Taking an aesthetic risk in management education: Reflections on an artistic-aesthetic approach

Abstract

This article responds to calls from the field of organizational aesthetics to study and represent sensible-aesthetic knowledge with artistic-aesthetic approaches. An artistic-aesthetic touchstone artifact engages the sensibilities of 54 MBA Organizational Behavior students as they take an aesthetic risk to enjoy exploring and re-presenting the aesthetic dimension of group organizational life. In the context of dominant business school pedagogic practices that tend to neglect aesthetics, student reflections reveal that the creative process itself is imbued with its own aesthetic value. This study contributes to artistic-aesthetic knowing at the group level of understanding. This paper also makes a contribution to the field of organizational aesthetics by extending its reach into management education practices. It is further suggested that an aesthetic inquiry into the aesthetics of management education is well worth the effort. In accordance with aesthetic criteria, this paper seeks to represent a plausible account of this management education journey.

Keywords

Artifact arts-based learning management education MBA organizational aesthetics touchstone

Introduction

An aesthetic approach to understanding work and organizational life experiences represents a recent turn in the study of management (Minahan and Wolfram-Cox, 2007) and organizations. Taylor and Hansen (2005) call for aesthetic scholarship to engage with artistic-aesthetic methods. My own passion for aesthetic ways of knowing serves as inspiration for more fully exploring its aesthetic value in a management education context. ‘Aesthetic risk’ (Baldacchino, 2009) is involved for both students and the instructor, given the dominance of traditional ‘business school’ pedagogic practices based in logical-rational knowledge. Within these traditional education spaces, students ‘risk their reputations’ (Strati, 2007a: 75) as MBA students to explore the aesthetic dimension. My own aesthetic risk (Baldacchino, 2009) stems from Greene’s (2001) notion of offering up one’s passions (in this case, a passion for aesthetic knowledge) to students. This paper aims to take the aesthetic risk and extend the reach of organizational aesthetics into the management education classroom experience.

Through the embodied and material process of ‘touchstone making’, MBA Organizational Behavior students learn about behavior in organizations and also about themselves as group members. As students experiment with artistic-aesthetic ‘forms’ (Taylor and Hansen, 2005), they also experience and evoke sensory-aesthetic knowledge. Students are able to grasp some of the complexities of ‘group’ organizational life; their imaginations are stimulated. The ‘aesthetic experience’ of touchstone making and re-presentation evokes creative responses; which become part of the ‘aesthetic dimension’ (Strati, 1999, 2000) explored by this study. In taking aesthetic risks, both students and I enjoy and appreciate the possibilities inherent in artistic-aesthetic ways of knowing. Student reflections reveal that the creative process itself affords aesthetic experience and has its own aesthetic value. Insights gained from student relationships with the creative process hint at future research needed to explore the aesthetics of management education. The paper is organized as follows: the first section offers a brief overview of ‘organizational aesthetics’. This highlights the growing significance of the aesthetic approach to understanding organizations and organizational life. Second, I review various approaches to ‘arts-based learning’—the closest relative of organizational aesthetics in management learning contexts. Third, I describe the touchstone process as one approach to linking organizational aesthetics and arts-based learning. Fourth, I delve into the current case study and give voice to the MBA students who graciously took aesthetic risks to participate in this experimental learning process. In the discussion section, I re-establish the connection between the empirical case study and the broader framework of organizational aesthetics. To conclude, I suggest that research into the aesthetics of management education is worth the undertaking. First it is important to briefly describe the nature of organizational aesthetics theoretically underpinning this case study.

Organizational aesthetics

Organizational aesthetics is a form of knowledge based upon multi-sensory experiences and aesthetic judgments formed by both researchers and organizational members in the context of organizational studies (Strati, 1992, 1999, 2000). An aesthetic approach recognizes that each organization member and scholar encounters an organization through her unique sensory perceptions: seeing hearing, smelling, tasting and touching the materiality of organizations, making judgments of taste in the process. We may judge organizations as beautiful, ugly, comic, tragic or sacred, to name a few of the dominant categories that organizational experiences evoke. It should be noted that I have added the aesthetic category of risk, as theorized by Baldacchino’s (2009) educational aesthetics, in order to highlight its potential significance in management education contexts.

Other organizational aesthetic studies have revealed that work itself ‘includes an essential aesthetic element; … aesthetics pervades the everyday life of organizations’ (Ottensmeyer, 1996: 192–193); which represents a ‘shift from almost exclusively objectivist approaches towards a sensuality that is the rich tapestry of organizational life’ (Carr and Hancock, 2002: 1). Gherardi et al. (2007: 316) describe aesthetic ways of knowing as passionate knowing, negotiated and ‘explored through the materiality and connections amongst work, workplace and work objects’. In this conception, sensible knowledge and practice are intimately linked (Strati, 2007b). Thus organizational aesthetics concerns itself with materiality and corporeality—how both ‘individuals and groups act in organizations by heeding their feelings, desires, tastes, talents, and passions’ (Strati, 2010: 880); their empathetic knowledge and intuitions; the already there things often neglected by mainstream organization and management studies. Witkin (2009) describes this as ‘cultivating an intelligence of feeling’.

Antonio Strati, one of the original scholars in the spaces of organizational aesthetics, points to the methodological plurality that has developed around studying the ‘aesthetic dimension’ of work and organizations and describes four major qualitative methodological approaches: the archaeological, the empathetic-logical, the aesthetic and the artistic (Strati, 2009, 2010). With the archaeological approach, the researcher metaphorically conducts an aesthetically oriented ‘archaeological dig’ of organizational cultures. The empathetic-logical approach (for example Gagliardi, 1996) requires researchers to immerse themselves in the organizational context; to discover representations (of aesthetics) consonant with the ‘aesthetic side of organizational life’. These representations become artifacts (Strati, 2006) subject to further sensory perceptions and aesthetic judgments. As such, the aesthetic approach suggests that the researcher activates her own sensory perceptions and aesthetic judgments to understand organizational quotidian. Finally, the ‘artistic approach’ acknowledges that organizational aesthetics researchers have recently sought a stronger re-engagement with the arts for both aesthetic inquiry and aesthetic representations. It adds an element of ‘playfulness’ (Guillet de Monthoux and Statler, 2008) to aesthetic knowledge. Taylor and Hansen (2005) have called for combining the artistic-aesthetic approaches to enhance the potential for developing new knowledge. For example, Hansen and Bathurst’s (2011) review of aesthetics and leadership, suggests that artistic-aesthetic processes represent a stream of organizational aesthetics which tends to focus on intervention and change. This movement represents the evolving nature of ‘aesthetic discourse’ in organization studies (Strati, 2007c).

According to Strati (2009: 236), all four approaches, although different, do hold in common the exploration of the ‘aesthetic dimension’ and in so doing create an epistemological polemic against the dominance of positivist approaches in organization and management theories; criticize ‘managerialism’; concern themselves with emancipation. Thus from an organizational aesthetics approach, a major aim of management education would lie in its ‘emancipatory’ potential. Strati further contends that the four aesthetic approaches appreciate the influence of both art and aesthetics on the personal sensible knowledge and aesthetic judgments of organizational members. Materiality and corporeality are also important commonalities of these various approaches which have attracted the attention of scholars seeking to challenge traditional cognitive-rational approaches to organization studies. While it is beyond the scope of this paper to review all that has been studied and subsequently published about organizational aesthetics, the reader should note that Taylor and Hansen (2005) and Strati (2009, 2010) offer excellent reviews of the field. Additionally, Minahan and Wolfram-Cox (2007) have compiled a volume of previously published scholarly articles to celebrate what they have coined to be an ‘aesthetic turn’ in management. At the same time, it should also be noted that Gagliardi (2006) notes that the study of organizational aesthetics remains (and perhaps seeks to remain, my addition) marginal—not mainstream. Rather, my intention is to explore its potential for both studying and evoking the aesthetic dimension within the context of management education. The ‘artistic approach’ in organizational aesthetics bears some similarities to recent work generated around arts-based learning (Adler, 2006; Gallos, 2009; Nissley, 2002; Taylor and Ladkin, 2009) in contemporary management learning and education.

