**4. Findings**

## *4.1. Overview*

Although the artists who participated in the workshop come from diverse art forms and seemed to be different in their personality in terms of extraversion, there were strong parallels in their individual behaviour. The aspects that appeared with all of them and repeated independently from the individuals at various points in the process can be mapped in two dimensions.

The first dimension represents interaction. Interaction has two levels: on the one hand the interaction with the issue and on the other interaction with fellow players. From an artistic point of view, interaction with the issue is the dialogue with the material out of which an art work arises. In the given context, it refers to handling the task, dealing with ideas and working with media in order to visualize solutions. The interaction with fellow players comprises any behaviour within the group or towards other participants during the process.

The second dimension represents three different aspects of doing. These are perception (information acquisition from the environment), reflection (scrutinizing, comparative consideration) and action (targeted activity including communicative action). In combination with the two levels of interaction, a grid of six categories arises (see Figure 2) the findings are displayed in.

**Figure 2.** Dimensions of artistic behaviour during Art Hacking.

#### *4.2. Findings on Interaction with the Issue*

#### **Category 1.** Interaction with the Issue/Perception

The first category comprises sensory and cognitive perception relating to the issue and to (visualized) ideas, as far as it showed up in observable characteristics or behaviour.

The other participants described the artists as exceptionally alert and sensitive. The artists were observing intensely. However, it was noticeable that they often paused for a moment to take in impressions of the situation. In these minutes, they seemed to be slightly absent, cautious and thoughtful. It was the artists who were the first to perceive the change of the central problem.

The artists had different views and information filters. Whereas artist 1 always tried to see the big picture, artist 4 was attentive about little things. Artist 2 and 3 switched between overview and attention to detail.

#### **Category 2.** Interaction with the Issue/Reflection

The second category includes observations on how the participating artists processed information and sensory impressions and how they penetrated aspects intellectually and emotionally.

All artists handled impulses with unconditional openness. They welcomed every single idea, accepted and recorded it. There was no "No!" to them, no right or wrong. They were wary of premature evaluations or spontaneous refusal and played with the thoughts instead. The artists picked up all ideas and worked with them. Their reflection followed while they were dealing with a proposition.

The artists' behaviour in a field phase is particularly noteworthy. At stage 5 of Art Hacking (showing), the working groups were prompted to obtain feedback from bystanders. Other than the other participants, the artists were not frustrated by negative comments on the draft at all. To them the criticism was important input that made them ge<sup>t</sup> back to work and enabled them to ge<sup>t</sup> closer to a sound solution.

#### *I still have so many questions!* (Artist 2)

Every artist had a strong disposition to scrutiny. The artists enjoyed asking questions and in fact not only with the workshop elements that were meant to explore the core. Each had a different speed in developing questions; Artists 4, the improv player, was in her element and very quick. But all artists alike demonstrated analytical strength while asking prudent, profound questions—especially in stage 2 of Art Hacking (exploration) when it came down to accumulating questions.

The other participants tried to identify limits in order to obey any rule. Analogously: What are we allowed to do and what not? In contrast, queries from artists aimed at a better understanding of facts or the significance of a particular task: What does that mean? The artists scrutinized ideas and pointed out alternative meanings of an approach.

They questioned the meaning of facts and were aware both of different interpretations of reality and of possible consequences of certain views, including the unfavourable ones. All four had a distinct sense of imagery. The two actors (artists 3 and 4) stood out with their efforts to clarify the meaning of terms and state messages more precisely.

#### *I don't like it that way. This is not consistent yet.* (Artist 4)

In the beginning the artists moved away from the supposed problem with their questions and opened up new perspectives. But later on, they repeatedly returned to the core and refined the solution in continuous reflection. In an advanced stage, they asked a genuinely artistic question: Is it consistent? When visualizing ideas and concepts, the artists did not hesitate to scrutinize approaches their fellow players had already agreed upon. Despite (or actually due to) being unfamiliar with specific business problems in their everyday working life, they played the role of neutral observers whose reflection process stimulated reflections with their fellow players.

#### **Category 3.** Interaction with the Issue/Action

The third category accumulates activities with regard to the issue and tasks in the process, respectively. It includes communicative activities like phrasing an idea or commenting on the thoughts of others.

One especially pronounced activity to be observed with the artists was documenting information and ideas. The two actors (artists 3 and 4) did so during the whole process; artist 2 at times. They took notes and made sketches for themselves but recorded for the group as well by visualizing the process and its interim results. Artist 1 worked on the written reminders of his group if they lacked structure.

