Why so Serious? Theorising Playful Model-Driven Group Decision Support with Situated Affectivity

Cognitive niches (e.g. Sterelny 2010) are environmental adaptations brought about by agents who seek to engineer environmental supports that augment their cognitive abilities for living a knowledge-intensive, socially interdependent society (DeVore and Tooby 1987). Affective niches are “instances of organism-environment couplings (mutual influences) that enable the realization of specific affective states” (Colombetti and Krueger 2015). Given that cognition and emotion are so intimately intertwined, we can refer to an integrated account of these intentionally brought about environmental adaptations as cognitive–affective niches. The concept of niche construction is based on the view that individual representational systems are part of a larger representational environment and that “reasoning about the causal structure of the world, cooperating with other individuals, and sharing [...] knowledge and negotiating [...] agreements via language” (Pinker 2010) are processes that can be sustained, amplified or dampened by actively modifying one’s environment to transform problem spaces in ways that enhance problem solving.

The theory of situated affectivity expresses the idea that cognitive processes are intimately linked to the complex and often antagonistic feelings in groups and individuals. As such, affect can be seen as “a form of social action, both in the ways in which it achieves social ends collectively, and in the ways in which collective meaning shapes individual experience” (Boehner et al. 2007). This creates the potential for shared affective bonds that may extend beyond organisational boundaries or disagreements between group members during model-driven GDS interventions. Situated affectivity thus suggests that we are studying complex co-construction processes of organisms and environments (Slaby 2016a, b). In this view, the communication of judgements, requests for specific responses and the coordination of joint action are influenced by adaptive processes of affective action (Krueger 2015; Griffiths and Scarantino 2009; Wilutzky 2015). Features of our environment are seen to drive and partially constitute emotions with cognitive processes arising from an agent’s active engagements with the environment through their body, thus lifting the barrier between body and cognition (Blackman 2012). In a matter of degrees, some emotions may even be said to be constituted by external resources so that they could be said to spread out beyond brain and body and might be socially extended and shared by multiple agents (Krueger and Szanto 2016). These new developments with the focus on situated affectivity, affective energies and creative motion, characterise cognitive–affective performance by movement and process (Blackman 2012) (Table 1).

The situated affectivity lens (Table 1) proposes that human emotions are best understood as active engagements with the world and not, as ‘traditional’ philosophy of emotion proposes, as passively undergone experiences (Slaby and Wüschner 2014; Maiese 2016). Thus, we can view model-driven in-situ performance in model-driven GDS interventions as arising from the spatio-temporal weaving of resources in an active process of cognitive–affective niche construction, thereby allowing for idiosyncratic performances between groups in the same GDS intervention to co-exist. Consequently, we also cannot explain performance in OR without references to the entwining between affective, cognitive and behavioural aspects of collective practice. Creative modelling processes, and in particular rich pictures as used in some soft OR interventions, might serve as affective-cognitive scaffolding. Symbol systems, including such as those used in group model building interventions, constitute powerful representational resources, which are resources not just for an individual cognizer considered in isolation, but are sustained through collective social practices; this is what renders them collective representational resources in the first place (Gelfert 2015). In interacting with external artefacts, through processes of internalisation, we learn to think in terms of those systems including language, number systems and diagrams (Menary 2010; Heersmink 2017). As such, the situated affectivity perspective brings our attention to the material effects of collective resources such as language, diagrammatic methods and notational rules (Gelfert 2015), or—in the case of material models—conventions regarding the use and manipulation of the constituent parts, such as the procedural aspects set out in model-driven GDS modelling methods. As such, the surrounding workshop environment, as it undergoes active material and social manipulation by the participants appears to have a central causal role in the construction and expression of affective states. Not only are our brains’ representational properties transformed in interaction with cognitive artefacts, but so are our embodied interactive skills and the affective framing (Slaby 2016a, b; Maiese 2016). Therefore, the situated affectivity lens seems to be promising for a micro-process approach to model-driven GDS practice with the aim to understand how jointly shared responsibility may be achieved for a decision supported my several decision makers (Arnott and Pervan 2005), who need to feel a sense of ownership to enact the decisions after the intervention (Perry 2013).

Originating in theories of developmental psychology of dyadic or small group learning (e.g. Bruner 1990; Vygotsky 1997), the concept of “scaffolding” has been increasingly used to refer to physical, cognitive and social augmentations of cognition, “augmentations that allow us to achieve some goal that would otherwise be beyond us” (Clark and Chalmers 1998). In the context of organisational development, collaborative work is accomplished through the integration of multiple scaffolds, including material and symbolic resources (e.g. objects, language, artefacts), spatial contexts, and institutional rules, social processes, and cultural norms (Weick 1995; Hutchins 1995; Orlikowski 2007; Gordon and Georg 2015), “all of which structure human activity by supporting and guiding it, while at the same time configuring and disciplining it” (Orlikowski 2005). Affective scaffolding (Colombetti and Krueger 2015) refers to processes of ‘situation modification’ (Stephan 2012) when we actively structure the environment to influence our emotional well-being and affective states in an ongoing way. Scaffolds in the environment are not just part of a background, but rather have a central causal role in bringing about cognitive–affective capacities (Maiese 2016). In affective niches, by virtue of scaffolded affectivity, further cognitive capacities can be developed (Maiese 2016). The emphasis on agentic engagement with the world makes this theory thus particularly interesting for the study of creative model-driven GDS which aims to engage participants in the active construction of a shared future plan for action (Eden 1995; Taket and White 2000).