Arts-based learning

Adler (2006) suggests that business often seek connections with the arts in order to face increasingly complex global challenges and connections, and notes the growing number of business schools incorporating art into graduate-level management curriculums. As Meisiek and Hatch (2008) point out, artists too have been seeking closer relationships with business and management in order to teach them how to solve problems in different ways. Darso’s (2005) work describes experiences with major companies who have contracted with artists to work in their organizations. Various approaches to arts-based learning, according to Taylor and Ladkin (2009), provide one pathway towards fostering the creativity needed to face current and future organizational challenges. Barry and Meisiek (2010a) have coined the term ‘workarts’ to describe three major movements surrounding arts-based initiatives in organizations: art collection, artist-led interventions and artistic experimentation.

Art collection involves art pieces which may be used by organizations to express culture and identity, to stimulate thinking or to serve as decoration. Artist-led interventions include artist-in-residence programs or invitations for artists to assist organizational member in the development of (aesthetic) sensibilities and artistic thinking. Artistic experimentation is a more inclusive approach that happens when organizational members experiment with art or ‘art-like’ media without the presence of formal art collections or artists themselves. These scholars contend that ‘workarts’ enable organization members (and I assume researchers and management educators) to see more (and I assume smell, taste, hear, and touch) and differently.

Within the management education classroom context, Nissley (2002) provides a literature review of multiple art forms such as literature, fiction, music, theater and film that have been used as arts-based practices (also see Champoux, 2003; Czarniawska and Guillet de Monthoux, 1994; Nissley, 2004; Phillips, 1995; Taylor and Carboni, 2008). Recent technological advancements afford access to a wide variety of art-related tools for both instructors and students (Gallos, 2009). Taylor and Ladkin (2009) point out that in part, the beauty of arts-based methods is that they ‘open up possibilities for learning that are also in part, indeterminate’— adding to the ‘mystery’ and ‘messiness’ of arts-based learning. Barry and Meisiek (2010a: 11) similarly note that for ‘workart’ to work, ‘results cannot be pinned down in advance … knowing more than that will interfere with getting there’. Nissley and Palus (2003: 1) suggest that arts-based learning affords a ‘creative alternative’ to traditional learning methods. Leavy (2009) contends that ‘arts-based’ methods have the capacity to promote multiple intelligences; deep connections and resonance; diversity and uniqueness; and reflection. Barry (2008: 33) speaks to the fundamental way that art conveys human creation of something new ex hihilo (emphasis in the original)—a sense of creativity—or creative potential. Arts-based methods also provide a way to access and develop aesthetic knowledge (Strati, 2009; Taylor and Hansen, 2005; Taylor and Ladkin, 2009)—an important connection which remains under-explored in management education.

A need for research

Barry and Meisiek (2010a) point out that arts-based learning (workarts) have largely (ironically) ignored the aesthetic dimension. Nissley (2002) articulates an important linkage between arts-based learning and aesthetic epistemology by pointing to the theory-based of organizational aesthetics which informs the practice-base of workarts. In an edited volume on experiential learning in management education, Vince and Reynolds (2007) touch upon the potential for aesthetic knowledge to promote deep reflection and critical engagement. Strati’s (2007a) work in the same volume engages more deeply with aesthetics as a way to activate experiential learning in the context of an organizational research methods course. An additional contribution by Welsch et al. (2007) suggests that aesthetic experience is an important element of both experiential and action-based learning in management education by bringing balance to traditional learning approaches. The main features of organizational aesthetics however remain under-represented in the management education literature. Both Barry (2008) and Taylor and Carboni (2008) have suggested the need for practice-related perspectives related to artistic-aesthetic ways of knowing. Thus this paper responds to the ‘practice-based’ call inspired by my own experiences with ‘doing’ aesthetics in the management education classroom.

As Taylor and Ladkin (2009) have also noticed, prior arts-based learning studies have focused on individual rather than group development. This study further responds to their call for research designed to explore how artistic practices and aesthetic engagement work at the group level of analysis. Erden et al. (2008) argue that organizational knowledge creation and innovation are typically created by groups (or teams) in practice by drawing attention to the importance of ‘group tacit knowledge’ created in group practices and underpinned by aesthetic experience. Taking an artistic-aesthetic practice-based approach would afford ‘form’ (Strati, 2009) to group-level tacit knowledge. My interest in discovering the potential for artistic-aesthetic pedagogical processes in the management education classroom is also inspired by my own aesthetic encounter with workarts in the form a touchstone activity. In Barry and Meisiek’s (2010a) framework, the touchstone is an example of artistic experimentation by its do-it-yourself nature described below.

The touchstone exercise

I discovered arts-based learning (workarts) from my experience as an organizational development consultant which included participation in several programs sponsored by the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL). As organizations began to search for fresh ways to stimulate creativity and innovation, CCL responded by bringing ‘art-making’ into the connections between leadership and creativity (De Ciantis, 1995). Gallos (2009) points out that much of the arts-based pedagogy emerged from organizational development (OD) practices. The touchstone exercise, as ‘artistic experimentation’, has been used by CCL to provide participants with opportunities to create a touchstone (an object) that is both personal and symbolic of their unique program experiences. The touchstone process culminates with participants sharing, through the medium of storytelling, the meaningfulness of the touchstone to their own leadership development. Nissley (2002) includes the touchstone as a form of ‘visual art’ learning. Taylor and Ladkin (2009) describe the Banff Centre’s leadership ‘mask-making’ exercise as another example of a touchstone process.

As they emphasize, the artifact (mask) serves as an example of how art-making enhances self-awareness, wherein the art ‘object’ (touchstone) becomes its material representation. Within the management education classroom context, Wicks and Rippin (2010) have also written about their experiences with touchstones, as students are asked to create dolls as a way of learning about both themselves and leadership. These researchers explore the intersection between art processes and leadership practices; take Dewey’s (1934) perspective on art as rooted in experience—where art serves to re-enchant the concept of leadership. They conclude that an important aspect of leadership education is the creation of classroom spaces where students can reflect and construct their own meaning, rather than sole-reliance on expert knowledge (instructor and textbook).

My own sensory-aesthetic memories of the original CCL touchstone process evoked my imagination to explore its artistic-aesthetic potential for management education practices. Incorporating an ‘artistic-experimental’ touchstone activity into an MBA Organizational Behavior course has afforded opportunities to ‘enliven and impassion’ (Dey and Steyaert, 2007) the learning experience and expose students to aesthetic ways of knowing. Based on the underlying assumption that groups are a form of ‘social sculpture’, as envisioned by artist, Joseph Beuys, ‘student group experiences’ become sensible through (touchstone) art (Meisiek and Hatch, 2008: 417). Strati (1999, 2000) would describe this sensible-artistic process as aesthetically getting at the ‘felt sense’ (of group life). With aesthetic learning approaches, students are also encouraged to discover ‘organizational life apart from its being a pedagogical tool’ (Vince and Reynolds, 2007: 6).

