PLAY YOUR STRENGTHS

®

WITH LEGO®

2010

SCIENTIFIC WHITE PAPER This white paper covers the background and theoretical grounding of the Play Your Strengths® tool as well as introducing the method of Play Your Strengths®

Play Your Strengths® with LEGO®

CONTENT CONTENT ............................................................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................... 3 BACKGROUND AND THEORETICAL GROUNDING ............................................................. 3 Narratives and metaphors...................................................................................................................... 3 Benefits of the Strengths Based Approach .......................................................................................... 4 Building Things – Building Strengths...................................................................................................... 5 THE PLAY YOUR STRENGTHS® METHOD ............................................................................ 5 Appreciative Inquiry ................................................................................................................................ 6 LEGO® Serious Play® ............................................................................................................................ 6 The VIA Classification of Character Strengths .................................................................................... 7 MORE INFORMATION ......................................................................................................... 9 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 10

Page 1

Play Your Strengths® with LEGO®

INTRODUCTION People are generally modest and reluctant to talk about their strengths and when asked “What is Your Strength” in an interview most people feel slightly awkward and tend to rely on formulaic answers designed to create a positive impression and improve their prospects of interview success. This reluctance to talk about one’s strengths is reflected in many areas from management to psychology, where strengths have been the subject of very little systematic empirical research and more or less left for grasp by anyone who wanted to speak about human potential. (A. Linley, 2008) However with a method like appreciative inquiry and advent of positive psychology, this is has now changed. Not that those individuals suddenly enjoy speaking about strengths, but that the idea of a more focused approach to strengths is beneficial. Over the last 10 years a growing number of peer reviewed journals have explored the benefits of living a life more aligned with your personal strengths and numerous research findings indicate benefits from general well-being, lower stress, more resilience and better performance at work. (Govindji & Linley, 2007) Focus from many key researcher including the referenced Alex Linley to notables in positive psychology like Martin E.P. Seligman and from business Marcus Buckingham, focus has very much been on creating a catalogue of strengths and a method to assess these strengths. This has been good and the psychometrics of these assessment tools are generally very high (P. Linley & Joseph, 2004) However little focus has been directed towards methods of strengths exploration that includes the complexity of everyday life considering that most people live and work and thus play and experience life in co-operation with others – be it their family, friends or co-workers. Furthermore little effort has been put into creating method for strengths exploration that rely less on assessment and more on personal experience. In Play Your Strengths™ LEGO® bricks are combined with a theoretical foundation from strengths psychology, appreciative inquiry, play and elements of narrative psychology. Participants build LEGO® models of their strengths, and share stories through interacting with the models. Play Your Strengths™ is based on the notion that lasting and usable knowledge of one’s strengths is likely to happen through a thorough construction process not a quick labelling process. Through this construction process one builds a strong scaffold of knowledge regarding, using Linley’s (2009), definition, pre-existing capacities for a particular way of behaving, thinking or feeling that is authentic and energizing.

Page 2

Play Your Strengths® with LEGO®

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The idea to create a strengths workshop based on appreciative inquiry and LEGO® Serious Play® was formed by Mads Bab, partner in the Scandinavian consultancy intenz A/S. Being an experienced consultant and executive coach, Mads is a practitioner holding a MSc in Applied Positive Psychology. Mads wanted to create a fun, highly engaging and repeatable workshop concept to ensure an effective and memorable strengths discovery workshop. After the initial idea was formed a group of individuals developed the first version of the Play Your Strengths® workshop. Without the insights and expertise from this group the process would not have been as strong as it is. The group consisted of the following individuals: • Nic Malcomson, Consultant, London, United Kingdom • Prof. Dr. Marina Fiedler, Prof. of management, People and Information, Passau, Germany • Prof. Dr. Lars Fend, Professor of Business Management, Munich, Germany • Louise Møller Nielsen, Master in HR and Learning, Copenhagen, Denmark • Charlotte Wienmann, HR Specialist, Copenhagen, Denmark • Angelica Mueller, Investor Relations, London, United Kingdom Besides the individuals above, acknowledgements are also due to Mr. Robert Rasmussen of Robert Rasmussen and Associates for valuable sparring. Robert Rasmussen is the co-creator of the LEGO® Serious Play® process and today a popular facilitator of LEGO® Serious Play®.

