Play Well Constructing Creative Confiden

CONSTRUCTING CONFIDENCE WITH LSP WENDI DYKES
Play Well:
Constructing Creative Confidence with LEGO® Serious Play®
by
Wendi Waldron Dykes (Dijks)
Abstract
With unknown futures and a consistent series of external factors influencing
today’s organization, a new mindset is needed to meet the challenges facing the
workplace (Burke, 2013; Kegan & Lahey, 2001). Recent polls have rated creativity and
innovative decision making among the most desired traits for leaders, yet how can the
self-proclaimed linear thinking, non-creative type of person develop this trait (Carr, 2010;
IBM, 2010). One answer is constructing creative confidence. This study explored if
being in a state of flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 2003) and in collaboration with others (Kelley
& Kelley, 2013; Brown, 2008; deBono, 1999) while engaging in hand-mind construction
through play (Kristiansen & Rasmussen, 2014; Papert & Harel, 1991), namely Lego
Serious Play (LSP), can inspire creative confidence.
The research was collected through a Lego Serious Play workshop intervention
followed by individual semi-structured interviews with the participants. A hybrid of both
qualitative deductive and qualitative inductive methods of inquiry were used with a
template analysis to analyze the data collected. The study explored the idea of using
Lego Serious Play to inspire creative confidence while re-introducing play, of a serious
nature, into the adult vocabulary and workplace. This research project saw significant
results in several areas relating to positive team dynamics and individual mindset shifts
toward the way organizational problems are solved. Empathy for the other, perspective-
ii
taking, divergent thinking, deeper learning, and the presence of psychological safety all
emerged from the participant data in support of positioning LSP as a tool for inspiring
creative confidence which can be used for solving complex challenges in the workplace.
Key Words: Play, Serious Play, Creativity, Creative Confidence, Lego, Lego Serious
Play, Constructionism, Flow, Workplace, Divergent Thinking, Organization, Hybrid
Methodology, Qualitative Inductive, Qualitative Deductive, Organizational Psychology,
Organization Development
iii
Copyright by
WENDI WALDRON DYKES (DIJKS)
Ó2018
iv
Acknowledgements
To Nina and Anna: You are my gracious gifts from God, an inspiration for all I do, and
the joy of my life! May your pursuits of knowledge always lead you to find Wisdom and
in the words of Walt Disney, never forget that “it’s kind of fun to do the impossible.”
To my committee: I cannot imagine a better team to inspire, challenge, and support me

through this doctoral journey.
David Blake Willis, you are a gift! You invested in me with utmost sincerity and
challenged me to give my best self throughout this process. Studying and playing
alongside you and Fred in Amsterdam and Paris will remain a highlight of my time at
Fielding. It is an absolute privilege to know you!
Fred Steier, you share my passion for play! You consistently dared me to “play”
with ideas, stretching my mind and my curiosity. Let’s continue to imagine together…
Mike Manning, you expected excellence and held me to the highest standard in
my work. I value your expertise in the field of organizational science and aspire to the
depth of your talent.
Eileen Hulme, you’re brilliant, creative, fun, funny, curious, and playful. In a
word, AMAZING! Thank you for making the effort for me. Let’s never stop dreaming.
Where you lead, I will follow.
Terence Chung, my fellow LSP facilitator, researcher, and friend. Together we

are bringing LEGO into the academic conversation. Play well!
To my family (and framily): Nina, Anna, Darrell, Dad, Mom, Kristi, Damian, Zach,
Natalie, Bogey, Rocky, Boone, Johno, John, Kristi, David, Dreena, Mike, Cindy, Ashlyn,
Lauren, Krista, Stacie, Stacey, and Cornerstone Bible Church Small Group. Thank you
for letting me use your names, for sending articles, for listening to me talk about LEGO,
for sitting with me while I studied (Bogey & Rocky), for supporting me, praying for me,
encouraging me, and believing in me more than I sometimes believe in myself. You are
my short list and I love you all more than you’ll ever know!
To my Azusa Pacific University colleagues and mentors: To my gracious colleagues in

the Department of Leadership and Organizational Psychology, thank you for sharing
your knowledge, your expertise, your time, and your friendship with me. I am blessed to
work with such a talented team of educators who are genuinely nice people.
To John, David, and Andrew, whose paths I have followed in this doctoral journey. You
have accepted me into the boy’s club and value me as an equal. You are men of intellect,
integrity, and inspiration. You are my mentors and my friends.
“To Him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we can

ask or imagine … to Him be the glory.”
Ephesians 3:20-21
v
Dedication
This paper is dedicated to the logical thinkers, the rational, the self-proclaimed
“non-creative” types: To these individuals I leave the words of Stephen Nachmanovitch
(2009) which invite a deep calling into the mind, spirit, and soul of every individual
desiring for creative confidence, may you continue to learn how “to play fully and with
utter commitment, as a practice, a way of empathy, an interplay with other human beings
that combines great freedom with great concentration and responsibility” (p. 21).
Play well and play on …
vi
Table of Contents
CHAPTER ONE: LEG GODT………………………………………………………... 1

ELEMENTS OF A NEW MINDSET ……………………………………………………1
A PLAYFUL METHOD………………………………………………………………… 1
THE CREATIVE PRODUCT: CREATIVE CONFIDENCE…………………………... 3
CONSTRUCTING A CASE……………………………………………………………. 4
RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS……............................................................................5
GLOSSARY OF TERMS ………………………………………………………………. 6
AN AFOL IS BORN…………………………………………………………………… 7
SUMMARY: PLAY ON………………………………………………………………… 9
CHAPTER TWO: BRICK-BUILT……………………………………………………11

THE CREATIVE PERSON…………………………………………………………….. 11
Individual Creativity…………………………………………………………….11
Group Creativity………………………………………………………………...15
Organizational Creativity……………………………………………………….16
THE CREATIVE SITUATION………………………………………………………….18
Collaboration……………………………………………………………………18
Flow………………………………………………………………………..….. 20
THE CREATIVE PROCESS…………………………………………………………….22
Hand-Mind Construction .......................………………………………………..24
Understanding Play……………………………………………………………. 25
Traditional Play in Organizations………………………………………………27
Serious Play……………………………………………………………………. 28
LEGO SERIOUS PLAY …………………………………………………………32
LSP Methodology……………………………………………………………… 35
LSP Research and Challenges…………………………………………………..38
SUMMARY: MAKING CONNECTIONS………………...……………………………41
CHAPTER THREE: MOC……………………………...……………………………. 43

A METHODOLOGY FOR A HYBRID APPROACH TO QUALITATIVE
DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE DESIGN…………………………………………… 43
Hybrid Approach to Inquiry…………………………………………………... 43
Workshop Intervention………………………………………………………… 45
Participant Information………………………………………………………… 46
Data Collection……….………………………………………………………… 46
Data Analysis………………….………………………………………………. 47
Template Analysis: Design and Coding………………………………………... 47
PILOT STUDY…………………………………………………………………………. 50
Pilot Study Data Analysis……...……………………………………………… 51
Pilot Study Lessons Learned……..………………………… …………………. 53
FIELD STUDY…………………………………………………………………………..55
SUMMARY…………………………………………………………………………….. 56
CHAPTER FOUR: INTERLOCKING ELEMENTS……………………………..... 58

RESULTS………………………………………………………………………………. 58
The Current Team Reality…………….....…………………………………… 58
New team………………………………………………………………59
Experience vs. energy............................................................................60
vii
Communication style……………………….………………………….61
Clear leader role……………………………………………………....62
Problem solving……………………………………………………….63
Silos………………………………...………………………………….64
Openness to change…………………………..………………………..65
LSP as a Creative Process………...…………………………………………… 66
Deeper learning through visual artifact………………………...……..67
Deeper learning through mental challenge……………………………69
Perspective taking……………………………..…………...…………..70
A more productive experience……………………...…………………..71
An evened playing field…………………………………………………72
Interpersonal safety…………………………………………………….73
An emergence of empathy………………………………...…………….75
Facilitator influence……………………………...……………………..76
Assembling a Creative Situation........................................................................... 77
Flow…………………………………………………………………….77
Collaboration ..........................................................................................83
Acknowledgement of space and location……………………….……….85
A Creative Product……………………………………………………...……… 85
Think differently…………………………………………………………86
A level of comfortability with uncertainty……………………….………87
See self/others as creative………………………………………………..87
Courage to try things; experiment……………………………………….88
See other perspectives………………………………………………..…90
Wanting more……………………………………………….……………92
SUMMARY…………………………………………………………………………….. 92
CHAPTER FIVE: A SYSTEM OF PLAY……………………………...…………… 93

DISCUSSION………………………………………………………………………………….. 93
Creative Confidence is Built ……………………………………………………95
Psychological Safety: A Foundational Element to the Creative Situation ..……98
Reframing Play: A Model for Serious Results…….………...…………………..98
LSP: Empirical Support for Theory ………………………………………….. 100
IMPLICATIONS……...………………………………………………………….…… 101
LIMITATIONS…………………………………………………………..………….…103
FURTHER STUDY…………………………………………………………………… 104
SUMMARY: BUILDING THE FUTURE……………………………………………. 106
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………… 108
viii
LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………….
FIGURE 1: THE ORIGINAL FLOW MODEL…..……………………………………..21
FIGURE 2: DESIGN THINKING PRINCIPLES AT WORK IN LEGO SERIOUS
PLAY……………………………………………………………………………23
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL…………………………………………. 117
APPENDIX B: WORKSHOP DESIGN AGENDA………………………………….. 120
APPENDIX C: INFORMED CONSENT FORM………………………………………122
ix
CONSTRUCTING CONFIDENCE WITH LSP WENDI DYKES 1
CHAPTER ONE
LEG GODT
Leg godt: Two Danish words that when placed

together mean “play well.”
Generally pronounced “lie gote.”
Elements of a New Mindset
Organizations are dynamic social systems moving at a highly complex and
constant level. External factors are influencing organizations in ways that never existed
before and competing commitments subconsciously sabotage an organizations best laid
plans (Burke, 2013; Kegan & Lahey, 2001). Organizations often use complicated
decision-making methods to solve complex organizational problems (Snowden & Boone,
2007). This runs afoul when complicated decision-making strategies, which are meant to
solve linear problems having one clear desired outcome, are used to resolve complex
organizational issues that possess no direct answer in an ever-evolving landscape.
A mindset, coupled with a model, is needed to shift attitudes and inspire different
ways of thinking and intervening into organizational systems allowing for decisions to be
made that impact the organization holistically and provide the freedom and structure to
answer the questions not yet asked or to solve problems still to arise.
A Playful Method
Officially launched in 2002, LEGO® Serious Play® (LSP) began to establish roots
in the mid-1990s during a time when the Lego Group was searching for a more
imaginative way to do business (Frick, Tardini, & Cantoni, 2013; Rasmussen, 2006).
With the arrival of videogames to the toy market, a fresh, emergent strategy was needed
for the Danish toy company to survive. What started as an internal aspiration to develop
inventive strategic direction while unlocking the human potential within the organization,
advanced into a methodology, grounded in scientific research around theories of
constructivism, constructionism, play, and systems. This methodology is transforming the
way present-day organizations think and respond to the increasingly complex and
challenging demands of modern work life (Kristiansen & Rasmussen, 2014; Executive
Discovery, 2002).
A short chronicle of the Lego brick provides context to the core materials used in
the LSP process. Named “Toy of the Century” by Fortune Magazine in 2000, the Lego
brick is made from ABS (acrylonitrile butadiene styrene) plastic, not PVC as many
assume. ABS is the same sturdy plastic that is used for creating football helmets and
many medical devices. It is known to have no true melting point; therefore, it has been
said that the Lego brick can withstand the heat of the dishwasher (although not
recommended). The specifications for making a Lego brick have remained so pure and
precise over the years that a brick made over 40 years ago can easily combine with one
made just yesterday (Boston Consulting Group, 2017). Recently released, the Lego
Group has committed one billion DK (approximately US $150M) to finding and
implementing sustainable alternatives to the current plastic material used (Trangbaak,
2015).
The word Lego itself is formed from the two Danish words leg godt, meaning to
“play well.” The Latin translation of the word is defined as “I assemble” or “I put
together,” and in the Lego universe it is expressed as “learning through play” (The LEGO
Group, n.d.). “Irreplaceable and irresistible” as described by Jorgen Vig Knudstrop

(Boston Consulting Group, 2017), former Lego Chairman and CEO, the Lego brick is
designed and named with an intent toward play and learning. The Lego brick is arguably
the unparalleled artifact in the serious play process.
Can this precise and playful toy, used in the Lego Serious Play process, provide
an answer for developing creative confidence?
The Creative Product: Creative Confidence
Creative confidence is an attitude or belief. Similar to the research philosophies
of Guilford (1950), Basadur, Graen, and Green (1982), and Sternberg (2006), it connects
creative confidence to the view of creativity expressed through a cognitive ability, such
as divergent thinking, suggesting it as something to be improved or developed. On an
individual level, creative confidence can be further described as the ability to see oneself
as innovative--a systems thinker who is able to uncover deeply held mental models and
generate sustainable organizational decisions because the full picture is in view (Kelley &
Kelley, 2013). The term creative confidence also combines several definitions of
creativity which positions creative confidence as a mindset to be chosen and as open to
all. For this type of confidence to be developed, an understanding that individual
creativity is produced when divergent and convergent thinking is linked (Basadur, Graen,
& Green, 1982), accompanied by the realization that a certain level of technical
knowledge or domain-relevant skills are necessary (Amabile, 1988), must exist.
Creative confidence can be connected to similar concepts that emerge in the
literature such as the natural ability to generate new ideas and the courage to try them out
(Kelley & Kelley, 2012), or the development of trust in one’s own creative skills (Rauth,
Koppen, Jobst, & Meinel, 2010). The use of the term “creative self-efficacy” can be
considered as a synonym to describe the confidence one possesses in one’s own ability to
be creative (Beghetto, 2013). For the purpose of this study, creative confidence is
defined as the belief that one has the ability to use both divergent and convergent thought
to propose fresh solutions to complex problems.
At the core, creatively confident individuals are comfortable with uncertainty,
have faith in their ability to create change in the world around them, and possess the
courage to test it out in non-traditional ways (Kelley & Kelley, 2013). Creative
individuals are trained to play and creative confidence can be built through collaborative
opportunities to experiment, permission to fail, and a rediscovery of the childhood
pastime of play.
Constructing a Case
Combining the notion of creative confidence with a methodology called Lego
Serious Play (LSP), this dissertation will explore how engagement in this activity can
inspire an attitude of creative confidence in individuals and enhance self-assured decision
making even during uncertain times. Positioning creative confidence as the creative
product, this study uses an interactionalist perspective (Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin,
1993; Harrington, 1990; Brown, 1989) for its framework unpacking how the creative
person, placed in a creative situation, using a creative process can inspire the outcome.
The study assumes that creative confidence is malleable and does not seek to
debate whether authentic creativity is an innate trait. The research seeks to understand if
working in collaboration with others (Kelley & Kelley, 2013; Brown, 2008; deBono,
1999), while engaging in hand-mind construction through play (Kristiansen &

Rasmussen, 2014; Papert & Harel, 1991), namely Lego Serious Play, while experiencing
elements of flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 2003), can inspire creative confidence.
Using emergent design and a qualitative deductive method of inquiry, the study
explores the idea of using Lego Serious Play to inspire creative confidence while re-
introducing play, of a serious nature, into the adult vocabulary and workplace
establishing how hand-mind construction can improve perceptions of innovative thinking.
It invites the logical thinkers, the rational, the self-proclaimed “non-creative” types to
discover creative confidence and beckons organizational leaders to pursue an alternative
mindset when solving complex challenges facing a modern-day workplace. With intent
to impact individuals in today’s organization, the words of Nachmanovitch (2009) invite
a deep calling into the mind, spirit and soul of every individual desiring for creative
capacity, may you learn how “to play fully and with utter commitment, as a practice, a
way of empathy, an interplay with other human beings that combines great freedom with
great concentration and responsibility” (p. 21).
The research question for this study is thus: Can working in collaboration with
others, while engaging in hand-mind construction through play, namely Lego Serious
Play, while experiencing elements of flow, inspire creative confidence?
Research Considerations
Participants may have the assumption of needing to be a Lego building expert.
This statement leads to a perceived limitation if a participant feels inadequate building
with the construction toy. This limitation should be dispelled early in the process as the
LSP facilitator uses skill-building exercises with all participants to demonstrate the Lego
motto proposing that whatever is made is right. Lego Serious Play is for all individuals.
No expertise or special skill is needed. Only the ability to put meaning to a model is
warranted.
Another consideration to this study is the fact that there is limited empirical
research on Lego Serious Play. This study was exploratory in nature and desires to begin
academic conversations around this topic. The data were collected in the United States
with an organization that is founded and operated in the US. Although employees of the
organization are hired to work in the U.S., definitions and an understanding of creativity
may vary depending on an individual’s view, culture, and interpretation.
The last consideration relates to the fact that Lego is known in the United States
primarily as a child’s play toy. As the review of the literature will discuss, the word play
is often viewed as a frivolous activity meant for entertainment purpose. Although this
study seeks to reframe that mindset, finding an organization to allow a study of this
nature could pose a challenge.
Glossary of Terms
The following is a glossary of terms and the definitions used in this study.
Collaboration: an ensemble between people where the whole is greater than the sum of
its parts (Sawyer, 2017; Suroweicki, 2004).
Complex problem: an organizational challenge that has no direct answer in an ever-
evolving landscape. Multiple, plausible solutions may be present (Snowden & Boone,
2007).
Complicated decision-making strategy: a structured, step-by-step decision-making
method best used to solve linear problems having one clear desired outcome (Snowden &
Boone, 2007).
Constructionism: learning that happens especially when individuals are engaged in
constructing something external of themselves (Papert & Harel, 1991).
Creative Confidence: the attitude or belief that one has the ability to use both divergent
and convergent thought to propose fresh solutions to complex problems.
Flow: the state in which an individual forgets about time and immerses him/herself in the
task or challenge at hand (Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 1992).
Lego Serious Play: a facilitated process designed to help individuals and organizations
solve complex challenges by transforming the Lego brick from a construction toy to a
language used to foster systemic creativity (Kristiansen & Rasmussen, 2014).
Play: a paradox; pretending with commitment (Nachmanovitch, 2009; Bateson, 1972).
Serious Play: play that has an explicit purpose and is enacted in a particular way.
An AFOL (Adult Fan of Lego) Is Born
In the summer of 1998, I was offered an opportunity at the age of 25 to be a
member of the “Original Construction Crew,” a name dedicated to the first employees
hired to start LEGOLAND California (LLC), the Danish owned and operated Lego
Group’s first U.S. theme park venture. LLC is located in Carlsbad, California in the
north coastal region of San Diego County and officially opened its doors to the public in
March of 1999.
Barely old enough to secure a rental car on my first business trip, I was hired a
year prior to grand opening as the Training Coordinator within the Human Resources
Department. To date, the experience working with Lego is noted as the most rewarding
yet challenging job of my life. Six- and 7-day work weeks and 12- to 14-hour work days
were the norm for that first year. Recruiting, hiring, training, and onboarding over 1,500
new employees to work in the park was the priority. In addition to supporting the human
resource team with the grand recruitment and hiring goal, some key duties were to orient,
train, and onboard all new hires while creating organizational systems for these
processes.
Being a startup organization, this meant developing and delivering original
orientation programs, leadership trainings, and performance management systems. The
responsibility for these initiatives was placed in the hands of myself and my supervisor,
the Manager of Training and Organization Development. Two months prior to the Park
opening the Manager of Training and Organization Development left the organization,
which left no time to recruit for a replacement. I was given the opportunity, at a junior
age and position, to step into the role. I had been given an overwhelming, daunting, and
exciting challenge, and I had the choice whether to pursue excellence even in the face of
fear or to run from the challenge.
I spent 11 years with the Lego Group at LLC earning international honors for my
training programs and retention strategies in my first year, receiving the honor of
employee of the year in 2000, and traveling across the globe to support the training and
organization development operations at new Legoland locations. Currently one of only
150 certified Lego Serious Play (LSP) facilitators worldwide, my passion for Lego does
not come from a childhood toy box full of Lego bricks, but rather from the freedom I was
given to fail forward, the opportunity granted to create without boundaries, and the
directive prescribed to imagine and to play well.
Summary: Play On
To thrive in today’s fast-paced workplace, individuals need to learn to think and
act creatively by playing, collaborating, and testing boundaries (Reznick, 2017).
Fostering a playful mindset around experimenting and testing out plausible solutions,
while also engaging a systematic process or thinking that allows the work to get done is
key.
How does one go about developing this mindset in individuals and establishing a
personal permission to play within the workplace? Acknowledging that creative
experiences require both rigor and whimsy and recognizing that engaging and meaningful
is not the same as fun and easy (Carlson, 2017). LSP can offer a solution.
Using an interactionalist perspective of creativity, an understanding of the
creative process, the creative product, the creative person, and the creative situation is
needed to explore the phenomena in full (Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993;
Harrington, 1990; Brown, 1989).
The creative situation brought into action through collaboration, and a state of
flow, coupled with the creative process of hand-mind construction through play are
inherent to Lego Serious Play. If these key elements are what helps to build the product
of creative confidence, it makes sense to conclude that engagement in LSP can help to
inspire a new way of thinking in individuals. To date, no empirical evidence has surfaced
to sustain this assertion. This dissertation seeks to explore this topic and begin to expand
the research in support of Lego Serious Play and its benefits to individuals and
organizations. A praxis goal has also been set to influence the scholar-practitioner space
advancing the literature around Lego Serious Play in the academic sector, while
providing practitioners with an empirically tested method proven to inspire a creative

confidence in individuals ultimately leading toward further creative influence in the
workplace.
CHAPTER TWO
BRICK-BUILT
Brick-Built: A LEGO creation that is composed of

basic, original, and foundational LEGO
elements, instead of more specialized elements,
even when a larger, pre-fabricated LEGO element or
custom accessory may be available.
The Creative Person
Although this research seeks to primarily explore an individual awareness of
creative confidence, the overarching context for the use of the confidence is in support of
solving complex organizational challenges. With this in mind, it is important to look at
the creativity literature from an individual, group, and organizational lens.
It can be argued that individual creativity cannot occur without group and
organizational characteristics (including social, contextual, and environmental influences)
interacting with one another. The interactionalist perspective (Woodman, Sawyer, &
Griffin, 1993; Harrington, 1990; Brown, 1989) centering on an understanding of and the
interconnectedness between individual, group, and organizational creativity is used to
organize the review of this literature.
Individual Creativity
Multiple researchers contend that individuals are born creative and can easily
learn to be more creative and innovative (Nussbaum, 2013; Kelley & Kelley, 2013;
Brown, 2008). A common assertion states that it is foolish to think that creativity is only
found in the fine arts, is rare, and only for those gifted in using the right brain. Creativity
can be built, it is a muscle to be developed, and by rewriting the rules associated with
creative thought even the left-brain, linear thinker can develop a divergent mindset
(Boyle, personal communication, 2017; Nussbaum, 2013; Kelley & Kelley, 2013; Core
Junior, 2013; Brown, 2008).
Existing literature on creativity exposes definitions that propose various views of
creativity, suggesting a popular product produced or highly original idea formed for a
person or act to be called creative. Creativity is then described as the development of
novel and useful items which leads to an assertion of creativity as an achievement or
ability. This assessment concludes that creativity is found within the bounds of great
thinkers or genius status and views creativity as a manufactured product (Osborne, 2003).
Through this lens, creativity is interpreted as both a moral imperative that forces
individualism and as a resource in the personal psychology of everyday life.
Literature exists that suggests that creativity is restricted to the arts and particular
types of intellectual work like that of certain sciences and philosophy (Deleuze &
Guatarri, 1994). This perspective hints that the creative explosion should not necessarily
be associated with a person, but rather to the system that emerges as a result of the
process (Osborne, 2003). Early literature by Hutchinson (1941/2014) contends that the
lines can be blurred between the creative genius and the creativity of the everyday.
Authentic creativity cannot occur unless one becomes a traitor to the system and
ultimately experiences loss of personal identity as a part of the creative process (Deleuze
& Guatarri, 1994). This notion insists that a truly creative individual would not be
concerned with a theory about creativity but rather compelled by the impossibilities
placed before him.

