Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Riccardo Masiero - Masiero - Framing - Meaningful - Colors - Ok
Riccardo Masiero - Masiero - Framing - Meaningful - Colors - Ok
companies
Riccardo Masiero
House of Innovation
Giada Baldessarelli
House of Innovation
Roberto Verganti
House of Innovation
INTRODUCTION
Climate crises and social inequalities pushes organizations to rethink their production models
and seek alternative entrepreneurial processes (Dodd et al., 2023; Johnsen et al., 2018) . Recent
research in design, innovation and entrepreneurship highlights that framing, the social process
of meaning construction (Benford & Snow, 2000; Cornelissen & Werner, 2014; Goffman,
1972), is central in the production of innovation and change when organizations face emergent
issues in a complex white water world (Kim, 2021; Pendleton-Jullian & Brown, 2018; Verganti
et al., 2021). So far organizational scholarship have theorized framing mainly in terms of
1
linguistic mechanisms, e.g. metaphors and analogies (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014),
overlooking the crucial role of sensorial and aesthetic interactions ubiquitously present in
creative processes (Stigliani & Ravasi, 2018). In fact, some studies have provided empirical
evidence of, albeit not theorized, the role of sensory-driven practices in reshaping
“experience […] sensorially and not only, or even primarily, through inferring, reasoning, or
abstract categorizations” (Pakarinen & Baldessarelli, 2023) and such experiences influence
how they construct and reconstruct meanings (Cerulo, 2018; Khaire & Wadhwani, 2010).
Therefore, in this work we investigate the question: how do actors reframe their organization
Answering this question will help to better understand the role of sensorial interactions
(Baldessarelli et al., 2022) during organizational framing processes, shedding new light on how
meanings construction patterns are reframed in the daily life of an organization. At the
individual level, aesthetic interactions are defined as those experiences that start “with an initial
perceptual hook followed by a more detached, intellectual appreciation that returns the viewer
to the work with a deeper understanding” (Csikszentmihalyi & Robinson, 1990). These aspects
are also reflected at the organizational level, with the aesthetic perspective in organization and
management emphasizing that “it is people who create, invent and enact organization, doing
so not as individual yet interrelated ‘minds’ but through their corporeality and always in relation
to the nonhuman” (Strati, 2007, p. 66). In fact, recent findings highlight the crucial role of
we provide evidence of the central role of aesthetic and material interactions in framing
alternative and emergent ways of organizing innovation. Our preliminary findings induce to
2
theorize visual and colorful dialogues as key processes in framing the ever-changing meanings
role of sensorial and aesthetic interactions during the reconstruction of meanings (Baldessarelli
et al., 2022; Cornelissen & Werner, 2014). In addition, we contribute to the theme of the
workshop “Craft and emerging forms of organizing” by showing and preliminary theorizing
visual and colorful dialogues as key processes in the emergent organization of innovation
THEORY DEVELOPMENT
Frames are broadly defined as “means by which managers make sense of ambiguous
information from their environments” (Kaplan, 2008, p. 729). Since Goffman’s seminal work
on frame analysis (1972), framing has grown into an important construct in psychology
(Kahneman & Tversky, 1984), sociology (Benford & Snow, 2000), media studies (Scheufele,
1999), design (Verganti et al., 2021), strategic management (Raffaelli et al., 2019) and
organization theory (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014). Specifically, adopting a view of framing
as “an active processual phenomenon that implies agency and contention at the level of
reality construction” (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 213), organization scholars that engage with
the construct have focused on two distinct levels of analysis – namely, the individual and the
organization.
At the individual level, framing is regarded as the process whereby actors select some
aspects of reality to have in focus, understand the context, construct meanings, and make
decisions (Kahneman & Tversky, 1984). A frame, therefore, can be viewed as a “mental
template that individuals impose on an information environment to give it form and meaning”
(Walsh, 1995, p. 281) or as “knowledge schemas, which then guide individual perceptions,
inferences, and actions in context” (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014, p. 183). At the
3
organizational level, frames represent shared meanings and guides for interpretation that are
constructed through actions and interactions (Kaplan, 2008), and framing represents the
social and negotiated process that enables such construction (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014).
