From Spoke to Hub

Abstract

This article reports on a case study at an inner-city nonprofit service agency that inquired into the ways integration of storytelling and visual art as a method of adult learning and way of knowing might influence the process of strategic visioning and planning in a nonprofit organization. The case study focuses on data collected through interviews and observation in the context of an action research project, with an aim of better understanding the influence of presentational ways of knowing and learning on transformative learning at the organizational level. Findings of this case study point toward the possibility of such transformation, in particular a shift in meaning perspective manifested at the level of organizational vision and strategy that can affect the organization’s work all the way down to the operational level. Project background, process, and findings are discussed, followed by implications for practice.

Keywords

nonprofit organization visual art transformational learning mosaic storytelling

This article reports on a case study conducted at an inner-city nonprofit service agency in Baltimore, Maryland, that underwent an action research project focused on the development of strategic vision and a strategic plan for the organization. The case study inquired into the ways that integration of storytelling and visual art as methods of adult learning and ways of knowing (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1998; Heron, 1999; Liamputtong & Rumbold, 2008; Lipson-Lawrence, 2005; Seely & Reason, 2008; Yorks & Kasl, 2006) might influence the process of strategic visioning and planning in a nonprofit organization. Findings of the study point toward the possibility of transformation, in particular a shift in meaning perspective manifested at the level of the organization’s operational role (Kasl & Yorks, 2012). Project background, process, findings, and implications for practice are discussed.

Background for the Project

Strategic planning and execution in nonprofits are key to framing and pursuing a future state that ranges from progressive to radical in terms of social change. While strategic plans are often described as living documents that educate stakeholders, guide decisions, and inform action, in many nonprofit organizations the typical scenario is that the strategy is compiled to satisfy an oversight agency or an accrediting body, then tucked into a binder and set aside for a year, rather than informing the day-to-day decisions and work of the organization. This occurs despite notable efforts (Mintzberg, 1994) to position strategy as a valuable process of learning that involves strategic thinking. The distinction here, in part, is that strategic thinking (which can result in a plan) is messy, spontaneous, and creative, not a document driven exercise. As such, Mintzberg contends that it should not be constrained by set meeting times and agendas that drive the completion of a document rather than a way of fostering vision and a new way of thinking. It seems to follow, then, that this process could benefit from a participatory approach. While a reform of strategic processes is, I would argue, called for across organizations of all sorts, the focus for this action research case study was a small, grassroots, nonprofit agency. Therefore, let us turn our gaze to strategic work in the nonprofit sector.

Recently there has been a push to “corporatize” nonprofits, pushing business process and measurement, for better and for worse, into their way of working in their communities (Landsberg, 2004). In my work with nonprofits at the local and national levels I was once a part of this push, but I have come to see that this approach meets with only poor to mixed results in nonprofit and for-profit organizations alike. This corporatization is not an adoption of strategy making as vision making, as Mintzberg (1994) prompts us to consider it. Rather, the dominant model is underpinned by Taylor’s (1997) principles of managing scientifically, which separate doing work from managing it, and consequently focuses on strategy making as solely a leadership and management initiative.

Part of the difficulty may be that nonprofits have been convinced to adopt both the intention and the style of business process, and especially in small agencies without national infrastructure, there simply are not enough hands to divide work Tayloristically. In the case of strategic planning this wholesale adoption translates into the inheritance of a process that is driven almost entirely by data, highly circumscribed, perhaps even secretive. It results in a plan constructed by and primarily known only to those with positional authority at the top of the organization. It is typically linear in nature (Mintzberg, 1994) and skips over vision creation.

Even in good faith efforts to tailor the process to the operating constraints that distinguish nonprofits from businesses (Ronchetti, 2006), the results have typically been replete with worksheets and templates modified to reflect the service nature of nonprofit operations (see, e.g., Allison & Kaye, 2003; Bryson & Alston, 2004; Stem, 1999), and short on counsel regarding ways of facilitating and enacting the process. The importance of the disparate constituents of nonprofits including community volunteers and underserved clients, the broad participatory culture that aims to democratize voice, and the shift that occurs when for-profit goals of generating shareholder value are replaced with social action and community service as desired outcomes are largely unrecognized.

The strategic planning literature focuses on the generation of a document, rather than a living, social process of creating the future. The facilitation literature in turn leaves the pivotal process of strategic planning largely unexamined. The intersection of presentational knowing and transformative learning has implications for a new way of approaching strategic visioning and planning by fostering strategic thinking (Mintzberg, 1994) and building connections that will strengthen the overall muscle of the organization (Kasl & Yorks, 2012).