Researchers propose correlations between creativity and various factors such as
personality, intrinsic motivation (Woodman & Schoenfeldt, 1989; Amabile, 1988; Barron
& Harrington, 1981), cognitive ability (Carrol, 1985; Basadur, Graen & Green, 1982;
Guilford, 1977, 1984) and knowledge or expertise in the domain-specific area (Stein,
1989; Amabile, 1988). Creativity research conducted through personality correlation,
and closely associated with intrinsic motivation, can be described as an innate trait, like
the mannerism of curiosity, or as a disposition or attitude (Amabile, Conti, Coon,
Lazenby, & Heron, 1996; Amabile, 1988; Barron & Harrington, 1981). A caution
presented with this factor, specifically that of intrinsic motivation, refers to motivational
tactics such as evaluation or reward schemes that may have an adverse effect on
creativity generation and creative performance (Woodman et al., 1993; Amabile, 1979).
Cognitive ability as a predictor of creativity encompasses a propensity toward
fluency of expression, ideation (also called divergent thinking), figural fluency, word
fluency, flexibility, elaboration, and originality (Carrol, 1985; Basadur, Graen, & Green,
1982; Guilford, 1984). Basadur et al. (1982) add the element of convergent thinking,
suggesting that ideation (divergent thinking) and convergent thinking must coexist for an
individual to develop a creative product or process. Further, through empirical research,
Basadur, Wakabayashi, and Graen (1990) established that training individuals, within an
organizational context, on creative thinking resulted in positive improvements in attitudes
connected with divergent thinking. Creativity is suggested as a part of the process by
which individuals acquire new knowledge (Campbell, 1960). This assertion supports a
learning process based on trial-and-error which includes opportunities for discovering
plausible outcomes.
Individuals must have a certain level of knowledge or technical expertise in the
domain-specific subject area for the creativity to occur (Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin,
1993; Amabile, 1988). Recognizing that all new ideas are a fusion of previous
experiences or knowledge, it is fair to assert that creativity is not a “knowledge free”
pursuit (Stein, 1989).
Considering these multiple factors, the interactionalist model of individual
creativity refers to creativity as the complex product of one’s behavior in a given
situation (Woodman & Schoenfeldt, 1989,1990). Although still individually focused, this
model recognizes the influence of antecedent conditions (such as biographical data and
personality), the cognitive abilities and predispositions of the creative individual, and the
knowledge (expertise) appropriate for the outcome.
Creative people all have one thing in common: At some point, they made a choice
to be creative (Sternberg, 2006). It is not promised that creative genius will emerge once
a decision is made; however, according to Sternberg (2006), it will certainly not without a
conscious intent.
Individuals may, however, be losing their ability to think creatively and
resourcefully, “teaching to the test” and using popular search engines to find immediate
answers to problems has contributed to the lack of creative capacities being used by many
(Moreau & Engeset, 2016). Individuals have been trained to solve organizational issues
for a world with a predictive future (Nussbaum, 2013). Nussbaum (2013) promotes five
competencies he calls creative intelligence (CQ) as a toolkit to help transform individuals
personally and professionally while being able to navigate a rapidly changing world. The
competencies proposed include Knowledge Mining, Framing, Playing, Making, and
Pivoting.
Nussbaum’s (2013) concept of creative intelligence is meant to be a creativity
routine, allowing individuals to build a practice or discipline for creativity. Although
several elements of these competencies are closely related to the theoretical framework of
this paper and will be covered in further detail, this study will focus on the psychological
aspect, namely the attitude of creative confidence, leading to a feeling of creative
competence, which ultimately affects behavior and one’s creative decision-making.
Group Creativity
While group creativity is not a collection of group members individual creativity,
group composition, characteristics, and process factors are suggested to play a role in
group creativity (Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). Some antecedents reported to
influence this phenomenon include leadership, cohesiveness, group composition, and
group structure (King & Anderson, 1990). Research around these factors suggests that
creative outcomes are more frequently generated when the leadership is collaborative and
democratic, structure is less formal and mechanistic, and diversity (cognitive and
functional) within group members is present (Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). A
potential problematic consequence associated with group creativity can be group think
(Janis, 1982). Group think is a manner of decision-making that can hinder creativity
because decisions are made with consensus and harmony as the main goal, not allowing
for external influences or critical thought to be present in the discussion or process (Janis,
1982). When groups with a history of longevity come together for creative exploration,
there may be a tendency to have the same mindset and what might be called a curvilinear
relationship between group cohesiveness and creative performance has been reported
(Nystrom, 1979).
As research associated with individual creativity development suggested that
training enhances divergent thinking and positive attitude (Basadur, Wakabayashi, &
Graen, 1990; Campbell, 1960), research on problem-solving groups posit that training
adds to the ability to effectively problem solve (Bottger & Yetton, 1987), additionally
asserting that groups which include high-level problem solvers propose higher quality
solutions (Yetton & Bottger, 1983).
Knowledge plays a key role in group creativity production as it did in individual
creativity outcomes. Groups not only rely on their own knowledge (or technical
expertise) but use that of group members to augment and stimulate their own ideas,
ultimately contributing to the creative process (Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993).
Organizational Creativity
Creativity has found its way into the business sector and its outcome is expected
to be actionable and appropriately useful (Amabile, 1998). In a complex social system,
creativity, also called creative behavior, can be defined as creation of a useful product,
service, idea, procedure, or process proposed by those working together in the
organization (Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993; Golann, 1963).
Organizational creativity is described as a function of group creativity, which
includes a grouping of creative individuals, along with the contextual and environmental
influences supporting it (Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). Some may argue that
creativity proposed in organizations is that of imitation, asserting that imitation gives the
impression that a model is being improved, resulting in the illusion of creativity

(Osborne, 2003; Hutchinson, 1941/2014). Within the organizational context, creative
thinking relates to how individuals approach challenges. Amabile (1998) asserts that
creative thinking requires motivation and expertise as complementary elements in order
for creativity to flourish in the workplace.
As previously discussed, training has been noted to improve creativity at both the
individual and group levels. Training for positive attitudes toward divergent thinking
(creativity) was found to be most successful in an organizational context presumably due
to the social support for the divergent thinking behavior among organizational peers.
This finding supports the interactionalist view of organizational creativity proposed by
Woodman, Sawyer, and Griffin (1993). Learned creativity includes a certain level of
comfortability with the ambiguous or uncertain. For this reason, Wheatley, Anthony and
Maddox (1991) also advocate creativity training within an organizational context to
foster divergent thinking and problem-solving skills.
The ability to be creative is noted as a top trait for emerging and successful
leaders. The future of the workplace will require more innovative and collaborative
thinkers (Reznick, 2017). Although it can be argued that a personal value of integrity
should remain the top trait for those in a leadership role (D. Waldron, personal
communication, 2018), a recent poll of 1,500 Chief Executive Officers rated creativity
above integrity and global thinking as the most desired leadership trait needed (Carr,
2010) An IBM CEO study conducted in 2010 notes that being committed to
experimentation and the ability to embrace ambiguity are traits needed for success in
today’s organization. Interestingly, organizations have become increasingly adept at
solving well-structured problems (Moreau & Engeset, 2016).

Following an overview of the creative person, a look into the contextual and
social influences, also known as the creative situation, is necessary to further the
discussion (Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993).
The Creative Situation
An interactionalist perspective supports the need for a creative situation to be
existent for creative formation to take place, suggesting that this factor can either help or
hinder one’s ability to be creative (Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). This study
looks at the elements of collaboration and flow as antecedents to the development of
creative confidence.
Collaboration
Creative people collaborate with other humans (Kelley & Kelley, 2013) and
creativity emerges within an ensemble between people (Sawyer, 2012). The idea of the
lone genius is a myth. Recognizing that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, the
“wisdom of crowds” has been a proven theory (Sawyer, 2017; Suroweicki, 2004).
Suroweicki (2004) examines the power of collective decision-making by asking
individuals at a county fair to guess the weight of an ox for a price. In sum, he
aggregates the guesses made by the individuals and discovers that the collective guess
came closer to the actual weight of the ox than any one individual guesstimate, ultimately
asserting that a collective or collaborative response gets closer to the actual weight.
A collective response may bring a more precise view of reality, yet creative
collaboration, referred to as a form of friendship by Brown (2008), yields true play. In
this assertion, friendship equals trust and when the fear of embarrassment, the conscious
or subconscious judgmental opinion of others, or the performance standards placed upon

ourselves or placed by others is extinguished, a freedom to take risks, to be foolish, and
to be honest makes way for play and creativity. Greater innovation, defined as the
product of creative collaboration, is produced from teams who possess trust, familiarity
with one another, and a shared commitment to the same goal (Kelley & Kelley, 2013).
Creative thoughts from one individual begin to influence thoughts of another and
innovation begins to unfold through constant communication and side-by-side interaction
(Sawyer, 2017). This can be witnessed through research found on the creative
collaborations between artists and scientists. Individuals like Leonardo da Vinci,
Beethoven, Orville and Wilbur Wright, The Beatles (John, Paul, Ringo, and George),
and Steve Jobs all had networks with whom they shared their ideas. The people in these
networks served as both critics and enthusiasts for the ideas or projects, each having a
positive influence on developing one’s creative confidence (Sawyer, 2017; Sweet,
Blythe, & Carpenter, 2014; Brown, 2008).
Creative collaboration used toward an innovative process uses terms like co-
design, co-creation, and co-configuration to describe ways in which collective
understanding is formed (Schulz, Geithner, Woelfel, & Krzywinski, 2015). The potential
of these methods relies on teams where individuals with diverse backgrounds, disciplines,
and views come together to exchange knowledge, perspectives, and experiences in order
to develop something new (Schulz et al., 2015). A key to innovation, which is a result of
creative collaboration, is finding the subtle balance between planning, structure, and
improvisation (Sawyer, 2017).
The concept of playful collaborative exploration is introduced by Johansson and
Linde (2005) suggesting that there are ways of engaging with information or materials
that do not restrict an objective thought process, but rather stimulate a dialogue between
the participants. This open-ended design process abandons a traditional designed
problem-solving method and leans into the ambiguity and experimentation that occurs
from a less structured method seeing it as a valuable contribution and purposeful to the
outcome. In this process, the presence and acceptance of ambiguity is viewed as a
respectful way of inviting differing perspectives, while the participants’ job is to
experiment with ideas and concepts, just as a chemist would experiment in a laboratory
(Jorgenson & Steier, 2013; Johansson & Linde, 2005; Bateson, 1972).
Flow
Huizenga (1944/2016) refers to “magic circles” in his book Homo Ludens which
he describes as temporary worlds within the ordinary world, dedicated to the performance
of an act apart. Magic circles, and a similar concept called fantasy worlds by Johannson
and Linde (2005), can be seen today in organizations as spaces where fluid decision
making is occurring, where individuals are prototyping, playing, and experimenting with
ideas.
In Flow, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (2008) describes the optimal conditions for
adult play to occur. The concept of flow is revealed when feelings of concentration,
enjoyment, and fun are present while an individual is deeply immersed in what he or she
are doing. Throughout his research nine elements emerge that help to define the ways
flow is exhibited. The elements include (a) clear goals being present every step of the
way, (b) immediate feedback to one’s actions, (c) a balance between challenge and skill,
(d) a merge of action and awareness, (e) distractions excluded from the conscious mind,
(f) no worry of failure, (g) self-consciousness disappears, (h) sense of time becomes
distorted, and (i) activity becomes autotelic, meaning that the activity becomes the choice
of the participant and not a required action (Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 1992;
Csikszentmihalyi, 2008; Wright, 2008).
He uses the model (Figure 1) shown below to describe the experience of flow and
highlight a few of the key elements. When the challenge is set to match the required skill
level a sense of “flow” is felt by the participant. When in the state of flow, the participant
forgets about time and immerses him/herself in the task or challenge at hand. If the skill
level required does not match the challenge, boredom could occur and if the challenge
presented is too hard for the skill level present, feelings of anxiousness or frustration
occur.
Figure 1. The original flow model (adapted from Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 1975).
The term optimal experience is used when referring to the consistent length of time and
mental energy an individual devotes to a task without direct focus on minutes, hours, or
days passed (Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 1992). When in flow, absolute
absorption into a task is often the result, and individuals describe themselves as feeling
alert, strong, and performing to the best of their abilities with effortless authority over the
challenge at hand. Csikszentmihalyi (2003) proposes that flow occurs when the mind and
body are fully functioning in harmony with one another and providing a place for each
individual around the table to find space for expression.
The Creative Process
A methodology, like Lego Serious Play, used to solve complex organizational
challenges with a more human-centric approach emerged in the early 21st century and
has continued to catch interest among scholars and practitioners alike within the last
decade. Much of the credit for this phenomenon belongs to David Kelley and Tom
Kelley, originators of design thinking and founders of the Stanford d. school and IDEO.
The d. school (formally the Hasso Plattner Institute of Design) educates the innovators,
while IDEO concentrates on the innovation.
Design thinking reframes challenges in order to look for innovative solutions by
gathering inspiration, synthesizing themes, and using ideation and experimentation prior
to implementation (Kelley & Kelley, 2013). Its human-centric focus is what separates it
from the traditional approaches. While many organizations are focused on technical
(specifications and feasibility) or business (viability and economics) factors, design
thinking adds a third element of people (empathy and desires) to the mix believing it to
be the core of the innovation process (Kelley & Kelley, 2013). Forming personal
connections with process or product end users in order to gather deep understanding and
empathy allows for challenges to be addressed at the core of the issue. Mottos like “Fail
early, fail often” at IDEO and interdisciplinary team teaching for graduate students at
Stanford d. school are ways in which a creative mindset is inspired (Boyle, personal
communication, 2017; Kelley & Kelley, 2013). These practices profess to enhance
creative confidence, also called a flipped mindset; a different way of thinking about a
problem (Kelley & Kelly, 2013), in individuals who choose to engage.
Similar to design thinking, Lego Serious Play uses concepts of gathering
inspiration through individual storytelling, synthesizing of themes through building
shared models, and ideation and experimentation prior to implementation.
While design thinking uses these elements in a step-by-step model (with built-in
freedom to move back and forth between each action), the Lego Serious Play
methodology uses ideation and experimentation throughout the entire process suggesting
a more playful experience and engagement with double-loop learning, a process of
uncovering underlying issues within an organization’s policies or aims (Schön, 1983;
Argyris, 1977). See Figure 2 for a demonstration of how Lego Serious Play makes use
of design thinking principles through an interconnected and cyclical manner.
IDEATION & EXPERIMENTATION
INSPIRATION
IMPLEMENTATION
SYNTHESIS
Figure 2. Design thinking principles (Kelley & Kelley, 2013) at work in Lego Serious Play.
The following sections will discuss the theories and elements specifically
associated with the creative process known as Lego Serious Play.
Hand-Mind Construction
The work of Jean Piaget, particularly his theory of constructivism, supports an
introductory conversation around hand-mind construction. Best known for his stage
theory of child development, Piaget (1951) suggested that knowledge is acquired through
“knowledge structures.” As active theory builders, Piaget believed that children (and any
individuals who hear specific knowledge for the first time) are not simply empty vessels
absorbing new knowledge, but are active participants in the process of constructing and
rearranging that knowledge based on what they know or have experienced (Kristiansen &
Rasmussen, 2014; Executive Discovery, 2002; Piaget, 1951). In one of his most well-
known experiments, Piaget discovered that children believed that when water is poured
from a short, wide glass into a tall, thin one, the amount of water increased. This belief
was built on a theory, which is often proven true, that taller and/or wider means more.
An example of this can be demonstrated by having children stand back to back to
measure height. Having participated in an activity like this, children have learned what it
means to be taller or have more or less height than another. Referring back to the glass of
water, children cannot simply be told the right answer; in this case, that the amount of
water will not change when poured from glass to glass. They, in turn, will have to build a
more sophisticated form of knowledge and test this theory again based on a new
experience.
Piaget’s theory of constructivism was later expanded upon by his colleague,
Seymour Papert which he called constructionism. Papert (1993) supported Piaget’s

findings and theory and went beyond to assert that constructivist learning happens when
individuals are engaged in constructing something external of themselves; an artifact of
some sort (Kristiansen & Rasmussen, 2014; Frick, Tardini, & Cantoni, 2013; Executive
Discovery, 2002; Papert & Harel, 1991). When the interplay of these two theories is in
working order, two types of construction are going on, each reinforcing the other in a
cyclical pattern. In essence, when individuals are concretely building tangible objects as
a part of their real-world experience, they are also generating new knowledge that enables
a more sophisticated thought process and production level (Executive Discovery, 2002).
In the 1980s, Papert challenged Piaget’s stage theory of development by asserting that
concrete thinking is not a stage to be outgrown by children, rather an important
development piece and a pathway to knowledge that applies just as equally to adult
learning (Papert, 1993). He believes that adding concrete thought to abstract ideas can
make learning more tangible, visual, manipulative, and more understandable (Frick,
Tardini, & Cantoni, 2013; Executive Discovery, 2002). This study seeks to combine
hand-mind construction with play, namely serious play. An understanding of play, its
misconceptions, and current uses in organizations is necessary to further the
conversation.
Understanding Play
The word play conjures up many thoughts and ideas in individuals. To some it
can be seen as a leisure activity or something relegated only to children, to others it
describes a sporting competition, and yet to many it becomes a sacred space for deep
learning and creativity to blossom. It has been said that play provides for intense thought
activity, lights up the brain, and has been connected to intellectual growth (Scarfe, 1962;
Brown, 2008).
Play is a paradox. To understand this enigma more fully, it is important to shed
the logical call of rational thinking and to sit at the possibilities of the “what ifs.” This
summons alone breeds anxiety for some and causes others to disengage for fear of
embarrassment or perception of apathy toward serious issues.
Anthropologist Gregory Bateson (1972) observes that play is a form of
communication, perhaps more appropriately described as metacommunication. He
describes play not in the action itself, yet in the structure or framework of the action.
Often philosophical and challenging to interpret, he steps outside the lines and uses the
term “meta,” as a prefix to distinguish a level above, or deeper than a certain behavior
being acknowledged. An example used to describe this phenomenon is that of a dog
wanting to play. When a playful dog approaches a human, with mouth wide open it often
nips the human hand with its teeth. This behavior, similar to that of a bite, is considered
playful when the dog also has its tail wagging. The human allows this interaction
because the dog is meta-communicating its playfulness even though there is a paradoxical
action occurring. This frame, an interpretation or sense-making of the occurrence, can
only take place if the participants in the exchange are capable of some degree of meta-
communication and acknowledge the act as play (Jorgenson & Steier, 2013; Bateson,
1972).
Stephen Nachmanovitch (2009) addresses another mystery involving play with
the concept of pretending with commitment. This can be described as sitting in the space
of the “as if” and can be seen when an individual feels a part of something that is fiction
or unreal. For example, when watching a movie or reading a novel, the individual
knows what is being read or viewed is not real, yet often true feelings are experienced for
characters in the fictional story lines. Perhaps even a visual expression of those emotions
like crying tears or a clenched fist to show deep felt connection. When this happens,
humans are pretending with the pretend, but as Nachmanovitch (2009) states, the
pretending happens with great commitment.
Antonyms for play include words like work, responsibility, and drudgery.
Brendan Boyle, IDEO Toy Lab founder and lecturer at Stanford University’s d. school
credits boredom as play’s antithetical side while William Blake (1802), an 18th century
poet and painter pens, “the opposite of play is not work or seriousness, because work can
be play and play can be serious. The opposite of play is one-dimensionality or literal-
mindedness” (Boyle, personal communication, 2017; Nachmanovitch, 2009).
Play theorists invite loosening the grip of literalism by seeking something beyond
the ordinary (Nachmanovitch, 2009). Although play can be easy to recognize, it can be
maddening to define because in play, the definitions are in constant flux and are ever-
changing in the moment.
Play allows humans to develop agility, flexibility, and be more apt to learn which
leads to readiness when changing circumstances arise. Play fosters growth and learning
and may be the most important element in human development while also acknowledging
that the basis of human trust is built through play signals (Brown, 2008; LEGO Group,
n.d.).
Traditional Play in Organizations

