Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
The Lego serious play methodology is a problem solving and insight building approach or strategy whose aim is to enhance creative thinking among all participants in organizations (Gauntlett, 2007.p.131).Through the methodology, organizations are able to have the employees and shareholders think and express or speak their true feelings without the fear of intimidation. Through it also, organizations have an opportunity to have everyone on board in the discussion of organizational issues which stimulates learning as well as thinking. The thinking and learning by all participants in organizations leads to new ideas or insights in regard to particular organizational issue(s) (Lockwood & Walton, 2009).
The methodology is applied in many sectors, key among them education and arts as well as in business. It is related to two main theories namely the constructionvism theory by Jean Piaget and constructionism theory by Papert. These two theories hold that problems are mere constructions in peoples minds and thus the solutions to the problems lie within peoples minds, that is, people can construct the solutions to their problems (Sioukas, 2003.p.101).
In business setting, the methodology is based on the philosophy that business problems or issues have their solutions from within, meaning that the members or shareholders of a business are the people with the solutions, only that they do not realize. It is also based on the thinking that real solutions lie in having realistic action plans which addresses the real problems or issues but not the symptoms of the problems (SIGCHI Group, 2006).
The methodology is implemented through facilitation by an expert in the same. It involves organizing workshops for all members and shareholders of a business whereby they are engaged with the problem or issue at hand. During the workshop, everyone is treated equally and each and every ones idea and thinking is acknowledged. The participants are provoked to think and imagine of solutions to the prevailing problem. Their responses, reactions and ideas are all recorded. In some cases, the participants in the workshops are given some physical exercises which reflect the problem at hand to perform (Jenkins & Jenkins, 2006).Through this physical activity which is performed merely as a play, the facilitator or expert in the methodology observes how the participants approach the issue(s) and thus gets to know various versions of dealing with the problem or issue at hand (Ventola, 1987).
The methodology increases innovation and leadership attributes through getting everybody on board and having them think about the way forward in regard to a certain issue of concern to a busies or organization. It enhances leadership in the sense that it is undertaken in groups which must have defacto leaders, who get the opportunity to realize their potential in leadership thus ending up with many people with leadership skills within the organization or business. These defacto team or group leaders become very instrumental in guiding, influencing and inspiring the other employees or shareholders of the business or organization (Gauntlett, 2008).
It enhances innovation in that everybody is given an opportunity to think without intimidation. The idea behind this argument is that people who are motivated to think, and whose thinking is acknowledged are able to think freely without any difficult or bias, consequently coming up with new and independent ideas. At the end, the business ends up with very many new ideas which can be transformed into innovations (McGoey, 2011).
The methodology is not applicable in corporate businesses which have rigid administrative structures; for example, a bureaucratic organizational structure. This is because bureaucratic organizational structures do not allow for team work, employee or shareholders creativity nor do they value group synergy (Kurosu, 2009).It is mostly suited for organizations which are very flexible in their approach to achieving their mission, and more so, organizations which operate in a dynamic socio-cultural, economic and political environment, thus the need of an ongoing problem solving mechanism for overcoming challenges as they come (Design Publications, 1984).
The main sources of research are based on information from published books, articles, databases that mainly discuss the Lego serious play methodology in a broader aspect. Other sources of research include seminars and conferences where human centered design in creativity is widely discussed. I will also obtain information from online sources where the method has been discussed in social communities and consultancy businesses. Research strategy starts by focusing on the method and its implementation. This is followed by researching on its unique approach and analyzing how leading groups are formed. Further on I will focus on how corporate creativity can be transformed by this method and to what extend this interaction generates real values. I will also discuss real organizations which have implemented the methodology and the results. Finally, I will discuss whether the methodology is measurable or not. Throughout the discussion, the words organization, company, business and corporation are used interchangeably, but with the same meaning, that is, a business which is concerned with providing goods and or services to customers.
Discussion
Origin of the Lego Serious Play Methodology
The history of the Lego serious play methodology can be traced back to the period between 1891 and 1930, when a Danish carpenter called Ole Kirk Christiansen established a workshop to make wooden toys. Due to its popularity, the workshop came to be known as the Lego company in mid 1930s, during which it was making large volumes of toys. Lego is a Danish word which literally means to play well. At around 1946, the Lego Company had expanded and started making plastic toys instead of wooden ones. This was due to the low density of plastic compared to wood. Plastic was also easy to manufacture than wood (Gauntlett, 2007.p.131).
