Interaction flow dynamics in the process of creative problem solving

Clarissa  Rackow  

10697020  

Master´s  Thesis  in  Corporate  Communication  

26  June  2015  

Dr.  Lise  A.  van  Oortmerssen  

Interaction  flow  dynamics  in  the  process  of  

creative  problem  solving

 

Graduate  School  of  Communication  

University  of  Amsterdam  

Abstract

In order to shed light on the occurrence of team creativity as the basis of

organizational innovations, this case study examines the interaction flow dynamics of groups in the process of creative problem solving in different settings of meetings in an agency. Following an interpretative approach, observations and in-depth interviews were applied to collect data on both contextual and situational factors that were expected to affect the conversational dynamics and the occurrence of collective creative moments. Based on the interaction flow - a conceptualization of these moments as social interactions - it was found that similar mechanism are relevant for the prevalence of collective creativity as were identified for individual creativity in the past. A positive communication climate in both the company and the team appeared essential for collective creativity. Furthermore, the effect of structures and settings of meetings was demonstrated while the importance of skilled leaders became evident for the success of communicative interactions. Besides, empirical evidence was found for the impact of individual factors, such as personality and professional roles on the involvement in interaction flow episodes. Situational variables interacted with the

contextual factors, emphasizing the complexity of these fleeting moments of collective creativity. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.

Introduction

In a knowledge society, constantly changing consumer demands and technological opportunities result in a high pressure of innovation and a high need for adaptability to a competitive environment (Hunter, Cassidy, & Ligon, 2012). Creativity, especially on a team level, is key to the complex problem solving and decision making that are crucial to master these challenges. Only when teams communicate and collaborate effectively, organizations will benefit from their full cognitive and creative potential (Anderson, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2004; Mumford, Hester, & Robledo, 2012; Zhou & Shalley, 2011).

The process of collective creativity has been researched and discussed broadly, exploring structural and interpersonal conditions that foster the generation of new ideas and facilitate effective problem solving (Anderson, Potocnik, & Zhou, 2014; Zhou & Shalley, 2011). In general, it is assumed that groups require cognitive, social, and environmental resources to generate extraordinary ideas (Harvey, 2014). Although researchers have established a set of relevant resources that facilitate group creativity, little attention has been paid to the actual conversational patterns and dynamics that occur during group discussions.

Taking on a communication perspective, this exchange and integration of new ideas is considered to be based on social interactions and reflective reframing (Hargadon & Bechky, 2006; Van Oortmerssen, Van Woerkum, & Aarts, 2014). The exploration of

conversational dynamics led to the proposition of a new concept for collective creative group moments: the interaction flow, which van Oortmerssen, van Woerkum and Aarts (2014) define as follows:

Interaction flow is a mode of interaction in which (a) participants’ nonverbal signals express a joint heightened involvement in the conversation,

(b) participants build on one another’s contributions through reflective reframing, and (c) turn-taking dynamics among participants intensify (short turns, wide distribution, and occurring of overlap).

(Van Oortmerssen et al., 2014, p. 23)

Up until now, no clear knowledge has been established as to what the boundary conditions of such fruitful team interactions are and if the dynamics identified are also valid in other contexts than the studied multi-stakeholder collaboration (Kazanjian & Drazin, 2012; Van Oortmerssen et al., 2014). In this context, the exploration of limiting conditions for interaction flow and the role of the manager´s interventions are of special interest to both theory and practice.

The conceptual contribution of this study lays in the focus on a strategic agency and thus will allow to investigate whether the interaction flow differs in the context of a fast-paced, goal-oriented but yet creative environment where the client´s requirements and project goals

shape the development of ideas and innovations. In this setting, the importance of hierarchical structures, team history, overarching company goals and the communication climate of the organization may be influencing factors in the process of problem solving. It can be assumed that besides the contextual factors on company level and team level, situational variables come into play that depend on the specific meeting characteristics. Therefore, it should further be assessed how different problem solving techniques and settings impact the interaction flow. This is why the study aims at contributing insights to this underlying research question: What characterizes the interaction flow dynamics of groups in the process of problem solving in different settings of meetings in a strategic agency?

So far, research on creativity was mainly conducted in laboratory settings, which does not allow for a holistic investigation of the mentioned factors. This comprehensive approach hence is of theoretical relevance, since it will be beneficial for a better understanding of social contexts and fluctuating variables that might not become visible in experimental settings. An increased theoretical saturation therefore enables the full exploration of the phenomenon of interaction flow. Consequently, practical implications can be made with more accuracy and a higher relevance to a natural working environment.

Theoretical framework

In order to assess the interaction flow more thoroughly, the communicative dynamics of creativity in a team and organization will be described in the following paragraphs. This means that primarily characteristics of the dialogue and the communicative interactions of the interlocutors are examined.

Basic assumptions of collective creativity

First of all, it should be noted that creativity has been conceptualized and researched on an individual and collective level. Recently, creative processes in groups or teams have been examined more closely, based on the assumption that their outcomes are especially relevant to the innovative outcome of an organization (Anderson et al., 2014). Finding novel ideas and solutions in order to develop services or products is crucial for long-term business success and the adaptability to an ever-changing, fast-paced environment (Oldham & Baer, 2012). Creativity on a group level can be described as the process of producing novel and useful ideas in a specific domain by a group of interdependently working individuals that share the same goal (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996; Cameron, Ford, & Jackson, 1996). One of the main assumptions of collective creativity is that the input of different resources shapes the creative outcomes and that different processes may result in different outcomes (Harvey, 2014). More specifically, a greater variety in terms of

experiences, expertise, opinions and knowledge may lead to a greater variety of the outcome.

Nonetheless, research has mainly focussed on identifying the relevant resources and variables that influence the process of creativity (Soriano de Alencar, 2012) but not yet extensively examined the process itself or the occurrence of fleeting moments of creative episodes. The general findings of collective creativity are not completely coherent in their explanations as to what and why some teams produce ideas that have a higher value of novelty and usefulness than others. However, they provide insights on teamwork and creativity that relate to different levels of the organization, such as structural, organizational and normative characteristics (James & Drown, 2012; Staw, 2009), which in turn influence the creative outcome of each single meeting (Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2011).

While some studies found teamwork to be restricting for creativity (e.g. Diehl & Stroebe, 1987; Paulus & Dzindolet, 1993) other findings testify that under certain conditions, teamwork does indeed lead to creative solutions (e.g. Robledo, Hester, Peterson, & Mumford, 2012; Van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004). These conditions refer to both the characteristics of the groups and the group processes in creative groups as well as to the impact of various contextual or environment factors (Damanpour & Aravind, 2012; Hoegl, Gibbert, & Mazursky, 2008; Lubart, 2010). Relevant factors are for example the organizational structure and management practice, such as hierarchy or leadership styles (Dougherty & Hardy, 1996; Kazanjian & Drazin, 2012). Especially the group composition can promote creativity and innovation, through the aggregated individual creativity and functional heterogeneity (Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2011). Instead of viewing creativity as the confluence of personality traits, behaviours and motivations that are influenced by the organizational setting and group context, it is necessary to understand in detail how supra-individual creativity as a distinct phenomenon emerges and what social interactions are part of it (Amabile, 1983; Hargadon & Bechky, 2006; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993).