Apart from that, the artists stood out by their inventiveness. They did not wonder very long but followed their intuition and communicated instant thoughts more often than other participants. Frequently they were the first ones to come forward with a proposal on an assignment. They were not reluctant to express spontaneous ideas nor afraid to dismiss unsuitable ideas after a while.

In general, their ideas were wittier and more original. Other participants commented on this in statements like: "Nobody else would have come up with such an idea." The originality of their thoughts was particularly significant at the task to retrieve ideas they had turned down when they sprang to their minds because of their absurdity. While looking for analogies to the issue, this showed as well. Whereas other participants thought of a retirement home and a university, the artists suggested replacing the child day-care centre with a church, museum or zoo.

The artists were obviously moving beyond common ways of thinking. Given that they constantly changed thinking directions, the atmosphere within the groups relaxed. With unconventional ideas, both on the matter or working process the artists encouraged other players to leave their thought patterns and play with unusual ideas, too.

#### *You will find ideas along the way.* (Artist 2)

The artists took up unpredictable impulses and ideas of others and guided the groups through a gradual process of content related concentration. Not only did they approve other ideas but reinforced them by verbal repetition. They picked up ideas and elaborated them by complementing a point or linking it to their own considerations.

Sometimes the artists consciously tried to distract the others from a certain aspect and open the space of possibilities. Later they led them back to the matter with fresh ideas found on the detour. To avoid getting bogged down in approaches, the artists would only ask questions that would return the search to the core problem from a certain point on.

#### *Is our mission being merely creative or is it being clear and explicit, too?* (Artist 1)

For the artists, reduction was easier than for other participants. They used to structure ideas and interim results and were able to focus discussions and condense them to core ideas with general consensus. They clarified approaches and reduced them to the point, thereby striving to refine the message. The artists acted very process-oriented—and this process never seemed finished. They gave the joint activities momentum with striking statements that expressed their artistic work attitude. In doing so, they assumed the function of role models to others.

#### *4.3. Interim Conclusion on Interaction with the Issue*

#### *Just do it. And later we will look at if it fits.* (Artist 1)

That the behaviour patterns observed in terms of perception, reflection and action are closely linked was especially apparent with creative assignments. The artists did not have a rational approach to such tasks; even in group work, they took action without thinking twice or discussing forms of depiction. For instance, when the participants were asked to visualize the problem with collage technique, all artists literally took matters into their own hands and grabbed some material. Basically, they started with an action followed by perception and appraisal of its effects. This was a strong message to their fellow players.

For the artists, it was important to start doing something and make anything happen—everything else would stem from that. One participant mentioned clearly: "[Artist 2] was not as highbrow as we were. She used to visualize and test the possibilities immediately: How can we do this? She took material in her hands at once, while the others were still talking about how you might do it." The artists approached the tasks consciously and ye<sup>t</sup> playfully without having a plan or a result in mind: "At first glance, it seemed as if [artist 3] had a plan. But she creates something and considers afterwards what it might be".

The artists differed from other participants in not being afraid to make mistakes. Apparently, they did not fear failure, as failure did not have a negative connotation to them. If something did not work out creatively, they patiently checked out other approaches and dealt with barren ideas in a similar way. With many tasks, they had more endurance than other players—all the more even during periods of stagnation.

#### *4.4. Findings on Interaction with Fellow Players*

#### **Category 4.** Interaction with Fellow Players/Perception

Category 4 captures impressions that indicate how the artists perceived personal sensitivities and the joint process.

#### *How do* you *see this?* (Artist 2)

The artists did not only demonstrate their distinct power of observation in dealing with the issue but in dealing with others as well. Participants characterized each of them as empathic. The artists had an open ear for everyone and were able to read between the lines both on a content-related and a personal level. They perceived in which mental state the others in the group were in and reacted to moods that threatened to affect the process, such as overall exhaustion. Artist 2 in particular was attentive when somebody had not participated in the joint work for some time and inquired as to the reason.

#### **Category 5.** Interaction with Fellow Players/Reflection

The fifth category displays in how far the artists reflected on their interplay with others and on cooperation behaviour within the group.

#### *This is not about what* I *want but about exploiting the possibilities.* (Artist 2)

The artists are characterized by the ability to accept offers without prejudice and discrimination towards others. Unless they temporarily withdrew from the joint process, they go<sup>t</sup> involved with their fellow players. It was obvious that they were aware of the prerequisites for successful collaboration including their personal responsibility, because in contrast to other participants they shaped the interchange consciously. In favour of the issue, they forwent dominating the process. However, they subtly took on leadership (see Category 6).

