A CHANGING WORLD: IMAGINEERING AS A WEAPON

(1)

(2)

2

A CHANGING WORLD:

IMAGINEERING AS A WEAPON

A study about the controllability of the

Imagineering design approach.

Master Thesis

Student: Jantien Vrijenhoef

Student nummer: 2351552

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Ir. Jo van Engelen

Second Supervisor: Dr. Eelko Huizingh

Word count: 17.582

University of Groningen

MSc BA Strategy and Innovation Management

Faculty of Economics and Business

(3)

3

Executive summary

The complexity in the society is growing rapidly these days. This growing complexity comes which new opportunities for individuals in a collective setting but also with its challenges of growing turbulence and uncertainty about procedures, processes, and organizations (Nijs, 2014). According to Stacey (2005), organizations have to fight complexity with complexity. Imagineering can be seen as a big opportunity to solve the complex problems in today’s society by integrating the imagination of individual actors. The Imagineering design approach tries to evoke the effect of ‘changing small things and let it emerge to something big’ by using the imagination and the collective creativity in an envisioned direction (Nijs, 2014). However, one should not forget that the performance of organizations is often still measured by financials and stability. The Systems Theory of Control provides five requirements of effective control that increases the control capacity and the controllability of an organization (De Leeuw, 1982). Nevertheless, even this theory indicates that not everything can be fully controlled (De Leeuw, 1982). The way an organization is controlled may influence the ability to tackle the complex problems within the environment. At first sight, both approaches have a totally different viewpoint. Where the one focuses on creativity, interaction and the imagination of actors, the other approach focuses on control, prediction, and smart goals. However, when connecting both approaches the basic concepts are overlapping.

The Imagineering design approach has a strong relationship with the complexity theory. Complexity thinking includes that the world is unpredictable and living systems should be improved instead of just improving the system itself (Nijs, 2014). When reflecting complexity on the control theory, organizations can be seen as vehicles that make it possible to fulfill complex proceedings in a coordinated way. The way an organization is organized should be focused on complexity reduction (De Leeuw, 1994). By controlling an organization effectively, it may be easier to adjust and react to the dynamic environment (De Leeuw, 1982).

The possible effect of Imagineering on the control of an organization is researched within three industries: oil and gas/ safety, hospitality, and healthcare. The suitability of the Imagineering design approach depends on the level of interaction between people and the amount of strict rules and procedures in a department. In the last situation it may be harder to implement the Imagineering design approach. But for departments that deal with a lot of uncertainties, interactions, and different behaviors, the Imagineering design approach can offer a way to connect the soft and the hard site of the job. The most important aspect in implementing and working with the two approaches is the need for flexibility. The Imagineering design approach strives to empower people at all levels and to stimulate creativity. On the one hand, it will decrease the level of controllability, but it will simultaneously stimulate the accomplishment of higher organizational goals by an increase of awareness at employees. All industries agreed on the necessity of creativity in the different departments. This will stimulate innovation, work will be completed faster, and the motivation to perform on the highest level will increase.

(4)

4 Differences appear in the level of interaction with other actors, the need to roll out concepts collectively instead of more individual, and the controllability of the organizations is created via a higher level of awareness and empowerment instead of control measures and evaluation.

(5)

5

Introduction

The world around us is becoming more complex every day. Companies feel the growing turbulence as a consequence of a denser connectivity with the environment (Nijs, 2014; Sheth and Uslay, 2007; Pinha e Cunha, Vieira da Cuha, and Kamoche, 2001). To cope effectively with growing complexity, complexity science can be used from a design perspective. The complexity science will enable people to see opportunities by bringing the turbulence in an appropriate way into the organizational dialogue. These dialogues are the generative mechanisms through which an organization can transform and can continue transforming (Nijs, 2014). This design approach is called ‘Imagineering’, by making organizations more able to function in a growing complex environment by inspiring and encouraging continuous discourse with and between potential participants. This is done by blurring the boundaries between those inside and outside the organization to play a role in the value creation network (Nijs, 2014). Imagineering is defined as a design method that harnesses the power of bottom-up strategy, tap into collective imagination, and create change desired by a collective community (Nijs, 2014).

The design approach of Imagineering, as a generative tool, is the source of creative activity and innovation. Nijs (2014) describes that creativity cannot be planned, but it can be influenced. Collective creativity is the creativity that emerges from the interaction of ideas of diverse people rather than from the mind of any given individual (Hargadon and Becky, 2006). Sustainable change in organizations can only happen when individuals start and will continue to act differently. And accordingly, this shift in acting can only happen when individuals can see a new interesting collective perspective that motivates their (new and different) actions (Nijs, 2014). The design approach of Imagineering must complement and interact with the existing organizing and planning of activities and strategy. The imaginer should avoid speaking about change, as Imagineering is not about fixing the past but about envisioning the future. Central perspectives are: critical thinking, dialogue interaction, positive psychology, and cultural sensitivity (Nijs, 2014).

Nijs (2014) created a new model to interfere in designing for organizational emergence. This has a strong emphasis on complexity and collective creativity in companies. The developed model, the ‘Stairway to heaven’, creates an opportunity tension that inspires people to rethink their role in the value creating process. Positive feedback dynamics will emerge as the effect of the different actions are evaluated as being positive for the business or for the goals of the organization in general. The model intentionally implements stabilization dynamics to be able to take care of the level and quality of the new actions. The organization can learn to frame the dynamics in a sustainable way.

(7)

7 an organization, this controllability will even decrease. At the one hand, this is an unpleasant effect which decreases the amount of effective control. On the other hand, the creativity will lead to the accomplishment of higher organizational goals.

This study will contribute by approaching the Imagineering design approach from a control perspective. By describing and understanding the controllability of Imagineering, insights can be given about the linkages and differences between both theories. The visualization of the managerial controllability of the Imagineering design approach may lead to a better understanding and acceptation of the Imagineering design approach in practice.

