Transformative agency: The challenges of sustainability in a long chain of double stimulation

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 4 (2015) 37–47

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lcsi

Transformative agency: The challenges of sustainability in a long chain of double stimulation Arja Haapasaari ⁎, Hannele Kerosuo Centre for Research on Activity, Development, and Learning (CRADLE), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Available online 6 August 2014 Keywords: Activity theory Double stimulation Formative intervention Sustainability Transformative agency

a b s t r a c t The sustainability of innovations and transformations in organizations requires the participation and involvement of all parties. This paper addresses the question of the sustainability of participants' transformative agency in a work unit. The sustainability of transformative agency can easily be diminished by activities becoming routine-like after a formative intervention ends. However, can employees maintain and develop their transformative agency by sustaining the principle of double stimulation initially used in the formative intervention? In this paper a qualitative analysis of double stimulation and the method of analyzing discursive expressions of transformative agency are integrated to look at the sustainability of transformative agency. The double stimulation setting emerged as a process during which the employees constructed the first stimulus explicating the need for participatory development of their work activity. The second stimulus was constructed in a longitudinal process of designing a meeting practice with the help of material artifacts and instruments. The continuous use of the second stimulus enabled the sustainability of transformative agency. Based on our findings we suggest that it is possible to sustain transformative agency when employees, with the help of a durable yet flexible second stimulus, persistently keep identifying problems and constructing means to solve their problems after the formative intervention. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Transformative agency manifests itself when practitioners solve conflicts and disturbances during the development of their local activity and work practices. A Change Laboratory (CL) is an intervention method that supports the formation of the transformative agency of the participants (Engeström, 2007; Virkkunen & Newnham, 2013). Although the emergence of transformative agency in CL interventions has been examined (e.g., Engeström, 2011; Haapasaari, Engeström, & Kerosuo, 2014), its sustainability has not been studied. What happens to transformative agency after a Change Laboratory, when work practices are developed as part of people's daily work without the special support provided by an interventionist? In this study, the question of sustainability relates to long chains of double stimulation embedded in organizational activities. We examine the sustainability of transformative agency during the follow-up phase of a CL intervention, asking specifically how double stimulation can support the maintenance and evolution of transformative agency. The CL intervention method is based on the principle of double stimulation developed by Vygotsky (1997a; for a reconstruction of Vygotsky's idea, see Sannino, 2014). In experimental studies, Vygotsky (1997a) used double stimulation in relatively restricted forms, as a method to investigate problem-solving process in relatively structured situations in which neutral second stimuli were turned into auxiliary means to solve a problem. Unlike Vygotsky's experiments, we apply the principle of double stimulation in the context

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +358 403535944. E-mail address: arja.haapasaari@helsinki.fi (A. Haapasaari).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2014.07.006 2210-6561/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

38

A. Haapasaari, H. Kerosuo / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 4 (2015) 37–47

of everyday work (also Engeström, Kajamaa & Nummijoki, 2015–in this issue). Also, while Vygotsky focused on the development of individuals, we take the collective perspective of a work group to examine double stimulation. We conducted a CL intervention during the winter of 2010–2011 in a work unit at the Itella Corporation in Finland. Itella is a service company specializing in information and product flow management. The challenges the company and the employees have to meet include ever-tougher requirements for productivity and changes caused by the increasing role of e-commerce. The participants of the CL considered it an opportunity to participate in developing their work activity. During the CL they developed their current ways of working, activated former well-tried practices and invented totally new solutions. Examples of implementation included the introduction of a whiteboard to allow rapid exchange of information and the construction of solution diaries in order to share experiences in solving problematic cases at work (Haapasaari et al., 2014). After the intensive intervention, we carried out a lengthy follow-up that extended over the course of one year. During the CL intervention, the members of the work unit had been able to contribute to changes at work and had created the competence to solve problems in challenging work situations. They learned to reflect on their work practices and problems and to resolve them by explicating new possibilities and envisioning new models of the activity. However, due to large-scale organizational changes in the corporation the employees feared that they would not be able to participate and develop their work practices in the future. A conflict of motives between the practitioners' desire to continue participating in their work development and the experienced pressure to focus on efficient execution of routines emerged when the resources of the outside interventionist were not anymore available. We consider this conflict of motives as the central challenge and driving force for the continued development of work practices after the CL intervention had ended. In Fig. 1, we present our working hypothesis of the structure of double stimulation in our follow-up data. The vertical lightning-shaped arrow in Fig. 1 represents the conflict of motives. The experience and challenge of continuous development (the box on the left) represent the first stimulus explicated by the employees. We want to examine whether and in what ways the employees created and used a second stimulus to break out from the problematic situation when the return to routines was becoming a risk to the sustainability and nurturing of transformative agency. The possible second stimulus is depicted as a question mark in the box on the right in Fig. 1. Our research questions are: (1) Did the employees construct a second stimulus and if they did, what was it and how was it used? (2) Was the employees' transformative agency sustained and if it was, can this be explained with the help of the principle of double stimulation? We use cultural–historical activity theory, especially the concepts of transformative agency and double stimulation, as our framework in the analysis. In the following sections, we first present the conceptual framework of the study. We then describe the data and the methods of the analysis. After that, we present our findings concerning the research questions. Finally, we discuss our findings and present our conclusions about the sustainability of transformative agency in a long chain of double stimulation. 2. The theoretical framework of the study The theoretical framework for studying the sustainability of transformative agency is based on cultural–historical activity theory. The central concepts of the study are transformative agency, double stimulation, agentive actions and sustainability. Transformative agency has been defined as “breaking away from the given frame of action and taking the initiative to transform it” (Virkkunen, 2006, p. 49). This type of agency is thus manifested in examining conflicts, disturbances and contradictions in local activity and work practices, envisioning new developmental potential and taking actions to transform the activity. Transformative agency goes beyond the individual and situational events as it emerges and evolves in collective interaction over time (Engeström, Sannino, & Virkkunen, 2014). The principle of double stimulation is foundational for interventions aimed at eliciting new, expansive forms of agency (Engeström, 2007). In Change Laboratory interventions, the participants are initially presented with evidence, often in the form of