One of the basic assumptions leading to the concept of interaction flow is that an essential part of the supra-individual creative process consists of the recombination of existing knowledge and expertise (Grigoriou & Rothaermel, 2014; Reinholt, Pedersen, & Foss, 2011). It is important to note that this combination has a social dimension and that collective creativity can thus be conceptualized as a process of social interaction. Besides, collective creativity and problem solving practices can occur on several levels (e.g. the group as a whole or on a single-meeting level) and may change over time due to the dependence on flexible environmental factors (Van Oortmerssen et al., 2014).

In the following, the concept of collective creativity will be examined from a

communicational perspective, finally resulting in the presentation of the interaction flow as a new concept to understand its communicative dynamics. First, an overview of the contextual conditions that shape social interactions will be given before taking a closer look at specific situational factors and behaviours that trigger and shape collective creative moments.

Contextual conditions of collective creativity

The structure and form of an organization impact collective creativity by providing environmental resources to create a supportive and motivating working space (Harvey, 2014). Communication climate

This is especially true for intra-organizational aspects of communication, such as the organizational communication climate as a whole (West & Sacramento, 2012). Specifically, a participative climate and a high level of individual interactions were found to be positively related to innovation (Kivimäki et al., 2000; Richter, Hirst, Van Knippenberg, & Baer, 2012). Besides, a general perception of openness towards the exchange of knowledge and an appreciation and critical evaluation of new ideas was shown to improve security and hence foster involvement and opinion sharing (Denison, 1996; Hofhuis, Van der Zee, & Otten, 2013; Paulus & Yang, 2000; Van den Hooff & Huysman, 2009). Moreover, a positive communication climate implies high levels of trust and collaboration (Denison, 1996).

Leadership, professional roles and interpersonal relations

The behaviour of group leaders was identified as relevant for creating such a positive climate. Particularly the significance of communication styles and personality traits of leaders for the productivity of a team was demonstrated by researchers (Bakker-Pieper & de Vries, 2013; Fransen & Hoeven, 2011), arguing that leaders shape group dynamics (e.g. by motivating, enabling or instead controlling their subordinates). A clear relationship between the role of leaders and creative outcomes in organizations has been discussed and

established in the literature (Basadur, Basadur, & Licina, 2012; Dougherty & Hardy, 1996) suggesting that some leadership styles hinder collective creativity while others foster

innovative thinking (Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007). Working experiences with leaders related to communication situations, e.g. the expression of criticism or the suggestion of differing ideas, might have led to conflicts or negative consequences in the past, which could then result in a less open discussion. Due to the reciprocal relationship of trust and social interaction (Thomas, Zolin, & Hartman, 2009), this presents an interesting aspect for the dynamics that occur on a group level during problem solving (Butler, 1999; Reinholt et al., 2011). For example, team members with a lower hierarchical status may be more careful to express their opinions openly, as they do not want to undermine the authority of the team leaders. In contrast, friendships or successful cooperations may improve the level of trust.

While it has been shown that the communication climate of an organization is

fundamentally shaping the productivity and innovative potential of team members on an on-going basis, it may also influence the occurrence of momentary creativity. Especially trust and open communication without self-censoring and anxiety have been emphasized as being crucial to ensure a full exploration of different opinions or suggestions and thus possible solutions to problems, including new ideas and preferences (Tjosvold, Wedley, Field,

Tjosvold, & Wedley, 1986; Van Oortmerssen, Van Woerkum, & Aarts, 2013). Moreover, the importance of networks and individual relationships for knowledge sharing and creativity should be noted, including the risk of group-specific coding schemes (Kratzer, Leenders, & Van Engelen, 2004). Specifically, sub-groups or close ties between few members of a group may reduce the overall comprehension of a topic or problem due to exclusively used terms or changed meanings, which hinder sense-making processes.

Situational conditions of collective creativity

Only when these organizational conditions of a positive communication climate are given, employees engage in social interactions and meaningful discussions that precede moments of collective creativity (Anderson et al., 2014). In the following, factors leading to and determining these collective creative moments will be presented.

Because meetings are often not held only with the same group members but may include other individuals, the group compositions is regarded as a fluctuating factor in this study. In respect of the group characteristics, diverse cultural (Tadmor, Satterstrom, Jang, & Polzer, 2012), cognitive or professional backgrounds (Reiter-Palmon, Wigert, & de Vreede, 2012), have been researched intensively recognizing the benefits but also the various challenges of diversity (Amabile et al., 1996; Paulus, Dzindolet, & Kohn, 2012). Most

importantly, it is suggested that a variety of cognitive or professional backgrounds relates to a generation of more diverse ideas (Harvey, 2014).

Triggers and characteristics of creative moments

Hargadon and Bechky (2006) shifted the focus from the contextual variables of creativity towards the situational aspects and behaviours that trigger moments of creative outcomes. They argue that these outcomes emerge not from one individual but from the fleeting, momentary interaction between individuals (Hargadon & Bechky, 2006). A model was proposed that identified four modes of interrelating activities, which trigger creative moments: help seeking, help giving, reflective reframing, and reinforcing. Building up on the work of cognitive psychologists (Gentner & Markman, 1997; Reeves & Weisberg, 1994), the researchers assume that collective problem solving includes a sense-making process where analogical reasoning and the recognition of similarities lead to a transfer of past knowledge to new solutions. They further argue that situations need to be reframed in order to be acknowledged as new. Otherwise, it is likely that the problems will not be defined correctly and solved with old solutions that seem appropriate while they are not (Hargadon & Bechky, 2006). The transfer of ideas over time and across projects seems to result in innovation. Hence, reflective reframing is considered to be at the core of collective creativity (Van Oortmerssen et al., 2014). It consequently becomes obvious that communicative interaction, the dialogue between individuals, is crucial for group creativity.

Conversational dynamics and communicative interactions

Keeping in mind that reflective reframing represents the point where knowledge is combined and ideas are integrated, a further exploration of the conversational patterns of collective creative moments reveals important dynamics: Studies demonstrate that attention and energy and thus the full immersion of group members in the conversation are just as crucial for creating new ideas as the heterogeneity of opinions or professional backgrounds (Hargadon & Bechky, 2006). Only a mindful engagement and processing of ideas lead to building up on one another´s contributions in a way that a true synthesis is possible (Weick & Roberts, 1993). In this context, Harvey (2014) conceptualized collective creativity as a synthesis, drawing attention towards the necessity of a true integration of perspectives. This further entails the careful reflection of ideas in the exchange process, described earlier as incubation (Paulus & Yang, 2000). Further, stimulation of analogies and similar associations seem to play a significant role in the simplification of group interaction (Weick, 1995).