#### *Every idea counts.* (Artist 3)

One element of Art Hacking is having the players define guidelines for good collaboration at stage 1 (attunement). With this task, some artists moderated the discussion actively. In general, the artists gave precedence to the idea over its initiator, thus fostering collaboration at eye level.

Those positive attitudes were in part thwarted by ignorance towards the effects of wayward behaviour. At times, two artists did not meet the expectations and backed out of tasks they did not like. One was aware of her rebellion, while the other was indifferent.

#### **Category 6.** Interaction with Fellow Players/Action

Category 6 is about how the artists acted and communicated with their fellow players.

Other participants described the artists as cautious actors who did not claim a special status for themselves. However, their strong presence and constructive behaviour made them secret leaders. With suitable tasks (object design, role play, etc.), they demonstrated their craft without taking centre stage, dispensing advice that was always supportive and reinforced their leading role. Aside from that, each of the four artists took the lead in their group's work process in a sensitive way. They were always careful with their groups. The others perceived them as of equal rank while simultaneously being in a subtle leadership role.

#### *Now, just be creative!* (Artist 1)

The artists motivated and challenged the others, not imposing their own ideas but stating them as offers, thereby scarcely noticeably pushing their decisions through. Oftentimes, those were first impulses and definitions that would promote the process. However, their target orientation considerably varied—time managemen<sup>t</sup> was only an issue for artist 3. The artists began new stages in the work process, gently determined the direction and set impulses that allowed a change of perspective: "Without [artist 3] the group would have been spinning in a circle, because no one took the lead".

"[Artist 1] was leading and guiding us through the creative process thus steering idea generation." The artists took over moderating every now and then, structured ideas in support of their group or interfered at critical stages. However, they did not go it alone but fed back their suggestions and took the others along. Lastly, they pushed the process forward by asking questions like "What exactly do you want?" or "How would you like to express that?"

If the group was insecure—like with questioning bystanders at stage 5 of Art Hacking (showing)—even those artists who used to be cautious observers in other situations offensively went into a leading role. By springing into action, they absorbed the others' hesitance. The same applies to situations in which the work process stagnated: In periods of crisis the artists took the initiative and drove the process forward with persistence: "When all of us sagged, [artist 1] rearranged our ideas so that there was some new input." The artists took care that the groups did not lose their focus. They fetched the others back to the real issue when they were lost in discussion or drifting away from the current task. "When the group was stuck, [artist 4] tried to bring us back to the problem by asking questions".

#### *4.5. Interim Conclusion on Interaction with Fellow Players*

The artists helped the other players to see possibilities that were not obvious and used several strategies to achieve a change of perspective and to ge<sup>t</sup> the groups going. They reversed ideas, incited to dreaming and "thinking big" or broke out, physically taking their fellow players to other places. During stage 4 of Art Hacking (composition), it was especially apparent that they conveyed their creative power to the groups. When the objects that were meant to symbolize the concept were built, all four artists were very active. After a short discussion about different ideas and methods, they instructed the others while quickly making clear choices.

As empathic process leaders, the artists took the role of primus inter pares. By taking care of their fellow players, they held their groups together. In doing so, they undermined a common prejudice: "Their cautious attitude surprised me. For some reason, I had the notion that artists are extrovert personalities who love to be in the limelight. In general, all four were always there for the collective and open to every proposal."

## **5. Discussion**

Beyond Art Hacking, there is little evidence regarding how artists conduct themselves in arts-based interventions that are about developing approaches for intra-organizational problems and setting an impulse for change. In two cases—in which artists designed and executed the intervention backed by a process leader responsible for the whole arrangement—the artists unfolded three main areas of competence in guiding the process: "technical competence, ... competence to build trust [and,] . . . an open process orientation" [27] (p. 45).

With Art Hacking, there were similar observations. While the artists applied basic craft techniques rather sparingly, they benefited from their special ability in passing through an open-ended, unbiased creative process. They succeeded in contributing to a relaxed situation and had the groups collaborate harmoniously. Whereas their technical advice was less important, their model function became a decisive factor in course of the process. They encouraged the other participants to engage themselves in unfamiliar working methods by demonstrating their artistic attitude, which goes way beyond being able to move in uncertain terrain.