To appreciate aesthetic knowledge is to value that which is typically excluded and otherwise taken for granted (Strati, 2007b: 79)—for example in management studies and thus management education. Gagliardi (2007) might describe management education as an example of ‘the collective repression of pathos’. I wondered if students would find pleasure (or displeasure) in ‘knowledge acquired not exclusively in a rational-analytic manner’ (Strati, 2008: 234). Would they take the aesthetic risk, described by Strati (2007a) as ‘risking their own reputations’, in this case as MBA students? When students directly encountered the aesthetic dimension, would they feel its tapestry and texture? As Strati (2010) contends, exploring the ‘aesthetic dimension’, is like exploring the ‘atmosphere’. The keys for grasping this rather ‘elusive’ (Strati, 2008) and ‘ungraspable’ (Gagliardi, 2006) knowledge would be evoked through their embodied participation and immersion. It would require that the students ‘invest something of themselves’ (Strati, 2007a: 71) in the aesthetic risk-taking to develop ‘an intelligence of feeling’ (Witkin, 2009: 57). Since engagement in group relationships and work practices create opportunities for aesthetic experiences to emerge (Kupers, 2002), students would be invited to work on various projects and engage with classroom experiential activities. By the end of the course, I imagined that students would have access to ‘pathos’—the ‘felt sense’ of group experiences which could then be communicated through art (Dewey, 1934) or ‘art-like’ (Barry and Meisiek, 2010a) touchstones.

Nissley (2004) reminds us that art forms (for example touchstones) ultimately challenge the dominant intellectual forms of knowing in management education. As Strati (2008: 237) notes, we may ‘look to art in order to more fully grasp the aesthetic dimension’. In this case, students are challenged to co-create (socially construct) a touchstone and to re-present their artifact to the class.

The case study

The context of this case study is an MBA Organizational Behavior course at a mid-sized US University. MBA students in two different Organizational Behavior modules (Year 1 and Year 2) come from disparate backgrounds—one-third seek joint degrees in business and other disciplines; one-third are full time MBA students enrolled upon completion of their undergraduate degrees in business; one-third are working full time with more or less ‘work’ experiences. Twenty-six students in Year 1 and 28 students in Year 2 are encouraged to reflect upon and learn from ‘group-generated’ (Vince and Reynolds, 2007: 9) classroom experiences—taken as the students’ ‘real world’ experience. The course remained relatively unchanged from Year 1 to Year 2 with only minor adjustments year-over-year. Subtle changes reflect both what I have learned from students and from the aesthetic experiences evoked by the touchstone process. These nuances will be described along the journey. Consistent with an aesthetic approach, the reader is invited to engage his/her senses and imagine how it feels to be part of this aesthetic risk.

Typical of Organizational Behavior (OB) courses, students learn about individual, interpersonal, group, leadership and cultural aspects of OB. The textbook, Managing and Organizations (Clegg et al., 2008), selected for its uncommon edginess also invites students to critically explore power, structure, learning and innovation. Students are prompted to reflect upon how their own experiences connect with course readings (both textbook and supplemental) and in-class activities. Nancy Adler’s (2006) seminal article regarding the cross-fertilization of arts and leadership is a supplementary reading assigned during the leadership module to provide students with an ‘intellectual’ understanding of the relationship between arts and leadership.

Against the backdrop of the 21st century, Adler claims that the time has come to combine the ‘global entrepreneurial skills of business with the creative and improvisational skills of artists’ (Adler, 2006: 497). Citing several major trends in global interconnectedness, i.e. domination of market forces, complex and chaotic environments, technological advancements (which reduce the costs of experimentation) and the search for meaning, she describes how both business organizations and business schools are seeking out artists and artistic processes for inspiration. MBA students seem to resonate with the major challenges of our times. Since the 2006 publication of Adler’s article, students have experienced the global financial crisis of 2008–2009, still staggering levels of unemployment. Thus they also feel the need for something different—what is new for most is the ‘art part’. In this regard, Adler’s article provides them a legitimate frame through which to begin artistic experimentation in the classroom. As I would later discover, it may also prompt students to begin questioning the overall aims of management education.

While most students enjoy the supplementary reading and respond to it with interest, a few remain skeptical of any sort of art-business connection. Others are amused or shocked by the embedded quote from Daniel Pink: ‘The MFA is the New MBA’.…. (Adler, 2006: 486). Some students respond from a desire for organizations (and business schools, I assume) to acknowledge and ‘unleash’ the creative energies and talents of their own members— ‘artistic experimentation’? This view is underscored by Barry (2008: 37) who reminds us that an overly focused view on artists may deflect from the critical questions [students have, my addition] surrounding art-based practices. Following in-class reactions to the reading, students are invited to ‘turn on their senses and imaginations’ with the introduction of an in-class artistic-aesthetic practice, Visual Explorer™.

Developed by the Center for Creative Leadership, this arts-based learning activity affords students an experience of the art-leadership connection. Visual Explorer™ is a set of diverse images designed to stimulate creative conversations about leadership. Students come to class prepared to share a personal ‘leadership challenge’. Visual Explorer™ prompts them to select an image that speaks to them about their challenge. After several minutes of personal reflection, students join members of their learning groups to share, in round-robin fashion, challenge-image connections. Each member receives feedback from listener-beholders—i.e. ‘if that were my image …’ or ‘the connection I make is …’. As each student learns to construct and own his/her own meaning, the process is repeated until all members both give and receive feedback. In similar fashion, King (2008: 44) describes how ‘paintings’ (like the CCL images) are often engaged with more ‘eagerness and openness’ than traditional case studies by de-familiarizing perceptions and opening up possibilities for ‘seeing differently and more’ (Barry 2008: 39).

Barry (2008) also points out that art ‘works’ through association—for example, images resonate with students in ways that may not traditionally fit with their prior conceptions of personal leadership challenges. The Visual Explorer™ activity is highlighted here as an important aesthetic ‘trigger’ (Warren, 2008); an early aesthetic turning point in the overall classroom atmosphere. For example, I have discovered that images can ‘go missing’ which may be indicative of an intense aesthetic experience or attachment to these ‘moments’ and/or ‘objects’ of artistic-aesthetic practice (Gherardi, 2009). To further stimulate thinking and feeling, students are provided with a few recommended practitioner-oriented texts in both storytelling and creative thinking. They also participate in other experiential (some artful) activities grounded by organizational behavior.

Projective storytelling is introduced during the module on motivation. In Year 2, a deconstruction component was added to the projective technique to coincide with the power module. Both materiality and corporeality, cornerstones of an aesthetic approach, are further explored early in the course through student-generated ‘teachings’ that center on how OB topics are related to ‘working lives’. With student-led teachings, groups are encouraged to rely on their own lived experiences and to find examples from film, music, fiction, (or other mediums including social media) that resonate with them and their chosen topic (for example teams, culture, power, learning, or innovation). These ‘teaching moments’ serve as grist for encouraging students to rely on their sensibilities to enjoy that which is not exclusively textbook knowledge.