Fig. 1. The hypothesized structure of double stimulation in the meetings following the Change Laboratory intervention.

A. Haapasaari, H. Kerosuo / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 4 (2015) 37–47

39

video-recorded incidents, of recurring disturbances and breakdowns in their work activity. This “mirror material” represents the first stimulus. Conceptual models such as the triangular diagram representing an activity system (Engeström, 1987, p. 78) are introduced to the participants as potential second stimuli. The appropriation of an artifact as a second stimulus requires the participants' active effort and deliberate decision (Engeström, 2011, p. 604). Thus, the participants commonly construct their own models and devices that complement or replace the models offered by the interventionists. The second stimulus is thus a specific, situationally effective mediating device filled with specific content and future-oriented intentionality by the participants. At its best, the second stimulus enables the participants to take the volitional actions to break out and transform the situation and to construct novel solutions. Vygotsky's concept of volitional action is essential for understanding the developmental potential of double stimulation (Engeström, 2011; Sannino, 2011). According to Vygotsky, the mediated nature of human will is manifested in the person's attempts to control his or her own behavior and thus to change the environment by means of external artifacts. “The person, using the power of things or stimuli, controls his own behaviour through them, grouping them, putting them together, sorting them. In other words, the great uniqueness of the will consists of man having no power over his own behaviour other than the power that things have over his behaviour. But man subjects to himself the power of things over behaviour, makes them serve his own purposes and controls that power as his wants. He changes the environment with his external activity and in this way affects his own behaviour, subjecting it to his own authority.” [Vygotsky, 1997a, p. 212] Vygotsky's general concept of volitional action has been specified in studies of formative interventions (e.g., Engeström, 2011; Haapasaari et al., 2014). In CL interventions, transformative agency is realized through agentive actions that evolve from resistance and criticism toward consequential change actions. The six actions we have identified are (Haapasaari et al., 2014): – – – – – –

Resisting the management or the interventionist Criticizing the current activity and highlighting the need for change Explicating new possibilities or potentials in the activity Envisioning new patterns or models of the activity Committing to specific actions aimed at changing the activity Taking the consequential actions needed to change the activity.

The concept of sustainability has been approached from several theoretical viewpoints. Economic and environmental aspects of sustainable development have recently been expanded to include issues of organizational and educational sustainabilities (Jabareen, 2008; Nocon, 2004; Wals & Schwarzin, 2012). Sustainability is seen as a collaborative, communicative, creative and continuing process (Nocon, 2004). For an innovation to become sustainable, the strong involvement and participation of all parties is required during its implementation. The participants have to have opportunities to communicate and to express their needs, concerns as well as suggest potential solutions to their problems. Wals and Schwarzin (2012) also highlight the need for dialogical interaction in fostering organizational sustainability. On the other hand, mere open-ended dialog is not sufficient. Sustainability involves also the stabilization of innovations and novel practices into materially anchored tools and rules. 3. The setting and the data collection We conducted a CL intervention in a work unit at one of the sorting centers of the Itella Corporation in Finland during the winter of 2010–2011. The work unit is part of a larger community, which consists of customer service departments and other sorting centers. The role of the employees is to handle deviations that may occur during the sorting process at the sorting center or in any other phase of the delivery process in the company. Thus, the work consists of solving problems in the routinized processes of sorting and delivery. During the intensive CL intervention and the follow-up period, the employees developed their work practices and implemented new tools to improve communication and work efficiency at the work unit. The follow-up extended over a period of one year during which major organizational changes also took place in the work unit. Because of these changes the employees feared that they would lose the opportunities to participate in the development of their work practices that resulted from the CL intervention. There was a risk that the employees might return to their normal work routine, which would not include participatory development of their work after the CL. In a follow-up meeting in September 2011, seven months after the CL had ended, the participants discussed the organization of team meetings. They actively brought up their desire to participate in the planning and development of their work and negotiated potential ways to improve their participation. As a result, a new way of having team meetings was outlined together with their supervisors. This marked a shift from follow-up meetings to regular – but newly designed – team meetings. The first author of this paper participated in four follow-up meetings and in ten team meetings during the follow-up period. Her role was not anymore to act as an interventionist but to follow and document how the transformative agency of the participants was or was not sustained after the CL intervention. She also interviewed the participants and gathered the documents related to the meetings. The dates and duration of the follow-up meetings and team meetings as well as an indication of the presence of supervisors in the meetings are presented in Table 1. The data analyzed in this paper were collected by following ten team meetings during October 2011–March 2012. These meetings are indicated in italics in Table 1. Moreover, the data from the follow-up meeting held on September 23, prior to the first team meeting, was included in the data analyzed in this paper. The team meetings and the follow-up meeting were audio-recorded. The length of