By early 1950s, the company started making what were referred to as Automatic Binding Bricks , following the introduction of the Kiddicraft Self-Locking Bricks patent in 1947 in England. The automatic binding bricks were designed in a manner that they had top round studs and bottoms which were rectangular. This allowed for the easy assembling of the bricks to make them fit firmly into each other, but in a way that they were easily disassembled and reassembled to make a different shape or structure. They also contained various other parts like minifigures and gears which facilitated their easy assembling and disassembling. The multidimensional and multivariate structure of the bricks facilitated the assembling of the bricks into various shapes, forms and objects or structures (Hoover, 2005).
In 1958, the company availed the current Lego bricks after years of intense research and trials of overcoming the challenges of low interlocking ability and versatility of the initial bricks. The Lego group began making the Lego bricks for commercial purposes, mostly for sale to business people to facilitate play. As from 1960, the company, which is based in Denmark in a town known as Billund began making and selling Lego bricks based toys for children and for adults. For the children, the bricks were used merely for play and fun as a way of boosting their thinking, creativity and problem solving skills. For the adults, the Lego bricks were made to be used for sharpening their thinking and problem solving skills in business and organizational context (Hoover, 2005).
During the interaction with the Lego bricks, both children and adults could assemble them to make things like vehicles, robots, bridges, or any other object of interest to them. For the adults, they would assemble the bricks to make objects which mirror certain organizational objects, metaphors or ideas. In their original form, the bricks were made based on the philosophy that for a person to play with them, he or she was to have hands on and minds on, meaning that the players were to use both their hands and minds to participate in the play (Hoover, 2005).
Up to early 1990s, the bricks were largely used for mere play and fun by children and by adults for leisure or for building insights to some minor problems. It was Roos Johan and Victor Bart who first attempted to use the bricks in the business and organizational context and thus coining the term serious play in the sense that the Lego bricks were to be used by managers of businesses and organizations to challenge, describe and create mental pictures of their businesses and organizations (Valsiner & Connolly, 2003).
In coining the term Lego serious play, Roos Johan and Victor Bart were guided by the believe that the play was a practical and passionate method of exuding commitment and confidence among managers as well as a way of building insights to challenges and problems facing businesses. Currently, the Lego serious play is a service provided by the Lego group of companies to organizations and businesses. The service is provided on consultancy basis where by the businesses and organizations which require it approach the companies for consultation on how to use the method to boost, enhance and stabilize their businesses or organizations as well as to enable them build insights to organizational challenges and come up with solutions to problems by taking into consideration the views of all members of the organization regarding the problem or the way forward on a certain stalemate (Valsiner & Connolly, 2003).
Relationship to Theories
The constructivism theory by Jean Piaget
The main proponent of this theory was Jean Piaget, who was a psychologist famous for his pioneering works in child development. Other contributors to the same include Lev Vygotsky, John Dewey, Herbert Simon and Jerome Bruner among others. In his works, Jean Piaget argued that learners, especially during infancy and childhood generate and acquire knowledge from the interaction of their ideas and experiences, a system he referred to as Schemata (Boeree, 2006).
According to Jean Piaget therefore, play is very important to infants and toddlers because it enables them to acquire some experiences in life which they then integrate with their ideas about the world in general. His idea of learning was based on social learning, which is acquired through the process of imitation and identification. To this regard, young children acquire knowledge and skills based on their interaction with their care givers, parents and their significant others.
In his study of the development of intelligence by children, he argued that the development is influenced by their stages of development as well as their mental capacity to assimilate and accommodate new knowledge into the already existing experiences (Boeree, 2006). He believed in the idea that development leads learning, to mean that children are able to learn only those things which match their age or development stage. He identified four intelligence development stages namely sensory motor, preoperational, concrete operational and formal operational stages (Boeree, 2006). Accordingly, at every level or stage of development, the child is capable of developing his or her intelligence faculties to match that stage or level of development which is influenced by the kind of experience the child has been exposed to. For instance, Piaget observed that children acquire language, which is a sign of intellectual development through imitating their parents or care givers and for this reason, a child acquires the language of the immediate person who he or she interacts with during early age, irrespective of whether that language is of the mother or not.
Lev Vygotskys theory of Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) is a theory which explains the intellectual development of children as well as how children learn new things (Gallagher, 1999). The theory is derived from the tenets of the constructivism theory. In the theory, Lev Vygotsky argued that learning leads development, unlike Jean Piaget who argued that development leads intellectual development. His theory contents that all children learn through the process of imitation, which enables them repeat something they have already seen, heard or experienced. According to the theory, parents and teachers should use as many drawings and illustrations as possible when teaching children.