Research question

Nowadays, people and organizations are becoming more aware of the fact that the world is changing in a connected society of co-creation (Pinha e Cunha, et al., 2001). The normal thinking of planning and control makes perfect sense in a relative stable environment but these thoughts are becoming obsolete since the complexity in society is growing. Complexity describes large networks of people and ideas that are interacting and changing in a complex dance. With the growing complexity in society, the need to liberate collective creativity becomes more important. Although, one should not forget that the performance of an organization is often still measured by financials and the stability of the financial statements. Collective creativity asks for structural interventions in traditional and strongly hierarchical ordered organizations. This can be done by introducing the method of Imagineering in coping with complexity theory (Nijs, 2014).

The design approach of Imagineering must complement and interact with the existing organizing and planning of activities and strategy (Nijs, 2014). By controlling an organization effectively, the organization could be able to adjust better to the Imagineering design approach and also keep the strategic intent more alive. However, at the moment when an organization will implement the Imagineering design approach, will there be a chance that the organization will be out of control? This study focuses on the controllability of the Imagineering design approach. This leads to the following research question:

‘’What is the effect of Imagineering on the control of an organization?’’

(8)

8

Background

This section presents an overview of the Imagineering design approach, including the ‘Stairway to heaven’ model, as proposed by Nijs (2014). Besides this, an introduction of the Systems Theory of Control is provided based on De Leeuw (1982) with special attention to the requirements of effective control. The chapter will end with a comparison between the key insights from the Imagineering design approach and the requirements of effective control.

Towards an environment of co-creation and co- evolution

Growing connectivity, interdependency, diversity, and interactivity have major influences on the way people can create value in society (Nijs, 2014; Pinha e Cunha, et al., 2001). A shift in value creation has implications in four fields: the business definition, the way work is organized, the way of managing, and the transition towards a co-productive economy. Nowadays, the economy becomes more knowledge based, which makes it more important to look deeper into the dynamics of Imagineering: the dynamics of invention, innovation, and entrepreneurship. Imagineering does not happen with the end in mind, as this is not possible in facing complex problems, but it happens with a clear direction in mind. As a generative tool, Imagineering is the source of creative activity and innovation. It is the emotional engagement that sustains the cognitive engagement (Nijs, 2014). The Imagineering approach has a strong relationship with the complexity theory (Nijs, 2014). Complexity thinking includes that the world is unpredictable and living systems should be improved instead of just improving the system itself. Complexity science offers an interesting perspective in the Imagineering design approach, as the central question in complexity science is ‘how to generate new order’ (Nijs, 2014). The butterfly effect, a metaphor in complexity theory, shows that small things do matter in complex systems and that the initial condition of a system is of major importance for the possible evolution (Shotter and Tsoukas, 2011).

The whole design process of reframing starts with the search for a more meaningful organizational purpose. In the Imagineering design approach, reframing asks for reflective, critical thinking from the imaginer as he/she has to think through possible damage and possible impact in the different stakeholder groups. It asks for appreciative thinking and working, positive psychology and cultural sensitivity, not only to prevent the emergence of resistance of the system against change but also to optimize the human conditions to foster the conditions for collective creativity. Reframing the business conception asks for such an attitude not only in the design process itself but also as a management attitude afterwards (Nijs 2014).

The design method of Imagineering can be divided into three steps or they can also be called spaces since it is an iterative process. In each step, there are two phases in which classical system thinking and complex system thinking are combined. Within the first step, inspiration, the discovery of the field most relevant for society to co-create value is researched. There will be an analysis of facts and figures of the current situation, but also a brooding on patterns and interaction to discover generativity.

(9)

9 narrative artifact will be designed to evoke the imaginative tension for stimulation and fluctuation. This step includes stabilization via a declaration of values and the designing of an inspiration guide. The central orientation is the relevance for society.

The last step, implementation, manages the dynamics of imaginative emergence. The process and direction become more concrete and detailed. It includes the exploration and experimentation of building the experience platform and positive feedback (Nijs, 2014). Table 1 visualizes the model explained above.

Resource Classical Systems Thinking Complex systems Thinking Closed systems - SOLUTION Open Systems- EVOLUTION

Inspiration A – nalysis B – rooding

Ideation C – reation of vision D – esign of narrative

Implementation E – xperience platform F – ollow up

Table 1 Imagineering Design Approach (Nijs, 2014)

The Imagineering design approach is effective when the dynamics of emergence are recognizable in the history of the process and when the Imagineering approach leads to an augmentation of collective creativity which results in a more open and creative organization that can cope better with growing complexity in society. The effectiveness of the method can be evaluated by four constructs:

- Satisfaction of as well internal as external stakeholders; - Attractiveness in the labor market;

- Turnover; and

- A better organizational climate, measured in work engagement. The ‘Stairway to heaven’ model

The integration of cognitive elements and dynamics leaded to the ‘Stairway to heaven’ model (Nijs, 2014). The ‘Stairway to heaven’ model stimulates transformative change. Transformative change is facilitated by making small, but well designed interventions in the micro- processes. The change is a matter of evoking transformative interactions and realizing that these interactions are a matter of reframing relationships reflectively. The change can be accomplished by changing the quality of the conversation, including who talks to whom, when, where, why, and about what. Dialogues are used as the generative mechanism through which an organization can transform. Critical thinking, dialogical interaction, positive psychology and cultural sensitivity are some of the general perspectives that characterize the way of imaginers as designers (Nijs, 2014).

(10)

10 The ‘Stairway to heaven’ model consists of eight main steps, the different steps can be more or less conscious and the line between the steps is not always clear.

Step 1: Narrative/ Strategic design

This first step is focused on redesigning the business conception. Three criteria will cause an opportunity tension: the relevance criteria, the relational criteria, and the narrative translation. Within step 1, the first and last step of the model are connected. The narrative and the strategic intent should be connected to make sure that the steps in between are in line.

Step 2: Mind shift

Step 2 will lead to the generative dialogue and the strategic intent. All parties involved; stakeholders, employees, and customers are inspired by the shift of the organization. They will start to question and dialogue about the meaning of the shift.

Step 3: Rethinking roles/ relationships

The proposition created in step 2 will trigger all parties to start questioning and dialogue about how they can join the collective movement which feels relevant to their lives.

