the banff centre leadership lab (leader as designer)

Leadership Learning Lab Report on Thought ForumFebruary 5 - 8, 2006

Leader as Designer

Leader as Designer

A summary document outlining the experiences, perspectives and learning from the Leadership Learning Lab Thought Forum, Leader as Designer, held February 5 – 8, 2006, in Banff, Alberta.

Compiled by Brian Woodward.

Contributions by Brian Woodward, Steven Joyce.

Edited by Colin Funk, Jennifer Ludwig.

Leadership Development at The Banff Centre Box 1020, Station 45, Banff, Alberta, Canada T1L 1H5 Tel: 1.403.762.6100 E-mail: [email protected]

w w w . b a n f f l e a d e r s h i p . c a

Table of Contents

I. Foreword ........................................................................ 2

II. Context ........................................................................... 4

III. Background to the Forum............................................. 10

IV. The Challenge .............................................................. 14

V. Pod Designs.................................................................. 14

VI. Invited Observation: G Space & Outer Space: Fields, Swarms, and Protocols ....................................................................... 28

VII. Leadership Forum Dynamics ....................................... 36

VIII. Learnings from the Forum............................................ 40

Appendix A: Forum Participants’ Biographies...................... 48

Appendix B: Compass article – “Common Ground, Quantum Leaps” ........................... 65

Appendix C: Syntegral Design Paper by Brian Woodward and Colin Funk............................ 68

L e a d e r s h i p L e a r n i n g L a b T h o u g h t F o r u m L e a d e r a s D e s i g n e r , F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 6 1


I. Foreword

The Leader as Designer: A Forum to Explore How the Future is Created

Good leadership is expected to “get us somewhere”! So it is not unusual to expect good leaders to set direction, create vision statements, and establish compelling goals and objectives. A clear vision and explicit goals represent a logical and rational movement from the present to a defined future. Implicit in this view of leadership is the idea that good leaders create the future or cause it to be created – through others leaders bring something new into the world. This leadership act of creation shapes the future!

Another form of human activity that also brings something new into the world is that of design, whether it be the design of new products or services, designs for new organizational systems, social systems or the educational system, or new health care designs. Design as a body of principles, actions and results offers a compelling avenue for exploring the image of leadership as a design. The design world offers an enticing and distinct perspective as well as a number of practical operations. The design world explores extensively the concepts of will, intention, imagination, judgment, and composition within an eco-cultural context to create new realities.

Sixth in a series of exploratory Forums hosted by the Leadership Learning Lab at The Banff Centre, The Leader as Designer Forum brought together over four days a multi-disciplinary team of Thought Leaders: Designers; Artists; Leadership Development Alumni; Adult Educators and Leadership Development Facilitators. The primary

purpose of the gathering was to investigate the practice of design as a means to surface valuable concepts and processes that can help increase our understanding of leadership, and leader development. On the surface, there appeared to be a number of parallels between the two. In the most general sense, design and leadership are fundamentally about actively creating the future rather than reacting to the present. They both require the ability to imagine ‘that which does not yet exist’, to create new meaning, new realities, to find direction, to operate with intention and purpose, and to operate practically in the world under conditions of limited information. Under the surface, however, you will discover, in reading the results of the Forum, that design is also about human intention and creating the right space, conditions and protocols for unleashing human potential.

In keeping with the past five Forums, number six would be a true experiment in theme, process and combination of participants. As always, we were able collectively to create an exciting learning experience for our faculty, alumni, friends, and a rewarding experience for our Thought Leaders and Artist Facilitators. And finally, we discovered numerous rich ideas and processes for use in advancing the practice of leadership and leader development.

Colin Funk – Creative Programming Director, Leadership Development

Brian Woodward – Faculty & Researcher, Leadership Learning Lab


II. Context

“It has been obvious for more than a decade that we live in an age of change; today, it appears that we are also living through a change of age.” ~ Eamonn Kelly1

This is a provocative statement and one that is open to many meanings. Of course, the author has his own take. Kelly calls the current situation “powerful times” characterized predominantly by a set of forces that combine to generate a milieu that is far too powerful for our human brains to comprehend – given the historical assumptions upon which we base our thinking and consequently, our deeply held institutions. He notes that as humans we are on the brink of a radical shift that could very well undo the last five centuries of what we now consider to be “fundamental truths”. Kelly focuses in on the predominance of the West in terms of science, technology, democracy, and capitalism as the set of foundational ideas that are threatened by our present “powerful” times.

What underpins Kelly’s “change of age” are a host of marginally apparent but deep, fundamental dynamics. He outlines seven such dynamic tensions2 but more fundamentally he notes that we cannot expect that the human cultural and social storyline that has emerged over the past five hundred years will remain the same. Recent human history, as manifest by the rise of the West, may very well be in a significant, fundamental transition. Not surprisingly, Kelly notes that most of our current leaders are not open to this way of thinking and so operate from a set of basic assumptions that are rapidly losing their validity. If his thesis has validity then indeed we are living through a period of significant fundamental shift in the way we

govern ourselves, in what we hold as basic truths, and in how we generate and live our collective story as humans living on this planet.

What does it really mean to “end an age”? And how would we know if it was ending? Also, when something is ending then something must be beginning. What is it that is beginning? It is unlikely that as individual humans we have the perspective to know that we are in a “change of age”. Did the Italian citizens living in Venice at the very beginning of the Renaissance know it was a renaissance that they were about to experience or did they notice that there was just a different “buzz” in the air? Given the life span of an Italian citizen in the cities during the early 16th century, could they even have had sufficient perspective to notice a “difference”? Likewise, did citizens of France in the middle of the 18th century know that they were coming into a period of enlightenment or were they just fed up with the absolute rule of monarchies and aristocracies? Hindsight names the transition!

It is common to hear the phrases “information age” or “knowledge age” as terms to distinguish the modern times from the “industrial age” that began around 1800 in the West. However, these terms are largely Western in origin and have much less meaning for peoples of the East who have an entirely different perspective and much longer history. Nevertheless, these phrases do signify that something is different and that we give this difference a name.

When named in this way the development of the West appears to be one of ordered progression or if not ordered, then there is definitely a sense that one “age” has moved on and given way to the next “age” in a manner that appears to be relatively predictable. Within the confines of a very short and stable physical global environment, our


social structures (with accompanying thought and philosophy) have evolved to what we have today. But what if the next “age” is one that is so profoundly different that we have no recorded history to help us make sense of what is happening? What if the age we are about to enter has no precedent in the past and is such a profound shift that our social history is more a liability than an aid?

In fact, there are those like Joanna Macy and Karen Taylor Keys3 who believe that there is sufficient evidence to believe that we are at the end of the Cenozoic period – the period that fostered mammals and human kind. They call this “The Great Turning”. This perspective takes as truth the fact that humans have created a world in which they, themselves can no longer survive and that the climactic changes in store for us could very well lead to our own extinction as a dominant species – and we, as humans, will appear on no endangered species list!

Although it may not be possible to know when exactly one age ends and another begins, it may be possible to recognize the signs of the transition. Many such signs are apparent today.

One sign of an impending significant transition is the tendency to repeat past decisions and actions in the light of increasing evidence that these actions do not have the same desired effect. What has worked in the past is no longer working but we continue to do the same things. We continue to support a philosophy that allows the developed nations to dictate to developing nations (through such bodies as the World Bank) how they need to run their economies – a recipe that increasingly courts disaster for the developing country and tends to have the opposite effect of helping them to be free and prosperous. We continue to operate our business enterprises based on

18th century models and by continuously failing to account for the full impact of the enterprise on its social, physical and spiritual environment. We believe that military might can instil democracy. The list goes on.

Related to this sign is another – the existence of an all-encompassing “mono-story”. A mono-story is a way of making sense of the world to a point where all events are filtered through the main story-line, understood solely through this single perspective and taken as the sole justification for decisions and actions. Today capitalism and democracy are linked in a predominant, forceful narrative. You cannot have one without the other and the major countries in this world support this story. It is not uncommon in the last few years for Americans to be told “to shop to keep your country strong”. We continue to feed the machine with workers – the mechanical metaphor mono-story writ large?

The mono-story is present and operative today as are the tell-tale signs of impending change – but it is only part of the story. There are other, diverse narratives beginning to emerge – some are in their nascent stages, others are becoming more attractive, clear and cogent. These potential alternatives are growing with the consciousness that they do so under the cloud of a predominant worldview – yet they are beginning to prosper. These new narratives can be seen as potential alternatives to the predominant mono-story. The increasing diversity of perspective is growing. The evidence is in “alternative” publications, different lifestyles, new grassroots dialogue that challenges the mono-story.

A related phenomenon and another very clear sign of an impending major shift or change is the rise of fundamentalism. This increased


“hard-lining” is a sure sign that the old way is threatened because a significant number of the population band together to build fences to change by holding in a death grip “sanctified” tenets built on narrow beliefs and fear. As the change quickens, their fear increases, their attitudes harden, and their fences become higher and thicker the more they sense the growing power in the voices of change.

Another sign is a growing sense of malaise in which there is great activity and movement but with little meaning and satisfaction. The dominant story is lived out in the minutiae of our daily lives and drives our choice of activity – but ultimately for what purpose? There is a growing feeling that we as individuals and as communities are more and more “pattern-bound”, “time-demanded”, and “obligation-focused” in that we repeat almost unconsciously daily routines whose only meaning appears to be in the mere doing. Our attention is fragmented to a point where we cannot even question the “mono-story” because we lack the time, the perspective and the energy.

There is also an uneasy sense that the big context is failing – that the mono-story is an insufficiently rich narrative to reflect the full meaning of being human today. We as individuals and small groups may recognize this, but our leaders in business and government appear to hold tightly to the sinking ship of the “one narrative”. Such blinkered sight and rigid thinking leaves governments focusing on today’s problems within a strictly ordered conceptual world with little sense at all of the forces at play that ultimately will rip their attention from one small sandbox to the torrents of the living, complex world and the demands of the future.

So what we feel intuitively runs in direct opposition to what we are being told on a daily basis and with no way to determine “truth” we are left with daily routines and a growing isolation. Truly a “crazy-making” set of circumstances! No wonder we see ever-increasing levels of depression, anxiety, emptiness, anomie, aggression, and often despair. Finding others who are trusted enough to share the inner dis-ease are welcomed occurrences. However, we have right now a growing number of largely unconnected pockets of new value combinations, new coalitions, and a growing number of alternative experiments.

So what? If this truly is a change of ages, what can we do about it anyway? The obvious first thing is to learn to trust that intuitive voice and to find like-minded and like-hearted people with which to share. Cultivate openness to self-expression, to listening, to possibility beyond what is currently known or seen. As small groups, reach out and connect with others who may or may not share the same story but who have a compatible piece of the story that you share. Continue to build the networks. Continue talking and communicating and listening.

Identify, support and / or create “holding structures” – those organizations and movements that slow the change so that capacity can be developed for the inevitable shift. These types of structures know that a significant change is coming but also know that the capacity is not developed sufficiently within the population to weather, let alone embrace the change. These structures are built to hold the increasing pressure, heat and energy necessary to make the shift. Holding structures are often networks of people who are committed to understanding current circumstances and exploring different ways to make sense of the current circumstances and the


demands of the future. New ways of thinking, new approaches to solving problems, designing solutions and new capacities for learning are developed.

Next, realize that there is nothing but uncertainty and learn to live in it. The very fact that there is no guarantee of success is what we need to call forth our best attributes of creativity, compassion and courage. Nothing will ease the uncertainty, nothing will assuage the fear or calm the anxiety except learning to live with this condition and to explore it for what it has to offer. Realize that flexibility of thought and action together with compassion, tolerance and openness are valuable attributes to cultivate.

Cultivate diversity within a clear intention. Learn to explore, with others, how we think and experiment with how we think. Recognize how we learn and how we might expand this learning using all of our senses. Learn to consciously break old habits and patterns. Break the rules, cross / dissolve boundaries – be aware of our filters and how they help us to see and to not see simultaneously. Because only in this way will we begin to create new stories. And it is in our capacity to create new stories that we will successfully be able to navigate through this transition – ultimately influencing the design of our future in an “age of change.”

~ Brian Woodward

Endnotes

1. Kelly, Eamonn. (2005). Powerful Times: Rising to the Challenge of Our Uncertain World. Wharton School Publishing: New York.

2. Ibid.

3. Tucker, Mary E. (2005) Earth and Religion Conference, Bard College. Creative Seminars: New York.

L e a d e r s h i p L e a r n i n g L a b T h o u g h t F o r u m L e a d e r a s D e s i g n e r , F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 6 1 0

III. Background to the Forum

In the very first Forum in September of 2003, the notion of design was raised. In the write-up of that Forum, In These Times…, the concept of design was linked to the creation of “generative spaces”. The creation of generative space was not viewed as something that was a distinct skill alone and so it could not be reduced to a series of steps or followed like a checklist. We viewed generative space as something unique to the setting and purpose, and although there were critical components, the creation of a generative space was seen as a one-of-a-kind phenomenon. The creation of a generative space, then, was seen more as a design challenge or design process because of the emphasis on judgment and composition rather than problem-solving or solution creation. At that time we proposed that there were certain leadership capacities that could be learned that would assist leaders in developing the ability to recognize, utilize and even create generative spaces.

Well, as you might guess, we also had lots of other ideas for Forums that sent us off following a number of very rich and rewarding paths. However, as we began to organize our thoughts for this Forum, a number of other things “serendipitously” occurred. The Alberta College of Art and Design, through Lance Carlson’s leadership, sponsored a series of talks, “Stirring Culture”, that focused on speakers who had a decidedly different way of approaching larger issues. As well, Brian read The Design Way by Harold Nelson and Erik Stolterman. Brian and Colin talked about these ideas until one day Colin proposed that design be the focus of the 2006 Forum. As is the case, we felt pretty good that we had landed on a solid Forum topic but due to so many other projects and duties we did not get

serious about “designing” the Forum for about three months. By then the idea had time to work in the background.

We had a dilemma, however, once we started to work on the Forum. Would we focus on “Leader and Designer” or “Leadership as Design”? The former choice would mean looking at the individual leader with a focus on learning something about how the process and concepts of design might apply to how a leader learns, operates, thinks, etc. Focusing on the latter would mean looking at the “group level” or the social level. We view leadership as a capacity of a community and were interested in learning about what design has to say about group or community level processes, learning, etc. The decision was left appropriately hazy until later in the process.

We had also learned from the 2005 Forum the power in matching up Artist facilitators so that they could influence each other’s work. Colin got to work on identifying some “anchor” facilitators who had participated in past Forums and set about selecting a host of new artist facilitators. He wanted to bring in some people he had just met on his Asian creativity research tour just before Christmas. The idea was to mix relatively compatible artistic processes. These processes included painting and drawing, theatre and improv, clay and sculpting, and curatorial work with found objects. The Forum asked that the facilitator pairs work collaboratively to create co-led sessions or single facilitator sessions. The facilitator pairs were to design their own processes for the various sessions.

Brian focused on inviting Thoughts Leaders who came at design from different “depths”. We wanted someone who could speak to design from a very high level, to give an overview of design thinking, and someone who had done some thinking about the two


fields of leadership and design. As well, we wanted leadership facilitators who could speak to how design might be explored with program participants. Finally, we wanted artists to speak about how they did their own work from the “floor” level.

All that was left to do was to design a Forum process and to put the all the details in place. During this time Brian recalled a book by Stafford Beer that outlined a group process for exploring and integrating ideas within a short period of time. This material sparked the idea of developing a process that would create teams or “pods” of participants that would work on a specific design challenge. Beer’s work, however, identified an overall process that forced these pods to break up and work with non-pod members in order to share thoughts, build on ideas and create synergies. This process was melded with the artistic processes to produce the initial design of the Forum. Participants would work in their own pods but be broken up from time to time to work with other participants.