He argued that the acquisition of new concepts by children paves the way for them to move to the next level of intellectual development. The theory also recognizes the role played by social and cultural environments in enabling children to learn (Gallagher, 1999). According to the theory, childrens ability to learn depends on their socio-cultural environment. Whether the environments are enabling or not enabling may bring in the differences in development rates for different children in different socio-cultural environments (Gallagher, 1999).
The arguments by these two constructivist theorists are related to the Lego serious play methodology in that they associate learning among young children both with mental abilities and practical actions or experience. The Lego serious play toys are used by children to learn various things which are new to them. During the play, the children are given the bricks to assemble and every time they do it, a person disassembles the Lego bricks and the child assembles them again but in a different shape or structure, thus learning that the bricks are capable of making more than one object while still retaining their shapes (Richardson, 1997).
In constructivism, the role of the teacher is replaced by that of a facilitator. According to Piaget, the learning is participatory and the learners are given the opportunity to ask questions, explore possibilities and demonstrate their understanding through doing various physical activities, which involve both their minds and hands.
Learning is also characterized by interaction among the learners, whereby they collaborate in solving various problems. In the Lego serious play, children may be left alone for some time to play with the Lego bricks. During this time, they assist each other in assembling the Lego bricks to make various shapes and also remind each other of how the previous shapes looked like. They also partner in assembling the bricks to make newer objects with different shapes and structures every time.
The constructionism theory by Seymour Papert
This theory of learning is based on Piagets theory of constructivism. The main proponent of this theory was Seymour Papert, who argued that learning should be viewed from the perspective of learning- by- making (Kafai & Resnick, 1996). Just like Piaget and Lev Vygotsky, Papert argued that the education system should emphasize more on linking ideas to actual experiences, which he referred to as experiential learning (Kafai & Resnick, 1996).
Papert argued that some subjects like mathematics were better taught in a manner that incorporated practical actions like counting of numbers using some objects like sticks. He also argued that basic languages like English and French were best taught if the teachers combined the names of some objects with the pictures or drawings of the same as well as giving the learners an opportunity to draw such pictures and giving the corresponding names of the objects or pictures drawn (Kafai & Resnick, 1996).
The theory is related to the Lego serious play because children and adults use the Lego bricks to construct a certain reality, which they imagine of or which they have experienced. For example, children may use the Lego bricks to construct a vehicle, which they usually see or a person holding a gun, depending on the kind of experience they are exposed to (Kafai & Resnick, 1996).
Adults use the Lego bricks to assemble an object which is of interest to them. For example, they may use the Lego bricks to construct an organizational structure which they think is good for their organization. They may also use the bricks to construct a pyramid of the priorities of their organization or to construct the manufacturing chain of a certain product which their organization manufactures. This enables them to shape their ideas along what is of interest to them. The construction of such objects or shapes enables the players to clearly visualize the problematic areas in coming up with what is of interest to them. This enables them to learn how to assist each other in overcoming any challenge(s) through brainstorming and contributing insights to the hitch, which consequently enables them to overcome the problem. Although it is done in a playful manner and in a relaxed psychological and physical atmosphere, the play stimulates the thinking of the players especially to think of how to overcome specific challenges.
Since the play operates on a basis of addressing the problem here and now, it enables the players to do what is referred to as trial and error, which makes them learn the best way to do it through their failures. As per the words of Papert, the learning process is enhanced through building on the previous failures and correcting the mistakes made before. The learners should use the failures as a resource to identify what is wrong and where as well as how to address it so as to realize the desired results (Kafai & Resnick, 1996).
How Lego Serious Play Relates To Organizational Culture and Structure
In this section, I will explore the broad concepts of organizational culture and structure, which are the corner stones of many organizations. I will explain the concepts of organizational culture and structure by outlining some forms of organizational culture and structure, then do an analysis of how the two relate to the Lego serious play.
What is organizational culture?
An organization is a group of people who work together with coordinated efforts to achieve certain objectives or goals. Organizational goals and objectives are of various categories and it is this variation of goals and objectives which classify organizations into three main categories namely profit making, service based and social responsibility based organizations (Murray, Poole, & Jones, 2006. pp.45-69).
The study of organizations is made possible by the use of organizational theoretical models or approaches. These theoretical models are mainly used to explain organizations in terms of structure and culture. Organizational culture refers to shared beliefs, values, norms and practices which characterize an organization. Organizational structure refers to how the organization is structured, how power and authority to make decisions are distributed along the structure of the organization and who should take what direction or instructions from whom and when (Robbins, 1996).