Specifically, research suggests that creative synthesis occurs when people begin to see similarities in otherwise disparate perspectives (Hargadon & Bechky, 2006; Harvey, 2014).

In their study on collaborative governance practices, van Oortmerssen, van Woerkum and Aarts (2014) took this perspective as a starting point and focussed on reflective

reframing to explore the conversational patterns of creative episodes.

The concept of interaction flow

On a single-meeting level, it became evident that the interaction between the board members intensified with respect to different dimensions. Reinforcing what had been argued before in the literature, a heightened level of attention and energy was observed, as well as a decrease of distractions caused by other activities (Van Oortmerssen et al., 2014).

Concerning the mode of speaking, changes were apparent in the pace and intonation of the speakers. Additionally, the conversation as a whole became faster, with less silences, shorter sentences and even overlapping speech (Van Oortmerssen et al., 2014). The inter-actions were observed to become spontaneous and impulsive, with a full immersion in the conversation. Similarly, also the content changed more quickly, leading to reflective

reframing and a collective line of thought. A closer examination of these fluctuating dynamics revealing three tendencies in respect with regard to the intensified turn-taking patterns: (1) More speaking turn switches per minute, (2) more different speakers per minute and (3) overlapping speech (Van Oortmerssen et al., 2014).

Interestingly, reflective reframing occurred mainly during these intensified turn-taking episodes. Consequently, this appears to be a characteristic of moments of collective

creativity. In order to describe collective creativity in conversational interaction, the researchers propose the concept of interaction flow which both ‘shapes and mirrors’ the dynamics. Thereby, it can be assumed that interaction flow is an indication of collective

creative episodes (Van Oortmerssen et al., 2014). It further seems to include the description of a specific sort of dialogue, which the authors compared to the generative dialogue, which is a self-reflective speech act leading to self-transcending knowledge (Scharmer, 2001). This conversational pattern is claimed to be necessary to truly innovate and thus closely linked to collective creative moments. On the other hand, it remains unclear whether people are aware of the interaction flow and how they experience it. So far, the term ‘flow’ was only used to describe what was being observed, not what was being experienced. Some group members may feel excluded from or unable to contribute to the interaction flow episodes. This seems even more relevant, taking into account that the dynamics of problem solving practices over time were found to depend upon changing circumstances (Van Oortmerssen et al., 2014), which makes it probable that contextual factors like team history, past projects, and former working experience have an impact on the social interactions. Thus, they can be expected to form important limitations. Additionally, the researchers stress the importance of a climate of trust as a pre-condition for collective creativity and further point to the role of the chairperson, who might significantly influence the dynamics (Van Oortmerssen et al., 2014). Because the process was observed to be rather unstructured and chaotic, the person leading the meeting needs to be aware of the necessity of these dynamics and create a space where a free exchange of opinions is possible.

While it is argued that mainly trust evokes open and uncensored expressions of opinions, it may also be possible that extrinsic motivation or specific rules can stimulate the same results. For instance, a reward system for the purpose of driving creative performance (Klotz, Wheeler, Halbesleben, Brock, & Buckley, 2012). So far, empirical evidence for interaction flow was only found for multi-stakeholder collaborations with an intrinsic motivation (Van Oortmerssen et al., 2014). Therefore, it is of interest to explore other situational and group settings in order to discover other patterns of triggering or restricting moments of momentary collective creativity. In the context of a creative agency, different patterns may be observed, as external motivation and factors guide the process of problem solving. In addition, the reframing of problems may be more restricted due to already pre-defined problems and structures.

Finally, interaction flow is characterized by a high level of speed and quick responses, which leads to the question to what extent the found ideas or solutions are actually

considered high-quality and useful after careful consideration and also more in-depth

reflection. Thus, this research aims at evaluating the outcome of the interaction flow as well. Sub-questions guiding the research process

1) What facilitates the occurrence of interaction flow episodes? What are barriers and triggers?

2) How do situational factors, such as the setting and form (structure/agenda) of the meeting influence the occurrence, duration and ending of the IF?

3) How do contextual factors and especially the level of trust (in the groups as a whole but also between group members) influence the interaction flow?

4) How do leadership styles, roles and hierarchies influence the interaction flow episodes and especially the involvement of group members?

5) How is the interaction flow experienced and how does this relate to the evaluation of the outcome?

Methodology

 

The following section provides detailed information on the process of data collection and analysis and further discusses the methodological implications.

Research design

The research design of this thesis follows an interpretative approach in the form of a case study. In order to understand the perspectives of the individuals, this method offers the best approach to gather measures from various sources and integrate them into a full picture of the dynamics and experience of interaction flow episodes (Yin, 2009). The application of a qualitative approach based on grounded theory provides most insights into such a multi-faceted and complex concept as the interaction flow in a natural setting. Research based on grounded theory is iterative and systematic, starting with data collection, coding and

eventually leads to the development of theory (Bryman, 2008). Thereby, empirical evidence is won on how and why the interaction flow occurs and evolves without being restricted to pre-set definitions and categories. This approach moreover increases the ability of analysing underlying meanings or mechanisms, the importance of contexts or relations (Bryman, 2008). Consequently, it enables to examine personal experiences and evaluations and thus adds to a thorough understanding of the concept. By employing both participant observation and in-depth interviews, the study aims at approaching the phenomenon of interaction flow from multiple views to increasing the construct validity of the results (Yin, 2009) as promoted by the idea of triangulation.

Material

The case study was conducted in a strategic agency based in Germany that focuses on brand strategies. It consists of two parts of research for three different types of meetings: The first step was a participant observation of the meeting, while the second part were in-depth interviews with the participating group members (see table 7 in appendix A for further information on meeting settings and table 8 for participants´ socio-demographic data). The aim of the observations was to gain a deeper insight into the conversational dynamics and the limitations of the interaction flow in a realistic context, including different roles and speaking habits as well as nonverbal cues. Besides, the interviews served to investigate the

retrospect evaluation of the effectiveness of the problem solving and the individual

experience of the interaction flow. Furthermore, information on interpersonal relations, team history and communication climate were gathered, with a focus on perceived levels of trust and leadership style (see appendix B for the observation and interview guide).

In respect to team history and outcome evaluation, two analytical workshops of a team were observed, where consumer insights of a qualitative study were discussed in order to develop a brand positioning strategy. Due to their co-dependency, it was possible to assess the effectiveness of the previously developed ideas. In this group, two of the five members were not regular team members but freelance market researchers, which further increases the variety of angles of retrospect evaluations and hence should decrease overall subjectivity. In order to further compare this type of meeting with other settings and seek overarching patterns, two other forms of meetings in the same company were analysed. Thereby, the constant factors, such as the communication climate or knowledge sharing activities, remained identical while the differences on team and single meeting level could be observed more closely. The two other meetings included (1) a follow-up meeting of a co-creation workshop where both client and consumer where present to discuss future market developments and (2) a design thinking workshop with members of the whole company, not belonging to one specific team (see table 1 and appendix A - table 7 and 8 - for detailed information). The design thinking workshop hence offers more insight into the significance of interpersonal relationships, as employees with no joint working experience were randomly assigned to solve a problem.