During Art Hacking, the artists followed a course of action that is similar to the one that literature describes as genuinely artistic [28,38,39,48,64,65]. Essentially, the participating artists conducted themselves as if they were working on a piece of art by themselves. As far as generalizable basic attitudes to perception, reflection and action are concerned, they dealt with the assignment in a similar way. They adapted themselves to the situation without assuming the working styles of other participants. In the dimension of interaction with the issue, the artists remained absolutely authentic, thereby supporting the assumption they would use artistic attitudes in the intervention.

The artists met every problem with a positive approach. They did not hang on to any rules in order to obtain assurance but enjoyed facing the uncertain with intense susceptibility and in a proactive way [28,38,39]. Similar to improvisation the artists instantly took up ideas and developed them further. They switched constantly between exploring suggestions and reflection on how they would fit into a concept [48]. Decisions were not balanced rationally but made perceptively, situational and stepwise without having a certain goal in mind [39]. The artists stayed focused on the issue, recognized incoherence and guided the process accordingly. Artists think in a medium, not imposing an idea on the process but finding it by dealing with the material [64] in "a steady change between action and reaction, perception and action, question and answer" [28] (p. 22, translation from German by the author).

The artists had a manifest strength in divergent thinking including fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration [45]. Although the extent of their individual creativity was not tested using methods such as the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking [66], indications of pertinent mental abilities could be observed. The artists came up with a variety of unorthodox thoughts, promoted a change of perspective and organized the details of emerging ideas more often than other participants did. Beyond divergent thinking there were some other indications for creative thinking. These were the artists' sensitivity to the issue as well as their ability to redefine the problem and to look beyond a single functional solution [45]. Research on factors that facilitate visual artists' creativity confirms that insight (selective combination and comparison) as well as divergent thinking are important aspects [65].

Considering creativity not as an expression of personal characteristics but as a process, there are distinctions to be drawn between artistic ways of problem-solving and designerly ways of thinking. The latter are the paragon for Design Thinking, which conveys procedural elements from industrial design such as observation and understanding, draft and refinement to idea generation [67]. In design, the concept determines the action, meaning that the idea is imposed on the process. Designers tend to act solution-oriented without necessarily exploring the whole range of possible approaches. In search for the simplest explanation for a problem, they eliminate obvious options step by step. As prototyping is a way to implement and test preconceived ideas, abstract requirements are translated into concrete objects [68,69]. In terms of logic of cognition, designerly thinking means abductive reasoning without calling the premise into question [70]. Generally, the initial objective is not contested.

In contrast, the artists who were working in the Art Hacking framework applied behaviour patterns that are rooted in artistic labour. Playing with ideas and materials comes before rational judgement and integration into the bigger picture. For an artist, the objects created are media for deeply exploring the issue and developing even seemingly unreasonable solutions. This process seems to evade any logic and allows for expanding the solution space by asking radically different questions [65,71].

In general, artists score high on cognitive characteristics like self-criticism, openness to new experiences and risk-taking [65]. In the fifth stage of the Art Hacking process (showing), the artists were more present than their fellow players. They were comparatively open to critique and took it as a starting point for further development. Along with their willingness to experiment and to accept potential failure this recognition indicates, that the artists' self-conception is flexible in the sense of Dweck's goal orientation theory [72], which has proven useful for explaining the mechanisms of radical innovation.

Artists are said to be motivated by two drivers: either the wish to expose personal expression to an audience or an urge for learning in the course of creation: "artists who long to be seen and heard and artists who long to listen and understand" [73] (p. 70). Although this distinct categorization must be doubted—a continuum seems more appropriate—, there is a promising link to Alexander and van Knippenberg's model of successful team innovation. Among other factors, radical innovation success depends on the team's willingness to prove their performance and on their learning ability. A performance prove orientation designates the desire to demonstrate competence and to receive public recognition, whereas a learning orientation comes to the fore through experimentation and fault tolerance. It is presumed that teams that share these goal orientations will conceive highly innovative ideas [74]. Regarding Art Hacking or other arts-based interventions, the question is if and to what extent the artists succeeded in conveying their mindset to the other participants. This would be a promising area for psychological research.

Whereas the findings on "artistic idea generation" match descriptions of artistic labour, the group dynamics that unfolded during Art Hacking yielded some unexpected results: Every one of the four artists took leadership in their group, although there was no assignment to do so at all. In addition, none of the artists is a leader in their profession—none of them is a director, a choreographer or a conductor. It is no surprise that the two performance artists demonstrated a strong sense of co-creation but the visual artists did just the same although they are not used to working in a group.