BACKGROUND AND THEORETICAL GROUNDING Narratives and metaphors The fundamental idea behind the strengths approach is that we get more of what we focus on and that cultivation of our best selves creates the foundation for a life of well-being. (M. Seligman, 2002). In recent years social constructionists have argued that we make sense of our lives, strong sides and weaker sides, in terms of stories. (Bauer, McAdams, & Pals, 2008; Gauntlett, 2002; McAdams, 1996) and as part of these stories we use metaphors as meaning makers (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). According to this narrative approach understanding our identity demands that we understand our life stories. “If you want to know me, then you must know my story, for my story defines who I am. And if I want to know myself, to gain insight into the meaning of my own life, then I, too, must come to know my own story. I must come to see in all its particulars the narrative of the self – the personal myth – that I have tacitly, even unconsciously, composed over

Page 3

Play Your Strengths® with LEGO®

the course of my life. It is a story I continue to revise, and tell to myself (and sometimes to other) as I go on living.” (McAdams, 1996) It can be argued that in order to understand our strengths we need to understand the strength-stories and strengths-metaphors that we have consciously and unconsciously composed over our lives. This will allow us using, Lakhoff’s and Johnson’s (1980) words, “to more thoroughly understand how we draw inferences, set goals, make commitments, and execute plans”, but in this case on the basis of our strengths.

Character strengths The idea of character strengths, being about “the good life” falls into the domain of eudaimonic wellbeing (M. Seligman, 2002). Seen in relation to narratives, (Bauer, et al., 2008) found that people at high levels of eudaimonic well-being tend to emphasize personal growth in their life stories, with different kinds of personal growth corresponding to different facets of eudaimonic well-being. A focus on strengths is in its core a positive approach to understanding personality. When your attention is directed to your own strengths or the strengths of another person, you are almost sure to be positive in your approach. Because focusing on your strengths requires that you pay attention to your most positive characteristics. (Peterson & Seligman, 2004).

Benefits of the Strengths Based Approach It is found that people with a higher usage of their strengths report higher subjective well-being and fulfilment in life. (Govindji & Linley, 2007; Proctor, Maltby, & Linley, 2009). People who use their strengths in a new and different way every day also report higher levels of subjective well-being as well as lower levels of depression. (M. E. P. Seligman, Steen, Park, & Peterson, 2005). Seligman et al. (2005) also show that these findings last over time. Using strengths more also results in higher levels of self-efficacy, self-esteem, positive energy and vitality. (Govindji & Linley, 2007; Proctor, et al., 2009). Furthermore it is shown that when people align their strengths with goals they are much more likely to achieve their goals. And when achieved they tended to be happier and more fulfilled with the result. (P. Linley, Nielsen, Wood, Gillett, & Biswas-Diener) It is not only in the private domains of life where it seems relevant to use strengths more – the same counts for work. The Corporate Leadership Council (2002) analysed organizations in 29 countries and found that in teams where managers emphasised performance strengths, performance was 36% higher and when personality strengths were emphasized performance was 21% higher. Using strengths at work is measured by the Gallup organization worldwide through the employee engagement item “At work, you have the opportunity to do what you do best every day”. In their analysis this single item is the strongest predictor of customer

Page 4

Play Your Strengths® with LEGO®

satisfaction, profit, productivity, turn over and employee safety. (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002) The reason for this increased business performance may lie in the findings that show that people who use their strengths are more effective at developing themselves and growing as individuals. Most likely because they focus more on their strong sides than on their weak sides (Sheldon, Kasser, Smith, & Share, 2002). Even though these approaches to strengths differ in scope and purpose they all share one common denominator – the belief that playing to strengths is beneficial for psychological well-being. On this presumption a range of research has been carried on the benefits of playing more to your strengths. Summing up this research (P. Linley & S. Harrington, 2006) argue that a major reason for organisations to apply a strength approach is because strengths can now easily be defined and measured and, what is more important, they give the individual an opportunity for optimal functioning and performance through ones natural capacity.