Play is often viewed as a frivolous, mindless, and unproductive activity which
merely serves the purpose of fun, jovial camaraderie, escape, and/or relaxation. The
concept of play is often misunderstood. The words entertainment and play are often
confused then misused interchangeably. A deconstruction of the word, play, is generally
necessary in order to garner its intended benefits as the kind of play discussed in this
paper is purposeful, intentional, and significant--serious play. Serious play, which will be
explored further in a later section is very satisfying and enjoyable, yet includes hard
work, even struggle at times and can be emotionally exhausting (Sandovar et al., 2017;
Rotboll, 2017; Reiber, 2001).
With outdoor activities or silly team-building sessions at the forefront of
organizational play pursuits, it’s no wonder the reputation of organizational play is less
than profound. While not all playful team-building activities are insignificant, by any
means, there are those whose entertainment value outweighs the aimed learning intent.
Organizations housing game rooms, concert hall lunch rooms, and sport courts earn the
title of creative or playful work environments, however this is not the type of play studied
in this research. Simply stated, silly play on its own does not lead to innovation. It is the
structure and commitment to a goal using new or counter-intuitive rules, combined with a
personal choice and a freedom to fail atmosphere that brings about creative confidence in
individuals (Nussbaum, 2013). One must develop a playful mindset and learn to squint to
see things differently; adult play is more of a mindset or an attitude change than an
activity (Boyle, personal communication, 2017).
Serious Play
Serious play is the term used most frequently in the literature to define play that
has an explicit purpose and is enacted in a particular way. The purpose of this play is
ultimately to engage participants, unlock knowledge, and break habitual thinking
(Kristiansen & Rasmussen, 2014). A synonym to serious play could be designed play.
Design suggests a planned process or intervention that is used for solution generation to a
designated problem (Reiber, 2001). Statler et al, (2011) contend that serious play
includes (a) meaning, (b) intentionality, (c) process, and (d) learning. Nussbaum (2013)
adds rules and competition to the list of characteristics. Seriousness and playfulness do
not have to compete; the two can co-exist (Brown, 2008). Serious play is needed to solve
complex issues that organizations don’t know the answers to, perhaps not even the right
questions to ask. In these instances, play permits experimentation. It provides space for
risk-taking and it allows for failure without the devastating blow to self-esteem or
professional reputation (Nussbaum, 2013). Serious play transforms problems into
engaging challenges. Serious play in organizations allows for a suspension of judgment;
it explores plausible solutions to complex problems before implementation (Core Junior,
2013).
Designed play is conducted through a series of steps, namely context, prototyping,
and presentation (Sandovar et al., 2017). Included in these steps are the overarching
meta-applications of space and counter-intuitive rule setting. These meta-applications
should influence all steps and be considered prior to and throughout the designed play
process.
The space in which design play occurs is carefully considered based on the
mission of the task-at-hand and the opportunity to inspire a story (Boyle, personal
communication, 2017; Friedman, 2014). Space and use of the space as a meta-
application of this process has been demonstrated through offsite or artistically aesthetic
locations, rearrangement of a traditional room, sitting in a circle, or adding colorful
elements to a discussion table.
Counter-intuitive rule setting is the second meta-application. Rules or structured
guidelines may be important for logical, rational thinkers to feel safe and begin to trust
the designed play process. Rules of engagement that are contrary to common sense, but
nonetheless true are important to this process. Serious play can provide directions to fail
early and often, inspire the creation of something quick and dirty (also known as
shedding perfection), and eliminate the myth of one “right” way to accomplish the task
(Boyle, personal communication, 2017; Rotboll, 2017).
The term context can be used to signal the start of the research process that occurs
prior to any designed play (Sandovar et al., 2017), sometimes described as posing the
right question (Kristiansen & Rasmussen, 2014). In essence, research in serious play
efforts is sparked by inquiry into a challenge or problem that has no obvious solution.
Crafting the right question can reach the center of the challenge, penetrate the surface,
and uses thoughtful dialogue and observation with and around the organization. This can
involve removing oneself from comfortable surroundings and interacting in and around
spaces, situations, and people who are outside of the traditional purview (Kelley &
Kelley, 2012).
Engagement in serious play involves building a prototype. By definition a
prototype is an example or a mock-up of an idea. Prototypes can be constructed in many
forms like a a quick pencil sketch of an organizational process; a new product idea built
using tape, paper, and markers; or a Lego model constructed to represent a personal
experience in the workplace. Prototyping an idea or concept allows for experimentation
and it gives permission to fail because it is not “real” (yet). Pencil sketches can be
erased, paper and tape can be recycled, and Lego bricks can be taken apart and
reconstructed. This is an example of providing opportunities for intelligent failure.
Friedman (2014) suggests that creating space for intelligent failure is an investment that
individuals and organizations must make.
The third element within serious play is presentation, also called sharing when
referring specifically to the Lego Serious Play method, and referenced as storytelling by
Frick, Tardini, and Cantoni (2013). No matter what official name is used, this element
involves the individual explaining the prototype by describing its meaning and purpose.
Serving two key roles, this step firstly allows the creator an opportunity to construct new
knowledge in his or her mind about the process, product, or experience being considered.
This happens through hand-mind construction through play, tied closely with Papert and
Harel’s (1991) theory of constructionism. Secondly, it allows the other individuals
around the table to see a deeper image of what the creator is thinking. It unlocks mental
models, lays them on the table for all to see, and opens up discussion. This process sets
the stage for what Edward de Bono (1999) calls parallel thinking; getting everyone in the
room looking from the same perspective. Parallel thinking can be described through the
image of a house. To visualize, picture one person standing at the front door, another at
the back, another to the west, and yet another on the east. A conversation begins about
the house. Practically speaking, all individuals are talking about the same house, yet they
are all looking at it from different perspectives. This image can be easily translated to the
workplace when considering how often organizations jump into discussions around a
topic believing that they are conversing about the same issue. Individuals come to a
conversation with specific mental models (or perspectives) that are not aligned with those
of others. De Bono (1999) suggests moving everyone around to the same side of the
house before commencing the discussion.
LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY®
The theories and elements associated with flow, collaboration, and hand-mind
construction through play are brought together in a tested methodology called Lego
Serious Play (LSP). These key elements are applied to help solve the complexities of
modern organizational concerns and build creative confidence in individuals. Through
this facilitated process which brings diverse backgrounds, knowledge, and perspectives
into the conversation, the quintessential Lego brick transforms from a construction toy to
a language used to foster systemic creativity (Kristiansen & Rasmussen, 2014).
With respect to creativity, divergent groups display more innovation generating
potential than like groups. For diverse groups to be successful, a common language
among participants is needed as they work toward the consensus (Schulz et al., 2015).
The LSP methodology uses the Lego brick as the common language between diverse
participants allowing each group member to create and provide personal identity to their
model.
Lego bricks are used in the process as a representation, a metaphor, that enables
participants to describe real-life organizational challenges in a safe, non-defensive,
structured format that allows for freedom of expression, interpretation, and solution
generation without the fear of failure or judgment. Sanders and Stappers (2008) refer to
this type of process as toolkit modeling. Toolkit modeling is the process of producing a
tangible model, also known as a prototype, in order to provide shared understanding
while facilitating creative idea development. Toolkit models are easy to handle, provide
straightforward informative value, and effortless to derive meaning from (Sanders &
Stappers, 2008; Schulz et al, 2015). An important caution presented by Le Masson,
Hatchuel, and Weil (2011) argue that while a process of this type can certainly enable
creative action, the antithesis, a limitation on the innovation, may occur when the balance
of autonomy and control is tipped.
A systems-thinking approach is used throughout the various application
techniques allowing participants to unveil their own mental models, witness those of
others, take a bird’s-eye view of the problem, and make connections between one another
and the greater landscape. Based on the theories of play, constructivism, and
constructionism, LSP connects people and ideas, allowing the participants to explore
plausible solutions, unleash creative capacities, learn through hands-on, mind-on
interaction, and generate simple guiding principles that can help to solve the unknown
organization dilemmas of the future.
In 1996, grandson of the Lego founder and current CEO, Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen,
collaborated with Johan Roos, PhD, and Bart Victor, PhD, professors at the International
Institute for Management and Development (IMD) in Lausanne, Switzerland, who were
researching new ways of creating strategy (Kristiansen & Rasmussen, 2014; Frick et al.,
2013). Disappointed with the quality of traditional strategy approaches, the three men
recognized they held a common philosophy which prized that “people are the key to an
organization’s success – and people can and want to do well, and, strategy is something
you live, not something stored away in a document” (Kristiansen & Rasmussen, 2014;
Frick et al., 2013). To their dismay, these beliefs were manifesting only as theory; people
were not reaching their full potential, and living out strategy was proving to be easier said
than done (Kristiansen & Rasmussen, 2014).
Executive Discovery Ltd, a subsidiary of the Lego Group, was formed and funded
by Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen to provide research on the dilemma (Kristiansen & Rasmussen,
2014). Initially, the research team practiced their strategy concepts by playing with a pile
of Lego bricks. Ultimately, the assumption that play fosters imagination combined with
the exercise of physically building one’s ideas became a simple guiding principle of the
Lego Serious Play applications (Kristiansen & Rasmussen, 2014). Executive Discovery
(2002) calls this “fruitful integration of work and play” and from a theoretical construct,
Papert and Harel (1991) assert that the interplay between constructivism and
constructionism aligns with this assumption.
Strategy concepts were present in the design, but a “process” was missing.
Joining the team of researchers, in 1999, was Robert Rasmussen, who was employed with
the Lego Group as the Director of Research & Development of Lego Education. He
vigorously challenged himself to begin investigating how to translate his knowledge of
the way children learn through play to an adult setting focused on strategy development
(Kristiansen & Rasmussen, 2014). After 2 years of investigation and experiment a
“thinking, communication, and problem-solving technique for groups” was the first
version of Lego Serious Play (Kristiansen & Rasmussen, 2014). After another year of
research and more than 20 iterations, this hands-on, mind-on process was proven
successful and consistent among groups (Kristiansen & Rasmussen, 2014).

The first facilitators were trained in late 2001 and 2002, and LSP began offering
formal facilitator training programs in Europe and the United States. Over the next
several years the method produced applications which opened the door for certified
individuals to join the ongoing collaboration of scientists, researchers, and business
leaders to use the process to improve organizational performance, team dynamics, and
personal development within the workplace (Kristiansen & Rasmussen, 2014; Executive
Discovery, 2002). The Serious Play process was developed to bring creativity and the
inspiration of play to serious organizational concerns (Executive Discovery, 2002).
Lego Serious Play is designed for modern, complex organizations. The
methodology supports the notion that the answer to a challenge is around the table, that
knowledge is waiting to be unlocked, and that habitual patterns of linear thinking can be
broken. Effectively, it provides opportunity to enhance creative confidence by using a
systems-thinking approach to solving organizational dilemmas. The key elements of
flow, hand-mind construction through play, and collaborative engagement are all present.
LSP Methodology
Lego Serious Play follows the idea that organizations are dynamic, open systems.
As such, there are multiple, complex subsystems within the larger organizational system
that are consistently changing, affecting, and impacting one another. This occurs because
of the “dependence on and continual interaction with the environment in which it resides”
(Burke, 2013, p. 54). The ebb and flow with systems requires a new thought process and,
according to Senge (1990/2006), the idea of systems thinking serves as the “cornerstone”
of a learning organization. It asks “what if?”, it shifts mental models, it reflects in action,
and it moves from conventional thought to creative solution.

LSP can be complementary to reductionist, linear, and analytical thought (Kim,
1999; Meadows, 2008) and, yet, is not better than the traditional thought. It simply
encourages the creation of possibilities, innovations, and supports the reconstruction of
our model (Lego or otherwise) without the use of directions that may have been placed to
constrain or direct our thinking. This type of thinking leaves rational thought process
behind, yet keeps responsibility in tact (Meadows, 1999). The Lego Serious Play
methodology aligns with this theory and it can be seen as a language that encourages
organizations to go beyond what is seen, to unlock possibilities, and to break habitual
thinking. The process of play makes this possible as the participants actively observe,
probe, and play out scenarios within an organizational landscape thereby making sense of
the system and its complexities (Kristiansen & Rasmussen, 2014).
The Lego Serious Play core process involves posing a question, construction
building, participant sharing, and reflection time and can be used in various applications
such as building individual and shared models of identity, creating organizational
landscapes, making connections, and/or constructing systems (Kristiansen & Rasmussen,
2014; Rasmussen, n.d.).
There are no instructions to the LSP sets. However, the process has an explicit
purpose and is conducted in a specific way. Certified LSP facilitators follow careful
guidelines, referred to as the LSP process. Facilitators are encouraged to "trust the
process" and emulate LSP etiquette which includes three parts: (a) belief in the
underlying values for engaging in the LSP process by believing that the answer is in the
system and that the desire to unlock, construct, and create new knowledge, (b) using
appropriate practice for an LSP facilitator by requiring at least two people to facilitate a
session, always framing the challenge so it is clear, and by trusting the process and
returning to the model and away from people, (c) an understanding of group dynamics
and recognizing the behavior that the facilitator brings into existence (Kristiansen &
Rasmussen, 2014).
A detailed facilitator script exists for guiding organizations through solving different
types of complex challenges (e.g., uncovering core organizational identity or team
engagement). Once certified, the facilitator is trusted (a personal code of ethics) to keep
the integrity of LSP in their consulting practices.
In alignment with Statler, Heracleous, and Jacobs (2011) definition of serious
play, the LSP methodology (a) uses an intentional gathering to apply the imagination, (b)
explores and prepares as opposed to implements, and (c) follows a specific set of rules or
language. This is also situated in play theory which asserts that play itself is not frivolous
and it generally serves a purpose. Collaborative creative exploration finds connection as
ambiguity is fostered and exercised to generate innovative results.
Resilience and agility are needed and required in a 21st century boardroom where
traditional linear thinking is no longer an option for solving complex organizational
issues (Kristiansen & Rasmussen, 2014). Because this intentional process sits within the
realm of play, there is freedom to try out possibilities, to ask what ifs, and to question the
sacred without the risk of failure or disrespect.
In the LSP process, the participant owns the story as much as the model. The
meaning, or metaphor, attributed to the model by the participant is a valid and important
piece to the success of the methodology (Kristiansen & Rasmussen, 2014). Donald
Schön (1983) argues that metaphors can be instrumental for generating radically new
ways of understanding things. The LSP methodology uses metaphor as the
transformative core of the process to uncover perceptions, attitudes, and feelings that may
have been submerged, subconscious, or unarticulated. By connecting story and metaphor
to the constructed LEGO artifact, participants see beyond the surface level of a situation
and look at the deeply held mental models and patterns of behavior that had not initially
been obvious to the discussion. Creative confidence is generated when an individual
begins to develop the ability to see through another’s eyes and experience the other
perspective (Kelley & Kelley, 2013).
Through Lego Serious Play, creative confidence is organically developing in the
individual participants as they work through the methodology in search of guiding
principles to solve the organizational challenges of today and tomorrow. A subtle
attitude change occurs while participants engage in flow, hand-mind construction through
play, and collaborative action.
LSP Research and Challenges
Lego Serious Play is still considered an emerging research interest in academia.
A recent article by Moreau and Engeset (2016) use Lego bricks to study problem solving
mindsets and influence creativity. However, a generic Lego brick set is used in the study
and the tested Lego Serious Play methodology is not applied.
Originally designed for use in the organizational setting, recorded research
affirms that LSP has been studied in large organizations, documented mostly in Europe,
for team building, strategy development, and toward the generation of business models
(Geithner & Menzel, 2016; Frick et al., 2013; Hadida, 2013; Grienitz & Schmidt, 2012),
applied also to instructional design in educational sectors of elementary through higher

education (Peabody, 2017; Barton & James, 2017; Montesa-Andres, Garrigós-Simón, &
Narangajavana, 2014) and even in clinical settings (Harn, 2017). In addition to studying
the theoretical models linked with LSP, other research presents concrete applications for
using the LSP method (Grienitz, Schmidt, Kristiansen & Schulte, 2013; Kovaleski,
2006). A few conclusions from these alternative uses assert that LSP plays an important
role in supporting multisensory approaches to reflecting on learning (James, 2013).
A current challenge for LSP relates to the word play being often misunderstood,
especially in professional settings or adult learning environments. It may be important for
the facilitator to reframe play for participants for fear of viewing LSP as a time-wasting
activity producing no tangible outcome (Reznick, 2017; Boyle, personal communication,
2017; James, 2013).
Another critique of the process may be concerned with creativity or non-creativity
levels of participants during an LSP workshop. When all participants are creating and
sharing their model while breaking habitual habits of thinking, creativity is occurring.
LSP believes their process can push through programmed or natural ways that humans
think by eliminating things like death by data, hero leadership, and individual genius and
open up new plausible solutions (Kristiansen & Rasmussen, 2014).
An area currently being explored in the literature is experiential learning and
collaborative problem solving. Higher education institutions such as Stanford University
and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) are leading the charge with maker labs
like that in Stanford’s d school or MIT’s kindergarten laboratories where adult learners
are expected to explore, experiment, collaborate, and play with projects and problems
(Reznick, 2017; Carlson, 2017). The goal is to continue this mindset into the
organization. Learning to play is important because it creates an extended vibrancy with
activities and ideas and allows for a deeper dive into challenge set forth (Carlson, 2017).
It can be debated whether alternative forms of manipulative artifacts, other than
the LEGO brick, in the LSP process are plausible. While feasible, acknowledging the
nostalgia associated with the Lego brick may provide a greater sense of excitement and
acceptability of the process among participants (McCusker, 2014). The Lego brick and
mini-figures as the focal artifact within the LSP process channels individual and
collective creative thinking more effectively than the use of another article (Hadida,
2013). Some of the other artifacts or mediums used in toolkit modelling processes such
as oil painting or drawing may require some specific fine art talent or a certain level of
skill in order to be effective. Conversely, the Lego brick is quite inclusive, meaning that
everyone is equal with respect to their power of expression (Schulz et al., 2015; Said,
Roos, & Statler, 2001). Placing two bricks together signals a creation and ultimately an
expression of an individual’s thoughts and perceptions. LSP cares not about the
positional title, education level, or professional expertise of the creator. The Lego
philosophy of “Anything you make, it’s right” is established as participants of the LSP
process become experts once they connect their first two bricks. Unlike other artifacts
and mediums, Lego bricks have an automatic reset button and can be deconstructed with
ease and rebuilt again and again (Said, Roos, & Statler, 2001).
Providing intensive interaction for adults and multiple channels for expression
(Said, Roos, & Statler, 2001), Lego Serious Play invites adults to think with their hands,
to uncover hidden creative notions, and to visualize solutions to complex problems in
ways they may have forgotten they even possess. LSP confidently stakes its reputation
on the belief that adults can reclaim their ability to play and that through serious play,
holistic, systemic, thoughtful, and creative decisions can be made in organizations
(Executive Discovery, 2002).
Summary: Making Connections
Creative confidence is a mindset, an attitude that sparks feelings of optimism and
self-assuredness, allowing for the combination of divergent thinking and convergent
thinking to work together. During this process, behaviors of courage and innovation
come forth as new, unforeseen challenges arise in the workplace. This trait is needed by
individuals in the modern-day workplace.
A review of literature discusses the creative individual, a creative situation
(collaborative and elements of flow), a creative process (hand-mind construction through
play, namely Lego Serious Play), and the creative product of creative confidence
(divergent and convergent thinking working together). The following study sets out to
explore if this interactionalist formula will support the development of creative
confidence in individuals.
The word play is often misunderstood, especially in professional settings or adult
learning environments. It may be important to re-frame play for individuals for fear of
viewing LSP as a time-wasting activity producing no tangible outcome (Reznick, 2017;
Boyle, personal communication, 2017; James, 2013).
New literature on experiential learning and collaborative problem solving is being
produced. Higher education institutions are encouraging adult learners to explore,
experiment, collaborate, and play with projects and problems (Reznick, 2017; Carlson,
2017). The goal is to continue this mindset into the organization. Learning to play is
important because it creates an extended vibrancy with activities and ideas and allows for
a deeper dive into challenge set forth (Carlson, 2017).
Papert (1993), a mathematician by training, became passionate about finding
ways to make mathematics--which is normally taught in a passive format and often
thought of as dull--a fun, engaging, and creative experience for children. In the mid-
1980s, he and a team of colleagues from MIT created Lego TC Logo, which combined
his self-designed computer programming language with the Lego construction toy, which
provided opportunities for children to not just learn about math and design, but actually
become mathematicians and designers. It was this project that led him to the conclusion
“better learning will not come from finding better ways for the teacher to instruct, but
from giving the learner better opportunities to construct” (Executive Discovery, 2002).
This significant declaration gives credence to the Lego Serious Play methodology and
may prove why programmable Lego bricks called Lego Mindstorms (another MIT and
Lego collaboration project) remains a top-selling Lego toy product and retails to men
over the age of 30.
Mitchell Reznick (2017), a protégé of Papert, currently leads a research lab at
MIT called “Lifelong Kindergarten.” This lab is dedicated to creativity and engaging
individuals in the process of imagining, making, playing, sharing with others, reflecting,
and imagining again. Providing individuals with better opportunities, including mental
and physical space, to play with and construct divergent realities for the organization can
enhance the individual’s belief in their ability to think beyond the known and allow for
organizations to explore divergent solutions to the complex challenges of today and
tomorrow.
CHAPTER THREE
MOC
MOC: My Own Creation. Any LEGO creation designed and