40

A. Haapasaari, H. Kerosuo / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 4 (2015) 37–47

Table 1 Meetings held during the follow-up period. Meeting

Date

Duration

Supervisor at present

Audio recorded

Follow-up meeting

9.3.1011 14.4.2011 21.4.2011 23.9.2011 13.10.2011 20.10.2011 27.10.2011 4.11.2011 10.11.2011 17.11.2011 24.11.2011 1.12.2011 8.12.2011 15.12.2011 22.12.2011 5.1.2012 12.1.2012 26.1.2012 2.2.2012 16.2.2012 23.2.2012 1.3.2012 8.3.1012 15.3.2012

1:12 0:58 0:48 1:36 0:54 0:41

x x

x x x x x x

Team meeting

x x x

0:35 1:01 0:39 0:15

x

x x x x

0:32 0:31

x

x x

0:45

x

x

0:48

x x

x

the team meetings varied from 15 min to 1 h and 1 min. The data were transcribed verbatim. The transcripts contain a total of 7746 speaking turns. In the next section we describe the methods used in the analysis of the data. 4. Methods of analysis In what follows, a qualitative analysis of double stimulation is integrated with the method of identifying discursive expressions of transformative agency (Engeström, 2011; Haapasaari et al., 2014; Sannino, 2008). The method of identifying discursive expressions of transformative agency operates with six basic types of agentive action: resisting, criticizing, explicating, envisioning, committing, and taking consequential action. We analyzed the relative frequencies of and interplay between the different types of agentive action in the formation and use of the second stimulus during the follow-up period of the CL. We used the speaking turn as unit of analysis in the study. The speaking turns were carefully examined and coded according to the six types of expressions of transformative agency to be able to get an overall picture of their emergence and evolution during the follow-up period. There were 1446 expressions of transformative agency in the transcribed discourse. Team meetings in which problems and conflicts arising from work are discussed are potential sites for actions of transformative agency. Thus the number of expressions of transformative agency was relatively high in our data. The components of an activity system (Engeström, 1987, p. 78), namely subject, object, instruments, community, rules, and division of labor, offer a way to classify the contents of discourse in the meetings. In real activity, these components are in dynamic interplay with one another. Taking into account the risk that the systemic nature of the activity might fall apart, the components of the activity system were used as a classification framework in the analysis of the topical contents of the discourse in the meetings. The analysis made it possible to compare the types of agentive actions and topics of discussions in the CL intervention and its follow-up period. The longitudinal character of our data is a particular methodological opportunity. The long follow-up period allowed us to search for peaks and low points in the evolution of production of expressions of transformative agency. The peaks and low points were identified on the basis of the numerical data concerning the frequencies of expressions of transformative agency and the turns of talk related to the different topics discussed in the meetings. The peaks and low points were then subjected to closer qualitative analysis. 5. The formation and use of the second stimulus in the meetings Our first research question is: Did the participants construct a second stimulus and if they did, what was it like and how was it used in the meetings? In this section, we describe the creation and use of the second stimulus during the team meetings. 5.1. The formation of the second stimulus During the summer of 2011 and especially in the follow-up meeting on September 23, the employees complained that there had not been regular team meetings. They expressed their view that such meetings were essential for information sharing and that they wanted to participate in decision-making and in the development of work practices. This challenge of continuous development