Such process of construction of new ways to make sense of information often emerges when
organizations are faced with new conditions, like the development of a new technology
(Orlikowski & Gash, 1994) or when new business opportunities are perceived as threats
(Gilbert, 2006; Raffaelli et al., 2019), that render current frames obsolete or ineffective.
Current literature highlights that framing is practiced using specific cognitive tools
“such as metaphors, catchphrases, slogans, contrast, spin, and stories” (Cornelissen &
Werner, 2014, p. 199). For example, Kim (2021) shows how a business incubator in Detroit
reframed its meaning construction processes to survive a context-related industrial crisis and
continue incubating new businesses. This process was initiated by a change in the core
metaphor that defined the business, with the co-founders pointing out: “Here, we think
business is a living organism . . . If you think it’s a living organism, the solution comes out of
biology, life sciences, not from mechanical sciences.” (Kim, 2021, p. 771). Language,
therefore, especially in the form of metaphors, is deeply interconnected with how individuals
construct, negotiate and communicate meanings (Whittle et al., 2023). As a result, linguistic
interactions help understand and change frames when faced with new contexts (Kim, 2021;
However, the analysis of the meaning construction process unfolded when a team of
firefighters attempted to reframe their mission, led Cornelissen et al. (2014) to highlight the
potential role of unexpected perceptual cues in reframing processes. This result opposes the
means of bodily senses (Gibson, 1963; Latour, 2004), and aesthetics in organizational
4
processes (Baldessarelli et al., 2022). For instance, Stigliani & Ravasi (2018) theorized the
designers’ creative work. In addition, Klein & Amis (2021) recognized as relevant, without
theorizing them, the role of sensory-emotional reactions evoked from iconic visuals in
reframing processes, when studying how the main UK news channels constructed new
meaning around the refugee crises in Europe. Therefore, organizational scholarship has
provided several empirical examples of, albeit not theorized, the role of sensory-driven
reason for this is that the conceptualization of a frame has been predominantly cognitive. We
build on this line of thought with a belief that examining how and why framing unfolds can
help us uncover the role of sensory-driven and aesthetic interactions in the construction of
shared meanings.
METHODS
Research site
LifeLink Sterile Division, the division responsible for sterile transfer systems used in
biopharma production. The division ideates, designs, and produces a product called “Beta
bag” which is a single-use sterile plastic bag used to transfer sterile components in and out
sterile chambers, so called filling lines, during the production of liquid drugs. It can be used
5
only in combination with a related “Alpha port” attached to the filling line, also produced by
-----------
-----------
For this study, we draw on data from an extensive project aimed at creating a new team
focused on innovating the “Alpha-Beta system”. The innovation team consisted of Mark, a
newly hired manager, aided by several other people working in different areas of Sterile
Division.
Data collection
The first author conducted fieldwork between June 2022 and February 2024. Our primary
data consists of innovation team meetings, ideation workshop observations, production sites
visit, pictures taken during fieldwork, ethnographic interviews, and innovation team
presentations and documents. We complemented primary data with additional data: emails,
spontaneous talks with managers and operators and other archival material (company
documents such as annual reports). Table 1 summarizes the data collected so far in the
research process.
-----------
-----------
6
Data analysis
We followed an iterative, abductive approach to analyze our data (Timmermans & Tavory,
2012). We started with a grounded understanding of how the evolution of the innovation
process unfolded. Through the analysis of the innovation forum meetings, we uncovered first-
order findings (Van Manen, 1988) illuminating how the interactions between the managers in
the innovation team evolved across three development phases of the newly established
process, so called innovation track. We are now bouncing our first-order findings against
FINDINGS
At Sterile Division, before the introduction of the process proposed by Mark, spontaneous
innovative ideas started the development phase only after the presentation of a so-called
stages and gates assembled on a linear chain. This process is highly codified to comply with
biopharma production regulations, and Sterile Division does not have much freedom on that.
In addition, Sterile Division’s stakeholders pressure the company to create more sustainable
products, reducing the amount of CO2 and plastics emitted in the environment. For these
reasons, Sterile Division’s management team decided to introduce a new process to gather
and curate early-stage ideas. The innovation track, i.e., the new process that Mark proposed,
created a new set of activities to systematically track the emergence, development, and
evaluation of ideas before the established stage-gate process. Mark, the newly appointed
innovation director, was also in charge of tracking any new idea emerging inside Sterile
Division or from Sterile Division customers regarding the innovation of the “Alpha-Beta
System”. When new ideas emerge, Mark would include them in a PowerPoint slide
summarizing all the ideas under advisory and clustering them based on high level categories.