Organizational culture is a very important aspect in any organization which aspires to realize its vision and mission. This is because organizational culture determines whether the organization is able to work together towards the realization of the vision. Organizational culture is closely related to organizational structure in that the manner in which decisions are made by the top management influences the relationship between the top management and the other employees, which consequently determines the culture of the organization (Brown, 1998).
A strong organizational culture is found in organizations in which the employees are committed to their work and discharge their duties with little or no supervision while a weak organizational culture is found in organizations in which the employees have little commitment to their duties and are closely supervised so as to discharge their duties effectively (Brown, 1998).
There are various models of organizational culture. One such model is the power culture which is characterized by centralization of power to some few people within the organization. This person(s) is usually very influential in the organization and therefore everybody else tends to foster a good relationship with the person(s). In this culture, employees are motivated to the degrees into which they emulate that central person(s). In this type of culture, decisions are made easily because there are no many hierarchical positions in the structure of the organization (Gordon, DiTornaso & Farris, 1991.pp.18-23).
There is also role culture, which is characterized by doing things as per ones position, meaning that an employee only cares for what is of concern to him or her or what lies under his or her docket. This culture is also characterized by rigidity in decision making because of the bureaucratic nature of the organizational structure which leads to inefficiency (Fey & Denison, 2003.pp.686-687).
Task culture is characterized by the formation of groups which are composed of people with some expertise or knowledge to perform some specific tasks. In this type of culture therefore, group work is very important and authority as well as supervision play little or no role because the teams are trusted by the management with their tasks (Murray, et al, 2006. pp.45-69).
Lastly, there is persons culture which is characterized by a feeling of superiority among the employees, who think that they are very valuable to the organization. In such a culture, unity and cooperation among the employees may be rare because each employee thinks that he or she is the best and therefore not ready to share what he or she knows with others without extra remuneration by the organization for the same (Murray, et al, 2006. pp.45-69).
Organizations vary greatly in terms of their mission, vision, objectives, resource base philosophy and coverage. Due to this, each and every organization must cultivate a culture which is unique to itself so as to achieve its mission and objectives. This means that what may be considered as values or norms in one organization may not be considered as such in another organization. However, despite these variations and differences, there is the importance of having a cohesive organizational culture regardless of the organizational structure, mission and objectives (Bakar, 2001.pp. 64-69).
One reason is because organizations are run by people for the benefit of people. All employees in all organizations are social beings complete with needs, feelings and emotions. In many countries for instance, it is almost impossible to separate personal life and work among employees, which calls for an integration of employees lives with their work environment so as to make work both satisfying and enjoyable as well as a means of deriving happiness and fulfillment in ones life (Bakar, 2001.pp. 64-69).
This argument is based on the human relations model of organizational theory pioneered by Ludwig von Bertalanffy in 1928, which brought a radical shift from the classical management theories pioneered by Taylor, which emphasized on scientific management of employees as if they were machines to be operated by their managers (Cooke & Lafferty, 1987).
But what is a cohesive organizational culture? Many organizational researchers agree that a cohesive organizational culture is the one in which all members of an organization hold to similar beliefs and values which glue the organization together. These beliefs and values may be implicit or explicit to the organization, meaning that they may be or not be publicly declared in the organizational core values. In this kind of culture, it does not matter the organizational structure but what matters most is the commitment of each and every member of the organization to these believes and values. For example, an organization may value hard work, honesty and team work and believe in transparency, utmost good faith, ethics and morality. A cohesive organizational culture has got many benefits (Keshavarzi, 2007).
One benefit is that it leads to high motivation among the employees because they share common believes and values. When employees are highly motivated, there is minimal use of resources in their supervision which in turn increases their productivity because to them, what matters most is the good of the organization as a whole but not personal good.
Another benefit of cohesive organizational culture is that it facilitates the alignment of organizations for the achievement of their objectives, mission and vision without much difficulty. This is because the employees are not only fully aware of the mission, vision and objectives, but have also internalized them thus making them to work hard to achieve them. This makes them more motivated to accomplish the set organizational goals, targets or objectives (Martins & Terblanche, 2003.pp.64-65).
Strong organizational culture also boosts organizational efficiency because of the internalization of what is required of each and every employee when and where. The sharing of values and beliefs creates a good working environment free from any kind of confusion, ambiguity or lack of understanding among the employees, which apart from increasing efficiency also saves on time wasted when things seem not to move in the right direction because the employees are able and free to consult each other without the fear of victimization or intimidation especially by the senior managers. Employees also portray good behavior at work because they know what is right to be done and what is not right (Martins &Terblanche, 2003.pp.64-65).