An Alternative Approach

I believe that what is called for is an understanding of how a more organic, holistic, participatory, and creative approach can be applied to the facilitation of strategic visioning and planning. Such an approach could cater to the impetus and culture of social action by incorporating artistic or presentational ways of knowing (Heron, 1999; Liamputtong & Rumbold, 2008). These may include linguistic forms of expression such as storytelling, poetry, songs, and plays, as well as nonlinguistic forms of expression such as drawing, painting, music, dance, and so on. Combining these ways of exploration and expression in a polyphonic, collaborative process that acculturates can render the plan and its ongoing execution within the organization alive, accessible, and sustainable.

We can consider strategy, at least in part, as an assemblage of ideas and images about a future state, a vision. The process of “strategic assemblage” applied in the action research study intentionally grounds mosaic work in storytelling and drawing. Implicit here is the assembling of people, their voices and perspectives, which are expressed and “fit together” in new ways on the basis of the process. Their storytelling fosters presentational knowing both individually and organizationally about the possibilities for the future, and by extension creates the potential for transformative learning to occur (Tyler & Swartz, 2012). Drawing and mosaic work are nonlinguistic forms of expression that contribute to the physical assemblage of a strategic artifact. The assemblage nature of mosaic art—joining small pieces to form larger shapes—makes it a practical metaphor for the collaborative generation of the vision and strategic plan that can transform the organization.

Dirkx (2006) helps us see the connection between presentational knowing and transformation when he suggests that “our creative, active imagination offers us, if we choose to see them and work with them, spiritual guideposts to our own growth, healing, transformation, and development of self-knowledge” (p. 32). This extrarational, spiritual dimension of transformative learning (Dirkx, 2006, 2012; Tisdell, 2012) resonates with the power of presentational knowing.

The Project

We can now turn our attention to the research project itself—the agency in which the action research took place, the questions that drove the case study, and the nature of the case study process.

The Agency

The agency at the heart of the study is My Brother’s Keeper (MBK) of Baltimore, Maryland. MBK is an independent nonprofit dedicated to providing programming and services (e.g., daily meal, job placement programs, youth leadership development, cooking, and nutrition education) to the struggling Irvington neighborhood in southwest Baltimore.

At the time of my introduction, MBK had a 5-year strategic plan that was 7 years old. There was a sense that new vision and innovation were needed, and the organization was open to experimentation. The process of applied storytelling and image generation to create a collective, prospective vision-story for the organization and its surrounding community was one that resonated nicely with leadership. The fundamental appeal, beyond access to probono consulting, was the use of a novel, engaged approach to pragmatics and the creation of a visual reference for ongoing participatory action. Similar in some ways to the use of “rich pictures” by Walker, Steinfort, and Maqsood (2014) to build inclusive dialogue in the context of “a pragmatic of Participatory Action Research (PAR) paradigm” (p. 344) applied to community rebuilding efforts, this study strove to move beyond conventional practices to achieve more robust outcomes than business as usual. This appealed to the thought leaders at MBK.

The Research Questions

The three central research questions informing the case study were as follows:

Research Question 1: What if any influence does the integration of presentational knowing have on the organization’s strategic visioning and planning processes?

Research Question 2: How does the inclusion of presentational knowing in the process affect the interpretation and internalization of the vision and plan by stakeholders and the organization writ large?

Research Question 3: What if any affect does the presence of the mosaic in a primary space have on stakeholders and the organization in the following year as they endeavor to operationalize the plan.

The Research Process

This case study followed the progress of an action research project (Reason & Bradbury, 2007; Seely & Reason, 1997) philosophically aligned with Lewin’s (1946) description of “research on the conditions and effects of various forms of social action and research leading to social action” (p. 35). During the project, semistructured interviews were conducted with 11 participants at various points following the second phase of the process. The sample of participants interviewed comprised the Executive Director, the Board President, four board members, four staff members, and two volunteers. All but one staff member (who left the agency) were interviewed twice. Digital recordings were transcribed by the researcher. Also, two unobtrusive observational visits were made to see how the guests of the agency awaiting the daily meal interacted with the mosaic that was an outcome of the action research project. A field journal recorded the unfolding of the process and the researcher’s role. The final source of data for the study was video footage and transcription by a professional videographer who recorded live action and interviews with select contributors as the project unfolded. All participants signed informed consent documents and media releases.