built by a LEGO fan without instructions. Generally
pronounced “mock” (not “Em-Oh-Cee”)
A Methodology for a Hybrid Approach to Qualitative Deductive and
Inductive Design
An exploratory study that placed an individual into a creative situation of
collaboration and flow, using the creative process of Lego Serious Play, involving hand-
mind construction through play, was conducted to discern if the creative product of
creative confidence emerged. The research was collected through a workshop
intervention followed by individual semi-structured interviews with the participants. A
hybrid of both qualitative deductive and qualitative inductive methods of inquiry was
used with a template analysis to consider the proposed assumption.
Hybrid Approach to Inquiry
Qualitative research can offer a significant contribution to the field of
organizational science, as Poovey (1995) asserts, “no matter how precise, quantification
cannot inspire action” (p. 84). Qualitative methodologies bring research into the natural
setting and outside of the laboratory drawing intrigue from the complexity of social
interactions and finding rich data in the lived experiences of people (Marshall &
Rossman, 2016). Qualitative design concludes that the knowledge exists within the other
(A. Jun, personal communication, April 10, 2018) by taking a smaller, an arguably more
purposeful, sample of individuals and asks about their personal experience with the
concepts presented in the study.
In qualitative design an inductive approach is useful when there is little or no
prior research available on a topic. The content for analysis then arrives through an
emergent form labeled as a data-driven response (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008; Fereday & Muir-
Cochrane, 2006). The deductive approach is theory driven and can include taking
existing theory and testing it in a different environment or with a new phenomenon
allowing the researcher to test the theories in order to enhance understanding of the data
(Elo & Kyngäs, 2008). A hybrid of the two approaches can offer valid conclusions from
the data with an objective of providing knowledge, new insights, and a practical guide for
action (Krippendorf, 1980).
Both the inductive and deductive approach follow three main phases: preparation,
organizing, and reporting (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008). In the preparation phase, a unit of
analysis like a word, a theme, or an entire interview is selected. The unit of analysis can
vary depending upon the research being conducted. The researcher then reads through
the data several times in order to make sense of it and to learn “what is going on” (Morse
& Field, 1995). The deductive approach recognizes the use of a categorization matrix
and for this research study a template analysis (King, 1998, 2007; Crabtree & Miller,
1999) was created for the organization of the data. Once the matrix is constructed, the
data are reviewed, coded, and recorded within the identified categories (Polit & Beck,
2004). An unconstrained matrix (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008) allows for the inductive approach
to be considered and permits new or emergent categories to be created within its bounds.
The results are described through the contents of each category through subcategories
(Marshall & Rossman, 2016) and successful analysis is demonstrated when a researcher
can simplify the data and develop categories that support the study in a reliable manner.
This type of analysis is less standardized and conventional than quantitative
analysis and can be considered more complex and challenging because it does not
proceed in linear fashion (Polit & Beck, 2004). It can be described as flexible, yet not
simple. Each analysis is unique and distinctive based on the skills, insights, and analytic
aptness of the researcher (Hoskins & Mariano, 2004).
Workshop Intervention
The researcher is a certified Lego Serious Play (LSP) facilitator who designed and
guided the workshop intervention from beginning to end. The workshop was custom
designed for the organization being studied, following an in-take conversation with the
team’s leader. The in-take meeting was held between the leader and researcher/facilitator
to provide some insight into the team and the current complex challenges facing their
organization. The design of the workshop followed the LSP standard process. All
participants were invited to the workshop via email invitation sent from their direct
supervisor. Explicit information was given in the email alerting participants that the
workshop was being designed and facilitated for their organization by a doctoral student.
While participation in the workshop was part of a regular team meeting and paid time for
each employee, participation in the post workshop interview was voluntary and not
required as part of standard job duties. The LSP workshop was conducted at an off-site
location during one full day, a total of 6 hours. The leader allowed post workshop
interviews to be conducted during participant’s work hours if they desired. The post
workshop interviews were scheduled between the researcher and each participant and
conducted at a time and location that was conducive to the participant’s schedule.
Participant Information
The researcher studied six individuals within an intact organizational team. At
the time the study was conducted, each individual was employed at the same organization
and was a contributing member of the organizational unit. The length of service to the
organization varied between participants. The participants were over 18 years of age and
signed a research consent form prior to beginning the interview process and engagement
in the LSP workshop.
Data Collection
A face-to-face, semi-structured, post-workshop, individual interview was
conducted as data collection in order to capture the perceptions of the participants in
relation to the key themes. The 40- to 45-minute, semi-structured, post-workshop
individual interview was held within 3 weeks’ post workshop and was recorded using the
iPhone audio recording function. The semi-structured, post-workshop interview
consisted of two to four prompt questions associated with creative confidence,
perceptions of and experience with creativity, elements of flow, hand-mind theory
construction through play, collaboration, and general team dynamics. The interview
prompt questions did not include explicit reference to the key themes of creative
confidence, flow, hand-mind construction, and collaboration proposed by the researcher
in the literature review. During the interview, participants were encouraged to share
stories and provide specific examples from the workshop to help illustrate their response.
The researcher met each participant in a space of the participant’s choosing and
conducted the post-workshop interview during a convenient time in their day.
Data Analysis
The hybrid method of this study allowed the researcher to use a deductive method
of inquiry through thematic analysis providing permission to the researcher to search for
key themes that would help describe and provide understanding to the phenomenon being
studied (Daly, Kellehear, & Gliksman, 1997). This approach complemented the research
questions permitting the researcher to structure elements of the interview protocol with
specific prompts aligned to the key concepts of collaboration, elements of flow, and
hand-mind construction through play.
The development of an a priori template of codes based on the work of Crabtree
and Miller (1999) was formulated following the pilot study and the lessons learned from
that process. The ‘a priori’ coding for this study was based on the theoretical constructs
of flow (Czsiksentmihayli & Czsiksentmihayli ,1992; Czsiksentmihayli, 2003),
collaboration (Sawyer, 2017, 2012; Kelley & Kelley, 2013; Brown, 2008), hand-mind
construction through play ((Kristiansen & Rasmussen, 2014; Papert & Harel, 1991), and
creative confidence (Kelley & Kelley, 2013).
The inductive approach to this study allowed the researcher freedom to explore
data-driven themes not previously considered in this research (Rice & Ezzy, 1999;
Boyatzis, 1998). Through a careful reading and rereading of the transcript data,
identification of new themes and patterns within the data were noted and recorded.
Template Analysis: Design and Coding

A template analysis (Crabtree & Miller, 1999; King, 1998, 2007) was used to
code and analyze the data. This deductive method was used to examine the textual data,
in this case transcript data from semi-structured interviews based on the key themes and
theories proposed to be relevant. The researcher was reading for language that supported
the presence of key themes relating to elements of creative confidence. The comments,
stories, and statements most connected to inspiring a new mindset or attitude of creative
confidence within the participants was recorded and coded within the template analysis.
The coding began with a general theme based on the key themes within the
literature and progressed into subthemes with a narrower focus. Once the careful coding
had begun, the template analysis allowed space for the emergent themes to be recorded
not already noted in a priori. This deductive method allowed for flexibility when crafting
the template and granted space for inductive inquiry (King, 2004). When unplanned
themes emerged from the inductive approach to the data, they were added to the template
and all textual data were coded according to the revised template (Waring & Wainwright,
2008). The template and coded data served to illuminate the researcher’s interpretation
and contributed to the write-up of the research results (King, 1998, 2007).
The template analysis was designed to guide exploration and organize the
transcript interview data collected by the researcher. A table was constructed and
ordered, initially, with four key themes: (a) the current team dynamics which looked at
the context of the team being studied, (b) the creative process which examined hand-
mind construction through play, (c) the creative situation which considered the presence
of flow and collaboration, and (d) the creative product which evaluated the participant’s
personal acknowledgement of emerging creative confidence. A fifth theme was added

and titled emergent themes which gave space to explore the unanticipated concepts that
arose from Step 1 of the analysis in which the researcher read through all the interview
transcript data with no agenda or template. As applicable, the emergent themes were then
categorized within one of the main themes and described accordingly. Each key theme
was given a color for coding purposes: The team context was coded in green, the creative
process in red, the creative situation used blue, creative confidence in purple, and
emergent themes in orange. The color coding proved useful when gathering participant’s
verbatim responses from throughout the entire interview data and categorizing them into
subthemes. The color coding also added to the credibility of the interview protocol and
methodology by revealing that the thoughts and experiences of the participants around
the key themes were not only present when a specific interview prompt designed to
support a particular key theme was given.
Under each of the five key themes, four columns were added. The first was used
to write out the inquiry prompt that was used by the researcher during the post workshop
interview. The second column recorded verbatim responses from each participant that
directly resulted from the interview prompt listed in column 1. The third column allowed
for a summary of responses. The summary of responses was categorized by subthemes
that emerged from participant responses around a key theme. The summary of responses
column for each key theme included verbatim responses from all interview prompt
questions not just the interview prompts originally designed by the researcher to draw out
a particular theme. Verbatim responses drawn from an interview prompt not necessarily
designed to support the key theme were color coded with the theme color and placed
under the subtheme category. The fourth column provided space for the interpretation of
subtheme data and the relation it holds to the original key theme.
Pilot Study
A pilot study was conducted in August of 2017, to explore if Lego Serious Play
inspires creative confidence. The pilot study was carried out with an intact organizational
team of faculty and staff at a higher education institution in Southern California. A total
of eight participants were involved; six faculty members and two staff from the same
department within the School of Behavioral and Applied Sciences.
Participants were invited via email to join the study and participate in an LSP
workshop on August 17, 2017. All those invited accepted the invitation, signed an
informed consent, and agreed to take part in both a pre and post individual interview
before and after the LSP workshop. Individual, pre-workshop interview appointments
were set between the researcher and the participant within 1-2 weeks prior to the
workshop date. During the interviews, the researcher asked the participants to share
about a complex challenge they had recently worked through in their organization. A
semi-structured interview protocol was used and all participants were asked the same
prompts covertly centered around flow, collaboration, hand-mind construction through
play, and creative confidence. Five participant interviews were held in person and three
were conducted over the phone. All interviews were recorded using an iPhone 7 and
immediately emailed to the researcher’s email address as backup. Each interview lasted
approximately 15-20 minutes.
The LSP workshop was custom designed by the researcher for the specific
department. After consulting with the department leader to uncover a complex challenge
currently existing in the organizational unit, a workshop using the tested LSP
methodology was constructed. The facilitated workshop led participants through the
structured LSP designed to help solve a complex organizational challenge. The
workshop lasted for 2 hours.
Within 2 weeks following the LSP workshop, a post-workshop individual
interview was scheduled with each of the eight participants. The interviews were
scheduled via Google calendar invite and all participants accepted the invitation. Five
participant interviews were held in person and three were conducted over the phone. All
interviews were recorded using an iPhone 7 and immediately emailed to the researcher’s
email address as backup. Each interview lasted approximately 15-20 minutes. During
the interviews, the researcher asked the participants to share about the complex challenge
they had recently worked through in the LSP workshop. A semi-structured interview
protocol was used and all participants were asked prompts covertly centered around flow,
collaboration, hand-mind construction through play, and creative confidence. The post-
workshop interview protocol included many of the same questions asked of participants
in the pre-workshop interview. A few additional questions were added in order to
capture the LSP experience.
Pilot Study Data Analysis
The pre and post-workshop individual interviews were transcribed using an online
transcription service. The researcher critically reviewed the interview data to explore
emergent key themes and to ensure that the interview protocol was designed to attract the
most useful data. In order to discover if creative confidence can result from participating
in Lego Serious Play, three key areas were being considered in the interview: flow,
collaboration, and hand-mind construction through play.
In response to flow, the interview protocol attracted responses relating to the
amount of “fun” the participant perceived when solving a complex challenge. However,
it did not sufficiently gather information about optimal experience. Optimal experience
refers to the consistent length of time and mental energy an individual devotes to a task
without direct focus on minutes, hours, or days passed (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988).
Participant responses include:
I wouldn’t say it [solving the complex challenge] was

particularly fun. (Anna, Pre-Workshop Interview, August 2017)
It [LSP method to solving the complex challenge] was really fun because it was
super different. You take seemingly simple toys and come up with something
that is really actually profound. (Anna, Post-Workshop Interview, August 2017)
A proposed key element of creative confidence is collaboration which simply
refers to the ability to create ideas and consensus in communion with others. The
interview protocol drew appropriate responses for this theme when participants were
asked if they worked in collaboration with others to solve the complex challenge. The
modification will come with a larger allotment of time for the LSP workshop. The
responses were as expected with the majority stating that collaboration did not occur due
to the time constraints. A sample of data responses is provided:
The strategic plan had a committee, the one that I inherited. (Daniel, Pre-
Workshop Interview, August 2017)
Not initially…the whole group started talking about the process together.
(Daniel, Post-Workshop Interview, August 2017)
Given the time restraint, it was impossible. (Damian, Post-Workshop Interview,

August 2017).
If we had more time, we would have, it would have united. (Kathryne, Post-
Workshop Interview, August 2017)
The third key element being explored is hand-mind construction through play.
The questions were interpreted by most participants as the researcher had intended,
however a slight modification to the wording on the interview protocol is in order. The
data collected are leading toward a distinct difference in the types of physical products
that are generated through the problem- solving process. Sample data:
…a task force…we wrote a 50-52 page report. We proposed numerous specific

strategies, with benchmarks, and assessments. It was a blueprint, very detailed
report. (Natalie, Pre-Workshop Interview, August 2017)
I began to create identity…I was actively thinking and also actively trying to
manifest that or implement that in a visual form. (Natalie, Post-Workshop
Interview, August 2017)
Ultimately, the researcher is looking for an attitude change in the participant. A
new understanding of creative confidence should emerge. Participants responded:
I have never mixed play with serious academic or professional endeavors. I

was conditioned to think those two were separate...I am overcoming this phase or
this tendency. (Natalie, Post-Workshop Interview, August 2017)
Creativity is individualistic, it’s personal, it’s unique, and it has to be nurtured.

You have to be invited to be creative. (Darrell, Post-Workshop Interview, August
2017)
Pilot Study Lessons Learned
Several lessons were gleaned from conducting the pilot study, the first being the
length of time devoted to the LSP workshop. The 2 hours allotted for the LSP workshop
department faculty retreat did not provide ample time to complete the LSP process. A
key process element within the LSP methodology prompting participants to build a
shared model of the complex challenge was eliminated due to time constraints.
Collaboration is a key element to the study’s hypothesis and this missing component is
considered a limitation and, therefore, may affect the data analysis. A longer workshop
session is desired in order to successfully facilitate the LSP process.
Through the pilot study the researcher detected how modifications to the
interview protocol would enhance both the interviewee and interviewer experience. The
primary revision to the study is the elimination of a pre-workshop interview. The
analysis from the pilot study demonstrated that the pre-workshop interview was
unnecessary in order to collect data to support the exploration of the key themes. In
addition, an opening statement has been added to the interview protocol that provides
general context for the interview and invites the participant into the process. A slight re-
ordering of the interview questions was also necessary to enhance the flow of the
interview conversation and allow for organized thought patterns of the interviewee. A
minor rewording of some of the interview prompts and an omission of one question was
also in order. Certain words or phrases did not resonate with the interviewee as it
initially did with the researcher. In order to gather true data in the areas of flow,
collaboration, and hand-mind construction through play, new verbiage was considered for
the interview protocol.
For future LSP workshop sessions, it will be ideal for the researcher to video
record the workshop. Although photos were taken to demonstrate the flow that was
subconsciously occurring, a video recording would include the dialogue allowing for
additional cues to the body language used by participants. The video recording will also
be useful to the organizational leader for future analysis and decision making around the
complex challenge.
A more comprehensive research design was considered in order to explore both
theory-driven and data-driven themes in this study. The addition, a template analysis was
added to the field study to support the rigor and trustworthiness of the inductive and
deductive approaches used to explore this phenomenon.
Field Study
Following the field study workshop intervention, a post-workshop interview was
scheduled 1-3 weeks following with each participant. Each individual’s interview was
held face-to-face, recorded, and transcribed using an online transcription service. The
researcher analyzed the transcribed, textual data using both an inductive and deductive
approach. The researcher initially read through the transcript interview data with no
agenda in mind and without use of a priori. The purpose of this step was to read for a
general understanding of the participant’s experience with the workshop and list patterns
of topics that emerged throughout the interview. The researcher was reading for patterns
discussed by the individual and also patterns that connected the individuals together, as a
team, in thought. Original recordings were available if any inaudible moments occurred
during transcription.
Following the inductive approach, the transcript data were read multiple times
using a priori, a code manual to summarize and describe the existing key themes and
theories (King, 1998,2007). This deductive manner used a keen eye toward the theory-
driven themes proposed by the researcher. Both data-driven and theory-driven responses
were recorded on the template analysis and examined thoughtfully to explore the themes.
The researcher examined both individual interpretation and the correlation of
thoughts to the group/organization. The researcher coded, compared, and analyzed the
responses from the post-workshop interview to determine the degree to which creative
confidence was inspired through the Lego Serious Play process. Themes and findings are
written and included in the final chapters of this dissertation paper.
Summary
With unknown realities facing the workplace and a multitude of internal and
external factors influencing the organizational system, a fresh mindset, a divergent way
of thinking is needed in order to address the complex challenges ahead. Creative
confidence is needed among individuals in the 21st century workplace.
The study explores if working in collaboration with others, while engaging in
hand-mind construction through play, namely Lego Serious Play, while experiencing
elements of flow, can inspire creative confidence. The researcher desires to further Lego
Serious Play in academia providing empirical evidence for scholars and practitioners
alike by acknowledging that Lego Serious Play, a methodology consisting of flow,
collaboration, and hand-mind construction through play, can inspire creative confidence
in even the most linear thinkers. The results of this study will help to promote the Lego
Serious Play methodology as a trusted and tested tool designed to aid organizations in
solving complex challenges facing the modern-day workplace while re-introducing play,
of a serious nature, into the adult vocabulary. In addition to testing the pre-existing
theories and linking them back to Lego Serious Play, the researcher explores the
possibility of LSP as a development tool for producing creative confidence in the
individual participants.
A hybrid of a deductive and inductive qualitative design was used that allows the
researcher to test existing theories while allowing space for emergent themes to surface.
A template analysis of post-workshop interview data, following a custom-designed LSP
workshop was developed and utilized for examination, analysis, and coding.
CHAPTER FOUR
INTERLOCKING ELEMENTS
Interlocking Elements: An “element” is the universal

name for a LEGO piece. Interlocking elements consist
of two or more LEGO pieces clicked together in the
creation of a model.
Results
Following the field study which included a Lego Serious Play workshop and
individual interviews of participants, the raw data were organized and analyzed. Sixty-
nine pages of data responses emerged from the post workshop interviews and were
reported on a template analysis table (Appendix D). In reporting the data, a pseudonym
was given to each of the participants to protect their identity and to grant confidentiality.
The name of the organization being studied is also kept confidential, not used in this
paper, and is referred to as the organization throughout.
The following chapter offers context for the current team reality and then presents
the data organized under the three main themes: The Creative Process, The Creative
Situation, and The Creative Product. Under each theme an interpretation of the data is
provided followed by a large sampling of the verbatim responses gathered.
The Current Team Reality
Interview prompts in this first section of the interview protocol were designed to
gather data and provide context that led to an understanding of the current team dynamics
held by the intact organizational unit participating in the study. While the specific
interview prompts provided good data, a considerable amount of the data arose from
interview prompts designed to evoke responses around the creative process and the
creative situation. During the discussion around the creative process used in the
workshop, participants reflected on and compared the Lego Serious Play process
including what it produced with past experiences providing insight into the current team
patterns of behavior.
The subthemes presented in this category are all data-driven and not based on
existing theoretical constructs. The purpose is to provide context for the organizational
unit participating in the study. The responses for the current team reality were grouped
into seven subthemes with verbatim responses supporting each. The subthemes included
New Team, Experience vs. Energy, Communication Style, Clear Leader Role, Problem
Solving, Silos, and Openness to Change.
New team. The response data indicate a team of individuals with varied length of
service in the organization. The participant responses unpack the tenure of the team by
providing further insight into how the team members quantify experience levels in
addition to sharing personal impressions of their team members in relation to the amount
of time spent in the organization. The particular composition of this intact unit ranges
from over seven years of service on the team to one month.
I’ve only been here a month and a half. I’m still very early in my ministry
at the organization. Nina has been here for 6 months. (Zach, Post-Workshop
Interview, March 2018)
It was the first time having this team together. Two members are new.
Two members have been there longer than 7 years. (John B., Post-Workshop
I’ve been here six months. (Nina, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
Newer team members describe being more insecure about their roles and “place”
in the organization. Fears of “not being heard” and “lack of experience” are repeatedly
expressed by the newest team members.
I’ve still not been 100% exposed to everything. I’m still trying to figure
out a lot of things and try to understand…trying to learn. (Zach, Post-Workshop
I feel like lack of experience so far…of the history and understanding

of what the organization is like. I have limited experience. (Zach, Post-
Workshop Interview, March 2018)
I’m nervous about not being heard…being the one with the least experience.
(Nina, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
I’m new…I don’t want to be treated like, “you just don’t know that yet.”
Not let my insecurities of, “Well, they’re just going to say I don’t
know how ministry works or I just haven’t experienced enough”
hold me back. (Nina, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
Experience vs. energy. Seasoned team members report excitement toward
having the new members and communicate a positive outlook acknowledging the energy
and experience each member will bring.
I love the balance of the experience and the energy. (Kristi, Post-Workshop
I love our staff now with the older, more experienced, and the younger
who are who are just getting their feet wet. (Kristi, Post-Workshop Interview,
March 2018)
Zach is high energy. He’s a good pusher. He is newest on the staff.

Nina is trying to move away from “this is how it’s always been done”
and questioning that. She is very, very conscious that she is asking
for change. (David, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
The wide perception of personal value and contribution between the new team members
and those more seasoned is to be noted and can provide insight into the communication
patterns between the current organizational unit. Responses from participants suggest a
team still forming and understanding the personalities and workstyles of others.
Zach, he and I are still working out. (David, Post-Workshop Interview, March
2018)
Zach is a big idea person, a steamroller…I’m trying catch up with him.

