.:..;. .
i......;:f,r.. A

..
‘..,

 

V

add-

a}, .
‘ 35...; 3.
. . ; 1....
:9, H1” a

1 .

t... ‘ .

 

'IAE (~- I S
5

22'; M F

 

L University

l" LIBRARY 7

Michigan State 3

 

This is to certify that the
l dissertation entitled

‘

Transformation As A Sociocultural Phenomenon:

A Study Of Adult Learning In Leadership Development.

presented by

Frank L. Conner

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

 

Ph. D. . degree in Educational Administration

/%3fi%

Major Professor's Signature

ézgéfig 445/; 2&03

Date

  

MSU Is an AMnnatlve Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE
3%” 1‘3 5 2806

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJClRCIDateOuepGS—sz

 

TRANSFORMATION AS A SOCIOCULTURAL PHENOMENON:
A STUDY OF ADULT LEARNING IN LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
BY

Frank L. Conner

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Educational Administration

2003

TPAVSFO.

As a m
well establishe
with Mezirow
Imiversal mod:
Within this pc:
Structures that
Hamformation
development 5
integrating the
m“ ‘0 5”?
mt fillly CXpIai
“ansfonnam. e
Social Context t

me p...
and “We in ill
PamCipams in J

mm' 56m

 

ABSTRACT

TRANSFORMATION AS A SOCIOCULTURAL PHENOMENON: A STUDY OF
ADULT LEARNING IN LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

By

Frank L. Conner

As a model for learning and a philosophy of education, transformative learning is
well established within the domain of adult learning. The theory is closely associated
with Mezirow (1981), whose original proposal for a comprehensive, idealized and
universal model of adult learning was based on a cognitive perspective to learning.
Within this perspective, transformation is the reorganizing of the individually constructed
structures that create a person’s model of the world. A second perspective on
transformation is rooted in the depth psychology or neo-Jungian approach. to human
development. Scholars in this tradition describe transformation as the process of
integrating the multiple selves hidden within the unconscious. While there is significant
research to support both theories of transformation, independently or together, they do
not fully explain the phenomena. Missing from current conceptualizations of
transformative learning is a broader understanding of social interaction and the larger
social context in the process of transformation.

The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine the role of others, society
and culture in the process of personal transformation and transformative learning.
Participants in this study included six graduates of a nine month leadership development

program. Several subjects were recommended by the program’s executive director. Final

  
   

selection was 7

cmironment r:
to others. 2! rec

collaboration.

commumy of
through interac
mumptions‘ b,—

This Stu

3” "Presented

selection was made through telephone interviews that identified individuals who reported
this experience as having changed their understanding and behavior in the world.

The findings show that this highly interactive and collaborative learning
environment resulted in the individuals developing a new understanding of self in relation
to others, a recognition of their own personal biases and an understanding of the value of
collaboration. For the participants, transformation was experienced as a disruption of the
person’s current sense of self in relation to a community’s shared assumptions about the
world. Personal and social meaning making of this disruption was facilitated through the
involvement in a new community of practice resulting in a new sense of self. This
community of practice was formed through the interaction between individuals and
through interaction with a larger cultural context which held and communicated shared
assumptions, beliefs, values, and expected behavior via mediated tools and activities.

This study underscores the strong epistemological and ontological differences that
are represented by the dominant theoretical perspectives of transformation. While this
research does not attempt to consolidate these differences, it provides a broader
understanding of the role of others, community and the cultural context in individual
transformation. The findings offer additional insight on the possible role that the larger
social context plays in individual transformation. By focusing on a sociocultural
perspective to transformative learning, this research contributes to the ongoing
conversation on how people make meaning in their lives and how education might play a
role in changing their way of understanding and being in the world. Implications for
practitioners in adult and higher education interested in facilitating such change, and for

scholars interested in the further study of transformative learning are explored.

Copyright by
FRANK L. CONNER
2003

 

Meditate 1h] 5
mel'have give
be“ 10 make i‘

I dedicate this dissertation to my two children, Dylan and Spencer. Unbeknownst to them,
they have given up part of their life so that their dad may pursue his dream. I will do my
best to make it up to you. I love you both.

It is it
a life joumey
the gifi of cor
had the heart l
teachers and ;
rewarded my t
Who have prox

The {at
through their d
and mate to id
dissertation co;
Arney who pro

better than h3d

 

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It is impossible to give thanks to all of those people that have assisted a person on
a life journey. This journey begins of course with my parents to whom I give thanks for
the gift of confidence and curiosity. To the many mentors in my youth and beyond who
had the heart and intuitiveness to see the real me hidden behind a gruff facade. The
teachers and professors throughout my educational experience who challenged and
rewarded my deficits and abilities. My colleagues at Grand Rapids Community College
who have provided me with both cognitive and emotional support toward my success.

The faculty at MSU deserve thanks for providing a rich learning environment
through their dedication to teaching and scholarship. I could never allocate enough time
and space to identify each of them, but I would be remiss in not mentioning a few. My
dissertation committee members, Dr. Frank Fear, Dr. Stephen Kaagan, and Dr. Marilyn
Amey who provided thoughtful and valuable input resulting in a final product much
better than had they not been involved. Dr. King Beach who helped shape my
understanding of sociocultural theory. And mostly, Dr. John Dirkx, my advisor and friend
with whom I’ve had wonderful conversation about learning, transformation, and life in
general. I would not be here without him.

lastly, those closest to me in my daily life. My friend and fellow joumeyer
James, may he find his place in the world. My dearest friend, Judy. Her acceptance,
caring, and gift of time helps me find meaning in my life. My children to whom this
dissertation is dedicated. My wife Raeni who has selfishly given of her life so that I

might make this journey. To all of them I give my everlasting love and appreciation.

vi

 

CHAPTER 1 I
THE RESEA
Introduction 1
Rationale for
The Research.
Theoretical Ti
Research Que
Significance cl
Methodologi:
Delimitations

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF
Introduction ..
CogmthC Trat
Criticisms of 5
supporting an
Depth Psychol
SOClOCultura] -
cum“ “test
The Broader C

pter Sum:

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

CHAPTER 1

THE RESEARCH PROBLEM ............................................................................................ 1
Introduction to the Problem ................................................................................................. l
Rationale for the Study ........................................................................................................ 5
The Research Problem ......................................................................................................... 8
Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................................ 8
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 11
Significance of this Study .................................................................................................. ll
Methodological Approach ................................................................................................. l4
Delimitations and Limitations ........................................................................................... 15
CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................................................................... 16
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 16
Cognitive Tradition ........................................................................................................... 17
Criticisms of Mezirow’s Transformative Learning Theory .............................................. 19
Supporting and Contrasting Cognitive Models of Transformation ................................... 22
Depth Psychology .............................................................................................................. 24
Sociocultural Tradition ...................................................................................................... 29
Current Theories and Research in the Sociocultural Tradition ......................................... 32
The Broader Context of Leadership Development ............................................................ 39
Chapter Summary .............................................................................................................. 43
CHAPTER 3

METHODS AND PROCEDURES ................................................................................... 45
Purpose ........ - -- -- _ - ............................................................................ 45
Conceptual Framework ...................................................................................................... 45
Research Context ............................................................................................................... 48
Research Participants ......................................................................................................... 50
Data Collection .................................................................................................................. 53
Additional Data ................................................................................................................. 54
Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 55
Role of the Researcher ....................................................................................................... 57
Limitations of the Study .................................................................................................... 58

vii

CHAPTER ~‘
STLDY CO.‘
Introduction
The Subjecu
[aura
RBCl‘iL'
Brian
Johnl
Sherr.
Sham?
Leadership C I
Oven
Open.
Monti
C omnE
Endin:
Two h

 

CHAPTER 5
FEVDINGS
The Context 0.
Initial l
C 0mm
Skill 0:
Group
SOurces or Le.
Others
Inform;
Self 35
IDICYCQ;
InleTdUa] Lea
Underg

 

CHAPTER 4

 

STUDY CONTEXT AND THE SUBJECTS .................................................................... 60
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 60
The Subjects ...................................................................................................................... 60
Laura ...................................................................................................................... 60
Rachel .................................................................................................................... 63
Brian ...................................................................................................................... 65
John ........................................................................................................................ 67
Sherri ..................................................................................................................... 69
Sharon .................................................................................................................... 72
Leadership Great Falls Experience .................................................................................... 73
Overview ............................................................................................................... 74
Opening Retreat ..................................................................................................... 75
Monthly sessions ................................................................................................... 77
Community Project ................................................................................................ 78
Ending Retreat ....................................................................................................... 79
Two Year Commitment ......................................................................................... 79
CHAPTER 5
FINDINGS ......... 80
The Context of Leadership Great Falls .............................................................................. 80
Initial Removal of Roles and Labels ..................................................................... 81
Community Building ............................................................................................. 87
Skill of Dialogue .................................................................................................... 92
Group Dynamics .................................................................................................... 95
Sources Of Learning .......................................................................................................... 99
Others as a Source of Learning .............................................................................. 99
Information as a Source of Learning ................................................................... 102
Self as a Source of Learning ................................................................................ 106
Interconnectedness as a Source of Learning ........................................................ 109
Individual Learning .......... - - - - .................................................................... 112
Understanding of Self in Relation to Others ....................................................... 112
Recognition of Personal Biases ........................................................................... 116
The Value of Collaboration ................................................................................. 119
Additional Data ............................................................................................................... 121
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................ 122

viii

 

CHKPTEI
THE TRA
Menuhin;
Leaming a
l

Co

Le

Kn

M

Le;
Conclusioi

CHAPTEI
lhTERPR
Introductit
Sociocultu
Cultural H
Dia
Me
Zor
Communi:

Implicatior
The
The
C m
Pro
Lea

RecOUL'DEn
onCllLSlOn

CHAPTER 6

THE TRAN SFORMATIVE LEARNING EXPERIENCE ............................................. 125
Identifying Transformation .............................................................................................. 127
Learning as Transformative ............................................................................................. 131
Others Shape Our Learning ................................................................................. 131
Context Shapes The Final Form Of Learning ..................................................... 133
Learning Can Be Disruptive To The Person ....................................................... 136
Knowing Comes Through Practice ...................................................................... 138
Who We Are Is Entwined With What We Know ................................................ 140
Teaming Is Personal ............................................................................................ 142
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 143
CHAPTER 7
INTERPRETATIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONCLUSION ................................. 145
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 145
Sociocultural Model ........................................................................................................ 145
Cultural Historical Psychology ........................................................................................ 146
Dialectic ............................................................................................................... 148
Mediation ............................................................................................................. 153
Zone of Proximal Development .......................................................................... 157
Communities of Practice ................................................................................................. 159
Learning as Doing ............................................................................................... 160
Learning as Experience ....................................................................................... 161
Learning as Becoming ......................................................................................... 162
Learning as Belonging ......................................................................................... 163
Summary of the Sociocultural Tradition ......................................................................... 165
A Sociocultural Perspective on Transformative Learning .............................................. 167
Transformation is Shaped by the Culture ............................................................ 168
Transformation Involves Expanding A Person’s Belonging In Community. ..... 169
Implications for Practice .................................................................................................. 172
The Power of Context .......................................................................................... 172
The Power of Others ............................................................................................ 173
Critical Pedagogy ................................................................................................ 174
Professional Development ................................................................................... 175
Leadership Development ..................................................................................... 176
Recommendations for Further Research ......................................................................... 177
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 180

ix

APPENDIX?
rip-PC
APP:
Art‘s
Appei
Appe:
Appe:
Appe:
Apper
Appe:

REFERENCE

 

APPENDIXES ................................................................................................................. 1 82

Appendix A: Initial Telephone Interview ............................................................ 183
Appendix B: Letter to LGF Graduate .................................................................. 184
Appendix C: Particpant Consent Form for LGF Graduate .................................. 185
Appendix D: First Interview Protocal for LGF Graduate .................................... 187
Appendix E: Second Interview Protocal for LGF Graduate ................................ 188
Appendix F: Interview Protcocal for LGF Signficant Other ............................... 189
Appendix G: Consent Form for LGF Signficant Other ....................................... 190
Appendix H: Interview Protocal for LGF Executive Director ............................ 192
Appendix 1: Interview Consent Form for LGF Executive Director .................... 193
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 195

 

“Most oft
Animated .
more than
language 1'

At 2
executive d
her program
and the pen
executive dj
have rCporte
the Commun

[0015 and (‘01

CHAPTER 1
THE RESEARCH PROBLEM
“Most of us have a metaphor, conscious or not, that names our experience of life.
Animated by the imagination, one of the most vital powers we possess, our metaphors are

more than mirrors to reality-they oflen become reality, transmuting themselves from
language into the living of our lives ”

Palmer, 2000 p. 5

Introduction to the Problem

At a breakfast meeting previous to the conceptualization of this research, the
executive director of a program aimed at developing community leaders said she knew
her program was having an impact when she would run into the spouse of a participant
and the person would say, “You know, he or she is different at home.” What the
executive director was sharing is that many of the participants in this yearlong program
have reported a deep, fundamental transformation in their understanding and behavior in
the community. To the program’s benefit, this is its intent; to provide people with the
tools and commitment to be leaders in the community. The goal of the program, as
described in the literature, “ . . . is to develop community trustees - people who accept
responsibility on behalf of the whole community to ensure the common good.
(Leadership Grand Rapids, 2002)”

If this transformation of one's being is happening as described, what is the
relationship between the person and his or her experience in the program? What changes
occur, in or around this person, that are made apparent in a different way of thinking,
feeling, and acting in the world? How does the participant understand this change? What

is the role of the additional 30+ program participants in this person's individual change?

lheseand a

 

transforman.
process of n.

We l;
experiences.
such as those
include a larg
I996; 2000) 2
Changes. or tr
above, have it
PM. Other

Myers. 1988;

 

that Sigmfican

Given
PT this Sindy i
tranSforrIlatior
in the Opening
Prom, and .

lhOUght and a(

0n UDdCl‘Stand
1n the ‘
“Scented Wi t

1 .
Carmng Rage

These and a host of other questions speak to the concept of personal or individual
transformation. Addressing these questions requires a deeper understanding of the
process of transformation and the focus of this research.

We know that transformation occurs in adults because of their learning
experiences. This has been well documented by classic studies on the college experience
such as those by Perry (1970) and King and Kitchner (1994) and has been expanded to
include a larger domain of adult education exemplified by the work of Mezirow (1981;
1996; 2000) and Kegan (2000). However, what seems less certain is what actually
changes, or transforms, in or around the person. Previous studies, as those mentioned
above, have focused on personal transformation being within the person’s thought
process. Others have argued that transformation occurs through the unconscious (Boyd &
Myers, 1988; Dirkx, 1997 summer; Dirkx 2001). An emerging body of research posits
that significant personal change occurs at a social level (W enger, 1998; Beach 1999).

Given the tension between these differing perspectives, the fundamental question
for this study was, Where does change occur, or what changes in personal
transformation? The population studied in this research were the individuals introduced
in the opening paragraph; adults who had participated in a leadership development
program, and who identified themselves as having experienced significant change in
thought and action because of the learning experience. A particular emphasis was placed
on understanding the role of society and culture in this personal transformation.

In the current literature of adult learning, transformation is most closely
associated with Jack Mezirow (1981; 1991; 1995; 2000) and his theory of transformative

learning. Based in part on the philosophy of Habermas (1971), the cognitive tradition of

Piaget. and c
Mezirow has

oonstructix-is

 

development
experience. :3
experiences.
experiences a;
model). folio
based on the .

A see.

Whit l

 

Piaget, and current developmental psychologists such as Robert Kegan (1982; 1994),
Mezirow has developed a rational model of meaning making and change. In this
constructivist model of learning, individuals are active agents in their learning and the
development of a personal understanding of the world. Through their lifeworld
experience, they construct schemes or mental models of the world based upon their
experiences. For Mezirow, transformative learning occurs when an individual
experiences a disorienting dilemma (an experience that does not fit his or her mental
model), followed by critical reflection and dialogue. The results are a new mental model
based on the active interpretation of this new experience.

A second perspective on transformative learning is the depth-psychology
perspective (Boyd, 1991; Dirkx, 1997 summer) flamed within the theoretical
perspective of Jung and modern neo-Jungians such as Thomas Moore (1996) and James
Hillman (1975; 1996). The emphasis in depth psychology is not rational, critical
reflection as it is in the cognitive tradition, but is focused on understanding the
unconscious motivations, drives, personality traits and other hidden human attributes
assumed to be inherent in all people. In depth psychology, a rational self or the ego is
developed along with a variety of other personas or masks that help a person negotiate
the influence(s) of the unconscious through the constraints of the external world. From
this perspective, transformation is the integration of all these separate Selfs into a single
authentic Self. The term for this integration is individuation. The process for
transformative learning in this approach is the interaction with the unconscious, through

symbols and images evoked in everyday activities (Dirkx, 2000).

Rh;
transforrnat
literature se
Collard & I

In st
body of res
well as an II
and develo;
as the impac
uithin a go

This
SCicntists. a;
that meaning
but is a Shari
33d context I

This
Western
mocllhura]
lamb; Bm
Lllrla, 1976;
with Mezirot
active agent 1'

this model, I}

While there is significant research to support both of these theories of
transformation, independently or together, they do not fully explain the phenomena, the
literature seems to suggest more — the social (Clark, 1991; Clark & Wilson, 1991 , Winter;
Collard & Law, 1989, Winter; Mezirow, 1999; Sveinunggaard, 1993; Taylor, 1997 Fall).

In scanning the domain of adult learning and development, there is an emerging
body of research to suggest that adult meaning making is in part a social phenomena, as
well as an individual experience. Broadly referred to as a sociocultural view of learning
and development (Beach, 1999), this research considers the interaction of people as well
as the impact of shared assumptions, beliefs, values, traditions and behavior patterns
within a group, community, or society on how individuals make sense of their world.

This perspective differs from the rational view of Mezirow and the cognitive
scientists, and the unconscious, psyche motivated development of depth psychology in
that meaning-making does not reside solely in the individual (conscious or unconscious)
but is a shared activity between the individual and society. Within this tradition, others
and context play a role equal to the individual in adult learning and development.

This tradition can trace much of its origins to the philosophy of Heidegger and
Wittgenstein along with Dewey and George Herbert Mead. Current research in
sociocultural learning is supported by a host of scholars (Beach, 1999; Bruffee, 1995
Jan/Feb; Brunet, 1986; Bruner, 1990; Cole, 1998; Lave, 1997; Lave & Wenger, 1991;
Luria, 1976; Wenger, 1998; Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002; Wertsch, 1985). As
with Mezirow, this is a constructivist theory of learning that posits the individual is an
active agent in constructing his or her own understanding of the world However, within

this model, the individual is coupled with his or her historical and cultural context in an

inter-woven model of knowing. In sociocultural learning, individuals construct new
knowledge through their situated and contextual interaction with the tools and socially
constructed symbols of society. Thus, in part, knowledge resides neither in the individual
or society, but in both.

In summary of these three theories, transformation may occur at the rational level
of the cognitive schema, at the unconscious level of the psyche, or at the intersection of
the individual and society. The focus of this study was to develop a deeper understanding
of where personal transformation does take place and, in particular, to investigate the

underdeveloped role of society and culture in this transformation.

Rationale for the Study

The call for significant, qualitative change is constant within our society; in the
worlqalace, in the creation of a more democratic society, in the tenets of adult education,
and in the practice of teaching adults. Transformative learning, as originally presented by
Mezirow (1985) and as continued to be theorized by Mezirow and others, (Boyd &
Myers, 1988; Brookfield, 2000; Dirkx, 1998; Dirkx, 2003; Kegan & Lahey, 2001; Taylor,
2000a) is generally described as working toward a qualitative change in one’s
understanding and being in the world. Thus a primary method for eliciting this change for
educators, is the process and approach of this theory of how adults learn.

In education and the workplace there has been a continuing shift toward a more
participatory relationship between employer and employee as exemplified in the original
work of Deming (Deming, 1986) and the more current work of many leadership theorists

such as Wheatley (2000; 1996) and Kouzes and Posner (2003) and a host of others

(Block, 1993; Bolrnan & Deal, 2003; Greenleaf, 1996; Potter, 1996; Sergiovanni, 1999).
This is also evident in the writings of those people advocating for integrating “soul” into
the workplace (Bolman & Deal, 1995; Briskin, 1996; Whyte, 1996).

In addition to the workplace, there is a common concern for individual
involvement in the creation and maintenance of an egalitarian society and democratic
community. In Common Fire Daloz, et. a1. (1996) presents a study of adult learning and
transformation which documents that personal and social experiences create persons
committed to community. Belenky (1999) and her colleagues document how women can
transform their lives and others through active engagement in community. The
documentation and advocating for a commitment to community through the changing
beliefs of individuals is presented by many leading theorists including Peter Drucker
(1994) as well as those presented in a series of articles in the book The Communities of
the Future (Hesselbein & Goldsmith, 2000). Within the domain of Higher Education,
O’Sullivan (1999) presents a broader vision of transformative learning as a way of
infusing an ecological-environmental understanding into the practice of teaching and
Ieaming.