Our vignette is drawn from a model-driven GDS intervention that took place in an urban planning context (cf. White et al. 2016). The vignette illustrates a humorous play frame (Coates 2007) which occurred during the modelling phases of the GDS intervention and was triggered by conversational processes related to interrogating the relationships between the post-it notes that had been previously added to the flipchart models. The entire frame takes 30 s to play out, with the humorous micro-moment taking 3 s to perform, and forms part of an iterative model building process, instantiating the interweaving between process and content (Checkland and Winter 2005). The topic of conversation is the experienced difficulty of establishing trust-based relationships with market-led developers in order to advance community engagement and sustainable novel energy technologies (Fig. 2).

The micro-moment, followed by laughter, shows a participant who is using his body as a resource to enact the pictorial maxim of the three wise monkeys (Fig. 3), which forms part of our shared cultural repertoire, to communicate his disapproval of the behaviour of commercial developers turning a blind eye to attempts to achieve an integrated ‘green development’ for the entire zone.

Through humour, a critical viewpoint is advanced in a ‘permissible’ manner without causing outright offence or possibility of direct retaliation/refutation, as Jesters have the right to speak ‘truth’ to (institutional(ised)) power. The laughter, shared by at least two other group members, that follows his performance constitutes a form of mutual acknowledgement of the felt lack of control and influence over market-driven developers and thereby lends support to the participant (Fig. 4).

In laughing together, a moment of intimacy is created as some of the other participants acknowledge that they recognise his understanding of the problem—not only conceptually but intimately (Crowe et al. 2017). This helps to inform the next action by the group, i.e. to agree on the allocation of coloured scoring points to the model (Davis et al. 2010) to prioritise the allocation of resources—emotional and cognitive—in a conceptual format by adding scoring points to the flipchart model for relevant processes. In consequence, affect performed in-situ can be said to have influenced the plan for action beyond the workshop. This is explored in more detail in the following sub-sections, considering verbal and non-verbal affect as practical action, reciprocity, social scaffolding and embodied engagement.

In sum, the vignette has illustrated the intertwining of materiality beyond the model (e.g. bodies), instruments beyond the tools provided (e.g. linguistic patterns) and interaction rituals beyond the model-driven GDS script (making fun to move the conversation forward) (Rossner 2011). However, rather than being random or the product of individual differences, the sequence and flow of these interactions appear patterned—in our example by a humorous play frame with a shared focus on conversational rhythm-illustrating how the collective regulation of action in-situ draws on collective cultural resources. Thus, the micro-moment illustrates how situated affectivity can be constitutive of effective model-driven GDS interventions, by connecting participants and creating common experiences that shape shared feelings and social cognition.

The perspective of situated affectivity is being advanced by philosophers of cognitive science, drawing on the philosophy of biology (Sterelny 2010) and, at times on sociological theories and phenomenology. However, much work remains to be done in systematically linking debates within philosophy on socially extended and collective emotions (León et al. 2017). One particularly interesting aspect is the question what attracts people to one another in play and why we play together. Obvious connecting theories from developmental psychology include work by Vygotsky (White et al. 2016), given the shared interest in socio-cultural scaffolding processes. The efficacy of model-driven GDS as organised (play)(work) might then be explained by their benefits for intellectual and social development (Vygotsky 1980) and the role in personal creativity (Isen 1999; Sandelands 2010). Moreover, theories of practice may be of interest to study the normative aspect of interactions and materialities (Bourdieu 1990). Practice theorists talk about the “feel for the game”(Bourdieu 1990; Nicolini et al. 2003; Gherardi 2009) and the “emotional habitus”, that is, internalized and internally structuring mechanism of managing one’s own and influencing others’ emotions. Considering the interest in scaffolding meaningful work through purposeful modelling interventions, the workshop’s inner dynamics, tensions, and movement toward completion could be explored further (Sandelmans 2010). Lastly, considering recent theoretical developments in management science, the theory might well inform research on ‘serious gaming’ with virtually situated affectivity in distributed organisations.