For example, students enjoy introducing comedic perspectives of organizational life from favorite films (i.e. Office Space) or television series (i.e. The Office) that engage with and ironically deconstruct (Bingham and Hernandez, 2009) aspects of organizational culture and power. YouTube has further assisted students with finding examples of innovative organizations, for example Google, where students may engage in empathetic ‘imaginary shadowing’ (Strati, 2009)—imagining what it feels like to work there. A local example of team-based tacit learning was demonstrated with photographs of the University basketball team engaged in an ‘artist-led intervention’ with a renowned string quartet. These diverse student teachings provide learning groups with opportunities to further ‘activate their senses and imagination to grasp the materiality of everyday working life’ (Strati, 2007a: 79). Course modules dealing with topics such as culture, power, learning and innovation also serve to ready students for the emancipatory potential of artistic-aesthetic ways of knowing.

Hansen and Bathurst’s (2011) work on aesthetics and leadership considers the connection between critical and aesthetic approaches. By exploring leadership from an emancipatory lens, these scholars note the importance of sensory-aesthetic triggers in both disrupting dominant power structures and challenging the instrumental logic associated with efficiency and effectiveness goals which may limit creative potential and aesthetic expression in organizational life. Aesthetic sensibilities encourage organization members (for example students and instructors in this case) to feel how sources of domination inhibit them; so that they may become inspired to socially construct a different reality—one that unleashes human potential, creativity and innovation. Said otherwise, aesthetic experience serves as a trigger for disrupting dominant power structures, just as aesthetic ways of knowing create a way of understanding these structures as socially constructed, thus subject to transformation and change (Hansen and Bathurst, 2011). Similarly, during the last course module on innovation and creativity, the textbook highlights Christensen’s notion of the ‘innovator’s dilemma’ and other barriers to creativity. These topics unfold into conversations about the importance of safe classroom spaces for artistic experimentation and play in touchstone making. The course concludes with student creations and representations of touchstone artifacts.

The touchstone artifact

In making the touchstones, students activate their senses, intuitions, aesthetic judgments and imaginations to both understand group phenomena and to represent their knowledge. Sandelands (1998) points out that the feelings of being part of a group are aesthetic ones. In exploring their feelings, they are also ‘engaged in the creative process’—following their imaginations and ‘immersing themselves in the details’ and nuance of group dynamics— ‘then detaching and being absorbed by them and making representations of them’ (Strati, 2007a: 71). In other words, the entire course experience, culminating with the touchstone affords student spaces that are ‘iterative and emergent’ (Barry, 2008: 37). Socially constructed touchstones serve to remind them of how they experienced themselves and their groups in the context of the OB course. Students are first introduced to the concept of a touchstone by the course syllabus:

A group touchstone will be required in lieu of a final examination. The touchstone is designed to capture and represent a ‘felt sense’ of your group experiences during the course of the semester. Your active participation is an important part of the process. The touchstone may take various ‘art’ forms, e.g. digital story, photo essay, drama/play or other physical/material form. Your team is responsible for all necessary materials. Each group will have approximately 20 minutes to present the touchstone. Details are forthcoming.

Mention of the touchstone is often followed by puzzled looks and questions. On the first evening of class, students are thus encouraged to take a leap of faith— that by actively engaging in their own learning experiences, the touchstone will emerge and reveal itself as the course progresses. Barry and Meisiek (2010b) note that much of the arts-based learning occurs in the ‘embodied and aesthetic processes of creating’ [the touchstones] thus facilitation becomes crucial. This involves seeking moments throughout the course to talk a bit more (but not too much) about the ‘elusive’ touchstone. In the spirit of arts-based learning, McNiff (1998: 152) urges us to resist ‘saving the students’ when they ask for artful ideas, as noted by the following student comment from Year 1:

The concept of what a touchstone is flew over my group’s head. In the beginning we were in the dark about what to do. The syllabus did not have much explanatory information. Searching for ‘touchstone’ on the internet showed that a touchstone could be many things. It seemed kind of nebulous.

As Strati (2007a) notes and students have expressed, initially they do not know what will happen and this creates frustration. From my own experience, one of the key aspects of facilitation is related to empathy. Welsch et al. (2007: 67) acknowledge the fear which often accompanies different approaches to learning. Thus reminding them that the touchstone will emerge from their own unique experiences— as underscored by Strati’s (2007a) evocation of Silvia Gherardi’s concept, ‘learning in the face of mystery’ (Gherardi, 1999)—becomes key to maintaining a ‘non-prescriptive’ (Strati, 2007c) nature of artistic-aesthetic knowing. Grey (2002) has also noted how unfamiliarity (for example with touchstones) opens up spaces that other approaches may not, as recalled by two students from Year 1:

We tried to make sure that we did not concern ourselves with whether or not an idea was good, just that the idea got out into the air. When the idea for a montage [touchstone] came out I was supportive at first with my main concern being how could we possibly relate this. However, we just decided to go with it and figure everything else out later.

At first I did not like the touchstone project because there was no real direction. I want there to be a right or wrong answer. After completing the project, I really enjoyed it and really felt that I got something out of it. It really got me thinking about group dynamics.

It was a little scary that we had no concrete work done or solid outline, but I think that we had the right idea of letting the process of creating the touchstone reveal itself rather than deciding on an end product beforehand.

As the course progresses, further opportunities open up for touchstone details to unfold. Getting a feel for the ‘agogic’ (rhythmic) elements of the course, in both content and process, is fundamentally important to the workings of this management education workart. Cunliffe and Shotter’s (2006) study of linguistic artifacts underscores the importance of developing an [aesthetic] sensibility that is relationally responsive, reflexive and emergent in moments of conversation. In this case, the learning module provides a space to describe the touchstone as a ‘vehicle’ through which to communicate ‘tacit [group] knowledge’ (Gagliardi, 1996: 568). Additionally, the culture module represents an opportunity to talk more symbolically about the touchstone as an ‘artifact’—an ‘identity marker’ (Elsbach, 2006) with which to communicate group identity and uniqueness. As Strati (2008) notes, the aesthetic dimension will not be the same (for each group)—rather it brings out its unique features.

Students reveal their uniqueness through a variety of touchstone ‘artful forms’: multimedia montage, digital stories, photo essays, performances and physical objects. In an effort towards inclusiveness, Barry (2008: 39) describes how artistic practices, especially artistic experimentations may take the form of ‘art-like’ vs. ‘fine art’ mediums. During the first year of this artistic experimentation, one group elected to create a simple collage. Since part of the touchstone re-presentation process includes feedback from the audience, I felt that this group was somewhat marginalized by class members whose ‘aesthetic tastes’ were cultivated to judge (Strati, 2009) the collage as elementary in its art form. Thus in Year 2, I shared my feelings with students whilst reminding them of the deconstruction process from the power module. By sharing one of the Y1 student comments, I was able to provide a classroom example of ‘other voices’ in the touchstone process:

I did suggest a sculpture (or at least something that could be physically touched). I believe most of the team figured that the photo essay would be choosing the most uncreative form available to us.

Unsurprisingly, more Y2 groups elected to communicate their aesthetic experiences in the form of art-like physical artifacts: i.e. a tree and a volcano. With touchstone design, students are encouraged to find their own ‘studios’ (McNiff, 1998) away from the classroom. It has been my experience that places matter for aesthetic expression to emerge, as acknowledged by the following student reflection:

Our group took the creative, right brain approach to the touchstone and ran with it. We were originally going to go all over campus taking pictures; however, it rained the day we were planning to do the group pictures so we decided to utilize resources and use the ‘green screen’ in the computer science building to ‘travel around’ and take group pictures of what we did. The result was a great montage of pictures from around the world. [We used] movies, TV shows, and several other random environments and superimposed us into them. We each brought several changes of clothes and props and made it an entertaining group activity. I think much of the success of the touchstone was how well our group member complimented each other and together how creative we were while creating the touchstone. It was a really fun experience.