A commitment to organizational and community transformation has always been
a key element within the tradition of adult education. The work of Schon, (1987; 1991;
1995, Nov-Dec), Marsick (1987; 1994; 1996) and others in the field have had a great
impact on organizational leadership and transformational theory. Clearly the origins of
adult education as exemplified by Dewey (1916), Lindeman (1926) and their more
modern counterparts, Friere (1970; 1973) and Horton (1990; 1990), show a foundation

rooted in a commitment to changing society to better meet the full functioning role of

human existence. Thus education, as focused on changing the lives of people through
learning, has a rich history and theoretical heritage.

At a practical level for education, there has been a continuing call for adult
educators to change their practice. This argument is framed within a need for shifting
from “teaching to learning”, (Barr & Tag, 1995, Nov-Dec; O'Banion, 1997) to
integrating the demands of technology (Gilbert, 1995, September/October; Green &
Gilbert, 1995, March/April; Walschok, 1995) and to meet the broad ranging needs of
society as introduced above. However, significant research has been done to demonstrate
that how a faculty member teaches is based upon his or her philosophy of education,
belief about the nature of knowledge, and assumptions about the nature of human beings
(Fenstermacher & Soltis, 1992; Pratt, 1992; Pratt & Associates, 1998; Zinn, 1990). Thus,
the tension of asking a teacher to change his or her practice is not a simple behavior
request, but is in fact a request to have the individual change how he or she perceives and
makes meaning in the world.

The rationale for this study is thus framed within the communal call for positive
change and social development and is predicated on the argument that behavior is a
manifestation of individual (and possibly social) meaning making. As supported by
Daloz, “meaning making activity lies at the core of every human life. How it occurs and
what it teaches is critical, because while we may or may not act in a manner consistent
with what we say we believe, we will act in a manner congruent with how we ultimately
make meaning. . .” (1996, p.26) Within adult learning and education, this demands a
deeper or more comprehensive understanding of transformation or transformative

learning.

The Research Problem

Clearly one’s way of being in the world changes. As presented above, the
literature supports such changes and most people can speak about how they are
significantly different today than at other times in their lives. However, the impetus for
that change and its relationship to the individual and society is not fully understood. In
this study, I explored the experience of adults who had participated in a structured
learning environment that they described as being a form of deep learning that changed
their way of thinking, being, and doing in the world. The focus of this study was to
develop a deeper understanding of this change and where the change resides in relation to
the person’s cognitive processes, psyche, and relationship with society, culture, and

others.

Theoretical Framework

Where change resides addresses the deeper theoretical focus of this research.
Presented in another way, What is the unit of change? For Mezirow, the unit of change
are the schemes and flames of reference within the individual. For depth psychologist,
the unit of change is the psyche. However, in the sociocultural framework, transformation
resides in the negotiated relationship between the individual and the community (Beach,
1999; Wenger, 1998). Thus at its most fundamental level, this becomes a question of
epistemology and ontology: Where does knowing exist and what is its relationship to the
individual? For this study, the basic question was, What transforms? The individual? The

psyche? The community? Some or all of these?

This

  
  
  
  

leaning the
over how hr.
back to the t
philosophy c
logic broug':

practical not

revolution 3
SIUdent of 1
“Nwtonfl
“the Print

De.
developmf
nK’rlldike
“Pedant

thIOugh LI

\-

\\
Vie“ or k

mtelll ”a

S»?

This question has deep roots in philosophy and psychology as well as modern
learning theory. This study might be considered as the continuation of a historic debate
over how humans make meaning of themselves and the world. This debate can be traced
back to the dominant Western understanding of knowing that is founded in the rationalist
philosophy of Plato, the dualism of Descartes, and later the reductionism and reliance on
logic brought forth by the Enlightenment and Modernism itself. However, on a more
practical note, this study begins historically with the development of learning theory as
conceptualized by modern psychology.

The history of learning as conceptualized in this study can be traced in part to
Thorndike verses Dewey. The behaviorists were caught in the ethos of the scientific
revolution and the Enlightenment and believed that all could be known. In fact, Hull, a
student of Thorndike and first president and founder of the APA, imagined becoming the
“Newton” of learning theory, and to develop a calculus of behavior through application
of the principles of both formal logic and the experimental method (Swenson, 1980).

Dewey (1916) saw learning as experiential and integral to individual
development. For Dewey, knowing could not be separated fl'om doing. In contrast to
Thorndike and the larger behaviorist tradition, Dewey saw the human as an active agent;
experimenting, evaluating, constantly changing the environment and his or herself
through this purposeflrl interaction.

Within a similar timeframe, George Herbert Mead (1934) posited an interactionist
view of knowing, conceptually parallel to Dewey. Mead suggested a type of reflective
intelligence which is a learned form of social interaction. In this knowing, the individual

is constantly anticipating and extrapolating meaning from the gestures of others.

Knowing exists not as an abstract set of facts but as an interaction between people or
persons. Mead clearly defines mind as a social phenomenon (Mead, 1934).

Historically the behaviorist, reductionist, and abstract model of Thorndike
dominated learning for much of the century. Today, however, the dominant
understanding of knowing places the person at the center, as an active agent in his or her
learning. In the cognitive tradition of Chomsky, Piaget, and Kegan, humans construct a
mental model of their experiences. These mental models then become the way in which a
person understands, makes sense, and behaves in the world. If the external stimulus is
great enough, through active thought, logic, and reflection, a person can change his or her
mental model to more closely align with an external reality. While this model
acknowledges the involved and internal role of the person in a more complete manner
than the behaviorist tradition, it is still fundamentally rooted in a logical, reductionist
philosophy that posits a reality outside the person. In addition, this is a reality that can be
reduced to smaller “chunks” and stored within the mind.

However, there is a strong emergence of a theory of learning aligned with Dewey
and Mead based on the epistemological philosophies of Wittgenstein, Heidegger, the
modern philosopher Herbert Dreyfus and the Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky. In this
model of learning, there is no external reality that can be objectively and independently
known, conceptually reduced, and cognitively stored in the mind. Based on what Dreyfus
(1992) refers to as the computational model, lmowledge is not something that is abstract
and generalizable across all situations. For Dreyfus and Vygotsky, as with Dewey and
Mead, all knowing exists in a specific context situated in purposeflrl, human activity. In

this framework for learning and meaning making, knowing does not reside solely in the

10

person but is a shared process between the person and his or her cultural-historical

context.

Research Questions

Framed within the intent of this study and the theoretical framework presented above,
the following questions guided this study:
1. How does the individual experience transformation?
2. What changes when an individual’s meaning making is transformed?
3. What is the relationship between an individual’s mental model, the social context
and imagination in personal transformation?

4. What role do tools, activity, and identity play in transformation?

Significance of this Study

The significance of this study to adult learning resides at two primary levels. The
first includes a more comprehensive understanding of individual transformation with
practical implications on how to assist others in changing their practice or way of being
in the world. The second is a broader understanding of the role of social construction in
knowing and its implications for the development of a more inclusive curriculum.

The value of developing a deeper understanding of transformational learning lies
within a broader framework of the idea of learning as transformation, or that learning can
bring about a fundamentally different relationship between the learner and his or her
understanding of the world. This belief is the philosophical foundation for adult

education and posits a way of teaching that differs from what Dirkx (1998) describes as

11

the “instrumental view” of learning being currently practiced in most of North America.
A transformational approach to learning views knowing as more than the acquisition of
new information that builds upon previous knowledge, flmdamentally abstract and
removed flom the knower. The current understanding of transformative learning is
flamed within a cognitive or depth-psychologically approach to deep personal change.
The significance of this study was in considering the socioculttual perspective of learning
and development in adult meaning making develop a deeper understanding of
transformational learning.

While Mezirow, (1990) Cranton (1994) and many others present a strong
argument for the usage of a transformative pedagogy in adult education, a fuller
understanding of the role of others and the social context may suggest a more
comprehensive approach to transformative learning. This approach may include a broader
usage of community, practice, and activity in learning (Bruffee, 1993; Bruner, 1990;
Lave & Wenger, 1991) . While groups and team projects are used in the current practice
of adult learning, the approach to this work is still fundamentally instrumental, asking
teams to seek objective knowledge verses the belief that the team itself creates new
knowledge shared between the members of its community. The practical value of this
study is to develop a deeper understanding of how transformative pedagogy is affected by
the social context and activity of human interaction with pragmatic applications for the
‘ practice of transformative learning.

There will also be a professional development value to this study. As noted above,
there is a public and practical outcry to affect the practice of teaching and in leadership.

However, much of the attempt toward changing behaviors or teachers and leaders has

12

been focus:

 

from the ic“
in the deep
need to hax
identity an;
I
outer forces!

which is m;

 

uithout of :1

been focused on techniques or models. However, if in fact teaching and leading comes
fl'om the identity and integrity of the teacher or leader as described by Palmer (1998), or
in the deep understanding of one’s identity and integrity as a leader (Palmer, 1999), we
need to have a deeper understanding of how to change or transform an individual’s
identity and integrity. For Palmer, identity resides at the intersection of the inner and
outer forces that make a person who he or she is. Integrity is the human "wholeness"
which is manifest of personal choice, action and reaction to the energy within and
without of the human experience. Thus changing the practice of teaching and leading
requires a comprehensive understanding of how adults construct meaning and identity
with a deeper understanding of how this phenomena can be transformed through
intentional, adult learning experiences.

The final significance of this study is much broader and theoretical in nature and
is flamed within the historical ideals of adult education as presented by Dewey (1916)
and Lindeman (1926), the modern argument of critical theorists such as Welton (1995),
Collins (1991), and Freire (1970) and feminist authors such as Gilligan (1993), Tisdell
(1993), and books (1994). While this study did not attempt to integrate or validate each
of these varying positions, it did recognize the differing epistemological and ontological
foundations in support of the differing arguments.

The specific value of this research was to question the traditional view that
knowledge is abstract and separate florn the individual as opposed to the idea that
knowledge is socially co-constructed by groups of individuals within a cultural, historical
context. The logic being that if knowledge is social, then what we value most is also

constructed. Thus we can be critical about who decides what is true and what is not (what

13

is common
ways in W:
learning in;

space for a:

Give
framework i
study was in
(1991) and E
aPPTOpr‘iate t
Ofreference ;
Ma revue:
descnbed as t
intm~j¢w5 “.1,

Given
approach to C}
What ““3115ny
his or he, 11nd]
karma g experl

Participanl
develop Commi

identified by a

 

is common sense, why is this common sense, who says so?), and what are the possible
ways in which one comes to know what society and culture deems important, making
learning more inclusive to other ways of knowing. Moving from the rational provides

space for an Open conversation about what is valued and why.

Methodological Approach

Given that this study was about meaning making and based upon a constructivist
framework for adult learning, the theoretical and conceptual framework I brought to this
study was interpretive in nature.» Well established transformational theorists Mezirow
(1991) and Brookfield (1991) agree that a qualitative approach is the only methodology
appropriate to this type of research. That to enter into the complexity of another’s flame
of reference requires extensive conversation over an extended period of time. In the
studies reviewed by Taylor (1997 Fall), all employed a “naturalistic” research design
described as qualitative and phenomenological, and most of which used semi-structured
interviews where participants reflected upon previous transformative experiences.

Given this framework, this was an interpretive study based upon a constructivist
approach to change as mated in meaning making. This study was seeking to understand
what “transforms” within the spectrum of human existence when an individual changes
his or her understanding and behavior in the world through participation in an adult
learning experience. The methodology for the research was semi-structured interviews.
The participants where adults who had participated in a learning experience designed to
develop community leaders. The specific interviewees were individuals who had been

identified by another, and confirmed by the participants, as having been qualitatively

l4

charged h;
indhidual:

practice, ir.

This

 

collection 0
how the soc
Ofpersonal
apply to at
Edekson ,
aPPFOpriat
rather tha;
Particular

ll
quoting I
with the 1
cirmm“L

of \he re

changed based on this learning experience. This was a retroactive study where
individuals reflected on their past and present relationship with the world, in thought and

practice, in addition to the influences that facilitated these changes.

Delimitations and Limitations

This study was about the people I got to know through the interviews and
collection of material. As a qualitative study, my intent was to understand in a deep way
how the sociocultural perspective may provide further understanding into the phenomena
of personal change and transformation. The results of this study were not designed to
apply to anyone else. They are not generalizable to a larger population. As presented by
Erickson , the purpose and generalizability of this type of research methods are, “most
appropriate when one needs to know more about...the specific structure of occurrences
rather than their general character and overall distribution. What is happening in a
particular place rather than across a number of places.” (1985, p. 121)

However, this does not preclude this study having value in other settings. Again
quoting Erickson, “The responsibility for judgment about logical generalization resides
with the reader rather than with the researcher. The reader must examine the
circumstances of the case to determine the ways in which the case fits the circumstances
of the reader's own situation.” (1985, p. 121) The responsibility for determining the
application of this study lies in situ, not as universals to be applied to all individuals in all

learning environments.

15

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

This was a study of deep personal change as facilitated by transformational
learning. Transformational learning is both a model of learning and a philosophy of
education. The most basic premise of transformational learning is that learning is more
than the acquisition of facts and procedures or what Mezirow (1985) and Habermas
(1971) refer to as instrumental leaming. Transformation constitutes a fundamental shift in
the way a person understands and behaves in the world.

The theoretical foundation for this study came from three distinct areas of
research on learning and development; cognitive, depth psychology, and the sociocultural
tradition. With its epistemological origins drawing on Western thought and a modernist
paradigm, the cognitive theory of learning places the individual at the center of the
learning process. Depth psychology places primary emphasis on the role of the
unconscious and discernment in transformation. The sociocultural tradition posits a
postmodern approach to learning and meaning making. In this perspective, knowing is an
ever negotiated process that resides somewhere between the individual and his or her
cultural and historical context. In reference to transformation and learning, all three of
these models suggest a constructivist approach to learning where the individual has an
active role in constructing his or her own understanding of the world.

The study was of participants in a leadership development program. As a

sociocultural study, the context is integral to the understanding of the individual

16

   
 

developme
assumptio:
Understant

leadership

perspective
socioculrm

an area of

"“051 Clo:
be a con

WOmEn
Comm.
It Was 1
Silica}
”Win

Q .

(I130!

phenomena. While this research was not to develop a deeper understanding of leadership
development, the experience of the individual learner is interwoven with the shared
assumptions, traditions, values, and beliefs of this particular learning environment.
Understanding the individual’s experience requires some understanding of the domain of
leadership development.

The following chapter will provide a literature review of the three different
perspectives on learning as transformational: cognitive, depth psychology, and the
sociocultural tradition. It will conclude with a brief review of leadership development as

an area of study and practice.

Cognitive Tradition

In the tradition of adult learning, transformation and transformative learning is
most closely associated with Jack Mezirow. (1981). Mezirow (1994 summer) defines
Learning as a universal theory of adult learning: "Transformational theory is intended to
be a comprehensive, idealized, and universal model consisting of the generic structures,
elements, and processes of adult learning." (1994, p. 222).

Mezirow’s (1978) initial concept of Transformational grew from a study of
women attending community college later in their lives. In this research, he identified
cognitive changes in how these women understood, perceiVed, and behaved in the world.
It was Mezirow’s interpretation that this change was a result of each individual becoming
critically aware of her beliefs and feelings. These changes occurred in a community that
provided trust, empathy, and genuine listening. Generally these changes occurred after a

“disorienting dilemma” which caused the person to reflect on her position, role, and

17

 

and mean;

or meaning
stimuli red

CODSU'UCI S

 

understand
Al 2
reference ix
disorientinl
referencc_ f
tEIlSion, Hc
behind the
msult bCing

2000)

relationship with others and society. The result of this reflection was a reorganization of
the woman’s cognitive schema or meaning perspectives.

For Mezirow, the fundamental element within transformation is meaning making.
This meaning making is directed by one's frame of references or meaning perspectives
and meaning schemes. From psychology and the cognitive sciences, a frame of reference
or meaning schemes constitute an actively constructed model in the mind of external
stimuli received through the senses (Boden, 1989). Thus as active agents, humans
construct schema or models of the world in their mind that are used to shape and
understand one's existence in the world.

At a very sirnple level, the primary elements in transforming these frames of
reference include a disorienting dilemma, critical reflection, and reflective discourse. The
disorienting dilemma is some experience that contradicts one's existing frames of
reference. This contradiction causes cognitive and psychological disequilibrium and
tension. However, through rational reflection on the assumptions and premises that are
behind the meaning schemes, individuals can transform their frames of reference. The
result being beliefs or ideas that are more true or justifiable in guiding action. (Mezirow,
2000)

Thus for Mezirow, transformation is rational development toward an objective
truth or way of knowing. A primary element that Mezirow places at the center of this
process is reflective discourse (2000). This open, emphatic dialogue with others provides
a context for individual, critical reflection on this frame of references toward the

development of a more accurate understanding of the external world.

18

 

model of it

individual.

To elaborate on the understanding of a cognitive model of learning, in her
description of “constructive” psychology, Margaret Boden (1989) provides a similar
description of meaning making:

All these psychologist (Piaget, Bartlett, Brunet, and Gregory) despite their

many differences, agree in emphasizing top-down influences in

psychological processing. High-level structures or concepts, it is said,
inform thought and perception through and through. Perception is then
largely a matter of generating and testing-and if necessary adapting-
hypothesis....Such a psychology, in addition, normally stresses the
contribution of experience to the content of schemata...the theoretical

emphasis is on the individual’s own experience in the world. (p. 35)

In summary, while acknowledging an influence by the external world, the cognitive

model of learning places meaning making and the construction of knowing within the

individual.

Criticisms of Mezirow’s Transformative Learning Theory

In reviewing 46 studies of transformative learning, Taylor (1997, fall) found
significant support for Mezirow’s theory but presented an argument for a more holistic
model for transformation. Specifically, the four major criticisms of this theory are its
failure to address the role of systems (cultural, social, educational, economic, and
political), learning as situated within a specific context, the importance of emotion,
intuition, spirituality, the unconscious and gender differences, and a critical perspective
that links individual transformation to social action. Mezirow (2000) himself identified
the same four areas as needing additional research to support or augment his theory.

Clark and Wilson (1991, winter) provide the most directed criticism of Mezirow’s
theory of not attending to the sociocultural (or context-based) aspect of learning. Based in

part on Clark’s (1991) research on the transformative experience of adults and their own

19

understanding of the sociocultural perspective of adult learning, Clark and Wilson (1991)
argue that Mezirow ignores the role of context in meaning making. The authors posit that
his entire supposition that transformation is a rational act is situated in a white, male,
middle-class understanding of how one knows and experiences the world. For Clark and
Wilson, in separating the individual from the context, “Mezirow has attempted to remove
the very element that brings meaning to experience” (Clark & Wilson, 1991, p. 90).

A continuing criticism of Mezirow’s theory of transformation, that relates to the
social but not directly the sociocultural, is his lack of attention to the power structure
inherent in society and its role in meaning making (Collard & Law, 1989, Winter;
Cunningham, 1992; Taylor, 1997 Fall). The argument, based on a Critical Perspective, is
that Mezirow places too much emphasis on the role of the individual to reflect on his or
her own meaning structure with little focus on culture of social change. To the critical
theorist, individual transformation cannot occur without radical social change. The logic
being individuals are often unaware of being oppressed and thus assume the values and
social roles of the oppressors.

While subtle, there is a difference between these two social-based critiques. From
a Critical perspective, the social context is culture while the meaning perspective is the
individual. While clearly culture and the individual are not the same thing, in reference to
sociocultural theory, the critique of Clark and Wilson (1991, Winter), and the research
introduced later in this chapter, the two are permanently intertwined in the process of
learning and deveIOpment.

From a developmental perspective, Tennent (1993, Fall) argues that Mezirow

places the location of perspective transformation on the individual not society. He

20

continues that Mezirow does not ignore the social, but locates the understanding of
context as an interpretation through the experience of the learner. Tennent advocates for a
model of transfonnation that considers the efi'ect of society on individual development.
He suggests the need for a theoretical understanding of the relationship between the two.
That the process of transformation must look at changing both the individual and society
at the same time. Tennent is arguing that Mezirow’s theory should be more emancipatory
in its approach in the same vain as Freire’s Critical pedagogy. The basis for this argument
is that an individual cannot change a flawed meaning perspective without changing
society.

While Tennent’s argument for enhancing Mezirow’s theory through an explicit
call for social change is a valid point for dialogue, it still posits a separation between the
individual and society and is in opposition to a sociocultural perspective. To elaborate,
the relationship between the individual and society in this tradition is explained in
Lawrence’s definition of internalization: “. . .intemalization can by viewed as the
transformation of culturally provided input into the person’s active process of co-
construction of the self...thus becoming the source of a cyclical influence of the social on
the individual and the individual on the social” (Lawrence & Valsiner, 1993, p. 157).

Mezirow and the cognitive models of learning and transformation do not align
with the sociocultural model of co-construction and is better described by what Lawrence
defines as a simple unidirectional cultural transmission model. In this model, culture
provides the context in a one way transmission independent from the individual. From the
sociocultural perspective, the cognitive model does not give enough credence to the

power of society and its coupling with the individual. Culture is not something that

21

effects the individual but is created by the individual at the same time the individual

creates culture.