Strategic Assemblage Process

Integrating artistic or “presentational” (Heron, 1999) ways of knowing into the strategic planning process was intended to open up new ways of thinking about the future of the organization and the community by upsetting the apple cart, shaking up people’s sense of what was possible, and as Grace and Wells (2007) point out, “to counter memories of bad experiences” (p. 99) with other attempts at strategic visioning and planning both within and outside of the agency.

The project opened with a typical process of entering and contracting (Cummings & Worley, 2008), in which relationships began to build. Conversations among MBK’s Executive Director, the Board President, and the researcher resulted in a set of agreements about the time frame and MBK’s commitment to the project.

A key agreement was that the process would include voices from outside the organization. The stakeholders at MBK comprise a network that extends far beyond the agency itself and the clients it serves. As Walker et al. (2014) point out,

The right of project stakeholders to have a voice in the shaping and development of project goals and objectives is being seen as an important . . . operational requirement as well as being an ethical and socially responsible requirement.” (p. 343)

A highly diverse group of participants came together that included the MBK staff, board members, other volunteers including students from a local high school, suppliers (e.g., the food bank), representatives from other adjacent agencies (e.g., the local hospital), as well as residents of the community and MBK “guests” who avail themselves of the services of the agency. As Grace and Wells (2007) point out in the context of their work integrating artistic ways of knowing into projects with young adults who identify as sexual minorities, “Social learning must be from the bottom up to engender consciousness-raising” (104), and inviting the guests to participate in the process was of particular importance to the agency.

A schedule was established for two large-group work events on weekends, and six evenings were set aside for board, staff, and a handful of key volunteers to work on actually generating the vision and plan documents. The study advanced through five phases, briefly described here and summarized in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

A summary of the five phases of strategic assemblage for visioning and strategic planning undertaken in the MBK action research project.

In the Visioning phase, 30 people gathered at MBK on a Saturday. After an early breakfast, during which people gathered, made informal introductions, and signed consent forms, the morning opened with a prayer from the Board President, a Catholic Priest. Then, in a large circle, participants engaged in retrospective storytelling about MBK’s work, and their connection to it. This large-group retrospection help connect the participants to each other around their commonly held sense of the importance of the agency, and provided a foundation for thinking about future possibilities. Grace and Wells (2007), drawing on the work of Lipson-Lawrence (2005), suggest that art integration in learning can play an important role in expanding “possibilities for adult learning as a dialectical engagement between history and the present” (p. 100). Here the aim was to extend this notion to a history-future dialectic that included the present moment.

Following the retrospective storytelling, the participants organized themselves into pairs for prospective storytelling. They were asked to tell a story using this prompt: “It is 10 years from now. The Irvington community is flourishing. Tell the story of what the neighborhood is like, including the role that MBK has played in making it so.”

Next, participants continued to work in pairs to help each other select the most salient image from each of their prospective stories: “What is the picture that forms in your mind’s eye, when you tell or hear the story, that summarizes its most important point?”

With these images in mind, the group moved to the dining room where the agency serves the daily meal. The room was prearranged with clusters of tables accommodating four to six people each. There were place settings of three pieces of large sketchbook paper, two number 2 pencils, a gum eraser, one thick black marking pen, and two sheets of lined notebook paper. Participants were invited to draw the images they had identified in the storytelling space. This invitation met with the same eye-rolling and handwringing about not being an artist that Lipson-Lawrence (2005) describes in her graduate classes when introducing arts-based exercises. After some assurances that they would have more than one chance to work out their image (and after drawing their attention to the fact that they could choose to initially draw in pencil with the support of the gum eraser) the participants set about drawing their images—some in pencil and some with the black marker right from the start.

Drawing was an iterative process in three rounds. After generating an initial image, the group was invited on an “art walk” of the other drawings in the room. At each image, they would write on the lined notebook paper one specific, appreciative comment for its creator (So, not simply, “Looks great!” but rather, “I like the boldness of the arrows” and “The way you’ve drawn the knot is really good.”) When everyone returned to their own drawings, they reviewed the feedback they had received, and considered how they might like to experiment with a second version of the drawing based on what they had learned from the feedback. This process was repeated after the second version was completed, such that a third iteration was also created based on information from the second art walk. Before leaving the drawing room to return to the large-group circle, participants picked their favorite version of their own drawing, the one that would be included in the collective mosaic.

Back in the large circle, every member spoke about his or her image. Each explained what it symbolized and why it mattered, and then answered questions from the group. This reveal of the drawings moved around the group in a process of “pinging”: At the end of each image presentation, the participants were asked to consider whether their particular image had any connection to the one just presented and, if so, to consider volunteering to present next. This pinging process uncovered synergy between the images, and the participants quickly became skilled at identifying them, sometimes even vying with one another to be the next “ping.” At the close of this process, the participants were familiar with the full compendium of drawings, and with the connections between them.