Table 1

Overview of meeting participants

Name of Meeting Participant Position

Analytical Workshop 1 & 2 Speaker A Speaker B Speaker C Speaker D Speaker E Senior Consultant Senior Consultant

Freelance Market Researcher Freelance Market Researcher Strategist

Co-Creation Results Meeting Speaker A Speaker B Speaker C Speaker D Senior Consultant Manager (Client) Manager (Client) Consultant

Design Thinking Workshop 24 participants All hierarchy levels Note. Hierarchy levels in the agency are (in rising order): Junior Strategist - Strategist - Consultant - Senior Consultant

The recording units were different for the participant observation and the in-depth interviews and changed due to the different focus on either constant factors or the interaction flow. During the meetings, the overall atmosphere was one unit. Apart from that, the second recording unit consists of all episodes where interaction flow evolved. During these episodes, all verbal expressions were coded, including the tone of voice or speed of talking. Besides, nonverbal observations such as mimics, gestures and general body language were observed and noted down. These characteristics were mainly used to identify interaction flow episodes in the first place and were less relevant for further interpretation. Besides, the criteria defined by van Oortmerssen et al. (2014) were employed, with a focus on turn-taking and reflective reframing regarding the content.

Measurement and instruments

During the meetings, all conversations were recorded and enhanced by notes on observations of nonverbal cues. Instead of transcribing the whole meeting, only the parts where ideas were discussed and an interaction flow was observed were transcribed, always including the part of the conversation that led to the Interaction flow in order to identify possible triggers. The interviews were recorded and fully transcribed. The transcriptions where then translated from German to English by the researcher and checked by a native German/English bilingual communications student in order to ensure the quality. The inter-views followed a half-structured interview guide, which facilitated focussing on the most significant aspects and ensured a certain comparability of the individual contributions.

Special attention on both data collection and analysis was paid to the parts of the meetings that can be described as interaction flow and as to how and when these episodes occurred and what they resulted in. The triggering moments as well as potential barriers were identified by the researcher and reflected on together with the employees during the interview sessions. In sum, this generated detailed insights and a thorough picture of the conversational interactions, taking into account specific characteristics and perceptions of the team members.

Analytical procedure Data coding

For both the in-depth interviews and the episodes of interaction flow, the coding procedure consisted of three phases: the initial coding phase, the intermediate coding phase and the advanced coding phase. Throughout these phases, the sensitizing concept of (1) contextual factors (2) situational factors and (3) communicative interaction and conver-sational dynamics served as a guideline. They included aspects such as communication climate, social interactions, professional roles and leadership styles, structure of the meetings as well as modes of speaking and nonverbal cues.

The goal of the initial coding was to gain as much relevant information as possible about the sensitizing concepts in the different meetings and to gather information on the company and team. The transcripts were used to code verbal expressions and also the characteristics of speech (interruptions, speed, tone of voice). The observations of nonverbal expressions were then added and coded as well. This process resulted in a list of descriptive codes with all relevant information per episode for each team member. These individual findings were then reflected and combined into descriptions of dynamics. During this phase, memos were employed to document decisions about relevant and irrelevant content,

resulting in the identification of three interaction flows in the analytical workshop sessions, two episodes in the co-creation results meeting and several small episodes during the design thinking workshop.

The aim of the intermediate coding phase was to merge all codes into concepts. With regard to the concepts related to the company and team, the concepts were developed by looking at recurring expressions and actions of the initial coding and subsequently finding a term that described their function or meanings, keeping in mind dimensions known from previous research discussed in the theory. For the episodes of the interaction flow, the concepts were developed by looking at conversational dynamics, recurring expressions and social interactions. Again, memos were employed to document the creation of a concept based on the initial codes. Furthermore, the concepts of the interaction flow were linked to the general concepts in order to find the connections between constant factors and

situational aspects. For example, if an interaction flow was observed and not all group members were involved, the in-depth interviews were used for extracting information that could explain this phenomenon.

In the phase of advanced coding, the concepts of the second phase were reduced into more abstract categories, describing the limitations and facilitators of interaction flow. The aim of this third phase was to find patterns and relationships between the categories and ultimately to enrich the sensitizing concept and to answer the research questions.

Reliability and validity

In qualitative research, the most important challenge is subjectivity (Bryman, 2008). However, subjectivity can be reduced and reflected by following specific procedures. First of all, subjectivity was addressed by coding in a systematic manner. After describing the manifest content, inferences were drawn on its basis to stay close to the content. Especially the memos increase the transparency and allow retracing the steps that were taken and hence facilitate a replication. Secondly, the characteristics of the researcher herself can be regarded as beneficial. Being familiar with most of the participants due personal relations and former working experiences could have resulted in a more natural and un-censored

behaviour. Furthermore, information about company culture, such as informal meeting habits and formal meeting rules, professional and project roles and their responsibilities were

already clear and did not have to be collected and analysed. This made the process more efficient and allowed to focus on other important variables. On the other hand, it may have reduced the open and objective approach of looking at the data without any personal expectations.

Further action was taken to organize subjectivity. Although dialogical analysis was not possible due to the limited resources of the study, three fellow communication science

master students of the same and a different university were asked whether findings and categories appeared logical to them. Both the member check and the peer debriefing confirmed the face validity of the findings, which is an indication of valid results. Finally, criteria for the quality of the results were applied to all findings, so the authors verified if the findings directly related to the data, if they were recognizable and if they had theoretical relevance, if they were exhaustive, consistent, functional and useful. This improves the repli-cability of the study and the usefulness of the results.

Results

The findings of this case study will be presented in the following section, starting with a description of the characteristics of the occurrence of interaction flow episodes that were observed during the meetings. Interpreting the reflections of the interviews subsequently serves to examine their individual experience and evaluation. Lastly, the findings are enhanced by demonstrating the influence of contextual factors on the dynamics and occurrence of

interaction flow episodes.

Situational factors and conversational dynamics of interaction flow episodes Trigger

With respect to what triggered the episodes of interaction flow several different

beginnings were identified. In general, the conversational dynamics that were leading up to a creative episode can be described as high in turn-taking and with an active involvement of the members. This was manifested in a high level of attentiveness, such as active listening and eye contact. In most meetings, different perspectives or aspects of a problem were presented previously to an interaction flow until one of the statements led to agreement amongst more participants. It should be noted that it was indeed never the case that a conflict initiated the interaction flow episode. Instead, the agreement with an original statement and its further exploration or a re-definition of the problem formed the trigger. Aiming at clarification, this further exploration comprised various conversational components: asking for details, finding reasons why, contrasting against former experiences or disparate contexts, trying to find a general term, etc. (e.g. table 5, row 4 and 7).