Building Things – Building Strengths Seymour Papert explores how we construct knowledge in theories of learning and knowledge construction. Papert argues that learning happens especially fast when the learner is consciously engaged in constructing a tangible object external of one self – for example with clay or LEGO® bricks. In other words “learning by making” or “thinking with your hands” (Papert & Harel, 1991). Papert further noticed that when people are creating tangible objects, they are in a more engaged state of mind similar to that of Flow. (Papert, 1994) The notion of “learning by making” or “thinking with your hands” draws on the use of play and expressive arts in therapy bringing out insights and learning that pure intellectual reasoning might not have (Ishii & Raffle, 2008; Oliver & Roos, 2007). This appliance of play in a “serious” setting is termed “Serious Play” (J Roos & Victor, 1999). “Serious Play” is, however, not only an idea of applying the theory of play to a “serious” setting but also a method that combines three-dimensional media (LEGO®) with the mode of play to create the context in which informants build models of organizational identity with their hands. Roos’ and Victor’s intention was to help generate, observe and record, rich data about sense making processes surrounding organizational identity. (Oliver & Roos, 2007; Johan Roos, Victor, & Statler, 2004)

THE PLAY YOUR STRENGTHS® METHOD The Play Your Strengths® workshop concept is based on 3 existing and well tested methods.

Page 5

Play Your Strengths® with LEGO®

Appreciative Inquiry

LEGO® Serious Play®

The VIA Classification of character strengths

Appreciative Inquiry Appreciative Inquiry (AI) is a development process that engages individuals towards renewal, change and focused performance. (Cooperrider, Sorensen, Whitney, & Yaeger, 2000) The basic idea of AI which is also the fundamental behind the Play Your Strengths® workshop is to build development around what works, i.e. strengths, rather than trying to fix what does not. It is the opposite of problem solving. Instead of focusing on gaps and inadequacies to remediate skills or practices, AI focuses on how to create more of the exceptional performance that is occurring when a core of strengths is aligned. It opens the door to a universe of possibilities, since the work does not stop when a particular problem is solved but rather focuses on "What is the best we can be?" The approach acknowledges the contribution of individuals, in order to increase trust and group alignment. The method aims to create meaning by drawing from stories of concrete successes and lends itself to cross-industrial social activities (Cooperrider, et al., 2000). Appreciative Inquiry is a particular way of asking questions and envisioning the future that fosters positive relationships and builds on the basic goodness in a person, a situation, or an organization. In so doing, it enhances a system's capacity for collaboration and change. The Play Your Strengths® workshop is based on the 4 steps in the AI process, Discover, Dream, Design and Destiny (Deploy in this case).

LEGO® Serious Play® Even though LEGO® is a toy it is also a structured, concrete and systematic construction material. And while play is usually fun, it is seldom, if ever, frivolous. Play can be defined as a limited, structured, and voluntary activity that involves the imaginary. That is, it is an activity limited in time and space, structured by rules, conventions, or agreements among the players, unforced by authority figures, and drawing on elements of fantasy and creative imagination. (Gauntlett, 2007)

Page 6

Play Your Strengths® with LEGO®

LEGO® Serious Play® (LSP) is an adult, group oriented facilitation tool developed by the Lego Company in 1999 with assistance by two professors from IMD business school in Lausanne, Johan Roos and Bart Victor who were researching the poor results from traditional strategy development techniques. (J Roos & Victor, 1999; Johan Roos, et al., 2004). LSP combines the use of LEGO® bricks with storytelling to create individual and common understanding of abstract issues like strategy, corporate values, team identity and future business challenges. One of the themes that emerged from the work with LSP over the years is that it helps groups see the entire system they are a part of in order to better prepare for the future. Having a complete picture of the current system, including team roles, relationships, and culture, and by testing the system with specific scenarios, team members gain more confidence, insight, and commitment in dealing with future events. When we humans speak or write about complex issues we inevitably simplify and reduce the amount of information in order to make sense ourselves and bring this learning out into the open. The method is based on science and research that shows that hands-on, minds-on learning produces a deeper, more meaningful understanding of the world and its possibilities - much more so than listening or reading.