Supporting and Contrasting Cognitive Models of Transformation

While conceptually and epistemologically aligned with Mezirow and working in
the cognitive tradition, developmental psychologist such as Kegan (1982; 1994; Kegan &
Lahey, 2001) and Tennant (1997, fall; 1993; Tennant &. Pogson, 1995) attempt to
distinguish betvveen normal human development and transformational learning. Drawing
on the cognitive development model of Piaget, they make a distinction between the
normal process of learning where new information is assimilated into an existing
cognitive structure corresponding to the current developmental stage of the person and a
fimdamental change in the structure through accommodation. Kegan (Kegan & Lahey,
2001) suggests that tranformation is increasing one’s capacity for abstract thinking, about
understanding the underlying assumptions that guide a persons thoughts and behaviors.

What transforms for Kegan (2000) at a personal or individual level is the
relationship between subject and object. As described by Taylor (Taylor, 2000b; Taylor,
Marienau, & Fiddler, 2000), transformation becomes a process of stepping outside one’s
self and seeing self as object. Development is a process of moving away from the
constraints of the social and becoming an objective, rational individual who can make
logical and abstract decisions. In this process of transformation, an individual comes to
understand that he or she is authorized as a person to make good choice about his or her
life. Thus a driving question in this model of transformation as described by Kegan

(2000) is who authorizes an individual’s way of knowing (society or the individual)?

22

Kegan and Lahey (2001) provide additional theoretical, research, and practice
based support for the cognitive model of learning and transformation. Drawing heavily
on the work of cognitive developmental psychology, Kegan and Lahey posit that
transformation and transformative learning requires an understanding of the human,
psychological drive for equilibrium. At the core of our being-in-the world are “big
assumptions” that are constructed and guide our thoughts, understanding, meaning
making, and behaviors in the world. These big assumptions are part of the circular
process of constructing and being guided by our language, language that is both internal
and social.

For Kegan and Lahey, personal transformation and a transformational learning
pedagogy must be grounded in using language to make known to the individual these big
assumptions. However, what they also make clear is sustaining the awareness of these
cognitive structures and the eventual transformation of these assumptions and their
associated behavior requires a community. This community, according to the authors,
provides safety and a point of reflection for the individual as he or she experiments with
new assumptions and behaviors. Kegan and Lahey (2001) have documented that without
a community, individuals often become completely unaware of big assumptions that had
been made conscious only a couple months previous.

Daloz (1986) provides an individual, cognitive perspective on learning that
expands beyond the individual. Working from a developmental perspective, Daloz places
an emphasis on the psychosocial role of others, particularly mentors in individual change.

In later research on individual commitment to community, Daloz and his colleagues

23

(Daloz et al., 1996) identify four conditions for transformation: The presence of the other,
reflective discourse, a mentoring community, and opportunities for committed action
The studies introduced in this section provide significant evidence to support the
idea that the individual and rational thought, play an active role in adult meaning making
and transformation. The following section provides additional evidence to suggest that
the unconscious may also affect the way in which adults understand and transform their

being in the world.

Depth Psychology

A second perspective on transformation is situated within the theoretical
framework of depth psychology or the mytho-poetic tradition. Mostly closely associated
with Boyd (1991) and further elaborated by others, such as Dirkx (1997, summer) and
Scott (1997, summer), this approach to transformation is based in part on Carl J ung's
concept of individuation. .

Working within the theoretical perspective of depth psychology, Stein (1998)
describes transformation as an unfolding of the true self triggered by an encounter with a
transformative image - a religious symbol, a dream, an impressive person, an active
imagination. This transformation results in a massive reorganization of attitude, behavior,
and sense of meaning. For Stein and many others working in this tradition,
transformation is situated in mid to late adulthood.

As opposed to the rational included in the work of Mezirow, this perspective
focuses on the unconscious. The unconscious includes a host of unseen energies outside

of human awareness. These forces include personalities, desires, drives and motivations

24

that direct our external behavior. As described by Johnson (1986), the source of our
thoughts, behaviors and feelings reside unknown to us, hidden in the unconscious. The
influence of the unconscious is most powerful because it is unsuspected. Within depth
psychology, we connect to the unconscious through symbols and images. These symbols
and images are the communication tools of the unconscious.

Psychoanalytic theory typically posits a priori knowledge. Individuals are innately
born with their own personal knowledge, personality, and other psychological traits.
Independent of society, development in this tradition is the continuing unfolding of these
innate characteristics by moving through a universal set of stages. V

Individuation is the process of finding the authentic Self and connecting all of
those distinct persomrlities that have developed in response to social influence. Doing so
requires reaching beyond the individual self to touch the archetypes or those principles
that are universal and for all time, to touch within ourselves that which makes us human.
The Persona or "self-for-others" is a certain image that we present to others; it is our
"public Self." We have not one Persona, but many, that we display depending on the
situation. One of these "selves" is the ego. The ego is the conscious mind, that which we
call "I." It includes those thoughts, behaviors, emotions, beliefs, and cognitions of which
we are aware.

According to Bijkerk (1992), these Persona are first developed as a means for the
Self to communicate with the world. However, oftentimes discrepancies develop that
create a separation between the authentic Self and the public Self. This separation occurs
as the authentic Self allows the pressures of society to control the Persona. When this

occurs the public Self (or Selves) takes on a life of its own, overshadowing the authentic

25

Self. In this situation the person begins to identify his or herself with the Persona, not the
authentic Self.

For Dirkx (2000), learning for adults becomes potentially transformative when we
recognize, accept, and name the deep psychic images that arise within us. This is
facilitated through developing and maintaining a dialogue with the images evoked by the
content or process of formal learning. Thus transformation from this perspective is
individuation or the individual knowing of the authentic self through the integration of
the many others or the Persona within one’s psyche.

Boyd (1991) posits that transformation is a process of discernment verses rational
thought, when discernment means that the learner is open to interaction between the
unconscious and images and symbols. Discernment then becomes the process of making
meaning out of these images and symbols into rational thought. In this model of
transformation, the imagination and the unconscious motives of the psyche appear before
the rational. For Boyd, (Boyd & Myers, 1988) transformation is a form of
individualization where the unconscious is made conscious. The process of
transformative learning is to identify the meaning represented in these symbols.

For Dirkx (1997, suMer), transformation as soul work comes through dialogue
with the Other. In this model however, the Other can be one’s own ego. Transformation
for Dirkx is clearly grounded in the Jungian concept of individuation where the many
pieces of self are integrated into a single authentic self. In this process, the conversation
with the ego becomes bracketed as the person learns to listen to the other parts of self.
Listening again comes through the interaction with personal symbols as well as attending

to the mysteries, enchantrnents, and imaginations of life. For Dirkx (2000), imagination

26

plays a great value in transforming the world; someone imagined skyscrapers and flying
long before either were technologically possible.

There is a significant social element in this perspective as well. The early work of
Boyd (1 991)focused on the emergence of a collective conscious in groups. Dirkx
(2000)refers to our imagination and meaning making of the “text” of our world as
constructed through the interaction of others and ourselves. Depth Psychologist, James
Hillman (1975; 1996) argues that one must attend to the social as well as the individual in
understanding how people engage in the world. As an example, therapy for Hillman
requires being in the world, not removing one’s self from the world, but through active
involvement in community.

While not generally labeled as a transformational learning theorist, the work of
Parker Palmer (Pahner, 1998 ; Richland College, 2000) can also be included within the
soul, mytho-poetic, and depth psychology approach to individual change. Palmer’s model
for teacher and leadership Formation posits that each person is born with an authentic self
that is deformed in the first half of life. The second half of life triggers a search to strip
away the various masks and habits designed to protect the “shy" soul, allowing the true
self to emerge.

As an adult learning methodology, Palmer’s Formation Retreats create an
environment where individuals engage in archetypical material, such as poetry, in
community to better understand one’s authenticity and integrity. Palmer also places a
strong emphasis on community as outlined in the Formation Retreat descriptor: “In small
and large group and in solitary settings, the larger questions of life, which we rarely

approach together, will be attended to - questions which, though they may indeed be

27

personal are not entirely private, and are often best answered in and through community”
(Palmer, 2002, p.1).

Elias provides additional evidence to support a view of transformational learning
grounded in an understanding of the unconscious, spiritual practice, and informed by
psychotherapy. Referencing Jung as a criticism of Mezirow, Elias argues that a
worldview is shaped not only by rational assumptions, but also by the symbols, myths,
and archetypes that emerge from the collective unconscious. Elias is not suggesting one
model over the other, but that both are valid and can contribute to individual
transformation. To that end, he provides the following definition of transformational .
learning which reads in part, “transformative learning is the expansion of consciousness
through the transformation of basic worldview and specific capacities of self” (1997,
summer, p. 3). His definition describes the process as follows, “transformative learning is
facilitated through consciously directed processes such as appreciatively accessing and
receiving the symbolic contents of the unconscious and critically analyzing underlying
premises” (Elias, 1997 Summer, p. 3)

This proceeding section provided additional support for an understanding of how
adults come to know and act in the world. While more difficult to quantify, these studies
and theoretical suppositions suggest that the unconscious does play a role in individual
transformation. The following section introduces research to support a cultural, social,

and context based epistemology to meaning making and individual change.

28

1
Wilson (
Wenger.
Commu:
such as 1
develop:

histories

Bateson (

Skin? Doe

Sociocultural Tradition

In adult learning, there are a variety of approaches to learning as a social activity.
Wilson (1993) refers to Situated Cognition, while Lave and Wenger (Lave, 1988; Lave &
Wenger, 1991) introduced the concept of Legitimate Peripheral Participation or
Communities of Practice. Outside of adult learning theory, developmental psychologists
such as Bruner (1990) and the developmental theories of Vygotsky (1 978) suggest that
development is a mediated process between the individual and his or her cultural-
historical context. Also working within the cognitive tradition of psychology, but pushing
the tradition by integrating the role of society and culture, are cultural psychologist such
as Cole (1998) and Ratner (1997). A sociocultural approach to learning is also manifest
in the criticism of current cognitive models by philosopher Herbert Dreyfus (1992; 1995).

Given this plethora of sociocultural theorists, the overarching theoretical construct
of learning as a social phenomena is rooted in the cultural-historical perspective of Lev
Vygotsky (1978; 1987; 1997). In cultural-historical theory, the origin of knowledge itself
is social. There is no single real world and what is accepted as truth has been socially
constructed by society. This development of knowledge is formed in a dialectic between
the individual and society. Knowledge exists at the same time within the individual and is
distributed within society. The locale of social knowledge can be found in the cultural life
of a society: artifacts, technology, tools, rituals, symbols, and technologies. Cognition
and knowledge are assumed to go “beyond the skin” as outlined in the classic example by
Bateson (1972): Suppose I am a blind man, and I use a stick. I go tap, tap, tap. Where do
I start? Is my mental system bounded at the handle of the stick? Is it bounded by my

skin? Does it start halfway up the stick? Does it start at the tip of my stick? Does it start

29

 

at the cur

 

triads;

collects t
function ;

later, on i

 

”the child
memory,

relations

society
be visr
0011511"
yellox
Tues
At tl

Cont

cult

the
in.

C)

at the curb?. In cultural-historical theory there is no line between the cognition of an
individual and society.

Thus in cultural-historical theory, learning and development resides within the
~ collective, moving from society to the individual. Vygotsky (1978) states that every
function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and
later, on the individual level; first, between people (interpsychological) and then inside
the child (intrapsychological). This applies equally to voluntary attention, to logical
memory, and to the formation of concepts. All the higher functions originate as actual
relationship between individuals. The means for this development is mediation.

Mediation is the process. of communicating the meaning inherent in the “signs” of
society. As introduced above, these signs range from language to rituals. Mediation can
be visualized as a three way interaction between a person, sign material, and the socially
constructed symbolic meaning. An example of this is 1) the reader of this paper, 2) a
yellow triangle road sign, and 3) the reader’s understanding of the meaning “yield.”
These artifacts of cultural history preserve and convey the stored knowledge of society.
At the personal level, these signs are used to regulate individual behavior. Applying this
concept to the individual, all psychological functions begin, and to a large extent remain,
culturally, historically, and institutionally situated and context specific.

Development in cultural-historical theory is a change in this mediation process. In
the early process of learning and development, mediation is used as a societal process for
individual regulation. As one develops, a process of internalization occurs in which
external mediating control becomes reorganized in a process of self regulation. This

process of internalization can best be seen in Vygotsky’s study of speech. In his theory of

30

or int:

 

turn
is sit:
the lr
sold

me

development, the origins of speech are social and are used in the early years of
development to regulate a child’s behavior. As one develops, speech becomes subverbal
or internal.

Elaborating on mediation, the tools of society define an individual’s relationship
with nature and situate the individual’s ability to interact. Tools are one of the defining
characteristics of the human species. Through the creation of tools, individuals are able to
act upon nature and thereby change it. In addition, the creation of these tools
communicates and constrains the future activity of others. As stated above, all knowledge
is situated, and it is the meaning and applicability of the tools of a culture that define how
the individual interacts with the problems of the world. In other words, human problem
solving is always contextually situated and “controlled” by the tools made available by
society.

In relationship to mediation, tools, and problem-solving, Vygotsky identified
higher and lower psychological functions. Lower mental frmctions include all the
voluntary and reflective processes of thinking, attention, recognition, and need They
underpin a basic repertoire of problem solving behavior that can be organized in response
to the here-and-now of environmental stimuli. Higher mental functions include all the
voluntary and reflective processes of thinking, remembering, and reasoning that we
associate with human life.

The last issue to cover in cultural-historical theory is the process of learning and
its relationship to development. As identified earlier, learning is a social phenomena. The
process of learning is manifest in a Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). The ZPD is

the distance between what an individual is capable of doing on his or her own and what

31

 

he or sh;
zone, ‘73.!»
we. 1n '.

member:~

 

L.
in adult I:
Rocha, 1
skills in
are sake
and mar
Pfiman'
etidene
compm
paper-p

Only 59

he or she is capable of doing with the assistance of a more capable other. Within this
zone, individuals learn through basic human activities such as cooking, sports, or yard
care. In these activities, individuals are not simply participants but are guided by

members of the greater society. It is this process of learning that leads to development.

Current Theories and Research in the Sociocultural Tradition

Lave (1988) produced several of the earliest studies supporting the role of context
in adult learning. In her research, she and her colleagues (Lave, Murtaugh, & de la
Rocha, 1988) have shown that many adults do not apply or do not learn mathematical
skills in a formal learning environment such as school. However, when the same adults
are asked to perform relatively advanced mathematical skills such as estimation, ratios,
and manipulation of fractions within a real World context, they are very adept. The
primary setting or context for this research was adults in a grocery store. The empirical
evidence shows that within this context, adults performing these mathematical
computations were correct 98 percent of the time. However, when given a traditional
paper-pencil test using the type of questions given in school, they gave correct answers
only 59 percent of the time.

Lave, et al. (1988) posit that the adults use the context as a tool in solving the
problems. The cans, bags and item descriptions become tools by which these adults make
sense of their world. A personal directive and active engagement with the available tools
in a known environment, created knowledge that apparently did not exist outside of the

context. Learning happens as an incidental by-product of participation in social activity.

32

inter
com:
that tl
had a
(l 99 l.

prov-i d

bike. I

 

 

Further observations by Lave (1988) suggest that learning involves social
interaction with others. That meaning lies not solely in the individual but resides in
community. Even in the example of the grocery store context for math, it can be argued
that the items used in context to solve problems were tools created by society. These tools
had a specific firnction shared with the participants. As described by Lave and Wenger,
(1991) learning involves activity in an environment constructed by others. Bredo (1997)
provides the example that a child does not learn to ride a bike but one learns to ride with a
bike. The riding is not in the child but in the interaction with the environment.

Lave (Lave, 1997; Lave & Wenger, 1991) has expanded on this research
deve10ping a model of learning summarized as legitimate peripheral participation in
communities of practice. In reviewing studies of cross-cultural apprenticeships, Lave and
Wenger (1991) posit the idea that learning oCcurs through the ever increasing inclusion in
a community of experts or practitioners. In any given domain, an individual begins as an
apprentice on the outside of the community’s shared knowledge. An individual’s
knowledge increases as he or she moves towards the center of the community. In
addition, as the individual becomes more involved in the community, his or her owns
knowledge will shape the community and thus develop a shared understanding.

Bruffee (1995 Jan/Feb) provides evidence suggesting that learning is a social act .
of sharing and collaboration. Based on a sociocultural epistemology, learning is produced
by a group, not based on the authority within a discipline. Cross (2000) supports a
pedagogy of collaboration identifying four primary arguments; belonging, career
preparation, deep learning, and diversity. Cross also posits that the acceptance and

affective application of collaborative learning in adult learning environments is minimal.

33

Cross (1999) contends that a social, group, or collaborative environment for learning
reinforces the constructivist notions that students must construct their own knowledge.

Drawing on the work of Dewey, Cross (1999) continues her support of a
sociocultural approach to learning by emphasizing the role of activity in learning. While
referencing the value of internships, service-learning, cooperative education, as well as
role-playing and simulations, Cross argues that these approaches are too “linear” and
removed from the formal learning experience. Cross argues for a contextualized,
problem-based curriculum that requires students to engage in experiences that are real
and relevant to their lives.

Donald Schon’s (1987; 1991) “reflection-in-action” also posits a type of
sociocultural learning. His research on professionals working in the fields of architecture,
law, education, and social work suggests that real, deep learning occurs not through
engagement in a classroom but through the active problem solving of relevant issues.
Practitioners learn by continually reflecting on the success and failure of real-time
decisions in-situ. For Schon, practitioners construct their own lmowledge through
activity.

Bonk and Kim (1998) introduce a body of research supporting the application of
scaffolding in adult learning environments. Scaffolding is based on Vygotstky’s concept
of ZPD where learning is supported by an Other to complete a task the learner would
have not been able to complete on his or her own. In this form of teaching, the learner
and teacher are mutually engaged in active problem solving. As a co-participant, the
learner feels the accomplishrrrent of completing a complex task, shares a set of goals, and

constructs meaning out of the event as a social activity.

34

socir';

 

identi:

 

Bonk (i
create t
underst

meanirt

Society
as bot
SOCial :
138mm

and ha.

prEVIQI

Wertsch (1990) posits that adult meaning making is fimdamentally situated in the
social interaction, culture, tools, and historical context in which a person exists. He has
identified three components of sociocultural theory:

1. The use of genetic or developmental analysis to understand the origins
and transitions of mental functions.

2. The postulation that individual higher order mental functioning has its
roots in social relations.

3. The argument that both social and individual psychological activity is
mediated by tools and signs. '

Bonk (Bonk & Kim, 1998) posits that these signs in one’s cultural-historical context
create the shared patterns of thoughts and mental structure that defines an individual’s
understanding of the world. As the environment or context changes, so does one’s
meaning making. .

Jarvis presents a sociological perspective on learning in which the individual and
society co-construct meaning. “. . .Human learning is self-conscious and reflective. We
are both products and creators of culture. Leaming is not seen as social adaptation but as
social action and interaction” (Jarvis, Holford, & Griffin, 1998, p. 40). Thus for Jarvis,
learning is clearly a social activity that happens within a historical and cultural context
and happens through the interaction of the individual and others.

Using a case study of claims processors in an insurance company as well as
previous research on learning as a communal process, Wenger, building on the model of
communities of practice, argues “. . .in spite of curriculum, discipline, and exhortation, the
learning that is most personally transformative turns out to be the learning that involves
membership in these communities of practice”(l998, p. 6). Examples of communities of

practice range from families, to the workplace, garage bands, church groups, and science

35

 

labs. i

 

Wes;
coast:

rho u

pains

 

Wtugs
1fir’lmir
idenht
under

andtl

articu

cOust

Psych.

Pheng

labs. He is also clear that most communities are not formal or sanctioned in any way.
Wenger expands upon this work to posit that participants in these communities also
construct our personal identities. Participation shapes not only what we know and do but
who we are and how we interpret what we do.

Wenger (1998) introduces four components upon which a social theory of learning is
premised:

1. Meaning: a way of talking about our (changing) ability — individually and
collectively -- to experience our life and the world as meaningful.

2. Practice: a way of talking about the shared historical and social resources,
frameworks, and perspectives that can sustain mutual engagement in action.

3. Community: a way of talking about the social configurations in which our
enterprises are defined as worth pursuing and our participation is
recognized as competent.

4. Identity: a way of talking about how learning changes who we are and
creates personal histories of becoming in the context of our communities.

Wenger (1998) continues in providing a framework for a comprehensive model of
learning that integrates social structure, situated experience, social practice, and personal
identity. In this model, the primary tension and vehicle for qualitative change in our
understanding and practice of education and learning is at the intersection of the social
and the personal.

From a historical perspective, Ratner (1991) and Dreyfus (l 992; 1995) clearly
articulate an epistemological difference between a traditional, modernist perspective of
learning and a sociocultural perspective. For Ratner (1989), sociocultural psychology
construes that there is no separation or dualism between the individual, between
psychology, and other elements of human existence. In this tradition, all psychological

phenomenon is dependent on social interaction. Dreyfus posits that objects and certain

36

roe?

 

Engsg
atria}

llli Chi

phercr

 

sputr:

poser

 

arguest

Harrier

psyche
under:
Hialurr

they l

exist

as l

Dill

“11

iii

properties and values in a situation are created by activity, not by reflective thought.
Engaging in the activity in an environment that can be made to function in the way of the
activity creates relevant objects, that in using rocks to play checkers, the rocks become
the checkers.