However, a gradually distinct trigger of interaction flow occurred in the first Analytical Workshop: one of the market researchers compared her personal experience to the studied

behavioural patterns and illustrated her point employing a metaphor (see table 2, row 1, 5, 20). Contrary to the previously presented triggers, where the recognition of similarities caused the episode, the other group members rather tried to comprehend this line of thought and explored its meaning (table 2, row 7, 9, 14 and 24). The episode was especially interesting as it included additional metaphors, which changed the content´s meaning and served to reframe the

problem. For a detailed analysis, see table 2. Duration and ending.

Overall, no specific pattern was found that denoted an ending of the interaction flow. In most cases the flow decreased in intensity when the group (or at least everybody involved in the episode) reached consensus (e.g. table 2, row 27 - 36 or table 4, row 54 - 57) or when more information was necessary in order to proceed (table 5, row 8-11). Nonetheless, taking a closer look at the duration of the episodes, another interesting pattern emerges: during the shorter Co-Creation Results Meeting lasting approx. 1½ hours, the moments of collective creativity are equally shorter than during the 3 to 4 hour meetings of the Analytical Workshop. The more structure was given, the shorter were the interaction flows. Interestingly, this did not lead to less different perspectives, but rather to a less detailed exploration of all the distinct aspects. It could be observed that the agenda of a meeting determines its structure as well: The Co-Creation Results Meeting was composed as a “wrap-up” of the findings from the day before. Therefore, it was highly outcome-oriented, clearly structured (regard to time, tasks and responsible speakers) and strongly focussed on reflecting, evaluating and discussing the yet existing ideas. In contrast, the Analytical Workshops were more flexible and rather chaotic, with neither a discussion leader nor strict time limits for agenda points, which was reflected in longer and less specific interaction flows. From all this it can be concluded that the formal structure and agenda of the meeting shape interaction flow episodes.

Moreover, another important factor was found to be the group composition, as a client of the agency was involved in the Co-Creation Workshop (see table 5 and 6), whereas the participants of the Analytical Workshop were all co-workers or freelancers. Throughout the whole meeting, the client made decisions about the usefulness of the ideas and the interaction flow episodes did not end before the client was satisfied. This demonstration of decision-making authority also indicates the relevance of roles and hierarchies, which will be discussed in greater detail further below.

Active and passive participants

One major limitation that could be derived from the observations consists in the fact that during all episodes of interaction flow, none of the groups participated as a whole (see tables 2-6). Specifically, it evinced from the analysis, that primarily the dominant speakers of the meetings were engaged in the episodes. For example, the two active senior consultants in the Analytical Workshops were extremely participative, while the strategist was almost not visible at all. Not only did dominant speakers in all meetings contribute their opinions more frequently,

but also with greater enthusiasm and eagerness, whereas the remaining members kept quiet and passive. The higher involvement was clearly signalled by a louder voice, a quicker mode of speaking, the employment of illustrating hand gestures and approving head movements. Nevertheless, an open body language including the visual fixation of the speakers revealed that “passive members” still paid attention and listened actively. Henceforth, a lack of interest or motivation to contribute can be dismissed as a possible reason. Instead, other situational and contextual factors need consideration here, which will be discussed further below.

It should further be noted, that the dominant speakers hold a higher level in the hierarchy. In particular, clients would be granted more attention from employees and individuals holding a senior position were more dominant throughout the meetings. This definitely had an effect on the communication dynamics: Most salient was the observation that while the client spoke, the agency´s employees usually listened more carefully and took more care not to interrupt the speaker than they did amongst each other. Besides, this was not a conscious process, as none of the team members could recall this in the in-depth interview.

Another observation was linked to overlapping responsibilities that professional roles entailed. Instead of focussing on the conversation, the group members that were also documenting the meetings were sometimes rather distracted by simultaneous tasks.

Overall, individuals with a higher position in the hierarchy were more involved in the interaction flow and they were also the dominant speakers throughout the meetings. This might be due to personality, but also due to their professional roles and according responsibilities. Both possibilities will be discussed in greater detail further below.

Table 2

Episode Creative Agency Analytical Workshop Part 1, May 2015 From 1:28:57 to 1:32:17 [Analogies]

Row Speaker Contribution

1 C I am not sure if this aspect has been said before. But if I go shopping, I always feel like being in the stone age, like being a Hunter and gatherer. Like, I´m gathering my stuff, and I am trying to find the best berries in the city. So this mind set does not really apply to these clients at all. That is just not what they like. They feel incompetent. This is just an overall finding.

2 A Yeah, but I think one of the reasons is - I think I am a bit stuck with this idea of decision making, cause to me it makes a lot of sense - I think one of the reasons is really grounded in the decision making. As you have to make a lot of decisions…. [overlapping speech]

3 C Yeah, that´s right. Yes, aha. [overlapping speech]

4 A a lot of decisions, choosing what you are looking for. And I am even able to decide…[overlapping speech]

5 C [overlapping speech] yes, and it is only me who can do it. Only I am able to do that, no one else. I do not want anyone´s advice. I can do it myself, like the gatherers, you know. This is one of the extremes.

6 A Yeah sure. But let´s really think in extremes, that will be helpful. So the question is to find the extremes between the categories. Let´s try to find them…[overlapping speech]

7 B What would then be the opposite of hunters and gathers? I mean, if the one xx are the hunters and gatherers, what are the others then? Maybe we can find a term here?

8 C Well you didn’t have that option back in the day…but maybe - they have it simply delivered? They [overlapping speech]

9 A Yes! They get it delivered and don´t have to get it. [overlapping speech] 10 B It´s like frozen pizza

11 C Yes! [laughs] Exactly, a frozen pizza instead of a fresh meal. 12 none [Laughing and agreeing sounds]

13 C Yeah, but that´s it.

14 A But I guess it´s really like one person is the cook who goes to the market and looks for the good stuff and the other one who gets the pizza

delivered…[overlapping speech] 15 B Yeah, absolutely. [overlapping speech]

16 C What I am completely missing here is the point of being proud. [overlapping speech]

17 A Yes. Yeah, I see [overlapping speech] 18 C It is my selection [overlapping speech] 19 A Yes, like, my choice [overlapping speech]

20 C Yeah, you could say that. It´s like I am proud of finding it before others do and I am going to find it myself [overlapping speech]

21 B And with X it is more like, I am x x x x x. [overlapping speech] 22 A Yeah, exactly. [overlapping speech]

23 C Yes. I think this really, at least for me, this point makes all the difference between xxx A and xxx B. It is the total contrast to xxxxxxx.

24 A Yeah, so that would then be like backpacking vs. all-inclusive travelling?

25 C Yes.

26 B Hmh, yes, I think that makes sense.

Note. Phrases presented in italics illustrate reflective reframing.