Beyes and Michels (2011) also discovered the importance of making space for ‘heterotopic spaces’ in business schools, to engender imagination. In the imaginative places of this case study, students created their touchstones. Ultimately, through a variety of forms these socially constructed touchstones show how groups uniquely experience themselves aesthetically and emotionally, not just intellectually—as group connections create openings for aesthetic experience (Sandelands, 1998; Taylor and Karanian, 2008). Exploring the group-level ‘aesthetic dimension’ is expected to enable ‘shared aesthetics’ (Strati, 2003: 55). Feedback from the audience is also an important part of the ‘aesthetic dimension’.

As group touchstones are revealed, class members ‘turn on their senses and imaginations’—noting ‘sensations and impressions’ (Strati, 2007a: 75) on ‘feedback forms’ provided to each person. Gagliardi (2006: 719) reminds us that it is the ‘pathos’ (for example of the group) which is ‘constituted by the artifact’ (the touchstone) to which students are asked ‘to record not what purpose it serves but rather what sensations are aroused’ and what aesthetic judgments are evoked. They also imagine what it feels like to be part of the representing group. Meanings (symbolic or otherwise) are further offered up to the group for reflection. As Gagliardi (2006: 719) further articulates, ‘artifacts [touchstones, my addition] say many contradictory things, simultaneously interweaving intentions of production [touchstone making, my addition] and conditions of reception’.

Students are then prompted to write about meaningfulness or not in personal reflection papers. Reflection papers provide students with a medium to explore and share their own personal learning, partially through the juxtaposition of production intentions and audience reactions. Students who have taken the aesthetic risk and have made the emotional investments necessary to turn group quotidian into something potentially magical (Strati, 2007a) also have celebrated their experiences in an artful way. Post (touchstone) reflections turn the process back in on itself (Welsch et al., 2007: 66) — yet they are considered by this study as important moments in the aesthetic dimension. In sum, the touchstone flows in various stages and movements through which the aesthetic dimension is encountered in this classroom setting. Figure 1 provides the reader with a list of these movements which are further elaborated in the findings.

Figure 1.

Movements in the aesthetic dimension.

Student reflections and ‘findings’ in the aesthetic dimension

Vince and Reynolds (2007) have advocated for aesthetically oriented experiential learning approaches in management education that engender in-depth emotional connections. Immersion in the arts-based touchstone exercise engages students and sets the stage for deeper understandings about group dynamics, development and group tacit knowledge—in essence, the aesthetic dimension of group life experiences, as noted in the following student reflection evoking the aesthetic category of the sublime:

I have been challenged to my core. I’ve been asked to create something without much direction; to become vulnerable, to get to know the people in my group, to step outside the classroom setting and become connected on a more deep level than simply academic. I detested it at first, even resented it. I now embrace the idea of creativity, of art, to be incorporated into a business oriented curriculum. I now understand that the emotional involvement it elicits bonds its participants in a more humane way. By being forced to think creatively, you allow yourself to be personal. Results are astoundingly meaningful.

To aid the reader, I have coded the remainder of examples from personal student reflections by both year and group number: Y1–Y2; G1–G6. Revealed in the student comments below, members may describe their touchstones in evocative and symbolic language—not rational-logical terms (Strati, 2008). Further reflections show that when students have ‘an experience’, in the Deweyan sense, they ‘problematize traditional learning and follow their imaginations and intuitions’ (Strati, 2007a: 71).

I chose to add a picture of Jack Black [to the touchstone] for several reasons. First, he is my favorite artist. Secondly, Jack Black has been able to reinvent traditional folk/blues rock with his own sound that is sure to influence other artists for generations to come. Lastly, he has a cool and calculated presence not just on stage but in life. I think that Jack symbolizes some of the qualities that I bring to our team because I have a cool and calm demeanor and am not afraid to take a new approach. (Y1, G1)

Trees grow from small seeds into enormous living organisms that continue to grow and regenerate. Trees are strong and can survive in extreme conditions. Each branch represents a member of the group, with individual leaves representing likes, symbols and interests that characterize who we are. No two branches are alike. Like our tree, our group has grown from four students who were familiar with one another into a close group that enjoys one another and works as a unit to complete our projects. (Y2, G1)

Immersed in the aesthetic dimension, students may rely on their senses to hear the ‘music’ of the group and to see its ‘color’:

We have a group of personalities that you would not expect to see hanging out at a party. The final presentation was more of a Tchaikovsky piece where the dissonance can sound cacophonic. However there was something else that was apparent, at least to me. Everyone put a little piece of themselves into the final presentation. It was a bit unruly and not quite polished, but the degree of difficulty was high. (Y2, G2)

The touchstone has added color to a world that is usually filled with shades of grey. (Y2, G5)

During Year 2 an additional reflection paper was assigned to the practice of touchstone-making. Materiality, corporeality and sensible knowing are captured through the process of touchstone-making where students discover further aesthetic pleasures; such as the beauty which highlights the ‘bonds’ (Strati, 2000) students have both to their group and to their touchstone work:

As we looked through and touched various trinkets and bobbles that might represent characteristics of us, we talked and told stories. We learned a great deal about one another that we might not have known otherwise. The best part was that the touchstone really represents our group. I have to say that I was incredibly surprised by it. (Y2, G1)

The actual presenting of our touchstone was not nearly as rewarding as actually creating the masterpiece. We never really planned what we were going to ‘say’; yet we were able to finish each other’s sentences and fill the gags in dialogue. It was good to see that the class appreciated our touchstone. Sometimes this goes unnoticed by peers. (Y2, G2)

An element of improvisation is noted in the above reflection. Barry and Meisiek (2010b: 343) suggest that play is one of the essential elements of ‘artfulness centered on small a art’. As noted above, there are aesthetic pleasures to be gained from students’ corporeality (Strati, 2007a)—their playfulness. Barry (2008: 38) notes that artfulness springs forth from play—both the serious play and perhaps more importantly, the non-serious aspect of making things up. Guillet de Monthoux and Statler (2008: 433) emphasize the importance of ‘aesthetic play’—describing art as an ‘invitation to play’:

I have worked in groups for tons of school projects and there has not been a single one that was more enjoyable than this one. From the first night we met … up until the end when we put together our touchstone, we made things fun. Acting stupid, listening to music, and watching video clips became a typical thing while we were working. While this might not seem too in depth, it was mighty fun. (Y1, G1)

Classmates felt that working in our group would be entertaining. I must admit it was. It is good to think that others would want to join our group and would find working with us to be enjoyable. Whether we were being creative, unique, or crazy, our group enjoyed ourselves and our touchstone story. (Y2, G3)

The pathos of artifacts also activates aesthetic knowledge (Gagliardi, 1996, 2006). In Knorr-Cetina’s (2006) terms, ‘objects’ (touchstones) become ‘relationship partners’. Pierre Guillet de Monthoux, as cited in Weiskopf (2002), regards the spaces between subject and object as the elusive space which takes on aesthetic value—in the sense of creative possibilities. Gherardi (2009) further notes that ‘aesthetic attachments’ may form with objects (for example touchstones) which in turn redefines the touchstone through aesthetic ‘taste making’. Michel Serres’ (1982) notion of the ‘quasi-object’ may be invoked to understand touchstone materiality somewhat differently in a ‘post-social’ (Strati, 2010) world. The touchstone as a quasi-object both weaves the ‘intersubjectivity’ of the group and ‘marks the subject’ (as individual group member). As the touchstone is passed from group member to group member it connotes both the ‘we’ and the ‘I’; point them out.