Many of the outcomes of model-driven GDS interventions are thought to be ‘invisible’ process changes such as “a ‘conscious appreciation’ of growth in shared perceptions and orientations, of unresolved problems, of other organisational cultures and personal styles, constraints and pressures and others, and shared ways of working” (Friend and Hickling 1987). Such qualitative, cognitive–affective changes of aesthetic value (Taket and White 2000, p. 238) might be insightfully studied with a micro-process lens on situated affectivity, as illustrated by the vignette in which we paid attention to micro-shifts in individual views that occurred during model-driven GDS. To proceed, we need research methods that facilitate an inquiry into the dynamic instantiation of connections between the cognitive, affective and behavioural aspects during specific GDS interventions and that enable us to conceptualise the properties which arise such interactive processes (Belland 2011). The importance of ethnography with its long history of successfully studying complex social processes is thus highlighted. Authentic data such as recordings of face-to-face interactions are needed and video recordings in ‘natural’ settings appear useful to capture OR practice. Whilst our vignette has only served to briefly illustrate the lens of situated affectivity, adequate methods of analysis may include discourse analysis, conversation analysis, activity-based-communication analysis, and interactional sociolinguistics (Koeszegi and Vetschera 2010; Norrick 2010; Martinovsky 2015a). Specifically, more detailed studies that analyse group conversations as multi-modal and complex phenomena (Kress 2009) and illuminate the sharing of modes across participants and settings would be valuable. As a layer upon the multimodal analysis lies metaphoricity (Cameron and Deignan 2006; Jensen and Cuffari 2014)—the potentially metaphorical language used to scaffold the knowledge sharing and negotiation (Greve 2017). Moreover, critical approaches inspired by cultural studies scholars (Blackman 2012) and discourse studies (Wodak and Meyer 2015) may help to understand how processes of meaning making by individuals and groups are interwoven with their being-as-historical-subjects within structuring and structurating processes (Slaby 2016a, b). Relatedly, situated affective micro-politics in face-to-face interactions still need to be understood better (Mühlhoff 2016) so that the performative use of social collective resources, such as humour, and contributions of technology-enhanced group decision structuring settings, such as the relative anonymity of each participant’s contributions during the decision process, can be jointly studied through an integrative lens (Ackermann and Eden 1994). From the point of view of affective niche construction and situated affectivity such micro-level approaches should help us to characterise practices of group decision co-construction more precisely, emphasising the role of distinctive affective processes situated in the socio-material playground of model-driven GDS.

The aspect of apprenticeship for self-facilitation of model-driven group decision support requires further attention. Affective practices may well be learned through gradual ‘pickup of lore’, both through formal demonstration and playful trial-and-error experiment (Sterelny 2012). Thus the perspective of situated affectivity draws attention to processes of learning how to scaffold effective group discussions over time, thereby contributing to the original idea of model-driven GDS as upskilling (Rosenhead and Thunhurst 1982). The apprenticeship aspect also leads to considerations regarding intervention design as a multi-method activity. If we accept that (i) emotional commitment is fundamental to successful model-driven GDS (Eden and Ackermann 2013), and we accept (ii) that our vignette of the humorous play frame illustrates the co-construction of a shared emotional understanding of a problematic aspect of the ‘wicked problem situation’, and we accept that (iii) this shared understanding was to a significant degree accomplished through non-verbal and bodily performance, then we have to confront the possibility that increasing technology-support in model-driven GDS, for example through personal computers in pursuit of greater efficiency of idea generation, may come at the expense of substantial opportunities for complex—interpersonal affective scaffolding of group decisions. This should be a consideration at least in the sense that sequential multi-(method) approaches iterating between low- and high-tech tools (cf. Ackermann and Eden 1994) or a more seamless integration of high-tech tools (e.g. interactive tabletops) could be developed further.

Moreover, alternative interpretations of the micro-moment could be offered, particularly if the researchers’ epistemological interest was the context-specific content of the exchange and its relationship with the wider discourse on urban sustainability, rather than a micro-processual understanding of the mechanisms by which affect matters in its unfolding in-situ. For example, as any sustainable urban development project has to hold the tension between environmental, social and economic goals, it would possible to consider how these interests are reflected in and possibly how they animate the documented exchange. Particularly promising theoretical lenses for such considerations are activity theory (White et al. 2016), the sensemaking perspective and the Mangle of practice (White et al. 2015). Such theorising could be pursued in conjunction with the consideration of situated affectivity to understand how affect, cognition and behaviour are intertwined in-situ. However, as our focus of this paper is to demonstrate the value of the lens of situated affectivity for the often under-theorised dimension of affect in-situ, we view such zooming out (Nicolini 2009) of the micro-moment as an area for future development.

Finally, the practitioner-facilitator might be particularly interested in practical insights arising from the perspective of situated affectivity for their role as an enabler of positive playful micro-moments. Having zoomed in on an illustrative micro-moment, we have left supportive micro-interventions by the facilitator out of the play frame. Future research may, however, pay greater attention to micro-moments between participants and facilitators through the lens of situated affectivity. Here, we hope that it may suffice to suggest that engaged facilitators who mix, modify, match and multiply (Taket and White 2000, p. 96) the ‘toys’ that have been developed over time for group decision support in a manner that considers flexibility, fairness, forthrightness and focus (Taket and White 2000, p. 146) may hope to do approximately right (White and Taket 1997)—and in this sense might even permit themselves to bring their sense of humour into play(work).