Position of the speakers: A: Senior Consultant, B: Senior Consultant, C: Freelance Market Researcher, D: Freelance Market Researcher, E: Strategist.

Table 3

Episode Creative Agency Analytical Workshop Part 1, May 2015 From 0:38:05 to 0:43:32 [From customer needs to underlying psychological mechanisms]

Row Speaker Contribution

1 C They see this xx as some sort of xx, as something very special that they treat themselves with. So they are very convinced of it´s xxx and xxx. I am not sure if that also comes with it, but they need this presentation of xx on the xx. xx x xx x xxx x x, they need this help, simply from a visual point of view. This form of presentation is super important to them.

2 E I can second that.

3 A This is important, the fact that you need some x and xx. Or some special x. Exactly.

4 C And they all have their favourite x as well, so they don´t buy everything, but they have their favourite x that they buy. And with those x they are safe, they know the xxx an the xx and yeah…that´s it.

5 A Okay, I see.

6 B I put down some points for the personas now as well. So they actually want to feel x, that´s it? And then is it more a strong x with xx or more the xx that is important?

7 C The xx.

8 B Alright, so not the xx, but more the xx. 9 C Yes, exactly, the whole x.

10 F Yes, I also had that with xx. But at the same time, she also told me a lot of times, how much she x the person, how she build up the xx and how much she was xx by her xxx. So I think it was different. I think it depends a little. 11 A Yes, I agree, with xxx it was this way. But that was maybe just an exception.

Where it was very strong the same way as C described it, was actually with xx.

12 F This xx x into this x. So that´s why they like that xxx.

13 A So how was that for you, F? You said it was a bit different, right?

14 E Well what was always a topic with my clients was that they wanted to have the xx to be xxx. To be x x x x xx. What was very interesting there was, they did not use any other xxx of xxx, but only relied on this one xxx. So there was no x x x x. For example, xx.

15 A So that means they x x x x x?

16 E No, they didn´t they completely x on this one xxx to get xxx and xx it. 17 B Uhm, so that means, in a sense, they took it as the x xxx? Could we say

that?

18 E Yes, absolutely, yes.

19 E Yeah that was very striking, that this was the only form of xxxx. Maybe sometimes another x would be asked for their xxx

20 none (Multi)

21 A Well, if thinking a bit further, that also then means that it was also not xxx as the x x xxx? Like, the xxxx of the x was not questioned?

22 E No, not at all. And this is also closely connected to the fact that they xx the xx. So […]

23 none (Multi)

24 E Yeah and then what you could see with my participants, was that xx played an important role. I can x them. Or the xx, They do what I like. And that was closely connected to the xx, so that is how they are important. So the xx is important. It is not important x x xx like but…hmm…parallel to that, why they did not go out to xx x was that it was x x for them.

25 A Aha…yeah.

Row Speaker Contribution

26 E Not that they didn’t want to xx x x, but rather a xx of the moment not to x xx x x x x. I do not x x x x xx because then I might like something and then x xx x x x x x xx x x x. So they xx their own xxxx.

27 A Alright, I understand. In general we then find that xx is important to them, xx of not xx the x xxx. Yeah, do we agree on that?

28 none [Agreeing sounds]

29 A How would this then look like, if we think it the other way around? If they have to xx x xxx

30 E Well there was another different psychological moment that I noticed, which I found interesting. Which is true for all the xx, is that when I xx or when I xx it, and then it is not the right thing, then it is my own fault.

31 C Aha, okay.

32 E Yeah, so it is always their fault. And that was very, very dominant. So they try to reduce the risk to come to the point of failure, where they would blame themselves.

33 A Yeah well that then fits well with what we said about the safety and the risk reductions.

34 C Exactly, right.

35 A Hmh…that´s very interesting. I mean, we are all no xx, but that is a classical sign of xx. Very interesting point.

36 E Yeah well, it is definitely a lack of xx. In that sense I do agree for sure. Note. Phrases presented in italics illustrate reflective reframing.

Position of the speakers: A: Senior Consultant, B: Senior Consultant, C: Freelance Market Researcher, D: Freelance Market Researcher, E: Strategist.

Every x represents a syllable of the words that were too content sensitive to be published.

Table 4

Episode Creative Agency Analytical Workshop Part 2 May 2015 From 1:50:05 to 1:55:32 [From general observation of habits to explaining the role of X]

Row Speaker Contribution

1 E One thing I noticed was that a lot of people don´t have any xxx x x xx. So they are very much focused on their x and on what x x xx…

2 C Yeah, that is also true for my interviewees. But that might also be age related, I guess?

3 E Well for me it is only partly the case, because I also had one girl who was still very young and she was only xx x x x x x xx x xxx x xx x x x xx.

4 A Did you understand why that is the case?

5 E Well I also tried to get a bit deeper into the topic, I asked questions related to travelling. And then I asked for her wishes - and there was nothing. That was really remarkable. No xx, no x…

6 B Really? [overlapping speech]

7 E Yea, that was extremely obvious. And it had nothing to do with xx x or with xx xx…beforehand I thought that everyone had x x. I don´t know, xx x x, x x xx…But with my participants, there was really nothing.

8 A Well that´s extreme.

9 E Yeah nothing was there. [overlapping speech]

10 C Yeah it was the same with mine. [overlapping speech]

11 E Hmm yeah. Well and then my hypothesis would be that behind everything, that maybe, X could be this, like this topic we had before, being in a parallel world, that X is this parallel world they live in.

12 B Yeah, like xx the world to xx x? (Continued on following page)

Row Speaker Contribution

13 Yeah exactly. And what I asked myself was, what x these people? So if you have something that x you in life, you might look for another job, or seek for a different partner or something. And then while searching for these x, there was nothing, really. I couldn´t find it. It was more like they xxx x x. But there was not really x xxxx x x it. So X does not x xxxx…

14 F Yeah, so I guess you can say then that X just makes this nice world, but I don´t have to xx anything to it. My life keeps being the same.

15 A Hmh true, that means also they have no xxx. So it´s more like “I don´t have to do anything for it. I don´t have to xx”…

16 E Yeah, exactly. No x at all. 17 none [Multi]

18 A So they are without any x or x, then you don´t have to xx xx x xxx. 19 B Then I have the world x x xx x.

20 A Yes, right.

21 C Yeah, well I mean, I do understand that. That they don´t have any big x. I mean they would be xx everytime. Because they would have to x x x x x xxxxx. You would always…

22 A Mhmh [overlapping speech] 23 C That would be such a x x x xx x.

24 E But what I always thought was that the opposite was true. You know, the ones with xx x x x x x xxx x xx x x xxx xx. Like x x xxxx or something like that. 25 A Yeah I am not even sure what the rule is here. I just think it is interested that

this is even the case. I remember in a different context, I also found the same phenomenon…I think I would x much bigger, me, personally.