Beach (1999) provides a sociocultural perspective on learning flamed within the
phenomenon of transfer. Beach outlines the philosophical, psychological, and
epistemological differences between a modernist, reductionist approach to learning and a
postmodern, sociocultural perspective. In summarizing a large body of research, King
argues that learning is not a linear model of transfer but a continuous and iterative
transfer between individuals and an ever changing social context.

Through his research in Folk Psychology and language, developmental
psychologist, Jerome Bruner (1986; 1990), provides additional support for a sociocultural
rmderstanding of learning. Quoting Bruner in discussing his approach to meaning
making, “I propose to discuss how quite young human beings “enter into meaning,” how
they learn to make sense, particularly narrative sense, of the world around them.
...meaning itself is a culturally mediated phenomenon that depends upon the prior
existence of a shared symbol system.” (1990, p. 68)

The philosophical origins of a sociocultural approach can be traced to such writers
as Heidegger and Wittgenstein but are also clearly evident in the twentieth century
philosophy of Dewey. When approaching how people learn and make meaning in their
world, Dewey (1938) focused on the practical and adaptive role of the mind. As well as
understanding learning as being rooted in intentional activity, Dewey also suggested that

individuals are continuously adapting to a constantly changing environment. Because our

37

 

 

 

SUIT

Yer

knowing is a product of engagement in the world, and individuals are capable of
changing the world, meaning making is thus dependent on the environment.

In conceptualizing how individuals come to understand the world, anthropologist
G. H. Mead (1934), a contemporary of Dewey, posited the idea that the individual’s
conceptualization of “self’ depended on the “other.” Mead went so far as to posit that we
cannot understand the concept of mind and self without attending to their emergence
from the social environment. Referred to as reflective intelligence, meaning making and
identity is a product of social interaction rather than an objective thing. As with Vygotsky
and the other sociocultural theorist, for Mead, we can only learn through the sharing of
society-constructed symbols.

Herbert Dreyfus (1992) assaults the cognitive tradition head on. He first
summarizes the idea that schemes posit a set of rules or pictures in the head that
represents an external reality (regardless of its origin). His counter to this argument
comes from several philosophers such as Martin Heidegger, Maurice Merleau-Ponty and
Ludwig Wittgenstein. As explained by Herbert Dreyfus, “These thinkers...came to the
conclusion that perception [could not be explained by the application of rules to basic
features. Human understanding is a skill akin to knowing how to find one’s way about in
the world, rather than knowing a lot of facts and rules for relating them. Our basic
understanding is thus a knowing how rather than a knowing what“ (1992, p. 15).

To elaborate, Dreyfus in his eXplanation of Heidegger argues, “I continue to assert
that we are able to understand what a chair or a hammer is only because it fits into a
whole set of cultural practices in which we group and with which we gradually become

familiar” (1995, p. 47). This is manifest in Merleau-Ponty’s claim that perception and

38

understanding are based in our capacity for picking up not rules, but flexible styles of
behavior. Following this epistemological argument, meaning does not exist as facts;
rules or “schemes” embedded within an individual’s psyche but exists at a point between
the individual and society.

This final section summarized, in part, the current research and historical origins
of a cultural, social, and context-based perspective on learning. As with the cognitive and
_ depth psychology perspective, there is significant evidence supporting a sociocultural

. approach to adult meaning making and transformation.

The Broader Context of Leadership Development

As a sociocultural study, the context is equal to the individual in understanding
the experience. Because this study is of leadership development, there must be a general
understanding of this area of theory and practice. This section will first present a brief
history of leadership and then outline the common ways in which leadership development
is currently practiced.

The history of modern leadership begins with the industrialization of Western
Society with an aim toward greater efficiency of employees. The first model was the trait,
or Great Man theory, where leaders are born with specific abilities that allow them to be
leaders (Bennis, 1998). It was a matter of biology. As research on leadership advanced,
no specific trait could be identified creating great leaders. In addition, from a cultural
context, during the 1950’s and early 1960’s society became more focused on objective
measures of behavior. In response, leadership theory moved to defining the control of the

behavior as leadership.

39

   
   
  

In th'

1997). Here
between lea;
‘Theory X -
leadership th
every situati
as continger
ln ti

& Garcia, l
different t}
producing
While sti‘i'
the mana;
C

With Sitar
Tl'dnsfor
raises 1h
iDdiVidr

inte gym

with P4
contint

“tail g;

In this approach to leadership, behaviors were grouped together as styles (Sadler,
1997). Here behaviors could be learned and taught. There was a focus on the interaction
between leader and worker and many theories emerged such as McGregor’s (1960)
"Theory X -— Theory Y” portrayal of managers. As context was considered within
leadership theory, it was discovered that some styles of leadership did not function in
every situation. This introduced a new situational understanding of leadership identified
as contingency or situational leadership.

In the contingency model, leadership is dependent on a variety of factors. (F iedler
& Garcia, 1987) From this perspective, the organizational structure and situation required
different types of leadership. To be an effective leader meant analyzing the context and
producing an apprOpriate response. Leadership now became relational and dynamic.
While still valuable, these models however focused too much on the interaction between
the manager and subordinates (Bolman & Deal, 2003).

Current models of leadership are focused on creating an integrated organization
with shared purpose and decision making. One form of this is present in the idea of
Transformational Leadership (Bass, 1997; Kouzes & Posner, 1995) where the leader
raises the level of awareness of the employees about significant outcomes, connects
individuals to the value of the organizational team, and finds a way for individuals to
integrate his or her sense of self to the work.

A second model is the concept of a learning organization generally associated
with Peter Senge (1990). Here the individuals within an organization engage in
continuous learning to create the outcomes they truly desire. Systems thinking, the

realignment of mental models, recognition of hidden assumptions and positive human

40

   
  
  
  

interaction are
Principle-Cent :
organizational
element in cart
the individuals

of leadership th

 

in today’s socie
In Lead:
Stephen Kaagar
30 years has are
major dimensio
Who should do
fimfi Span. th
the experience
locus on conte:
the expertise o
Kaagan sugge,
and workplace

Keegar

interaction are at the core of this model. Many other similar models exist such as Covey’s
Principle-Centered Leadership (1991), or Wheatley’s (1992) approach to leadership and
organizational change informed by chaos theory and quantum physics. A common
element in each of these is attention to the interconnectivity and shared influence of all
the individuals in an organization. This and the previous paragraphs outlined the history
of leadership theory, but the following will identify how leaders are generally developed
in today’s society.

In Leadership games: Experiential learning for organizational development,
Stephen Kaagan (1999) presents how the history of leadership development over the last
30 years has moved from the domain of the university to consultants. He identifies four
major dimensions to leadership development; who, when, where, and how. Who asks
who should do the leadership development? When refers to the length of the learning or
time span. Where is the physical location of the learning? How is the what or content of
the experience? He then posits that effective leadership development strategies should
focus on content and methodology. In contrast to many current approaches that rely on
the expertise of others for elaborate and costly experiences outside the workplace,
Kaagan suggests an inexpensive experiential approach that integrates activity, reflection,
and workplace connection.

Keegan’s model of leadership development is supported by many, but should still
be considered counter culture to the most prominent forms of professional development.
Skill based training, seminars, and conferences remain at the heart of most leadership
development activities and according to Bolt (1996) are outdated. The core of these

experiences is about obtaining measurable outcomes to perform a particular job function.

41

How to “Evaluate an Employee” or “Use Power Point to Persuade” are examples of
typical professional development opportunities. As suggested by Parker Palmer (1998;
1999) leadership, like teaching, is still dominated by the “tyranny of technique.” For
Palmer, today’s focus of leadership development and practice is on definable skills or
“tricks of the trade” that allow one to do a better job. In contrast, Palmer argues that
leadership comes from knowing one’s inner self. Leadership development should be
about understanding the intersection of the person’s soul and role.

Peter Block (1991; 1993), a long time consultant to business and industry, has a
similar concern about the focus of leadership development being primarily on the skills
or techniques of management. To address this issue, he and Margaret Wheatley (2000;
1992; 1996), in partnership with several other prominent researchers, authors, and
consultants in leadership, created the School for Managing in 1996. Working with the
professional organization, The Association for Quality and Participation, developed the
year-long “school” where teams fiorn an organization met monthly in an experiential
setting to develop an understanding of their personal mission, organizational mission, and
a whole-systems approach to engaging the entire organization in creating everyone’s
preferred future.

Understanding this study thus requires an understanding of the social context of
leadership theory and leadership development. To continue within this perspective,
leadership development as a form of leaming and specifically as a form of transformative
learning cannot be separated fi-om the larger cultural context. As an example, during the
dominance of the trait theory of leadership, Blake and Mouton’s Managerial Grid (1964)

dominated leadership development as a way to diagnose and develop people’s behaviors

pr:

ep

the

do

far

the

the

tick

in the workplace. Today the dominant model of leadership development is still focused
on skill building. However, some scholars such as Marsick (1996) and Cranton (1996)
join Palmer, Block and others suggesting an approach to leadership development that
reflects a deeper, transformational approach to learning. It is this counter culture

approach to leadership development that situates this study.

Chapter Summary

This is a study of individual learning and transformation. Acknowledging the
three different perspectives on transformative learning, this study did not attempted to
prove one of these models more valid than another. Nor did it attempt to integrate these
epistemologically different models into one coherent model of learning. However, what
this review of the literature did show is all three models place a significant emphasis on
the role of others and society in the process of individual transformation.

While the social is obvious in the sociocultural tradition, within the cognitive
domain Mezirow speaks of the need for reflective discourse with others. Kegan goes so
far as to posit that transformation cannot occur without a community. Daloz emphasizes
the role of mentors in learning and transformation. From a depth psychology perspective,
Boyd’s work looked at the manifestation of archetypal images in groups. Dirkx refers to
the value of dialogue with others. Palmer has structured his Formation retreats in
community because of the value of social interaction in knowing one’s inner self.

In regards to the cultural, a similar argument resides across all three perspectives.
Again, it is at the core of the sociocultural. From the cognitive, Mezirow and Kegan

acknowledge that culture and society affects the creation of schema. Hillman and Moore

43

(Moore, 1996) speak to the presence of culturally constructed symbols in the depth
psychology perspective.

Framed within the context of a leadership development experience, the focus of
this study was a deeper understanding of these common elements present in all three
theories. The question being, “What is the role of the social and the cultural in the

process of personal transformation and transformative learning?”

he

C0

the

en

the
COT.
acti
hun
PSyc

hum;

CHAPTER 3

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to examine the role of others, society, and culture

in the process of personal transformation and transformative learning.

Conceptual Framework

Individuals changing their beliefs and actions in the world as a result of learning
has a strong historical, philological, and research based legacy. The current dominant
construct for transformative learning is framed within the cognitive tradition, with a
second model drawing upon concepts fiom depth psychology. While making reference to
the need for others and community, neither of these models provide a coherent
explanation of the role of others, groups, culture, society, or history in personal
transformation.

While there is a broad epistemological difference, a common assumption between
the two perspectives on individual transformation and a social theory of learning is the
constructivist paradigm. The basic premise is that adults are responsible for their own,
active, meaning making. As summarized by Ratner in describing the theoretical study of
human thinking and action, “The equivocal, indefinite relationship between
psychological phenomena and behavior is a distinguishing characteristic of adult

humans.” (1997, p. 5 8) Thus, in trying to understand individual transformation and

45

transformational learning, one must understand the individual at a deep personal and
psychological level. i

This is a study about how adults come to know their world and how their knowing
is changed. The appropriate research methodology for this type of inquiry is qualitative
and interpretive. From a theoretical perspective on research, justification for this
approach to inquiry is provided by Holstein and Gubrium in their description of
phenomenology, ethnomethodology, and interpretive practice. Building upon the work of
Schutz and Husserl, Holstein and Gubrium characterize this type of qualitative research
as “interest in the ways in which ordinary members of society constitute and reconstitute
the world of everyday life, introducing a set of tenets that provide the basis for
subsequent phenomenological, ethnomethodological, and constructionist theorizing and
empirical work.” (1994, p. 263) The philosophical assumptions of this type of inquiry
are consistent with the constructivist nature of transformational learning.

VVfihrrfimmnsonrneanhngnnddng,ChflxrandlancohrInnsentanaugunnnuibra.
constructivist approach to researching issues that deal with individual paradigms. They
said: “A paradigm may be viewed as a set of basic beliefs. It represents a worldview that
defines, for its holder, the nature of the “world,” the individual place in it and the range of
possible relationship to that world and its parts. . . ” (1994, p. 107) This constructivist
approach directly aligns with the model of transformation presented by the primary
theorists in transformative learning and sociocultural theory. In this approach to
understanding, the aim of inquiry is “understanding and reconstruction of the
constructions that people (including the inquirer) initially hold.” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994,

p. 108)

46

sh

Etc
[0 l.’

TCqu

Merriam provides the following perspective on qualitative research, “The key
philosophical assumption. . . upon which all types of qualitative research are based is the
view that reality is constructed by individuals interacting with their social worlds.
Qualitative researchers are interested in understanding the meaning people have
constructed, that is, how they make sense of their world and the experiences they have in
the world.” (1998b, p. 6) Creswell (1994) , citing Merriam (1988), outlines six
assumptions of qualitative research:

1. Qualitative researchers are concerned primarily with process, rather than
outcomes or products.

2. Qualitative researchers are interested in meaning - how people make sense
of their lives, experiences, and their structures of the world.

3. The qualitative researcher is the primary instrument for data collection and
analyses. Data are mediated through this human instrument, rather than
through inventories, questionnaires, or machines.

4. Qualitative research involves fieldwork. The researcher physically goes to
the people, setting, site, or institution to observe or record behavior in its
natural setting.

5. Qualitative research is descriptive in that the researcher is interested in
process, meaning and understanding gained through words or pictures.

6. The process of qualitative research is inductive in that the researcher builds
abstractions, concepts, hypotheses, and theories from details.

Developing an expanded understanding of the lived lives of individuals, how they make
meaning, and how that meaning is altered by themselves or others clearly aligns with the
six assumptions presented by Creswell and Merriam.

Further support for this approach is garnered by past research in the field on
transformational learning. Transformational learning theorists Mezirow (1991) and
Brookfield (1991) agree that a qualitative approach is the only methodology appropriate
to this type of research. That to enter into the complexity of another’s frame of reference

requires extensive conversation over an extended period of time. From a depth

47

psychology perspective, studies, such as those by Boyd (1991), Dirkx (1997 summer),
Scott (1997 Summer-b) and others, reference a naturalistic methodology quoting case
studies or phenomenological research of transformation. In addition, all the
transformational learning studies reviewed by Taylor (1997 Fall), regardless of their
conceptual framework on learning and transformation, employed a “naturalistic” research
design described as qualitative and phenomenological. Most used semi-structured
interviews where participants reflected upon previous transformative experiences.

Further support for a qualitative methodology in understanding the social and
cultural context is supported by Ratner (1997; 2001, September) and comes from direct e-
mail communication between myself and one of the key theorists within sociocultural
tradition, Etienne Wenger 1(1999). Wenger fundamentally believes that research directed
at understanding how community effects meaning making must be rooted in the

qualitative tradition.

Research Context

Six subjects were interviewed for this study. Each of these persons had previously
participated in a nine-month leadership development institute to be referred to as
Leadership Great Falls (LGF.) This program is part of a national model designed to
develop community leaders. As described in their brochure and website, “Leadership
Great Falls is a custom-designed community leadership development program. Our goal
is to develop community trustees - people who accept responsibility on behalf of the
whole community to ensure the common good.” (This quote comes from the program’s

program material and cannot be cited for reasons of anonymity for the subjects in the

48

study.) In the program, approximately 36 adults spend two weekends in retreats and
seven days (one each month) in a learning environment directed toward their stated goal.

LGF selects a diverse population of participants. Examples of LGF graduates
include attorneys, K-12 teachers, corporate CEOs, and ministers. Tuition is $2,250.00
and participation in every session is mandatory. Since 1985, approximately 400 people
have participated in this program.

This adult learning program is founded in a constructivist, collaborative, and
experiential approach to learning. Again quoting their brochure, “Participants will be
actively involved in the research and study of community issues to better understand how
systems in the community must work together for the common good. You'll learn by
doing.” This is further exemplified in one of their guiding principles: “Learning is
active—learning by doing and by experiencing with emphasis on skill building and
processing.”

There are multiple reasons why I chose to study participants in LGF. First is the
pedagogy which is founded on the following: “Four platforms support the curriculum:
community connections, diversity, leadership skills, systems thinking.” Having reviewed
their curriculum, assisted in a few sessions, worked directly with the designers of their
curriculum, and spoken with participants, it was obvious that this learning experience is
founded upon the best practices for adult learning.

LGF’s foundation of community leadership, collaboration, and teamwork are a
second reason I chose this context to study. Given that this study looked at personal

transformation as a phenomenon with a particular lens on the role of others, community,

49

and or

corn

grad]
abou

term

expr

this

pro

PE

511;

int

and cultural context, this learning experience allowed for the investigation of the
individual, the social interaction between participants, and the cultural context.

The final reason for selecting this context was the participants. Through my own
community involvement I have had many conversations over the last few years with LGF
graduates who speak very clearly about how this experience changed their understanding
about leadership, community, and themselves. While they didn’t use the same
terminology, these people described Leadership Great Falls as a transformative learning

experience.

Research Participants

I interviewed six adults who had completed the adult learning experience of
Leadership Great Falls between 1996 and 2001 . Each subject participated in two
interviews. To identify the participants I worked with the past executive director of the
program, Pamela James. Ms. James left the position in August 2001, but was director for
the previous four years. The nature of this program is such that the director is always
present at the sessions and co-facilitates with one or more outside faculty. In addition,
many graduates continue to work with LGF as facilitators, in community projects, or in
supporting the program in various ways. Because of this, Ms. James has developed a very
intimate relationship with many of the participants.

In conversations with Ms. James about this research, she was very confident that
she could nominate several people that had experienced a significant change in their life
because of this learning experience. I asked Ms. James to nominate ten people who had

participated between the years 1996 and 2001. The reason for the time boundaries was

50

twoft

inth

thet

Wag

hav

par

per

ch:

an

twofold. The fast reason is that previous to 1996, the curriculum was very different.
During that time, the program was very didactic. Participants went to different locations
in the city and spent the day meeting important people and receiving information about
the city. These experiences were at places like city hall, the police department, United
Way, etc.

The reason for ending with 2001 graduates is that since Ms. James has left, there
have been unknown changes to the curriculum. By using this timeframe, all of the
participants in this study experienced the same curriculum design. Also, interviewing
persons who had been out of the program for at least two years provided time for
personal reflection on LGF as a learning experience and on the continuing impact of any
changes that might be attributed to their participation.

In addition to the years of participation, I also asked Ms. James to use the
following criteria as a guideline when selecting participants:

0 Individuals who have directly communicated to her that the program had a
significant effect on their lives.

0 Individuals who have taken some direct action in their lives that they
attribute to LGF.

0 Individuals who have publicly shared the impact LGF had on their lives
with others.

I asked Ms. James to nominate a diverse group of people based on
attributes such as gender, race, socio-economic class, vocation, etc. This study does not
intend to consider diversity of participants or develop a representative sample. Though,
having a diverse group of subjects allowed for greater variation in voice and experience,
while adding more depth and a broader perspective to the interview process, data

analysis, and interpretation of results. Ms. James provided me with twenty-four names.

51

of

Ch

20(

afa

Pant

I called 19 of the suggested participants, making contact with 12. Three of the
participants spoke highly of LGF, but did not speak of it as a transformative experience.
Three spoke of it as a transformative experience, but were not enthusiastic about
spending the time needed to do the interviews. Six spoke of significant change because of
the experience and were willing to be in the study. I interviewed the 6-willing
participants more in-depth, according to the protocol attached as Appendix A, then asked
them to participate in a face-to-face interview.

During this interview I asked participants to identify a significant person with a
sustained connection with them before, during and after the transformational period to
share observations about the experience. The purpose was to provide additional
confirmation of the transformation and to collect data on how the change process was
perceived by a person close to the subject. The specifics of my interaction with
significant others is further outlined in the section, Additional Data.

The six subjects who participated in the study ranged in age from approximately
their early 40’s to mid 50’s. All were working professionals in leadership positions.
Three had advanced degrees, two had bachelors, and one had an associate degree. Each
of them fully participated in the leadership development experience described later in this
chapter. The earliest participant was in the class of 1995 - 1996 and the most recent was
2000 — 2001. There were four women and two men. One woman was African-American
and five appeared to be Caucasian. Three worked for not-for-profit organizations, one for
a family foundation, and two in the business sector.

Because of the personal nature of the study, I limited participation to six subjects.

participants. Transformation and meaning making are at the core of how individuals

52

engage in the world. By interviewing six participants I was able to spend more time
seeking depth of understanding on how this change occurred in each person. In addition,
given that this is a study asking individuals to reflect upon historical events, six
participants assisted in eliminating some of the memory lapses that may occur within a
single individual. lastly, I chose multiple participants to contrast and compare their
experience during the analysis process as a means of developing a better overall
understanding of personal transformation.

Interviews were at locations selected by the participant. Of the twelve interviews,
three were in my office, eight were in the subject’s office, and one was in a coffee shop.
Each participant signed a consent form that included permission to speak with the

significant other. Pseudonyms are used throughout the study to preserve participant

anonymity.