The VIA Classification of Character Strengths The VIA Classification identifies 24 character strengths that have been found to be universal – characteristics that define what is best about people. The Classification resulted from a three-year dedicated effort involving 55 noted social scientists. Each of the 24 strengths either meet all or most of the criteria listed below.        

Is ubiquitous, found across cultures and time Is fulfilling Is morally valued in its own right Does not diminish other Has an undesirable opposite Is trait-like, manifesting itself in thoughts, feelings and actions Is measurable Has consensual paragons

One of the strong aspects of the VIA Classification, is that it provides us with a language for strengths. Considering how few people that clearly can articulate their strength and how few organisations have a structured dialogue about strengths a common language is highly needed. The VIA Classification is used as a way of labelling the strengths models built by the participants, so the group more easier can see similarities in strengths even though the stories they tell are very different. The process of labelling goes through 2 rounds. First participants flag their strengths with their own label and share these label to the team. The goal of this step is to boil the longer narratives down to a more clear metaphor or a 1-3 word title. After their own labelling, participants receive a printed set of cards describing each of the VIA strengths. One by one the models are flagged where after a VIA strength is attached to it.

Outline of The LEGO® Serious Play® process The Play Your Strength® process is based on the four steps of appreciative inquiry. These are:

Page 7

Play Your Strengths® with LEGO®

In this first step of the workshop participants build LEGO® models of their strengths identified in situations when thoughts, feelings or actions are most energizing and authentic. Participants:     

Build LEGO® models and amplify accounts of good experiences Affirm good things (by paying attention and appreciating own strengths Create metaphors and stories of strengths and how they are experienced and applied Receive insights and acknowledgements from team members on own strengths Label strengths and align these with the 24 strengths of the VIA classification

In the second step of the workshop participants relate their LEGO® strength models to what they see as the goal of the team. Participants:     

Imagine and build a LEGO® model visualizing a goal the team faces at the moment Interact with and combine LEGO® strength models to examine how own and others strengths relate to the goal Imagine the outcome of enhancing strengths Create an individual and common understanding of goals Create more self-concurrent goals

In the third step of the workshop participants play out a range of likely scenarios using strength models and their relation to the goal of the team. Participants:   

Page 8

Identify strength patterns and pathways to personal success Examine strength combinations by combing own LEGO® strength models and the LEGO® strength models of others Identify and design new ways to apply strengths

Play Your Strengths® with LEGO®

The forth and last step of the workshop is about bringing learning point out of the workshop and into real life by identifying and prioritising concrete actions to be taken immediately. Participants:   

Create personal strengths strategies Create and build a LEGO® model of new strength habit Agree on to-do’s

MORE INFORMATION WWW.PlayYourStrengths.COM

Page 9

Play Your Strengths® with LEGO®

REFERENCES Bauer, J. J., McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2008). Narrative identity and eudaimonic well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(1), 81-104. Buckingham, M., & Clifton, D. (2001). Now, discover your strengths: Simon & Schuster. Burr, V. (1995). An introduction to social constructionism: Routledge. Clifton, D., Anderson, E., & Schreiner, L. (2002). StrengthsQuest: Discover and develop your strengths in academics, career, and beyond. Washington, DC: The Gallup Organization. Drucker, P. F. (2004). What makes an effective executive. Harvard Business Review, 82(6), 58-+. Dweck, C. (2007). Mindset: The new psychology of success: Random House, Inc. Forster, J. (1991). Facilitating positive changes in self-constructions. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 4(3), 281-292. Gardner, H. (1993a). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences: Basic books. Gardner, H. (1993b). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice: Basic Books. Gauntlett, D. (2002). Media, gender and identity: An introduction: Routledge London, UK. Gauntlett, D. (2007). Creative Explorations: New approaches to identities and audiences. Govindji, R., & Linley, P. A. (2007). Strengths use, self-concordance and well-being: Implications for strengths coaching and coaching psychologists. International Coaching Psychology Review, 2(2), 143-153. Haidt, J. (2006). The happiness hypothesis: Basic Books. Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268-279. Ishii, H., & Raffle, H. (2008). Sculpting behavior: a tangible language for hands-on play and learning. Kaiser, R. (2009). The perils of accentuating the positive: Tulsa, OK: Hogan Press. King, L. (2001). The Health Benefits of Writing About Life Goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 798. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by: Chicago London. Linley, A. (2008). Avarage to A+. United Kingdom: CAPP Press. Linley, A. (2008). Average to A+: Realising strengths in yourself and others: Coventry, UK: CAPP Press. Linley, P., & Harrington, S. (2006). Strengths coaching: A potential-guided approach to coaching psychology. International Coaching Psychology Review, 1(1), 37–46. Linley, P., & Joseph, S. (2004). Positive psychology in practice: Wiley. Linley, P., Nielsen, K., Wood, A., Gillett, R., & Biswas-Diener, R. Using Signature Strengths in Pursuit of Goals: Effects on Goal Progress, Need Satisfaction, and Well-being, and Implications for Coaching Psychologists.