I really thought I put myself out there for my part of the touchstone. I tried to actually think of real things I learned, and then I tried to personalize it by taking the time to get someone to take pictures of me in some of these situations. So it was dorky, but it was me, and I fully admit that I’m dorky. (Y1, G4)

Basically all the pictures on the collage [touchstone] were in some sort a symbol of us, either as a team or individually. Also the group might not have exactly the same interpretation of the touchstone, but know we are fairly similar, and are at least capable of appreciating another person’s point of view. (Y1, G4)

Gagliardi (2006: 708) notes that ‘things themselves and the experiences they evoke are not just [touchstone] project outcomes, they are active agents in sensory experience and interactive between materiality and aesthetic communication’. Through their interpretations and reflections, students create their own meaning. Grey (2009) points to the importance of ‘involving students in the production of knowledge’, as highlighted by one of the MBA students:

The unique thing about art is that there are no specific guidelines about what is right and wrong. Everyone views art differently. That is what makes art so special because there are no parameters. Learning is similar to art because there are many different learning styles as well. We were given an assignment of creating a touchstone to incorporate some type of art form. This allowed us to get away from the textbook and bring in real examples of our own learning. I have taken thousands of tests throughout my life, and couldn’t really tell you what I learned; but I will never forget our touchstone. (Y2, G4)

By creating spaces for aesthetic knowledge, as Strati (2007b: 84) reminds us, the ‘tonality’ of [the touchstone] lies in the ‘performance of teaching and learning with roots in the arts’. These feelings are noted in the following student reflection:

I see art through a new perspective where it has a different value and role in society. Whether it is Dutch Renaissance, Duchamp’s ‘Ready-mades’ or Egyptian hieroglyphs, art is more than a pleasurable experience. Art can create learning. It also provides students and teachers with new perspectives. Too often, as graduate students we are bogged down with memorizing facts and creating a new ‘PowerPoint’. Having this creative experience gives students the confidence to face challenges knowing that the answer may not always be found through an algorithm. (Y2, G5)

Strati (2007a: 77) notes that ‘in the course of this type of learning, its “doing” displays knowledge richness’. The aesthetic category of the tragic is evoked by the following student reflection to describe the experience of losing a group member in midst of the semester:

When I look at our touchstone project, I feel like I actually learned more about myself and of what I am capable. We wanted the class to see that even though you may lose a team member, you can still do great things. When we lost our team member, we lost our group leader and some of our cohesion. By making a volcano, we were able to symbolically reveal to the class what our semester journey had been like so that they could understand. If we had just told them that we were a team that was relaxed in the middle of chaos, they would have to guess what that meant. (Y2, G4)

By exploring the aesthetic dimension, the touchstone as artifact reveals the unique identities of the group—for example fun, fearless, sentimental, unique and even polarizing:

The touchstone reflected how we worked together and showed our fearlessness and willingness to take on something new and not to be afraid of getting something wrong. (Y1, G1)

I think that individual personalities were expressed in a number of ways: the pictures that were chosen as backgrounds, the ideas for poses and facial expressions, and the costumes that people chose for each picture. (Y1, G3)

Our touchstone was unique. I also found it interesting how incredibly different all of the groups’ touchstones were from each other as each group made choices about what concepts to embrace and represent them in an artistic and intriguing manner. (Y2, G1)

I knew our touchstone would be polarizing. (Y2, G2)

Our touchstone was more like a hallmark card, something more personal and sentimental. (Y2, G3)

Classmates felt that working in our group would be entertaining. I must admit it was. (Y2, G4)

I’m glad that the spirit of our group was easily recognizable. (Y2, G5)

Many students found their aesthetic moments within the creative process that ‘challenges the MBA program within which the course is situated’ (Vince and Reynolds, 2007). As Meisiek and Hatch (2008) note, there are liberating aspects associated with creativity. Strati (2007a) highlights the beauty and enjoyment that may come with the introduction of artistic and creative processes. As previously noted, one of the underlying assumptions of aesthetic approaches is the concern for freedom and emancipation. Gagliardi (2006: 708) poignantly observes that an artifact (the touchstone) ‘shows itself when it stands as a symbol of something that might be’—in this case, management (MBA) education:

I was really impressed with the way our touchstone evolved into a creative production. (Y1, G1)

The touchstone gave us an opportunity to express our creativity in a non-traditional MBA style. Our MBA seems overly focused on finance and accounting … the opportunity to express ourselves, especially artistically is unique to this class and I appreciated the escape. (Y1, G6)

I loved the element of creativity required for this class. It gave me a creative outlet, something that we do not get to experience in other MBA classes. Many times it is all about the numbers and definitions. This time we got to express ourselves in another way. (Y1, G6)

Prior to the class, I felt that business was its own sector of society and only crossed the imaginary line of arts briefly during the marketing phase of products. In this class, I was allowed to envision a new perspective of the business world that I rarely touched on a daily basis. Our group had a hard time just grasping the concept of using our ‘creative side’. Within the MBA program we are infused with the idea that business is only about processes and analytical thinking. Our touchstone represents more to me than a completed assignment. It is a symbol of our diversity and the journey we made in grasping the ‘truth’ that art should be included at some level in business education. (Y2, G2)

Incorporating art into an MBA course is a daunting task especially for those of us who have been working and are accustomed to more concrete concepts and ideas. The idea of using art is not intuitive for us because most of the creativity is removed from our control if not from our job entirely. There is no text-book on the planet that can tell you how to be an effective group member. The only way to learn is through experience. I believe that art can enhance learning in management education. I feel that in so many business classes we are taught to be ‘workers’ and not free thinking individuals. We are taught processes and rules and structure. I feel that this focus is too heavy. There are very few classes that encourage creativity. Current MBA classes leave something to be desired. I think art can help. (Y2, G6)

Our ‘out there’ touchstone illustrates that creative thinking has made significant inroads into the MBA environment (at least amongst members of this class); that some are uncomfortable with/opposed to presentations that are not ‘clean’ and ‘linear’. The latter view is understandable, both because business schools have an uncanny ability to attract boring people; the vast majority of us have been duped into believing that only number-crunching and economic analysis are key to business success. Before the class, I really struggled to see how the ‘kumbaya class’ (as I referred to it) was relevant to my life; however, by some strange coincidence, I started running into a bunch of successful business people who kept reiterating the same thing: people want to hear a story. Now I see that more arts equal better-equipped MBA’s. (Y2, G2)

Some students enjoy and others dislike non-traditional pedagogy (Strati, 2007a); as Gherardi (2009: 535) contends, ‘it’s a matter of taste’. Students may also find their critical ‘creative spirit’ in the creative refusal to be enchanted by the touchstone experience.