When all the images had been discussed, the chairs were pulled back from the circle to clear out a 16 × 4.5 foot rectangle that had been taped on the floor. (This was the size of the available wall space where the mosaic would be installed in a series of panels. See Figure 2.) The images were laid out on the floor, and participants were asked to silently position and reposition the images until, without speaking, they agreed on placements that “made sense” to them. These placements formed natural clusters that could then be labeled. This layout became the design of the MBK vision mosaic. Participants quickly noted that they had created six “vision clusters” that formed an inadvertent but unmistakable arc, beginning with Inspiration (with its 100 W lightbulb), and moving through Dream, Unity, Energy, Community, to Achievement (with its 50,000 W lightbulb!). This arc was enthusiastically embraced, and these cluster labels later became the underlying schema for the strategic plan document.

Figure 2.

MBK vision mosaic, installed in the hallway that leads to the dining room where the daily meal is served.

In the second phase, Image Synthesis, an “inner circle” of board, staff, and key volunteers, worked with scans of the original drawings as a source for articulating strategic statements and brainstormed associated activities, obstacles, potential support, resource requirements, and so on over a series of evening sessions that included homework assignments. The intention was to complete a cogent, initial first draft of the strategy document, verifying the efficacy of the various images and clusters, prior to rendering them permanently with tile and cement in the mosaic.

In Phase 3, Collaborative Expression, the original large group reconvened to make the mosaic. After a brief lesson on the fundamentals of breaking and setting tile, they set about mosaicing their images, which had been previously rendered onto a series of panels (see Figure 2).

In Phase 4, the inner circle reconvened in evening sessions to create the Operational Plan (matching strategic elements to tactics, sequencing, time frames, and assignments). The images continued to provide fuel for focused and creative conversations about what was possible.

This brought the group to the final step, Phase 5, Finalizing, where the group worked on refining, agreeing, and readying the plan for communication and action, so that it could be presented to the Board for a vote. At this point, the action portion of the action research study came to a close.

Findings

This discussion is organized by the research questions underpinning the project, integrating pertinent literature, observations from the action research, and emergent themes and outliers from the case study interviews.

Influence of Presentational Knowing on Strategic Visioning and Planning

A fundamental influence of the process is connected to the space, both physical and energetic or psychosocial, in which it unfolded. MBK’s Executive Director felt strongly that the project should be done within the agency’s building, to maintain focus on the “who, what, and why” of the MBK and imbue the work with the values of the organization.

Bringing people together to do work that felt “strange” and risky compelled us to find a way of grounding people in the work before them. In their two-part taxonomy for expressive knowing, Yorks and Kasl (2006) discuss the creation of the learning environment for this work. They recommend that there be an opening ritual that helps participants get wholly situated in the learning space. At MBK, the Board President’s opening prayers served this transitional role, and provided a moment of stillness for the participants—even those who were not of the Catholic faith—that helped all “attune” (Yorks & Kasl, 2006, p. 52) to the work ahead. This was a way of slowing down that shifted the energy of the space and focused the participants.

Yorks and Kasl (2006) also offer that empathy and the creation of an “empathic field” (p. 52) contribute to a fruitful learning environment, and they suggest that “developing empathic connection is especially difficult when the other’s life experience is very different from one’s own” (p. 52). This became important at MBK in part due to the broad diversity of the participants. Retrospective storytelling about connections to the agency was a way in, but the real dynamo was the task of creating visual art. The drawing and mosaic work were unfamiliar to all present, and acted as a leveler in the group. This was most evident in the unfolding of the project in a rich landscape of vignettes, exchanges between diverse participants. These are perhaps best exemplified by the connection between one of the major donors, a moneyed man with a winning smile who arrived in chinos and a sport coat, and MBK’s janitor, a resident of the neighborhood with a gap-toothed grin who came in worn jeans and a weathered grey sweatshirt. Working together, they developed a new, direct, energetic, conversational, and empathic connection. They had not previously connected, and one can hardly think of any other circumstances in which these two gentlemen would find themselves sitting knee-to-knee, fully engaged in the ideas of the other.