The final issue was that of the design challenge itself. We wanted to create a compelling challenge, one that would engage the participants in some significant way as well as be useful for furthering our understanding of leader and leadership development. We thought first of designing a new Banff Centre from scratch. The focus then moved to creating a new Leadership Development enterprise to exist within the current Banff Centre. Finally, though, given that a number of other plans were already being developed for The Banff Centre, it was felt that we would ask participants to design a Leader Development Enterprise to be situated somewhere in the world.

~ Brian Woodward and Colin Funk


IV. The Challenge

The Design Challenge that was given to the Pods was grand, very grand actually. It was created so as to provide an enormous space for exploration and design, but also such that it might appear as a “real” challenge.

The Design Challenge was to:

Design an Enterprise dedicated to developing 21st Century leadership – the leaders and the models of leadership required to create, with vibrancy, courage and creativity the cultural shifts necessary to meet the challenges of this new century.

Situate the Enterprise in a place of inspiring physical grandeur. Reflect the power of place and the primacy of the natural environment so that the physical structure of the Enterprise elides with its environment and reflects its sense of purpose.

Imbue the Enterprise with a lively creative spirit and profound respect for the creative process that draws out, embraces and sustains the passion for cultural innovation and transformation on a worldwide scale, and reflects this spirit within the Enterprise – in its programming, in its seminars and forums, and in its research and development activities.

Organize the Enterprise for the serendipity that enables continuous exploration and discovery, and attracts learners and contributors from all world cultures and disciplines within a truly integrated thought environment to pursue the work of leadership.

Network the Enterprise to other centres and locations in the world that embrace the same spirit of commitment and compassion for humanity and the planet.

The challenge was carried with all the participants in their journal workbooks throughout the Forum.

V. Pod Designs – Challenge Outcomes

Each of the pods responded to the challenge in their own individual manner. The journey that each pod took was different, by design, so each had a sequence of activities that was different from the others. By the final morning, the pods appeared to be pleased with their outcomes in response to the challenge. All but one of the participants found the process invigorating, challenging and rewarding.


Blue Pod – Outcome

Why Knot Design Leadership – collaborative design for continuous organizational renewal.

Design – the enterprise would focus on the co-design of leadership models along with clients of the enterprise in a co-creative format to meet the needs of the client enterprise.

Situate – the enterprise would be a virtual corporate structure with a high degree of flexibility to incorporate, as needed, any design elements from various sources from anywhere in the world.

Imbue – the enterprise to be imbued with the following values:

• Inquiry and Inspiration – out of this comes the ability to ask challenging questions, to perturb systems and ideas, ways of thinking, and to act as a catalyst to thought and action

• Passionate belief in the mission – inquiry and action to create the future

• Accepting Diverse perspectives – ability to seek and hold diversity

• Collaborative Play – consistent creativity and interaction creates interconnecting spirals of intense communication and an ability to refuel and re-enliven

• Endless Possibility – anything is possible as long as the resources can be brought together to create it

• Continual Learning – constant learning and feedback with others

• Constant Reflective Dialogue – the ability to pause and reflect on our own processes

Continual prototyping – always putting ideas into action to test them and to generate new ideas

• Transparency – open processes and discussions to invite questions, challenges and comments

• Continual Renewal – no structure stays for long from one project to the next or even within projects if a new structure is required

• Embrace chaos – welcome complexity and chaos and see both as offering multiple avenues of purpose and direction – as a garden of ideas

• Respect for resources – embrace efficiencies wherever possible to protect and value all resources

• Infinite Abundance – the value and belief that all that is needed is available, all resources are obtainable, all goals and objectives are attainable, and all people have the potential to create what they need

• Aesthetics – the search for the most elegant and simple, the beautiful solutions and the most artistic processes

Organize – the open, virtual structure provides endless possibilities and the ability to situate intentionally and aesthetically for every new challenge and engagement.

Networking – an essential part of the structure.


Blue Pod – Process

This pod abandoned the challenge almost immediately into the process. They chose not to use the challenge to focus their attention, but rather chose to create an experience for themselves as participants individually and collectively. In this way they would embody the design they would become. They decided that to understand the process of creating leaders, they would first of all create themselves. They used as their foundation to the challenge the values, they, as a pod, discovered and generated. For each medium and each activity, this pod did not hold itself to what was given or to just what was in the room. They also made a point of embracing the complexity and even chaos of the challenge, the activities and their own divergent views.

They discovered that the values they identified held both individual and collective resonance and acted as primary focal points for their own work. They trusted emergence that allowed them to generate and test ideas with each other. This specifically led them to recognizing the unconscious collaboration they generated with their paintings in that a number of connection points between paintings emerged spontaneously. They also mentioned that the clay provided an interesting and powerful environment. The clay helped them converse and to see “into” their ideas from different perspectives. They also noted the experience of “unconscious manifestation” – when they wanted or needed something, it was available to them.


Red Pod – Outcome

Peace Institute – to help transform cultures globally through peace.

Design – the enterprise would focus on the establishment of peace which means healthy countries, organizations, communities, and people. It will serve the UN as the primary client and help to develop policy through the design of relationship-based protocols rather than through the details of planning and how the final product would look. The focus is on the pro-active, co-generation of protocols that guide behaviour rather than on the details of planning, operations, even strategic planning. Leaders are those who help to form new protocols out of which the desired behaviour emerges.

Situate – in a safe place in the world (maybe Canada but not necessarily) as a beginning, then do continual site analyses to determine, with the client, where the next site needs to be in the world. This belief is also based on the idea that one needs to sit on common ground to be able to identify with it.

Imbue – concepts of:

• Collaboration to co-create designs. Also, a value design-competency which means an organization is continually designing both itself and with others

• Recognize that future generations that have no direct voice on the design team are part of the client

• Conversation and Dialogue to get to common ground because below common ground is new ground – from such a relatively stable state the design team creates the ability to go to more uncharted places

• The Crucible – the enterprise acts to create relationships that are capable of holding dynamic, hot, volatile interactions in a safe place

• Multiple Spaces – a number of spaces need to be established and explored in any design activity – physical space, cultural space, social space, spiritual space, etc. It is in these spaces, working with the appropriate protocols, that leaders learn to become global leaders

Organize – as a design team that can re-design itself as needed. The client is part of the design team before work begins. The first stage is to dialogue to get to common ground, then further dialogue to get to uncommon ground. The second stage is to go to a chosen place in the world where the client needs to feel on common ground with all stakeholders. The design team designs and redesigns its own protocols and needs, and continues the development of protocols that are suitable to the client. The design team then hands over their work and responsibilities to the client.

Network – implied.


Red Pod – Process

This pod began its work when it walked over to the clay studio and passed a small art sculpture of about 8 to 10 birds. They all commented on it and it acted as the foundation for their initial conversations. They decided quickly that design was completed at the relationship level, but then wondered how to design at the relationship level. This conversation led to a discussion of protocols, introduced by Harold, and how they explained the behaviour of bird flocks and the organization of VISA. Accepting an offer in Improv is an example of a protocol. As well, jazz musicians have a set of protocols they use to create free-form music.

The idea also emerged around the concept that you can consciously create protocols to get the overall behaviour you want AND that it was the role of leaders to help form these protocols. They noted, too, that protocols develop from conversation and that they can be internalized to act as the basis for behaviour.

Finally, this pod described the notion of a design culture that is itself a set of protocols and that these result in design competence, which was part of the final product of the pod.


Green Pod – Outcome

Unity Centre – an action-based learning centre for the development of human potential.

Design – the enterprise would focus on human development for the individual, communities, organizations, and businesses – leading by role modelling and expanding thought through dialogue.

Situate – the Unity Centre would reside in or close by a third world orphanage – in a place of possibility. The reason for this placement is that the orphanage represents the paradox of the world at theindividual human level. This location is more on-the-ground and genuine. Visitors would have to travel to it and have profound experiences doing so. Visitors would be faced not only with observing but also with taking action. This site also features the youth of the world and attempts to use existing materials to leave no environmental footprint.

In addition, there would be satellite hubs for thought centres located in culturally sensitive areas. A “wiki” approach would be taken to collaborative knowledge development. Thought dialogues on leadership occur within the space and with satellite hubs building together on collective knowledge – symbiotic relationship with the Unity Centre.

Imbue – the enterprise with elements identified in this poem:

Design is a mindset Genesis is ongoing Learning is participatory Life is Participatory

Reflection, judgment, emergence

Design is an experience, not just a form Emergence from the depths

Appreciation of space Creating the “white space” Divergence Convergence

The “Burmis” Tree The role of time The role of story Past, present and future

Meaning making Shared intent Conditions of possibility Build the future

In the heart of aesthetics lies personal judgment

Through the unity of purpose Possibilities reveal themselves

Enable communities of significance by Walking across the bridges of innovation


Organize as outlined in this Poem of Learnings.

Purity is simplicity of Form Design is purposeful Trust in the Process That which does not add detracts

Slow is fast Process is the product Ambiguity is a useful tool Judgment is about navigating the Waters of options and opportunities

To design our enterprise Situated in the place of possibility Imbued it with thoughtfulness Organized for serendipity Networked with spirit of the world

Network – as identified by satellite connections with culturally sensitive “hubs”.

Green Pod – Process

As with the other pods, the members of this pod let the challenge sit very lightly on their minds and got right into the APs. When this pod got into the clay process, which was early on Monday morning, they found that the clay did the talking in the sense that many of the ideas the members had individually were brought out through the clay work. They found that the clay “slowed their mouths down” so that all were on a common communication pace.

Through the other activities the ideas were thickened and related in deeper ways. As the group looked at what they had written in their own journals, the poems emerged quite quickly as expressions of many ideas about the challenge.


Yellow Pod – Outcome

The Enterprise of Me (EofMe) Connect the Dots – “we are the entity we want to design”.

Design – is real and is now and is ever present. What is my design for me? Starting now, how would we want our leadership to be shown in the world? How will EofMe help to deal with large scale societal issues? Where will EofMe put my energy? I have a vision for my life, so how will this help me make decisions? How do I bring forth my whole self? What can EofMe do in combination with others? How does EofMe impact the world at an identified level? What kinds of influence can EofMe have through my actions and thoughts? On what scale does EofMe operate?

Situate – within our heads and hearts. The enterprise and its journey can be lived anywhere. EofMes can gather anywhere. The enterprise emerges from interactions with others.

Imbue – the idea is to be open, take offers, build, co-create through commitment and personal passion – don’t wait, start right now!

Organize – around any question, an issue, an event, purpose or intention.

Network – self-organizing systems of EofMes with like minds, intentions and affinities.

Yellow Pod – Process

Like most other pods, this pod let the challenge slip into the background at first and returned to it only in the final discussion. The pod went through its series of APs and had some discussions but one member had to leave before the final integration conversation and another member joined for this final discussion. The pod replayed their integrating discussion for the audience of other pods. The initial focusing concept was the idea of EofMe which then kicked off a wide variety of questions which the pod used to help clarify the central concept.

The focus on the concept of EofMe put the onus on the individual to decide how he / she would display leadership and in what context the individual would display leadership. Through this spiralling series of clarifications and questions, the pod arrived at their idea of the EofMe.


VI. Invited Observation

G Space & Outer Space: Fields, Swarms and Protocols

We are growing increasingly aware of how connected everything is with everything else. Most ancient cultures have taken such levels of connection for granted and used it to communicate over large distances. From a scientific perspective how such connections are possible is still speculative. Nevertheless it is an area of discovery that holds great potential for helping us generate solutions to the mountainous challenges we face as a species.

Some time ago, Brian Woodward of the Leadership Learning Lab at The Banff Centre mentioned in conversation that “we know what G space looks like; we know how to create it; and we know the circumstances that make it possible.” What fascinated me most was the confidence with which he made the remarks. It was because of that conversation that I jumped at the chance of being involved in the knowledge capture process at the Leader as Designer Forum.

Having experienced the Forum, this article was written to explore the connection between G space (generative space) and the phenomenon of collective intelligence. With the guidance of a colony of E. coli, Mr. Spock of the Starship Enterprise, and a troop of baboons we will make a journey from G space to outer space.

What is G Space?

A space that has the property that allows it to expand as it gathers more content. For example, the World Wide Web does not “fill up” as more web sites are added. The space itself expands. G space also

allows for high levels of group creativity. It could be yet another description for a phenomenon that was in play within the bacteria that led to higher forms of life 3.6 million years ago.

There are many well documented examples of collective intelligence within the animal kingdom. G space can also be described as an emergent property which appears under certain circumstance within human groups. Although relatively little is known about it, many researchers in this field (including those at The Banff Centre) are able to reliably replicate the circumstances that help it appear.

The Zen story of the fish in water is very old and often quoted. A wonderful metaphor for the concept of being so immersed in something that we are unable to detect it. Assumptions, beliefs, consciousness, have all had the “water, what water?” treatment. “Generative space, what generative space?” fits here also. Something we only notice when it disappears. It is an ever-present paradox; by naming it we destroy it.

If you were to have Googled “collective intelligence” in mid-2004 you would have received roughly 60,000 hits. If you were to do it right now you would receive over 12 million. So although we may know very little about this phenomenon there certainly is a great deal of curiosity about it. It offers us hope of providing a collective solution to our collective challenges.

Steve: I am very curious about where you fit into the story of collective intelligence, E. coli; would you like to comment?

E. coli: We are very much misunderstood and most of the time people are totally unaware of our existence. Yet if it were not for us, digestive systems wouldn’t work; your species would have big


problems. Each of our cells is a little computer (humans call it the genome) working out how to adapt to the environment. Of course, we’re very small so a colony the size of your palm can have trillions of individual cells all processing and always communicating with its neighbor. You would probably call it a real mess but we produce real solutions to real problems. In fact, we’re ahead of you in the collaboration race which is one of the reasons your drug companies are sprinting to keep up with us. A colony the size of your palm has more computational capacity than all of the computers used across the globe.

Steve: How can that be?

E. coli: Because we are using the power of parallel processing. We used this strategy to switch from eating sugars to eating acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) because your species wanted to find out just how adaptive we really are. Human brains also parallel process, but in groups they don’t seem to do it that well.

Baboon: May I say how nice it is to know that E. coli has spoken up for the power of the group. We baboons are known as the “rats of Africa” because we are able to thrive in just about any environment. The thing is, I know we’re not individually that smart. Our brains are much less sophisticated than those of chimpanzees. But we don’t need Jane Goodall to make a collection to save our species. I am pretty sure that we learn to adapt quicker because we are always sharing what we find out and we are also very curious about everything. Everything we learn, we share. We live in troops of 100 – 200, but go foraging in packs of 10 – 20; we always get back together in the evening to share what we learned. Our troop is ten times larger than your average chimp group; we have more learners to learn from.

E. coli: Then we have more in common than I would have thought, baboon.

Forum Day One: Pods of four people are making their way towards the first of their pod sessions. There are four pods with four people in each, called blue, green, red, and yellow. At times they work together; at others they will be mixed. The mixed groups become known as “rainbow pods”.

The first session I joined was the Red pod; the session was based in the Ceramics Studio with Ed and Randall. This was the first time these people had worked together. There was animated conversation about the sorts of things that matter to the group. Peace and creating a sustainable future for youth were discussed. Sandy brought up the movie March of the Penguins and how they demonstrated self-sacrifice so strongly. Kim added, “we’ve got too much comfort.” As the conversation meandered over many themes, the clay facilitator Ed asked that the participants individually create something from a piece of clay. When they had completed this, they were asked to put their pieces together in some way. The collaboration piece became a mountain with a cave and a “crystalline skull” of a bear representing the oldest archeological artifact that humans have worshiped.