A. Haapasaari, H. Kerosuo / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 4 (2015) 37–47

41

represents the first stimulus that the employees expressed in the follow-up meeting (recall Fig. 1). The following excerpts, in which the corresponding types of expression of transformative agency are indicated in italics, illustrate this conflict of motives and the employees' desire to participate in decision-making and in the development of their work practices. In Excerpt 1 the lack of meetings is criticized and having team meetings is considered self-evident. As a result of the discussion, the employees and the supervisors agreed that the employees would be responsible for the organization and running of their weekly team meetings (Excerpt 2). The supervisors would attend the meetings when invited by the employees and they would receive the memos of the meeting. Excerpt 1 (September 23, 2011, turns 467–470)Kate: To my mind, it is self-evident that we should have meetings. We do not have meetings at all. (Criticizing)Supervisor: Well, as we said …Kate: It is quite a big issue. (Criticizing)Supervisor: Yes, yes, it is! It is a big issue for all of us. Excerpt 2 (September 23, 2011, turns 511–513)Mary: I would say that there are issues, which we would like to get information about, and issues of decision on which [we want to have influence]. (Explicating)Susan: We want to influence. (Explicating) Mary: We want to influence [on decision making] and participate [in development of work practices], and preparation. Well, that now … what happens to the letters and loose goods. We would like to participate in decision-making, preparation and so forth. (Explicating) Vygotsky (1997b) refers to the tying of a knot an example related to the function of memorizing. Other examples include throwing a dice and counting to three as well as materials such as papers, strings and playing blocks used in experiments. In Change Laboratories, both the first and second stimuli tend to evolve and change as the intervention proceeds. Engeström (2011) analyzes the construction of the second stimulus as a long and laborious process that was initially formulated in relatively vague terms. Engeström suggests that an effective second stimulus (1) “is actively constructed by the participants”, (2) “requires that an ambiguous and often quite skeletal or sketchy artifact is step-by-step filled with increasingly rich meaning”, (3) “has to take the shape of a relatively stable material representation that can serve as an ‘anchoring device’” and (4) “is constructed for the purpose of dealing with the challenge of the contradiction manifested by the first stimulus” (p. 621). In our case, the team meeting itself became the second stimulus that enabled the participants to deal with the challenge of continuous development. The idea of the meeting developed during the design phase of the meeting practices in the follow-up meeting on September 23 and in the first team meeting on October 13. The design of the meeting was realized through a process in which the agenda of the meeting with a series of other artifacts played an important role as material representatives of the meeting practices. The participants appropriated the template that the supervisor had earlier used in the creation of the meeting agenda. However, they modified it to meet their current needs. The template contained the following topics: minutes of the previous meeting, main actions during the current week, to-do list, and other issues. Additionally, the team members placed a plain sheet of paper on the wall in the open-plan office so that people could suggest and write down on it the issues they wanted to discuss in the meetings, and it was the chair's responsibility to include the issues in the meeting agenda. Besides the sheet on the wall, the list of employees' names served as a materialization of the second stimulus. It was agreed that the chairing of the meetings would rotate between the participants, and a list of names would be used for this purpose. The chair had a key role in presenting issues on the agenda. Additionally, chairing a meeting was a new skill that required learning among the team members. Thus, it was important that all the participants would take turns in chairing the discussion. Furthermore, the minutes of the meetings represented the second stimulus. They served as a memory device to inform the supervisors and absent team members about the issues discussed and about the development of ideas and decisions made during a meeting. The minutes also became a tool for constructing the agenda for the next meeting. In effect,

Fig. 2. The structure of double stimulation in the meeting on October 13.

42

A. Haapasaari, H. Kerosuo / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 4 (2015) 37–47

the memorandum and the sheet on the wall together comprised the agenda for the following meeting. Fig. 2 illustrates how the construction of the first stimulus and the second stimulus supported the sustainability of the transformative agency in the meeting. The employees created a team meeting practice that enabled them to participate in the development of their work. The agenda, the paper on the wall, the list of the names for organizing the rotation of the chair, and the minutes of the meeting were constructed by the employees as the second stimulus, a complex instrumentality to enable the sustainability of the transformative agency after the CL had ended. 5.2. The use of the second stimulus The challenge in the execution phase of the second stimulus was that the participants had to rebuild it over and over again in every team meeting. It was not a tool that, once created, would remain the same. After the creation of the team meeting practice artifacts representing the second stimulus, they were modified during the forthcoming meetings. Next we present our findings of the evolution of the second stimulus and how the evolution of the second stimulus was connected to the re-construction of the first stimulus. The second stimulus materialized in the development of the agenda of the meeting. The agenda, based on a template, was developed according to the needs of the participants throughout the follow-up period. For example, because the information about the tools and materials needed by the participants in their work activity had to be given to the supervisor (first stimulus) a new topic was added to the agenda in the meeting and a new artifact, that is, a check-list (second stimulus) was adopted on October 20. In the meeting on November 24, another new topic, a task rotation, was added to the agenda. The task rotation had already been discussed in the CL and re-configured during the follow-up period in the work unit. A new model for the task rotation was introduced in the meeting on November 24 and added to the agenda (re-configuration of the second stimulus) in order to be followed-up in the meetings. Furthermore, two new topics were added to the agenda in the beginning of March. The efficiency of the operations was vital in the production, and the tools that enabled the following-up of efficiency were important (first stimulus). A new metrics enabling the follow-up of the service level had also been created for the work unit and this topic was added to the agenda in the meeting on March 1 (re-configuration of the second stimulus). In the meeting on March 8, the participants added another new topic to the agenda (re-configuration of the second stimulus). This topic concerned the organization and planning of the work activities and duties to be carried out the following week. The chair took care that the agenda was followed and that the topics on the agenda were discussed. During the first meetings there were not many topics on the agenda and thus the topic called “other issues” was given all the time that was needed. This topic enabled the participants to raise various current issues, which they wanted to discuss in the meeting. When the supervisors attended the meetings they often took up issues outside the agenda under the topic “other issues.” Even though the number of permanent topics increased, the number of “other issues” did not decrease during the follow-up period. Going through issues under the topic “other issues” occupied a large part of the meetings. It was evident that the participants needed a forum where they could relatively spontaneously present and solve problems arising from their work activity. The supervisors participated in the meetings when they had announcements or instructions that the employees were required to obey, when they wanted to elaborate on something, or when the employees had questions for them that required a face-to-face discussion. The participation of the supervisors is shown in Table 1. The supervisors engaged the employees in the joint development of issues arising in particular from the community. The employees' role as consultants for the supervisors was very clear in the meeting on November 24, when the participants discussed cooperation in the community. The sheet of paper on the wall was an important part of the second stimulus. As it was always in sight, it reminded the participants about the opportunity to put down problems and development ideas as well as other issues that they wanted to be discussed. Thus, the paper clearly supported the transformative agency of the participants. Excerpts 3 and 4 illustrate how the sheet of paper on the wall was used as a second stimulus to reach a solution that was then put into practice, thereby implementing changes in the work practice. In Excerpt 3, a problem concerning trolleys for damaged parcels at place 11 is discussed. In Excerpt 4 it is agreed that the solution will be entered in the minutes in order to inform the supervisors and any absent team members. Excerpt 3 (November 17, 2011, turns 181–184)Chair: Someone has put down [on the paper on the wall] “place 11 trolleys”. Can he or she explain what this means?Mike: Didn't [Laura write it].Susan: Yes [she did].Laura: Well, I wrote it. I was wondering along with Kate and Susan, about the fact that you have put lots of goods on the trolleys at place 11, but the trolleys are still there. (Criticizing) Excerpt 4 (November 17, 2011, turns 273–275)Peter: Perhaps it [the solution to the problem] should be entered in the minutes.Susan: The one in the evening shift takes [the goods to place 11]. (Explicating)Peter: Well, that he or she takes [the goods] there [to place 11] at around half past nine. This is how we achieve the target of the day. Furthermore, he or she has to check that no changes have been made there [in the production system] at the last minute. (Explicating)