English and Peters (2012), in their work with feminist nonprofits, point out that “the structured environments of the organization allows for . . . power to play out in ways that can be productive” (p. 114). A consistent theme emerged from the interviews around the difference between this project and conventional strategic planning. What one board member referred to as a “strange task”—the unexpected turn of drawing and creating a mosaic—seemed to level the power dynamics driven by organizational roles and socioeconomic positionality. Yorks and Kasl (2006) point out that key to the process of building the empathic field is to “decenter the ego” (p. 52), which was clearly accomplished during the project by asking people to create art in ways that felt unfamiliar. Participants commented that the approach was “surprising,” “daunting, because I can’t draw nothing,” “unexpected,” and “weird,” but by the end of the process it had received unanimous acceptance, and there was a great deal of pride in the work. As one participant noted,

It was good to be involved this way. I was here for every stage. I didn’t miss any of it. And I learned that there are all kinds of ways that we can be working together. Not just the old standard ways.

The Influence of Presentational Knowing on Interpretation and Internalization

Conventional top-down planning is far more straightforward and “manageable” than the Strategic Assemblage process. Noticing the ways in which the process was interpreted and internalized by the participants, therefore, was critical to understanding what benefits justified the investment of labor and time.

It feels important to note that the art that is central to this project is not art by a disconnected artist, chosen from a catalog or gallery in the hopes that it will create an affective sensibility about the organization, or drawn by an outsider to capture ideas from the group. Creating art from within the organizational system, by members of that system, from their own stories about the future of that system, helped participants connect broad vision to the tiny tactical efforts that serve to operationalize the strategic plan, just as the tiny pieces of tile are reassembled into new, larger, and vital images.

The polyphonic nature of the process was essential to its success. In the planning phase, the effort was to make the invitation as broad as possible, until it grew to 70 people. “I want to include everyone who wants to come,” the Executive Director exclaimed at one point. “I don’t want to leave anybody out.” While the mosaicist in me cringed at the design implications of such a large group all collaborating on the mosaic panels, it was clear that a broad reach was fundamental to a robust outcome. The importance of integrating a diversity of individual perspectives into a collective whole is echoed in Clover’s (2006) study in which she explains, “The arts were able to be simultaneously about collectivity and individuality, visibility and anonymity” (p. 54) such that

ideas became those of the group rather than simply those of the individual. This created a cohesiveness and collective “we” in terms of the power of the message . . . And yet there is individuality . . . to drawings . . . to the stories . . . that allows each participant to see her or his own artistic ability and input. (p. 55)

Given the variety of the 30 constituents who ultimately participated, at the outset the development of strong connections seemed unlikely. Yet these varied participants found themselves not only collaborating in new ways but also making plans for ways to collaborate in the future. While every participant interviewed noted the connections made, no single event in the process (from storytelling through mosaic creation) was identified as driving this coming together, this new sense of purpose, and renewed energy. Rather it appears to be the alchemy of the activities together that fostered this outcome, suggesting that the integration of presentational modalities in the process underpins the development of a kind of solidarity of purpose (Kasl & Yorks, 2012).

This collective identity formation is balanced with a sense of individual contribution. At the unveiling celebration, all the participants and other community residents, donors, volunteers, friends, and stakeholders were invited to see the final project for the first time. There was much pointing to particular images—“This was my image, and I also worked on this one here”—and photography not only of the mosaic in its entirety but also by individual image, with its creator standing by it, beaming at the camera. The images matter in a fundamental way. Dirkx (2012) suggests that there are “deeply emotional and image-laden contexts of transformative learning” (p. 117). While Dirkx’s ideas of images differ from the emergence of symbols through stories then rendered into art in a full-bodied collaboration, the spirit of this work resonates with his notion that “nurturing soul depends on the imaginative engagement and elaboration of the inner stories . . . that . . . inform our lives” (p. 123).

Critical to the process were communicative learning during the construction of the mosaic and the collective gaze on both individual images and the arc of the mosaic, that “collective we.” In the second phase, Image Synthesis, participants began to recognize and consider a gap between the organization’s mission statement and the vision that emerged from the project. (It should be noted that the mission statement initially lay outside the purview of the project at the request of the President of the Board.)

The repetitive symbolism of circles and spheres with MBK situated at their center gave rise to a discussion that the organization has been acting as a “spoke” in the community, providing services and programming, and that it needed to recast itself as a “hub,” acting as an “anchor” (both images in the mosaic) for fostering community conversation and action. After a healthy debate the Board President “put the mission back on the table,” and it was expanded to include a role for the agency in fostering community participation. The organization shifted from being solely a provider of services to a true center for community development. Implicit in this shift “from spoke to hub” were “rebranding” the agency in the community, different uses of the physical spaces, as well as different priorities for staffing and volunteer recruitment. In a follow-up interview, the Executive Director made a very candid statement about the significance of this organizational shift relative to her own individual transformation:

It was my own arrogance that led me to believe that I could save this community with programming and services, that if we did enough for the people here, things would change. But this process helped me see that we have to be a different kind of organization . . . You know what it is? We need to dream with them, because if we can dream it, then we can do it.