Data Collection

Most of the first interviews lasted the full 90 minutes allocated. I chose semi-
structured interviews for the specific data collection because it is more conversational and
assisted in developing the type of deep-level relationship needed to address issues of
personal meaning making. The specific protocol for the interviews is attached (See
Appendix D).

I developed questions for the second interview (approximme 60 minutes)
designed to probe deeper on issues of importance or to clarify what I perceived as
contradictions within and between participants. The protocol for these interviews is

attached as Appendix E.

53

Additional Data

The first set of data was obtained fiom the significant others. While the concept of
triangulation of data is less appropriate for qualitative research, a primary purpose of
these interviews was to determine how, or if, this change was experienced by another
person. The goal of these interviews was to develop a deeper understanding of the
process of change in the subject as experienced by an observer. These were short,
telephone interviews that lasted about 20 minutes. The protocol for these interviews is
attached, as Appendix F. A consent form for this interview is also included as Appendix
G.

In regards to the lived experience of the participants, the best approach would
have been to have to directly observed the subjects. However, since this study is after
their participation in the program, that was not possible. The next best approach would
have been to observe the participants in the current class. Unfortunately, this was also not
a viable option. With the departure of Ms. James, the curriculum has been changed to be
more instrumental and less experiential. So, while the program may be valuable to the
current participants, it is not representative of the experience shared by the people in this
study.

To firlfill this part of my study, the documentation of the participants’ experience
was through the interview of a knowledgeable observer. This person was the former
executive director, Ms. Pamela James. Ms. James actively participated in all of the
learning sessions during her tenure at LGF. She provided a sense of the experiences by

sharing both her observations and the direct comments made to her by participants. The

54

protocol for this interview is attached as Appendix H. The consent form for this interview

is attached as Appendix I.

Data Analysis

I began the analysis process using a method framed within the phenomenological
tradition requiring the identification of meaning units, central themes, general themes,
and general structure, culminating in a general summary of the data (Creswell, 1998 . As
the process of qualitative research calls upon constant reflection and refiaming during
analysis, I attended to the development of emergent explanations of the phenomena being
studied (individual transformation) as well as searching for alternative explanations. This
process was revisited during the report writing, and included in the analysis. Each of
these stages required data reduction and inductive interpretation to generate meaning
fiom the volumes of data.

Organization involved immersing myself in the data through several readings to
become intimate with the data. In summarizing Ratner (1997; 2001, September), the first
step was to identify “meaning units” within the document. A meaning unit might have
been in varying length from a single word to several sentences. These units were related
to a theme discovered by me after reading the entire document while being guided by the
research question. The rigorous process of identifying meaning units provided a basis for
further analysis. The intent at this level was to probe below the words to understand what
the subject was trying to communicate. One of the firndamental tenets of this type of
research ispthat expressions do not have a priori meaning but must be understood within

the context of the conversation.

55

Once the meaning units were identified, they were paraphrased into “central
themes.” Quoting Ratner, “The central themes should represent the psychological
significance of the meaning units.” (2001, p. 2) The generation of central themes requires
understanding what had been said in the entire context of the conversation. Again, it is
the situation or context that defines the meaning. While culture may have a general
definition for words, behaviors, and expressions, I sought to seek out the subject’s
meaning both situated and independent from the culture.

The next step was to group central themes into general themes. The general
themes named the meaning of the central themes. For sociocultural research, during this
stage it was important to pay special attention to cultural themes. In the development of
general themes, I looked for ways in which the social environment, dominant culture, and
sub-culture shaped the way the individual creates meaning.

Once these themes and general structures were identified, I read through the other
interviews to determine if this structure was usefirl and if there are any omissions. When
this was finished, I read each category as a single entity to confirm that everything fit. I
also read those data not in a category to see if I had missed anything and to see if
an ' g of importance remains.

After completing my own analysis, I returned to theory to see how my data
aligned with existing models of transformation. Once I developed a plausible structure
for this phenomena, I sought alternative explanations. This was a critical phase in which I
tried to remove myself from my original explanation and look for other plausible

explanation from other theoretical perspectives.

56

The final phase was to write the report. As presented by Marshall and Rossman,
“Writing about qualitative data cannot be separated from the analytic process. In fact, it is
central to the process, for the choice of particular words to summarize and reflect the
complexity of the data, the researcher is engaging in the interpretive act, lending shape
and form —— meaning -— to massive amounts of raw data.” (1995, p. 117) Thus as I wrote
my explanation for this phenomena, 1 continued to evaluate my conclusion as I located

sufficient, substantial, and meaningful data to support my analysis.

Role of the Researcher

As the researcher, I was present in all the research. I fi‘amed the questions,
designed the methodology, and collected, analyzed, and interpreted the data. In
qualitative research, because of the direct interaction with the research participants and
the iterative process of data collection, my role as researcher became magnified. This
intimate relationship between subject and researcher required that I continually worked to
identify my own biases, assumptions, and perceptions before engaging in the data
collection. Merriam (1998a) makes it clear that all observations and analyses are filtered
by the researcher’s worldview.

However, the philosophical foundation for qualitative research is that there is no
single objective truth. Our knowing or understanding of the world exists on many levels
and thus this particular research becomes one type of knowing. Try as I might to
eliminate bias, my perspective created a unique “reality” in which my understanding of
the world is as present as the person being interviewed. The value of this as presented by

Lincoln and Guba (1985) is that the researcher as instrument, offers significant

57

aha

innit

pni
the

bee

par

em;
Wha.
comr
and r:
and it

”16 bur

[Tansform

advantages in bringing adaptation and insight to data collection as well as allowing
intuition and real-time thoughtfulness to direct the entire research process.

Merriam (1998b) summarizes that this role requires three primary attributes of the
researcher; tolerance for ambiguity, sensitivity, and good communication skills. The
“answers” in qualitative research are not obvious. I had to live within the process and
with the data for an extended period of time allowing the analysis and interpretation to
emerge. There was an objective path during the interview process, always with the
primary question in mind, I tried to be attentive to the nuance and underlying meaning of
the communication process and shape the interaction with the participants in a way that
best met the needs and intent of the research.

In addition, given that this type of research is asking of an individual to share a
part of his or her world, I recognized that I was entering into a sacred space and needed to
be sensitive to the emergence of personal feelings and emotions. Good listening and
empathy were at the center of this process. Throughout this experience, I tried to “hear”
what was being said and understand at a deeper level the full context of the
communication beyond just words. In this type of qualitative research, even the reading
and rewriting of the text and context required striving toward a higher degree of technical
and intuitive skill to understand inwardly and communicate outwardly the complexity of

the human beings in this study.

Limitations of the Study

This study is intended to develop a deeper understanding of individual

transformation. This study is about the people I have gotten to know through the

58

interviews and collection of material. As a qualitative study, my intent was to understand
in a deeper way how this phenomena of change was manifest in their lives. The results of
this study are not designed to apply to anyone else. They are not generalizable to a larger
population. Erickson (1986) emphasizes that the intent of qualitative research is not to
develop abstract universal concepts that can be generalized to other populations. The
meaning and value of this research is defined by the reader as he or she continues to find
meaning in his or her world.

This does not imply that this work has no value to a larger community. This is an
exploratory study and my hope is that its end result will be to expand upon an existing '
body of research in adult learning, adding to our understanding of transformative
learning. While it is limited to the experience of this group of people, in this sociocultural
context, the discoveries and implications may be of value in both our understanding and

practice in education.

59

CHAPTER FOUR

STUDY CONTEXT AND THE SUBJECTS

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to examine the role of others, society, and culture
in the process of personal transformation and transformative learning.

This chapter is intended to introduce the reader to the subjects as people and their
shared experience as participants in Leadership Great Falls. The information on the
subjects was gathered from their interviews. The information on the LGF experience was
gathered fi’omthe interviews of the six subjects and the interview with Pamela James, the
past executive director of Leadership Great Falls. The purpose of this chapter is intended

to provide context for the detailed finding presented in the following chapter.

The Subjects

Laura

Laura is a white female and the President and CEO for a major not-for-profit. As
described by her, “[our organization’s] mission is to help people with disabilities and
barriers to employment to reach a level of self sufficiency through employment.” The
size of this organization is a seven million dollar operation with both retail and industrial
facilities.

Her childhood was spent in a small, Midwest community that has a regional
university. She was a “townie” with little relationship with the college. She described her

childhood as, “. . .very peaceful, nice, you know, leave it to beaver kind of childhood.” It

60

was a place where, “we didn’t lock our door.” Her family was active in the church,
friendly with the neighbors, and engaged in primarily family related activities. A
conservative childhood from the perspective of both family and community. A
community where, “it seemed everyone knew your business.”

Laura attended a public school. She describes her high school experience in the
following manner:

I truly enjoyed my high school experience. It was a good experience for

me. I was actively involved in a lot of different things, the French club,

the Honor Society. I received the Daughters of the American

Revolutionary Award. I had fun in high school. I was a good kid. I was

like every mother’s dream. I didn’t get into any trouble. I met my curfews.

If I was going to be late I called. So, now you kind of have the picture of

small town Laura. ‘

As a student she got all A’s and was on student council.

Laura has an older brother, older sister, and younger sister. Her older sister of
three years has very severe cerebral palsy. “She was very severely disabled. She was
never able to feed herself or anything so it was quite a burden on my parents because they
had three children after her.” This sister lived with the family until Laura was nine. “Then
indeed they succumbed [her parents] to the professional advise of having her at the State
Home for Crippled Children. So she left our family at that point in her life.” Laura
attributes this experience to the reason she is in her career today. “I don’t believe that
individuals should be institutionalized.”

Laura attended college at a very large research based state university. Her choice
was partly motivated by getting away fi-om the small town atmosphere that she grew up
in. “I selected [this university] on purpose because I knew that I could sit in a class of 300

if I chose to and listen to a lecture and take a test and be a number and for me at that point

61

in my life that was comfortable and I was intrigued by what that would be like.” For
Laura, the college experience was “intriguing and fun” with its size and diverse student
population, much different from her small town upbringing.

She began in physiological psychology, but after “the first rat maze thing”
decided it wasn’t the right major. By her sophomore year she decided on psychology and
had moved to taking smaller classes, realizing she did not want to “be just a number.”
During this year her mother died which she describes as “devastating.” Her grades
dropped and she worked through the pain, in part due to the support of her eventual and
current husband. Upon graduating from college, she immediately pursued a master’s
degree in rehabilitation counseling.

After graduating with her masters, Laura has worked in several not-for—profit,
governmental, and university-based agencies focused on employment related services for
people with disabilities. She also had one position in which she was recruited to work for
a very large manufacturer employing 6000 workers. Because of differences in “values
and philosophy” she quit this job describing it as “the worst employment experience I
ever had.”

Laura came to her current organization in 1993 and has been President and CEO
since 1996. Laura describes the passion in her work as, “in rehabilitation cormseling
focused on people with disabilities and the vocational lives of those individuals. Very
involved with the inclusive movement of people with disabilities, barrier free design,
employment opportunities, accommodations, deinstitutionalization, the breaking down of
the sheltered workshops.” Although she admits that in her current position she is no

longer as directly involved with the actual process as she might like.

62

Laura described her reason for participating in Leadership Great Falls as
stemming from her need as the CEO of her organization to have a leadership role in the
community. To that end, “[she] didn’t feel as familiar or comfortable with the
community issues, the systems in the community that interact and interface and as a
community leader, how can you impact those systems enough about the larger
community issues.” She believed that LGF would give her this perspective. Laura was so
committed to the value of this experience that she asked her board to pay for her tuition
in lieu of a pay raise for the following year. Her reasoning being, “I felt it was that

important that I gain the skills that I anticipa .”
R_ac_lre_l

Rachel is the program director of a faith based, urban organization who’s mission
is, “to invite individuals, congregations, the community into greater reconciliation as
together we promote justice be in cooperative ministry and celebrate God’s love.” The
organization is ecumenical and provides leadership and support to a variety of
community-based social justice initiatives such as the care of AIDS patients, education,
ending poverty, and racial justice.

Rachel grew up in a working class neighborhood in a large midwestem city. She
recalls her childhood as being a positive time. Lots of friends and community-based
interaction, “It just seemed like it was kind of fun because it was real neighborhood
based. . .” She attended Catholic schools. Middle school was difficult with the conflict of
adolescence. As she describes it, “7'h and 8‘“ grade were kind of tough years. I just
remember getting kind of picked on by the guys and just I thought, Like I want to go with

them in high school. Your self-esteem drops.”

63

For high school she attended an all girls school. This was a very positive
experience, “I don’t think we were maybe as inhibited or worried about maybe all that
other stuff because it was just an all girl school. High school years were great years.” She
attributes this as the place where her leadership skills first began developing.

After high school, her original intent was to leave the area and attend a larger
university. For financial reasons, she chose to attend a local Catholic college, where she
had a scholarship. Her intention was to go here for two years and transfer elsewhere. As
she describes this experience, “Well I ended up really liking it and my sophomore year I
spent a semester in France. So that helped me get whatever out of my system that I
needed to leave the area.”

Upon graduation she became an elementary school teacher in a Catholic school.
She enjoyed her teaching but described it as such, “I moved around there a lot. I started
with young children, 2"d grade and then I was in junior high for most of it — 7th and 8‘”
grade. And then getting to a point I thought, I need to change schools or change what I’m
doing.”

During this time she had connected with the organization she now works for
through her congregation. During that time as a volunteer she had chaired several
committees including, a hunger walk committee, a hunger shelter education corrunittee,
and a peace and justice committee. While working with the organization, one of the staff
members quit. She voiced her interest in a position with the organization to the executive
director and was hired as Assistant Program Director in the summer of 1994. A year later
the Program Director left and she was promoted to this position. She reports directly to

the executive director and is second in command of the organization.

64

Her reasons for participating in Leadership Great Falls were multiple. First she
was encouraged by the executive director to participate. He had gone through the
program and felt it would have value for her. A second reason was to develop her own
leadership skills for application in her new vocation. And thirdly it was to develop a
deeper understanding of the community and to develop community connections. She
describes it in this manner, “I think it goes back to for me feeling so isolated from what
was going on around me when I was teaching. I felt like I didn’t really know what was
going on in [the city].”
mar;

Brian is a white male and is the Chief Information Officer for one of the largest
health care networks in the Midwest. In this Vice President level position, he describes
his role as, “Having responsibility for information technology management across the
entire organization. All the care delivery aspects in terms of the hospitals, long term care,
home health, anywhere where patient care is provided.”

Brian grew up in a small metropolitan area in the Midwest. He describes his
community in this way, “Kind of, middle America. Population probably about fifty
thousand, blue collar, my parents and grandparents were all raised there.” He was the
youngest of six children. In speaking about his childhood, “I think it was probably just
pretty average, pretty typical being the youngest of six children you kind of had that
family unit, if you will, and there’s not really anything remarkable of my childhood.”

He attended Catholic school through grade eight and a public high school. When
speaking of his high school experience, “Public education was challenging in terms of

budget issues back in the late ‘70’s you know, sports programs - eliminate sport program,

65

arts programs - eliminate arts. Not that much unlike what schools are faced with as of
late.” High school did impact his career choice however, “My junior/senior year I started
getting involved in information technology or data processing as it was called back then
and I actually did like a co-op in high school with an accounting firm area and that’s how
I kind of got my feet wet in the whole information systems arena.”

Brian attended a regional state university and received a BS. in Accounting and
Information Systems. He chose this university because he did not want to be a computer
scientist but wanted to be involved in the business side of technology, particularly
electronic data processing auditing. This was the emphasis of the particular university’s
program. While at college, he had the following epiphany, “I was finishing up my
accounting degree and I was in my last few accounting core courses, which were auditing
courses, I thought, “My god, what am I thinking?” I don’t want to be doing this for the
rest of my life. I started focusing more on the information system side of things.” He later
got an MBA. from a different state university.

With this new focus, he began his career as a Systems Analyst for a small health
organization. His intention was not to go into the health area, it simply happened by
coincidence. As he says, “I could have very easily ended up in manufacturing actually or
retail.” But continues when contrasting what his experience might have been in another
environment, “It’s very meaningful working in a health care environment.” He continues
when talking about his work in regards to a problem with information systems, “Okay,
what’s the impact on the patient, what’s the impact on the clinician, what’s the impact on
the physician population that may have been rounding at the time. So it’s a very different

environment.”

66

Working within his first health organization, he was continually given
promotions, culminating with Regional Vice President. During that time he moved
around to different health facilities managed by this organization throughout the state. As
he describes this position, “I’d seek a promotion or whatever, kind of constantly changing
in terms of scope and responsibility so forth so it was always fresh, always challenging,
always providing opportunities for growth.” He came to his present employer and
position in 1997. He did this for stability of location and being able to have the same
level of position at a much larger institution.

Brian’s reason for attending LGF was to develop a deeper understanding of
community connections and to firrther develop his understanding of systems. As he
describes it, “It afforded me the opportunity to come together with a cross section of the
community and to learn together more about the community.” He continues, “Because of
my IT. background, realizing that things are interconnected, that the cause and effect
aspect that everything has a relationship, and see that play out in the community
environment.” He concludes with, “I would not have otherwise been afforded the
opportunity at least and within the timeframe that LGF did it. It would have taken me
probably many years to have gotten that kind of exposure of the cross section of the

overall community.”
John

John is Vice President for New Business Development for a national architectural
and engineering firm located in the Midwest. In this position he works within the
marketing department and directly with new and existing customers to obtain new

business. He is a white male.

67

John grew up in a small town on the East Coast near a major metropolitan city.
He describes it as, “a middle class, working class neighborhood.” He describes his
childhood in the following way,

It was fun, I had a good time, and we had a big family. I’ve got four

brothers and one sister, nothing traumatic about. We lived fairly close to

all my relatives on both sides of the family, so we did a lot of family

things together. My parents both came from larger families so most

everything we did, looking back on it now, probably for financial reasons,

focused on interaction with the rest of the family. We didn’t do a lot of

things like we do now, not very much on vacations or things like that. We

did weekend things, nothing out of the ordinary out of that. My mother

didn’t work out of the home, so she was there all the time.

John attended public schools with no particular memories of that experience.

During the summer after graduation in 1967, John got a job in surveying. That fall
he joined the navy. When he was home on leave, he continued to work for the same firm
because, “I always needed money.” When he got out of the navy in 1970 he went to work
for the same firm full time. During this time he attended a one-year program in surveying
at a vocational and technical college. In 1972 he decided he no longer wanted to live on
the East Coast and moved to live with a friend in a major Midwestern city as a survey
field person.

After moving to the Midwest, to meet state surveyor licensing requirements, he
was able to take the qualifying exam based on past education and experience. However,
as he described it, “I failed so miserably in my first time I knew that I had to get at least
some education if in fact I was going to be able to pass the exam.” To that end he
enrolled in a Land Surveying Associate Degree program at a local community college.
Reflecting on this experience, “I took that degree and without it I would have never been

able to learn all the higher math or anything like that.”

68

During this time he was hired by his professor at the community college as a
surveyor and received his license after graduation. In 1976 he then took a new job as a
surveyor in the upper Midwest. Here, he and three others started their own surveying
company in 1979. In 1987 he moved to a large metropolitan area in the Midwest to
expand the company and to move away from the cold, unpopulated area he was living in.
Two years later his company merged with a larger Architectural/Engineering firm. In
late 1990 he left and became a consultant for a firm in a small metropolitan city in the
Midwest. In 1992 he was hired at his current firm to develop a surveying unit to
complement their other services. He became a Vice President in 1999.

John joined Leadership Great Falls for his own personal development, to have an
impact on the community, and develop a network of people for himself and his position
at work. In responding to why, he states, “It was a learning experience, I like meeting
new people and doing new things, it makes the day go by quickly and you can learn about
yourself as well.” In continuing, “I wanted to help impact the community and also help

the community, be a steward in some way, but also have a broader base of netwo .”
Sherri

Sherri is an African-American female. She is currently a Program Officer for a
fully endowed family foundation with year 2000 assets of approximately $160,000,000.
During this same year, grant payments were approximately $6,200,000. In describing her
position, “If I worked at a bank I’d be called a loan officer. It’s a similar role. It’s a duel?
diligence role. People in my job do research and evaluation. We go out and make sure
that grantees who are looking for gifts actually have the capacity to do what they say they

want to do, so, that’s sort of the research role.” She continues, “After they get the money,

69

people like me make sure they go out and spent it the way they said they would. So,

that’s where the evaluation comes in.”

Sherri grew up in a major city in the Midwest. Up until she was nine she lived in a
low income neighborhood and then moved to a middle class area of the city. During this
time she experienced a lot of “white flight” from the areas where she lived. When
describing her childhood,

We had a not ideal childhood; I was raised by my stepfather, both parents

worked, so, they weren’t home very much. I understand the sacrifices, but

kids whose parents were home say they wish they were gone and kids

whose parents were gone wished they were home. So, we were principally

raised by extended family or raised ourselves. I’m here really by the grace

of God. I should be hung out to dry somewhere for all of the stuff we got

into. It was fine comparatively. When I’ve heard other people’s childhood

stories mine are probably middle of the road okay, they’re not awfiil and

they weren’t great.