The minutes were also an important part of the second stimulus. This can be clearly seen in Excerpt 4. The minutes were most often co-authored by the participants during the meeting even though it was the chair's responsibility to type up the minutes and send them to the supervisors and any absent team members. During the meetings the participants discussed whether an issue should be entered in the minutes and sometimes they clearly asked the chair to enter an issue in the minutes. The chair also asked the others whether he or she should enter an issue in the minutes.

A. Haapasaari, H. Kerosuo / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 4 (2015) 37–47

43

The fact that the employees encountered problems at work fostered the sustainability of transformative agency. While discussing problems, they remodeled the second stimulus. Thus, the second stimulus was a generative toolkit to be used during the meetings.

6. Longitudinal analysis of expressions of transformative agency Our second research question is: Was the employees' transformative agency sustained and if it was, can this be explained with the help of the principle of double stimulation? In order to answer this research question we calculated the number of expressions of transformative agency in the total number of speaking turns. We also calculated the frequencies of appearance of different topics in the expressions of transformative agency Table 2 shows that the expressions of transformative agency composed more than 12% of the speaking turns in practically all meetings during the follow-up period. The meeting on January 26 is the only exception, with 8.43%. In three meetings, namely October 13, November 24 and February 23, the expressions of transformative agency compose over 20% of all the speaking turns. The highest number of expressions of transformative agency occurred in the first meeting chaired by the employees on October 13. We will return to these high and low points in our analysis of the long chain of double stimulation in Section 7. In this section, we present and discuss our findings on the types and the topics of the expressions of transformative agency in the meetings. 6.1. The types of transformative agency The most frequent types of expressions of transformative agency in our data were criticizing and explicating. Resisting was low as well as commitments to take an action and taking an action. The number of expressions that envisioned something was moderate with some high points in the overall curve. Table 2 shows that expressions of criticizing and explicating evolved well in line with one another. This trend indicates that the participants considered the meetings as opportunities to participate in the development of work activity by criticizing and highlighting issues to be changed and by explicating new possibilities and potentials in the activity. A similar predominance of criticizing and explicating was also discovered in the findings concerning the CL intervention itself (Haapasaari et al., 2014). The numbers of expressions of committing to take actions and reporting that the actions had been realized are low in the data. These results indicate that actual decision-making did not often take place in the meetings but required the acceptance of the supervisor. As the employees chaired the meetings and the supervisors did not attend every team meeting, the decision-making was not always possible in the meetings and was dealt with in between the meetings.

6.2. Topics of expressions of transformative agency The components of the activity system were used as the classification framework to analyze the topical contents of the discourse in the meetings. The numbers of discussion topics connected to the expressions of transformative agency are presented in Table 3. The discussion topics most frequently connected to expressions of transformative agency were the object, the tools and the community of the activity system. The subject and the division of labor were not discussed as frequently as the other three topics. This is a notable change compared to the CL intervention in which the subject was the most frequent discussion topic in the expressions of transformative agency. There were 1098 expressions of transformative agency during the CL, and the number of expressions of transformative agency focused on the subject was 288, which was 26% of all the expressions of transformative agency (Haapasaari et al., 2014). However, the subject and the tools were the most frequent topics at the beginning of the period, in the follow-up meeting on September 23. During that meeting the knowledge and expertise of the employees, the communication between the employees in the work unit as well as the implementation of the solutions and actions agreed on in the CL were discussed. These findings indicate that the participants initially elaborated the challenges and problems related to themselves as the subjects of the activity system and that they turned the spotlight on the object and the shared tools of the activity later, during the team meetings. Table 2 Evolution of the distribution of types of expression of transformative agency during the follow-up period. Meeting

Resisting %

Criticizing %

Explicating %

Envisioning %

Committing to actions %

Taking actions %

Expressions of agency total %

No expressions of agency %

All turns total %

23.9.11 13.10.11 20.10.11 17.11.11 24.11.11 1.12.11 8.12.11 26.1.12 2.2.12 23.2.12 8.3.12

