-3596) In the

heart of theoretical background for the project’s empirical studies, is the understanding that so-called creative, or in terms of Engeström’s (1999, 2001) theory expansive learning, is in the heart of every innovation According to Loogma (2004), large part of such learning includes work-based, i.e it is workplace-based and includes number of work-related problems to solve This, in turn, requires and stimulates interaction of individuals with different background, making innovative processes possible (Mumford, 2002; Mumford

& Moertl, 2003) Several researches in creativity, both individual and organizational, (e.g Cropley & Cropley, 2009; Sternberg, 2003/2007; Sahlberg, 2009; Piirto, 2004) emphasize importance of collaboration, intra-organizational communication and interaction Sahlberg (2009) stresses importance of cooperative learning, which enables creativity in the classroom settings – however, this can be projected to organizational context as well: only in terms of collaboration and cooperative learning can boundary crossing occur, allowing exchange of knowledge between participants of the system Based on numerous researches in individual and organizational creativity and innovation processes (e.g Cropley, 2001/2009; Cropley & Cropley, 2009; Sternberg, 2003/2007; Hämäläinen & Heiskala, 2007; Amabile et al., 1996),

the following four factors were indicated for promoting creativity and innovation on the organizational level (CREANOVA, 2010):

1 Need for innovation is seen as basis for innovation processes, both for individual and for organization This can be formulated as genesis of problems, survival strategy, motivation (intrinsic and extrinsic), any kind

of shortcoming, personal need or collective need to overcome barrier

2 Freedom for innovation can be manifested through such indicators as possibility to make mistakes, risk-taking, involvement into decision-making processes, elimination of hierarchies, mutual trust, and self-management

3 Interaction in the innovative process involves both communication inside the organization and outside of it, both formal and informal, constant interaction between different actors and system parts, all forms of feedback, and also communication with outside world (e.g networks, cooperation etc.)

4 And finally, environment as the context, in which processes of creativity and innovation take place Besides organizational framework, environment includes what Bronfenbrenner (1979) placed into exosystem-level – other organizations, society, culture in larger scale Initial relations between different theoretical anchors of creativity and innovation are presented on Figure 1 Three individual and collective component – need, freedom, and interaction – are actively supported (or inhibited) by environmental socio-cultural setting, in which organization is active Learning is considered as crossing point of above-mentioned three factors, enabling thus individuals within particular organization to cross boundaries/ domains and through interaction obtain novel skills and knowledge

Figure 1 Theoretical factors of creativity (Source: CREANOVA, 2010)

In order to test and critically overview the proposed model, set of empirical studies was designed and carried out Given complexity of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological approach and adopted Engeström’s (2001, 1987) theory of expansive learning, it was crucial to identify possible interconnections between above-mentioned factors, their mutual effect in terms of novelty production and innovation-supportive learning processes – which in current theoretical model were hidden within the generalized four factors

Thus, the aim of the project was to identify factors of transaction between individual and organization that can lead towards and support creative learning processes, and which are related to creativity and innovation within organizational context As several European countries were involved, one of the research questions was, whether there exist cross-cultural similarities in defining creativity-supportive learning environment in organizational settings The aim of the current study is however going further in investigating, how representatives of different organizational cultures in different countries (Estonia and Finland) perceive learning in terms of support for their creativity and innovation in their workplace Estonia, as post-Soviet country with less than 25 years of free-market and democracy experience, is compared to Finland, Scandinavian country with rich traditions of free-market, democracy and independence – the comparison is to reveal, if there are similarities in assessing importance of learning within organizational context

Empirical research

Quantitative study

As the first stage of empirical studies discussed here, online questionnaire was distributed in 4 countries (UK, Basque Country, Finland, and Estonia), with total returned responses of 506 The main objective of this questionnaire was to verify initial four factors originally identified in Discovering Vision (2010), as well as to understand and define the conditions under which creativity takes place in organizations – and how this leads to innovative practices in the organizational setting The questionnaire was constructed to mark and measure organizational climate (incl degrees of autonomy, communication with colleagues, level of decision-making, perceived level of freedom, organizational rules, etc.), perceived experience with creativity and innovation trainings (e.g different techniques), learning in the workplace (e.g formal and informal, learning by doing, learning by mistakes), as well as facts about the organization (size, profile etc.)

Both quantitative and qualitative sample was divided in two groups – representatives of technical field (i.e production, telecom, IT, construction, energy firms), and creative field According to Kimpeler & Georgieff (2009), creative industries are at crossing points of arts, culture, business and technology, their economic activities rest on individual creativity, and they predominantly produce intellectual property Thus, individuals working in such domains as art, advertising, copyrighting, theatre entrepreneurs etc., were considered as representatives of creative field

The sample and demographics were examined first, so that the nature of respondents can be understood Factor analysis was then conducted in order

to confirm whether originally identified factors would be reproduced through the questionnaire data Following the factor analysis, demographic differences were examined according to factor in an attempt to gain better understanding

of the specific demographic characteristics of the sample

The relationships between identified factors were also examined as well as interactions between them Finally, two different types of regression analysis were conducted in order to address two questions:

• What makes an environment creative and innovative?

• What motivates individuals to be creative and innovative in their workplace?