Step 4: New action by re- combination

Thinking about their possible role, they start to see opportunities on how they could join the movement in their daily activities. Besides this, people will start to act differently, more aligned with the strategic relevance that is presented.

Step 5: Positive feedback

The more positive feedback a stakeholder gets, the more eager he/she is to put new steps in the strategic direction.

Step 6: Collective action asks for stabilization initiatives

By seeing the relevance of the new actions and their positive feedback, other individuals will start to reflect on how they can be part of the relevant movement. To stabilize the movements on the desired level, basic principles like; criteria for participation and values should be developed.

Step 7: Emerging organization

When all the individuals change in the collective setting, this results in an emerging organization. This is an organization that is able to function well in a more complex and open context. The organization will dynamically create value for society; many stakeholders will start to think about co-creation that will make themselves more relevant.

Step 8: Strategic Direction/ Intent

The strategic direction is the field of value creation in which the organization can be relevant and special for society.

(11)

11 Seeing that the small things one does, makes sense in realizing a collective purpose is something very powerful in making people engaged with what they are doing. Great leaders are able to design a path for people on which they can feel co-designers of a community that builds a better world (Nijs, 2014). It is argued that designing organizations can perfectly go hand in hand with interpretative perspectives at organizational change. Designing can be seen as bricolage and improvisation. The interaction between organizations and the environment is crucial for the effectiveness of the organization (Mobach, Rogier, and de Leeuw, 1998).

The Imagineering design approach encourages thinking in terms of evolution and the emerging mode instead of thinking in terms of solution and the reductionist mode (Nijs, 2014). From a practical perspective, the stimulation for evolution and collective creativity might be less controllable for managers in day-to-day operations. Following this line of reasoning, managers could act restrained to the Imagineering design approach because the internal system of an organization still operates with control measures like; key performance indicators and financial statements to measure the performance. The practicability of this type of measures is questionable in a process in which the outcome is unknown. To review the managerial controllability of the Imagineering design approach, the Systems Theory of Control is used to provide several insights.

The Systems Theory of Control

By controlling an organization very tight, comparisons can be made in order to determine if a situation is improved compared to a preceding period (De Leeuw, 1994). Following Checkland (1981), processes of communication and control are necessary in order to survive; activities should logically be judged on efficacy, effectiveness and efficiency. Different performance measures are needed for setting goals and objectives, planning activities to accomplish these goals, and monitoring and evaluating the results (Hatry, Fountain, Sullivan, and Kremer, 1990). So, abstract measures are worthless. To use a performance measure and to extract information from it, a manager needs a specific, comparative measure, plus an understanding of the relevant context (Behn, 2003). Organizations can only work future oriented, by using models, targets and goals in a linearly oriented environment (Ashby, 1956).

(12)

12 As a starting point, control depends on the coherence of two types, namely the effect of control and the control effort. The control effort can be described in forms of managerial effort, the amount of invoices, the range of management meetings, etcetera. The effect of control refers to the degree to which intended results are achieved. A common misunderstanding in practice refers to the behavior of people. People often think that if you work hard, the desired result will be reached. However, there are two limitations within organizational control.

The first limitation: the controllability of an organization. The controllability of an organization explains the optimal results of the control system within a certain environment. This limitation refers to the functioning and the structure of the organization. The second limitation: the control capacity. The control capacity refers to the capabilities of the people controlling the organization. The capabilities of the managers should fit with the complexity of the organization. When no attention is paid towards the control capacity, this will obviously lead to frustration, higher costs, and disappointments. In the end, the effect of control is influenced by the control capacity, which is impacted by the control effort, the complexity of the control, and the controllability of the organization (De Leeuw, 1984).

De Leeuw (1994) also points towards the importance of the complexity theory. He states that complexity is not only a characteristic of the system but also of the observer. The complexity of the system is defined in relationship towards a specific control problem. The core idea is that the complexity of the system should be viewed in line with the control problem regarding to that system. The complexity of a control problem is determined by several variables: the possibility of dividing the problem, the predictability, the homogeneity of the collection of control problems, the controllability of the sub- problems, and finally the variables which influences reversal; the control of the environment through the system. Organizations can be seen as vehicles which make it possible to full fill complex proceedings in a coordinated way. Organizations make it possible for individuals to function in a complex environment. The way an organization is organized should be focused on complexity reduction (De Leeuw, 1994; Otto and De Leeuw, 2000).

Requirements for effective control

To have a high probability of success, organizations must maintain good management of control. Good control means that management can be reasonably confident that no major unpleasant surprises will occur (Merchant and Van Der Steede, 2007). Increases in organizational effectiveness are observable as storage of energy, organizational growth, organizational endurance and survival, and as organizational control of the surrounding environment (Katz and Kahn, 1978).

(13)

13 To create an effective system of control, five conditions have to be met. However, effective control is not guaranteed although all the requirements are fulfilled (De Leeuw, 1982).

1. The goal as evaluation mechanism.

If this is lacking, the influence could not be targeted. Incidentally, the goals need not be complete or explicit, or constant either. It is necessary to have a stable evaluation mechanism and that the goals will be evaluated on a regular basis. This evaluation should lead to better clarity and explicitly of the goals for both the organization and the people. Besides this, the evaluation should also support the sharing of the organizational goal itself. An important criterion that is often forgotten is the necessity to keep the goal flexible. Since the goal and the conditions will change over time, people should evaluate the changeability of the organization and its structure.

2. A model of the target system.

To be able to influence the controlled system, one should have a prediction of the effect of the control measures. If there is not a prediction possible, the desired effect will also not occur. The model of the target system is not referring to the model of the organization, but to the way the organization changes with regard to the control measures. Within this context, questions will arise about the effectiveness of control measures in relation to the desired change. For example: job descriptions, organizational handbooks, training, but also legislation.

3. Information about the environment and the state of the system.

The future position of the organization is determined by the control measures as discussed above. Besides this, the environment and the state of the system play an important role as well. Therefore, information is needed about environment to estimate the impact.

4. Sufficient control measures with which to control all kinds of disturbances.

To enable effective control, one should have access to sufficient control measures which are in proportion to the variety of possible disturbances. With regard to Ashby’s Law of requisite variety (1956) the necessary variety in control measures should be equal to the variety in disturbances.