Long-Term Influence of the Mosaic in a Primary Space

In the facilitation dimension of their taxonomy, Yorks and Kasl (2006) discuss, among other elements, the codification of the experience through expressive knowing. Not only did the art processes embedded in the action research help “create an encapsulation of complex experience and ideas” (p. 55), but the mosaic preserved that encapsulation for the benefit of the organization and the community for many years to come. The mosaic and the symbols within it have become a touchstone for the board of directors, providing a spark for “Dream Sessions”—conversations where community residents come together to explore their dreams for, and their role in, the future of their neighborhood.

The final 16 × 4.5 foot vision mosaic (Figure 2) serves as an inspirational reminder of what is needed, and what is possible, every day, as the organizational now operationalizes its strategic plan. Interviews and observational data indicate that this is true for both internal stakeholders and neighborhood residents. In one observational session, the Executive Director was chatting with guests who were lining up in the hallway, alongside the mosaic, while they waited for the daily meal to be served. Noticing a gentleman running his hand over one of the images on the community panel, she approached him. “I see that you’re looking at the mosaic. What does that picture make you think about?” “About when I was a boy,” he replied, “when things were better.” “Do you think we can make them good again?” she asked. He looked her in the eye and said, “You think so, don’t you? So maybe we can. It sure would be nice to have a rec center here.”

The agency has a heightened appreciation for the power of art in the space to communicate intention and hope. The Board regularly considers the images in their conversations about moving the organization forward, and the images have become discursive shorthand in the agency. The lightbulb, for example, which appears in both the opening Inspiration panel and the closing Achievement panel, is often invoked in conversation: As the Board President is fond of pointing out, it all starts with “Let there be light.” As one board member noted during an interview, “Every time I go in there now, I see that mosaic and I remember, okay, this is where we need to be going.” On the basis of the perceived impact of the mosaic, MBK has since designated an artistic director for the agency (a volunteer), and participated in arts-to-community work with the Maryland Institute College of Art. Expressive ways of knowing are becoming more central to the work of the agency.

The in-the-moment work of the Strategic Assemblage process affected the organizational soul of MBK, and by persisting in the space over time it reaches beyond those who were immediately involved. In a recent visit to the agency, the Executive Director emerged from her office to greet me, full of excitement: “I’m so glad you’re here,” she said. She ran up to the mosaic, running her hands over the image of a graduating youth. “I can’t wait to tell you what we’re doing about this part of the mosaic!”

Implications for Practice

This study supports the notion that there is value in infusing presentational learning into adult learning environments where there is an interest in fostering transformative learning at the individual and organizational levels. In the interest of space, I will focus on three practical constructs that feel essential: the value of polyphony, patience with participant resistance, and time as a liberating structure.

The work of the group was nourished by the diversity of the participants with regard to both their life experience, social/economic/political perspectives, and their orientation and connection to the agency. This diversity manifested clearly in their stories and the resulting images. This meant that participants experienced the themes that surfaced, the natural connections, and the significant differences, as interesting, authentic, and worthy of consideration. There was no need to guess what “the other” might say, draw, or believe, because “the other” was right there in the room. In a midpoint interview, one participant, when asked how the process might be improved if we were to do it again said, “There’s just one thing. I know there were a lot of different people there, but we could have used even more ideas, from more different kinds of people.” I agree. Any time I do this work in the future, I will think outward from the agency in sets of concentric rings around it. Who influences the agency? Who is influenced by it, perhaps without even knowing it? How far out do the ripples stretch? Including people from every ring will provide the “alternative perspectives” (Mezirow, 1991, p. 198) that underpin the possibility of transformative learning.

In the United States, perhaps in the West, making art seems to have become something “artists do” rather than a dimension of reflection or communicating in daily life. And as pointed out earlier, the nearly universal initial resistance to drawing in particular was ultimately one of the elements of the process that helped reach across the diversity of the group, creating allies in their suspicion of making art. Participants were happy enough to tell stories, and even ferret out the most salient image, but when it came to drawing these images, there was a collective groan. Many exclaimed that they “were terrible at art” and couldn’t “draw a straight line to save my life.” I have encountered this resistance in other contexts—it is not unique to this group—and I have learned that it only requires persistence and patience to work through it. Humor helps, pointing out that fortunately their lives are not in danger, suggesting that if straight lines are too difficult, they leave them out of their drawings, and so on. I point out that they all have an artist within them but that it needs help awakening. I cajole participants to just give it a try, to notice how common these feelings are across the group, and remind them that there was a time in their lives, perhaps very far back now, when they did not feel this way.