26 E But is it…I am not sure, but maybe this is also a bit just the thing - that they don´t have this? It is xx x xx x x mindsets?

27 B Well yeah, I think that´s true, what you xxxx shapes your x. Your reality also xx your x.

28 A Yeah, exactly, that´s important

29 B Yes and that´s why we - all of us here- would do things and think differently from that, because we´ve seen x x. We´ve travelled, opened our horizons, seen more and xx x xxxx.. [overlapping speech]

30 E Is that really it? I´m not sure…[overlapping speech]

31 B Yeah I think that is it, if I you haven´t had that all, then I also don´t have those big x [overlapping speech]

32 E But also not even in the small? I don´t x x big..but…still? 33 A Yeah, right. So then maybe additionally the x is missing?

34 [Agreeing sounds multi]

35 A Yeah that´s important, so x is missing but also the x and the x. And of course one thing depends on the other. If you´re xx xx, then of course you don´t have big x x x xx. So they don´t have these xx.

36 F I think it is way more important to xx x xxx xx.

37 [Multi]

38 E Yeah but then X is not the one that x the dreams, is it? 39 B Yeah, no it is more the [overlapping speech]

40 none [Multi]

41 A And I also have the feeling that is what makes things more xxxx. There´s no xx, there´s just xxx, it is xx..

42 B We get along well with each other [overlapping speeches]

43 A You can´t x xxx x. So it also is like having a parallel world, but not the ideal world with like family, that you will find in a movie or anything, so it is nothing you need to identify with. But everything is x xx.

44 B If look at it like that, is a form of xxxx, x xx x x x x xx…x 45 A It is this feeling of xxx [overlapping speech]

46 B Yes, you are also x x x [overlapping speech] (Continued on following page)

Row Speaker Contribution

47 A xxxx seems to be a huge theme here. We always see that during the focus groups.

48 B They recognize they are x xx [overlapping speech] 49 A Yeah, exactly, so they find that xx x x x x x x.

50 E Hmh yeah, but then it is…hmm, I would have thought before the interviews that, it was more a xxxxx x x xx xx xx x dream, [overlapping speech] 51 A That is still the goal, though. [overlapping speech]

52 E But it seems more to be the xxx xx. Offering a xxx x x xx. Like really for the xx x x x, x x xx. [overlapping speech]

53 B Then you also have the feeling xx´x xx x. This is what X offer, a bit the recipe for their succes [overlapping speech]

54 E And it is a xx x x xx x x x xx. x.

55 A Yeah, no. It is also only relevant for x x x x.

56 E Exactly, for example if don´t xx [overlapping speech]

57 A True. Yes, and I also do think that this is true for other categories. I can

imagine that also there we find the same pattern…But we will need to see that later

Note. Phrases presented in italics illustrate reflective reframing.

Position of the speakers: A: Senior Consultant, B: Senior Consultant, C: Freelance Market Researcher, D: Freelance Market Researcher, E: Strategist.

Every x represents a syllable of the words that were too content sensitive to be published.

Table 5

Co-Creation Results Meeting, May 2015 From 0:34:46 to 0:35:52 Row Speaker Contribution

1 A So from my point of view, what I´ve learned from the presentation, the most important thing to keep in mind here is x x xx x xxx x x x .xxx x x x x xx x x x x xx x x xxx x. xx x xx xx.

2 B Yeah, that´s right. And part of this is that x xx x x x x x xx xxx x xx. At least this is my opinion, if you consider…[Overlapping speech] 3 A Exactly. x x xx x x x xx x x. [Overlapping speech]

4 C So do you think that we can also use that in the context of xxx? Or is this not so important there? Because from my own experience and also from what I heard the users tell me yesterday, it seems to be like xx x xx x. So that would mean that xx could be appropriate for x as well. 5 B Well, I think it depends on the system, but in general that should not be

a problem at all. We just need to make sure that xx. But other than that it is

6 C Yeah, true. And in addition, x xx x xx x x xx x xx x x x.

7 A Agreed. But the logic is the same, we just xxx in order to make it work for xxx. Is that possible or do we need to develop a new xx x x xx? 8 B Yes, I think it is possible. So in terms of usability, this would then mean

that x x x x x xx. I think our competitors are just more equipped there. This is not really our core competency. However, we should keep it in mind and see if we can use it for xx as well.

9 C Hmh, yes. I will note this down…

10 B And also, at the same time we could xx x xxx x xx x xxx x, x x xxx x xx xxx x x x x x x x. I will ask X to make sure to double-check this with X. 11 A Good. Let´s put this on the sheet so we don´t forget. This might

become more important later in the process. Note. Phrases presented in italics illustrate reflective reframing.

Position of the speakers: A: Senior Consultant, B: Manager (Client), C: Manager (Client) Every x represents a syllable of the words that were too content sensitive to be published.

Table 6

Co-Creation Results Meeting, May 2015 From 0:52:28 to 0:54:09 Row Speaker Contribution

1 B I would like to come back to the point we made earlier. Do you remember, when we talked about [Name of user]. I think this is also relevant here. I mean, in the end it is all about xx x x x x x x xx. 2 C Yes, I remember, good point. Do you mean that we should xx x xx x x

x. Or is it limited to the option of x xxx x xxx?

3 B No, I think it is rather a question of usefulness. Like, what X said yesterday. For him it was only important to know that x xx would work without compromises. The x xxx was way too much for his day-to-day use and also x x xx x x x xx xx x x.

4 A Yeah, that´s also my impression. When we talked about the xxx, it was quite clear that x x xx x.

5 B So you agree that we could say that x x xx x xx x while at the same time xx x xx?

6 A Yes, but of course this is just an idea we can work on. I don´t see it happening right now. But yeah, I think a combination might be doable.

7 C A combination of x xx and x xx?

8 A Yes. But also the switch from x xx to xxx could be a solution for x x xx x xx. That´s something [Name of user] was suggesting as well. 9 D Ah no, I think you have to keep in mind here, that x x xx x xx x x xx x

xx. Thus, it is x x xx x x x.

10 A Oh alright. Yes, it´s completely true what you´re saying. I did not pay attention to that.

11 D Yes, I think we have to ensure that x knows about this detail so we have enough information to further proceed with xxx

12 B One additional point that I would like to make here is x x x xx xx x x xxx.

13 A This is also something I have noticed, when x x x x .xx x, x xx x xx x xx xx x x. It can also be that x xx is actually a better way to solve x xx. 14 B Might be. So I guess for the other business cases, it is more advisable

to follow the xx approach and then rely on xxx 15 A Yes, definitely. [overlapping speech]

B Because this is also something we´ve experience before, when x x x x x xx x x xx x x x xx x x xx xx x x. I do not think that this would be any different here. . [overlapping speech]

16 C Yeah, I am sure that´s the best option. Note. Phrases presented in italics illustrate reflective reframing.

Position of the speakers: A: Senior Consultant, B: Manager (Client), C: Manager (Client), D: Consultant

Experience and evaluation of interaction flow episodes

In order to gain a deeper understanding of origins and consequences of the patterns described above, a number of relevant contextual factors are examined in the following, based on the analysis of the in-depth interviews. For this, the individual experiences of the episodes are reflected by investigating the retrospect evaluations of both the situations and their

outcomes. Additionally, the application of images - visual and verbal - is described, due to their salience in both the interviews and the observations.