Furthermore, strong organizational culture leads to cohesion among various departments of an organization which leads to harmonization of all organizational procedures, policies and practices in each and every department. This cohesion leads to proper utilization of organizational resources without sabotage as well as sound, logical and relevant polices on how to coordinate organizational activities in a manner that would maximize the organizations chances of realizing their mission and vision. Cohesion among various organizational departments also leads to the sharing of information by various departments which increases the employees levels of understanding of how various departments work. This is very important because it enables employees to multitask especially in times when staffs in some departments are not available. For example, the understanding of administrative issues in the organization by the head of accounting departmental may make him or her work on behalf of the head of the administration department when he or she is not present ( Mathew, 2007.pp.677-678).
Strong organizational culture enhances control, good coordination and consistency within an organization. This is because the employees and the management are in good terms and thus are able to agree informally on various procedures and practices without compromising the quality of the organizational practices and objectives. This saves on time because employees implement the changes which they find necessary without having to wait for bureaucratic board meetings and discussion to approve even the slightest change in procedures or practices ( Mathew, 2007.pp.677-678).
Lastly not the least, cohesive organizational culture enhances team work, group leadership and collaboration of the employees in various tasks. This is of crucial importance to organizations because it opens the room for employees creativity, innovativeness and openness to positive criticism which makes work not only enjoyable, but also enriched with a multiplicity of ideas. This in turn leads to increased achievement levels by the organization as opposed to situations in which employees creativity and innovativeness are not entertained by the management of the organizations.
What is organizational Structure?
Organizational structure refers to the chain of command in an organization and who takes what directives from whom, when and why. An organizational structure is very important for the proper functioning of the organization because it determines how decisions are made regarding various issues touching on policy and public relations (Thompson, 2003).
There are various organizational structures which are based on the objectives of an organization. The most common organizational structures are bureaucracies. These are based on Webers idea of bureaucracy as a way of managing organizations. The bureaucratic structures are characterized by strict chains of command, clearly defined roles and responsibilities for each and every employee as well as recruitment based on merit (Thompson, 2003).
Another form is the post- bureaucratic organizational structure which includes matrix structures, the six sigma and Total Quality Management. These structures are formed on webers bureaucratic ideology, but leaves out the irrational aspects of an ideal bureaucracy. In these structures, there is a lot of flexibility in terms of task performance, meeting deadlines, utilization of resources and time management. In other words, post -bureaucratic organizational structures de-emphasize the idea of centralization of decision making on some minor issues relating to organizations functions, but rather empowers employees with the freedom to make various decisions to make their work more efficient, effective and enjoyable (Thompson, 2003).
The most effective organizational structure is the post- bureaucratic because it makes organizations to be efficient and effective, unlike the bureaucratic structure which is characterized by inefficiency especially when it comes to making minor decisions. Organizations can determine if they are structured in the most efficient and effective manner if they meet their objectives in an efficient and effective manner without delays in decision making caused by rigidity in organizational chains of command. In such organizations, employees are free to be creative and innovative and are also encouraged to work in groups, which simplify work due to group synergy (Thompson, 2003). Before going into the discussion of the relationship between the Lego serious play and organizational culture and structure, I would briefly explore Total Quality Management and Six Sigma and how they work in a business setting
Total quality management (TQM) is a business strategy employed by companies or profit making originations to increase customer satisfaction as well as improve their internal processes (McNamara, 2011). Six sigma on the other hand is a methodology applied by companies and organizations in defining, measuring, improving, analyzing and controlling the quality of all companies processes, products and transactions with an objective of minimizing or eliminating defects (Brown Freelance Limited, 2010). TQM and six sigma therefore focus on overall improvement of companies production through establishment of short term and long term strategies and processes. Different companies use either TQM or six sigma as strategies to improve their business quality. In the implementation of both, there are some factors which must be considered. The main implementation issues associated with TQM include understanding of TQM and what it entails, establishing an organizational culture which can support the implementation of TQM, aligning TQM implementation with the priorities of the organization and understanding of the time frames necessary for the implementation of the TQM. All these are very important especially to the top management of the organization or company (Seattle, 2003).
The main implementation issues associated with six sigma include data collection on customer satisfaction, minimization of defects in process of product production, training of both the top management and the workforce on six sigma process, and a shift in thinking by managers from thinking in terms of events to thinking in terms of processes. This is an orientation strategy which encourages the management and the employees to commit themselves in the improvement of quality of processes and products for the company (Slide Share, 2011). Many companies have implemented TQM. A
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.