Some are intimated easily, some are dominated very easily…over

conversations I had prior to the workshop, and their fear of speaking.
They say, “These are things I want to say, but I’m afraid to, can you
say it for me?” (Johno, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
Communication style. Following engagement with the Lego Serious Play
workshop, participants open up about past experiences with communication allowing
insight into present communication patterns and signaling the change in team dynamics
that was sparked throughout this process.
[Without the process] Others who are forceful in giving their opinion
would have done that. People who tend to not to say anything would
not. It would have been just like another meeting. (Kristi, Post-Workshop
[In the process] People weren’t interrupting or saying, “well that’s

really how it is.” (Nina, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
[In the past] Kristi and Zach would have been louder. David and I
would kind of fall into the background. (Nina, Post-Workshop Interview, March
2018)
[In the past] Some people would have been more quiet. Some
people would have sat back a little more. (Zach, Post-Workshop Interview,
March 2018)
[Without the process] I might have been tempted to speak

more quickly. (Kristi, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
[Without the process] I don’t think they would have verbalized

what they wanted to. (Johno, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
Clear leader role. Following understanding of the current team interpersonal
culture, the next subtheme gives awareness to the process of how decisions have been or
are currently being made in the organizational unit. It also provides insight into the
comfortability level that the team members have with the leader. Interview prompts
inviting information about current team dynamics as well as prompts discussing the LSP
process and workshop learnings provided data to inform how the team’s current model
for problem solving functions.
Data responses indicate that the current organizational structure includes one
clear, positional leader who makes final decisions.
John B. always takes on the leader…it’s his job. (Kristi, Post-Workshop

I’m the boss. (John B., Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
John B….he’s the spearhead. (David, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
We can talk to John B. and run stuff by him. (Zach, Post-Workshop Interview,
March 2018)
There was no variance in the responses of the participants to refute this arrangement. The
leader acknowledges, “I’m the boss” and participant responses followed suit with “he’s
the spearhead” and “he’s the leader…it’s his job.” This hierarchical structure sheds light
on the current problem-solving strategy being used in the organization. Responses like
“everything goes through him, he’s the leader” and “everything goes through [name],
period” help to provide clarity around this dynamic.
John B. is certainly one who is the most involved in all of our

departments…he’s the spearhead. Everything goes through him.
(David, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
They would go to John B., period. (Johno, Post-Workshop Interview, March

2018)
They would just go to John B. and what John B. said was it.
(Johno, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
I go to John B. when it comes to especially at final decision.

We have never really had a group conversation about the

topic, so it was starting from zero. (Nina, Post-Workshop Interview, March
2018)
This particular set of responses also presented expressions of timidity and
apprehension on behalf of newer team members to speak with the leader directly about
challenges in their area, giving insight to the communication patterns present within this
team. Seasoned team members, not in the positional leadership role, expressed
sentiments such as “I have team members come to me, wanting to have a conversation
[with the leader] but not knowing how” which support this finding.
John B. is a wonderful supervisor…but at the same time you know

when Nina wants to talk b/c she comes over to my office. (David, Post-
I’ve had team members come to me with concerns, and wanting

to have conversations but didn’t know how. That happens to me a lot.
I bounce [ideas/problems} off of a few people. MC is one of

those, b/c I have a relationship with him. (David, Post-Workshop Interview,
March 2018)
Problem solving. Responses indicate that the primary problem-solving strategy
for this team involves a meeting, a discussion, and a decision. Phrases and words from
the data responses describing meetings such as, “we just talk about it,” “methodical,
filtered, slow, and unproductive” were used to endorse this finding.
[In the past] We’ve done the talking realm. We would

have just talked like we always do. (Kristi, Post-Workshop Interview,
March 2018)
In the past, it felt like we were building off of what we’ve

always done. (Johno, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
[In the past] it would have been slower. It would have been
more filtered and methodical. Feeling of, perhaps, things
not getting done. (David, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
If we were sitting around the table and just talking about

it, I feel like we would have continued to go in circles.
(Kristi, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
In the past we have focused on team building, but not

necessarily working on solving a specific problem.
The most we’ve had in the past has been a whiteboard

and markers. [This process has] been more thoughts and
words and communication. (David, Post-Workshop Interview,
March 2018)
Silos. Work appears to be completed in silos, with the individual team members
taking responsibility and acting for their own specific areas without taking the larger
organizational unit into account. Phrases like “we tend to get locked in our own area of
responsibility” and “we’ve been doing our own thing” tell the story. The silo functioning
lends itself to a feeling of an unclear vision. This became the focal point for the custom
LSP workshop designed for this team and organization. The workshop goal was to co-
create a shared vision for this team and their organizational unit.
I am looking through the youth ministry lens primarily,

Kristi is looking through and early childhood lens, etc. (Zach, Post-
I’m often thinking about just my department. (David, Post-Workshop

Each individual is very solid in what they do, but they’re at a point
where they’re discovering what it looks like to support each other, and
realize that each impact that they have goes to the greater good. (Johno,
Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
I’ve been doing little things with my own department. (Kristi, Post-
In my six months, we haven’t solved a team challenge…

we’ve been doing our own thing. (Nina, Post-Workshop Interview,
March 2018)
Wow, I just realized I haven’t mentioned Kristi yet. That

shows me something. (David, Post-Workshop Interview,
March 2018)
[In the past] we tend to get locked into our area of responsibility.
The organization has had such an individual focus. (Nina, Post-

[During this process, I liked] how we’re one big unit rather
than individual parts. (Kristi, Post-Workshop Interview, March
2018)
[The process helped] not making it one dept. vs another or my desire

over your desire or how can you desire fit into mine because either way
there’s some kind of a power pull inside of that. (David, Post-Workshop
Openness to change. Through responses that give insight to past actions and
attitudes of the organizational team, a foreshadow of the benefits of the Lego Serious
Play process begins to emerge. Concepts of perspective-taking, empathy for the other,
inclusion, and non-defensive attitudes and behavior begin to emerge.
When you have a team that’s been working towards a goal

for so long, people get hired with that same goal in mind, but
maybe they have a different philosophy on how to get there…but,
are they allowed that philosophy? How can they bring what
they have to the table without just doing what everyone else
did before them? (Johno, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
[Without this process] I think we might have lost people or

they would have felt somehow excluded from the process.
Without the tool, [the problem] would have easily become something
we’d get defensive about and not really understand each other.
[This process helped me to]…not feel like one person’s

perception is better than another, so that’s what we have
to follow. (Nina, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
[This new process] Gave space to each person on the team.

Everybody’s opinion matters. (Kristi, Post-Workshop Interview,
March 2018)
[This process produced] a little more transparency than normal.

[During this process] it was the first time in some of those

relationships they were given the freedom to speak openly…
because the [leader] is domineering, they just kind of
agree with it. (Johno, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
Understanding the context of the team being studied which produced information
relating to individual tenure, current interpersonal working relationships, organizational
hierarchy, and decision-making strategies provides an important foundation to this study.
The team studied, arguably like many intact organizational units, has been operating
under a traditional hierarchical structure. Individuals operate in their own silo functions
and decisions are made under the authority of one, positional leader. A mix of
experience and tenure is present in this group, lending to a feeling expressed by newer
and less experienced team members of timidity, insecurity, and apprehension.
LSP as a Creative Process
The creative process for this research study was the use of Lego Serious Play
(LSP) to solve an organizational challenge. The participants were taken through the LSP
process to meet the objective set forth in the custom-designed workshop. A significant
portion of the LSP process includes physically building Lego models of the individual’s
interpretation of a prompt given by the facilitator, followed by co-creating a shared model
of the interpretation by the team. An example of prompt used in the workshop was
(a) Build your individual interpretation of the organizational unit’s core identity
as it exists today.
(b) Build a shared model of the organizational unit’s core identity as it exists
today.
Post-workshop interview prompts were designed to explore if using the LSP
process, a constructionist way of solving challenges, produced different results from
other problem-solving methods the team has used in the past. In addition, the researcher
desired to explore if the constructionist process, in this case LSP, contributed to the end
goal of developing creative confidence in the individual participants.
Interview prompts like the following were asked to participants to gather
information on their experience with the LSP process:
(a) Describe the problem-solving process that was used in the workshop.
(b) How did the Lego elements contribute to the solution?
(c) Without the Lego, describe how your contribution to the problem-solving
discussion would have been different.
These prompts led to the grouping of responses in the following subthemes: Deeper
Learning through Visual Artifact, Deeper Learning through Mental Challenge,
Perspective Taking, A More Productive Experience, An Evened Playing Field,
Interpersonal Safety, An Emergence of Empathy, and Facilitator Influence.
Deeper learning through visual artifact. The use of LSP as a creative process
for problem-solving brought forth some anticipated outcomes in addition to some new
and compelling data. Participants repeatedly shared the benefits of this method. One
anticipated benefit was the tangible, visual model that was produced using the Lego
bricks within the LSP process. As one participant stated, the process helped us
“visualize, not just verbalize.” The visual expressions were “satisfying to the psyche”
and “helped if some of us were not great listeners to have a concrete thing to look at.”
Following is a look at the full expressions made by the participants to describe the impact
of having a tangible and visual model to represent their thoughts:
It helps us visualize. More than just building models, but

for me, I’m a visual learner. (Zach, Post-Workshop Interview,
March 2018)
I think having something physical was helpful. (Nina, Post-

To come up with a visual picture of what we’re trying to get

at…I think that was good. (Kristi, Post-Workshop Interview,
March 2018)
Physically seeing it is super important to me. The Legos

helped us visualize, not just verbalize. (Zach, Post-Workshop
[The physical element] helped if some of us were not great

listeners [intentionally or not] to have a concrete thing to
look at. (Nina, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
[The Lego bricks helped us to] think through what does the
physical element of that structure mean in light of what
you’re saying. (John B., Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
Just physically building something and calling it complete

is satisfying to the psyche itself. (David, Post-Workshop Interview,
March 2018)
[During the process, we] Used very, very physical expressions

which forced us to explain a lot of things. (David, Post-Workshop
Even though I’m not the best Lego person in the world, it did
allow me to building something and visualize it in a way that I
see it and that was very unique. (Zach, Post-Workshop Interview,
March 2018)
Helpful to have a visual thing, a visual reminder of something

they thought was important. (Nina, Post-Workshop Interview,
March 2018)
I appreciate the Legos being there as visual aspects of it

[the problem]. (Johno, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
Deeper learning through mental challenge. A rich set of responses provide
thorough description of what this process is capable of producing. The subthemes
presented appear to be in direct response to what the team is lacking and desiring in their
current dynamic. A deeper and shared type of learning was fostered. Words and phrases
like “outside my comfort zone, stretching, uncomfortable, higher critical thinking” were
used by the participants to describe the process and lend to the evaluation that a more
complex level of activity was taking place.
So, with something way outside my comfort zone, not something

I would choose, it was encouraging me to look at things in a
different way. (Kristi, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
I think it opens up your mind a bit. (Kristi, Post-Workshop Interview,

March 2018)
I think building is another way to stretch us, because it’s

uncomfortable in some regards. (Zach, Post-Workshop Interview,
March 2018)
I’ve been to millions, it feels like, of seminars and workshops

and all. Led them, been in them, whatever. We have played with
Play-Doh, or manipulatives, but nothing like this where it was
really getting you to think about how you would represent in a
way that everybody would understand. (Kristi, Post-Workshop
As we started to get more clarity from our discussion about

our individual structures and then our corporate ones, we were
then able to really work through things of value… higher critical
thinking skills. (John B., Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
Perspective taking. In addition to the self-reported stretching of the mind,
participants speak about the acknowledgement of others’ perspectives and begin to
reference a collaborative view. Having cited the current mode of operation as silo driven
in the organization, responses from the participants like the following express awareness
of the other and take the focus off of the silo perspective.
[It helped me to realize] if [name] is unclear about that, maybe

others are unclear about that. (Kristi, Post-Workshop Interview,
March 2018)
It’s interesting to see unique perspective, the lens that everyone is

looking through and realize that (1) I relate to that and (2) I may not
have even seen that. (Zach, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
It was enlightening…it allowed me to see everyone’s perspective…

brought it [perspectives] together. (Zach, Post-Workshop Interview,
March 2018)
As this “awareness of others” was taking place, the data also supported the
acknowledgement that the other was, perhaps, not as different from themselves.
Responses to illustrate this point include,
Then to see what other people did and what I did and how
I felt like our desires were the same, just kind of expressed maybe
a little bit differently. (Kristi, Post-Workshop Interview, March
2018)
I could say, “okay, you did that differently,” but it’s really two
sides of the same coin. (John B., Post-Workshop Interview, March
2018)
I was able to look at something that wasn’t necessarily my take

or their take but could possibly be our take. (John B., Post-Workshop
[Sometimes] You feel like you’re advocating for your area.

This, I felt like, was more we were advocating for the organization
at large. (Kristi, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
The focus wasn’t on the individuals, the focus was on the

center point being the Legos and the vision we were creating.
[The process] Made sure we could each describe it [vision] and

communicate a similar perception. (Nina, Post-Workshop Interview,
March 2018)
I realize when things are repeated [in their Lego models], that’s
important to them. And I found myself repeating something and
thought, “You know, that’s important to me.” (John B., Post-Workshop
It made me think at different levels. To think about how it’s

all one big unit rather than individual parts. (Kristi, Post-Workshop
It was good to see what the newer people coming in think and
it was also good for them to benefit from what we already know…
understanding each other a little more and where we’re coming from.
A more productive experience. For a team who identified current dynamics as
silo-driven and with leader-centered decision making, building a physical structure opens
up opportunities to learn from a more holistic frame. This holistic view allows team
members to develop a systems thinking perspective and express the interconnections,
similarities, and consequences associated with each decision made.
The participants viewed the time together in the workshop as productive time.
The responses were given in reflection on how things normally operate in a decision-
making meeting in contrast with the use of Lego Serious Play to talk through a key issue.
[In the past] I think we would have made some progress, but I don’t
think it would have been as much. (Kristi, Post-Workshop Interview,
March 2018)
It was actually calming and productive, yet creative. (John B., Post-Workshop
It would have been slower. It would have been far more

filtered and methodical. It definitely went faster and felt
better. (David, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
There would have been a feeling of perhaps things not getting

done. It made it feel like there were some accomplishments.
We would have just talked like we always do. (Kristi, Post-Workshop

An evened playing field. The participants saw results unfolding during the 4-
hour workshop and the traditional hierarchy of the organizational unit was suspended
during the 4 hours. The positional leader recognized the benefits associated with this by
saying,
I probably would have defaulted back to the leader role in

guiding discussion. (John B., Post-Workshop Interview, March
2018)
[The process helped us] Listen to each other…Hear each person

articulate something. (John B., Post-Workshop Interview, March
2018)
I learned that I certainly have the capacity to have self-control

and to stay back with those that I want to lead so they can
discover things themselves. (John B., Post-Workshop Interview,
March 2018)
The playing field was evened, all voices were represented, heard, and validated lending to
the feeling of empathy among participants for the other. Phrases like, “I appreciated that
everybody’s part was equally valued and represented,” “mutual respect,” and the ability
to “formulate expressions that included everyone” contribute support to this finding.
I appreciated the fact that everybody’s part was equally

valued and represented. (Kristi, Post-Workshop Interview, March
2018)
[The process was good at] making sure we were all heard and an
equal part of the team. (Nina, Post-Workshop Interview, March
2018)
Everyone was represented. [The process] made sure everybody

understood it [vision]. (Johno, Post-Workshop Interview, March
2018)
It evens the playing field…unification of the team. (Kristi, Post-

Thinking in a different way and putting everybody on the

same level, made us think differently. (Kristi, Post-Workshop Interview,
March 2018)
Mutual respect. (Nina, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
[Without the process] We would’ve lost people or they would

have felt excluded from the process. (David, Post-Workshop Interview,
March 2018)
Not just hear someone’s response and think how can we relate
to that, but we built by ourselves first, and then came back
to discuss. (Zach, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
Nobody is great at it, so we’re just going to do it together.

[Without the process] Natural positions would have come out more.
Interpersonal safety. Powerful and compelling describes a particular series of
words used by the participants in recounting their experience with the LSP process.
Words and phrases include “free/freedom/freeing,” “able to contribute and not feel
steamrolled,” “safe environment,” “non-defensive,” “non-judgement,” “able to address
elephants in room,” “otherwise handcuffed or paralyzing attempts occur.” These strong
and important words and phrases were grouped into a subtheme labeled as
Safety/Freedom. With this knowledge, it can be proposed that LSP not only supports the
constructionist theory of deeper learning occurring when building something external of
oneself, but it also suggests a significant element of psychological safety to the process.
Asserting that not only is the cognitive development occurring but psychological
development is being built in tandem. Participant responses tell the story:
It was actually very freeing. (David, Post-Workshop Interview,

March 2018)
It wasn’t forced and knowing that you had space to explain

your expression was really, really important. Otherwise I think it
would have been handcuffed and paralyzed attempts at putting
everything together. (David, Post-Workshop Interview, March
2018)
It was helpful to share our own perception first and to not start
with a group project b/c it felt like then we were able to
contribute and not feel steamrolled by someone with a strong
personality who feels very confident in their perception.
I feel like it created a safe environment…we were given the

freedom to say things. (Johno, Post-Workshop Interview, March
2018)
I so appreciated the lack of non-judgement…the acceptance of

whatever you did was good. (Kristi, Post-Workshop Interview,
March 2018)
Psychologically you’re putting an expression out there…and

it’s not quite as abrasive or challenging. It definitely made it easier
to express what you really felt without feeling like you had to
coat things. (David, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
[LSP] created a safe environment…nobody could get defensive.

[Using Lego] definitely made it easier because there was a bit of

distance between us and the models. (David, Post-Workshop Interview,
March 2018)
The freedom that LEGO provided to address any elephants in

the room or just unspoken things or things that we were scared to
bring up or had paused before we would bring up. (David, Post-Workshop
It always takes anxiety off of me when I’m thinking, “okay, I

have to this well. No, I don’t. I just need to think of it differently.”
I really like that. (Kristi, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
[Eliminates that it’s] my idea because now it’s personally attached

to me. (John B., Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
[Without the Lego] You probably wouldn’t feel as free to make

comments about stuff…harder to formulate and idea and also
maybe a little of fear. (John B., Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
An emergence of empathy. Another surprising finding was that of empathy, not
only empathy toward the other, but an understanding of where one’s own traits may get
in the way of allowing other the opportunity to speak or present a contrasting viewpoint.
Often connected with perspective-taking, and arguably a counterpart to psychological
safety, empathy arose as a byproduct of hand-mind construction through play.
Make a model using all of our own expression, explain those

thoughts, then formulate again a new map or expression that
included everyone’s thoughts. (David, Post-Workshop Interview,
March 2018)
[The process] Allowed individuals to have their own voice.

I did feel like everybody was heard and that they felt like
they were heard. (Kristi, Post-Workshop Interview, March
2018)
[It]allows us to really listen to each other and to say, “Oh, I

never thought of that, but that resonates with me too.”
(John B., Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
I speak sometimes too much…So, I’ve tried to sit back, hear

people’s thoughts and then give input…this helped me force my hand
a little bit more. Which is good. (Zach, Post-Workshop Interview, March
2018)
Just hearing everybody share, I was learning about them. I was

learning about each person’s heart, and desires, and vision. There
was a higher amount of empathy and compassion that came from
that. (David, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
I think w/o the tool, it would have easily become something we’d
get defensive about and not really understood each other.

I might have been tempted to speak more quickly.

[Without the process] I don’t think they would have verbalized

what they wanted to. (Johno, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
Facilitator influence. An emergent theme appeared from the data and was
labeled as a subtheme of Facilitator Influence under the theme of The Creative Process.
After examination of the data responses, it was determined that the facilitator influence
can be viewed as a critical element within the creative process suggesting that creative
confidence may not occur naturally among participants without the guidance of a trained
facilitator. Responses from participants affirming this assertion are noted.
Specifically, the question that the facilitator used and their knowledge
on how to notice what’s going on in the team dynamic, and draw
that out, that was critical. (Johno, Post-Workshop Interview, March
2018)
The atmosphere the facilitator set and kept on setting about whatever
you do is right, that was helpful. (Kristi, Post-Workshop Interview, March
2018)
I believe if [facilitator] was not asking the specific questions of a specific

person, then it wouldn’t have come out like it did. (Johno, Post-Workshop
It was facilitated in such a way that we were given enough time to talk
through. (John B., Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
The questions that were asked drew out creative thinking. (Johno, Post-
Everything was done timely. In my experience when you have something

really of the box creative, it can go way too long. (Kristi, Post-Workshop
Specific phrases like “the question that the facilitator used and their knowledge on how to
notice what’s going on in the team dynamic, and draw that out, that was critical” and “the
atmosphere the facilitator set and kept on setting was helpful” support this finding and
point toward a future opportunity for study.
Assembling a Creative Situation
The creative situation is broken into two parts: flow and collaboration. While
collaboration was an expectation of the LSP process and arguably a forced element, the
arrival of flow was promising but unplanned.
Many of the responses leading the researcher to explore the impact of flow and
collaboration within the LSP process and its further effect on generating creative
confidence came from prompts outside of the specific questions presented to examine
these particular phenomena. Several responses emerged as part of general dialogue
between the participant and the researcher through their explanation of the LSP process
and during the unpacking of key learnings that took place.
Flow. Under the theme of flow, interview prompts were given to determine if
elements of flow were present during the LSP workshop and process. The participant’s
responses were categorized based on the nine elements of flow suggested by
Csikszentmihalyi (2008; Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 1992), which include (a)
clear goals being present every step of the way, (b) immediate feedback to one’s actions,
(c) a balance between challenge and skill, (d) a merge of action and awareness, (e)
distractions excluded from the conscious mind, (f) no worry of failure, (g) self-
consciousness disappears, (h) sense of time becomes distorted, and (i) activity becomes
autotelic, meaning that the activity becomes the choice of the participant and not a
required action (Csikszentmihayli, 2008; Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 1992).
To explore if any and/or which elements appeared, interview prompts like the
following were asked to gather information from the participants:
(a) How is this process different than how you’ve solved team challenges in the
past.
(b) How engaged were you in this process? What about your team members?
(c) Was the process of solving this challenge fun?
(d) What did you find yourself thinking about during the workshop? How often
did you look at your watch or phone to check the time?
Four of the nine key elements of flow emerged from the dialogue between the researcher
and the participants and subthemes labeled accordingly: Self-consciousness Disappears;
Enjoyment, Sense of Time Distorted, Balance between Skills and Engagement, and
Distractions Removed from Consciousness. An emergent theme developed during this
theme and was given the subtheme of Presence of Technical Expertise.
Self-consciousness disappears; fun. It was anticipated that participants would
view the LSP process as enjoyable and “fun.” Words and phrases like “exciting,” “an
upgrade of a childhood item,” “top 1% of what I’ve experienced” all affirm this element.
Absolutely loved it. I think this was easily in the top 1% of what
I’ve experienced. (Johno, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
Yeah, definitely, and not just because of Legos, but a huge part
because it’s fun to look at stuff and to create stuff…because I think
people don’t have the opportunity, or even the green light to say,
“hey, play with the toys of your childhood in order to do something meaningful”
...it was meaningful and intentional. (John B., Post-
Well, I was very engaged. I think part of it was just…it’s not

just the novelty because it was a childhood item, but now it’s
been upgraded. (John B., Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
That actually surprised me, ‘cause I didn’t think legos were

gonna be fun, but it was fun. (Kristi, Post-Workshop Interview,
March 2018)
I was thinking about my boys. I wanted to take this home and

show my boys. Honestly, I was just so excited. (David, Post-
It was fun to play together with staff and to show little pieces
of what we feel is being done. I t was really, really enjoyable
to me. (David, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
Sense of time distorted. Additionally, the data supported a sense of time as being
distorted by participants. Participants expressed how they lost track of time, didn’t think
to check their phones or watches, and how engaged they felt throughout the day.
Descriptive stories like the following support this assertion:
Four hours went by real quick. I mean, I didn’t even catch

myself ever looking at the clock. Matter of fact, there was one
time I turned around and was, “Oh, it’s that late?” (John B., Post-
100%, engaged, the four hours went by very quickly. (Johno, Post-
We were all engaged. That’s amazing too, ‘cause

if you’ve been at staff meetings, some people are falling
asleep, we’re trying to stay awake and texting each
other. But this held everybody’s attention. (Kristi, Post-Workshop
I don’t feel like I checked my phone. I think maybe around

the two o’clock mark where I normally have coffee I probably
looked at it, but not a lot. (Nina, Post-Workshop Interview, March
2018)
Honestly, I think I looked one time at one o’clock and then

it was four. So probably right at the beginning is when I looked
mostly out of just habit, which is stupid, but that’s what I do. But,
then as soon as we got rolling I think I checked once at one o’clock,
which is right after lunch was done and then we started to roll so
I don’t really remember looking at the watch after that.