5. Sufficient data handling capacity, which enables the use of the information required for taking control measures.

It is necessary to convert information about the environment and the state of the system towards an effective control measure, while keeping in mind the organizational goal. There should be sufficient data handling capacity to convert this information.

Control mix

The actions performed by the actor may be described as a control mix. A control mix is a selected set of control measures selected from the requirements of effective control. An organization has to decide with which control measure, or with which combination, they want to reduce the disturbance. The Systems Theory of Control distinguishes six internal and external control measures: internal routine control, internal adaptive control, internal goals control, external routine control, external adaptive control, and external strategic control (Mobach, et al., 1998).

(14)

14 influence on the environment by influencing the structure of that environment. External strategic control refers to the influence on the environment by influencing the goals of that environment (De Leeuw, 1982).

Effective Imagineering?

In complex problems everything is connected to everything else and instead of asking for clear cut, linear top-down solutions which can be made based on great expertise, complex problems asks for more subtle, more ‘complex’ approaches in which involved stakeholders can engage themselves creatively and collectively to optimize the evolution of the ‘problem’ in the envisioned direction (Nijs, 2014). According to Stacey (1996) ‘organizations have to fight complexity with complexity’. To cope with complex problems, there will never be one right formula while the process is repleted with ‘unknowable’s’. When an organization has to cope with complex problems, thinking in terms of evolution is mostly more appropriate as the solution often consists of enabling growth and development. In complexity terms, there can be said: the solution is an emerging one (Nijs, 2014). The complex problems of nowadays ask for joining up approaches, approaches that allow for adaptation instead of being turned over to an end structure and an end result that might be totally destructive for some stakeholders (Nijs, 2014). These joined up approaches should be guided by people within the organization. The requirements of effective control show the relationship between the goals of an organization and the degree to which the control is effective (Mobach, et al., 1998). The effectiveness is linked to the preferences and perceptions of the controlling organ, which in turn controls the target systems and the environment (De Leeuw, 1982). The way an organization is controlled may influence the ability to tackle the complex problems within society.

(15)

15

Condition 1: The goal as evaluation mechanism.

De Leeuw (1982) states that there should be a (flexible) goal, which needs to be evaluated via a stable evaluation mechanism on a regular basis. This is necessary because it will provide better clarity for the organization and the people. However, Nijs (2014) states that Imagineering does not happen with the end in mind, as this is not possible in facing complex problems, but it happens with a clear direction in mind. De Leeuw (1982) also mentions explicitly that the people should evaluate the changeability of the organization and its structure. If the changeability is not in line with the goal, the positive end result will not be reached. The Imagineering approach starts with designing for a more meaningful organizational purpose. Which means, not only prevent the emergence of resistance of the system against change but also to optimize human conditions to foster the conditions for collective creativity (Nijs, 2014). Concrete, where De Leeuw stimulates a clear but flexible end goal, the Imagineering design approach proposes a clear direction that takes the system and the people into account.

A trade-off between both approaches can be seen. It depends on the clarification of the task and the goal of the task itself which approach fits best. On the one hand, if the goal is to get a difficult and technical job done (e.g. flying an airplane) the Imagineering design approach will most likely not fit. On the other hand, if the goal asks for interaction and creativity (e.g. designing an advertisement) the Imagineering approach will enhance the characteristics of the task. These two examples describe the situation in extremes, in practice the lines are more intertwined and can be seen as a continuum. The level of fluctuations in the environment can be seen as a moderator between both approaches.

Proposition 1: The suitability of the Imagineering design approach depends on the clarification of the task and the goal of the task itself.

Condition 2: A model of the target system.

With the second condition the theories have a contradicting viewpoint. On the one hand, the requirement of effective control is based on the thoughts that to be able to influence the control system, one should have a prediction of the effect of the control measure. If there is not a prediction possible, the desired effect will also not occur (De Leeuw, 1982).

The Imagineering approach, on the other hand, states that organizational emergence have to take place before the organization can deal with the new environment. Organizational emergence consists of coming into a new, sustainable dynamic state that allows an organization to function in a more complex environment, in a matter of engaging people creatively and collectively in transformative interactions (Nijs, 2014). To realize prediction of the control variables, all employees should work via strict processes and guidelines. Each employee should be treated in the same way. The Imagineering design approach strives to empower people at all levels to initiate innovative solutions in an effort to improve processes (Nijs, 2014, Barrett, 1998). By empowering people, the prediction of control is not possible since people are engaged in transformative interactions. However, the awareness of all people due to the increased empowerment can also function as an important control variable in complex systems (Stacey, 1995). Overall, where one states that the control measures should be predictable, the other encourages empowerment which could lead to control in the end.

(16)

16

Condition 3: Information about the environment and the state of the system.

The Imagineering design approach, as well as the requirements of effective control, highlight the importance of information about the environment. Nijs (2014) states clearly that organizations are no longer closed systems for which the environment is a given, but they are open systems for whom co-creation and co-evolution of and with their environment is essential for survival and for flourishing themselves but also for society at large. De Leeuw (1982) stresses that the future position of an organization will be impacted by the environment and the state of the system. The controllability of an organization is not only influenced by internal factors like: resistance to change, or flexibility, but also by the environmental conditions like economic well being (Otto and De Leeuw, 2000). With the connected society of nowadays, fluctuations and dynamics are present on a large scale. It may not possible to gather all relevant information together to be fully in control of the organization and the environment. At the fifth condition of effective control, this data handling capacity is addressed.

Condition 4: Control measures with which to control all kinds of disturbances.

Both theories point towards a certain level of control within the turbulence environment. Nevertheless, the method to achieve control and the kind of control is contradicting. The condition itself point towards a strong balance between control measures and possible disturbances. If there is a possibility of imbalance, the control measures should increase or the problem should be divided into smaller components (De Leeuw, 1982). It is also stated that, when there are more control measures available, there will be a higher chance of success (Otto and De Leeuw, 2000). The Imagineering design approach stimulates a certain level of fluctuation and imbalance. People are encouraged to start making their own interpretations which lead to changing routines and recombining resources in different ways. To make this dynamic state sustainable, a crucial element is the development of stabilization mechanisms. Hereby, Nijs (2014) suggests that developing stabilization elements, especially articulating ‘value-to-live-by’ are an infrastructure that allows translating hierarchical control to social control and social inspiration.