2.01 0.30 0.16 2.09 2.79 1.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.74

5.72 12.92 8.28 5.62 10.50 8.31 6.10 4.22 7.29 12.61 5.77

6.84 8.97 1.56 6.90 6.84 2.87 5.16 3.01 5.46 7.52 5.92

3.71 6.08 2.03 0.48 1.06 0.60 5.16 0.80 0.73 0.24 3.55

0.82 1.37 0.16 0.64 0.58 0.60 0.94 0.00 0.18 0.36 1.33

1.04 1.37 0.78 0.16 0.48 1.06 0.94 0.40 0.73 0.97 0.59

20.13 31.00 12.97 15.89 22.25 14.80 18.31 8.43 14.39 21.70 17.90

79.87 69.00 87.03 84.11 77.75 85.20 81.69 91.57 85.61 78.30 82.10

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

44

A. Haapasaari, H. Kerosuo / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 4 (2015) 37–47

Table 3 Evolution of the distribution of topics of expressions of transformative agency during the follow-up period. Meeting

Subject of the activity system %

Object of the activity system %

Tools in the activity system %

Rules in the activity system %

Community of the activity system %

Division of labor %

Expressions of agency total %

No expressions of agency %

All turns total %

23.9.11 13.10.11 20.10.11 17.11.11 24.11.11 1.12.11 8.12.11 26.1.12 2.2.12 23.2.12 8.3.12

6.17 1.06 0.00 0.48 0.19 0.60 1.88 1.20 0.18 3.88 0.44

2.53 6.99 8.59 10.75 9.15 4.23 9.39 2.41 3.10 8.00 4.73

6.91 14.89 3.13 1.44 1.45 7.85 5.16 0.00 4.55 6.79 7.69

1.49 6.53 0.47 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.67 0.00 0.78 1.93 5.39 1.66 0.00 4.22 4.74 2.91 4.44

2.38 1.52 0.00 1.28 5.78 0.45 1.88 0.60 1.82 0.12 0.59

20.13 31.00 12.97 15.89 22.25 14.80 18.31 8.43 14.39 21.70 17.90

79.87 69.00 87.03 84.11 77.75 85.20 81.69 91.57 85.61 78.30 82.10

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

The rules of the activity system evoked expressions of transformative agency especially in the follow-up meeting and in the first team meeting, when the participants agreed on the rules and procedures for their joint team meetings. In the later meetings the participants hardly produced expressions of transformative agency concerning the rules at all. Table 3 shows that although the object and the tools dominated the discussion topics when the data is taken as a whole, topics related to the community had the highest frequency in two successive meetings, namely January 26 and February 2. This is an interesting finding to which we return in the next section. To be able to answer our second research question we selected the high and low points in the evolution of expressions of transformative agency for a qualitative analysis of double stimulation. We examine these peaks and low points in the next section.

7. Double stimulation at peaks and low points in the meetings Our analysis is based on a longitudinal examination of expressions of transformative agency over the course of the follow-up period. Therefore, it was possible to identify high and low points in the evolution of expressions of transformative agency over a lengthy period. By selecting these points for more detailed analysis, we try to find out whether and in which ways the mechanism of double stimulation supported transformative agency. The first high point took place in the first team meeting on October 13; this was a meeting largely devoted to the design of the meeting itself as a second stimulus and we have already covered it in the preceding section. After this initial design phase, the first high point may be identified in the meeting on November 24, with expressions of transformative agency comprising 22.25% of all the speaking turns. The supervisors participated in this meeting and brought up several topics that were not on the agenda. These topics were related to the object, the tools, the community and the division of labor in the work unit. These topics triggered a lively discussion among the employees, and the expressions of resisting, criticizing and explicating reached high levels. The following excerpt illustrates a critical conflict, the development of task rotation in the work unit. The handling of dangerous goods was one of the tasks that needed to be rotated but the task was not a full-time job (first stimulus). By criticizing and explicating new possibilities the participants developed a list for task rotation (second stimulus).

Fig. 3. The structure of double stimulation in the meeting on November 24.