She began her education as a “Head Start Baby” and attended public school.
Sherri was very successful in school. In describing this experience, “I was at the head of
my class forever. I was the smart kid they put in the back with a book because I was
annoying the teacher. Went to honors classes all the way through high school.” After
graduation, she attended a large, research based, state governed university.

At the university, she experienced tremendous academic difficulties. She found
that her high school experience had not prepared her for college. She relates her story in
this way,

Then I went to [the university] and was on academic probation from the

time I got there until the time I got off, so I was horribly unprepared, even

though I was at the top of my class in high school, just was not prepared

at all, so I spent a year, really, just being angry, just mad. I couldn’t

believe, I couldn’t believe it. I sailed through school and got to [the
university] and just got knocked on my heels.

70

To get a handle on her problems, she took a semester off and attended a local community
college near the university. She then returned to the university and completed her degree
in Business Administration.

After graduation she worked in sales at a small wholesale/retail firmiture
company in a medium city in the Midwest. From there she moved to sales at Xerox. After
working in sales for several years, she moved to the Neighborhood Business Specialist
Program. This was a neighborhood revitalization program funded by the City and the
Chamber of Commerce. She then moved up to Vice President of Small Business at the
Chamber. After seven years she left and went into consulting for a strategic
communications consulting at a company. She was then recruited into her present
position by her old boss at the Chamber who is now executive director of the Foundation.
This was in approximately 1999.

Sherri’s attended Leadership Great Falls when she worked for the Chamber. Her
reason for attending was because it was a program housed and supported by the Chamber
and thus it was expected. As she describes it, “I worked at the Chamber at the time and
you know you have to sort of walk the talk and it was expected of me to go, so, I avoided
it for a long time. I’m just not into credentialing, I don’t care.” To elaborate on her
position,

“I think you’re just as bright and have as just as much to give with or

without what [formal education] is going to say about you. So, I didn’t

feel I needed to go through some certificate program to tell me I was a

leader, I was wrong, it was good in that way, but, I didn’t want to go, I

wasn’t there to really give anything, Ijust was going because it was, sort

of, a right of passage, I was suppose to get through this thing.”

Said succinctly, Sherri did not want to attend this program.

71

Sharon

Sharon is a Vice President in commercial banking for one of the largest banks in
the Midwest, a top ten bank in the nation. In her role she is responsible for business
development and portfolio management. She describes a normal day for her as,
“Interacting and introducing myself to new people and maintaining my relationships with
existing clientele and problem solving.” She is a white female.

She grew up in rural town in the Midwest. In describing her childhood, “It was
great! It was small city living, that’s for certain, a lot of farm experience and animal
husbandry and things of that nature, lots of kid time, play.” Sharon grew up in a banking
family.

Sharon describes her public school experience as “normal.” Upon high school
graduation she attended a regional university where she received her Bachelor of Science
in Business Administration. Her major was finance and her minor was economics. She
completed her MBA through the university’s Extension Program about nine years after
completing her undergraduate degree.

After receiving her Bachelors, she began work in banking as a Commercial Credit
Analyst in the Midwest. She moved around in the banking industry, working primarily on
loans and the financial area. She moved to a larger metropolitan area in 2000 to take her
current position with a new bank. When describing her current position, “I get the yahoo
out of the job, or the wahoo, or whatever you want to call it, to help someone grow their
business and to bring them resolutions to problems that have been plaguing their

company for a period of time.”

72

Sharon’s reason for attending Leadership Great Falls was because of the urging of
some key individuals in her business domain, to develop her leadership skills, and to
better understand the greater community in which she was living. In regards to those
people suggesting she should participate, she shares, “When you have people like [the
region’s primary economic development officer] and the president of [a major bank] at
the time, which was one of our competitors, saying that this is what you need to do to
really get involved and become a community leader and make a difference, you know, I
knew that I just had to.”

In reference to leadership she says, “Being a leader, either in community or in
business or in a family or whatever, to me those people either have an inherent ability or
it’s a learned process and I just I think any time that you can enhance those skills it’s
going to pay off either in your personal life or your professional life.” In response to
understanding the community she provided the following context,

Being an outside in the state and looking at [this city] throughout my

childhood and the recession of the ‘70’s and ‘80’s, [this city] was the only

city, maybe even in the Midwest that was actually experiencing some

level of growth and expansion. You have to ask yourself why is that, how

does a city become immune to economic turn down and all of that.

To answer this question, she joined LGF to “kind of look at the organizational

underpinnings or the forefathers [of the city.]” She continues, “You get into the culture

and the understanding of how it is they do what they do.”

Leadership Great Falls Experience

This section is intended to provide an overview of the Leadership Great Falls

(LGF) program. This section creates a context for the experience and will assist the

73

reader in making sense of the following chapters. Further details and a deeper

understanding of the experience will be provided in these subsequent chapters.
929m

There are nine sessions in this learning experience over nine months. The first and
last sessions are two day retreats (including an overnight stay.) The remaining seven
sessions is each one full day. There is a general curriculum and four platforms upon
which the program is based. The platforms are systems thinking, diversity, community
connections, and leadership skills. Pamela James, the former executive director described
the four platforms in the following manner,

The diversity piece played out in a lot of ways. In terms of the diversity of

environment that we took people into as well as the approach of the kinds

of people we wanted to have all kinds of leaders, racially, socioeconomic,

non-profit, highly corporate getting them all mixed in the class at the

same time, systems thinking, understanding all the systems in the

community and how they all impact each other and how they are all

interconnected, community connections in terms of forming relationships

to accomplish great things for the community, leadership skills, to know

thyself as a leader.

The intention here and the process that follows dates from a curriculum change begun in
1996 and corresponding to the participants in this study. A LGF graduate, former board
member, and member of the curriculum design team describes the old Leadership Great
Falls curriculum as a lot of “talking heads” (Olivarez, 2003). It was very passive. There
was a belief that the new model needed to be contextualizcd. That the participants needed
to feel the issues not just hear about them.

Along with the four platforms described above, Olivarez communicated that there

was a realization by the board and sponsors of LGF that organizational leadership wasn’t

enough. The intent of this program was to move beyond leadership to stewardship, to

74

develop within the participants an understanding of themselves, their organization, and
the larger community. As leaders, community issues such as racism, poverty, education,
and health care needed to be held in trust.

Using the four platforms and this philosophy of leadership and learning as a
guide, all nine sessions are designed and facilitated by a team of previous LGF graduates.
Each session has a different volunteer team. A full-time director and one administrative
assistant provide guidance and support to this team.

Each participant must apply to be part of LGF and must sign a contract agreeing
to participate in all nine sessions. The participant’s employer must also sign a contract
committing the employee’s time to participate in all nine sessions. Great attention is
given to selecting leadership participants directed toward providing a high degree of
diversity. Thus the final group of approximately 36 participants is comprised of pe0ple of

different race, age, sex, employment sectors, education, economics, and so forth.

Owning Retreat

The first gathering for a new class is the opening retreat. Because the participants
stay overnight, in addition to planning and facilitating this session, previous LGF
graduates also cook and “take care of” the new class during this two-day weekend. Since
1996, this session has been at a camp-like retreat facility in the country. The facility has
extensive nature trails, open space, meeting spaces, and a “ropes” course. All but one of
the subjects in this study stayed at a retreat facility. The 1995 - 1996 LGF graduate stayed
at a hotel and her group drove to the ropes course.

Upon arrival at the retreat facility, the new class is individually greeted by a few

past LGF graduates, the director, and a few hired staff. With some classes, nametags with

75

first name only were given out at this time, with other classes no nametags were shared.
At no time is there a formal introduction process. In addition, there is no sharing of an
individual’s professional credentials such as place of employment, job title, or
educational background. The primary activities of these two days are learning and
practicing the skills of dialogue, team building exercises, and going through a ropes or
challenge course.

The dialogue training has been performed by Bonnie Wesorick and Laurie
Shiparski, authors of Can The Human Being Thrive In The Work Place: Dialogue As A
Strategy Of Hope (Wesorick & Shiparski, 1997). As described by Pamela, the intention
of this training is as follows:

One of them [goals of dialogue] would be, better relationships, another

one would be an expanded view of another person, or the person in front

of you to maybe be able to hold an opposite of yours through listening but

not totally give up your own position and to grow and understand how

you were united. You may be at polar opposites of a position but have

similar goals within it and to try to be honoring of the group as a whole.

In this training, Wesorick and Shiparski introduce the model and then create and
maintained a practice field for the entire retreat. Dialogue is first practiced in a
hypothetical situation, and then integrated into debriefs after each of the weekend
activities.

This first retreat also includes several teambuilding activities. To do this, teams
are created by the facilitators to include a diverse configuration of members. The teams
remain intact throughout the retreat. They are then asked to perform tasks or solve
problems that require group decision making, problem solving, and cooperation. After

each activity, dialogue is practiced to have the participants share their experience and

how the activities related to the goals of LGF.

76

The other major event for the retreat is the ropes course. The ropes course is a
series of activities that require members of the teams to traverse many outdoor obstacles.
Examples include climbing a very high wall, walking across a high bridge made of rope,
leaping across water on the end of telephone poles sticking out of the ground, and
crawling through tires hanging from a rope. While many of these activities need to be
done by an individual, others are performed as a team. However, even with the individual
activities, members of the assigned team perform the safety support role and provide
emotional support for an individual member’s success.

The ropes course, as well as the end of the retreat, finish with reflection and
dialogue. Participants are also asked to complete a reflection sheet at the end of this, and
all future sessions. This is an anonymous reflection on the experience of the session. In
addition, at the end of the retreat, the new members receive a book that provides
information on all LGF participants, past and present. This book provides a profile that
describes a great deal about the new people in this group including employment, job title,

life experiences, education, current commitments, and hobbies.

Monthly sessions

A team of past LGF graduates plans monthly sessions. They are held all day, at
the same time and day each month (e. g. third Friday of the month.) Each session is held
at a different location in the community. Examples of these locations include the
community college, a hospital, a not-for-profit that repairs homes for the poor, City Hall,
a law firm, the wastewater treatment plant, the county jail, and a major manufacturer.
Each session begins with everyone sitting in a large circle. In that circle, dialogue is

practiced to allow each person to speak. Each person responds to any thoughts they have

77

during the month based on the last month’s experience. Typical questions include,
“Could you practice what you learned during the month?” Or “What’s going on in your
life — anything you want to share?” Also at this time, the director will share the
anonymous reflections from last session as a point of dialogue.

After the opening dialogue, the group generally tours the site. After the tour, the
group is then introduced to some new learning. The general themes for learning is framed
by the four platforms of LGF and connected to the site being visited. An example is
teaching systems thinking and interconnectedness at the wastewater treatment plant. The
theory of systems is introduced and then the processing of waste is used as an example of
how it applies to the real lives of the participants. The day ends again with a dialogue

circle and the writing of anonymous reflections about the day.

Communig Project

In addition to the nine sessions, each participant is required to learn and report on
a leadership issue important to them and the community. In their second monthly
meeting, the group brainstorrns issues. They then individually rank the three projects as
to which one’s they would be most interested in working on. At the following session, the
director assigns people to groups of approximately six people based on their preference
and group diversity. Examples of issues include the effect of urban renewal on displacing
low-income housing, finance in an urban school district and racial profiling.

Each group then spends the next five months researching this area. Much of the
research involves meeting and interviewing people in the community who are
knowledgeable on the topic. As part of the process, they interview people on all sides of

the issue. As a group they plan what information they need and where or from whom to

78

get it. Once the information is collected, they develop a consensus understanding of the

issue and develOped a presentation for the final retreat.
BndinLRetmat

The ending retreat is again a two-day, overnight session. Participants plan the
closing retreat themselves and it includes a service project for the community. This might
include cleaning an inner city park or working at a soup kitchen. Another significant
component of ending retreat includes each group presenting what they learned in their
project, dialogue about these projects, individual reflection and dialogue about the entire
year’s experience. There were some group activities, but these are primarily designed to
connect to the learnings of the previous year. All or part of this retreat is attended by

facilitators from the past year and several previous LGF graduates.
Two Year Commitment

As part of their original commitment, LGF graduates are highly encouraged to
remain active for two years beyond their one-year experience. There are many ways to do
this. There is a yearly “Big Event” where LGF honors a community leader and various
fund raising activities (including the Big Event.) Participants may elect to engage in a
recruitment drive and dinner. Periodic special events bring in speakers specializing in
leadership skills for community presentations. They may opt to plan and facilitate one of
the nine sessions. Most participants honor this commitment for at least the two years,

many continue for years beyond.

79

CHAPTER FIVE
FINDINGS

This chapter presents the shared experience of the participants through an analysis
of the key themes that emerged when viewing their stories as one. I have identified three
major themes with multiple subcategories under each. The major themes are l) the
context of their learning, 2) the sources of their learning, and 3) their individual learning.
The difficulty of this analysis is that the nature of this learning experience was framed
within a holistic, experiential, critically reflective pedagogy. Thus, while key themes did
emerge, many of the major and sub-themes crossed over and were present in multiple '
areas of the learning experience.

An example is personal reflection. This is a key theme identified in self as a
source of learning. However, personal reflection also is present in dialogue, which is a
context for learning as well as in new information, which is another source of learning. A
similar dilemma is present when separating process from outcome. The third major
theme, individual learning, provides an overview of the key leamings for the participants.
This is clearly an outcome. However, most of the other themes which are generally
considered part of the learning process also have leamings that emerged within the theme
itself. To create a full picture of the experience for the reader, the outcomes have been

identified within each process theme as appropriate.

The Context of Leadership Great Falls

In this section I introduce the elements that emerged as the context of Leadership

Great Falls. The context is the larger setting in which the learning occurred. This includes

80

not only the physical, but more so the affective environment that surrounded this
experience. This category was developed from the specific activities or experiences that
the subjects identified as shaping the overall learning experience. There are four sub-
themes in this category. These categories are 1) Initial Removal of Roles and Labels, 2)

Community Building, 3) Skill of Dialogue, and 4) Group Dynamics.
Initial Removal of Roles and Labels

As identified in the previous chapter, the opening retreat began with people not
being introduced by their position, job title, professional history, organizational
affiliation, etc. The purpose and result of this was the subjects getting to know their
classmates at a deeper level as people, not as lawyers, bankers, CEOs, etc. The long-term
benefit was an openness and sense of community that continued through the year.

For most participants, this was a novel way to begin a gathering of professionals
and thus there was an initial level of shared discomfort. As long-time leaders, their
historical experience was that meetings were structured around the roles of the
participants and the purpose of the meeting. In this instance, people knew why they were
there, but were caught off guard by the removal of personal roles. As described by the
banker Sharon:

Well, the opening retreat is, in my opinion, getting people out of their

comfort zone and getting people used to the fact that structures don’t

always exist that we’re comfortable with and we have to learn to function

without them and to not put labels on people right away.

When the executive director first took the job at leadership Great Falls, it
was just a couple weeks before the new class started. Because a group of past

LGF graduates, as with all the sessions, was planning this retreat, she did not

know about this way of starting the retreat. Given this, she experienced this same

81

discomfort of beginning with no initial information being shared in the opening
session:

My first year, I asked too, don’t people have name tags? “No, we don’t do
that.” Nobody even told me why, which, I just, even after the first retreat,
October/November, I thought, heck, we could have nametags and just
have there first name. It just seemed kind of extreme to me until I got into
the program and it was like, that was really important. That made a huge
impact on people.

What was communicated however was that this beginning, with no names
or titles explicitly proclaimed the implicit curriculum of the program. Not
sharing where people worked, job responsibilities, and so forth set an expectation
that this retreat and future sessions would focus on the individual. This
underlying expectation was one of acceptance of the participants as people. As
shared by Laura:

. . .as you’re going through this process you don’t know that you’re
working together with architects and the chief of police and the CEO of
such and such a company and the marketing person for so and so and
whatever. You’re a group of people who are coming together to be able to
work together, talk together openly and honestly and dialog and I really
think that really set the stage in an important way, which made the whole
rest of the learning experience, again, in my opinion, much more positive
and meaningfirl because you were learning in an environment of trust and
comfort with your peers.

This process also freed the participants from the constraints of their own
organizational roles, as described by Laura, “. . .there was no expectation placed on me
because I was the president and CEO of [a large not-for-profit.]”

The effect of this removal of roles was identified by all of the participants as
having a tremendous impact on their overall experience in LGF. Rachel identified how

organizational titles may cause one to privilege the voice of one person:

82

I don’t know I just liked that approach. I didn’t know if they were a CEO
of their company. Sometimes titles, I think you may, you don’t even
realize you’re doing it, but you may put people maybe on a pedestal a
little bit or you think wow, they really must know a lot so I’m going to
listen to them more than someone else.

Laura elaborated on how she might have constrained her behavior and willingness
to be open because of the impact of titles and positions in the community. “I placed no
expectations based on title or employment or status on anyone else. So, it seemed to
create this kind of level playing field.” She continues that by removing the roles and
titles, “I think what it did was just make us all just people.”

Brian was very specific about the impact of labels and his own recognition of how
labels effect his interaction with others:

You’re brought together you start learning about each other without those

kind labels. That was just kind of an ah-ha in terms of, you know, how

much we take for granted when we go to meetings and we do

introductions in a work environment. You’re not introducing yourself as

the individual as you so much are the role that you firlfill within that

organization

Sherri spoke deeply of how our way of being is constrained by people’s position
and connection. She further elaborates on how the removal of these barriers allowed for
the development of deeper relationships:

I’ll speak from “1”, there’s so much that comes with title, it’s all about

power and, you know, history and, you know, breadth of experience and

all of those things that you overlay on people by virtue of what letters are

behind their name or what position they have in the community and, you

know, who they might know and those types of things and how you can

behave, you know, because that might get back to your boss, I mean it’s

just all of those filters that you put up and by not acknowledging those

until after [the retreat], they allowed us to form some relationships

without it and it just works, it just really works.

Sharon experienced this at a personal level where people were asking about her as

a person, the attributes of her life, her life history, who she was outside of work:

83

We have to learn to function without them and to not put labels on people

right away instead of saying, well, Sharon, what do you do for a living,

people were asking me more questions like, where do you live, where did

you grow up, you know, what do you like to do in your spare time, do you

work downtown, do you work outside of the city, that sort of thing. They

never really asked me about my occupation,

What became the overall result of this experience of removing organizational ties,
job titles, community connections, and so forth was knowing “you as a person” as stated
by Rachel.

The relationships that formed between people because of the absence of their
roles in life were clearly articulated by the subjects in this study. Rachel describes the .
experience in this manner:

I got to know people based on not a title, not their job category or their

skills that they had for their job but I got to know them on how we

interacted in our group and how we built the team together, kind of their

personality came out there. '

Sherri describes this experience as, “I think it’s just, it’s just terrific, learn about each
other first, learn about each other’s hearts first.” She continues that once you know
someone from the heart, then the fact that one person is a Dominican Nun and the other a
lesbian, feminist didn’t matter. Sherri thought, “it was just extraordinary to watch those
folks come together.”

For Sherri, this meant getting to know people she might never interact with,
people she might never meet or get to know in her typical life. The key to this experience
was having what Margaret Wheatley describes as “having a conversation that matters:”

There was a guy in our class, I think he was a machinist or something, he

was a welder or something, I don’t know how they found him, why they

found him, where they got him. He was a nut, but bright, had a lot to offer

but, I know I wouldn’t have given him ten minutes of my time because,

first of all I wouldn’t have met him, he was a machinist, a shift worker so
our lives are just different. I wouldn’t have ever. . . I don’t know how I

84

would have met him, and I don’t know that I would have. . .I don’t think
we would have engaged on community level issues. I think we would
have talked about baseball or children or church, I don’t think we would
have talked about persistent social issues or sustainable social change.

Sherri makes sense of this as being constrained by certain roles that we project that effect
our interaction with others. Much of this can be explained by the personal biases that are
brought to each interaction. This experience tried to remove these biases as described by
Sharon, “I think the whole idea was to get away from labeling people and putting them in
a box for which they don’t belong.”

Sherri elaborates on how this bias effects her interaction with others and how
removing these barriers allowed her to find a common bond between people she would
have historically ignored:

It was just really powerful to have had that experience prior to the usual
introduction, which includes your credentials. I think it allowed us to
connect in a way that we wouldn’t have otherwise. I just really believe
that ifI had known that one of the folks I care a lot about I probably
wouldn’t have worked real hard to get to know them because I have a bias
against attorneys, same for accountants. I don’t believe they add any
wealth they just sort of distribute the wealth and that just, you know, I
have some biases about that. If you take all that away and what you’re left
with is faith and family and work in that order instead of work and other
things followed behind it. I think that really served us well. It helped me a
lot just because I was bringing so much baggage in to it. It helped us get
off on more solid footing than I think we would have otherwise.

What resulted from this structure was a sense of personal openness and
community between the participants. For Laura, this effect was transparent during the
retreat, but only made visible at the end:

I’m not sure I even recognized it was happening until we talked about the
fact that it had happened and it like dawned on me that that really did
make the two days different. Had I known that the Chief of Police of
some city was there would I have felt a little less comfortable doing some
of the ropes course stuff? If I had known that so and so was the board at
such and such of a bank would I have been as open to talk?

85

This openness and getting to know each other on a personal level, without the
burden and bias of roles, created a strong sense of community. For Sharon, “There was a
distinct feeling at the end of the day on Saturday of community and connection with that
group of people that you really didn’t want to leave them. It was almost like a new found
family and that was really rather heart breaking.”