Steve: So where is the “G space” in that session?

E. coli: Slow down, Steve – not everything has to be cut and dried. We make a mess most of the time and out of that emerge new ideas, new situations we can live in, new things we can eat that we couldn’t before. It’s not about the individual. There’s not much room for ego when you’re the middle child of seven trillion. It’s about the greater good, whatever that is. I may never see it but I know I’m working toward it. Humans know about this. I think they call it “serving


selflessly” – so the light at the end of the tunnel might not be an oncoming train – there is hope for your species.

Baboon: There is a catch; if you hold back, if you learn some small thing and don’t share it, you are cheating the troop. In the long run you are cheating yourself because as far as we are concerned, you’re only as strong as your group. It’s what protects you, provides you mates, helps you find food, and it solves problems for you. You should see where we can make a living. We’re inventing ways to make the environment we have work for us all the time. But look who I’m talking to? You humans are just about the most adaptable species that DNA has invented so far.

Steve: When we humans think of connection in relation to any kind of group there tends to be two strong emotions involved. One is the fear of losing our individuality, identity and freedom. The other is the fear of isolation, losing the herd, the crowd, our ability to merge our identity with the group and become one with it. Otto Scharmer refers to the collective relationship as one in which the individual is further enhanced rather than diminished. In Scharmer’s words the individual actually “connects... to one’s highest future potential.” In the emergence of collective mind, according to Scharmer and many others who have experienced it, individuality is strengthened and enhanced in the collective relationship rather than suppressed.

Forum: The Curatorial and Found Objects session has begun with a “rainbow pod”. The participants have been asked by Virginia and Mikhail to choose a picture from the table which speaks to them. The participants are asked to explain what the picture says or represents to them. David chooses a kayaking picture which represents serenity and the potential for white water. Laurie has chosen a small chick

just emerged from a cracked egg. This represents the potential for the new and the innocence and fragility of new emergent ideas. Steve chooses a monk in a deeply bowed posture representing humility and connection to the universal spirit.

The groups are then asked to forage outside the building for objects in order to create a “piece” that combines the principles of their pictures. From a dumpster parked at the back of the Visual Arts department David, Laurie and Steve collect chopsticks, buttons, Perspex, and various pieces of wood. From these they create their piece. At one point Laurie and David have to work intensely together to weave the chopsticks together. For a long time they explore ways to make the structure work without having to use any kind of fasteners. Eventually they produce a “chopstick matrix” which is stable and is installed into their project piece. All the time the conversation is about how the chopsticks are behaving and what result their attempts to make them “stay” produce. In the end, the conversation turns to the question of when does the life of a piece of art begin. In response to this Virginia states, “some artists say it only begins when it is shared with others.”

Steve: Is there any evidence of collective intelligence here?

Baboon: I can see it. For instance, when the two humans got obsessed with the chopsticks, they were oblivious to what was going on around them. I do that all the time with other baboons. We get so absorbed with the thing we are trying to sort out, we don’t know what we’re looking for but we know we’ll know it when we see it. When I’m doing that, I’m not trying to find the answer on my own. I’m mostly working with the other baboon and the “thing”. They are both tools and I wait to see what comes out of that. We call it playing


with the field of all things. Of course, it’s better when you’ve got 100 baboons playing with the field. There’s an unholy mess but things emerge. The object of the game is to create lots of failed attempts. Through that, we learn a lot about the problem. There’s a really funny thing that happens as well in our troop. When anyone of us solves a problem everyone else in the troop learns the solution really quickly. Rupert Sheldrake talks about “morphogenic fields” and says that they can explain how a species seems to be able to share learning non-locally. That is, physical contact or proximity is not required for the learning to be transmitted between the members of the species. I think Einstein described this sort of thing as “spooky effects at a distance”, so they have witnessed the effect at a subatomic level as well. Do you think that is just a coincidence? As far as baboons are concerned, it’s not really a solution until the entire troop has had a chance to share it.

Steve: Would it also explain the thing we call “telepathy”?

Baboon: Your friend the domestic dog seems to have the ability to know when its master is coming home. They can usually tell long before the human has even entered the driveway. Rupert Sheldrake has carried out lots of experiments on this. He has shown that dogs can not only tell when their masters are coming home, but when he has decided to return home and not begun the journey yet. His explanation is based on the existence of morphogenic fields. Sheldrake also uses morphogenic fields to explain how people know they are being stared at; he believes that mind extends well beyond the body.

Steve: I wonder, does that mean we might be some sort of transceiver of consciousness? I mean receiving and transmitting consciousness in some way.

Forum – Curatorial and Found Objects Day Two: The Blue group is asked to split up into two groups and use only the materials that can be found in the box provided to create something that is inspired by the word “soft”. David and Roger choose a selection of rope, wood and rubber tubing from which they construct a life cycle type piece. This depicts construction / creation, destruction, and recreation.

Elizabeth, Christo and Steve become focused on the quality of “soft” and begin to converse about water, light and air as soft mediums. Using a passage from the Tao Te Ching (Lao Tzu) they begin to gather things that can hold water. A pair of rubber gloves is borrowed from the kitchen (breaking the rules), a balloon is found (again from outside the room) and water is poured into them. The aspect of “suspension” is brought up and considered to be important, so this group decides to suspend the things that are holding the water. A copy of the Tao Te Ching found in someone’s briefcase was displayed on top of the table. Under the table hung a pair of rubber gloves and a balloon, both filled with water. During the creation of both pieces the conversation ranged from system dynamics to the philosophy of Taoism. One of the facilitators observes that all three groups completing this task have had at least one example of a suspended construction.

Steve: What do you make of this, Spock?

Spock: Do you mean the occurrence of “suspension” reoccurring in separate groups? It’s very common particularly in your species for beings to be able to communicate almost as if they had a group mind. Visionaries among your own species such as Sri Aurobindo, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Alice Bailey, Rudolf Steiner, and


M. Scott Peck have all spoken about the emergence of conscious collectives. I think humanity seems to be only now actively seeking ways to tap into this systematically. Maybe this awareness is arriving just in time for humanity. I mean – as a species you are facing serious challenges. Collaborative intelligence, CQ as I call it, could be the next step forward in resolving them. There is no doubt you have the technology – the question is do you have the wisdom to apply it?

Steve: So do you think that the fields that Sheldrake talks about may help us become more coherent as a species?

Spock: Sheldrake is not the only scientist to suggest fields that explain how information is shared so quickly among your species. Ervin Laszlo suggests the “Akashic Field”, Dean Radin talks about “bioentanglement”, enabled by the principles found within quantum physics. One of the remarkable things in all of these explanations is that information is found to be traveling much faster than the speed of light. Generative space could be considered to be just an aspect of some sort of field.

Steve: But what part does ego play in all of this? Will it not prevent people from “letting their guard down” and joining in with the group deeply enough?

Spock: There is a difference between a strong ego and a large ego. A strong ego can hand itself over to the group and know it will not become “lost”. A large ego tends to have trouble fitting into the group because it wants to control what is going on in the group. I have met some notable people who were able to use their incredibly strong ego to overcome the effects of their own large ego. These people include some of your most successful politicians and leaders.

However, in most cases people with large egos experience challenges when it comes to group work and places where collective intelligence can be tapped into.

Steve: Is there a difference between collective intelligence and swarm intelligence? I mean by collective intelligence some larger field of wisdom, or information being tapped into somehow. By swarm intelligence I mean an emergent property that occurs from collective behaviors of many essentially autonomous agents, like “program protocols”.

Spock: Yes, I think there is a significant difference. The difference lies in where you believe the group effects are coming from. You could argue that a few simple protocols programmed into individual agents, which are then let loose to run about and interact in unplanned, chaotic fashion, will produce emergent behaviors that appear as intelligence of some sort. A study of the way in which birds flock shows that such protocols are inadequate to explain the speed at which an individual responds to its neighbor. So another type of process – one in which the nervous system acts as a receiving device for a field of intelligence, would be a more appropriate explanation. I think this is where Laszlo’s Akashic field and Sheldrake’s morphogenic fields come in.

Steve: How do you think it is we humans can more reliably tap into that field – if it does exist?

Spock: In some of the discussions occurring within the Forum, I’m sure there were many times when people felt as if someone else was finishing a sentence for them or talking their thoughts out loud for them. Laszlo refers to a process called coherence, a term that is used within your science of quantum physics. Coherence is defined there as a quasi-instantaneously synchronized state, with non-conventional


connections between the parts that make up a system. It is claimed that if they occur at the quantum level, they may also operate at the macroscopic levels of life and mind. Such coherence can explain the non-local effects when previously entangled photons are split up and continue then to behave as if they can “communicate” with each other practically instantaneously. Extend this to animals and that dog that was mentioned earlier is not such a miracle creature – it is simply tapping into the field. Animals probably have fewer defenses against noticing such information. So-called gifted “telepaths” in the human species probably have less resistance to information that is readily available to all human beings.

Other Elements of the Forum:

Sponsorship: the definition of the word here includes the recognition and acknowledgement of the core characteristics of another person. In working with groups around the issues of leadership and design the ability to communicate and convey “sponsorship” is often sadly ignored. Sponsorship is crucial to the creation of a place where generative work can take place. I saw it and I heard it during the lab – like a rainbow, an intangible phenomenon that can only be witnessed under specific conditions. I know it was there, I felt it myself many times during the various sessions. The concept of big “S” sponsorship was first explained to me by Robert Dilts whilst I attended a course at the Santa Cruz campus of the University of California. Robert shared with me the five statements that encapsulate the exact meaning of sponsorship and they are:

You exist. I see you. You are valuable. You are important / special / unique. You have something important to contribute. You are welcome here. You belong.

I am quite sure no one at the Forum was actually thinking these exact statements. However, the Forum’s design and the people participating enabled big “S” sponsorship no matter what way it was communicated. The creativity, joy and productivity that were evident in the groups are a testament to that.

Another aspect was the role conversation and dialogue played within the functioning of the group. The role conversation and dialogue played was mentioned many times by participants, especially in the final pod presentations. Terms such as “constant reflection”, “asking challenging questions”, “inquiry and inspiration”, “constant feedback”, and “reflective dialogue” were used frequently. Many times I was reminded of the work Juanita Brown and David Isaacs have originated around conversation and the dialogue process. The Forum provided a superb activity framework to enable very deep dialogue with the emergence of collective wisdom, the level of which often surprised participants.

The final theme that arose throughout the leadership lab was the role of the “hero” in G space. Heroes are anathema to the collective experience. Collective wisdom requires everyone to give themselves over to the group and, therefore, no heroes are required. In a way, everyone is the hero and the conventional individual that saves the group or pulls the sword from the stone is simply an anomaly.

The archetype of the hero has its place within many organizations and that may work for them. In a way, it is built upon the theory that the “most qualified, brave, etc.” among us will do more than everyone else and becomes central to the success of a project. Nature does not seem to have any heroes – it knows it cannot rely on such figures and still sustain its inherent resilience. The appearance of the


hero is a function of the dynamics between individualism and collectivism. In the leadership lab there was very little evidence of the “hero” and I suggest that this was because G space cannot operate with that sort of energy.

G Space and Impossible Things

“‘Can you keep from crying by considering things?’ [Alice] asked.

‘That’s the way it’s done,’ the Queen said with great decision: ‘nobody can do two things at once, you know. Let’s consider your age to begin with – how old are you?’

‘I’m seven and a half, exactly.’ ‘You needn’t say “exactly”,’ the Queen remarked. ‘I can believe it without that. Now I’ll give you something to believe. I’m just one hundred and one, five months and a day.’ ‘I can’t believe that!’ said Alice.

‘Can’t you?’ the Queen said in a pitying tone. ‘Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes.’

Alice laughed. ‘There’s no use trying,’ she said ‘one can’t believe impossible things.’

‘I daresay you haven’t had much practice,’ said the Queen. ‘When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.’”

~ Through The Looking Glass, by Lewis Carroll

Conclusion:

Much like the Forum – this article has probably raised more questions than it has answered, created chaos where there was once order, and generally got pretty messy. Really, a lot like life. Ambling along in its own chaotic fashion.

~ Stephen J. Joyce


VII. Leadership Forum Dynamics

Acting as “knowledge capture” person provides a unique perspective on a very chaotic process. The following article is a very idiosyncratic selection of the various dynamics occurring within the Forum environment. These are observations from a new set of eyes and hopefully provide information for the designers of the Forum for their use and edification.

Destruction – Creation:

“Every act of creation is first of all an act of destruction.” ~ Pablo Picasso

Integral aspects of each other, this dynamic displayed itself many times. Especially when participants were asked to combine their various creations and in so doing destroyed their own individual piece.

Process – Purpose:

“People can survive any how if they have a sufficient why.” ~ Frederick Nietzsche

Process is the “way”; purpose is the “why”. Frequently groups found themselves curling back onto the topic of purpose after periods of absorption in process.

Certainty – Curiosity:

“Nothing changes until we interpret things differently. Change occurs only when we let go of our certainty, our current views, and develop a new understanding of what’s going on.” ~ Meg Wheatley

Challenging our certainties and opening to our doubts is a liberating experience, the Forum provided multiple opportunities for both.

Flow – Form:

“‘Whatever we call reality,’ Prigogine and Stengers advise, ‘it (reality) is revealed to us only through an active construction in which we participate.’” ~ Meg Wheatley

An interplay of our own state and what Otto Scharmer refers to as “the field of potentiality”. During the Forum I was privileged to witness participants play with that field and almost inevitably find themselves unable to explain how they created what was produced.

Group Space – Personal Space:

“To be healthy an organism has to preserve its individual autonomy, but at the same time it has to be able to integrate itself harmoniously into larger systems.” ~ Fritjof Capra

Pods provided a group space and yet the process allowed for people to express their ego.


Big “E” ego – Small “e” ego:

“Contribution has a different tone and feeling than individual participation. Important as it is, the focus on individual participation can lead to an overemphasis on the I: I’m voicing my opinions. I’m speaking up. I’m participating. In contrast, focusing on contribution creates a relationship between the I and the we.” ~ Juanita Brown

The Forum provided many opportunities for individuals to make contributions. At times people chose to be “individual participants” in the sense that Juanita Brown describes.

Old Filters – New Filters:

“We Do Not See ‘Reality’; We Each Create Our Own Interpretations of What’s Real. We see the world through who we are, or, as expressed by the poet Michael Chitwood: ‘What you notice becomes your life.’ We sit in a meeting and watch something happen and just assume that most people in that room, or at least those we trust, saw the same thing.” ~ Meg Wheatley, from Finding Our Way

The theme of filters can be explored so effectively when artists are in the room – the Forum made sure that that was always a possibility.

Awareness – Absorption:

“Karl Kupfmuller arrives at a figure of ten billion bits a second, or far more than we take in from our surroundings. He calculates the number of nerve cells at ten billion, each of which can process one bit per second. His figures are very conservative: There are more like a hundred billion nerve cells, each equipped with an average of

ten thousand connections to other nerve cells and thus able to handle more than one bit / sec. But no matter how high the precise figure, these figures really are what you could call astronomical. There are maybe a hundred billion stars in the Milky Way – and for each of them we have a nerve cell in our head. The number of connections is beyond comprehension: a million billion links between these hundred billion cells. ... From this massive array we receive a conscious experience containing maybe ten – thirty bits a second!” ~ Tor Norretranders from The User Illusion

Watching participants flow from absorption to awareness made me wonder about the role of trance in the creative and group process.