A. Haapasaari, H. Kerosuo / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 4 (2015) 37–47

45

Excerpt 5 (November 24, 2011, turns 432–440)Chair: It [handling of dangerous goods] varies a lot from day to day. It varies very much. (Criticizing)Supervisor: Well, if it takes only a little time, it can be dropped off and something else added instead. (Explicating)Peter: But it would be good to write down [on the task list] … Not only write slash something. (Explicating)Supervisor: Sorting [of the parcels]. (Explicating)Chair: Sorting [of the parcels]. Yes, it is good! It is good! (Explicating)Peter: Well, we could write down it [sorting of the parcels] then. (Explicating)Supervisor: There could be sorting for the whole day. (Explicating) Chair: Yes.Peter: Exactly! The employees also developed ideas that they had written on the sheet of paper on the wall. The meeting practices concerning decision-making were further developed as well. Fig. 3 depicts the dynamics between the first stimulus, the second stimulus and the transformative agency in this meeting. In Fig. 3, the use of the sheet of paper on the wall (second stimulus) supports the transformative agency of the team members by providing an opportunity to participate in the development of issues arising from the work activity as expressed in the first stimulus. The low point in the evolution of expressions of transformative agency was the meeting on January 26, with only 8.43% of the speaking turns representing expressions of transformative agency. Evidently the mechanism of double stimulation did not work here so well as in the other meetings. Besides the permanent topics, the participants discussed issues written on the sheet of paper on the wall. However, there were fewer issues on the sheet than in the other meetings. The issues were related to the object and the community of the work activity. As shown in Table 3, the participants highlighted problems in collaboration with other units in the company (community), but there were relatively few other topics of expressions of transformative agency. However, solutions to the problems were out of the reach of the participants. They would have required joint efforts of the supervisors and the relevant other organizational units. This realization of the relative powerlessness of the team acting alone is reflected in Fig. 4. As shown in Fig. 4, the employees discussed topics related to the problems that needed to be developed with members of the community (first stimulus), but the tools available in the meeting as the second stimulus were not powerful enough to meet the need. Representatives of other units of the company community did not participate in the team meetings and it was the supervisors' responsibility to communicate the problems and development ideas to them. The risk of the second stimulus in supporting transformative agency was that it was a tool for the work unit only, and could not easily help in problems that involved the wider company community. The second high point in the evolution of expressions of transformative agency emerged in the meeting on February 23, with expressions of transformative agency comprising 21.70% of all the speaking turns. The participants highlighted issues to be developed in the current activity. They analyzed and redesigned their work practices. The criticism focused not only on the object of the activity but on how tasks should be performed. Most of the issues were added to the agenda by using the sheet of paper on the wall but some were taken up during the meeting. The issues were related to the tools, the object, the subject and the community. Most of the issues were resolved in the meeting. Besides the permanent topics and the development of ideas, participants also delivered some information to the other participants. Excerpt 6 serves as an example of information sharing between the participants. One of the team members had written instructions on the paper on the wall about how to handle the goods of a certain client. She explained the instructions and the chair entered the topic in the minutes. Excerpt 6 (February 23, 2012, turns 367–370)Susan: I have put down a couple of issues here [on the sheet of paper on the wall].Chair: Yes.Susan: We have received some information from a client. They [a client] wish that if there will be more of these [certain products] in the future, we will send them to this address.Chair: Ok, yes. As shown in Fig. 5, the second stimulus supported the transformative agency in the meeting.

Fig. 4. The structure of double stimulation in the meeting on January 26.

46

A. Haapasaari, H. Kerosuo / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 4 (2015) 37–47

Fig. 5. The structure of double stimulation in the meeting on February 23.

At this point, the participants still developed the contents of the minutes of meetings by implementing a separate form to be used as a checklist. In the meeting on October 20, it had been decided to make the checklist a permanent feature of the agenda, but it needed further development as there were breaks in the distribution of the materials. By criticizing the delivery of the goods and by suggesting new options the participants resolved the problem. Excerpt 7 illustrates how the checklist as part of the agenda and of the second stimulus was used to highlight a problem, and how the participants reached a solution that was put into practice. Excerpt 7 (February 23, 2012, turns 603–611)Kate: Don't you take them [materials to be ordered] from these [checklists in the minutes]? (Criticizing)Supervisor: Not necessarily always.Mary: I sent the checklist a couple of weeks ago. (Criticizing)Supervisor: Well, I order [materials] for the other units as well.Kate: I see. But we have entered the checklist in the minutes. (Criticizing) Mary: We agreed that we would enter this in the minutes. (Criticizing)Susan: Yes, we agreed on that in a meeting. (Criticizing) Supervisor: Well, when you enter the checklist in the minutes will you also copy and paste it on the front page [of the minutes]. (Explicating)Kate: Ok. Yes. To summarize, the team meetings served as a forum where topical information could be shared and problems and challenges arising from the daily work were highlighted and developed. The improvements were either small practical solutions or bigger changes in work practices, and they focused mainly on the object and the tools of the work activity. For example, the participants made the handling of parcels more effective by merging phases in the process, developing ways of working and implementing new tools and forms. Furthermore, issues related to the division of labor, the community, the rules and the subject were also developed. The participants improved the distribution of the workload and enhanced their knowledge and expertise by implementing task rotation. The first stimulus, the need for continuous improvement, was visible in the speaking turns. In the two high points the participants' transformative agency was strong and they developed the activity by resolving work-related problems. In the low point, the second stimulus was not effective enough to meet the needs related to problems in relation to the wider company community. 8. Discussion and conclusions In this article, we have presented the findings of an analysis of the sustainability of employees' transformative agency during a follow-up period after a CL intervention. In the analysis we have integrated the methodology of identifying discursive expressions of transformative agency with a qualitative analysis of double stimulation. By utilizing these methods it has been possible to examine transformative agency and how it can be supported by a second stimulus created by the participants of a work unit. The double stimulation mechanism was constructed in two phases. In the first design phase, the employees experienced the need and desire to be active participants in the continuous development of their work (see Section 5). Bringing up these experiences constituted the first stimulus. To break out of the challenging situation the employees in our study created a new team-meeting practice that enabled them to participate in the development of their work. Engeström (2007, 2011) points out that mediating artifacts often take the shape of constellations or instrumentalities of various tools. The design of the team-meeting practice also included a constellation of artifacts and their related uses such as the agenda, the sheet of paper on the wall, the list of employees' names, and the minutes of meetings. This tool constellation represented the second stimulus in the double stimulation setting. In the second, execution phase of the double stimulation, the challenge was to sustain the agentive actions of the employees. Activity becoming routine-like created a risk to the sustainability of transformative agency. However, the participants developed their meeting practices by putting new topics on the agenda and the first and second stimuli were continuously reconfigured. The sheet of paper on the wall was an important part of the agenda, as the participants put current issues on it to be discussed in the meetings.