The control theory stimulates solving complex problems with big solutions. The more control measures available, the higher the chance to solve the problem. Control theory supports the thought of a predictable world. By designing future oriented goals, models and targets, an organization is able to predict the future (De Leeuw, 1982). However, in the more dynamic environment of nowadays, the organization will see the emergence only after it has occurred, when it is too late to undertake anything for preventing its occurrence. Cause-effect linear thinking has limited meaning in complex dynamic systems, especially in living systems in a highly interconnected world (Nijs, 2014).

In contrast, the Imagineering design approach together with the underlying complexity science shows that small things do matter in complex systems. The butterfly effect states that one can only center in the present because even tiny perturbations in the process of self-organization can have enormous impact on the further development of this process. Complexity thinking has a capacity not only to see the emergent phenomena at the moment when they happen, but also to capture signals related to their potential occurrence before these moments (Dimitrov, 2003).

(17)

17

Condition 5: Sufficient data handling capacity, which enables the use of the information required for taking control measures.

The fifth requirement of effective control is added at a later stage. To control an organization more actively, it will need a better and higher data handling capacity. This capacity is needed to convert information while keeping in mind the organizational goal (De Leeuw, 1994). The Systems Theory of Control focuses on the individual capacity of people. De Leeuw (1982) states that it is easier to process a lot of incoherent information than the same amount of coherent information. This is because incoherent information can be divided over individuals which when grouped together will have the sufficient data handling capacity. But with coherent information, the connection between the people is important. Conant showed that in every control organ the total data handling capacity should be used through four factors: the total transit of information capacity as external performance of the system, the capacity needed for internal alignment and coordination, the capacity needed to block irrelevant information in an early stage, and to optimize the control capacity by keeping the noise between the different people as low as possible (De Leeuw, 1982). With the increase of complexity in the environment, the better data handling capacity will ensure that there will be control over the accomplishment of goals and the organization as a whole.

The Imagineering design approach stimulates fluctuation and co-creation by designing a narrative artifact to evoke imaginative tension. The approach encourages education and training opportunities to support people while working with the new values, how to interpret them daily and how they can become better in using them. The positive feedback dynamics play an important role by boosting individuals to become a part of the relevant movement. All the individual changes in the collective setting result in an emerging organization: an organization that is able to function well in a more complex and open context (Nijs, 2014). For very longtime creativity has been considered as being a characteristic of an individual. However, Imagineering stimulates collective creativity by coming up with new ways to combine old an existing ideas, procedures and processes to arrive at creative solutions to problems (Nijs, 2014; George, 2007). Imagineering focuses on the collective data handling capacity instead of focusing on the individual. Nijs (2014) states that it is evident that with growing complexity in society, the need (and the possibility) to evoke collective creativity becomes more manifest than ever. By using collective action and dialogues, it is not necessary for an organization to have all individual strong people since, the focus in on the overall data handling capacity.

Proposition 4A: An organization should stimulate collective data handling capacity to deal with the increase of complexity in the society.

(18)

18

Methodology

The research focuses on the controllability of the Imagineering design approach. The purpose is to investigate the critical control insights of the Imagineering design approach. The research can be categorized as an explorative research since the Imagineering design approach, including the, the ‘Stairway to heaven’ model, is newly developed in 2014 by Nijs during her PhD research. In the end, the research question, ’What is the effect of Imagineering on the control of an organization?’ should be answered.

Research Design

A business phenomenon that will be studied more in depth is the controllability of the Imagineering design approach. More specifically, the influence that the control theory may have on the feasibility of the Imagineering approach. Besides this, the purpose is to show which side of the coin is true: Does the feasibility of the Imagineering design approach increases when the requirements of effective control are met? Or, should the requirements of effective control be adapted to the needs of nowadays, which means; learning from the Imagineering design approach. This all in line with the thought that organizations are facing dynamic competitive environments in which the ability to learn and co-create are vital to their own survival.

The first step within the research is to review academic literature about the control theory with a special attention to the literature of De Leeuw and the research of Nijs (2014). Within the research, the theory as proposed by Nijs (2014) will be reflected on the five requirements of effective control as proposed by De Leeuw (1982). This comparison is made to show the possible learn effect within both theories.

The literature points out that the most appropriate way of controlling an organization depends on the different circumstances. On this continuum the qualities of the two methods, the control theory and the Imagineering design approach, could have different pros and cons. This contrast in theory is also used within the research design. To research the propositions, data will be collected via interviews with a focus in on two different sample groups, open and closed departments. To make a distinction between open and closed departments, two concepts from the complexity theory are used, namely risk and uncertainty. There can be said that risks can be explained and projected on beforehand but when something is uncertain, the predictability factor is not present. So, departments that deal with a lot of risks can be placed in the more closed departments and the departments that deal with uncertainty are the more open departments in an organization.

(19)

19 Key items of the Imagineering design approach like for example; collective creativity, generative dialogues, and a strategic intent, are likely to expand this process by stimulating co-creation and co- evolution.

Data Collection

During the interviews, the interviewees will be asked about different characteristics of the Imagineering design approach and the requirements of effective control. By starting a dialogue with the two sample groups across industries, the different opportunities of the Imagineering design approach will appear and also the items which can be named as possible bottlenecks. By combining the requirements of effective control with the characteristics of the Imagineering approach, people will hopefully be able to see the differences between linear logic thinking and complexity thinking. Linear logic thinking is terms of thinking about planning and controlling, focussing on solutions, and a stable and predictable organizations. Complexity thinking focuses on dynamic and uncertain environments, designing for evolution and effectiveness. The aim is to conduct interviews within three sectors which all include ‘closed and open’ departments. The interviews will investigate practical insights about the Imagineering design approach with a focus on how people view the key elements and the controllability of the approach itself.