Observer – Subject:

“Transactionalism also holds that we do not passively receive data from the universe but actively ‘create’ the form in which we interpret the data as fast as we receive it. In short, we do not react to information but experience transactions with information.” ~ Robert Anton Wilson

Informed by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle – I think transactionalism describes how participants created many of the group pieces, especially the clay projects. As conversations evolved, so did the piece.


Bottom Up – Top Down:

“In corporate America, [we see] where ‘bottom-up intelligence’ has started to replace ‘quality management’ as the mantra of the day, and in the radical, anti-globalization protest movements, who explicitly model their pacemaker-less, distributed organizations after ant colonies and slime molds. Former vice-president Al Gore is himself a devotee of complexity theory and can talk for hours about what the bottom-up paradigm could mean for reinventing government.” ~ Steven Johnson from Emergence

This is one side of the argument and it appears that “thought leaders” are a form of “top-down” influence. Simply don’t have space here to comment on this core issue.

Fun – Serious:

“Recent discoveries in neuroanatomy indicate that adult play may actually increase the number of glial cells, the connective tissue that links neurons within the brain. It has long been known that the number of glial, or connective, cells is a much better indicator of brainpower than the number of neurons themselves. By increasing our brain’s connective tissue through play, we are enhancing our mental and creative capacities.” ~ Laurence Boldt

This we all know – so I shall say nothing more except … have you heard the one about the dyslexic, insomniac, agnostic doG?

~ Steven Joyce


VIII. Learnings from the Forum

The primary focus of the Forum was to investigate the practice of design as a means to surface valuable concepts and processes that can help increase our understanding of leadership and leader development. The Forum process and design challenge was explored and investigated through four specific Aesthetic Processes (APs – Clay / Sculpture, Painting / Drawing, Curatorial Practice / Found Objects, Physical Theatre). The primary results, observations and descriptions of emerging patterns as a result of the Forum are reported below.

1. Pod Process Similarities

Each of the pods operated in more or less a similar fashion as they worked through the APs towards responding to the design challenge.

a. Challenge as Context – the design challenge provided a context or even a purpose for the activity. It provided a set of categories – containers – for thinking as the pods progressed through their AP schedule.

b. Pod Structure – each pod provided its members with an opportunity to create a safe, trusting, interactive, and supportive environment. As the members began to work together, they began to reveal themselves more and more to other members. This built openness through the multiple shared experiences and it required some adjustment on the part of all pod members with respect to how the pod would explore through the APs and the type of meaning that was fashioned from the experiences. There was conflict and disagreement, but it was around how to make meaning. The pod members created their own shared space.

c. Suspending, in some form, of the challenge itself – each pod, in its own way, set aside a direct focus on the challenge near the beginning of the AP sessions. Some pods may have focused initially on specifics of the challenge but fairly quickly they set this focus aside and let themselves explore the AP experiences for what they offered. Each pod created its own “conceptual space” that reflected its own purpose, which then provided a space for sense-making throughout the activities.

d. Experiencing the APs – pods went through the APs in their assigned order. These AP experiences varied from very minimal direction to highly structured. Each pod member noted individually his / her own reactions to the APs, made their own connections with ideas in the pod and external to the pod, had their own personal reflections about their experiences, and took “pause time” to simply relax and refresh. Each pod also had considerable time to discuss common ideas and to build on these ideas. The different activities provide a variety of modelling mediums where the ideas were played out. These mediums provided various forms of generative materials for multiple-perspective, multi-engagement of the individual.

e. Returning to the Challenge – each pod then had a half-day to create its response to the challenge. Some pods responded to the initial challenge, others shifted the challenge slightly to reflect the intentional and emergent qualities of its own sense-making. Here, pods worked to the deadline to produce something for others to see. Pod members then filtered and sifted and focused on what they had done and what they had collected (ideas, discussions, notes, feelings).


f. Crafting the Story – the pods then needed to craft two stories: one that described their response to the challenge, the other a story of their journey and how they went about their work.

g. Opening for Feedback – the pods presented their stories to the other pods and were then open for others to notice what they saw in the two stories – much like a Visual Explorer exercise.

Although there were some idiosyncratic dynamics within each pod, they tended to follow a similar process as outlined above.

2. Modelling in Emergent Space – Concept Animation

In some form or another, a good deal of “modelling” (creation of intermediate representations) occurred in the pods – on both individual and group levels. Not only did the APs elicit and / or help describe individual concepts and their connections but they also provided the space for group model building – an opportunity to collectively co-create and animate concepts. All the pods had the potential for modelling with different materials and forms based on the AP session. The “concrete” materials of Clay and Found Objects APs provided a hands-on environment that produced three-dimensional models of the pod’s ideas. The Painting / Drawing AP provided a two-dimensional space that provided the opportunity for some symbolic modelling. The Theatre AP provided a fluid, modelling space that could be used for dynamic modelling.

The modelling activity was critical to the success of the pods within the design structure. The models (verbal, physical, etc.) were just temporary tools that helped the pods to explore their own experiences and to make sense of their work. The models were vehicles that helped reflect ideas and that were useful for creating

new ideas. They assisted dialogue and the process of crafting the ideas and concepts into the lifeworld.

Modelling produces representations – often a series of them. These models or representations depend on their material, form and process of creation for their meaning and significance but each generates a language of its own and a meaning-space of its own. Painting / Drawing seemed to create a much more symbolic and metaphoric language than did Clay.

3. In-Out vs. Out-In Facilitation

It was clear almost from the beginning that two types of facilitation were present in the APs. The more traditional form of using an AP to “teach” a concept or skill was present in the Painting / Drawing and Theatre APs. The facilitators chosen based their own work on using their artistic experiences and backgrounds to create successful processes to help their client groups learn key concepts and competencies for the workplace. The artistic medium of their work operated in an “out-in” manner to facilitate this understanding. On the other hand, Clay / Sculpture and Curatorial / Found Objects were used in a manner that allowed ideas and concepts (reactions, etc.) to be drawn out of the participants. This “in-out” approach tended to be more suitable for the work of design because it allowed the pod members to generate and conceptualize ideas of their own. These two APs (and the four facilitators) reflected a “space generating ability” that helped to draw out ideas for discussion, modelling and creativity. This approach drew a connection to the imaginal realm and brought it out. The out-in APs did not create this type of space and, although the activities were found as enjoyable, they tended to work against allowing the pod members to fully generate their own ideas.


4. Protocols

Harold Nelson introduced the concept of “protocol” into the Forum and so it appeared throughout the work of his pod, but the concept had implicit meaning, as well, in the work of the other pods. Protocols are essential “rules of relationship”. An essential or basic set of protocols is necessary for any organized behaviour to occur. For example, an improv troupe will have a protocol that says “accept all offers”. Jazz players have a set of basic protocols about how solos will be done, their length, etc. When used appropriately, those following protocols have little need for management because the complex behaviour takes care of itself. The idea is to identify the behaviour that is desired and then set up the protocols that will ensure that the desired behaviour occurs naturally. Protocols can be conscious or unconscious to the individual or to the group.

The value of protocols is that they are always stated in the “affirmative” and operate to guide and / or suggest behaviour. They can also be intentionally created. They can develop from conversation and tend to emerge from the belief structures of those creating them. They can be changed by intention and, indeed, when change is desired, only changing protocols will ensure sustained change.

Leaders may be viewed, then, as those who help to create or form new protocols out of which new behaviours emerge. In fact, leaders may be seen as entirely responsible for the care and feeding of protocols in the sense that is in their purview and responsibility. How leaders, then, think about protocols and how they go about creating them is a process which takes a design competence and skill.

5. Leadership – the design of generative space

These links are beginning to emerge from the work of this Forum. We may very well define leadership as the design of generative space in the sense that a set of protocols is necessary for creating an emergent space where participants can imagine and create. The leader’s role is to create the conditions for the development and maintenance of this G space because it is within this space that people fully engage their creative talents and their hearts, and it is out of this space that creative results emerge. Leaders invoke the design space as part of their role.

Therefore, developing leaders requires an experiential methodology that introduces them into the world of design and generative space. For leader developers, the task is to design a design space (e.g. learning process / program) so that leaders develop the ability to co-create protocols that result in the formation of G space.

6. Steps Toward developing a High-Intensity Design Space

This Forum tested the “engine” of a new process for short-term, high-intensity design. A number of observations emerged for consideration in the next stages of development:

• APs may need to be designed specifically for each phase or step in the design process. As work continues we may want to experiment with either specifically designing a new AP or cross-fertilize existing APs (e.g. Clego – Clay and Lego inquiry process) – the idea of specifically designed APs for design.


• Need ways to tie in the challenge to the process. This short Forum did not allow the time to look for ways to create more obvious links between challenge / topic and process. The pods tended to set aside the challenge in the beginning but the participants were seasoned Forum participants so they automatically trusted the process.

• More time for debriefing and connecting the AP with the challenge. We may want to make each “cycle” longer with additional time to debrief.

• The different materials and AP facilitation methods seem to guide different concepts and different languages (e.g. painting language is more metaphoric and symbolic than clay language) which may be utilized to a greater extent in the design work and may also provide a basis for Ed Bamiling’s desire to create a better vocabulary of business / arts language.

• Carefully selecting the “enabling constraints” that are important to any design process. Constraints act to bound a design and its process but some of these “constraints” need to “enable” while they do so. The use of the word “soft” in the Curatorial / Found Objects AP is an example of this concept.

The types of representations (models) are determined by the materials and directions, so maybe we could create a new set of materials and instructions for design.

• Each pod needs a period up front, prior to the actual design work, for orientation to each other and for setting intention, etc. “Team-build” the pods, provide time to orient themselves to the challenge – perhaps some pre-work to give background and context. The orientation may take three modes: physical to engage bodies, create movement and ensure presence; symbolic orientation to the use of conscious metaphor; ensemble work for collaborations. All these activities help to expand comfort zone and group familiarity.

• May also need to experiment with sequences of APs for high-intensity design – e.g. theatre improv painting sculpting / FO . Within these AP sessions we may need to experiment with different combinations of warm-up time versus “generative” time.

• The physical space itself needs consideration. We tend to use what we have so we have not considered what the ideal physical space would be for doing design work in groups. Do we need quiet, contemplative, “time-out” spaces – a sanctuary? Do we a space for “creative tension”? Should the spaces have other meaning and context to assist phases of design?


7. AP Facilitation Characteristics

To date we have allowed the facilitators to “do their thing”. This works fine if we are just experimenting but when it comes to the actual use of high-intensity design as a process for clients, then we need to look much closer at AP processes prior to their use in design space. A number of questions arise for future work:

• what “seeding” concepts need to be included in the AP?

• What degree of “looseness” or tightness needs to be present in the APs for successful use in design?

• What languages will emerge from the AP?

• What materials will be introduced and when?

• How does the medium affect the scale or scope of ideas?

• What is the degree of intimacy between material and participant, among participants, between process and participant?

8. Story, Narrative and Design

In the final debrief session, Don Hill reminded us of the link between stories and design. The design itself generated two stories – the story of the final design itself, its meaning, significance, etc., and the story of how the final design was created. The outcome and the process story. Each story has its own distinct, narrative structure. These are both “outcomes” of the design process.

However, we also can suggest that while in the design process pod members were actually “in the narrative” or rather, “doing narrative”. The pods, during the AP sessions, were submerged within

a story or narrative space in a generative sense – they were creating and living their story, they were living and creating the narrative structure.

Stories matter to design because they provide a language and meaning or they can emerge in the act of narrative making, an emergent activity within G space – a way of co-generating and mapping “topographies of mind”.

9. Time in G space – a basis for the mystic experience

Each Forum has provided us with a slightly different angle on what we have come to call G space – generative space. G space is essentially an intentionally constructed context that engages people in a way that makes conscious the collective unconscious.

This Forum was no different. Each pod member had his / her own experience of the AP sessions and made sense of the experience in their own ways. However, listening to some of the stories suggests that more than just “group dynamics” were at play.

For some pod members who could articulate their experience within the realm of deep personal experience, some commonalities are present. These participants described a deeply personal experience where they felt connected, alive and so in-the-moment as to be perfectly present while engaging with materials, conversing or just sitting.

Other participants describe the experience from a group level perspective, reporting being so intent on what was happening among the pod members while engaging with the materials, that they felt as


if something was coming through them, without their own consent, intention or will and contributing to the work of the group. This did not feel threatening nor was it unsettling, but rather surprising, enjoyable and wonderful. Many were in awe of this!

Is it possible that G space is akin to the mystic experience albeit with lower voltage? Like a majesterium – where there is communication with something larger. Ideas come from somewhere, but not always identified by the group members, and not always in words but first through some somatic channel while in interaction with the medium. Ideas form themselves as members work in the medium until one can express it into a language form – then it is acknowledged or affirmed as true because all have “felt” it to be a truth!

10. Psychological Preparedness for G space

Although many participants experienced a true “connectedness” while working in the pods during the APs, this experience was not felt by all. To put this another way, there appeared to be a wide variety of “responses” to G space with some participants stepping right into the space and allowing their ideas to emerge and flow. However, others tended to interpret the space somewhat differently and for many reasons were not as open or as quick to engage. As well, even though the APs were powerful in their ability to engage, the attention of the participants could have been more focused. There was a tendency, through observation, to see participants be somewhat confused in the initial stages of an AP. There were many “initial” conversations that held amazing ideas but due to distraction or inattention to what was emerging, participants missed the ideas.

Some concerted work based on Eugene Gendlin’s “focusing” psychology may yield some valuable ideas for helping participants become “centred” or “focused” for the work done in the APs, and would help them be more prepared to enter G space.


Appendix A: Biographies

Colin Funk

Colin Funk joined Leadership Development as faculty in 1994. Colin is well known for his ability to artfully assist individuals, teams and organizations to enhance their capacity for creativity and innovation.

Colin has spent the last 20 years working as an actor, director and theatre producer throughout western Canada. He is a graduate of the British Columbia Institute of Technology – with a special focus on Broadcast Communications (1981), and a graduate of the Vancouver Playhouse – specializing in Theatre Arts and Dramaturgy (1985).

Colin is the founder and Artistic Director of Precipice Theatre based in Banff, Alberta. Since 1989, Colin has led the creation of unique leadership development initiatives that bring the arts, ecology and business together through the medium of Theatre. He is a renowned speaker, lecturer, writer, and program designer in the area of creativity, innovation, community development, and environmental education.

Colin served as Community Development officer for the Town of Banff from 1990 to 1994. During his tenure, Colin worked with a myriad of stakeholder groups (including 120 not-for-profit organizations in the Bow Valley) building capacity in Board Governance, Volunteer Development and Fund Development.

Over the last 10 years, Colin has also played a number of diverse roles both as an Arts Administrator and Program Developer with

The Banff Centre. Currently, Colin is the Creative Program Director, Leadership Development, and Manager of The Banff Centre’s Leadership Learning Lab.

Brian Woodward, Ph.D.

Brian Woodward, Ph.D., C.Psych., is trained as an Educational Psychologist, and has worked as an organizational consultant for over 20 years. His work focuses on individual and team performance, individual and team assessment, organizational effectiveness, adult learning and development, and individual and group decision making and problem solving. He has led large assessment projects for organizational transition and facilitated a variety of executive, management, and leadership teams for organizational change and transitions (mergers, restructuring, re-engineering). He has designed and implemented programs for human resource profiling, management development, career transition and succession planning, increased organizational problem solving, synchronized change, implementing strategic plans, work role effectiveness, innovation centres, and technology applications for learning. Brian’s key strengths include the ability to creatively apply professional training to real world problems, particularly within organizations. He has demonstrated very strong interpersonal, organizational, and leadership skills.