Balance between skills and engagement. An unexpected finding was the
relationship of the challenge of the activity to participant engagement. A strong balance
between the challenge being solved and the individual’s desire to be involved is
ultimately a necessary component in the LSP process and its success. The
acknowledgement of the rigor experienced affirms the legitimacy of the LSP tool and
supports the seriousness of the play involved. From what was discerned under the
creative process theme about the felt experience of deep learning expressed by
participants through words and phrases like “stretching, way outside my comfort zone,
uncomfortable, and higher critical thinking” coupled with the expressions gathered from
the prompts around the creative situation we can clearly see a dance between the
engagement occurring by the participants and the level of rigor or challenge that is being
presented. Two specific stories are shared to illustrate this point:
I wouldn’t say it was stressful, that’s not the right word, but
stretching. Stretching and challenging, but I enjoyed it.
(Zach, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
Just the fact that it held my attention the whole time, after I
got over the initial anxiety of having to build something that everybody
was going to see. It definitely held my attention the whole time. Part
of that was because it was so different, it was something like, “wow,
yeah, this is good.” Then to see how it continued to grow…to see that
continued throughout that whole time I thought was great. It didn’t
lose anybody. (Kristi, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
A sense of purpose and excitement toward solving the challenge emerged adding to the
seamless engagement that was experienced by the participants. Expressions illuminating
the participant’s enthusiasm toward forward thinking and action in solving the challenge
are presented. Newer team members are engaging in this dialogue and timidity and
insecurities appear to be diminishing.
I was definitely excited…excited about empowerment first

and then even going back and finding out about how they [the team]
think and how they will articulate through this activity. (John B.,
This [process} created the environment where we had a specific

thing we were trying to solve. (Johno, Post-Workshop Interview,
March 2018)
Just something that’s going to have a physical aspect and

kind of working with it. I think that’s what’s exciting about it.
And, because we did it multiple times, individually and together,
it just makes you feel more comfortable with the process…and
now you’re making this for a specific reason, and this viewpoint.
It changed just a few degrees enough to keep it moving forward
and momentum. (John B., Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
I think all of us were trying to figure out this problem…we

were all engaged in trying to come up with solutions, trying to
answer the question, trying to come together for a common goal.
Four hours is simultaneously a long time and not enough

time to address this whole new vision. I think we solved the
problem of not having a unified vision. Obviously, we have this
huge task now of actually making this thing. (Nina, Post-Workshop
It excites me and also brings me to a place where I want that

next meeting. I want follow up and I want continued accountability.
I was thinking futuristically. This all sounds really nice,

but concretely? Knowing my own ministry and knowing the
responses I’ve had to changes that I thought were small…now
you’re talking about a complete overhaul of our vision…how are
we going to pull this off? I think by the end my thinking was going…
why is that [piece] there? Do we think we’re going to be there
in a year? (Nina, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
It allowed us to ask questions of why do we see this as important.

It allowed us to think about the different people that we interact
with. Think about the impact of what we’re doing. (Zach,

This finding helps to reframe play as a serious tool for problem solving. The data
demonstrate that the LSP process provided a certain level of rigor, stretching, and
challenge to the participants giving this process validity and affirming the serious nature
of the play. Also noted is the eagerness, ownership, and passion that is building in the
participants toward problem-solving.
Distractions removed from consciousness. Distractions began to be lifted from
the conscious mind of the participants and shifts in their traditional mode of operating
were referenced. For example, the leader described being released from having to lead
from a positional seat, while newer and more timid team members felt comfortable
verbally expressing their thoughts and opinions.
I was excited about the possibilities and what that means

for the team. And rather than having me as the leader push the
idea or vision, now we all have something in which I was a
participant and not leading. And that’s what excited me because
I can still lead from the middle, rather than from the front
or behind. (John B., Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
It was the first time in some of those relationships they were

given the freedom to speak openly. In this case, they were allowed
the freedom to speak on their own, which was very refreshing.
It didn’t seem rushed, it allowed people physical movement,

time to relax, the room was the perfect size…so the atmosphere,
but the timing too. (John B., Post-Workshop Interview, March
2018)
Presence of technical expertise. The newest member of the team struggled to
find the same level of flow as his fellow teammates, he cited “lack of experience” and
“not been 100% exposed” as potential setbacks. His response is noted:

I just don’t know. I’ve still not been 100% exposed to everything.
I’m still trying to figure out a lot of things and trying to understand,
trying to learn. My lack of experience I felt like, kind of constricted
me. (Zach, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
I would say I was like 80% there, just because D-Now was
the following week and I still had to figure out some details…I felt
like a car without gas in the beginning. Also, I’m early in my time
at the organization…I have a small sliver of what the current image is.
When I came to putting together a vision, I felt like I was much
more engaged. (Zach, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
His experiences led to a subtheme acknowledging that technical experience must exist at
some level in order for the element of flow centered around the balance of skill and
challenge to occur. The researcher had asked interview prompts to uncover length of
tenure within the current intact organizational team but did not seek to ask about prior
experience in the field or industry.
Collaboration. Collaboration is a key component of the LSP process. Once an
individual’s interpretation of a topic has been constructed, a shared model always
follows. With this knowledge, the findings in this category center around an
Appreciation for Collaboration and Awareness of Likeness between participants.
Awareness of likeness. Data responses indicate that participants were able to
easily identify the similarities they shared with other participants as opposed to the
differences. Example stories to illustrate this finding are provided:
To see what other people did and what I did and how I felt
like our desires were the same, just kind of expressed maybe
a little bit differently. (Kristi, Post-Workshop Interview, March
2018)
I was able to look at something that wasn’t necessarily just

my take or their take but could possibly be our take. I could
say, “okay, you did that differently, but it’s really two sides of
the same coin.” (John B., Post-Workshop Interview, March
2018)
I think what I wasn’t expecting was for us to combine and

create one vision. (Johno, Post-Workshop Interview, March
2018)
We were able to find the common ground of what we all

had mentioned. (Nina, Post-Workshop Interview, March
2018)
I learned we had a lot closer vision than maybe I thought

we did. We all had a very cohesive heart of what we want
to happen. (Zach, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
Appreciation for collaboration. The recognition and appreciation of one
another’s contributions is necessary toward the development of creative confidence,
lending to the assertion of some participants that creativity happens in a group context.
Participants describe the discovery that’s happening as they work together to solve the
challenge.
It’s that creativity part, you cannot do that by yourself, but

there’s something about doing that in a group. (John B., Post-
Starting with our identity, let’s combine our identity and put
all of our individual personalities or visions, everything together
to create the one cohesive piece. (Johno, Post-Workshop Interview,
March 2018)
I felt like we were kind of discovering it at the same time together.

The data express not only an appreciation for collaboration, but the desire to seek
to understand the other. Participants expressed a desire to hear the thoughts of others and
were able to articulate the benefit of the collaborative effort.
I was truly able to express some of my feelings and then

explain those through that. I wanted to hear what other people
were thinking. (David, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
I think it put it into perspective for everyone, even if we

don’t see it that way. Now we’ve all been heard, we can
better communicate and not feel like one person’s perception
is better than another. (Nina, Post-Workshop Interview, March
2018)
A huge component of the activity is zooming in on your own

stuff and then the wide angle of us together and working through
and talking through what’s important. It allows us to really listen
to each other and to say, “oh, I never thought of that but that
resonates with me too.” (John B., Post-Workshop Interview, March
2018)
Acknowledgment of space and location. An emergent theme of Space/Location
is noted as a contributor to the theme representing The Creative Situation. Although no
direct interview prompts were asked by the researcher to advance this topic, a couple
participants acknowledged the value in “getting out of your office” and “being in a
different place…a neutral location.” The literature discusses space as meta-application
for creative production. While there is merit in affirming the value and importance of
space/location, it is proposed that the development of creative confidence in individuals
is still possible without this element. The following data responses led to the
acknowledgement of this assertion.
It’s getting out of your office with other people, so you can learn
more about what they’re doing. (Zach, Post-Workshop Interview,
March 2018)
Probably being in a different place than [our work location]. Being

off campus in a relatively neutral location, I think that was good…that
was part of the whole process, just team bonding kind of thing. (Kristi,
A Creative Product
The essence of this study was to explore if a creative product, namely creative
confidence, was incited within the minds of the individuals being studied. The interview
prompts designed to illuminate this attitude or belief included

(a) What happened throughout this process to help you learn?
(b) What did you learn about yourself? Others?
(c) What happened throughout this experience that made this a particularly
creative endeavor?
The responses were recorded on the template analysis and subthemes were developed to
aggregate comparable notions. The subthemes created are linked to the following ability,
desire, or mindset change: Think Differently, A Level of Comfortability with Uncertainty,
See Self/Others as Creative, Courage to Try Things; Experiment, See Other Perspectives,
and Wanting More.
Think differently. The results from this study are compelling. Engagement with
Lego Serious Play produced a clear shift in mindset in the individuals participating in the
study. Every member of the team acknowledged that the process helped them to think
differently. Phrases like, “breaking out of a mindset,” and “pushed us to think in a way
we don’t all think in” support this finding. Provided are a few responses to illustrate:
I’ve already said that thinking things in a different way, that’s the
biggest thing for me. (Kristi, Post-Workshop Interview, March
2018)
It forced us to be creative and to think of things differently. I think

creativity is about thinking differently and thinking outside the box
and finding new ways to express that. So I think having to do something
hands on really pushed us to think in a way that we don’t all think in.
Kristi and I are more analytical so it pushed us out of that. (Nina, Post-
Even if it was hard, or a stop gap in my mind, I appreciated it because

I feel like I learned something. I learned something that really, really
stretched me, and in a different way. (Zach, Post-Workshop Interview,
March 2018)
So, at first it was a little bit just challenging, I think to break out
of that mindset of conformity, but then, yeah, it became fun and
certainly was easier. (David, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
A level of comfortability with uncertainty. Particularly interesting was a new
comfortability with a level of uncertainty that was expressed by the team leader and the
other members who have been at the organization for a significant amount of time. These
individuals were able to articulate the tension they felt within the process yet
acknowledge the benefit it produced for the team at large.
I learned that I certainly have the capacity to have self-control

and to stay back with those that I want to lead so they can discover
things themselves. (John B., Post-Workshop Interview, March
2018)
Being okay with wide open answers… “Okay, how do we build

on that now?” (John B., Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
It throws you off balance a little bit, you’re not quite sure, at
least for me, so we’re just going with it and see what happens. I
think that was good. That was very interesting. (Kristi, Post-
I wanted to take the lead, and I was learning that it’s not always
a place for that. And, I just need to sit back and watch what
unfolds. (Johno, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
See self/others as creative. Another significant finding was the learning that
occurred for each participant in the area of creativity. Every participant was able to
verbally declare themselves and or the other team members as creative. Many recognized
that creativity can come in different forms, that it does not look the same for everyone,
yet each person, including themselves, has the capacity to think creatively and to
continue to develop it.
I think everyone of us were more creative than we think. I

think all of us are a little more creative than we give ourselves
credit for, myself included. (Zach, Post-Workshop Interview,
March 2018)
I think we all have it [creativity], but it takes some of us a

while to warm up. I think given the time we were all able to get
to that point and it looked different for each of us. (Nina, Post-
I think we assign a value system based on creativity like, “oh,

if you’re creative in music, art, painting, sculpting, dance, then
you’re more creative than the average person.” But I don’t think
that’s true. It’s just a different venue of expression. I think we’re
all creative in some way, shape, or form. (David, Post-Workshop
Anytime you do something in a different way, I feel like once

you’re creative, it opens up more creativity and just keeps growing.
So, I think we’re all creative and it just manifests itself differently.
It’s still creativity, no matter what it looks like in the end, it’s just
different. (Nina, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
Everybody has a creativity of some sort, but the image that they have
may not be the exact image that I may have had, but the end result is
the same. (Johno, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
Creativity is not just limited to our skill set. Creativity is going out,
outside the box to help you accomplish a goal or help you understand
something about what you’re doing that didn’t know before. Or to help
you grow in something that you’re doing so you can do better. (Zach,
To be able to just play around with stuff and thinking like, not a right
or wrong thing, be intentional but kind of feel it, mess around with it,
but you still have a time limit, it allows you to be creative. (John B.,
It was interesting to watch the creativity at different levels of the table.

Everybody had it, but everybody expressed their creativity in a different
way. I think that was good. (Johno, Post-Workshop Interview, March
2018)
Courage to try things; experiment. A comfortability to experiment and try new
things was expressed through the data. Participants expressed the desire to continue
changing, adjusting, and playing with the ideas that were formulated during the
workshop. Also stated was the comfortability to say things that they may have not
previously felt at ease to share whether that be sharing a new idea or asking for
clarification. Either way, the freedom to experiment at some level was being explored
and considered.
Being stretched more to continue to change and adjust things

as we go, which is of course what the next year will be like, it’s
going to be thinking creatively and thinking, “we thought this was
enough, but now we have to push it another step.” So, it’ll be interesting
to see how using that kind of collaborative creative thinking will
come into play again as we start working toward our goal. (Nina, Post-
I don’t think people have enough opportunity, or even a green

light to say, “hey, play with the toys of your childhood in order to
do something meaningful.” (John B., Post-Workshop Interview,
March 2018)
I think even as we continue in the process [after today] that we’ll

be constantly moving pieces as we try things out and it if it doesn’t
work then we try something different. (Nina, Post-Workshop Interview,
March 2018)
I feel like it created a safe environment where people could bring

up things they normally would not have or were given freedom to
say things and the Legos created a safer environment. It allowed us
to take a step back and just enjoy the process of working the hard
stuff. (Johno Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
It gave me permission having all the Lego pieces out there

and using them as expression to say, “Well, I need more clarification
or I need more prioritization so I know what I’m really going for.”
I can still lead from a different vantage point as the participant,

and lead from the middle, rather than from the front or behind.
(John B., Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
It was for the first time in some of those relationships,

as I said before, they were given the freedom to speak openly.
In the past, I felt like we were building off of what we’ve

always done. But now we’re able to create a fresh new start and
this enabled that. (Johno, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
See other perspectives. The data under the theme of The Creative Process told a
story of how engagement with the Lego bricks to build an idea or concept externally of
oneself led to deeper learning and perspective taking in the individual participants.
Perspective taking emerged again in the data as part of the creative product outcome. To
support the development of creative confidence that occurred at both the individual and
group level, words like, “enlightening,” “helpful,” and “mutual respect” were used to
describe the way they now view the other members of their team.
I felt like there was mutual respect. It’s like, “oh, wait, I’ve
never thought of it that way but you feel strongly about this
and I want to listen and respect that that’s where you’re coming
from.” (Nina, Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
It was enlightening ‘cause it allowed me to see everyone’s

perspective, see the differences in everyone’s perspective. It’s
so interesting to see unique perspective, the lens that everyone’s
looking through and realize that (1) I relate to that, and (2) I may
not have even seen that. (Zach, Post-Workshop Interview, March
2018)
I got to see different lenses and perspectives of everybody and

how they view the work, which was super helpful. (Zach, Post-
I need to be slower to speak when I know something, but I’m not

necessarily seeing it from someone else’s viewpoint. I can be as
right as I want to be, but if I can’t explain that in a way someone else
from a different viewpoint will understand, then it doesn’t matter.
It gave me an indication through LSP to what they’re thinking and

feeling about. (John B., Post-Workshop Interview, March 2018)
I learned that everyone’s contributions are important. (Nina, Post-

It allowed us to ask questions of why do we see this as important.

It allowed us to think about the different people that we interact with.
In addition to perspective taking, participants described their development as a systems
thinker. In this subtheme participants were able to articulate the larger vision, the holistic
picture that is now in view, the full impact, and acknowledge the meaningful process that
got them to this attitudinal place.
[Through the process] we got on the same page and sure we could
each describe it and communicate a similar perception and then a
similar vision for the future. (Nina, Post-Workshop Interview, March
2018)
We see the pieces to the whole…that was very meaningful and

progressed in understanding. (John B., Post-Workshop Interview,
March 2018)
If we were just sitting around the table and were just talking
about it, I feel like we would have continued to go in circles. I
felt like the Lego process kind of made me think at different levels
and how it’s all one big unit rather than individual parts. (Kristi, Post-
Sometimes things sound great on paper, but then you look at

the impact, you’re like whoa, I didn’t mean for that to happen or
I didn’t realize this would happen. This allowed us to see are really
getting the full impact of what we want? (Zach, Post-Workshop
I think it allowed the individual to be an individual, but then what

does it look like when we put all of that together? (Johno, Post-
I liked that everyone had their own part and then it came together
into one thing. All of things were represented…even if we didn’t
100% agree on everything, we were still able to see what we would
like…a picture of the whole. (Kristi, Post-Workshop Interview,
March 2018)
It is important to identify that although Zach was able to articulate that he began
to think in a different way, he did reference several times throughout the interview his
“lack of experience.” These remarks led to a subtheme Technical Knowledge Must Exist
that was addressed prior and impacted his ability to find flow within the process.
Wanting more. A final result from the study was the expression of “wanting
more” given by the participants. Data responses indicate the participants desired to
continue the conversation, were progressively thinking about next steps, and sought
accountability even after the workshop had ended. A few responses to support this
finding include
It excites me and also brings me to a place where I want that next

meeting. I want follow up and I want continued accountability.
It got my wheels going, I wanted to keep on moving on. We literally

just came together with our mission and I don’t want to leave it. I don’t
want to forget. I want to move forward. (Zach, Post-Workshop Interview,
March 2018)
We needed a little more time…but every single person is asking for

a debrief right now, we don’t want to lose the oomph…so we can
continue this conversation…we are eager to move. (Johno, Post-
Summary
Robust qualitative responses were provided under the four main themes of
The Context: Team Dynamics, The Creative Process, The Creative Situation, and The
Creative Product. Participant data were gathered, coded, and ordered to provide insight
into the contributing factors that led to the development of creative confidence among the
participants.
Theories associated with Lego Serious Play like the benefits of collaboration and
flow were affirmed, while new constructs like psychological safety emerged. Original
contributions to the academic literature are revealed and Lego Serious Play is ready to be
positioned in the innovative sphere as a serious tool for solving complex challenges in the
workplace.
CHAPTER FIVE: SYSTEM OF PLAY
System of Play: Placing LEGO pieces into themed sets

designed to represent entire systems. The models within
these sets interact with one another to create a holistic,
working system.
Discussion
Creativity is a desired trait among leaders in the workplace today (Carr, 2010;
IBM, 2010). The type of creativity needed is not that of fine art skill, rather the ability to
think differently, to live with a level of ambiguity, to stay agile while knowing how to
experiment when searching for plausible solutions. The urgency is present; organizations
cannot keep solving problems in traditional ways and expect to get new solutions. A new
way of thinking is needed in order to solve complex challenges in innovative and creative
ways and this new mindset, called creative confidence, can be developed among
individuals in the workplace through engagement with Lego Serious Play.
This research was exploratory in nature and sought to discover if engagement
with LSP could inspire creative confidence. Additional research goals included the re-
framing of play as a serious tool for use in organizational problem solving and providing
empirical support for Lego Serious Play in the academic literature.
Using the interactionalist model (Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993;
Harrington, 1990; Brown, 1989) this study placed an individual in a creative situation of
flow and collaboration using a creative process of Lego Serious Play, to see if the
creative product of creative confidence emerged. The results of this study suggest
compelling data positioning Lego Serious Play as a solution for building creative
confidence in individuals, situating Lego Serious Play among other innovative tools like
design thinking (Kelley & Kelley, 2013) as support for the creative decision-making
process that happens within an organizational context.
In summary, there are significant factors that contributed to the positive result of
this study:
• The study affirms creative confidence as a muscle to be developed. This
attitude or belief can be cultivated and Lego Serious Play is a tool that can
help to inspire such an action.
• This study suggests that creative confidence emerges in collaboration
with others. Therefore, in order for individuals to develop creative
confidence they must co-create solutions to complex challenges. This is
consistent with current literature on creativity (Kelley & Kelley, 2013;
Brown, 2008; de Bono, 1999).
• The Lego Serious Play process not only supported the constructionist
theory that building something external to oneself produces greater
learning, it added the element of psychological safety to the equation
which provided freedom to the participants to explore and engage in
learning at a transcendent level.
Additional findings:
• Although creative confidence was present in all participants following
participation in the LSP process, the level of flow experienced during the
process differed between a new team member and those with longer tenure
in the organization. The analysis suggests that lack of technical expertise

hinders engagement and can potentially reduce confidence in the individual.
This finding is consistent with an element of flow that asserts the level of
skill must match the level of challenge (Csikszentmihalyi, 2008).
• This research also helps to support the reframing of play as a serious tool for
problem solving, acknowledging that a certain level of rigor, stretching of the
mind, and challenge occurs during the Lego Serious Play process.
Creative Confidence is Built
Further discussion of the bullet summary allows for analysis around creative
confidence. It is suggested that the team unit described in this study is much like many
found in organizations today from the lens that they were a collection of new and
seasoned members, operating under a traditional hierarchical structure, and working
toward individual goals. The data describe a team that operates in silos, makes decisions
based on the effect on their own particular area of influence, and includes members who
struggle communicating up and out. The data offer insight to the way challenges are
currently addressed signaled by the current practice of a meeting, a conversation, and a
final decision by the positional leader. The context described suggests a team of
individuals who has either not developed a creative confidence or has not had the
freedom to express the muscle.
The exploratory study placing individuals within the intact organizational team
into a creative situation of flow and collaboration, using the creative process of Lego
Serious Play, set out to uncover if creative confidence could be developed within each
individual participant. The robust collection of data responses provides compelling
evidence that creative confidence was present in each individual following their
experience working through a complex challenge using Lego Serious Play. Creative
confidence is defined throughout this paper as the attitude or belief that one has the
ability to use both divergent and convergent thought to propose fresh solutions to
complex problems. Referring to the use of both right and left brain traits, participants
repeatedly described how they “think differently” after engaging in the workshop, learned
to see and appreciate other perspectives, developed the willingness to experiment and try
something new, saw themselves and others as creative, and acknowledged their level of
comfortability with uncertainty was altered. The language used by participants to
describe the experience signals a change, at some level, to their previous thought pattern
associated with their work team and the way in which organizational challenges have
been presented and solved.
This study advocates creative confidence as a muscle to be developed, an attitude or
belief to be cultivated and Lego Serious Play as a tool that can help to inspire such an
action (Kelley & Kelley, 2013; Sternberg, 2006; Basadur, Graen, & Green, 1982;
Guilford, 1950). After engaging in the process of Lego Serious Play, participants
reported significant responses indicating the development of a new thought process and
an overall adjustment in their thinking toward creativity. Data responses signaled that the
LSP experience generated a new mindset as opposed to unleashing something that had
been suppressed.
The assertion that engagement with LSP aids in inspiring creative confidence
enhances the findings of Basadur, Wakabayashi, and Graen (1990) who established that
training individuals, in an organizational context, on creative thinking results in positive
improvements in attitudes connected to divergent thinking.