7
In addition, every idea would be complemented by a “non-confidential presentation”, a
PowerPoint document approved to be shared with customers and stakeholders outside the
company. We observed that the late iterations are different from the initial iterations of the
innovation track process, showing evidence of the work performed by the interactions
happening in Sterile Division’s innovation team. In fact, during the innovation forums, i.e.,
periodic meetings involving Mark and the other managers of Sterile Division, the team
produced continuously feedback and reviews to curate and re-design the process. Therefore,
in our analysis we focused the interactions between Mark and the other managers in their
attempt to develop the innovation track. In our findings, we show how the visual and material
interactions emerging within Sterile Division’s management team shape the framing of the
innovation track. These interactions enabled the innovation team to continuously frame new
meanings of the innovation track involving both sensorial hooks, e.g. colors, and cognitive
interactions between the managers in the innovation team unfolded in the terms informants
First-order findings
Mark starts kicking off the innovation track activities in June 2022 during the first innovation
forum. During the meetings Mark presents Power Point slides including visual representation
of the innovation track and one-pager presentations of the ideas included in it. Since the
beginning Mark points out that the shape and structure of the process has been emergent and
in continuous development:
8
“I've tried to illustrate the progress since June, because it has been developing quite a bit. We started
out with an opportunity and an idea coming out of Merriville (the Sterile Division site in the US) to
improve our internal process for particle analysis (a specific feature needed to improve the “Alpha-
This highlights the emergent and interactional characteristic of the innovation track that,
since the beginning, eludes rigid definitions and rules. In fact, during the first meetings (Fall
2022), the managers discuss the meaning of this new process differentiating from established
governance activities:
“This is not exactly a steering committee, as traditionalists in a governance body would say, it’s more
of a bouncing board body to prioritize activities and help remove obstacles and have a good dialogue
about new ideas” (Elias, Vice-President of Business Development at Sterile Division, Innovation
Forum).
In addition, Elias highlights that in the past there have been challenges with sensing and
framing the time needed for each idea evaluation: “So, in some occasions, there has been a
challenge to prioritize innovation evaluations and that’s one fact of life” (Elias, Vice-President of
For these reasons, Mark proposes to start counting the number of days that each idea spends
“So, when it goes into the process, and it enters the opportunity track then also the clock starts
Since then, every idea presented in the visual representation of the innovation track appears
with a number on it. However, during the Innovation Forum in September, the team of
managers realized that each idea needed an actual person that will make it happen when
“But at what point in time an idea will be handed over to the people that will actually make it
9
They soon realized that the initial deadline for ideas to exit the innovation track, set to 90
days, was not related to the availability of the people that will make them happen.
During Spring and Summer 2023 the team continues discussing ideas and the organization of
the innovation track during the Innovation Forums. The fixed (90 days) time limit
disappeared from the visual representation of the innovation track. Furthermore, they
understood that many ideas emerging in the organization were old ideas, generated in past
“And the outcome of that [previous innovation workshops] was actually almost non existing. There
were really not a lot of good ideas that surfaced from that. And it's really interesting that now we run
this much more structured approach [the innovation track]. And all of a sudden, people start
recognizing when items surface: “Yeah, but we actually did talk about that!”” (Anton, Vice-President
Hence, the innovation team starts framing ideas that surfaced in the past, interacting visually
with the ones represented in the present innovation track. In addition, Mark proposes to
introduce new colors in the innovation track to frame ideas that have been handed over for
further development:
“So since last time, […] there's a new color added to this pipeline. It's now in blue setting handovers
thank you for that Richard. Having that as a clarification when you reach this handover to the product
review board or the product, customer product care project.” (Mark, director of the innovation team,
Innovation Forum)
Here visual interactions between Mark, the team and the visual artefact representing the
innovation track frame the emergent time boundaries of the ideas in the innovation process.
The blue color is associated with the handover moment, the end of life of the idea in the
innovation track.