Ed Bamiling

Ed has been affiliated with the Leadership Development area at The Banff Centre as a facilitator and faculty member for eight years, guiding creativity sessions with many programs in both public and customized areas of leadership. He is passionate about helping people (re)discover their personal creative abilities through experiential artistic practices and find ways to apply them in both personal and professional life. He has worked in similar roles with other external professional groups, acting as consultant and facilitator, such as Shell Canada, the Town of Banff, the Alberta Teachers Federation, Nova Corp., S.T.A.R.S., etc.

Ed is also the Ceramics Facilitator with the Media and Visual Arts Department at The Banff Centre. He is responsible for all aspects of the ceramic studio operation as well as consulting with and assisting resident artists on the successful resolution of their projects. These artists are accomplished professionals with a broad range of cultural and artistic practice, who come from many countries around the world.

As a practising artist for more than twenty-five years, Ed has exhibited widely in solo and group exhibitions, both nationally and internationally, most recently in Seoul, Korea. He has also travelled extensively and done personal artistic and cultural research in numerous countries in Europe and Central America as well as in frequent trips to the Four Corners area of the American Southwest. His sculptural ceramic work is represented in public collections in Canada and abroad, as well as in private collections in Canada, the United States, Mexico, Japan, France, England, Ireland, Germany, Greece and Korea. He has also lectured and conducted workshops extensively in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico.

His work takes inspiration from numerous sources, including the canyonlands of the American southwest, historical sites in Europe and elsewhere, the legacies of “lost” or ancient cultures, to name a few. He is also keenly interested in the influence of the natural environment on human culture – and conversely, the impact of human activity on that environment.

Kim Bater

Kim Bater is a human development consultant providing facilitation and training services to business, community organizations and government. Kim’s focus is on assisting the health, education and social sectors and he specializes in the areas of enhancing team skills and leadership. A Certified Life Skills Coach since 1991 and Coach trainer since 1993, Kim has trained new coaches in facilitation techniques, communication skill building, conflict resolution, problem-solving approaches, effective feedback, group development, and program planning and delivery. Kim uses an experiential approach to assist people in the learning process. His facilitation techniques link the practices of creativity and leadership to individual, team and organizational development.

Kim Bater is also an actor and musician and who is engaged in a life-long exploration of creativity. Clowning, juggling, theatre improv, music and outdoor games are a few of the creative tools he uses to assist his clients with increasing their effectiveness and reaching their potential. The phrase “thinking outside the box” needs tools and a practice to make it real and come alive. Kim assist people to feel and know what it is to be “outside the box” and how to transfer this to work and life situations. To think, feel, and do things differently


and then achieve different results. This is increasingly important in a world of change and complexity.

Kim and his wife Mandi Kujawa have lived in Banff for 21 years and are performers who use music and stories to entertain and educate. They have performed at Canada Day celebrations, Folk Festivals, Folk Clubs, and The Banff Centre. They also perform for Parks Canada interpreting and sharing the wonder of the natural world with visitors to the Mountain Parks.

Kim is active putting leadership theory into practice as a community leader. He is the Chair of the Board of Trustees of the Canadian Rockies School Division and is a founder and Director of the Banff Community Foundation. Kim was the Executive Director of an early childhood program for 15 years and has a thorough knowledge of human development, which he applies to his work in community and professional development. He has discovered in these endeavours that leadership practice requires an acute attention to process in order to build success and create results.

He has been a faculty member with Leadership Development at The Banff Centre since 1999.

Brian Calliou

Brian Calliou became the Program Director for The Banff Centre’s Aboriginal Leadership and Management in August, 2003. He brings a wealth of experience to this role. Aside from being the former Associate Director of the Aboriginal Leadership and Management programs from 2000 to 2002, Brian has served on a number of Boards. For example, he served as the Chair of the Alberta Historical

Resources Foundation Board, and presently serves on the Board of the Indigenous Bar Association.

Brian was a sole practitioner with Brian Calliou Law Office in Calgary, Alberta and ran a general practice but focused primarily on corporate law, real estate, personal injury, and Aboriginal law. Brian developed and taught two courses for the School of Native Studies at the University of Alberta – one on Aboriginal Economic Development and the other on Introduction to Aboriginal Legal Issues. He also was a sessional instructor at the University of Calgary teaching the Introduction to Law and Society course in the Faculty of Communication and Culture at the University of Calgary.

Brian is a Cree and member of the Sucker Creek First Nation in the Treaty 8 area of north central Alberta. He holds memberships with the Canadian Bar Association and the Indigenous Bar Association.

Brian holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science, a Bachelor of Laws and a Master of Laws from the University of Alberta. He has published works in various academic journals and books such as his “The Culture of Leadership: North American Indigenous Leadership in a Changing Economy” in Indigenous Peoples and the Modern State, and co-authored “Aboriginal Economic Development and the Struggle for Self-Government” in Power and Resistance: Critical Thinking about Canadian Issues. Brian’s research interests include Aboriginal leadership, self-government, economic development, Aboriginal and treaty rights, and legal history.


Lance Carlson

President and CEO of the Alberta College of Art and Design, Calgary, Canada.

Member of the Board of Directors of Calgary Arts Development Authority.

Recipient of two U.S. National Endowment for the Arts Fellowships (1982 and 1988).

B.A. in American Cultural Studies, M.A. in Sociology and American Cultural Studies, M.A. in Design.

Experience at The Kansas City Art Institute (as Vice President for Academic Affairs / Dean of Faculty, and Vice President for Planning and Strategic Initiatives), Art Center College of Design, The School of the Art Institute of Chicago, CalArts, and other colleges and universities.

Experience as a chief academic officer, chief planning officer, chief business officer, and chief development officer.

Former Visiting Professor / Artist at The School of the Art Institute of Chicago.

Expertise and professional interest in emerging “transdisciplinary” directions in the arts and design fields; professional history as an exhibiting artist. Published critic / commentator on the field(s) of design and the fine arts (print media and AIGA-Los Angeles website). Published over 90 articles, reviews or commentaries to date.

Involvement in the arts and design as a writer / commentator; maintain a broad network of contacts within the visual arts and design. Special interest in the relationships between the arts and the broader social / political landscape as well as business.

Extensive educational management and financial experience; direct experience with curriculum development, college personnel practices and issues, budget management, facilities and strategic planning and funding efforts, student services, community outreach, and special events programming in arts institutions. Former financial supervision of a $42+ million dollar budget. Experience with capital and renovation project management at the vice presidential level.

Knowledge of academic governance models, and methods for the implementation of shared governance vehicles that are inclusive of all college constituencies.

Experience developing and implementing presenting programs in the arts for the public; past projects have included a wide variety of presenters including artists Guillermo Gomez-Peña, Vito Acconci, Lorna Simpson, Hugh Dubberly, Milton Glaser, April Greiman, Robert Irwin, Coco Fusco, Peter Sellars, as well as noted biologist Simon LeVay and physicist Bart Kosko.

Design consultant to the U.S. Department of the Treasury on redesign of the Currency (released in 2003).


Jim Force

As an educator with over 30 years experience, Jim Force specializes in leadership development, conceptual and creative thinking, and small group dynamics. Throughout his career, he has assisted hundreds of individuals from the public and private sectors in realizing both their learning and their performance goals. Clients he has worked with include: Alberta Dept. of Agriculture, Alberta Energy and Utility Board, Alzheimer Society of Calgary, BP, Canadian Hunter, City of Saskatoon, Farm Credit, General & Cologne Re. (Fr.), Kimberly-Clark (US), Mountain Equipment Co-op (Calgary), Paramount Home Video, Shell Canada, Sun Microsystems (US), the University of Mexico, Western International Communications, the Young Entrepreneurs Organization and the Young Presidents Organization.

Jim holds a Ph. D. in Teaching and Learning as well as an M. A. in Leading and Consulting. He is currently associate faculty with Royal Roads University as well as with The Banff Centre. Jim’s life is an eclectic one. In addition to the above, he is a devoted family man, an award winning haiku poet with over 250 published poems, an avid wilderness canoe tripper, and a former Canadian Orienteering Champion. At home, he spends his time gardening with his wife, walking their dogs, making wine, and practicing Qigong and Tai Chi.

Jim conducts his life, business and decision-making on the following core values: (a) balance and harmony in body, mind and, spirit, (b) excellence in achievement, (c) integrity of relationships with others, (d) partnership in learning, working, and living together, (e) respect and legitimization of self and others, (f) generosity – the sharing of knowledge with others, and (g) stewardship of the natural environment.

Christo Grayling

Christo Grayling is president and co-founder of Pacific Center for Leadership and consults in Organizational Effectiveness.

Christo has explored the world, worked on farms, lead wilderness expeditions, worked with street kids, line workers, supervisors and business executives. He has climbed peaks in the Andes, Himalayas, New Zealand and the Canadian Rockies, paddled rivers and oceans in Australia and North America.

Christo has extensive experience facilitating learning that focuses on personal, team and leadership development. Since 1976 he has specialized in designing and delivering experiential learning programs that develop human potential and assist organizations to higher levels of performance by enhancing the quality of team work and their commitment to action.

In his words: “My purpose is to assist myself, my family and others to discover ways to live life to the fullest; to help individuals and organizations seek out ways of becoming even more effective in creating the results they want; facilitating rich conversations.”

Christo is a graduate from the acclaimed University Associates Internship in Human Resource and Organizational Development. In 1978 Christo received the Queen’s Silver Jubilee award. He is an associate faculty of the internationally renowned Banff Centre Leadership Development division and has been a faculty member for the Universities of Toronto, Calgary and Queen’s Executive Development Programs.

Christo is joined in business by his wife Barb. Together they travel and adventure with their sons Logan and Luke.


Roger Gullickson

If entrepreneurship is about accepting risk and creating value, Roger Gullickson’s experience with MVP defines the noun. With borrowed money, he purchased majority interest in MVP Communications (now MVP Collaborative) in March, 1996. Within eight years, he transformed a floundering video company into a corporate marketing communications powerhouse – more than tripling its volume and paying off its acquisition debt.

Prior to 1996, Roger was Group Director of Marketing at FTD where he led the largest product expansion in the florist association’s history, doubling revenues in four years. He instituted new promotional programs and corporate partnerships to expand the business of member retail florists.

His corporate career path began in the mid-70’s when employed by J I Case (now CNH Global). Over the course of fifteen years he held increasingly responsible management and marketing roles in North America and Europe. At age 33 he became Managing Director of the company’s British subsidiary with twelve locations and over 250 employees. He transformed an unprofitable marketing subsidiary into a growing and profitable business in less than two years. His last position at Case was General Manager, North American Construction Equipment Sales where he was responsible for 300 dealers and over 100 company owned retail outlets with more than 1,000 employees.

In truth, purchasing MVP was a return to Roger’s entrepreneurial roots. After graduation from The University of Wisconsin he had been the owner of an entrepreneurial candle and gift manufacturing and retailing company.

Don Hill

Don Hill is adjunct-faculty at The Banff Centre’s Leadership Development Program. His counsel as a “thought leader” is part of a gathering of “leading edge thinkers from the areas of leadership, popular media and the voice and vocal arts.” He has had a long association with the Centre in a variety of capacities and arts initiatives, which have resulted in at least one major award.

He’s also an associate researcher at the Behavioural Neuroscience Laboratory at Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario. A professional colleague of Michael Persinger, a scientist with an international reputation, Don co-authored a paper in 2003 which was accepted for publication in a scientific journal.

Don is the former host of “Tapestry”, a network programme on CBC Radio One and Radio Canada International. The weekly hour of interviews and feature documentary investigated the ontology of belief. His radio work has also been prominently featured on “IDEAS”, the long-running series on CBC Radio One. His programme on addictions, “Stoned Straight” (2002), which examined a controversial substance abuse therapy, was entered as evidence in a federal court in Albuquerque, New Mexico; listener response prompted a wider release of the radio presentation (available at Amazon, Chapters and Indigo), as a complement to another documentary series distributed by CBC Audio, “Visions & Voices”, which Don also made for “Tapestry” and “IDEAS”.

After four years in Toronto, he left Tapestry to host a pilot project for a national daily phone-in show. “The Nightwatch”, a late night window, which proposed to “smarten up” instead of dumb down talk radio, was broadcast as an experiment in half the country – west of


Manitoba. Don left the CBC last winter after it became clear the network was not going to redevelop its schedule with “talk” in mind.

Don has since moved on to the CKUA Radio Network, a listener-supported public broadcaster in Alberta, where he is presently preparing a new series of long-form documentary programmes.

Don is a filmmaker. His CBC television documentary, “Haunted House, Haunted Mind” (1999) gleaned an invitation to join the Behavioural Neuroscience Laboratory at Laurentian University as an associate-researcher – an invitation he accepted. Don made “Music, Mountains, Magic!”, an award winning television show about the 1992 Banff International String Quartet Competition. It was honoured with a Silver Apple prize at the 1993 National Educational Video & Film Festival (Oakland). The feature length documentary was also given a special screening at the National Gallery of Canada in 1997, with Don the “artist in attendance”.

Don produced “Bravo Alberta!”, a 1990 gala awards show for CBC Television staged in Calgary’s Jack Singer Hall which later won a national prize, the inaugural Canadian Conference of the Arts – Rogers Communications award for television excellence. Don is a popular speaker. He has lectured at post-secondary institutions (for example, the University of Toronto, University of Washington at Seattle, Grant MacEwan College and the University of Alberta in Edmonton, the University of Trinidad & Tobago, Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, British Columbia). He’s also spoken at conferences (for instance, The Humanist Association of Canada (2002) convention, Subtle Technologies (2002 & 2000) in Toronto, an annual gathering of scientists, software engineers and artists, and most recently the annual conference (2005) of the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees).

A long-standing member of the Writers Guild of Canada, Don has a long list of professional writing credits for radio, television and print. He’s been twice nominated by his peers as Best Writer – Documentary, and has an honours diploma in Broadcasting from Fanshawe College in London, Ontario.

A founding board member of the Edmonton Folk Music Festival, the largest and most successful of its kind in North America, Don is also an accomplished musician.

David Horth

David is co-author with Charles J. Palus of the award winning book The Leader’s Edge: Six Creative Competencies for Navigating Complex Challenges. David is a senior faculty member, program designer, facilitator, and writer in the The Center for Creative Leadership’s Design and Evaluation Center.

David specializes in the creative aspects of leadership. As an accomplished designer and trainer in a range of leadership development programs, he led the design and development of CCL’s Leading Creatively program – an art making forum which bridges the world of art to the world of business leadership. A new program to be launched in March, 2006, Navigating Complex Challenges uses his book as its major source of research. David facilitates many of CCL’s world renowned programs including the Leadership Development Program (LDP), the Looking Glass Experience (LGE)®. David’s fluency with both the technical and administrative aspects of business combined with his creative and artistic flair makes him sought after worldwide as unique keynote speaker, presenter, workshop facilitator, and coach.


An active member of the international community of creativity practitioners, David was a pioneer of the Creative Education Foundation’s Youthwise project targeted at international teenagers. He is Co-President of the Board of Trustees and a colleague of the Creative Education Foundation. He is Visiting Research Fellow at the Center for Entrepreneurship, University of Greenwich in London, UK. David has numerous publications in the leadership and creativity field. He is co-author of a CCL® product used to support group sense-making called “Visual Explorer: Picturing Approaches to Complex Challenges: Exploration for Development” (Chapter 15 of The Leadership Development Handbook). The prestigious The Change Handbook, to be published in the Fall of 2006, will feature a chapter dedicated to Visual Explorer. In August, 2003, The Leader’s Edge was recognized for its unique contributions to the link between the arts and business leadership by The Banff Centre in Canada.

David’s background includes 21 years in the computer industry; he began as a research and development engineer and emerged as a strategist specializing in creativity and innovation. He managed both hardware and software development teams, major technology programs and served as marketing manager and trainer of quality improvement and innovation. He joined the CCL in 1990 from the human resources division of the Centre for Consultancy in England.