As the retreat ended, the sharing of the participant directory provide further
evidence of community and the barriers that are often created by roles. Sherri describes it
at an emotional level; “at the end of that day or close to the end of that day is when they
passed out the leadership guide where we learned all of the titles and all that good stuff. I
was just shocked”

Sherri firrther elaborates on the source of this emotion from the joy of community
and her own awareness of the diversity of people coming together:

They give us the leadership directory or the leadership guide that tells you

what everybody is or what everybody does and it was just wonderful to

look around that room and see the kinds of ties that had been put together

that had been put together by people who shouldn’t like each other at all.

John describes a similar experience. He also elaborates on this ending as a time
for his own personal reflection about trying to get to know the authentic person behind
his or her public mask:

1 can still remember when I left that day at the end of the two days and

they gave me the little booklet that had the overview of each individual,

their picture and so forth and I can remember going home that Saturday

night and flipping through that and going, oh, I wouldn’t have thought

that person was in that role or I wouldn’t have thought that, oh, or that

makes sense, or whatever and so it was just one of those, it was a different

approach that really for me kind of highlighted the concept that I

intuitively knew but I don’t always practice and that is to get to know the

person for the person before you get their persona of who they are trying
to present themselves as being.

86

Thus the first major experience and theme to emerge for the participants was the
startling opening of the retreat where they were not able to present themselves by their

roles and positions in the community or workplace, but as people.

Community Buildmg'

People began as individuals. Most of the people arriving at the retreat did not
know each other. It was the primary intention of this retreat to first bring people together
as a community and to provide them with a few foundational skills that would be used
throughout the learning experience. Specifically, as outlined by the executive director,
the opening retreat was about using “a challenge course and various exercises for trust
building and dialog building skills.”

The following quote by Sheni, an African-American woman, describes the
natural grouping that occurred as participants first arrived and transitioned from
individuals to a more inclusive group as the retreat progressed:

When we got there the first sort of organic groups were women, men,

white, black, tall, short, I mean, it’s fun to watch groups come together

and we, from what I remember, that’s how we came around. I had talked

to a couple of the women of color who were there first and then other

women and then men. That was kind of my movement through the group

and then as we. . .as the facilitators took us through the exercises even

those labels went away. They assumed, deliberately, put us in different

groups with folks we wouldn’t have otherwise talked too naturally, and so

we were able to come together that way.

The purpose of this retreat and becoming a group was also clear to Rachel, “So that first
session was, I mean, I felt like we were really working on building our own community,
our own small personal community.”

This process of community building began with specific group exercises. As

described by Laura, “some of the group activities were setup to create some type of

87

tension within the group that you could work through.” This included group puzzles to
solve, tasks with hula-hoops, etc. However, the primary activity identified as bringing
these individuals together as a community was the ropes or challenge course. This was a
foundational experience for the participants in Leadership Great Falls.

Laura identified the holistic value in the ropes course experience. She said
“through the whole two-day ropes course experience, that was not only the physical ropes
course, but the emotional bonding that also occurs in that process, to begin to build a
community within those participants really was a unique learning experience for me by
design.”

For Brian, the vice-president of information systems, the experience of the ropes
course was deepest when he observed others breaking outside of their own comfort zone:

There was that camaraderie when you were doing the ropes course and

you were encouraging one another and you were encouraging people to

take risks to the level they were comfortable with and you were just as

you said the commrmity you felt very engaged. I think, there were

numerous people or individuals that were successful crossing the ropes

course that I probably felt a greater sense of accomplishment in that they

crossed it verses myself just because of knowing, getting to know the

individual and what they might have been perceiving in the

struggle for doing that course.

John described a similar experience:

We had the student, this young girl; I was holding the ladder when she

went up, holding the ladder, I was under the ladder, holding the ladder

like this while she walked up there and she had the look of absolute terror

on her face going up there and I found that pretty impressive that she

would do that, trusting all these people that she didn’t know to help her

through this process.

The ropes course was also about deciding how individuals would work within a team. In

describing one of the exercises, John makes the following observations:

88

The point being you could even. . .you could save most the people and
abandon others and so you had to come up with a criteria of what you
were going to do each time you did this. You had to say, well, first of all,
it’s important that everyone gets across. Yes. That set the tone, from there
on you had to decide how you were going to everybody to this other
segment and they were all like that. You had to think about the large
community in every problem that you did and was it okay to sacrifice
somebody else for the larger group. As I recall in our group that was
never okay.

Beyond developing empathy for others, the ropes course had a personal

component. Brian identified this team building work as a point of personal growth and

reflection, “well if it was competitive it wasn’t competitive, you knew at the end of the

day part of this was learning about yourself as well as the team.” Sherri also identified the

ropes course as a growth experience that allowed her to put aside some of her own fears:

Folks, who would have traditionally intimidated me, you know, I saw
them hanging from a rope and needing my help or else they were going to
fall and so and they were put in situations where they had to depend on
me instead of me being so intimidated by them that I couldn’t partner with
them or collaborate with them, so, really it lends itself to breaking down
those barriers.

In addition to the team building exercises and the power of the ropes course in

facilitating team building, time was identified as a significant factor in the progression

from a group of individuals to a community.

Brian provides an example of how time in the two-day retreat began a connection

that allowed for deep personal sharing:

I think it was all part of the bonding process, obviously you spend enough
time with a person and they start to get comfortable with you and they
start telling more and more about themselves personally you get a lot
more empathy for them, you listen to them I think a little bit more closely.

Rachael also identifies the value of time:

I really feel like if something like that happens that it takes some time and
so that as you’re spending this time together you’re getting to know

89

people better but also when people show a willingness to listen to you and
really use dialog skills that’s how it can happen because then they feel
like they’re respected for what they’re saying even though you may not
agree with it

What emerged was a community. Rachel describes the result of this overall
experience as developing trust amongst the participants, “You can do this. Just push
yourself a little bit and see what you can do and accomplish. And it was just that kind of
that camaraderie I guess.” This sense of trust continued beyond the two-day retreat into
the following sessions. Laura provided an elaborate confirmation of the long-term effect
of this retreat:

I don’t lmow that there was one person who didn’t have some kind of
extremely important things happen to them in the space of that two days.
Whether it was for me the jumping off or falling off backwards off a
thirty-five foot platform or whether it was draw your life and let’s talk
about the good things, the bad things that have happened to you, your
timeline, your life timeline or whatever. Whatever it was everyone left
there having had a meaningful experience of some sort and we all talked
about those and I think when you do that you come together having
shared emotionally and having shared physically and having shared
intellectually and that just set the tone for me for the whole rest of the
time we’re together.

The continuing trust that was established in this first retreat, and supported in
further sessions, was identified by Sharon when in a later session she chose to share with
the group that she was part of a law suit against a former employer. It was a sexual
harassment case in which she was asked to testify. She described this experience in the
following way:

I really opened up and let the group know what was going on . .. I

launched this through tears of which the impact on me about dialog and

those conversations and feeling free. I would have never done that in a

room full of forty some odd people. I would have never done that, I mean,

it was all confidential, it was stuff I wasn’t suppose to be talking about

that I had to get off my chest, if you will. I’d have never done that, so, the
impact on me was profound, I mean, I don’t know.

90

This level of trust allowed the group to engage in deeper issues of importance.
For Sherri, “I think what LGF did for me mostly was provide me an avenue to interact
with others in a delicate fashion, to know that it’s not going to erupt into this huge
confrontation that might get ugly.” Rachel identified this togetherness as, “it seems like
we built this relationship with each other where for the most part there was a feeling of
like trust with the group.” She contrasted this feeling to a typical educational
environment in the following way, “We felt free to say really what we believed and not
worried that someone’s going to. . .not like in school where you feel like you’re
criticized.”

John confirmed how this feeling of trust created a powerful platform for the
sharing of ideas:

There was emotion, you know, people would be very emotional and

passionate about any number of issues and because of the, I think, because

of the setting where you felt like you were within a group of people that

were your peers or you’re real close to who, it never seemed to be

directed at individuals it was directed at a situation.
Sharon summarizes the impact of this two-day experience of no names and the ropes
course as such:

It’s funny because, it’s kind of at a paradox on one hand, when you walk

into the opening retreat they don’t have any nametags or anything and

they want you out of your comfort zone, you do the high ropes, you’re out

of your comfort zone, you’re talking about sensitive issues you’re out of

your comfort zone, yet, the paradox is and the dialogical piece is they give

you practice rules and dialog skills and then they want you to talk about

sensitive issues and get down to the crux of it, so, it’s a co-existence.

A community built on trust was a theme tlmt clearly emerged. It began

through the activities, the ropes course, and time. It was fostered throughout the

91

one-year experience. A key element in this trust was the use of dialogue. This

tool was taught at this first retreat and used in all subsequent sessions.

Skill of Dialogr_re

The one constant in the LGF experience, other than the participants themselves,
was dialogue. It was introduced in the first retreat. It began and ended every day session.
The rules of respect, acceptance, and seeking to understand the beliefs and options of
others were used to frame every minute of the experience. The essence of dialogue is
inherent in the comment by Brian, “Learning to listen as opposed to speaking and
learning for true meaning in terms of what the other classmates in the LGF class were
saying, so really trying to focus on the whole person and the true meaning of their words
and so forth.”

Dialogue was introduced as a skill at the opening retreat. It was then applied, first
in practice, and then as a continual way of interaction. Laura outlines how it was
introduced:

“This is dialog. Here’s kind of the rules.” Then you share some and tweak

the rules so they become your rules, which I think was good. So, it was a

skill that was taught. . .. And then it was practiced, and practiced, every

session both opening and closing and often in between. And the use of it

in leadership for me made conversation safe and let every voice be heard

in our session.

Laura further elaborates on the rules of dialogue:

Dialog, the way they teach it in leadership the way they teach it, which is

the “1” statements, the listening and accepting the. . .you don’t cut people

off, you don’t interrupt, you hear them through, you try and understand as

deeply as you can.

Sharon shares how these rules provided a safe space for sharing:

Well, yeah, I think I had talked earlier about feeling comfortable with the
group and in a setting where there are boundaries, where there is a

92

practice field, where you can feel free to express yourself without labels
and that is only accomplished through the agreement, the collective
agreement of the group and the support of the group and people
embracing other people’s viewpoints no matter how different it is.

Brian describes how dialogue as practiced was different from typical conversation
outside of this learning experience:

Oftentimes [outside of LGF] when somebody says something to you if
you’re ready to respond to what you heard you don’t hear all of what they
said because you’re thinking about your response instead of thinking
about what they said. I had a tendency to do that, try to complete
somebody else’s sentences or interrupt them when they were not done
because I think they’re done and I quickly want to get my point of view
across.

Laura provides an additional perspective on how dialogue is different than
the average human interaction:

I have the tendency to be thinking ahead to my next, my next statement or

quite literally making a decision. Do I agree with what you’ve said, do I

not agree with what you’ve said, where is this going, what are the action

steps? I tend to run ahead of the conversation a little bit especially in a

business enviromnent. I’m also fairly quick in some cases to decide, no, I

disagree with that. Where as in dialog that’s not what dialog’s all about.

Dialog is not to be rushing ahead. Dialog is to take the time to really listen

and to hear, to not feel like you have to say anything, which, again, for me

in a professional sense is hard to do.

The result of these boundaries and experiences was a deep listening to people as
people. As described by Brian, “The whole issue in terms of trying to really have dialog
and be intent in listening to what people were sharing and understanding their point of
reference, understanding what they brought to the table and so forth.” Rachel supports
this with her reflection on dialogue, “I remember the listening and understanding
component.”

Silence was also identified as a key component in dialogue. For John, the form

provided safety at any time to respond, “I don’t have anything to say today and pass

93

along, no big deal, you’re not suppose to be judgmental.” For Laura, “Dialog is not to be
rushing ahead. Dialog is to take the time to really listen and to hear, to not feel like you
have to say anything.”

This experience translated into the personal. Sherri provides an example of using
these tools outside of LGF in her workplace:

I went back to work with those skills, so, I think it made me a better

professional. It made those committees that I ran better, more effective

and then as a volunteer on the board too I volunteer on it makes me a

better community volunteer. I’m far more patient than I was, much better

at probably listening and things that go along with that.

Sharon also provides an example of how the form of dialogue affected her:

With respect to the dialog piece just being comfortable enough in that

group of forty to share it, I guess today if I think it’s going to be helpful to

the group, I’ll share it, I mean, I guess I don’t have that reservation that I

had before. The transformation part for me personally regarding that

whole event that I’ll always carry with me is that I handle myself entirely

differently today than I would have two years ago or before Leadership

Great Falls.

When referring to the cause for her own personal development in LGF she
references the following, “Through that transition process, through that whole dialog
piece, through that practice field, I mean, that’s where it came for me.” For Laura, there
was also a personal safety in dialogue, “It gave me the freedom to really listen and to
learn from the listening and to flame what I said in that same manner.” It was this
interaction with people, that provided for Laura her own environment for personal
awareness, “So, most of my ah ha’s were a broadening of my own thinking about people
and community rather than a fact I didn’t know or a process or system I didn’t know.”

The form of dialogue provided the framework and process for the rest of the

learning experience. As described by Brian, “I just kind of went with the territory that

94

you learned in the opening retreat and carried throughout the whole series that different

points of view were held by the different class members and you need to honor them.”

Group Dynamics

The final theme that framed the context of Leadership Great Falls was group
dynamics. This is a more general category that documents the issues consistent with
individuals working within groups. This included group roles, collaborations, self-
policing, and tension among individuals.

When referencing roles in the group process, it was identified that certain people
would take on specific roles, but it was not overly problematic. As described by Laura,
“Roles emerged, but I did see from session to session sometimes those would change
depending on the topic or what we had learned, so, somebody that may have been real
quiet one week maybe the next was less and took on more of a leadership role depending
upon what we were engaged in doing.” While roles were minimized as an issue, the idea
of working as a group through collaborating and self-policing did emerge as the most
common and preferred approach to being together.

According to the participants, collaboration was something that had to be learned.
Given the nature of the participants, their positions and backgrounds, this took time. As
described by John:

After awhile you weren’t necessarily there to try to stand out, to be in

charge — because that is some of the role, what you learn in Leadership

Great Falls, there’s thirty leaders in the room, but, there can only be one

leader at one particular time if you really want to get something done

otherwise you got a herd of cats, everyone’s trying to go there own

direction. So, there was a lot of collaborative work with the individuals
there.

95

For the community, collaboration was dependent on self-policing. This is defined
as group managing, the process for the safety and success of the group. As described by
Brian, “There were different opinions shared by certain individuals or mannerisms or
habits or so that the group would need to learn how to deal with and in some cases they
were dealt with directly where different group members would articulate, okay, you
know, we need to do something at such and such or with so and so in terms of the
influence that they are having.” Sharon provides a specific example of the group dealing
with open prejudice, “There was tension, especially that day where we called the one guy
out on the carpet for being closed minded about the fact that regardless of sexual
orientation or your skin color you’re still a good person.”

As intreduced by Sharon, there were times when there was tension in the group.
Sometimes around process, other times around an issue. One issue that brought tension
was when people did not honor the structure of dialogue, particularly individuals feeling
they weren’t being heard. Rachel provides the following example of a debrief after one of
the exercises in which some participants were blindfolded, “The people who were
blindfolded really felt that people were not paying attention to them [We were not
listening] So there was some little anger. I just remember the facilitators having us talk
about that together and trying to so that the people who were angry were able to say how
they felt through it and why and then the people who thought they were doing the right
thing.”

As the group continued overtime, the tension increased. As described by Sharon,

“As the group got more comfortable with itself the tension began to grow with respect to

certain topics.” This tension caused some personal doubt as described by Rachel, “Are

96

people really listening to me? Do they really understand what I’m saying?” There could
also be a real, temporary disconnect from the group if it continued. John describes this
from a personal experience in a game called Win All You Can. In this instance he was
taking a collaborative approach to the game and his group members were taking a
competitive approach. “What ended up happening in that particular instance, .. .I would
voice my concern up to a point and then after awhile when that was shoved aside and
enough people were trying to go in another direction I end up being ldnd of a nonentity
within it.”

The participants did understand that tension was inherent in the process and were
required to move forward. To that end, they developed a strong connection to
collaboration and open dialogue and were frustrated when it didn’t occur. Sherri gives an
example, having just been exposed to an emotional issue and not having time to process it
as a group:

I came away from that experience horribly disillusioned with our criminal

justice system... . I don’t know that I have processed it and it’s been six

years or seven years or whatever it is. The day we were there ninety

percent of those kids in there were of color. How can that be? They’re

fourteen to seventeen, I think, and we’re looking them in closets. I didn’t

come away with any answers and I came away just as mad as when I got

there. We didn’t as a group discuss it.

However, it was acknowledged that the structure of the experience generally
allowed for group dialogue and processing of these events and emotions. As described by
Sherri, this tension was important to the group process, “So, you had these explosions
during some of our meetings which is really, really tough, but at the end of it we worked

through it. The good news is most of the group was trying very, very hard to know we

were there to learn.” John describes the process in a similar manner; “Oftentimes the

97

decrbel level could be real loud while people were trying to get their point across on how
things should be resolved. It’s interesting to see how that works out, you know, the
dynamic for individuals.”

Sharon summarizes how the process allowed for dealing with eventual conflict in
a productive way:

So, it’s the dialog, it’s the facilitators, it’s the questions that they ask that

they prompt, it’s the questions that other people ask of the group to

respond to, so it just kind of self manifests [positive group process], but,

with guidance and that’s really a critical role of the facilitator, so, if that

comfort zone doesn’t exist for dealing with this or those rules didn’t exist

and this group was just thrown together haphazardly and there was

confrontation that wasn’t handled in a safe fashion, I don’t think that you
would ever get to that level of community.

Sherri, who experienced strong emotion when the group process was not allowed,
provided support for the value of tension in the group:
For some people it was awful and they didn’t understand why it had to be
that way and all that. So, I don’t know what impact it had on their
learning, but on mine it felt like I was among family and it was
Thanksgiving and there’s always one family member who drinks too
much and makes it long for others and you have to talk through it and

explain to the kids why this is happening, you know, all those kinds of
dynamics came out in our group. I think it helped us. It helped me

anyway.
So, while typical issues of group dynamics did occur, in general the Leadership
Great Falls experience was one of positive interaction by the individuals as outlined in
this section.
This previous section introduced and provided support for the contextual
environment of initial removal. of roles and labels, community building, skill of dialogue,
and group dynamics as experienced by the participants of Leadership Great Falls. The

next session outlines the sources by which the participants learned.

98

Sources Of Learning

This section introduces what stimulated learning for the LGF participants. The
category of data emerged from the participants’ stories about where learning was derived
in either content or process. There are four sub-themes within this larger category. They
are 1) others as a source of learning, 2) information as a source of learning, 3) self as a

source of learning, and 4) interconnectedness as a source of learning.
Others as a Soujrge of Learning

In speaking with the six subjects, others were identified as have a significant role
in the experience of the participants. This came in many forms but is succinctly described
by Sharon. “The biggest piece for me was seeing the world through other people’s eyes
on a consistent basis.” Others provided critical feedback. They provided a perspective
that was new or different. There was mentoring. Finally, there was an understanding that
people were learning from and shaping each other.

For many, the reason for entering LGF was affected by, or in relationship to,
others. For Rachel it was at the urging of the executive director at her new place of
employment. Brian descrrbes his reason for going through this experience by saying, “it
afforded me the opportunity to come together with a cross section of the community and
to learn together.” For John, “it was a learning experience, I like meeting new people and
doing new things, it makes the day go by quickly and you can learn about yourself as
well.” As a newcomer to the community Sharon was persuaded by business associates to
join. These were people who influenced her and the community, bank executives and

economic development leaders. She describes their comments about joining as, “It’s

99

great, you’ll learn so much about the community and the connections and networking,
you’ll meet people, it’ll just be a phenomenal building bloc .”

Once they began in LGF, one source of value to the participants was the feedback
provided by others. Brian is very specific about speaking with others during this
experience. In reference to a conversation with a person he met in LGF, “[I] wanted to
get that person’s feedback instead of just thinking on this on my own.” Rachel uses the
same verbiage; “It was the value of having another person give me their feedback.”

There was more then critical feedback. Deep relationships developed that allowed
the participants to learn from others. Sharon describes this in the dialogue sessions:

The role of others, holy cow, I can remember sitting in those openings,

where you have like an opening and closing piece where they go once

around the room and being absolutely stunned at the insight and the

thoughtfulness and the feelings that were being shared by the other people

and not stunned in shock but stunned in, oh my gosh, I never thought of

that, just eye opening stunning not stunned.

For Sherri, she describes a mentoring type of relationship in which the learning
occurs from sharing the wisdom of others:

You know, some kinship, seeing that folks deal with things the way I

might and seeing people who have far more experience than I do struggle

with some things that I don’t struggle with so there is no need for me to be

as tough on myself as I might have been prior, so, it was just good

training.

Rachel describes this as a type of learning through modeling:

I just think that when you’re with people in a learning experience, and this

was nine months, you take a lot from, you’re gifted from them. I guess it

is a good way to say it, and you learn from them and from their style and

say, “I hope I would approach it like that if something like that happened

to me.”