Page 10

Play Your Strengths® with LEGO®

Linley, P. A., & Harrington, S. (2006). Playing to your strengths. [Article]. Psychologist, 19(2), 86-89. Linley, P. A., Woolston, L., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2009). Strengths coaching with leaders. International Coaching Psychology Review, 4(1), 37-48. Lopez, S., & Snyder, C. (2003). Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measures: American Psychological Association Washington, DC. Mahoney, M. (2002). Constructivism and positive psychology. Handbook of positive psychology, 745750. McAdams, D. (1996). The stories we live by: Guilford Press New York. McGregor, I., McAdams, D. P., & Little, B. R. (2006). Personal projects, life stories, and happiness: On being true to traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(5), 551-572. Mruk, C. (2006). Self-esteem research, theory, and practice: Toward a positive psychology of selfesteem: Springer Publishing Company. Neimeyer, R. (1998). Social constructionism in the counselling context. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 11(2), 135-149. Oliver, D., & Roos, J. (2007). Beyond text: Constructing organizational identity multimodally. British Journal of Management, 18(4), 342-358. Oliver, D., & Roos, J. (2007). Beyond text: Constructing organizational identity multimodally. British Journal of Management, 18, 342-358. Papert, S. (1994). The children's machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer: Basic Books. Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. Constructionism, 1-11. Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification: Oxford University Press, USA. Proctor, C., Maltby, J., & Linley, P. Strengths Use as a Predictor of Well-Being and Health-Related Quality of Life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1-17. Roberts, L. M., Dutton, J. E., Spreitzer, G. M., Heaphy, E. D., & Quinn, R. E. (2005). Composing the Reflected Best-Self Portrait: Building Pathways for Becoming Extraordinary in Work Organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 712-736. Roos, J., & Victor, B. (1999). Towards a new model of strategy-making as serious play. European Management Journal, 17(4), 348-355. Roos, J., Victor, B., & Statler, M. (2004). Playing Seriously with Strategy. [Article]. Long Range Planning, 37(6), 549-568. Schwartz, B., & Sharpe, K. (2006). Practical wisdom: Aristotle meets positive psychology. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7(3), 377-395. Seligman, M. (2002). Authentic happiness: Free press New York. Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress - Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60(5), 410-421.

Page 11

Play Your Strengths® with LEGO®

Sheldon, K. M., Kasser, T., Smith, K., & Share, T. (2002). Personal goals and psychological growth: Testing an intervention to enhance goal attainment and personality integration. Journal of Personality, 70(1), 531. Singer, J. A. (2004). Narrative Identity and Meaning Making Across the Adult Lifespan: An Introduction. Journal of Personality, 72(3), 437-459. Tracey, M. W., & Richey, R. C. (2007). ID model construction and validation: A multiple intelligences case. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(4), 369-390. Winn, W., & Snyder, D. (1996). Cognitive perspectives in psychology. Handbook of research for educational communications and technology, 112-142. Wong, Y. J. (2006). Strength-centered therapy: A social constructionist, virtues-based psychotherapy. [Article]. Psychotherapy, 43(2), 133-146.

Page 12