David describes himself as an artist-in-training. He enjoys drawing and writing poetry, and his special gift is music. He plays a variety of instruments ranging from African drums to piano and folk guitar to Native American flute to didgeridoo, a native Australian aboriginal instrument. He holds a B.Sc. (Hons) from the University of Surrey in England.

Stephen Joyce

“An ounce of skill is better than a pound of knowledge” guides Stephen’s approach to facilitated learning. From leading edge research in neuroscience to linguistics, systems thinking, to Ericksonian hypnosis, solution-focused therapy to communication theory, the influences upon Stephen’s approach to life and work have been diverse.

Prawn Trawler Deck Hand, Brand Manager for the largest privately owned pharmaceutical company in the UK, Performance Consultant to the 2003 World All-Natural Body Building Champion – Stephen’s background reflects his eclectic approach to life and business. Stephen runs his own company, Zenergy PD Inc., which specializes in developing resiliency within teams and companies. Stephen lives outside the box but drops in occasionally to collect his mail.

Areas of Expertise:

Building resiliency within individuals and teams, and connecting personal and professional development.

Affiliations:

Executive committee member (Calgary Chapter) of the Canadian Society of Training & Development (CSTD); Board and institute member, Canadian Society for NLP (CANLP) and editor of their national newsletter ‘Suppose”; served on the board of the Calgary Association of Professional Speakers (CAPS). Member of Alliance for Capitalizing on Change (ACC). Board member of the Airdrie City Community Resource Committee. Licensed Professional Consultant with UK Stress Management Association (UKSMT).


Ralph Kerle

Ralph is Acting CEO of the newly formed Creative Leadership Lab, an Australian action learning centre start-up based on arts-based processes, supported and funded by business and government. He was formerly CEO / Creative Director of Eventures Australia Pty. Ltd. (experience design and production) and in that capacity he has worked for such Fortune 500 companies as Caltex, Carlton and United Breweries, Dairy Farmers, Foxtel, General Motors, Hewlett Packard, Kraft Foods, Nestle, Rolls Royce, Toyota, Telstra, Walt Disney, and Yellow Pages.

He is a drama graduate of the Victorian College of the Arts and former Associate Director of the Sydney Theatre Company. He is a Board Member and International Committee member of the US Creative Education Foundation, is currently US Creativity Association Chapter Leader in Australia, and a Fellow of the US-based think tank, the Center for Cultural Studies & Analysis. He is a Board Member of the Australian Festival and Events Association and government-funded, international, contemporary multi-media gallery Artspace, Sydney.

He is a regular international presenter on creativity and innovation, in particular in Canada and the United States, where his work on the design and application of arts-based processes in business, organizations and management, informed by theatrical methodologies, is highly regarded.

He is currently completing his Professional Doctorate at Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia in Creative Industries.

Ivan Kusal

Mr. Ivan Kusal, Certified Business Continuity Planner (CBCP) since 1995, is Director of the TELUS Corporate Business Continuity office. He has been a TELUS employee for over twenty-five years and in his current role for the last four years. He is responsible for the development and implementation of TELUS’ Business Continuity Program. He also works with TELUS Customers to help them understand TELUS’ capabilities and responsibilities during an emergency situation. His previous positions have given him experience in continuity planning, network management and operations, engineering, data processing, and organizational development and behaviour.

In his tenure, Mr. Kusal has been responsible for managing the TELUS Emergency Operations center in response to a significant number of disaster-related events, including several simultaneous, multi-event occurrences. From a Business Continuity perspective, he has been involved in many TELUS convergence goals and has supported various special event activities such as the G8 World Leaders’ Summit and the 2010 Olympic bid.

Mr. Kusal is the current Chair for the Canadian Telecommunications Emergency Preparedness Association (CTEPA). He also sits on the Board and is the Education Chair for the Disaster Recovery Institute – Canada (DRIC).


Patricia Ryan Madson

Patricia Ryan Madson is the author of Improv Wisdom: Don’t Prepare, Just Show Up (Bell Tower, 2005) and a professor Emerita from Stanford University where she taught since 1977. In their drama department she served as the head of the undergraduate acting program and developed the improvisation program. In 1998 she was the winner of the Lloyd W. Dinkelspiel Award for Outstanding Innovation in Undergraduate Education. She founded and coached the Stanford Improvisors and taught beginning and advanced level courses in Improvisation for undergraduate as well as adults in Stanford’s Continuing Studies Program. In 1996 she founded the Creativity Initiative at Stanford, an interdisciplinary alliance of faculty who share the belief that creativity can be taught. Patricia has taught “Design Improv” for the School of Engineering, and is a guest lecturer for the Stanford Technology Ventures Program and for the Mayfield Fellows Program.

She teaches regularly for the Esalen Institute, and has given workshops for the California Institute for Integral Studies, the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology, the National Association of Drama Therapists, the Western Psychological Association, Duke University East Asian Studies Center, and the Meaningful Life Therapy Association in Japan. Patricia combines her teaching of improvisation with work as a counsellor using an Eastern approach to problem solving known as Constructive Living™. Additionally, she has been the American Coordinator of the Oomoto School of Traditional Japanese Arts in Kameoka, Japan. Patricia was one of the founding Board members of Bay Area TheatreSports™, and has been a long time student of Keith Johnstone.

Her corporate clients have included: Gap Inc.’s Executive Leadership Team, The Lucille and David Packard Foundation, the National Collegiate Inventors & Innovators Alliance (NCIIA), Hewlett Packard, Digital Impact, IDEO, Sun Microsystems Japan Division, Extempo Systems, Apple Computers, Adobe Systems, the Piedmont School District, and Price Waterhouse.

Laurie Maslak

As a facilitator, consultant and educator, Laurie has over 20 years combined leadership, consulting and teaching experience in the public and corporate sectors. Laurie holds a Master of Arts in Leadership and Training from Royal Roads University in Victoria, BC (1998), a Bachelor of Nursing from the University of Calgary (1984), and is currently a PhD student at Capella University, located in Minneapolis, MN. She is also a Certified Human Resources Professional and an active member of several Human Resources Associations. She received the Human Resource of Calgary, Award of Excellence in 2002.

Laurie has taught at Royal Roads University and with the University of Calgary in two Faculties. Laurie has consulted with over 1000 leaders from various organizations.

A recognized and trained facilitator in the use of Appreciative Inquiry, she incorporates its methodology and process into her daily consulting practice focused on enhancing work teams, leadership development at all levels of the organization, clarifying corporate culture, and coaching individuals to realize their dreams and potential. She is also called upon as a regular speaker locally, nationally and internationally on topics around Understanding and


Motivating a Multi-generational workforce, Growing and Developing Leaders, Retaining and Recruiting Top Notch Talent, and Developing Communities of Significance.

She has authored and published various papers and is currently co-writing a book. Her volunteer work has been with youth, AIDS Calgary, Agrium, and as a Board Director and Executive member for several organizations.

When Laurie isn’t working she loves to travel and spend time with her family (husband, five kids and one grandchild), golf and spend time in her garden!

Randall McKay

Randall McKay has worked in both the public and private sector as an urban designer, town planner and policy analyst. He has also written and lectured on a broad range of planning matters related to commercial growth management strategies, destination resort planning, and planning and development in protected areas. He continues to pursue a wide range of academic interests including theories of city building, urban utopias in the twentieth century and the philosophy and methodology of contemporary planning practice in Canada. Randall is a member of the Canadian Institute of Planners, American Planning Association and Alberta Community Planning Association.

Randall studied urban planning and architecture at the University of Waterloo and has participated in two thematic media and visual arts residencies at The Banff Centre, including Big City and Informal Architectures. He is currently the Manager of Planning and Development for the Town of Banff.

Mikhail Miller-Lajeunesse

Mikhail Miller-Lajeunesse is an emerging artist graduating from the Alberta College of Art and Design in the Spring of 2006. His working practice deals with the mapping of different systems of visual language and communication.

Combining and assembling found objects into cohesive visual narratives, Mikhail strives to create a cooperative dialogue between the objects that he creates and the audience that engages the work.

Linda Naiman

Linda Naiman is founder of Creativity at Work.com, a Vancouver-based coaching, consulting and training group at the forefront of transformational change in organizations. She works with corporate and public sector organizations, linking creativity, innovation and strategy to business performance.

Linda began her career as a design consultant in marketing communications for organizations such as the Four Seasons Hotels, the Urban Development Institute, and CB Commercial Real Estate. Linda’s background in art and design led her to explore artistic processes and their applications to leadership and transformation. She is now among a group of pioneers in North America and Europe who are using the arts as a catalyst for developing leadership, collaboration, communication, and innovation in organizations.

Linda is co-author with Arthur VanGundy of Orchestrating Collaboration at Work (Wiley 2003). Her writings on creativity and innovation have appeared in numerous business journals including


Perspectives on Business and Global Change, published by the World Business Academy.

Linda made headlines in the Vancouver Sun on the role of art in business and science. She has also been interviewed in the Globe and Mail, CMO magazine, ProfitGuide.com, Artful Creation: Learning Tales of Arts-in-Business, by Lotte Darsø (2004), on Danish Television, CBC Radio, and on National Public Radio.

Clients include AstraZeneca, BP International, Fairmont Hotels, Choice Hotels International, Radical Entertainment, Placer Dome, Citizens Bank of Canada, the City of Burnaby, and the University of British Columbia. She gives seminars in Continuing Education at UNBC and Royal Roads University. As a speaker and workshop leader, Linda has presented at business conferences in Canada, the US, Argentina, and in Europe.

Linda is a graduate of the Emily Carr Institute, holds a BFA from California College of the Arts, and has a certificate in business coaching from Corporate Coach University.

Harold Nelson

Dr. Harold Nelson is president and co-founder of the Advanced Design Institute. He is presently working as an organizational systems designer and education consultant for universities, governmental agencies and business organizations. His focus is in two areas: the first is on the development of design competent organizations and individuals, and the second is on innovation leadership development. He is also an affiliate associate professor in

the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Washington.

Dr. Nelson graduated with distinction from the University of California at Berkeley where he designed his Ph.D. program – The Design of Social Systems – through the Ad Hoc Ph.D. program. His dissertation focused on a systems approach to the impact on rural communities of large-scale resource development projects with an emphasis on value distribution assessment. He also received a Master of Architecture degree from the University of California at Berkeley. After completing his Bachelor of Architecture at Montana State University, Dr. Nelson studied architecture at the Technical University and ceramic design at the Athenaeum Fine Arts Academy – both in Helsinki, Finland. While in Helsinki he worked as an assistant to the Finnish architect, Reima Pietilla.

For over twelve years Dr. Nelson was the head of the Graduate Programs in Whole Systems Design (WSD) at Antioch University. Under his leadership the programs became nationally recognized in the field of organizational systems design. One program was ranked among the top graduate programs in organizational development (OD) in the United States. He was the principle designer of the degree programs as well as serving in the academic leadership position of Director of the Programs and professor. Prior to this he taught architecture at several state universities.

He has been involved with diverse organizations, including non-profits and corporations, state and federal agencies, international governments, and the United Nations. He has worked as a researcher, consultant and university educator in both design and systems science. He has consulted, or taught, in Sweden, Chile, Turkey,


Finland, Indonesia, and Australia. He is a past president of the International Society for Systems Science, a position previously held by such notables as Margaret Mead, C. West Churchman, Ilya Prigogine, Sir Jeffrey Vickers, and Russell Ackoff.

Prior to his work in the fields of organizational systems design and educational systems design, Dr. Nelson, a licensed architect in the State of California, worked as an assistant regional architect for Region Five of the U.S. Forest Service. He has also worked as an architect in the private sector.

The Design Way, a book, co-authored with Erik Stolterman, was recently named Outstanding Book of the Year by the Division of Instructional Development of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

Teresa Norton

Teresa Norton’s career in executive coaching and strategic training is founded on over 20 years of live theatre, television, advertising, bilingual radio, and international business experience.

Currently one of Asia Pacific’s most sought-after executive coaches, Teresa provides strategic communications counsel to numerous multinational corporations is presentation skills, leadership and professional advancement training, and surmounting sensitive, cross-cultural communication challenges.

As CEO of Spotlight on Success, Teresa has pioneered effective, theatrically directed, group training and one-on-one coaching in Asia to enhance corporate communication skills. “Spotlight on Success”

international corporate clients include British Petroleum (BP), The Economist, Jardine Matheson, and the Mandarin Oriental Hotel Group.

Ms. Norton began her professional career in the theatre singing with the San Francisco Spring Opera. She left the Bay Area and embarked on a career in radio in Hawaii, where she began a lucrative career in commercial voice-overs for radio and television commercials, which continues to this day for clients including Star TV, Mobil / Esso and McDonald’s.

Throughout a radio career in which Teresa hosted the breakfast show that pioneered Hong Kong’s first and highly acclaimed “intelligent bilingual presentation”, Teresa maintained her ties to professional theatre, featuring in numerous professional productions, co-writing a series of satirical / musical revues, and eventually forming her own theatre company, Caught In The Act.

In 1997, Teresa was invited to guest lecture at the Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts Musical Theatre Department and also published a seven-year collection of her weekly columns for the South China Morning Post, Mixed Nuts.

In addition, Teresa also writes, produces and directs corporate and retail entertainment through her management of Strategic Entertainment Ltd. Past and present clients include The Walt Disney Company Asia Pacific Ltd., AMC Singapore (Nokia), Blaze Communications (ABN Amro), WINPAC, and Sun Hung Kai Properties.


Sandy Penrose

Performance improvement initiatives through leadership and management program design and facilitation are the focus of Sandy’s work. Expertise in facilitating development to increase awareness of self and others, communication, conflict resolution, coaching and performance management are her specialties. In designing programs she’s a proponent of experiential activities to create effective learning experiences.

Sandy is an experienced practitioner, qualified in MBTI® applications including Step II and other inventories. An MBA, B.Ed., and undergraduate degrees in Applied Science and Psychology, combined with career experience, present a blended skill set for development of programs with impact and relevance.

Leadership roles that Sandy has held include both private and non-profit sector experiences. As CEO and President of the Banff School of Advanced Management, the 4-week executive development program sponsored by western Canadian Universities, she guided the strategic direction, business development, and organizational performance.

Her Program Director / Assistant General Manager role with the Leadership Program Area at The Banff Centre demonstrated Sandy’s skill in mentoring and coaching team members as well as in designing unique programs supported by competency maps for measurable learning.

At the University of Calgary’s Haskayne Business School, she utilized a high degree of communication and collaboration with business owners in Calgary and area to design and execute a new

MBA program in Enterprise Development. Responsibilities as Regional Director of CALA Human Resource Communications also built on her range of skill in assessing client needs in the corporate environment.

Volunteer experience has included a wide range of organizations. Currently Sandy is a Board Member for Mineral Springs Hospital and Chair of the Ethics Committee. Memberships include the International Society for Performance Improvement, the Association for Psychological Type and the Human Resource Association of Canada.

Sandy is a strong proponent of life-long learning which is applied, relevant, creative and engaging. She believes that “superior performance – individual and organizational – requires a commitment to ongoing learning. If people can be inspired to look at things in new ways they will be adaptable to our rapidly changing environment.”

Don Quist

Don is the founder and Managing Director of Hood Group. He has over 25 years of experience in the industrial engineering and construction industry. The last 20 years of Don’s career have been spent building a multi-discipline consulting company, working on numerous industrial projects varying in background but including tar sands, mining, oil and gas, and chemical manufacturing projects. Don is a 5-program participant at The Banff Centre’s Leadership Development program. In his spare time, he enjoys skiing, snowboarding and golf.