Results on factor analysis are illustrated in Figure 2

  





                                      

                                                                           

                                      



                                                                     

                                                                         

                                                                         

                                     



                                                                       

                                                                        

                                                                                

                                           



                                                                             

                                                                                

                                                                          

                                                                                

                                                                                 

Figure 2 Factor analysis of questionnaire data (Source: CREANOVA, 2011)

There were three significant deviations from the initially proposed theoretical model First, factor that was initially identified as Environment, during factor analysis was divided into separate factors: Environment 1, describing organizational characteristics (such as size, field etc.), and Environment 2, describing individuals’ perception of how creative and innovative this particular organization was Second change compared to initial model concerned need as separate factor – during the course of factor analysis, it did not come up as separate factor, rather as integrated part of several other

factors (freedom, social interaction) This, however, might be result of constructing questionnaire or perception of this factor by respondents Finally, experience in creativity and innovation training came up as additional factors, although initial model did not contain them However, correlation between factor Social Interaction and both Experience factors suggests that at least part of novel knowledge related to creativity and innovation is linked to communication, both formal and informal, i.e formal and informal learning strategies: the more individuals interact with colleagues within organization and through networks outside it, the more experience in creativity and innovation techniques, knowledge and training they get And therefore the more they are capable of crossing boundaries of their usual knowledge/ activities scope, making thus innovation possible

Figure 3 illustrates the final results of regression analysis (initially, both Environment factors were included, however Environment 1 did not have significant correlations with Freedom, and also two Environment factors did correlate among each other very weakly)

  





                                                             





Figure 3 Influence of 2 independent factors on Environment 2: Perceived Organizational Creativity and Innovation (Source: CREANOVA, 2011)

This model shows that social interaction and freedom, in combination with each other, affect Creativity and Innovation of (Organizational) Environment positively The stronger social interaction is in an environment (the more workers share the same values, the more humor influences the work place, the more influential issues of equality and diversity are in the workplace), and the more freedom there is (the more people are autonomous to make choices, the more influential personal initiative is in the work place etc.), the more

creative and innovative environments are – or at least are perceived by people who work in them

Social interaction and perceived freedom stimulate transformation of the organization – individuals perceive more freedom to obtain knowledge and implement it into their everyday working practices Thus crossing boundaries

of their everyday/ usual activities, participants of organization can expand domains of their knowledge, practice and experience, and turn their organization into constantly functioning learning environment

As on quantitative stage the separate samples for Estonia (n=80) and Finland (n=159) were not sufficient enough to run additional, country-specific factor and regression analysis, potential differences and similarities between professional life representatives were investigated during qualitative stage of empirical research

Qualitative study

For the qualitative part of the study, in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with representatives of creative and technical fields of work In Estonia, 9 persons were interviewed (5 representatives of creative field, 1 of NGO, and 3 from technical field), in Finland 10 persons were interviewed (5 from creative field, 5 from technical) Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and content analysis was conducted in order to identify the categories supporting creative and innovative environment Categories were reviewed, and conclusive findings regarding initial four factors are presented in Table 1 (“+” indicates occurrence of the sub-category within the national sample, “-“ indicates absence of the sub-category within all national answers pool) For all participating countries (besides Finland and Estonia also Basque Country, UK and Italy) there was set of compulsory/ common question that focused on the following topics:

1 Please describe at least one (important?) innovative practice that took place in your working environment? (alternatively: please describe one success and one failure case of innovation)

2 Please describe the process of this innovative practice?

- What made this (these) particular practice(s) innovative, why?

- What were the reasons, why the innovation has been undertaken?

- Was this case successful? Why?

- What were the main obstacles and supportive circumstances/ facilitators for innovation?

your opinion: What kind of environment is necessary for innovation?

4 Thinking of the innovation process/case you described, according to your opinion: What kind of atmosphere is necessary for innovation?

5 What role did learning play in the process of described innovation? (i.e

if there are any connections between learning in this working environment and innovation processes, and what these connections are like?)

6 During the innovation process: What did you learn about the factors and conditions promoting creativity and innovation?

In addition, every participating country had possibility to focus on their specific area of interest In case of Estonia and Finland, role of education, learning and their connection to processes of creativity and innovation were such additional topics

Analysis of initial theoretical factors emerged from interviews indicated several differences between Estonian and Finnish respondents, although overall perception of factors supporting creativity and innovation was rather similar In general, Estonian respondents (both representatives of creative and technical field) tended to emphasize organizational, leadership-oriented values – e.g necessity of feedback for one’s work, certain leadership style, supportive hierarchy in the organization Finnish representatives of professional life, on the other hand, indicated greater importance of individual characteristics, that nevertheless might lead to organizational improvement – e.g personal development, self-fulfillment, adaptation of novel ideas within workplace, etc

On one hand Estonian and Finnish professionals were both pro-active, seeing entrepreneurship-minded and challenging environment as supportive for creativity and innovation However, Estonians emphasized courageous leadership style as crucial part of pro-innovative environment, and at the same time valued possibility to switch working environments This may partially be due to popularity and state support for self-employment, which makes it easy and natural to work from every kind of environment (home, café, any other public place)

Comparing responses on factor Freedom, there was the biggest difference between Estonian and Finnish representative of professional working life Whereas Finns tended to encourage self-control and realize connection between individually perceived freedom and organizational wellbeing, Estonians seemed to value individual freedom in organizational context extremely high One possible explanation for this phenomenon is traditions and national experience in business and professional life: Estonia only regained independence from the USSR in 1991, and in order to become part

of Western society, the state had to take extremely radical and fast steps Therefore although proclaimed and pursued values are already in-line with those of e.g Finland, the actual desire and perceived necessary characteristics of working environment are just in the phase of transformation International cooperation is also one of the indicators that Finnish working life representatives seemed to emphasize more than Estonians Short experience

in international relations and cooperation is possible explanation for that, and also small number of international big corporations, compared to Finland