Participants were able to articulate that creativity looks different for different
people and each acknowledged the creativity within themselves as within the others in
their team. The LSP workshop, although designed as an organizational development
intervention, can also be considered a training event at some level considering the
kinesthetic nature of the experience and the LSP process steps that require individual and
collaborative learning around the organizational problem being addressed.
In addition to the traits noted, creative confidence includes the ability to see
oneself as innovative, a systems thinker who is able to uncover deeply held mental
models and bring the full picture into view (Kelley & Kelley, 2013). This research
provides plausible data to support that Lego Serious Play leads to this trait. This study
suggests that multiple facets of creative confidence were surfaced and expressed by the
individuals in the study. Of particular interest was the leader’s admission to learning in
relation to the uncertainty and ambiguity that the LSP process placed him in. His
articulation of the way he had learned that he could lead from a position other than the
front and take a step back to watch what unfolds was quite profound. Kelley and Kelley
(2013) assert that this trait is key in a modern-day work environment where external and
internal factors are constantly changing the dynamics in play within an organization.
As mentioned, this research set out to uncover if the mindset of creative
confidence could be developed at an individual level. While the data support the
individual expression of this assertion, it must be noted that the development of creative
confidence is not an individualistic pursuit. In accordance with the literature on creativity
(Sawyer, 2017; Kelley & Kelley, 2013; Suroweicki, 2004; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin,
1993), creative confidence was expressed by the individuals, but developed through a
collaborative, group process. Therefore, as creativity is produced in collaboration so is
creative confidence.
Psychological Safety: A Foundational Element to the Creative Situation
The creative process of Lego Serious Play not only supported the constructionist
theory (Papert, 1993) that building something external of oneself produces greater
learning, it added the unexpected and profound element of psychological safety
(Edmondson, 1999) to the equation. This phenomenon provided freedom to the
participants to explore and engage in learning at a transcendent level. Psychological
safety is defined as a team’s shared belief that the current environment is safe for taking
interpersonal risk (Edmondson, 1999). This construct emerged from the data responses
with powerful force, each participant using bold terms to describe the feelings of
freedom, safety, and nonjudgement that the LSP process allowed. While collaboration
and flow are described as antecedents toward the development of creative confidence,
this surprising finding can be described as a positive consequence of the process and
contributes significantly to the overall goal of inspiring creative confidence in
individuals. It can be argued that for the particular team used in this study, the presence
of psychological safety was a key contributor toward the development of creative
confidence, especially for the newer team members. The freedom occurred as
participants were able to translate their thoughts and feelings onto a Lego model as
opposed to an individual or situation. In tandem, this aspect allowed the leader freedom
and space to listen and digest the content.
Reframing Play: A Model for Serious Results

Play remains a paradox and although there is still much work to do on the public
image of play, this research helps to support the reframing of play as a serious tool for
problem solving. The study maintains that a certain level of rigor, stretching of the mind,
and challenge occurs during the Lego Serious Play process. This research has taken steps
to reframe play in the adult vocabulary, acknowledging that creative experiences can
require both rigor and whimsy and recognizing that engaging and meaningful is not the
same as fun and easy (Carlson, 2017). This notion provides a viable contribution toward
putting the linear thinker at ease with the creative problem-solving process.
This study demonstrates the need for both convergent and divergent thought. The
process associated with Lego Serious Play allows for enough structure, responsibility,
and rational thought while still stretching individuals to think, build, and create outside of
their comfort zone. Furthermore, in association with the research that has positioned play
as a paradox, the research findings in this study support that although the participants
expressed sentiments of fun from this activity the larger dialogue centered around
perspective taking, divergent thinking, and comfortability with ambiguity, and courage to
experiment and take risks. These core tenets, now associated with Lego Serious Play,
support the assertion that pretending with utter commitment expands the mind,
combining convergent and divergent thought together to eliminate one-dimensionality or
literal-mindedness (Boyle, personal communication,2017; Nachmanovitch, 2009).
In essence, LSP can offer the linear thinker enough structure, without restriction,
to provide space both physically and mentally for creative exploration to occur. In
contrast, it provides independence, within a boundary, for the natural born creative
thinker to explore plausible solutions to complex challenges.

LSP: Empirical Support for Theory
LSP can be positioned as an academically researched approach to developing the
muscle of creative confidence and places it alongside other innovative tools like design
thinking which can be used in organizations to creatively solve complex challenges.
This study proposes that collaboration and flow serve as antecedents of creative
confidence. In response to the creative situation, this study suggests that creative
confidence emerges in collaboration with others. Therefore, in order for individuals to
develop creative confidence they must co-create solutions to complex challenges. This is
consistent and affirming of prior creativity research (Sawyer, 2012, 2017; Kelley &
Kelley, 2013). In practice of the interactionalist perspective (Woodman, Sawyer, &
Griffin, 1993) the creative confidence emerges in individuals when in a collaborative or
group setting, asserting that individual creativity, or in this case creative confidence, does
not generate itself in solo form. Further confirming the interconnectedness of individual,
group, and organizational creative production. This finding offers promise for
organizations wanting to break the silo functioning. By understanding the necessity and
benefit of a collaborative approach, solving complex challenges shifts from a linear
model to that of co-creation.
Although experiences of creative confidence were self-reported in all participants
following participation in the LSP process, the level of flow experienced during the
process differed between a new team member and those with longer tenure in the
organization. Consistent with the work of Amabile (1988), this analysis suggests that
lack of technical expertise hinders engagement and can potentially reduce confidence in
the individual. This finding is consistent with an element of flow that asserts the level of
skill must match the level of challenge (Csikszentmihalyi, 2008) and that individual
creativity is produced when divergent and convergent thinking is linked (Basadur, Graen,
& Green, 1982).
Implications
The research from this study was exploratory in nature and intended to be a
starting point for conversations around the development of creative confidence as well as
re-introduce play, of a serious nature into the adult vocabulary. Initially, the study’s
intent was to convince the skeptic, the linear thinker that organizational play is, in fact,
serious. As the study progressed, the mindset of the researcher evolved as well
concluding that serious play is not to be imposed onto the skeptic. Play may not be for
everyone. Engagement with Lego Serious Play can inspire those who do not naturally
have the trait of innovation to learn to act and practice the behaviors of an innovator.
Those who chose to be innovative, to build mastery and create a sense of membership
around playfulness will reap the personal and organizational benefits finding that the
results will speak for themselves. Ultimately, creative confidence is about learning to
become something (a mindset) as opposed to learning about something (knowledge).
Technical expertise must be present before the creative development can begin and
participants must desire to stretch their thinking.
The particular team studied through this research project saw significant results in
several areas relating to positive team dynamics and organizational effectiveness.
Empathy for the other, perspective-taking, divergent thinking, and deeper learning all
contribute to the acknowledgement of LSP as a productive process for solving complex
challenges in the workplace.

Through this study, it is important to consider the implications these findings can
have in the scholar-practitioner realm. The organizational development practitioner now
has empirical support for using the LSP tool. Tested outcomes are available to share with
potential organizational leaders looking to develop a creative mindset in their employees.
Consultants within the OD sphere can confidently position LSP as not only a strategy tool
for solving complex workplace challenges, but a personal development tool that inspires
and produces a divergent mindset among participants allowing them to see problems
from a new perspective, feel comfortable with a certain level of ambiguity, and
experiment with ideas prior to formal implementation. The knowledge that technical
expertise is relevant for full contribution and engagement in the process is important
information for the consultant. These data allow the consultant to assist the
organizational leader in bringing the correct individuals into the discussion by asking
intake questions around the tenure and experience level of the participants.
New language is now available to describe serious play and reframe the frivolous
definition it often holds in the workplace. Words like perspective-taking, psychological
safety, and co-creation support this view and remind organizational leaders that the
process is not about the brick, rather playing with ideas in order to discover plausible and
sustainable solutions. The emergence of psychological safety can position leaders with a
posture for listening and enhance the problem-solving formula by recognizing and
supporting the knowledge that exists around the table.
With Lego Serious Play gaining credibility in the academic literature, educators
within higher education, specifically the organizational science sphere, can begin to
consider the effects of using the LSP method to teach concepts like systems thinking and
organizational change theories. Practical methods for teaching complex ideas are often
sought out by academic faculty. While not yet empirically tested among higher education
students in the organizational science discipline, this notion begins the conversation about
furthering the study of LSP.
Limitations
As the data responses were analyzed, a few limitations surfaced. The researcher
did not ask demographic information throughout the process. Having that information
documented could have helped ascertain if age, length of employment, or position was
impacting the participants specifically relating to the Current Team Reality. This
limitation was surfaced when analyzing the current dynamic and noting that the newer
team members expressed a certain level of insecurity in their role both professionally and
as part of the team unit.
Along this same vein, although the researcher asked interview prompts to draw
out the tenure associated with the current team being studied, data were not gathered
about previous experience in a similar or related field to the position currently being held
by the participant. Knowing this information, may have provided insight or explanation
as to why one team member struggled to find flow.
Although it is suggested that the intact organizational team used in this study is
much like any organizational unit, the participating team was from a faith-based, non-
profit organization which may have impacted the findings due to the nature of that work
and what type of person is attracted to that field. A perceived limitation may suggest that
multiple intact teams, from a variety of organizational environments be studied and
compared for stronger results. Because of the nature of a qualitative study, a pre and post
test were not administered, and a control group was not utilized. Therefore, the research
has limited generalizability but nonetheless provides a foundation for future research.
Research design limitations should be considered. The study was exploratory in
nature and conducted using a small sample size from a non-profit, faith-based
organization. Although two pilot studies were conducted prior to the field study, one
from a for-profit organization and the other a non-profit educational institution, the
personal positivity bias of the researcher could have been present and influenced
responses. To increase reliability in the findings, a follow-up interview 6 months post
intervention could be useful in determining whether the development of creative
confidence was a lasting phenomenon or a short-term experience.
Further, the roles of researcher and workshop intervention facilitator were performed
by the same individual who served as the lone interventionalist for this study.
Considering that an emergent theme of Facilitator Influence was presented in the data as
a critical element to the generation of creative confidence, it would be valuable to test the
study again using various certified, LSP facilitators. Results may be skewed considering
that the dual roles and the desire of the researcher to increase creative confidence may
positively bias the responses of participants.
Further Study
From this exploratory study emerged a list of plausible and interesting topics to
further the study of Lego Serious Play within the organizational science fields. Questions
around the psychological safety experienced by participants during the LSP process could
provide sound data for contributing to the study of the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors
of individuals adding to the field of organizational psychology and further the credibility
of LSP. Currently the LSP process enforces active engagement from all participants
allowing for individuals to build and share a personal interpretation prior to beginning
any type of collaborative discussion. While the LSP methodology invites inclusion and
perspective taking among participants, it was surprising to discover the interpersonal
freedom that was felt by participants during the process. Questions exploring if leader-
member exchange known as LMX (Uhl-Bien, 1995) has influence toward the level of
psychological freedom exchanged, the significance of the facilitator role in creating the
experienced environment, or the level of transcendent learning that occurred in
participants around the topic all pose questions to consider.
Additionally, connecting intrinsic motivation to this study could help to discover
more about the desire the participants expressed for wanting more after the workshop had
concluded. Clear expressions of wanting to continue the process and include
accountability measures poses curiosity for the researcher.
The role of facilitator in the LSP process, not only in relation to psychological
safety, is another area for consideration. Laboratory studies with two test groups, one
with a certified LSP facilitator, the other using a self-guide approach, could answer
questions addressing the significance of the facilitator role in the development of both
strategy and the mindset of creative confidence.
The current study could also be expanded through a quantitative lens.
Development of a survey instrument to be taken by participants following their
engagement in an LSP workshop would allow for further support or disagreement with
the findings presented in this study. A quantitative study of this nature would allow for
multiple participants, from a variety of LSP workshops, in a multitude of locations to
speak into their experience with the methodology.
The lasting effects of creative confidence is an acute topic for exploration as the
question still remains: Does one have to be in a facilitated environment each time a
complex organizational challenge is presented in order to use this muscle effectively? or
after experiencing the process can one draw upon it at any time? Is one-time engagement
with the process sufficient or are multiple experiences necessary for muscle memory to
occur? Discovering the answer to these questions will continue to enhance the credibility
of the LSP tool and provide further evidence in support of creative confidence as a
muscle to be developed.
Of particular interest to the researcher, is the comparison of design thinking and
LSP in the development of creative confidence. Are both methods equally effective in
developing the creative confidence muscle? What are the similarities and differences
between the two methods? Are the methods compatible, can they be used in tandem with
one another, or do they function as completely separate methodologies that produce the
same results?
Summary: Building the Future
As a response to the need for innovative and creative decision-making traits
among leaders, it can confidently be asserted that LSP not only inspires creative
confidence but it serves as tool for development of the trait.
This study desired to empirically affirm Lego Serious Play as more than a strategy
tool for organizational use, further to expand its bandwidth as an organizational tool for
producing divergent thought and creative solution generation for solving complex
organizational challenges.
While the study empirically affirmed that core tenets of LSP like flow and
collaboration were present and contributed to the outcome of creative confidence, a
surprising finding, and one worthy of further research, was the emergence of
psychological safety. This feeling that an environment is safe for taking interpersonal
risks among participants during the LSP process was boldly affirmed by all participants
in the study.
This research now positions LSP in the innovation sphere and places it among
constructs like design thinking proven to inspire and provide a new way of thinking about
solutions to process challenges.
Learning to play well means to pretend with utter commitment, to create
boundaries for some and to remove them for others. It requires permission to fail
forward, the freedom to experiment, and the courage to have serious fun in the process.
Lego Serious Play provides a formula to develop this muscle among individuals and
helps organizations to understand their system through play.
Play well and play on.

References
Amabile, T. M. (1979). Effects of external evaluation on artistic creativity. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 37(2), 221.
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research

in Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 123-167.
Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity (Vol. 87). Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the
work environment for creativity. The Academy of Management Journal, 39(5),
1154-1184.
Argyris, C. (1977, September). Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business

Review, pp. 115-124.
Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual
Review of Psychology, 32, 439-476.
Barton, G., & James, A. (2017). Threshold concepts, LEGO Serious Play® and whole
systems thinking: Towards a combined methodology. Practice and Evidence of
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (PESTLHE), 12(2).
Basadur, M., Graen, G. B., & Green, S. G. (1982). Training in creative problem solving:
Effects on ideation and problem finding and solving in an industrial research
organization. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30(1), 41-70.
Basadur, M., Wakabayashi, M., & Graen, G. B. (1990). Individual problem-solving styles
and attitudes toward divergent thinking before and after training. Creativity
Research Journal, 3(1), 22-32.
Bateson, G. (1972). A theory of play and fantasy: Steps to an ecology of mind.

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Beghetto, R. (2013). Nurturing creativity in the micro-moments of the classroom. In K.

H. Kim, J. C. Kaufman, J. Baer, & B. Sriraman (Eds.), Creatively gifted students
are not like other gifted students: Research, theory, and practice. Rotterdam, The
Netherlands: Sense, (pp. 3-16).
Boston Consulting Group. (2017). An interview with Jorgen Vig Knusdstrop: At

LEGO growth and culture are not kid stuff. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9WOG7RS6nc
Bottger, P. C., & Yetton, P. W. (1987). Improving group performance by training in

individual problem solving. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(4), 651.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and

code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Brown, R. T. (1989). Creativity: What are we to measure? In J.A. Glover, R.R. Ronning
& C.R .Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 3-32). Boston, MA:
Springer.
Brown, S. (2008, May). Play is more than just fun [Video file]. Retrieved from
https://www.ted.com/talks/stuart_brown_says_play_is_more_than_fun_it_s_vital
Brown, T. (2008, May). Tales of creativity and play [Video file]. Retrieved from
https://www. ted. com/talks/tim_brown_on_creativity_and_play
Burke, W. W. (2013). Organization change: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Campbell, D. T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retentions in creative thought as in

other knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 67(6), 380.
Carlson, S. (2017, October 29). Play inspires learning: But what is play, exactly? The
Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from
http://www.chronicle.com/article/Play-Inspires-Learning-
But/241572?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en&elqTrackId=d71751fda2f
f4e0786fc84491b1870b9&elq=3a84c08c9b7441858ea6e53e23479748&elqaid=1
6506&elqat=1&elqCampaignId=7146
Carr, A. (2010, May). The most important leadership quality for CEOs? Creativity. Fast
Company. Retrieved from https://www. fastcompany. com/1648943/most-
important-leadership-quality-ceos-creativity
Carrol, J. B. (1985, May). Domains of cognitive ability. In meeting of the American

Association for the Advancement of Science, Los Angeles (Vol. 84).
Core Junior. (2013, June 18). Bruce Nussbaum on creative intelligence, from connecting
the dots to indie capitalism. Retrieved from http://www. core77.
com/posts/25075/Bruce-Nussbaum-on-Creative-Intelligence-from-Connecting-
the-Dots-to-Indie-Capitalism
Crabtree, B. F., & Miller, W. L. (1999). Using codes and code manuals: A template
organizing style of interpretation. Doing Qualitative Research, 2, 163-177.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). Good business: Leadership, flow, and the making of

meaning. New York, NY: Penguin Group.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2008). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York,

NY: Harper Collins Publishers.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety, Vol.
721. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Csikszentmihalyi, M, & Csikszentmihalyi, I.S. (1992). Optimal experience:

Psychological studies of flow in consciousness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Daly, J., Kellehear, A., Gliksman, M. (1997). The public health

researcher: A methodological approach (pp. 89-106). Melbourne, Australia:
Oxford University Press.
deBono, E. (1999). Six thinking hats. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1994). What is philosophy? 1991. (H. Tomlinson
and G. Burchell, Trans.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work

teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107-115.
Executive Discovery (2002). The science of Lego Serious Play®.
Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A
hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme
development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80-92.
Frick, E., Tardini, S., & Cantoni, L. Lego Serious Play Learning for SMEs & Lifelong
Learning Programme. (2013). White paper on Lego Serious Play®: A state of the
art of its applications in Europe. (v.20.1). Lugano: Università della Svizzera
Italiana.
Friedman, R. (2014). The best place to work: The art and science of creating an
extraordinary workplace. New York, NY: Penguin Group.
Geithner S, & Menzel D. (2016). Effectiveness of learning through experience and

reflection in a project management simulation. Simulation & Gaming, 47(2), 228-
256.
Golann, S. E. (1963). Psychological study of creativity. Psychological Bulletin, 60(6),

548.
Grienitz, V., & Schmidt, A. (2012). Scenario workshops for strategic management with
Lego serious play. Problems of Management in the 21st Century, 3, 26-35.
Grienitz, V., Schmidt, A., Kristiansen, P., & Schulte, H. (2013). Vision statement
development with LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY®. IIE Annual
Conference Proceedings, pp. 791-798.
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9).
Guilford, J. P. (1977). Way Beyond the IQ: Guide to Improving Intelligence and
Creativity. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation.
Guilford, J. P. (1984). Varieties of divergent production. The Journal of Creative

Behavior, 18(1), 1-10.
Hadida, A. L. (2013). Let your hands do the thinking; LEGO bricks, strategic thinking,
and ideas generation within organizations. Strategic Direction, 29(2), 3-5.
Harn, P. L. (2017). A preliminary study of the empowerment effects of strength-

based LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY® on two Taiwanese adult survivors by
earlier domestic violence. Psychological Studies, 62(2).
Harrington, D. M. (1990). The ecology of human creativity: A psychological perspective.

In M. A. Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds.). Sage focus editions, Vol. 115. Theories of
creativity (pp.143-169). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hoskins, C. N., & Mariano, C. (2004). Research in nursing and health: Understanding
and using quantitative and qualitative methods (Vol. 23). New York, NY:
Springer.
Huizenga, J. (2016). Homo ludens: A study of the play-element in culture.