Virginia Stephen

Currently the principal in her company Cultural Futures Associates, Virginia Stephen brings to her practice over 25 years of experience as an arts educator, museum educator, senior arts administrator, and CEO of a regional art museum. As an educator, artist, writer, and curator her focus has been to facilitate individual and group interaction with art to enrich ways of knowing, ways of interacting with the world and other people, and ways to achieve innovation with students, adults, and corporate groups. She has worked and presented across Canada and been guest speaker at education, museum, health care, and leadership conferences and symposia in the United States and Europe. She has written exhibition catalogues and books for museum audiences of all ages and contributed to arts education and museum periodicals, anthologies, and peer reviewed journals in Canada and the United States. Ms. Stephen holds an M.A. in Visual and Performing Arts Education and undergraduate degrees in both art history and arts education. In 2003 she was the only Canadian participant in the prestigious Getty Leadership Institute’s “Museum Leadership Institute”. Her current client list includes the Government of Alberta, Grant MacEwan College, and individual clients. Current areas of interest and exploration are the arts in health care, and curatorial and art museum education theory and practice as personal growth and competency building modalities for leadership development.

Elizabeth Sorochan

Elizabeth is currently part of the learning and development group at the University of Alberta offering a range of responsive leadership and development programs for learner groups across campus from

executive to front-line leadership. The design and development of learning experiences, as well as the possibilities around catalytic facilitation of self-directed innovation, learning and leadership vision, are central to her work at the University. She comes from an interdisciplinary academic background centered on adult, organizational, experiential, transformational, and “re-creational” learning and leadership at Concordia University in Montreal, and has worked as well in Counselling and Development prior to her work here in Alberta.

Janice Tanton

As a graduate of Durham College in Graphic Design and having attended the University of Windsor B.F.A (Acting), Janice brings a wealth of artistic, business, design, and information technology and leadership experience to her role at The Banff Centre. Continuing her interest in the arts after graduation, she launched her own art company in 1989, taking control of her business interests after having been represented through other publishers. She quickly developed a wide sales network for her original and published artwork throughout Canada and into the United States, garnering major corporate accounts for design and distribution of works and giftware bearing her images. Client accounts, such as Home Hardware, Pine Ridge Art, Premier Gift Ltd., Country Home Candle Co. Inc., The Venator Group, English Butler, Shoppers Drug Mart and Sears, number over 800 and also include galleries exhibiting or commissioning her work. She has exhibited at shows in Toronto, New York, Atlanta, Halifax, and Edmonton.

Her entrepreneurial success and visioning for working artists led to an invitation as one of only 120 selected Canadian women delegates


to the first ever Businesswomen’s Summit between Canada and the United States (1999) as well as a nomination for the Rotman Women Entrepreneur of the Year in 2002. Having contributed to federal and provincial roundtable sessions on export development for women in business, she continued to be involved in leadership issues for women on a national level, such as Women Entrepreneurs of Canada, OWIT (Ontario Women in International Trade) and has published and represented the interests of several Canadian artists including her early career mentor and former publisher, Glen Loates.

Following the rapid expansion of her business, Janice chose to apply her management and entrepreneurial skills operating a heritage resort in southern Ontario. She still continues to oversee her own company and since 1996 has been the Creative Director, Designer and Illustrator of Country Home Candle. Since moving to Alberta in February of 2005, Janice also took on the role of Sale Administrator for the Fall Classic Breeders’ Sale for the Canadian Warmblood Horse Breeders’ Association and continues her lifelong equestrian interests in performance sport horses. She is currently working as the Program Coordinator and Desktop Publisher for Aboriginal Leadership and Management at The Banff Centre. Janice mentors and instructs a number of Canadian artists and youth through college and community programs. She is currently writing papers and conducting two programs upcoming in July 2006 at Sir Sandford Fleming College, Haliburton School of Fine Arts on “Exploring Environmental Drawing, Creativity and Design” and “Exploring Creativity as a Leader”, based on her own contemporary experiences in the arts and business, and making the connections with historical math theories and the Principles of Design. She also instructs “Drawing on the Right Side of The Brain”, based on Dr. Betty Edwards’ theories, for the Town of Canmore. Janice is also a CSIA

Ski Instructor, taking every chance to enjoy the mountain experience from her home in Canmore, with her husband Kevin, and her three children, Grace (19 months), Benjamin (9) and Jacob (13).

Vincent Varga

Vincent Varga attended the University of Calgary where he received a B.F.A. in Art and the University of Victoria where he earned a M.F.A. in Visual Art. Varga has 20 years of curatorial and arts management experience including Curator of Contemporary Art at the Glenbow Museum from 1983 – 1986; Coordinator of Exhibitions at the XVth Olympic Winter Games, Olympic Arts Festival from 1986 – 1988; Coordinator of Fine Arts, City of Burnaby from 1989 – 1990; Senior Curator at the Art Gallery of Windsor from 1990 – 1994; Administrative Director, co-curator for SITE Santa Fe, Santa Fe, New Mexico from 1994 – 1996; Development Associate to The Edmonton Art Gallery from January to September, 1996; and the Executive Director of The Edmonton Art Gallery from October, 1996 to June, 2000. From June of 2000 to December, 2004 Varga served as the Executive Director and CEO of the McMichael Canadian Art Collection as well as the President of the McMichael Canadian Art Collection Foundation.

Beginning his curatorial career at Calgary’s highly respected Glenbow Museum, Varga served as a Curator of Art where he developed his curatorial and administrative skills. In 1990 he joined the staff of the Art Gallery of Windsor as its Senior Curator responsible for the overall direction of its exhibition and education programs. In 1993 he was appointed the interim director and led the organization to lease its facility to the Province of Ontario for the purpose of establishing Ontario’s first casino. Varga relocated the


gallery to the Devonshire Mall – the largest mall in the region where visitation to the gallery was dramatically increased.

In the spring of 1994, Varga was attracted to the United States to be one of two founding staff directors of SITE Santa Fe. This organization was established in late 1993 with the purpose of developing an international biennial of contemporary art in the American southwest. This not-for-profit organization with a core staff of three raised solely from the private sector the $2 million (US) required to organize and produce this exhibition of 31 artists from 13 different countries.

After the success of SITE Santa Fe, Varga returned to Canada in 1996 where he took up the challenge of Director of Development with the Edmonton Art Gallery. Soon after his arrival, he was appointed its ninth Executive Director. During his tenure Varga successfully attracted new sustainable funding for the gallery, and led the rejuvenation of the program direction and re-engagement with the artistic and creative community locally and throughout the province.

In mid-2000 Varga joined the staff of McMichael Canadian Art Collection which is recognized nationally and internationally for its commitment to Canadian art with a special focus on the Group of Seven and their contemporaries, Inuit and First Nations art.

Keith Webb

Keith Webb shaped a career out of doing what he loves – taking people into the Rocky Mountain landscape. For 33 years he’s worked mostly outdoors. He works as a ski-mountaineering guide in winter and, in summer, he owns and operates a small nature tour company, taking clients into the backcountry on trips from gentle nature strolls to week-long mountaineering trips.

Keith managed the Nature / Interpretive Programs for the City of Calgary and for Mt. Revelstoke and Glacier National Parks for 14 years. He has also worked as a helicopter ski-guide and mountain climbing instructor for the Canadian Military. Keith paid for his degree in English Literature by working as a Glaciologist, conducting field research on mountain glaciers. He has just finished a four-year term as Chair of the Friends of Banff Park, a non-profit organization dedicated to educating the public about National Parks.

Keith has recently returned to The Banff Centre where he once coordinated environmental programs for business executives. He is now guiding and teaching programs in Innovation and Leadership skills back at The Banff Centre.

He teaches systems thinking through concrete examples from nature. His personal passion is understanding how complex adaptive systems function and demonstrating how business can learn from nature. He’s been recently working with two independent management consultants, speaking and working with organizations such as Talisman Energy, Deloitte and Touche, the Young Entreprenuers Organization, Superior Propane and two dozen others.


Appendix B: Article

Common Ground, Quantum Leaps, And Generous Converation: 2006 Thought Leader Forum

~ By Pam Challoner, from the Leadership Compass magazine, Summer 2006 issue

Is design limited to the aesthetic, or does it create and make meaningful the real world?

To facilitate final presentations during the recent Leadership Learning Lab’s Thought Leader Forum, participant groups were given a four foot square sheet of plywood. But the plywood remained untouched. Final designs presented in response to the forum’s challenge were bursting with thoughts, objects, illustrations, and actions. Each group’s thinking ventured well outside of the proverbial plywood box, clearly influenced by the artistic processes to which they had been exposed over the past few days.

The sixth of its kind at the Centre’s Leadership Learning Lab, the 2006 Thought Leader Forum brought together thought leaders, artist facilitators, business people, and leadership faculty from around the world. This year’s forum, The Leader as Designer, sought to explore how artistic processes can inform the practice of leader and leadership development.

Opening discussion at the forum brought out many questions. Is design limited to the aesthetic, or does it create and make meaningful the real world? If not limited to the aesthetic, can design be applied to leaders and leadership? If through design, organizations and

people can be recreated, can leaders and leadership be similarly redesigned and reinvented?

The forum’s unique approach to these questions relies on planned interplay between creative, experiential activities and analytical, debriefing sessions. Speaking to fellow forum participants, US-based researcher and university educator in both design and systems science, Dr. Harold Nelson commented, “Historically action and thinking have been split, those with practical hands-on skills have worked separately from those with knowledge-based analytical skills.” But Nelson adds, “This does not make sense for designers.”

Facilitating the interplay of action and thinking while actively exploring links between design and leadership, the forum included sessions led by artist facilitators utilizing mediums of clay and sculpture, drawing and painting, found objects, and theatre.

The forum structure also utilized ambiguity, freedom, play, and risk. Many details of the sessions were left vague, leaving groups subtly digging for rules and expectations to guide them. Sessions intentionally created a loss of regular patterns providing facilitators and participants only the organics, or crude bits, on which to base their experience.

Forum participant, Elizabeth Sorochan, is part of the learning and development group at the University of Alberta. Sorochan commented, “The forum provided for both exploratory play and safety, both non-familiar and familiar.” She added, “The artistic mediums were aesthetic catalysts that helped us see into ideas, opening up endless possibilities as a group, and allowing us to not be hooked to a narrow outcome.”


So what of all the questions surrounding design and leadership? Throughout the forum and in the final presentations common ground, ah-has, quantum leaps, and even moments of serendipity poured forth. Suggestions and insights were shared in the form of sculptures, poems, paintings, and theatrical improvisations, in addition to abundant, generous conversations. The level of communication that developed during the forum was applauded by participants.

Said Colin Funk, Creative Programming Director for Leadership Development, “one of the key outcomes was the exploration of the similar roles (and competencies) of both leaders and designers in visioning and creating future possibilities.” He also noted that competencies around design, “often made of whole-brain thinking”, were “a wonderful bridge between left and right brain thinking styles” now understood to be vital as leadership competencies. Funk characterized the work of Dr. Harold Nelson as particularly valuable in the way it “reinforced the importance of paying attention to ‘organizational protocols’ as a means for advancing new innovations and actions.” On a practical note, Funk indicated that many of the content and processes investigated during the Forum will be introduced into the upcoming Leading in a Complex World: Ecology of Leadership program.

One of the Asia Pacific’s most sought-after executive coaches, Teresa Norton was surprised by the level of emotional involvement that resulted in the forum. Norton says, “I arrived expecting something very business focused. What transpired over the next few days showed so much humanity – a reminder that the two things are not mutually exclusive.”

The Centre’s Thought Leader Forums continue to expand the boundaries of traditional learning in the area of leader and leadership development, creating the right spaces, bringing together the right people, asking the right questions, and enhancing dialogue on the practice of leadership. Outcomes of the forums facilitate the continual content refreshment of the Centre’s Leadership Development programs, and increase the Leadership Learning Lab’s network of artistic facilitators.


Appendix C: Syntegral Design

Group-based creativity through aesthetic processes

~ by Brian Woodward and Colin Funk Leadership Learning Lab The Banff Centre Banff, Alberta, Canada [email protected] [email protected]

Abstract

An adapted version of Stafford Beer’s model of team syntegrity was combined with four Aesthetic Processes (APs) (clay / sculpting, theatre improvisation / writing, painting / drawing and curatorial / found objects) to generate a process model of design that maximized group-based idea generation, idea sharing, and idea integration in a short period of time. This paper outlines some preliminary discoveries resulting from a three-day participatory Forum hosted by the Leadership Learning Lab at The Banff Centre in which four “design pods”, made up of leader developers, business managers, artists, and academics responded to a design challenge to create a new enterprise. Clay / Sculpting and Curatorial / found objects proved to be powerful methods for group-based idea generation and exploration compared to Painting / Drawing and Theatre / Writing. Participants also found this same pattern in terms of comfort with these two APs. The direct hand manipulation involved in these two APs affected how participants were able to share their ideas and to make collective sense of them. The value of using APs as an engine of design within a structured group-based approach is discussed.

Introduction and Background

At its basic nature, the activity of design is about having an idea and then bringing that idea to life through form and function in the real world. Design takes a subjective experience and through a birthing process makes it real. Design, broadly, is about creating a desirable or preferred world in contrast to the one at hand and so reflects human intention.

Human intention, made visible and concrete through instrumentality of design, enables us to create conditions, or artefacts, that facilitate the unfolding of human potential through designed evolution in contrast to an evolution based on chance and necessity – a highly unpredictable process.1

The value of a design approach (as opposed to a solely scientific, spiritual, artistic, or technological one) is that it begins with some subjective sense of wanting a change in current circumstances or conditions. Today, most of these circumstances or conditions are complex in nature. They are characterized by undifferentiated and ambiguous dynamics, indicators and outcomes. A design approach eschews the problem solving approach for a more creative and expansive one in that design works through a process of discernment and distinction culminating in a final artefact that fits into the complexity that spawned it.2

Two primary processes of design are focused on in this work. The first is that of composition, which requires a focus on relationships and specifically on how elements or entities are brought together in relation to each other in time or space to form a systemic whole that serves some purpose or function.3 In this sense, the design process allows for conceptual and physical re-arrangement of current


elements based on an intention or purpose. Composing begins with a set of elements (conceptual and / or real) and “plays” with these elements until a suitable arrangement is found. Suitability is determined by the intention or problem at hand. Out of a wide variety of possible compositions, a few are considered suitable and one is finally chosen.

The second design process is that of judgment, which is best characterized by the act of decision-making without rules of logic.4 If design engenders composition as a primary process then the way to make decisions must be based on something other than logic-based rules because there are far too many possibilities to hold and consider within any compositional space. The faculty of human judgment, however, is a complex one. The judgment process may be just as easily based on intuition as it is on character, on values as it is on worldview, on life history as it is on spiritual experience.5 Regardless of the source of the judgment, the act of making judgments is critically linked to the process of composition as a key element of design.