While the author moderated the course of the whole workshop thus setting the frame, the artists guided the groups through idea generation. Although participants from different divisions and managemen<sup>t</sup> levels met and despite of presumed differences in the social status between professionals and students, all groups explicitly went for a collaboration at eye level. In fact, the work process was obviously free from any hierarchy. However, the artists took the lead without enjoying a special status. If this coequal collaboration is to be attributed to targeted team building efforts as part of Art Hacking or if it is due to the artists' social skills must remain unanswered at this point.

However, the artists' leading role certainly goes beyond an emotional approach to dealing with uncertainty [27]. Like every other participant, the artists did not know the format in advance. Nevertheless, they were able to deal with the open situation and the creative assignments effortlessly because of their professional experience. They demonstrated aesthetic skills, took the initiative with fluency, encouraged lateral thinking by coming up with original ideas and led the process while stimulating a change of perspective by profound questions. With their ability to structure and reduce the abundant material, they pushed the process towards a convincing solution without having a clearly defined mission. When the groups transferred their concepts into objects, the artists instructed their fellow players. Last but not least, their perseverance in crisis situations pulled the others along. Usually it was the artists who set impulses that allowed for progress.

In a process that was decisively dependent on creativity, their professional attitudes and artistic strategies elevated them to leadership simply because of their expertise. Their good instinct for the dynamics of the process turned them into moderators, pacesetters, facilitators and solicitors for artistic attitudes that the non-artistic workshop leader alone would very probably not have been able to similarly convey.

In Amabile's componential model, individual and group-level creativity respectively depends on three major conditions: domain knowledge, creative skills and intrinsic task motivation [75]. If at all, the artists' intrinsic task motivation was potentially lower compared to other participants, because they were not faced with the initial problem in their professional life. Other than representatives and stakeholders of the organization that presented the problem, none but one of the artists had a direct personal connection to the issue let alone specific knowledge of the field. The artists had to rely on information they received from the participating experts.

This suggests that the artists' informal leading role was primarily based on creative skills they unfolded in the process, namely personal characteristics such as a tolerance for risk, ambiguity and errors as well as cognitive strengths conducive to novel thinking [75]. In turn, this leads to the proposition that in collective idea generation artists overcompensate knowledge gaps by their extraordinary creative skills. From the experts' point of view, professional domain knowledge seems

to be leveraged by artistic abilities and made fruitful for innovative solutions. This effect is a strong indication that artistic abilities can be effectively applied to demands for innovation.

The concept of Art Hacking is based on a premise shared by other proponents of arts-based interventions: artistic ways of working can be transferred to non-artistic settings [8,15,76]. Some studies sugges<sup>t</sup> that it is possible to achieve convincing results for business problems via mere "artistic experimentation" [8] (p. 1516)—that is, by imitating creative techniques without having an artist around. According to subjective impressions of participants in one similar case, they were stepping out of their comfort zones while an innovation-friendly climate developed [18]. Another case shows that organizations can successfully apply artistic practices in their own studio spaces without any personal artistic guidance at all [77]. This is somewhat contrary to the multi-layered leadership position the artists took in Art Hacking. However, the settings are not directly comparable and there is no data on a run of Art Hacking without participating artists yet.

The fact that the artists took the lead in the process refers to research on collective creativity that suggests that leaders are less directive than integrative through dialogue and interaction [78]. Creative leadership is described as "leading others toward the attainment of a creative outcome" [79] (p. 393). In Art Hacking the artists are not just mere facilitators, who foster the creative potential of their followers, or directors, who have others carry out their ideas. Their behaviour falls into a third conceptualization of creative leadership as a combination of facilitation and direction that stresses the creative process as a collaborative effort. This third strand highlights the creative leader as a person who integrates ideas by others with their own [79].

Furthermore, the artists' unexpected leadership qualities can be linked to the concept of "Leadership as Art" [80], which pleads for an integration of artistic skills and attitudes into management. Accordingly, leadership should have an aesthetic dimension that comprises not only cognition and analytical knowledge but implicit knowledge, physical presence and expression through interaction as well. Artful leadership is based on expanded awareness and approves reflection dedicated to the endurance of ambiguity and contradiction [80].