Kettering, OH: Angelico Press (Originally published 1944).
Hutchinson, E. D. (2014). The nature of insight. Psychiatry, 77(3), 215-229. (Original

work published 1941).
IBM. (2010). IBM CEO Study. Retrieved from

https://www-/935.ibm.com/services/us/ceo/ceostudy2010/
James, A. (2013). Lego serious play: A three-dimensional approach to learning

development. Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, 6.
Janis, I. (1982). Groupthink (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Johansson, M., & Linde, P. (2005). Playful collaborative exploration: New research
practice in participatory design. Journal of Research Practice, 1(1).
Jorgenson, J., & Steier, F. (2013). Frames, framing, and designed conversational
processes: Lessons from the World Cafe. The Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 49(3), 388-405.
Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2001, November). The real reason people won’t change.
Harvard Business Review, pp. 84-93.
Kelley, T., & Kelley, D. (2012, December). Reclaim your creative confidence: How to
get over the fears that block your best ideas. Harvard Business Review, pp. 115-
118.
Kelley, T., & Kelley, D. (2013). Creative confidence: Unleashing the creative potential
within us all. New York, NY: Crown Business.
Kim, D. (1999). Introduction to systems thinking. Waltham, MA: Pegasus

Communications.
King, N. (1998). Template analysis. In G. Symon & C. Cassell (Eds.),

Qualitative methods and analysis in organizational research, pp. 118-134.
London, UK: Sage.
King, N. (2004). Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. In C. Cassell and G.
Symon (Eds.), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational
research, pp. 256-70. London, UK: Sage.
King, N. (2007). Template Analysis. Retrieved from:

http://www.hud.ac.uk/hhs/research/template_analysis/
King, N., & Anderson, N. (1990). Innovation in working groups. In M. A. West & J. L.
Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work, pp. 81-100. Chichester, England:
Wiley.
Kovaleski, D. (2006). And now for something completely different: Legos. Corporate
Meetings & Incentives, (12)25, 17-18.
Krippendorf, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Newbury

Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Kristiansen, P., & Rasmussen, R. (2014). Building a better business using the LEGO
Serious Play® method. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
Le Masson, P., Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (2011). The interplay between creativity issues
and design theories: A new perspective for design management studies?

Creativity and Innovation Management, 20, 217–37.
LEGO Group. (n.d.). Play for life…. Copenhagen, DK: SIGMA.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2016). Designing qualitative research. Los Angeles,
CA: Sage.
McCusker, S. (2014). LEGO®, seriously: Thinking through building. International

Journal of Knowledge, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship, 2(1), 27-37.
Meadows, D. (1999). Leverage points: Places to intervene in a system. Hartland, VT:

The Sustainability Institute.
Meadows, D. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea
Green.
Montesa-Andres, J. O., Garrigós-Simón, F. J., & Narangajavana, Y. (2014). A proposal

for using Lego serious play in education. In Innovation and teaching
technologies (pp. 99-107). Springer International.
Moreau, C. P., & Engeset, M. G. (2016, February). The downstream consequences of

problem-solving mindsets: How playing with LEGO influences creativity.
Journal of Market Research, LIII, 18-30.
Morse, J. M., & Field, P. A. (1995). Qualitative research methods for health
professionals. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Nachmanovitch, S. (2009, Winter). This is play. New Literary History, 40(1), 1-25.
Nussbaum, B. (2013). Creative intelligence: Harnessing the power to create, connect,

and inspire. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Nyström, H. (1979). Creativity and innovation. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Osborne, T. (2003) Against ‘creativity’: A philistine rant. Economy and Society, 32(4),
507-525.
Papert, S. A. (1993). Mindstorms: Children, computers & powerful ideas. New York,
NY: Basic Books.
Papert, S. A., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. In Constructionism.

Westport, CT: Praeger.
Peabody, A. M. (2017). Reflective boot camp: Adapting LEGO®SERIOUS PLAY® in

higher education. Reflective Practice, 18(2), 232-243.
Piaget, J. (1951). The child’s conception of the world. London: Routledge.
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2004). Nursing research principles and methods.
Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Poovey, M. (1995). Making a social body: British cultural formation 1830-1864.

Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.
Rasmussen, R. (n.d.). Lego Serious Play®: T3 facilitator training program. Assens,

DK: Rasmussen Consulting.
Rasmussen, R. (2006). When you build in the world, you build in your mind. Design
Management Review, 17(3), 56-63.
Rauth, I., Koppen, E., Jobst, B., & Meinel, C. (2010). Design thinking: An educational
model towards creative confidence. Proceedings of the 1st International
Conference on Design Creativity, Kobe, Japan.
Reiber, L. P. (2001, December). Designing learning environments that excite serious

play. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Australasian Society for
Computers in Learning Tertiary Education. Melbourne, Australia.
Reznick, M. (2017). Lifelong kindergarten: Cultivating creativity through projects,

passion, peers, and play. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Rice, P. L., & Ezzy, D. (1999). Qualitative research methods: A health focus. Melbourne,
Australia: Oxford University Press.
Rotboll, J. (2017, June 12-15). LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY®. Workshop.
Said, R., Roos, J., & Statler, M. (2001). LEGO speaks: Working paper 20. Retrieved
from www.imagilab.org
Sanders, E., & Stappers, P. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design.
CoDesign, 4, 5–18.
Sandovar, A., et al. (2017, May 26, 27). Persuasive games for social impact. Workshop.
Sawyer, K. (2017). Group genius: The creative power of collaboration. New York, NY:
Basic Books.
Sawyer, R. K. (2012). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation. Oxford,

UK: Oxford University Press.
Scarfe, N. V. (1962). Play is education. Childhood Education, 39(3), 117-121.

Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Surrey,
UK: Ashgate.
Schulz, K. P., Geithner, S., Woelfel, C., & Krzywinski, J. (2015). Toolkit-based
modelling and serious play as means to foster creativity in innovation
processes. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24(2), 323-340.
Senge, P. (1990, 2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization. New York: Currency.
Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007, November). A leader’s framework for decision
making. Harvard Business Review.
Statler M., Heracleous, L., & Jacobs, C. D. (2011). Serious play as a practice of paradox.
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(2), 236-256.
Stein, B. S. (1989). Memory and creativity. In Handbook of Creativity (pp. 163-176).

Springer US.
Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The nature of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 87-
98.
Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few
and how collective wisdom shapes business. Economies, Societies and
Nations, 296.
Sweet, C., Blythe, H., & Carpenter, R. (2014). Creative collaboration. National Teaching
& Learning Forum, 23(6), 9.
Trangbaak, R. R. (2015, June). LEGO Group to invest 1 billion DKK boosting search for
sustainable materials. Retrieved from
https://www. lego. com/en-us/aboutus/news-room/2015/june/sustainable-
materials-centre
Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). "The relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of

LMX theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level, multi-domain
perspective". Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.
Waring, T., & Wainwright, D. (2008). Issues and challenges in the use of template
analysis: Two comparative case studies from the field. Electronic Journal of
Business Research Methods, 6(1).
Wheatley, W. J., Anthony, W. P., & Maddox, E. (1991). Selecting and training strategic
planners with imagination and creativity. The Journal of Creative
Behavior, 25(1), 52-60.
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of

organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293-321.
Woodman, R. W., & Schoenfeldt, L. F. (1989). Individual differences in

creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynold (Eds.), Handbook of
creativity, 77-91. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Woodman, R. W., & Schoenfeldt, L. F. (1990). An interactionist model of creative

behavior. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 24(4), 279-290.
Wright, S. (2008, September 5). In the zone: Enjoyment, creativity, and the nine elements
of flow. Retrieved from
http://www.new.meaningandhappiness.com/zone-enjoyment-creativity-elements-
flow/26/
Yetton, P., & Bottger, P. (1983). The relationships among group size, member ability,
social decision schemes, and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 32(2), 145-159.
APPENDIX A
Can Lego Serious Play inspire creative confidence?

Interview Protocol: Post-workshop Individual Interview
OPENING COMMENTS: I would like to spend the next few minutes asking you to
think about and respond to questions about the recent Lego Serious Play workshop that
you participated in. As a reminder, the workshop was designed to work through the
challenge in your workplace of {insert workshop title that identifies the specific
challenge discussed in workshop; this will vary depending on organization}.
GENERAL:
1. In your words, please tell me about the complex challenge in your workplace that
you were attempting to solve during the LSP workshop?
Notes to Interviewer:
a. What was the situation?
a. What was the desired outcome? Actual outcome?
2. Tell me a little about your team?
a. How do you generally solve complex challenges?
b. Describe your team’s dynamics?
HAND-MIND THEORY CONSTRUCTION THROUGH PLAY:

3. Will you please describe the problem-solving process that you used?
Notes for Interviewer (And to ask if information is not in interviewee narrative):

a. Were there specific steps involved?
b. Were there any physical elements used in the problem-solving process?

Produced through the problem-solving process? Could you please
describe the how these elements contributed to the solution?
c. Without the LEGO, how would your contribution to the discussion have
been different? What about the group’s contribution?
d. Was the solution as you initially proposed it, the best solution? Or was it
revised?
FLOW (Four of nine elements will be measured: (1) Distractions are removed from
consciousness, (2) Self-consciousness disappears; fun, (3) A balance between challenge
and skills; engagement, (4) Sense of time becomes distorted):
4. How engaged were you when solving this challenge (3)?

a. What about the group? How engaged were they in solving this challenge?
b. How difficult was this challenge to solve? Did it overwhelm you

mentally? Did it excite you?
5. How was this process different from how you’ve solved team challenges in the
past (1)?
a. What trials did you encounter in what you were doing?
b. What did you find yourself thinking about during the workshop? How
often did you look at your watch or phone to check the time (4)?
6. Was the process of solving the challenge fun (2)?
7. What did you appreciate about the problem-solving process you used? Not
appreciate?
COLLABORATION:
8. What activities throughout this experience led to your outcome?
a. What was your role?
b. Were others involved?
c. If working with others, to what degree was there a consensus and how did
it develop?
CREATIVE CONFIDENCE:
9. Think back to the opening exercises in the LSP workshop. How did they make
you feel?
10. What happened throughout this process to help you learn?
11. What did you learn through this process?

a. What did you learn about yourself through this process?
b. What did you learn about others?

12. What did you learn specifically about creativity?
13. What happened throughout this experience that made this a specifically creative
endeavor?
a. What else happened?
b. What else happened?
14. How will you respond differently next time you’re faced with solving a complex
challenge in your workplace?
a. How will your team respond differently?
APPENDIX B
WORKSHOP NAME: Constructing the future of Family Ministry at CBC

THE CHALLENGE (Workshop Goal): To create a shared model of Family Ministry at
Cornerstone Bible Church (CBC).
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS: 6
NUMBER OF HOURS: 4 hours
LSP SUPPLIES: Starter Kit (6); Landscape and Architect kit (1)
PURPOSE & FRAMING DURATION INSTRUCTIONS & CHALLENGE QUESTIONS

Introduction 5 • Facilitated process, not about the brick (it’s
• What is LSP? 12:00p – 12:05p about believing that all the knowledge is
• What is our objective? around this table and we need to collectively
• Guiding Principles create an identity.
• Permission to fidget with bricks, no phones or
food with LEGO, when in doubt – just start
building, everyone shares, anything you make
it’s right
Skills Building 35 • 1.0: Build a tower as tall as possible and put a

• 1.0: to familiarize group with 12:05p – 12:40p minifigure on top
building w/ LEGO • 2.0: Build a model from the picture sheet
• 2.0: understand the use of • 2.1: Adjust the model in some way (add one
metaphor piece or take something away) to represent
• 2.1: understand story-making something that energizes you in your job.
Share.
Facilitator note: During sharing ask questions like, “Does
that color bricks you chose have any special meaning? Or
“Tell me more about the …”
• 3.0: Build a nightmare youth experience.
AT1: Build Individual Model 30 • Define “core identity” and pose activity (Build
• What is the core identity of 12:40p – 1:10p your individual interpretation of CBC’s core
CBC family ministry today? family ministry identity as it exists today)
• Give 5-6 minutes to build
• Share stories (approximately 1 minute per
person)
Red Brick Intervention: What you must keep and

why shared with the group
AT2: Build Shared Model 45 • Explain the process of developing a “shared
• What is the shared core 1:10p – 1:55p model” (Build a shared model of CBC’s core
identity of CBC youth family ministry identity as it exists today)
ministry today? • Ask participants to walk around the model and
look from other perspectives. Is anything
missing? Need to be changed? Do they feel
they are personally reflected in the shared
model? Ask several people to tell the ‘story’ of

the model
Break 15
1:55p – 2:10p
AT1: Build Individual Model 30 • Define “aspirational identity” and pose activity
• What is the aspirational core 2:10p – 2:40p (Build an individual model of who CBC wants
identity of CBC family to be in 1 year from now as a family ministry)
ministry? • Give 5-6 minutes to build
• Share stories (approximately 1 minute per
person)
• Red Brick Intervention: What you must keep

and why shared with the group
AT2: Build Shared Model 45 • Refer to the process of developing a “shared
• What is the shared 2:40p – 3:25p model” (Build shared model of who we want
aspirational core identity of to be in 1 year from now as a family ministry)
CBC family ministry? • Ask participants to walk around the model and
look from other perspectives. Is anything
missing? Need to be changed? Do they feel
they are personally reflected in the shared
model? Ask several people to tell the ‘story’ of
the model
AT3: Creating a Landscape through 30 • Build a model of one factor (internal or
Agents 3:25p – 3:55p external) that will impact bringing the
• What are the internal and aspirational identity into existence?
external factors that will • Repeat
impact bringing the • Place models into the landscape of the shared
aspirational identity into aspirational identity. Think about placement,
existence? elevation, intensity, common themes/cluster?
AT1: Individual Commitment 5 • Think about which agents should be addressed
3:55p – 4:00p or considered first in order to live out the
aspirational identity.
APPENDIX C
Fielding Graduate University

Informed Consent Form
LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY® Workshop
NAME OF PARTICIPANT: ______________________________________________
You have been asked to participate in a research study conducted by Wendi Dykes, a doctoral
student in the School of Human and Organizational Systems at Fielding Graduate University,
Santa Barbara, CA. This study is supervised by David Willis, PhD. This research involves the
study of one’s perceptions after engaging in a Lego Serious Play workshop and is part of Wendi's
Fielding dissertation study. You are being asked to participate in this study because you hold a
paid position at your organization and are a part of an in-tact organizational team.
Before you agree to participate in this research study, it is important that you read and understand
the information provided in this Informed Consent Form. If you have any questions, please ask
the researcher for clarification.
Why Is This Study Being Done?

This study is being conducted in order for the researcher to explore solutions to complex
organizational problems facing today’s workplace.
How Many People Will Take Part in The Study?

The study will consist of 6-8 participants employed at Cornerstone Bible Church located in
Glendora, CA. All participants are a part of the administrative/leadership team and hold paid,
staff positions.
What Is Involved in The Study?
If you agree to participate in this study, you will participate in Lego Serious Play workshop
custom designed to meet the needs of your organization and current team goals. You will
participate post-workshop individual interview with the researcher. The interviews will run
approximately 30 minutes in length and occur one to two weeks post the workshop. The
interview session will be audio recorded using an iPhone 7 device. Additionally, a short focus
group interview will be conducted immediately following the Lego Serious Play workshop.
Sample interview questions may include:
1. Do you believe you have the ability to propose innovative solutions to complex problems
in your workplace?
a. Tell me about a specific instance…
2. How difficult was this problem? Did it overwhelm you? Was it easy to solve?
a. To what degree was solving the problem fun?
How Long Will I Be in The Study?
The study involves participation in a Lego Serious Play workshop, specifically designed for your
organizational team. A post individual interview with the researcher is expected. The interview
will last approximately 30 minutes. The total time involved in participation will be
approximately 6-8 hours.
What Are the Risks of the Study?

The risks to you are considered minimal and there is no likelihood that you may experience some
emotional discomfort during or after your participation.
What Are the Benefits to Taking Part in This Study?

You may develop a greater bond with your organizational team and have some fun as a result of
your participation in this research.
What about Confidentiality and Protection?

Study related records will be held in confidence. Your consent to participate in this study
includes consent for the researcher, supervising faculty, and possibly a confidential Research
Assistant who may also see your data. Your research records may also be inspected by
authorized representatives of the Fielding Graduate University, including members of the
Institutional Review Board or their designees. They may inspect, and photocopy as needed, your
records for study monitoring or auditing purposes. In addition, parts of your record may be
photocopied.
The information you provide will be kept strictly confidential. The informed consent forms and
other identifying information will be kept separate from the data. All materials will be kept in a
file locked in the researcher’s office and/or stored on her personal computer. The tape recordings
will be listened to only by the Researcher. Any records that would identify you as a participant in
this study, such as informed consent forms, will be destroyed by the researcher within three years
after the study is completed.
The results of this research will be published in my dissertation and possibly published in
subsequent journals, books and presentations.
Participation in Research is Voluntary:
You are free to decline to participate or to withdraw from this study at any time, either during or
after your participation, without negative consequences. Should you withdraw, your data will be
eliminated from the study and will be destroyed. If you choose to withdraw from the study after
the workshop and focus group interview has been conducted. Information from the focus group
may still be used in the research analysis. However, individual interview data will be omitted.
The researcher is also free to terminate the study at any time.

Additional Information:
If you have any questions about any aspect of this study or your involvement, please tell the
researcher before signing this form. You may also contact the supervising faculty if you have
questions or concerns about your participation in this study. The supervising faculty has provided
contact information at the bottom of this form.
You may also ask questions at any time during your participation in this study.
If at any time, you have questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant, contact
the Fielding Graduate University IRB by email at irb@fielding.edu or by telephone at 805-898-
4034.
Two copies of this informed consent form have been provided. Please sign both, indicating you
have read, understood, and agree to participate in this research. Return one to the researcher and
keep the other for your files. The Institutional Review Board of Fielding Graduate University
retains the right to access to all signed informed consent forms.
I have read the above informed consent document and have had the opportunity to ask
questions about this study. I have been told my rights as a research participant, and I
voluntarily consent to participate in this study. By signing this form, I agree to participate
in this research study. I shall receive a signed and dated copy of this consent.
_____________________________________
NAME OF PARTICIPANT (please print)
_____________________________________
SIGNATURE OF PARTICIPANT
_____________________________________
DATE
David Blake Willis, PhD Wendi Dykes, PhD Candidate

dwillis@fielding. edu wdykes@email.fielding.edu
805.687.1099 760.519. 0363
Fielding Graduate University

2020 De La Vina St.
Santa Barbara, CA 93105

Play Well Constructing Creative Confiden

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Play Well Constructing Creative Confiden

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONSTRUCTING CONFIDENCE WITH LSP WENDI DYKES

Constructing Creative Confidence with LEGO® Serious Play®

Wendi Waldron Dykes (Dijks)

With unknown futures and a consistent series of external factors influencing

Serious Play (LSP), can inspire creative confidence.

followed by individual semi-structured interviews with the participants. A hybrid of both

Play, Constructionism, Flow, Workplace, Divergent Thinking, Organization, Hybrid

Methodology, Qualitative Inductive, Qualitative Deductive, Organizational Psychology,

WENDI WALDRON DYKES (DIJKS)

To my committee: I cannot imagine a better team to inspire, challenge, and support me

Terence Chung, my fellow LSP facilitator, researcher, and friend. Together we

To my Azusa Pacific University colleagues and mentors: To my gracious colleagues in

“To Him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we can

“non-creative” types: To these individuals I leave the words of Stephen Nachmanovitch

Play well and play on …

CHAPTER ONE: LEG GODT………………………………………………………... 1

CHAPTER TWO: BRICK-BUILT……………………………………………………11

CHAPTER THREE: MOC……………………………...……………………………. 43

CHAPTER FOUR: INTERLOCKING ELEMENTS……………………………..... 58

CHAPTER FIVE: A SYSTEM OF PLAY……………………………...…………… 93

Leg godt: Two Danish words that when placed

Elements of a New Mindset

Organizations are dynamic social systems moving at a highly complex and

before and competing commitments subconsciously sabotage an organizations best laid

decision-making methods to solve complex organizational problems (Snowden & Boone,

organizational issues that possess no direct answer in an ever-evolving landscape.

advanced into a methodology, grounded in scientific research around theories of

constructivism, constructionism, play, and systems. This methodology is transforming the

Group has committed one billion DK (approximately US $150M) to finding and

implementing sustainable alternatives to the current plastic material used (Trangbaak,

Group, n.d.). “Irreplaceable and irresistible” as described by Jorgen Vig Knudstrop

the unparalleled artifact in the serious play process.

an answer for developing creative confidence?

The Creative Product: Creative Confidence

Creative confidence is an attitude or belief. Similar to the research philosophies

as divergent thinking, suggesting it as something to be improved or developed. On an

creativity which positions creative confidence as a mindset to be chosen and as open to

all. For this type of confidence to be developed, an understanding that individual

knowledge or domain-relevant skills are necessary (Amabile, 1988), must exist.

Creative confidence can be connected to similar concepts that emerge in the

to propose fresh solutions to complex problems.

At the core, creatively confident individuals are comfortable with uncertainty,

opportunities to experiment, permission to fail, and a rediscovery of the childhood

Combining the notion of creative confidence with a methodology called Lego

inspire an attitude of creative confidence in individuals and enhance self-assured decision

1999), while engaging in hand-mind construction through play (Kristiansen &

elements of flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 2003), can inspire creative confidence.

establishing how hand-mind construction can improve perceptions of innovative thinking.

discover creative confidence and beckons organizational leaders to pursue an alternative

to impact individuals in today’s organization, the words of Nachmanovitch (2009) invite

great concentration and responsibility” (p. 21).

Play, while experiencing elements of flow, inspire creative confidence?

Participants may have the assumption of needing to be a Lego building expert.

This statement leads to a perceived limitation if a participant feels inadequate building

may vary depending on an individual’s view, culture, and interpretation.

nature could pose a challenge.

its parts (Sawyer, 2017; Suroweicki, 2004).

Complex problem: an organizational challenge that has no direct answer in an ever-

Complicated decision-making strategy: a structured, step-by-step decision-making

Constructionism: learning that happens especially when individuals are engaged in

constructing something external of themselves (Papert & Harel, 1991).

and convergent thought to propose fresh solutions to complex problems.

task or challenge at hand (Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 1992).