Individual experience

A closer analysis of the reported personal experience and evaluation of the interaction flow episodes sheds light onto various characteristics. Most importantly, it should be noted that the personal experience of an episode differs fundamentally between active and passive participants. Overall, three themes describing the personal experiences emerged from the analysis: (1) emotional experience, (2) collective achievement and (3) heureka moment.

The first of them, emotional experience, depicts the impression of an emotionally charged situation, where opinions are shared impulsively and passionately. It is linked to a full focus and a positive feeling of excitement. This feeling can be partly attributed to belonging-ness, which is linked to the second theme. It also results from a sense of accomplishment, which in turn is related to the third theme. “I am always happy when there is this moment, where you´ve reached a new insight and realize how this has been a very crucial step for the process.“ (Speaker C, Co-Creation Workshop). At the same time, this emotionally charged situation can become a barrier for active participation: Especially the high level of energy and fast speaking dynamics were experienced as constraining by the passive group members, who claimed that an interruption seemed impolite and would have required an effort: “It was a very loud situation, with lots of ideas and thoughts flying around. Everybody just threw in something, so I didn´t want to interfere.” (Speaker E, Analytical Workshop).

Secondly, the collective achievement manifests itself in a victorious feeling that is

extended to the whole group and evokes a sense of shared accomplishment and pride. „It feels like a victory. That we managed to create these insights from the material, all of us together.“ (Speaker B, Analytical Workshop). All members involved in the interaction flow episodes acknowledged the breakthrough thoughts as a result of their joined cognitive resources as opposed to somebody´s single idea.

Lastly, this accomplishment is often experienced as holding the key to solving the primary problem of the meeting in a sort of heureka moment, where suddenly the connections and interrelations become visible. It represents a crucial point in the process of sense-making and thus imparts logic and order to discussed aspects. “This was one of the a-ha moments in the meeting, where everything fell into place. It´s like watching a 3D picture unfold. You stare at

it all the time and then it suddenly all makes sense.” (Speaker A, Analytical Workshop, referring to table 2, row 9-14 and 22-24).

Outcome evaluation

Very closely related to the individual experience is the individual evaluation of the results: Similarly, the post-hoc evaluation of the outcome depends on the involvement. Specifically, an inclusion increases the likeliness of a very positive evaluation, whereas an exclusion correlates with disagreement. One example for the risk this entails for the development of ideas is the outcome of the second interaction flow in Analytical Workshop 1 (see table 2). The group members involved in this episode were afterwards convinced of having found a structuring pattern that would allow them to organize other findings around it and pursued this idea in the following meetings. The strategist and market researcher that did not take part in the episode, on the contrary, were not convinced of it and stated respectively that “this was not a main solution, in my opinion. I did not share this insight and wouldn´t say it describes the phenomenon accurately.” (Speaker C, Analytical Workshop 1).

Figurative speech

The theoretical assumption that figurative speech facilitates the discussion of complex issues was confirmed. Pictures and stories appear to be easier to comprehend than abstract concepts and facilitate defining a problem by oversimplifying, contrasting and stereotyping behaviour or intentions: “If the picture fits, everything falls into place perfectly and if it doesn´t fit, it usually clarifies what does not work.“(Speaker B, Co-Creation Workshop). Ergo, images support the development of new ideas. Specifically, metaphors provide substantial

advantages, such as the ease of creating a compelling story from the picture described, for example for a client, as stated by Speaker A (Analytical Workshop 1): “Metaphors make the abstract concepts even more real and later help the client to understand them better.”

All the above illustrates how beneficial images and examples are in the creative process. While no analogies were employed in the Co-Creation Results Meeting, the personal stories and anecdotes (of actual users who were invited to the workshop) were used as reference points multiple times during the meeting and the interaction flow episodes (see table 5 and table 6, row 1, 2, 8). This demonstrates moreover the value of exemplification and

personification for a clear problem definition, partly by evoking identification processes:

“

It´s also interesting to see how the language changes to the first-person perspective, which means that we´ve reached the point where we can identify with the customer. That´s usually a sign that the concept makes sense, as we can speak about is as if we were the person we´re trying to describe.” (Speaker A, Analytical Workshop). In a corresponding manner, the power of nonverbal images became clear during the Design Thinking workshop. Instead of verbal drawing of pictures, the participants used real scribbles to convey their ideas and found it helpful to visualize their thoughts, so that new ideas were formed during the process.

Nevertheless, metaphors and analogies are a two-edged sword: on the one hand, they facilitate to convey complex ideas by activating universal associations, but on the other hand, they put a filter on the content. “A good picture always adds something valuable. But I feel like sometimes it can be hard to get back from them, as they are very powerful images.” (Speaker D, Co-Creation Workshop).

Contextual factors

Before examining the role of interpersonal relations, one individual factor will be described that resulted to be substantially forming situational behaviour in social interactions and especially the interaction flow episodes.

Personality

The individual personality was identified as highly relevant in this context. While this aspect was discussed in various contexts, it was most extensively reflected in the case of the strategist from the Analytical Workshop. She herself explained: “I did not participate because no instant associations were evoked by what they said. Also, I felt more in the role of the observer. I am just not the kind of person that jumps into a conversation when a lot of people are already talking.” (Speaker E, Analytical Workshop). It becomes obvious here how a more introverted orientation influenced the social interaction. This was further noted by the senior consultants who were aware of this character trait and its implications for the group work process. Nonetheless, taking into account the reliability and professional commitment of the strategist, her personality was not seen as negative. ”Sometimes, it is just the personality that makes her a bit more quiet. However, I know from the whole atmosphere in the meeting that we did not miss out on any insights. If something really important would have come up, she would have intervened, I am sure.” (Speaker B, Analytical Workshop). Individual

communication habits hence may inhibit pro-active participation. Interpersonal relations

Another factor explaining differences in the interaction flows are interpersonal relations, which in turn seems highly dependent on the roles of the team members, including the leader-ship style of the chairperson. Overall, it became evident that although trust seems to be a necessity, a long shared history is not obligatory for a group to be working together creatively and efficiently. This was concluded from the fact that none of the observed groups had been working together in the exact same composition previously. In addition, the attendance of the Design Thinking Workshop offered further proof for this, due to the successful collaboration between randomly assigned working pairs. However, positive former working experiences with a person or same members of a group facilitate working processes. “We did work together before, and I like about her [group leader] way of working that she´s very clear in her