Composition and judgment are two processes common also to the work of artists who, through music, painting, sculpting, dancing, film, etc., create works within an intentional space. These artistic, or more broadly speaking, aesthetic processes refer to any activity or artefact that engages the senses – any activity or reaction to an object that elicits a sensual response. The aesthetic is a significantly different lens through which meaning emerges from our sensual territories.6 The aesthetic lens addresses embodied, emotional, sensual, symbolic elements of ourselves and our cultural environments.7

Aesthetic Processes (APs) are qualitative in nature, requiring description and a high degree of interpretation and judgement. Aesthetic knowledge is situated in the body. The aesthetic dynamic is present within all people and in all interactions between and among people – an integral part of existence whether it is used consciously or goes unnoticed below the surface. The aesthetic dynamic intuitively synthesizes impressions, nuance, vague impression, and other fluidities into decisions, acts, structures, etc., often without rational or logical justification. Aesthetic knowledge is a distinct way to perceive, a way to produce meanings and realities.6

APs provide a means for studying both composition and judgment processes within an intentional space – to produce a result based on a challenge or desired end-state. However, the study of these kinds of processes is usually restricted to the individual artist or designer. The focus tends to be on the individual and how that individual designs or creates. However, design as a process is often done in groups, whether it is exercised formally or informally. One of the reasons teams have grown dramatically in the workplace is because of the synergy, or collaborative energy, that is created by tapping into the collective wisdom of team members. Consequently, the research on team creativity is developing at a rapid pace.8,9,10,11,12,13,14

A well-structured group-based approach to innovation and planning was developed by Stafford Beer under the title “Team Syntegrity” (TS).15 TS was designed specifically for a group of thirty people to engage creatively in a non-hierarchical fashion on any issue that was presented. The intention of Beer’s process was to rapidly bring ideas together to generate a creative outcome to a problem or issue as well as to build a group consciousness. A “syntegration”16 is a highly structured process that begins with a group of stakeholders who wish


to address a set of issues. The stakeholders have diverse perspectives and experiences as well as potential solutions based on their own individual viewpoints. The purpose of a syntegration is to help this group of stakeholders consciously design that which does not yet exist. This could be a new organizational structure, a new governance system, a new product, or a new physical design.

Within a syntegration individuals are members of different “teams” that have chosen a specific perspective on the issue at hand – there are specifically 12 teams. A single individual will be part of two teams. People move back and forth in these teams so that, overall, ideas are dispersed readily and become available to all the teams. As work progresses in an iterative fashion the responses to the issue emerge in many forms, but they all tend to be integrated because of the highly structured interaction protocols.

This work tests the basic elements of a design process that uses APs deliberately in a pared-down version of Beer’s TS model – Syntegral Design. Specifically, four APs were selected as the means by which participants would engage with each other in their teams in response to a design challenge. Unlike Beer’s process which gets participants together but leaves the method of “interaction” up to the teams themselves, Syntegral Design provides facilitated APs as the means of team interaction. The APs are used as the means of engagement. Although Syntegral Design has other components, only the relative value of APs for group-based design is reported here.

Method of Study

The AP component of Syntegral Design was tested during a Forum at The Banff Centre in February, 2006. This annual meeting brings together faculty facilitators, artists, business alumni, and academics

for three days of exploration around a chosen topic. This year’s topic was Leaders as Designers. 16 participants and 8 aesthetic facilitators attended along with support staff and 2 Forum designers. The objective was to assess the value of four facilitated APs within a rotating team structure for addressing a specified design challenge.

The design challenge was given to the teams on the first evening and two thought leaders provided some initial concepts regarding the challenge. There was some time for discussion but this was informal. The design challenge was to:

“Design an Enterprise dedicated to developing 21st Century leadership – the leaders and the models of leadership required to create, with vibrancy, courage, and creativity, the cultural shifts necessary to meet the challenges of this new century.”

Four design pods (Red, Green, Yellow, and Blue) were constructed so that each pod had one academic, one faculty facilitator, one artist, and one business alumnus member. Four numbered pods were also created (1,2,3,4) so that each participant was a member of one numbered team and one coloured team.

The four chosen APs were previously selected. All AP sessions were restricted to one hour and ten minutes’ duration and centred on the activities provided by the facilitators. The facilitators assisted the teams to various extents in making connections between the AP activities and the challenge. The APs were:

• Painting and Drawing (PD) – activity based on a combination of water colour painting and drawing;


• Clay and Sculpture (CS) – activity included the use of clay and other objects used to create physical renditions;

• Theatre and Writing (TW) – activity based on a combination of improvisation theatre and creative writing; and

• Curatorial and Found Objects (CFO) – activity based on discovering objects in outdoor and indoor spaces, and the contextualizing activity of a gallery curator.

The APs were done as a team for the most part. Although some of the facilitated activities started as individual work, often they were then combined with the work of others on the team. The clay work, for example, had individuals molding a representation of some element of the challenge, but then the facilitator had them move around the table to shift or change another member’s work. In the painting AP the individual team members created their own images for a given instruction, but these were then connected in a process outlined by the facilitator. For a more complete description of the four APs used in this study, see Woodward and Funk.17

Each AP had its own dedicated space and two trained Aesthetic facilitators. The teams rotated through these spaces according to a timeline over two days. There were breaks and opportunities for informal discussion over meals and in the evenings. On the final morning the teams came together to present their findings.

The teams rotated based on the following schedule:

TEAMS

Mon am1

Mon am2

Mon pm1

Mon pm2

Tues am1

Tues am2

Tues pm1

Tues pm2 Red CS TW PD CFO

Blue

TW PD CFO CSYellow PD CFO CS TW Green

CFO

CS

TW

PD

One CS TW PD CFOTwo TW PD CFO CSThree PD CFO CS TWFour CFO CS TW PD

For example, Red team had the Clay and Sculpture session, then Theatre and Writing, then Painting and Drawing, and then Curatorial and Found Objects. Participants were rotated to reduce duplication of APs.

After each AP session there was 20 minutes to journal so that each participant was able to record his / her reactions to the session. A workbook was provided for each participant for this purpose. The workbook contained open space to record ideas about the challenge for later use and about the AP just experienced itself. The workbook also contained specific questions pertaining to the session:

To what extent did this session…

1 Generate ideas for the challenge? A little…../……/……/….../….. A lot

2 Explore ideas for the challenge? A little…../……/……/….../….. A lot

3 Select ideas for the challenge? A little…../……/……/….../….. A lot

4 Change the group’s thinking entirely about the challenge? A little…../……/……/….../….. A lot

To what extent did this session focus on the…

5 Physical component of the challenge? A little…../……/……/….../….. A lot

6 Work component of the challenge? A little…../……/……/….../….. A lot

7 Organizational component of the challenge? A little…../……/……/….../….. A lot

8 Network component of the challenge? A little…../……/……/….../….. A lot

9 General ideas about the challenge? A little…../……/……/….../….. A lot

From your interactions with participants in the group, what was…

10 their degree of personal engagement in the process? Marginal….../….../…./.…./…. Total

11 their degree of comfort with the process? Little ….../….../…./.…./…. Total

12 the overall value of the session in furthering work Little ….../….../…./.…./…. Total on the challenge to them



The first set of questions (Q1-Q4) focused on what type of creative activities the session allowed the participant to do. The session could generate ideas, explore ideas in more detail, select ideas, or change the ideas of the group entirely. A single session could do any or all of the activities. The second set of questions (Q5-Q9) focused on specific elements of the challenge – the physical design, the work activities, how the solution was structured organizationally and how it was networked, or simply general ideas about the challenge. The final set of questions (Q10-Q12) was about the AP itself and the overall value of the session to the challenge.

Finally, each session was videotaped. The teams spent time on the final evening and early the next morning to arrange their presentations. The teams presented their results in an integrative session at the end of the final morning.

Results

Although a number of other results were obtained, only those concerning the relative value of the APs as group-based design processes are presented here. The effect of the sequencing of the APs will be reported in a subsequent paper. The main question in this component of the research was to identify the perceived value of the APs for addressing the challenge. Also, given that this was the first test of the Syntegral Design process, the researchers wanted to capture any anecdotes and observations that might lead to insights and further development of the Design process.

Based on the individual participant ratings, averages for each of the questions were generated and simple t-tests for repeated measures were used to determine if the averages were significantly different (significance at .05 level indicated by greyed cells). The following table of significance was generated:

APs Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12

PD/CFO 0.01a 0e 0.002j 0.166 0.236 0.084 0.883 0.991 0.385 0.126 0.001q 0.053

TW/CFO 0.008b 0.006f 0.077 0.961 0.452 0.491 0.092 0.191 0.339 0.498 0.003r 0.543

CS/CFO

0.76 0.681 0.674 0.344 0.442 0.688 0.061 0.081 0.163 0.889 0.524 0.965

PD/TW 0.811 0.342 0.171 0.174 0.704 0.25 0.08 0.176 0.922 0.371 0.679 0.199

PD/CS 0.034c 0.001g 0.021k 0.031l 0.048m 0.02n 0.054 0.071 0.014o 0.079 0.014s 0.05u

TW/CS 0.026d 0.009h 0.252 0.316 0.134 0.227 0.813 0.635 0.011p 0.38 0.032t 0.518


Participants rated Clay and Sculpture (CS) and Curatorial and Found Objects (CFO) significantly more likely to generate (Q1)a,b,c,d and explore (Q2)e,f,g,h ideas about the challenge than Painting and Drawing (PD) and Theatre and Writing (TW). As well, participants found that CS and CFO were no different in their ability to generate and explore ideas about the challenge and that PD and TW were also no different in their ability to generate and explore ideas about the challenge. As well, CS and CFO were rated significantly higher than PD on the ability to select (Q3)j,k ideas about the challenge. Only CS was significantly better than PD for changing (Q4)l the group’s ideas about the challenge.

For the most part all APs were about equal in their ability to focus on all content elements of the challenge (Q5-Q9) except that CS was significantly better at assisting the group in working on the physical component (Q5)m and the work component (Q6)n of the challenge than PD. CS was also rated significantly better than both PD and TW on generated ideas about the challenge.o,p

With respect to degree of comfort with the process (Q11), participants rated CS and CFO significantly higher than PDq,s and TW.r,t

Despite these significant scores all of the APs were rated about equally on their overall value (Q12), with only CS being rated significantly higher compared to PD.u

The challenge itself was left open as to what the enterprise would look like on a number of fronts: its organizational structure, its location in the world, its spirit and connection with other like centres. The two APs that involved a high degree of hand manipulation as a

primary activity provided a superior means for generating and exploring ideas about this design challenge. Participants seemed to use the clay experience and the found objects experience to render ideas more real. The other two APs (P / D and T / W) did not provide the same opportunities. Painting and Drawing activities are less manipulable in the sense that once paint or pencil is applied to paper, there is less possibility of re-arrangement – the paint or the pencil leaves a more permanent artefact – likewise with writing. The improvisational activities in the Theatre AP were based on movement and quick dialogue and so, too, were not as easily “viewed” in a static position with an opportunity then to consider and rearrange. With respect to composition, CS and CFO provided a more powerful means of arranging and rearranging artefacts than did T / W and P / D.

Typical of participants’ reactions were statements like “the clay spoke to me” and “it [the clay] made me slow my mouth down so I could think and talk.” These types of statements suggest an effect on inner psychological dynamics and thought processes. Hand movements with physical objects that represent ideas may “slow looking down”18 or at least slow the thought processes down in a personally discernable manner. In this sense they may affect the judgment process of design although this is not directly verifiable. In any event, participants found the CS and CFO APs to be highly engaging for generating and exploring ideas.

Another way to think about CS and CFO is to see them as providing the means for creating intermediate models. This type of “hands-on” idea manipulation allows a group of people to generate and explore ideas in terms of physical representations that have meaning only to the group. As a group talks and ideas emerge, these thoughts are


rendered in clay or in a familiar object in a representational manner for further discussion and thought by the group. As more and more ideas emerge, the representations are manipulated to express the new ideas. These intermediate models provide a direct, objective, physical means of working with ideas to ensure that all group members have the same or very similar meaning – the basis of collaborative appreciation. The other two APs, P / D and T / W, by their nature, make it more difficult to generate such intermediate models.

Finally, it could be that CS and CFO used more familiar objects to most participants. Clay is a “forgiving” medium in that mistakes can be quickly altered and the physical touch is soothing and the material has a “common feel” to it. CFO activity utilizes objects found indoors and outdoors and will also be quite familiar. This familiarity is less forthcoming with PD and TW which tend to hold some past associations and mixed feelings. Improv is theatre and requires trust and psychological safety. Also, those who remember with little fondness their art classes in early school may carry these memories with them into adulthood. This may explain the significant differences participants generated on the comfort questions (Q10-Q12).

Conclusions

The variety of APs chosen for this study was deliberate, in order to test the viability of each for design work in groups. What was not reported was the effect of the facilitator on the reactions of the participants. This analysis will come in a later paper with further in-depth study. The CS and CFO facilitators were veterans at the use of APs for exploring ideas. The facilitators for the PD and the TW were

facilitators who used artistic processes to “train” others in skills and competencies using their art form as a means to do so.

Based on this difference of facilitator approach both PD and TW could be re-configured to operate more as generative and exploratory methods. For instance, the use of “physical sculpting”19 in the TW sessions would provide a means of using the other people in the pod as “intelligent clay” in that the people could be used as the intermediate models. In this way there is more likelihood of providing a basis for the compositional component of design. As well, PD could provide a means for exploring certain selected elements of a design challenge, say the broader values and principles through the symbolic work of painting.

This paper reported the results of using four APs as the primary means of group-based design within a modified syntegration process. More experimentation with APs is required to hone their use and relevance but as the main “engine” of a structured, group-based design process the approach appears promising. As well, work needs to be done to make Syntegral Design a full-fledged design process. This work will require the development and design of processes considered as up-front and back-end processes around the engine of APs.


References

1. Nelson. H.G., and Stolterman, E. (2003). The Design Way: Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World. Educational Technology Publications, New Jersey, p. 2.

2. Ibid, p. 19.

3. Ibid, p. 22.

4. Ibid, p. 181.

5. Ibid, p. 201.

6. Woodward, J.B., and Funk, C. (2004). “The aesthetics of leader development: a pedagogical model for developing leaders.” Proceedings 2nd Art of Management and Organization Conference, Paris.

7. Strati, A. (2000). “The aesthetic approach in organisational studies.” In S. Linstead, and H. Hopfl, eds. The aesthetics of organisation. London: Sage.

8. Perry-Smith, J.E., and Shalley, C.E. (2003). “The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic social network perspective.” Academy of Management Review. 28, 89-106.

9. Shalley, C.E. (2002). “How valid and useful is the integrative model for understanding work groups creativity and innovation?” Invited commentary on “Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups” by Michael West. Applied Psychology: An International Review. 51, 406-410.

10. Shalley, C. E. (2003). “Role expectations and creative performance.” To appear in C. Ford (Ed.) Handbook of Organizational Creativity. Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

11. Gilson, L.L., Mathieu, J. E., Shalley, C.E., and Ruddy, T.M. (2005). “Creativity and standardization: Complementary or conflicting drivers of team effectiveness?” Academy of Management Journal.

12. Barlow, C. (2000). “Deliberate insight in team creativity.” Journal of Creative Behavior. Pp. 101-117.

13. Egan, T.M. (2005). “Creativity in the context of team diversity: team leader perspectives.” Advances in Developing Human Resources. Vol. 7, No. 2, 207-225.

14. Tiwana, A., and McLean, E.R. (2005). “Expertise integration and creativity in information systems development.” Journal of Management Information Systems. Vol. 22, No. 1 & 5, 13-44.

15. Beer, S. (1994). Beyond Dispute: the invention of team sytengrity. John Wiley and Sons: Chichester.

16. Ibid, p. 20.

17. Woodward, J.B., and Funk, C. (2006). “The use of aesthetic processes for design.” Paper accepted for 3rd Arts in Business Conference, Kracow, Poland, September.

18. Paulus, C.J., and Horth, D.M. (2002). The Leader’s Edge: Six Creative Competencies for Navigating Complex Challenges. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.

19. Woodward, J.B. (2005). “Zesting the tribe: the art of leader development.” Internal publication of Leadership Learning Lab. Based on Forum entitled The Art of Developing Leaders, Feb 05 (78 pp.).

the banff centre leadership lab (leader as designer)

Documents

behavioural

grant macewan

otto scharmer

indigenous

site santa

royal roads

country home

american cultural