10
Phase 3: innovation as a never ending visual dialogue
In the last phase, Mark and the management team participating in the innovation forum
continues updating and re-visualizing the innovation track. During September 2023
Innovation Forum he remarks that the innovation track has arrived at its 12th iteration, where
also a new color was added (Violet) to frame when the ideas where ready to exit the
innovation track. Surprisingly, Elias argues that in his view “It might be that in the future the
funnel [the innovation track] would be reset. In addition, he asks rhetorically what the
purpose of the innovation forum might be.” (Elias from Innovation Forum September 2023)
He states clearly that the direction and structure of the innovation track remains uncertain and
emergent. Therefore, it might be that they will decide to reset and restart the innovation track
in the future. During Winter 2023 and beginning of 2024, the team acts as if ideas hand over
was an emergent temporal boundary that they would need to discuss and frame in every
Innovation Forum. In fact, the visual dialogue framing the innovation track continues at every
In summary, during the first phase the team starts using artefacts and visual
interactions framing and fixing the newly proposed innovation track. However, during the
second phase they realize that the innovation track deviates from a fixed framing to a
dynamic one, based on visual and aesthetic interactions. In the third phase, the team embraces
the process and develops an emergent visual dialogue to continuously frame and reframe the
innovation track.
11
CONTRIBUTIONS
Our research provides a nuanced account of the evolving relationship between organizational
framing (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014) and sensory-driven interactions extending framing
theories and recognizing the role of aesthetics in organizational processes (Baldessarelli et al.,
mechanisms (Austin et al., 2018; Kim, 2021). We think this work could contribute to the
climate crises challenging present organizational assumptions (Dodd et al., 2023; Johnsen et
al., 2018).
12
References
Austin, R., Hjorth, D., & Hessel, S. (2018). How Aesthetics and Economy Become
https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840617736940
Baldessarelli, G., Stigliani, I., & Elsbach, K. D. (2022). The Aesthetic Dimension of
217–257. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2020.0198
Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing Processes and Social Movements: An
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.611
https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122418759679
Cornelissen, J. P., Mantere, S., & Vaara, E. (2014). The Contraction of Meaning: The
https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12073
Framing and Frame Analysis across the Management and Organizational Literature.
https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.875669
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Robinson, R. E. (1990). The Art of Seeing: An Interpretation of the
Aesthetic Encounter.
13
Dodd, S., Anderson, A., & Jack, S. (2023). “Let them not make me a stone”—Repositioning
https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2020.1867734
Gilbert, C. G. (2006). Change in the Presence of Residual Fit: Can Competing Frames
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0160
Helin, J., Hernes, T., Hjorth, D., & Holt, R. (2014). The Oxford handbook of process
Johnsen, C. G., Olaison, L., & Sørensen, B. M. (2018). Put Your Style at Stake: A New Use
https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840617717551
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, Values, and Frames. American Psychologist,
39(4), 341–350.
Khaire, M., & Wadhwani, R. D. (2010). Changing Landscapes: The Construction of Meaning
https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839220986464
14
Klein, J., & Amis, J. M. (2021). The Dynamics of Framing: Image, Emotion, and the
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.0510
Latour, B. (2004). How to Talk About the Body? The Normative Dimension of Science
https://doi.org/10.1177/1357034X04042943
Meyer, M. A., Cross, J. E., & Byrne, Z. S. (2016). Frame Decoupling for Organizational
Orlikowski, W. J., & Gash, D. C. (1994). Technological frames: Making sense of information
207. https://doi.org/10.1145/196734.196745
Pendleton-Jullian, A., & Brown, J. (2018). Design Unbound: Designing for Emergence in a
Raffaelli, R., Glynn, M. A., & Tushman, M. (2019). Frame flexibility: The role of cognitive
103–122.
Stigliani, I., & Ravasi, D. (2018). The Shaping of Form: Exploring Designers’ Use of
https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840618759813
15
Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory Construction in Qualitative Research: From
https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275112457914
Verganti, R., Dell’Era, C., & Swan, K. S. (2021). Design thinking: Critical analysis and future
https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12610
Walsh, J. P. (1995). Managerial and Organizational Cognition: Notes from a Trip Down
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.3.280
Whittle, A., Vaara, E., & Maitlis, S. (2023). The Role of Language in Organizational
https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063221147295
16
Figure 1: Pictures of a Beta Bag (Top) and Alpha Port (Bottom)
17
Table 1: Data collection summary
Source Data
18