The problem with the touchstone really stems with how to be ‘creative’ about things so mundane. Actually, writing out that question made me stop and really think: why do I find this subject so humdrum? Now there’s a juicy subject for my next reflection! (Y1, G4)

Discussion

By putting organizational aesthetics into practice in management education, I have described both the main features of organizational aesthetics and the various approaches to scholarship. I have also explored the related arena of arts-based learning for insights into management learning and development. I have detailed the touchstone process as one way to potentially evoke and re-present the aesthetic dimension. Through an artistic-aesthetic approach, the case study shows how ‘moments of aesthetic engagement’ have the potential in part, to enlarge that which can be sensed and experienced (Barry and Meisiek, 2010a; Taylor and Hansen, 2005)—afford opportunities for both management education and organization studies to be broader and more open than more traditional approaches (Welsch et al., 2007). Unlike other individually based touchstone processes, these students were challenged to ‘find their own form’ (Taylor and Hansen, 2005) with which to represent their ‘felt senses’ of group life. Student voices underscore the work of Erden and colleagues (2008), acknowledging the strong connections between aesthetics, group tacit knowledge and how members feel about their group (their aesthetic judgments), which in turn have implications for group cohesion and collective actions. I have also experienced what Meisiek and Hatch (2008: 417) have described as the ‘double-sidedness’ related to aesthetics—that is ultimately individual, but with shared aesthetic aspirations. Thus this study makes an important contribution to organizational aesthetic understanding at the group level.

As Gallos (2009: 205) learned in her experiences with artful teaching, students both need and want to be active agents in their own learning. Organizational aesthetics embraces active learning. MBA students reveal that artistic-aesthetic approaches provide a much needed ‘balance’ to their business school experience which is typically based on more quantitative and analytical approaches—wherein the beauty of experiential [and artistic-aesthetic approaches, my addition] is its ‘unreliability’ (Welsch et al., 2007). In this study, MBA students were able to experiment with new forms of knowing to convey the tacit knowledge that may have been difficult to represent using positivist and quantitative means that tend to spill-over from organization and management scholarship to management education practices (Strati, 2007a).

This case study opens up a corporeal and material space for organizational aesthetics to extend its reach into the study and practice of management education. Corporeality and materiality, the cornerstones of organizational aesthetics are noticed and experienced by students in their representations of the aesthetic dimension. Without aesthetics, management education runs the aesthetic risk of neglecting or otherwise taking for granted important aspects of both organizational and classroom experiences. As these students suggest, an overemphasis on rational-objective analysis and power-point presentations leaves their senses dulled creating ‘anaesthetic’ (Strati, 1999) conditions. In these spaces, boredom may interfere with knowing more and differently about work, organizations and themselves. Students want to engage their imaginations, passions and talents; thus the emancipation associated with an artistic-aesthetic approach affords them the freedom to be creative and to express aesthetic feelings.

The artistic-aesthetic method used here celebrates sensory-aesthetic experiences of each unique individual and each unique group. It enhances learning at both the group and classroom levels where aesthetics are ‘negotiated in practice’ (Strati, 2007c). Students’ aesthetic tastes are cultivated as they learn to provide peer-level feedback which in turn, affords them the opportunity to learn how individuals feel and aesthetically judge, differently. Learning occurs through these shared aesthetic experiences and new knowledge is discovered. Reflection papers help students to gain additional insights into their own aesthetic experiences.

Concluding remarks

This case study opens a space for the organizational aesthetics to extend its reach to the study and practice of management education. The study shows that students are able to grasp some of the complexities of group organizational life; imaginations were stimulated with reflections evoking creative responses. Students also seem to appreciate the possibilities inherent in artistic-aesthetic methods and different ways of knowing. I am surprised and deeply touched by the touchstones; I enjoy how students learn to engage their own talents and desires in its creation. The attachments they form to their touchstones suggest the need for further research designed to more fully understand what happens in this aesthetic-object (artifact) relationship.

As Weiskopf (2002: 91) argues, we need to recognize ‘what has been excluded and what has been denied the possibility to emerge’. I am left to ponder these issues in the context of management learning and education. Are there other ‘disenchanted’ voices left out? I am reminded of Ciulla’s (2000) wisdom about employees’ felt experiences of well-intended human resources programs that mostly serve to ‘manufacture enchantment’. Yet, I also feel that organizational aesthetics has much more to offer management education research in terms of making possible ways of knowing that may not easily fit into traditional pedagogical methods. The challenge for organizational aesthetics is to continue efforts to bring aesthetic ways of knowing into management education practices.

As a practical matter, management educators involved with ‘assurance of learning’ standards and assessments may face their own ‘innovator’s dilemma’ as they encounter the non-prescriptive nature of aesthetic knowing. However the potential for engaged (artistic-aesthetic) learning experiences is reflected by this MBA student constituency—such that the ‘metric’ details may be worth creatively sorting out on a local basis; hopefully without losing its core—an enjoyment of aesthetic experience (Strati, 2008) or ‘art form’ for its own sake (Taylor and Ladkin, 2009).

My own pleasure in sharing aesthetic moments with MBA students emerged from the aesthetic risk involved in the undertaking. Students have been gracious enough to afford permissions to explore their reflections herein. Readers’ responses to this text also make up the aesthetic dimension of this study—as you, the reader, activate your own senses and imaginations and place yourself into empathic understanding of this aesthetic management education journey. Finally, a more general contribution that organizational aesthetics may make to the field of management education has unfolded in this study. Student reflections have planted the seeds for future exploration into the aesthetic study of management education. The aesthetic risk may be well worth the journey.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers from Management Learning for valuable comments and suggestions. I would also like to thank reviewers from the Organizational Behavior Teaching Conference, Southern Management Association and CMS Pre-academy workshop participants for feedback and support with earlier versions of this paper. My deepest gratitude goes to the MBA students who continue to inspire me with their senses and imaginations.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Adler

(2006) The arts and leadership: Now that we can do anything what will we do? Academy of Management Learning and Education 5(4): 486–499.

Baldacchino

(2009) Education beyond Education. New York: Peter Lang.

Barry

(2008) The art of …. In: Barry

Hansen

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of New Approaches in Management and Organization. London: SAGE, pp.31–40.

Barry

Meisiek

(2010a) Seeing more and seeing differently: Sensemaking, mindfulness, and the workarts. Organization Studies 31(12): 1–26.

Barry

Meisiek

(2010b) The art of leadership and its fine art shadow. Leadership 6(3): 331–349.

Beyes

Michels

(2011) The production of educational space: Heterotopia and the business university. Management Learning 42(5): 521–536.

Bingham

Hernandez

(2009) ‘Laughing matters’: The comedian as social observer, teacher and conduit of the sociological perspective. Teaching Sociology 37(4): 335–352.

Carr

Hancock

(2002) Art and aesthetics at work: An introduction. Tamara 2(1): 1–7.

Champoux

(2003) At the Movies: Organizational Behavior. Mason, OH: Southwestern.

10.

Ciulla

(2000) The Working Life: The Promise and Betrayal of Modern Work. New York: Random House.

11.

Clegg

Kornberger

Pitsis

(2008) Managing and Organizations. London: SAGE.

12.

Cunliffe

Shotter

(2006) Linguistic artifacts in organizing and managing. In Rafaeli

Pratt

(eds) Artifacts and Organizations: Beyond Mere Symbolism. London: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp.119–140.

13.

Czarniawska

Guillet de Monthoux

(1994) Good Novels, Better Management. Chur, Switzerland: Harwood Academic.

14.

Darso

(2005) International opportunities for artful learning. Journal of Business Strategy 26(5): 58–61.

15.

De Ciantis

(1995) Using Art Technique to Facilitate Leadership Development. Greensboro, NC: CCL Press.

16.

Dewey

(1934) Art as Experience. New York: Milton, Balch, and Company.

17.

Dey

Steyaert

(2007) The troubadours of knowledge: Passion and invention in management education. Organization 14(3): 437–461.

18.

Elsbach

(2006) Perceptual biases and misinterpretation of artifacts. In: Rafaeli

Pratt

(eds) Artifacts and Organizations: Beyond Mere Symbolism. London: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp.61–84.