A. Haapasaari, H. Kerosuo / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 4 (2015) 37–47

47

Meeting practices were not created only once; instead, the employees developed them during the entire follow-up period. The efforts of the employees to create and develop the second stimulus also maintained their transformative agency. The sustainability of transformative agency was a continuing process. The employees succeeded in maintaining their transformative agency by means of double stimulation. However, the sustaining was not smooth and linear. There were two peaks and a low point in the evolution of the employees' transformative agency during the follow-up period. Additionally, the means created for the second stimulus were not powerful enough to support transformative agency in issues that required negotiations with other work units or the wider company community. To be an effective second stimulus, a team-meeting practice in a work unit should also be open to the community outside the team and enable negotiations beyond the boundaries of the team (Engeström, Engeström, & Kärkkäinen, 1995; Kerosuo & Engeström, 2003). However, by providing the opportunity to have team meetings chaired by the employees the supervisors engaged the employees in the development work and hence supported transformative agency at work. It seems that the connection between volition and conflicts of motives, understood as a process of controlling one's own behavior in the Vygotskian sense (Sannino, 2014) became an important aspect of sustaining transformative agency in our study. Volition played an important role in the construction of the first stimulus and in the configuration of the second stimulus during the entire follow-up period. The conflict of motives was embedded in the employees' desire to participate in the continuous development of their work practices and in the fear of losing opportunities to be active developers under the pressures of routinization in their changing organization after the CL intervention. The successful re-configuring of meeting practices can be considered an application of the principle of double stimulation (Sannino, 2011, pp. 584-585; Sannino, 2014), which fostered the sustainability of transformative agency in our case. However, instead of being an explicit principle implemented by deliberate design, it became a practice constituted by the active participation of the employees in the development of their work. Acknowledgments We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and helpful suggestions that strengthened this paper. Special thanks go to Professor Yrjö Engeström for his invaluable guidance and support in the development of this paper. We are grateful to the practitioners at the Itella Corporation, who by participating in the Change Laboratory intervention and in the meetings that followed it made the writing of this paper possible. References Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit. Engeström, Y. (2007). Putting Vygotsky to work: The change laboratory as an application of double stimulation. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 363–382). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Engeström, Y. (2011). From design experiments to formative interventions. Theory & Psychology, 21(5), 598–628. Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., & Kärkkäinen, M. (1995). Polycontextuality and boundary crossing in expert cognition: Learning and problem solving in complex work activities. Learning and Instruction, 5(4), 319–336. Engeström, Y., Kajamaa, A., & Nummijoki, J. (2015). Double stimulation in everyday work: Critical encounters between home care workers and their elderly clients. Learning, Culture, and Social Interaction, 4, 48–61 (in this issue). Engeström, Y., Sannino, A., & Virkkunen, J. (2014b). On the methodological demands of formative interventions. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 21(2), 118–128. Haapasaari, A., Engeström, Y., & Kerosuo, H. (2014s). The emergence of learners' transformative agency in a change laboratory intervention. Journal of Education and Work. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2014.900168 (in press). Jabareen, Y. (2008). A new conceptual framework for sustainable development. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 10(2), 179–192. Kerosuo, H., & Engeström, Y. (2003). Boundary crossing and learning in creation of new work practice. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15(7/8), 345–351. Nocon, H. D. (2004). Sustainability as process: Community education and expansive collaborative activity. Educational Policy, 18(5), 710–732. Sannino, A. (2008). From talk to action: Experiencing interlocution in developmental interventions. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 15(3), 234–257. Sannino, A. (2011). Activity theory as an activist and interventionist theory. Theory & Psychology, 21(5), 571–597. Sannino, A. (2014). The principle of double stimulation: A path to volitional action. Learning, Culture, and Social Interaction (submitted for publication). Virkkunen, J. (2006). Dilemmas in building shared transformative agency. Activités revue électronique, 3(1), 43–66. Virkkunen, J., & Newnham, D. S. (2013). The Change Laboratory: A tool for collaborative development of work and education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Vygotsky, L. S. (1997a). The history of development of higher mental functions, Chapter 12: Self-control. In R. W. Rieber (Ed.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky, Vol. 4: The history of the development of higher mental functions (pp. 207–219). New York: Plenum. Vygotsky, L. S. (1997b). The history of development of higher mental functions, Chapter 2: Research method. In R. W. Rieber (Ed.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky, Vol. 4: The history of the development of higher mental functions (pp. 27–63). New York: Plenum. Wals, A. E., & Schwarzin, L. (2012). Fostering organizational sustainability through dialogical interaction. The Learning Organization, 19(1), 11–27.