Critical to success at MBK was the process design that allowed experimentation with three iterations of images, supported between “rounds” by appreciative feedback, and an awareness from the outset that they themselves would choose from their images the version included in the final mosaic. Balancing the authenticity of the images with an aesthetic that would make for a good visual experience was a tension, and in the drawing activity, it was necessary to continually remind people that they should think in terms of simple images, and avoid the use of labels. Ultimately some images did need to be simplified, and I checked in with the image creators to ensure that they felt the integrity of the image had been maintained. Where the participants lacked skill, they compensated with enthusiasm. As Clover (2006) suggests, “Going public demands a certain quality . . . but the underlying assumption is that so-called ordinary people do not have that skill, and it is simply not the case” (p. 58). I agree, but it takes time.

Participant resistance to art is only one reason that time is a critical consideration. This work, like storytelling itself, is extremely efficient, but it is not fast. As Alhadeff-Jones (2010) points out, “Time is at the core of any learning” (p. 7), but there are “antagonisitic rhythms” with which both learners and educators must negotiate (p. 5). Time is the most difficult resource to obtain, but practitioners doing this work should insist on a commitment from clients/partners to provide sufficient time for the process to unfold, for ritual openings and closings, quiet reflection, focus on task, robust and possibly contentious conversation, discovery, casual bantering, helping one another, and surprise. This corroborates the notion that transformative learning requires “sufficient time for collaboration, action, reflection, and integration” (Schapiro, Wasserman, & Gallegos, 2012, p. 359). As one participant noted, “It wasn’t at all what I expected . . . We didn’t hurry up to get something done and then move on. It was fun.” Remember, he is talking about strategic planning. He said “fun.” But this was “strange” work, and it would not likely have felt fun if participants were forced to complete it fast.

Limitations

This study is a highly contextualized single case, and was treated as such through a series of interviews as the action research project unfolded. While it is not possible to generalize from the study as a qualitative case study, this article is intended to spark the thinking of those who would like to integrate more artistic ways of knowing into their educative and organizational practices.

This project did require expertise in mosaic art to properly and safely construct a large-scale mosaic installation sustainable over time. The mosaic is a powerful metaphor for this particular work of organizational visioning and strategy making, and this metaphor of assemblage has potential applicability to other organizational processes as well. For practitioners who do not possess mosaic skill, it may be possible to bring in an outside mosaicist for the technical aspects of the art.

Mosaic is not the only form of internally generated art that can support transformative learning in organizational settings. Practitioners are encouraged to pursue forms that cater to situational circumstance. Indeed, mosaics are labor- and time-intensive. Where it is difficult to secure adequate time, practitioners should consider less labor-intensive approaches (e.g., muraling) that, while they may not be as metaphorically potent, will allow a process that results in a complete and sustainable artifact.

Conclusions

From a practical standpoint, this research informs our understanding about the integration of arts as an exploratory and synthesizing process that can create novelty and new meaning in and for nonprofit organizations. It further reinforces the elements of Yorks and Kasl’s (2006) taxonomy for expressive knowing as a way of fostering transformative learning. From a theoretical standpoint, the integration of theory about multiple ways of knowing, adult learning, and nonprofit management, into key organizational processes supports the development of new ideas related to strategic social change. Furthermore, there are implications for studies that might loosely replicate this one with nonprofits, as well as in other milieu such as for-profit organizations across a full range of types and sectors.

The process undertaken by MBK has been described in some detail here, in the hope that it will provide a malleable architecture for others who would like to engage in similar work that can make an important difference, in real ways, in real time.

Footnotes

Author’s Note

Brief oral presentations on different aspects of this project were presented orally at the 2014 Transformative Learning Conference in New York, New York, and the 2014 AAACE conference in Charleston, South Carolina.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Jo A. Tyler, EdD is an associate professor and program coordinator of the MEd and Graduate Certificate programs in training and development at Penn State University. Building on her quarter-century of experience as a corporate practitioner in organization and management development, her teaching, research, and consulting practices focus on organization development and adult learning with special emphasis on storytelling, listening, and visual arts in organizational settings. She has published a variety of journal articles and book chapters on these subjects. She can be reached at jat235@psu.edu.