For the in depth- interviews, a basic interview protocol will be used as a starting point for each conversation. Each interview will start with a general introduction of the Imagineering design approach and the control theory, continued by more general questions about the interviewee’s perspective on these approaches and their place in the organization, followed by specific questions about the key elements of the requirements of effective control in their department and the controllability of the Imagineering design approach. Each interview will take place in a real life setting to provide better opportunities for interaction and discussion. The interviews will be conducted in Dutch and consist of an average time of 60 minutes per interview. The starting interview protocol can be found in appendix 1 and the transcripts in the attached booklet 1. The interviews will be conducted with several review moments in between. The transcripts will be written after every interview. This will enable the possibility to review questions and to reflect some ideas about the controllability of the Imagineering design approach proposed by earlier interviewees on the future interviewees to deepen the insights. The list of interviewees can be seen in appendix 2.

Data Analysis

According to Eisenhardt (1989) analyzing the data is the heart of building theory from case studies, however it is simultaneously the most difficult and the least codified part of the process. In order to analyze the data gathered from the interviews, a three step coding system is used. This process exists of open coding, axial coding, and selective coding.

1. Open coding: The transcripts are reviewed to disclose the major themes in the data and to structure the first results. Themes may be related directly to the propositions but also to the interview questions asked.

2. Axial coding: After the major themes and concepts were structured, smaller themes and relations and insights are identified. Substance analysis of the collected data was used in order to reduce the volume and identify core consistencies and meaning.

(20)

20 come up. The findings will also be reviewed on the existing literature discussed in the back ground section.

Reliability

With in- depth interviews, as it is the case in this study, the reliability is connected with the relationship between interviewer and interviewee. To create this relationship, at the beginning of the interview a general introduction of the research will be given, the transcripts will be send back to the interviewee before using the data, the expectations of the interviewee will be monitored, and benefits for the interviewee will be explained, for example: the ideas of the Imagineering design approach since this is a new theory and model.

Generalizability

(21)

21

Case analysis

The results section is divided into the three industries in which data is gathered; healthcare, hospitality, and oil and gas/ safety. These industries are selected due to the high level of reorganizations and the high impact of the changing rules and procedures imposed by the Dutch Government. Besides this, all these industries deal with both, risk and uncertainty focused, types of departments. The openness of the interviewees and the willingness to hear and learn about the Imagineering design approach provided a strong basis for the interviews. Each industry is approached from a comprehensive viewpoint which states that complex problems are explainable but not predictable. The results presented within each industry will contribute to the overall comparative analysis which will answer the propositions in the end.

Oil and Gas/ Safety

The organizations in this sector will be quickly categorized as risk focused due to the many rules and procedures which should be followed in order to perform the job correctly but also safely. For example; the twelve life saving rules of Shell, cause- effect reports, or even a task- risk analyses for using the kitchen. Kivits: ‘’In general we have a lot of rules and procedures. This is also necessary in

our industry. We want people to leave at the end of the day in the same state as they came in. We work with high risks, and an accident happens quickly’’. Nevertheless, a remarkable outcome is that

all organizations mention that within the management layer, the people have a lot of freedom. They do not have to justify every step they make, promote open discussion and do not need to stay inside all the boundaries. Weever: ‘’I am allowed to ‘color’ outside the lines’’, Kivits: ‘’There is a lot of trust in

the managers’’. So, where the operations itself are organized by strict rules (risk oriented), the

management teams have a lot of freedom, so more uncertainty oriented.

Although the operations are risk focused, all interviewees have a positive response when hearing about the Imagineering design approach, the biggest question which arises is ‘is this also suitable for this organization?’ Leupen: ‘’I think there is a need for an approach like this, especially in this industry.

We are looking for ways how we can change the mindset of people’’.

The doubts about the suitability come from the perspective that is does not matter who performs the job, but it should always be done the same. Only at the moment when the predicted methods do not perform the right outcome, people are free to think about solutions and possible causes. However, when having meetings about the job and the results, every layer of the organization is free to come up with ideas and solutions. This process is starting slowly right now in the different organizations.

Kivits: ‘’My opinion is; when people have good ideas, they should also be heard’’. They all agree with

the thoughts that, when everybody is involved and is free to add ideas, the commitment to realize these changes in much higher than when the management decides.

Weever: ‘’This was also a result of the employee survey, there was mentioned that the employees did not had the feeling that their capabilities were used enough’’. Nevertheless, the organizations also all

point towards a framework to which extend an employee is able to influence items. Most of these frameworks are based on policies which are made by the executive board or the government.

(22)

22 Organizations are becoming more open over the years and try to connect the external and internal environment with each other. However, in this industry the organizations are quite skeptical over the usefulness and added value of this. Where the one states that the information that the organization provides yearly is enough also because of the amount of information which customers can receive is limited. Weever: ‘’At fixed moments we provide information to the outside world and I think this is

enough’’. The other states that it is necessary to show what the organization does, but the amount of

information that is the question. The information provided should be balanced and structured.

Leupen: ‘’By showing to less of your organization to the outside world, you will create some kind of suspiciousness. Social media can be an added value, but a company should balance this in a right way’’. Moreover, on a personal level, the connection between the work and privet environment is

limited. Kivits states: ‘’I find it quite strange that people connect and combine the two environments’’. All organizations face changes in these turbulent times. Most of them prefer to handle these changes with small steps. Within this sector, the big solutions and improvements have already been made in the past. Nowadays, the changes will be much smaller or we have to decide to change the total way of working. Only at Frisia they see it different. They prefer to work with big solutions since every change they make has influence on many other items not only in the process but also with their external contacts. What is also mentioned is that in processes of change it is very useful to sit together, ask for the opinions of different expertises and to start thinking in possibilities instead of in bottlenecks. Leupen: ‘’Yes, we are open for new ideas and opportunities, but we should also challenge

these ideas from a current experience viewpoint’’.