19.

Erden

von Krogh

Nonaka

(2008) The quality of group tacit knowledge. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 17(February): 4–18.

20.

Gagliardi

(1996) Exploring the aesthetic side of organizational life. In: Clegg

Hardy

Nord

(eds), Handbook of Organization Studies. London: SAGE, pp.565–580.

21.

Gagliardi

(2006) Exploring the aesthetic side of organizational life. In: Clegg

Hardy

Nord

(eds) Handbook of Organization Studies. 2nd edn. London: SAGE, pp.701–724.

22.

Gagliardi

(2007) The collective repression of pathos. Organization 14(3): 331–338.

23.

Gallos

(2009) Artful teaching: Using the visual, creative and performing arts in contemporary management education. In: Armstrong

Fukami

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of Management Learning, Education and Development. London: SAGE, pp.187–212.

24.

Gherardi

(1999) Learning as problem-driven or learning in the face of mystery. Organization Studies 20(1): 103–123.

25.

Gherardi

(2009) Practice? It’s a matter of taste. Management Learning 40(5): 535–550.

26.

Gherardi

Nicolini

Strati

(2007) The passion for knowing. Organization 14(3): 315–329.

27.

Greene

(2001) Variations on a Blue Guitar. New York: Columbia University and Teachers College Press.

28.

Grey

(2002) What are business schools for? On silence and voice in management education. Journal of Management Education 6(5): 496–511.

29.

Grey

(2009) Licence to think. Management Learning 40(4): 353–356.

30.

Guillet de Monthoux

Statler

(2008) Aesthetic play as an organizing principle. In: Barry

Hansen

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of New Approaches in Management and Organization. London: SAGE, pp.423–435.

31.

Hansen

Bathurst

(2011) Aesthetics and leadership. In: Bryman

Collinson

Grint

. (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Leadership. London: SAGE, pp.255–266.

32.

King

(2008) How we know what we know: The potentiality of art and aesthetics. In: Barry

Hansen

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of New Approaches in Management and Organization. London: SAGE, pp.42–48.

33.

Knorr-Cetina

(2006) Post-humanist challenges to the human and social sciences. In: Gagliardi

Czarniawska

(eds) Management Education and Humanities. Cornwall: MPG, pp.233–245.

34.

Kupers

(2002) The phenomenology of aesthetic organizing—Ways toward aesthetically responsive organizations. Consumption, Markets and Culture 5(1): 21–46.

35.

Leavy

(2009) Method Meets Art. New York: Guilford Press.

36.

McNiff

(1998) Arts-Based Research. London: Athenaeum Press.

37.

Meisiek

Hatch

(2008) This is work, this is play: Artful interventions and identity dynamics. In: Barry

Hansen

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of New Approaches in Management and Organization. London: SAGE, pp.412–422.

38.

Minahan

Wolfram-Cox

(2007) The Aesthetic Turn in Management. Farnham: Ashgate.

39.

Nissley (2002) Arts-based learning in management education. In: Wankel

DeFillippi

(eds) Rethinking Management for the 21st Century. Greenwich: IAP, pp.27–62.

40.

Nissley (2004) The ‘artful creation’ of positive anticipatory imagery in appreciative inquiry: Understanding appreciative inquiry as aesthetic discourse. Appreciative Inquiry 1: 283–307.

41.

Nissley

Palus

(2003) Moving beyond the art of creative thinking. Focus: Bimonthly Newsletter of the American Creativity Association 15(3): 1–3.

42.

Ottensmeyer

(1996) Too strong to stop, too sweet to lose: Aesthetics as a way to know organizations. Organization 3(2): 189–194.

43.

Phillips

(1995) Telling organizational tales: The role of narrative fiction in the study of organizations. Organization Studies 16(4): 625–648.

44.

Sandelands

(1998) Feeling and Form in Social Life. Lanham, MD: Roman and Littlefield.

45.

Serres

Schehr

(1982) The Parasite. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

46.

Strati

(1992) Aesthetic understanding of organizational life. Academy of Management Review 17(3): 568–581.

47.

Strati

(1999) Organization and Aesthetics. London: SAGE.

48.

Strati

(2000) The aesthetic approach in organization studies. In: Linstead

Höpfl

(eds) The Aesthetics of Organization. London: SAGE, pp.13–34.

49.

Strati

(2003) Knowing in practice: Aesthetic understanding and tacit knowledge. In: Nicolini

Gherardi

Yanow

(eds) Knowing in Organizations: A Practice-Based Approach. New York: ME Sharpe, pp53–75.

50.

Strati

(2006) Organizational artifacts and the aesthetic approach. In: Rafaeli

Pratt

(eds) Artifacts and Organizations: Beyond Mere Symbolism. London: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp.23–29.

51.

Strati

(2007a) Aesthetics in teaching organization studies. In: Reynolds

Vince

(eds) The Handbook of Experiential Learning and Management Education. London: Oxford University Press, pp.70–86.

52.

Strati

(2007b) Sensations, impressions and reflections on the configuring of the aesthetic discourse in organizations. Aesthesis 1(1): 14–22.

53.

Strati

(2007c) Sensible knowledge and practice-based learning. Management Learning 38(1): 61–77.

54.

Strati

(2008) Aesthetics in the study of organizational life. In: Barry

Hansen

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of New Approaches in Management and Organization. London: SAGE, pp.229–238.

55.

Strati

(2009) Do you do beautiful things? Aesthetics and art in qualitative methods of organizational studies. In: Buchanan

Bryman

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Research Methods. London: SAGE, pp.230–245.

56.

Strati

(2010) Aesthetic understanding of work and organizational life: Approaches and research developments. Sociology Compass 4(10): 880–893.

57.

Taylor

Carboni

(2008) Technique and practices from the arts. In: Barry

Hansen

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of New Approaches in Management and Organization. London: SAGE, 220–228.

58.

Taylor

Hansen

(2005) Finding form: Looking at the field of organizational aesthetics. Journal of Management Studies 42(6): 1211–1231.

59.

Taylor

Karanian

(2008) Working connection: The relational art of leadership. Aesthesis 2(2): 15–21.

60.

Taylor

Ladkin

(2009) Understanding arts-based methods in managerial development. Academy of Management Learning & Education 8(1): 55–89.

61.

Vince

Reynolds

(2007) Introduction: Experiential learning and management education: Key themes and future directions. In: Reynolds

Vince

(eds) The Handbook of Experiential Learning and Management Education. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.1–18.

62.

Visual Explorer. Available at: http://www.cclexplorer.org/visualexplorer (accessed 16 March 2012).

63.

Warren

(2008) Empirical challenges in organizational aesthetic research: Toward a sensuous methodology. Organization Studies 29(4): 559–580.

64.

Weiskopf

(2002) Deconstructing ‘the iron cage’—Towards an aesthetic of folding. Consumption, Markets, and Culture 5(1): 79–97.

65.

Welsch

Dehler

Murray

(2007) Learning about and through aesthetic experience: Understanding the power of experience-based education. In: Reynolds

Vince

(eds) The Handbook of Experiential Learning and Management Education. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.53–69.

66.

Wicks

Rippin

(2010) An inquiry into art and leadership using dolls and doll making. Leadership 6(3): 259–278.

67.

Witkin

(2009) The aesthetic imperative of a rational-technical machinery: A study in organizational control through the design of artifacts. Music and Arts in Action 2(1): 56–68.