References

Alhadeff-Jones

(2010). Learning to challenge time in adult education: A critical and complex perspective. In Merrill

(Ed.), Proceedings of the 40th Annual Standing Conference on University Teaching and Research in the Education of Adults. Warwick, England: Warwick University. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/326312/Learning_to_Challenge_Time_in_Adult_Education_A_Critical_and_Complex_Perspective

Allison

Kaye

(2003). Strategic planning for nonprofit organizations: A practical guide and workbook. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Belenky

Clinchy

Goldberger

Tarule

(1998). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Bryson

J. M.

Alston

F. K.

(2004). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations: A guide to strengthening and sustaining organizational achievement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Clover

D. E.

(2006). Culture and antiracisms in adult education: An exploration of the contributions of art-based learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 57, 46-61. doi:10.1177/0741713606292476

Cummings

T. G.

Worley

C. G.

(2008). Organization development and change. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.

Dirkx

J. M.

(2006). Authenticity and imagination. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2006(111), 27-39. doi:10.1002/ace.225

Dirkx

J. M.

(2012). Nurturing soul work: A Jungian approach to transformative learning. In Taylor

Cranton

(Eds.), The handbook of transformative learning: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 116-130). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

English

L. M.

Peters

(2012). Transformative learning in non-profit organizations: A feminist interpretive inquiry. Adult Education Quarterly, 62, 103-119.

10.

Grace

Wells

(2007). Using Frierian pedagogy of just ire to inform critical social learning in arts-informed community education for sexual minorities. Adult Education Quarterly, 57, 95-114. doi:10.1177/07413606294539

11.

Heron

(1999). The complete facilitator’s handbook. London, England: Kogan Page.

12.

Kasl

Yorks

(2012). Learning to be what we know: The pivotal role of presentational knowing in transformative learning. In Taylor

Cranton

(Eds.), The handbook of transformative learning: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 503-519). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

13.

Landsberg

B. E.

(2004). The nonprofit paradox: For-profit business models in the third sector. International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law, 6(2). Retrieved from http://www.icnl.org/research/journal/vol6iss2/special_7.htm

14.

Lewin

(1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34-46.

15.

Liamputtong

Rumbold

(Eds). (2008). Knowing differently: Arts-based and collaborative research. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.

16.

Lipson-Lawrence

(2005). Knowledge construction as contested terrain: Adult learning through artistic expression. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 107, 3-11. doi:10.1002/ace.184

17.

Mezirow

(1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

18.

Mintzberg

(1994, January). The fall and rise of strategic planning. Harvard Business Review, 107-114.

19.

Reason

Bradbury

(Eds.). (2007). The Sage handbook of action research. London, England: Sage.

20.

Ronchetti

J. L.

(2006). An integrated balanced scorecard strategic planning model for nonprofit organizations. Journal of Practical Consulting, 1(1), 25-35.

21.

Schapiro

S. A.

Wasserman

I. L.

Gallegos. (2012). Group work and dialogue: Spaces and processes for transformative learning in relationships. In Taylor

Cranton

(Eds.), The handbook of transformative learning: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 355-372). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

22.

Seely

Reason

(1997). A participative inquiry paradigm. Qualitative Inquiry, 3, 274-294.

23.

Seely

Reason

(2008). Expressions of energy: An epistemology of presentational knowing. In Liamputtong

Rumbold

(Eds), Knowing differently: Arts-based and collaborative research (pp. 2-22). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.

24.

Stem

(1999). The Drucker Foundation self-assessment tool: Process guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

25.

Taylor

F. W.

(1997). The principles of scientific management. Mineola, NY: Dover.

26.

Tisdell

E. J.

(2012). Themes and variations in transformative learning: Interdisciplanry perspectives on forms that transform. In Taylor

Cranton

(Eds.), The handbook of transformative learning: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 21-36). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

27.

Tyler

J. A.

Swartz

A. L.

(2012). Storytelling and transformative learning. In Taylor

Cranton

(Eds.), The handbook of transformative learning: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 455-470). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

28.

Walker

Steinfort

Maqsood

(2014). Stakeholder voices through rich pictures. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 7, 342-361. doi:10.1108/IJMB-10-2013-0050

29.

Yorks

Kasl

(2006). I know more than I can say: A taxonomy for using expressive ways of knowing to foster transformative learning. Journal of Transformative Learning, 4(1), 43-64. doi:10.1177/1541344605283151