When focusing on creativity all parties have some doubts. Where the one state that creativity is necessary but it should be done in a structured way and well organized. The risks involved are very high. Leupen: ‘’At the office everybody is allowed to do it their way, in case of bigger changes, the

approach should be adjusted and matched with the other parties’’. The other states that creativity is

a difficult item. For some processes it will be better but for others not. Kivits: ‘’The people will always

choose for the easiest way, if we let that happen by using their own creativity instead of following the procedures, there is a high change that an unsafe situation will occur’’. On the other hand, all agree

on the idea that creativity within the organization will stimulate new ideas and that the organization will be able to change in small steps by using this creativity. While working with high risks, unexpected situations can be a problem. Within the methods the organizations use, this need to solve problems quickly is reflected. All have written cause- effect reports in which most common situations are described. Weever: ‘’One of my biggest irritations is when people decide to deviate

from the well documented and clear process and this will leads to a problem in the end. This means that extra input is necessary to recover this problem’’. All also mention that it is necessary to look

quickly for the best solution to not stop the processes from running to long. At Peterson they handle via a golden rule: First stop the job, after the job is stopped we will look for the solution.

All companies work with a strong vision towards the future. At Peterson they just started with writing the vision down after the business structure changed in 2013. What is remarkable is that every vision is conceived from the management level or from the executive board. Most of the time the vision is also related to a parent company or an overarching organization. Not everybody in the organization will be aware of the vision of the company; the focus is mostly on the job that has to be done. Kivits:

(23)

23

vision of Peterson, they will probably answer something like; making money’’. Some of the

organizations try to make the vision more personal by splitting it up over different department and in what they can do to achieve the goal. Weever: ‘’At this moment the mission and vision play an

important role. We had to think about where we want to be at 2020. When being aware of that, I am looking different to my job and the decisions I make regarding the future’’.

Overall, the organizations think that Imagineering will lead to: 1. Creative ideas and possibilities in the market. 2. A reduction in costs due to better communication. 3. A higher level of awareness of chances in the environment, to see the possibilities and also take them.

Hospitality

This industry had two faces. On the one hand, the hospitality industry is driven by guest contact, by creating experiences and memorable events. On the other hand, the financials are very strict and there are rules to follow like hygiene rules and kitchen procedures. Although, both interviewees characterize the industry as open and the most important aspect are the guest interactions. Therefore, the industry will be categorized as uncertainty oriented. By hearing about the Imagineering approach, positive reactions come up. Barentsen: ‘’At the basics, I think this is a good

method. I do not think that the behavior of people can be changed by having a lot of sanctions. If we would implement this at Bilderberg, we should also speak about a cultural change’’. Also Van der

Graaf has a positive response: ‘’I am sure that more things should be done bottom- up. But that

already starts with the selection process, I really belief in the ‘why’ of people. When the ‘why’ of the employee fits to the ‘why’ of the hotel, than this is the right person for the job’’. Another perspective,

which came up when talking about changes, is that the motivation of people to change or accept the change can be very different. People can really feel the change from inside but it is also possible that people see it as something necessary to be able to keep their job. In the current environment, the last motivation is maybe the strongest.

When reflecting on decision making, there is a lot of freedom given to the employees but the practical outcome is somewhat difficult. Barentsen: ‘’There is much more participation possible as in

earlier days’’. There are several moments in a month but also at the daily job that employees are free

to make the decisions, especially when interacting with guests. But what is common seen is that employees do not feel this freedom or they do not dare to take the freedom. Van der Graaf: ‘’Only

my experience is that people do not dare to take the decision. I think this comes from the uncertainty of the person itself. I miss a lot of creativity at the younger population’’. Also at Bilderberg they

experience this. Barentsen clarification for this is: ‘’The people in the hotel are busy with the guest

that will arrive today, maybe a little bit with this week, but next month is already difficult. That horizon is not present. Not even at the general managers’’. When looking at the overall control in the

organization, both stated that it is not top-down, but they will also not name it totally bottom-up.

Van der Graaf: ‘’We are really central oriented, bottom-up is not yet the case but we try to introduce that more and more’’. On the other side, in processes of change Barentsen mentions that several

items should be decided from the top. A lot of people together will rarely decide that they are not necessary anymore in the system. So, the decision is made from the top but based on input which we gathered from several perspectives. Barentsen: ‘’The management approach we used was very

(24)

24 When making decisions, both prefer a different method or actually personally they prefer the same but in practice it is different. Van der Graaf explains that in her own opinion she would prefer to do it in big steps but that this is often not possible due to the resistance that will appear. The first goal that needs to be created is a certain ‘safety net’. Barentsen sees it differently. He explains:

‘’Everything is connected to everything else, which makes it difficult to implement a small step without affecting something else. So I can change a system or an interference and invest in that step, but should get a positive result in the end, otherwise the investment is a waste of the money. This all will take too long, that is why it is difficult to do things separately’’. The ideal situation is case of

change for Van der Graaf is to make a picture of all the best people we have in house and that we could also say goodbye to people who do not fit to this picture. But sadly this is not possible off course.

The organizations are positive towards opening up. On a personal level this should happen automatically. Barentsen explains that his inspiration is build on the real hotel experience, which reaches from guests to building to everything actually. Van der Graaf agrees on this viewpoint: ‘’I am

convinced that when you have passion for your job, than you are also inspired by this after working time and then you pick up all kind of ideas and inspiration which you will use at your job’’. Focusing

on the organization, there is more a mixed viewpoint. Both agree on transparency but there can be a downside in this as well. Barentsen: ‘’I do not see the competitor sensitivity of several items we try to

keep in house, but if you can convert this is added value, I am not sure’’. The downside of

transparency he mentioned is: ‘’A risk of opening up is when the guest knows too much. The whole

magical experience will be gone. The price we asked for our service is based on what people want to pay for this experience’’.

Focusing on creativity, there is already mentioned that the employees in the hospitality industry should be very creative in their daily job to perform the best for the best guest experience. Van der

Graaf: ‘’At the moment you hire people who want to work for the best hotel of Rotterdam and at the highest level, than you are the right person and then the creative ideas will also come’’. Barentsen

explains that there is already a lot of creativity which they do not manage and next to that, there are a lot of projects which stimulate that different groups work together. This boost is also necessary to create more structured creativity. The downside he mentions is: ‘’From a financial perspective, I

would say that the payroll costs will rise when people become more creative because that will cost time off course’’.