Regarding findings from psychological research on personality, the artists' behaviour during Art Hacking is plausible at least as far as interaction with the issue—or even their willingness to participate—is concerned. Compared to scientists, who explore reality likewise, artists are more open, sensitive, non-conformist and original. Artists are seeking change and are open to experience [81]. It stands to reason to involve them in idea generation, because of their very nature. "By being receptive to different perspectives, ideas, people and situations, open people are able to have at their disposal a wide range of thoughts, feelings and problem-solving strategies, the combination of which may lead to novel and useful solutions or ideas" [81] (p. 300).

On the other hand, artists are demonstrably known for strong asocial tendencies such as introversion and hostility [81]. Although one artist who participated in Art Hacking was prone to evade interaction, the overall experience seems to contradict this notion. Openness and flexibility might explain the cooperativeness the artists exploited.

## **6. Conclusions**

Artists have distinguished art-making from their "way of organizing and acquiring knowledge" [82] (27 s) by naming the latter Art Thinking [82], whereas business people start using the term for a transfer of insights from the art into the business world. Inspired by the extensive discourse on Design Thinking [83] the term Art Thinking is used to describe "a framework and set of habits to protect space for inquiry" [84] (p. 12). In this sense, Art Thinking is just an arts-based view on managemen<sup>t</sup> tools favouring divergent over coherent thinking [84]. Art Thinking has not been conceptualized ye<sup>t</sup> but it is characterized by "its focus on options, not outcomes; on possibilities, not certainty" [85] (p. 16).

In contrast to this quite general view, Art Hacking is a specific creative method and problem-solving-activity based on the course of the artistic process, on artistic attitudes and strategies. Its lack of straightforwardness combined with a sensuous and playful approach makes it suitable for addressing determinate organizational problems. The key for a change of perspective is asking different questions, persistently scrutinizing the sense that is attributed to key variables and exploring absurd ideas. Art Hacking does not guarantee a particular result but it creates a framework that makes innovative approaches more likely to emerge. However, the present study did not aim at assessing the innovation process and putting the method to a comparative suitability test. The intention was to shed light on the role artists take in non-artistic co-creation with other professional groups.

Although data on this matter was not systematically collated, it is noteworthy that igniting sparks usually did not occur when the players were working on an assignment but while talking casually during breaks. Often it was not the flashy points that were decisive but secondary aspects and casual remarks. It was obviously helpful to have people around whose professional characteristics encompass a strong awareness and the ability to turn tiny starting points into a comprehensive body of work.

One central finding of the study at hand that was not stated in the literature as clearly and extensively before is the fact that the artists dealt with the business problem quite similarly to the creation of an artwork. They demonstrated that artistic working styles can successfully be applied to non-artistic tasks in particular with regard to those aiming at radical innovation. As highly creative persons, the artists unfolded creative skills and used artistic strategies despite the fact that they were not treading on familiar ground. They proved above-average innovative strength and pushed the process by offering different angles and stimuli towards action. This is what made the artists strong supporters of the first step towards innovation established with Art Hacking, namely idea generation.

Another insight other studies have not touched on at all ye<sup>t</sup> is the artists' leading role in the process. In other depicted cases, artists had developed the concept of the intervention and moderated the process. With Art Hacking, they had a different assignment. Surprisingly, the artists took the lead anyway, cautiously and persistently guiding their fellow players through the process by being role models in creative behaviour without reclaiming a special status within the group, acting out an integrative form of creative leadership instead.

As there are different leadership styles in the performance arts as well as in management, it would be interesting to explore that aspect both in the context of Art Hacking and regarding arts-based interventions in general. Are arts-based interventions more likely to succeed if there is a director or some other experienced creative leader involved? What are the effects of different creative leadership styles in innovative settings? And finally, is it necessary to have someone from the creative industries to enact creative leadership or can other people do likewise?

Other cases show that organizations can successfully apply artistic practices without any personal artistic guidance at all [18,77]. This possible contradiction to the findings presented here might be due to the limited generability of qualitative research and single case studies, respectively. Therefore, there is need for comparative research on the effectiveness of artistic conduct. Moreover, the different approaches to implement artistic attitudes and labour strategies in business settings deserve further research on success factors for applied artistic practice. At present, there is no research that opposes processes with artistic participation to interventions in control groups with respect to their innovative capacity.

However, there is evidence for the assumption that the active participation of artists during a collective innovation process is an effective catalyst. In any case, the leadership role the artists took in Art Hacking deserves a closer look, given that it would help debunk the outdated romantic myth of the artist as a lone genius with outsider status.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Acknowledgments:** The author wishes to thank Henriette Goldner for her assistance in data collection and analysis.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The author declares no conflict of interest.