Both parties work with a vision towards the future but underneath this vision both organizations made it more practical. At Bilderberg, they work with ten crown values which act as a guidance for the employees in how to treat the guests. At the Manhattan hotel, they work with pearls and promises. The five pearls exists of excellent, unique, traditional, personally, and sincere. The promises explain the why, what, and how of the hotel. Barentsen: ‘’A result of the employee

involvement research was that people experience that the mission and vision of the organization is not communicated clearly enough. We though this part was completed and clear, but apparently not’’. Both explain that in the hotel(s) the future guidelines can be seen at several places on the wall,

(25)

25 Overall, the interviewees say that Imagineering will lead to: 1. A hotel ready for the future, more innovation and less traditional, 2. A better involvement in making our mission, goals, and crown values tangible.

Healthcare

The healthcare industry exists of many specializations. Within this research the main focus is on the disabled care and social work. By categorizing the industry in risk or uncertainty, also here it depends on the viewpoint of a department. In general, it can be said that the industry is uncertainty oriented by providing care for people. This asks for many interactions, different needs, and tailor made programs. Wennink: ‘’What we do in healthcare is working with people, this should not be directed to

tightly. A lot of decisions will be made based on your own feeling. The most important thing is the job is done in a respectful way’’. Besides this, there are also a lot of supporting departments, which work

along a strict schedule like a housing department. Furthermore, the healthcare sector is driven by several rules and procedures that are provided by the government. Wennink: ‘’At this moment we do

not have a lot of freedom because we have to stick to the laws and regulations of the government, but that is also linked to our existence’’. This struggle can create some irritations. Boesveld: ‘’The organization works very bureaucratic, you can also experience this in the cooperation with others. People often say; but that is not possible according to the rules. Then I think, it does not matter what the rules are, this client needs to be supported’’.

After hearing the theory of the Imagineering design approach, all participants agree on the usefulness of the method. Everybody was also able to reflect this to the current situation in a positive manner but also to show why the improvement is necessary. Klaar: ‘’It is introduced in the new

strategy of Reinaerde to put the responsibilities lower in the organization. I think when this happens people will use their own feelings and opinions more than when everything is imposed from the headquarter’’. Also Naron sees the opportunities of Imagineering: ‘’Yes, this is necessary because we are an organization which always wants to be the best. In the past, we worked a lot with procedures and we should work more with trust in the employees and also give them the space to take their responsibility’’. Besides this, she explains that it will ask a lot from both sides, the management and

the employees, to make this change happen. A more critical note is said by Van der Bilt: ‘’I think that

most people at this moment actually like that they know exactly what is expected from them instead of that they need to think for their own. If you would ask this people than they would say that they want more freedom and responsibility, but in practice this is different’’. The thought of this necessary

framework pop up more often. But differences can be seen in the way of approaching this framework; are it only guidelines or are it real boundaries. Van Veen: ‘’Sometimes people are

directed so tightly within the framework, because the outcome it already fixed’’.

When focusing on decision making and the freedom in this process, the most heard response is: top-down and bureaucratic. At Reinaerde an organizational change is started with an eye on the structural change in the healthcare sector. A consequence is that the organization should become more open and is changing towards a more process driven organization with more self supporting teams. One of the major challenges will be the cultural change of the organization. Naron: ‘’People

(26)

26

if you would ask me, when I should have an influence on that, than my other 2499 colleagues would have that as well. If I want to have a say in this process, I should move up to that level’’. On the other

hand, some managers agree on the high level of bureaucratic control but still have the feeling that there is space for own initiatives. Wennink: ‘’People should also focus on their own circle of influence,

and also take these opportunities. People should not create the situation where you are a slave of all the rules and regulations’’. Especially this freedom and trust is something where people are looking

for. Vink: ‘’There should be more responsibilities and decision making opportunities at the teams, too

much is still decided at the management of the board’’. When there will be more sharing of

information between the employees and the management, there is a possibility that new ideas will pop up and also the motivation of the employees will increase. Verburg: ‘’I would like to have more

inside about different management disciplines, than the possibility would arise to speak up and to create new ideas about the different processes’’.

While reflecting on all the changes in healthcare industry and how decisions should be made the interviewees have different opinions. On the one hand, people prefer to work with a big solution instead of small steps since this creates focus and less uncertainty. But a critical note is if it is possible to do this nowadays. Van der Bilt: ‘’I think that it is sometimes better to have a ‘big-bang’ than not to

know what exactly is going to happen, if this is possible; that is the question’’. So, one critical item

should be the flexibility within this approach. Klaar: ‘’Within the big solution there should be some

flexibility because you never know what will happen in the environment’’. On the other hand, the

larger part would prefer to do this in small steps in which a clear goal should be present. Van Veen: ‘’I

think that it is necessary to have a clear dot at the horizon where you want to go. But in the end, I think the change would go in small steps’’. One of the major reasons to change is small steps is

because healthcare works especially with people and when people needs to change, this will cost time. Boesveld: ‘’Small steps are better because when you want to change patterns and habits, and

simultaneously want to introduce new things, than this is only possible in small steps’’.

Within the change process, different approaches can be seen. The one prefers to handle it together and make it an integrated process. Van de Voort: ‘’I think that you should always solve a problem

together. Employees need to share their thoughts with each other, but also with the clients’’. And also

Vink states: ‘’We focused with each other on the total picture. This is also the best when dealing with

the complexity of the decisions. Otherwise you have the possibility that not everybody is going into the same direction’’. On the other side, there are also proponents for an approach in which the

problem will be divided over expertises. Verburg: ‘’I think you should make a team of different

expertise’s, which should discuss together and make the decision’’.

It is already mentioned that the organization should become more open towards the external environment. Wennink: ‘’At this moment we are becoming a more open organization. This can be

seen in the high level of networking between the different healthcare providers’’. The healthcare

providers and the municipality are aware of the need to become more open. Vink: ‘’Opening up

means also a development towards a more modern organization’’. Within the changes, which are

present nowadays, the healthcare providers become more dependent on the municipality and also need to show themselves. Naron: ‘’I think when we want to be on track with the other health

providers, we need to open up more and also make the financials transparent for example’’. On