John describes this as a shared learning experience, of people shaping each other.

“What the leadership experience did for me is it gave me the opportunity to meet with

100

others [to] view their opinions and help them mold part of mine or help my opinion mold
part of theirs.”

Learning also happened through not only emulating what you saw, but seeing
what you didn’t want to be. Sherri provides an example of this:

We had a couple who were honibly disrespectful and cloaked the

disrespectfulness in faith and other things and it was extraordinary to

watch and even, I think, if you were one of the people who were thinking,

I don’t agree with this person, I don’t accept their view, once you saw

how awfirl it looked to be as disrespectful as some of our classmates were,

I think that really served to teach those who might have been on the fence

to teach them, that’s not what they wanted. If I look like that, I don’t want

to look like that anymOre.

There was also a recognition that the community in this class was an extension of
a larger community. In commenting on this after her experience of working with a
planning team, Rachel shared:

I realized that this group of people who brought their expertise the group

would shape that class. I was on the planning team for whatever those two

or three times and I’m thinking if I wasn’t there that activity wouldn’t

have been in there or if another person wasn’t there... So I think even just

for that theme day the people who planned that just brought in what they

thought was the richest experiences that they had and their activities. . . or

places they visited.

The relationship that developed here continued and created a common bond
between the participants. For Sherri, “We all have that shared experience so we don’t
have to have . . .to kind of reconnect. . ..with leadership folks. If I see them we kind of
jump right in where we left off and move forward.”

The experience of having a shared relationship with others extended

beyond the class. Sherri provides an example of how the LGF experience

provided the context for a conversation with friends outside of the class. This

101

conversation became a learning experience for her that translated into a change of
her behavior in LGF. She describes it as such:

Prior to leadership, if there was conflict I would really just disengage. I

would wait until it was done and then I would reengage when it was over

and I would tell friends of mine afterwards, this is what happened in this

meeting. I can’t believe they just didn’t know, and my friends would say,

“Well, why didn’t you say something?” I don’t know, just kind of blow

through it and it was an epiphany one of these meetings I said, why don’t

I just say what I told my friends I should say and, you know, I did that

once or twice and it worked and I thought, Oh, okay, this is good.
By sharing her experience with others outside of LGF, this relationship shaped the person
and eventually the experience.

The relationship with others, primarily in their individual class, but even extended
to previous LGF graduates or friends played a significant part in the participants learning.
It was a key source for their understanding of self through critical feedback, modeling

through the observation of others, and a connection for learning from others outside of

this context.

Information as a Source of Learning

During the time of this learning experience, participants were introduced
to new information, ideas, beliefs and so forth in many forms. There were the
activities or exercises that they engaged in during their sessions. There was the
data they were provided about the city and region. There were the places they
visited during each session. And there were the voices of the other LGF
participants. In many ways, information from any of these sources became what
several participants referred to as “eye opening experiences.” This was the

presentation of a hard fact or a personal perspective that was very different from

102

theirs, causing them to evaluate their own understanding of the community or
even themselves.

In beginning with the activities during the retreats and day sessions, they became
more than team building, oftentimes evoking cognitive or emotional conflict within the
person. Rachel identified this experience in the ropes course:

This concept of this high ropes course thing which I had never been

through and, you know, it was just, it was out of the box for anything that

I had experienced. Being thrown into nothing basically but numbers and

models and very technical skills in school to more of the softer touch and

how does community really work and work well
Sherri identified a different team activity that had a similar impact on the group:

We also played another game. . .. There was a point system on resolving

an issue and the long and short of it is in the end, .. .if I convinced you to

go a specific way and it was a lie and I was telling you that because it was

to my benefit I would get more points than you if you believed me, but,

the reality was in this point system they had set up that if we collaborated

we actually together got more points. . .. It got very, very competitive. . ..

[M]ost of us failed actually because we started thinking too much about

ourselves as a group instead of the other part of the community... .It could

have been a win/win but we weren’t looking at it like that and that was the

lesson.

Besides the activities, the location was mentioned as another means of
challenging the participants existing understanding of the world. For Laura, “We always
met at a different place in the community. Some of those places I had never been to
which was another learning.” John describes the value in this way, “Having it move
around the community and understanding the different component of the community and
how you were looking at any particular issue and you’re looking through certain filters
that there are a series of issues that need to be considered. Don’t be blinded by looking at

in a particular way.”

103

Brian provides several examples of the value of different locations as an “eye
opening experience.” One of these included the county jail:

Kent County Jail, fortunately, knock on wood, I’ve never had any
encounters with the law enforcement agencies and so forth or a personal
or family perspective and so that kind of environment was. . .it’s what you
see in the paper and what you see on television and so forth and it gave
me a different level of appreciation kind of experiencing it and granted it
was third party, you know, you’re there for four hours or whatever the
tour was and then the discussion with the sheriff’s department.

As an Afiican-American woman, Sherri’s trip to the jail, and particularly the
juvenile facility, was very moving:

Then the tour of the juvenile facility was stunning. To see the number of
African American youth in there and to watch what, as a society as a
community, we believe will make them better is just beyond my
understanding. To think we’re going to lock a kid in a room the size of a
closet and expect them to come out okay is just beyond me. . .I had not
seen that before.

As described by Sherri, these experience had an emotional effect on the
participants. John felt this not during the experience of the monthly meeting or a retreat,
but as part of his project stage of LGF. As part the data collection for his project, he rode
with a police car through some of the lower economic sections of the city. . In this
following quote, he’s referring to leamings from a previous day session around a volatile
issue in the community of racial profiling:

It was eye Opening giving me that exposure and at that point in time I’d
been living in [this city] for about seven years and the number of
encounters I had ventured down Division [Avenue] other than driving
down and the police ride along did that as well when I did that as part of
LGF where we went and rode with a [city] police officer and I got
assigned when I did that to the South Division area and that was
enlightening and probably personally troubling as well in terms of asking
them, okay, why are we stopping this car? What profiling are we doing
now and just thinking, this is something that I’ve not experienced or been
exposed to and in reality happens every day in [this city].

104

Rachel provides another example of how the introduction of specific data about

the community was powerful:

I think that’s with a lot of things you have your own background or what
you’ve read or what your slant is on things and you kind of put things in a
box and realize, oh, I didn’t know everything, maybe those statistics
would help me make a better, informative decision on something or ’
judgment or whatever. So, I think that was a key learning for me.

While the participants identified the value of new information coming from the
exercises and outside experiences, the sessions themselves provided a rich forum for
learning.

During the sessions, the diversity of the group became a source for new
information to the participants. In this case, the new information came through the
dialogue or interaction with others. Brian provides an overview of this experience:

We might all like to think of ourselves being sensitive to cultural
differences and so forth, being put in that kind of setting, getting more
comfortable that people would challenge different statements or different
notions and so forth within that kind of environment. Everybody was
responsible for representing their own views but at the same time trying to
understand what the views were of others

Rachel spoke specifically about the value of racial diversity, and diversity as a whole:

I think having people of color as part of that discussion all of that
contributed to that because they may have us see a different point of view
than what maybe I thought before and it’s just because maybe my
background was limited that way that I didn’t have the experience of
being in a group of, a very diverse group of people where we are all
coming fi'om. . .we have different ethnic backgrounds, different
socioeconomic backgrounds whatever, all those differences that I think
sometimes and that up until then I may have been in a kind of limited
group. So, I think just being with that group of people helped me with that

For John, the interaction within the group and the focus of his group project on

racial diversity had a significant impact. In referencing the changes that have occurred in

105

the US. over the last four decades, his understanding of the improvements made as a
society were challenged. As he states it:

I could see after talking to others that it’s maybe not over. There

is. . .continues to be racial disparity and it’s just kind of covered up. We

don’t have signs on drinking fountains anymore, but, there are other ways

that that can happen. That opened my eyes to that and tried to be more

aware of it.

This interaction with new information was a key element in the participants
learning. To summarize a change in their behavior over time, as the group became more

acclimated to new experiences and new data, there was a general sense of looking for

what “I don’t know” verses arguing or making decision solely on what “I know.”

Self as a Source of Learning

Looking for what “I don’t know” and adding it to what “I know” could be
described as a form of personal reflection. Reflection or drinking about what a person
believes about him or her self, the community, and others was an integral component of
the learning experiences. Reflection came in many forms. Silence and time was allowed
for reflection whenever possible. Each session began and ended with reflection. This
reflection was tied to the previous month or the activity of that month.

Laura provides an example of the value of silence in learning, “Silence was okay
and that’s very unusual in most settings for adults that it really was okay if nobody was
talking for awhile and that’s a strange... that’s strange in any setting with adults, I think.
And sometimes the silence was a learning experience too.”

In exemplifying the allocation of time, Sherri describes, “That would be the main

thing for me anyway. It’s just having the dedicated time and say, okay, don’t be doing

106

something here, think. . .let’s just chill. The time, almost the time, it’s like, sit in that chair
man and think about what you’re doing and that was it. The time.”
John gave additional evidence of the value of time:

There are often times when you are so busy doing what you do that you
don’t have the opportunity to reflect on what you’re doing or what you’re
going to do next. Leadership, by having that one day a month where you
were out of doing what you do, you know, in a totally different setting,
usually involved with something like dialog, or just getting a different
perspective on something you thought you knew about everyday, you
have reflection time.

As part of the learning process, written reflections were collected at the end of the
day for each session. These reflections were anonymous. During the time between
sessions they were typed into one document. At the beginning of each new session, they
were shared with the group the following month. Rachel describes the value of this as
reflective learning:

One of the tools they had used too at the end of every class they really

wanted us to take the time to think about what were the good things that

happened, what were the strengths or something that we took from there

that was real important to us and then they wrote them all out for us for

the next session and when you read through that some of those pieces

were stressed. How important it was to listen to each other and listen to

the different perspectives and try to understand why people thought

differently than us. I just kind of reinforced each piece that we were

doing.

Reflection on the activity and reflection on one’s own experience was inherent in
the work. It was often this reflection on the process where learning was identified, more
than the activity itself. As identified by Rachel, “The process, not even the actually going

through the exercise, but it was the processing afterward that was just amazing to me of

things that I really hadn’t thought about when we were doing that exercise.”

107

There were specific spots for this reflection, but it also occurred as part of the on
going process. John describes how this occurred for him immediately after one of the
rope activities. In this case he was reflecting on his choice to try and complete an activity
after everyone else in his group had finished. If he had failed, everyone would have had
to do this strenuous activity over:

I just thought to myself, now, boy that doesn’t talk very well to my team

work because here I was the last one, I could have screwed everybody,

made them all [do it again]. . . well, I’ll go back and start all over again,
simply because I was too prideful to say that I want, you lmow, I’m

getting tired and I should quit and walk over because I could. So, it made

me start looking at me a little bit and I think as you go through those

processes, especially with a bunch of people, whether it is your family or

whomever you start to examine yourself a little bit differently. That had a

pretty big impact on me. It made me think about things a little bit

different.

As described by John, this reflection became one of personal self awareness. Of
understanding one’s self within the context of Leadership Great Falls. This became a
strong, reflective theme for the participants. LGF as a place of personal growth and
reflection. Sharon describes it in this way:

You’re working on getting people to really plug into what their life

experience has been and what their foundation of their belief system is,

you’ve got to reflect back, there’s no other way to do it, so, absolutely,

you can’t do it any other way. And that was, quite frankly, and still is, I

think, one of the most enjoyable things

In addition to personal growth, it was a time of personal renewal. As described by
Laura, “Well, it literally is a. . .when there’s no cell phones and you’re going to
concentrate on community leadership with peers, there’s a cleansing about it. There is a

renewal about it. . .” Sherri describes the renewal in this way, “Most of us our lives are

very, very full and we don’t have an opportunity to sit and reflect and that’s a really good

108

thing to do I think. I enjoy that time. It helps you recharge your batteries and maybe do
some forward planning on bigger issues.”
After experiencing the value of personal reflection and renewal through
LGF, some LGF graduates have integrated these principles into their own life.
Sherri gives an example:
So, that kind of took hold during the year and then by the end of it I had
kind of taught myself to schedule time off and that was new for me. I’d
never really done that before. That became a part of my planning and part
of how I organized my day and my life, my approach to learning and I
still do it now.
Honoring and allocating time for personal reflection emerged as one of the key

components by which people learned in this environment. It had a profound effect on

many and made its way into the lives of others beyond their specific LGF experience.

Interconnectedness as a Source of Learning '

Interconnectedness was a key for them to emerge. This concept took several
forms. Connections with the community and between people are obvious in several
themes. A second form of interconnectedness is manifest in the LGF platform of a
systems approach to thinking and problem solving. The final theme of interconnectedness
came from pushing participants to see connections between the experiences and the
participant’s personal and professional lives.

The use of a systems approach, just as the other three platforms of diversity,
community connections, and leadership skills was woven through the nine month
experience. Laura highlights the value of this approach in the following way:

I’m not going to be an effective leader or advocate more advocate for the

people that I serve ifI don’t understand and appreciate a systems

approach and the interconnectedness of systems and the difficulty of
changing a piece over here and neglecting other players and other

109

systems. So, it did impact me in kind of a, okay, I’m going to have to

realize this and kind of broaden what I do and that is actually one of the

results of leadership for me. I did broaden beyond my own little sphere.

Rachel provides a perspective on how systems thinking was always part of the
experience:

We talked about how it related to other community connections so I think

the whole for me the understanding behind that is trying to understand the

whole community and how these systems fit into the community and how

the relationships between these systems work together and what do we

need to know about that relationship to change something. Like if you

really thought something needed to be changed they connect with so

many other things so how would it effect the other systems they are

connected with.

For Brian, as someone who works within commercial architecture, engineering,
and environmental planning, he brought to the experience a deep understanding of
“infrastructure” and thus systems thinking. What LGF did in its systems approach was to
support and expanded his perspective, “Leadership Great Falls gave myself that
additional perspective. I went into it with a systems way of thinking but as I experienced
LGF it really cemented that whole notion that everything is interconnected.” For others,
such as Rachel, it also expanded their view of interconnectedness, “So, it helped you see
it in bigger picture that it’s not just one simple thing that there’s all these other
connections in the community and relationships that go into those connections.”

Connection of the curriculum to the lives of the participants was also a key
element of the experience. Laura translates how this happened using systems thinking as
an example. “You could be talking about something in a practical way, like systems, and
how they interrelated and how you can focus on these issues but you’re really taking it

down, or up, to a level that’s beyond the technical learning. It actually makes sense then

in application.”

110

Sherri refers to this element of connecting the experience to one’s larger life as
the “experiential learning method.” She goes on to describe this process as, “You, sort of,
learn it first, you experience it first and then look for lessons and then you try to apply
those lessons to whatever the problem is you’re trying to solve.” Rachel talks about
connection between the sessions and then being explicit about thinking or applying the
learning outside of LGF, “We left [our session with a question], okay now see how this
will connect with you in the next month? What did you learn in this session that connects
to what you are doing in the next month? So, through the month we’re suppose to be
thinking about it. I think that was a good way to open up the session was sharing one of
those connections.”

Sherri is very specific about how she still applies the leamings of LGF to her
work today:

The systems themselves, that was really helpful for me, and it helps me

even today as we work to build systems for children zero to five. I still go

back to my notes from leadership and back to my readings from those

lessons and reflect on those to help me get through the types of things

we’re trying to do here even today, so, I think I might have learned it

anyway, but, it’s really, really, helpful for me here to have had that kind

of foundation, those foundational experiences, pick them up and use them

here.

In this instance she is referring to both systems thinking but also the knowledge of
the systems in the community that effect her work. This is another example of not only
personal connection of the work, but the LGF platform of community connection.

This ends the major theme of sources of learning, the role of others, new

information, personal reflection, and interconnectedness was applied within the context

of LGF to create many opportunities for individual learning over this nine month period.

111

The final section of this chapter introduces the three major themes that describe this

learning.

Individual Learning

Over the course of nine months, learning happened. This statement is supported
by the interviews given by the subjects and is represented in this theme of learning
outcomes. Because each person is different and because each person constructs his or her
own understanding of the world, what each person learned is unique and thusly different.
However, based on the cross case analysis of these six interviews, three themes did
emerge around shared learning. These are 1) understanding of self in relation to other, 2)

recognition of personal biases, and 3) the value of collaboration.
Understgnding of Self in Relation to Others 1

Each participant identified several key leamings about him- or herself through the
interviews. Several of these have been reported earlier in this chapter. The structure of
this experience was intended as such. When the executive director defined the fourth
platform of being an “integrated leader” she said:

Someone who knows themselves and where they fit and is comfortable

with it instead of always comparing themselves to other people, and who

learns how to develop the support systems for some of the weaknesses

they may have within themselves, as well as outside themselves in terms

of creating opportunities, and being successful at what they’re driven at

Where their place is.

The structure was designed for self awareness. What emerged as one of the themes

around self was not only a deeper sense of self, but also a deeper sense of self in relation

to others.

112

Laura’s experience provides a detailed exarnple of this. This opening
quote summarizes her relationship to, others coming into LGF and the impact of
that first retreat:

I have tendency to be, and I knew it but would never say it out loud, I

have a tendency to be distrustful of people and I can see what it’s like to

be distrustful of people and I don’t intend to be, and a little distrustful

even of myself, and those first two days, kind of, resolved that.

She elaborates on this history in saying, “I have the tendency to believe, and I have from
a very early age, that I need to do this myself. I’m going to be independent and do for
myself. I’ll manage it. I’ll solve this problem.”

She talks about the origins of this way of being coming from her childhood and
the lose of her mother. Her description of her “Leave It To Beaver” home life is as
follows:

Laura was the smart kid, Laura was the kid that did real well in school,

Laura was the kid that parents could count on to do the right thing and to

do what she was told and to take a leadership role. My kindergarten

teacher wrote home to my parents that I was too conscientious,

kindergarten teacher, too conscientious, so, there’s something in me that

says, I’m going to do this and I’m going to do it right.

In referencing the death of her mother while she was 20, “The lose of my mother then of
course created a tremendous amount of, I’m not going to get close, I’m going to put this
neat little wall around myself because the closer you get to people the more you share
with people the more you’re going to be hurt.” She summarizes, “It’s how I grew up and
then the loss of my mom that combined those things, created this stand off, nobody

would describe me that way but I was well aware that was exactly what I was doing and

then I was one of those people that could always say, you don’t know me.”

113

Her experience of the first two days, and particularly the group exercise
culminating in the ropes course, changed her relationship with others. She describes the
moment as, “That group, helping me do something that never in my life would I have
thought that I would do and that’s just simply fall backwards fiom forty feet, wow. It was
incredible.” She continues, “Absolutely, honestly, it changed, I sound overly. . .and I
apologize for the emotion. It literally was changed at that, forever at that moment period.
I am different because of that experience.”

In elaborating on how this change is still present today, she provides the
following: ,

I never would have shared this with you had I not had that experience,

how’s that? I never would have let myself sit here and cry in front of

somebody I hardly know about an experience that changed my life. I

wouldn’t have done it prior to that retreat. I never would have done it. It

wouldn’t have dawned on me to share something that personal with

somebody I hardly ever knew. I wouldn’t have thought to do it. I would

have said something. I would have answered something, but, I never

would have answered something that felt so personal to me.

John provides a similar example from his experience in the ropes course
where his choice of trying to complete the course, verses asking the facilitators to
allow him to quit, almost made the entire group have to do the exercise again.

This was after a long time of trying to get people of all ages and sizes across a
very difficult passage. As he describes the moment, “We were going through a
physical exercise and there was something that I did as I was going through it that
jeopardized the whole situation that we were in and I didn’t even think about that
until I had almost totally failed.”
Immediately after completing the activity he had a flash of understanding, stated

as, “That was stupid, I could have impacted everyone just because I wanted to be able to

114

do this my own particular way.” He continues, “Then I had to think about other things
that I have done in my life up to that point, maybe reconsider where I thought I was at
that time” He describes his learning from this event as so:

I learned that, probably the biggest ah, ha for me, as much of a team

player as I like to say that I was, I did have, and probably still have a bit

of ego of my own of trying to do things myself without help fiom others.

Sometimes without regard to others and it made me think about that.

His firrther elaboration on this learning continues, “I had to consciously think about
situations when I’m in them that it isn’t all about me, there’s a larger purpose in most
everything we do.” He continues, “I used to think that I was. . .that was very much the
way I approached things in a larger mam spirit but that was not always the case. I
probably could still use some improvement on that but I think it helped me a little bit at
least made me aware of it more aware of it than I had been before.”

Sherri provides a third example but from a different perspective. For her it
became a deeper sense of her role with others within a group, particularly as an African-
American woman:

They, my classmates, my colleagues, really taught me. . .helped me

understand what my role is. I’ll bring a different point of view, I can

look at something from an inner city perspective and a low income

perspective and an Afiican American female perspective and I can make

it. . .help you see it, I can bring you over to my side and help you

understand what it means to walk where I walk. . . So, that was really

important learning for me.

Similar learning occurred when people spoke of being leaders.
Brian learned “comfort in letting other do it [lead]” and that times this can,

compliment the dynamics within a group.” Rachel provides a learning in relation to

others that she can’t always be “nice” and avoid conflict. She provides the following

115

perspective, “I don’t think things will change if we all try to be nice to each other and not
want to rock the boat.” Sharon provides a similar example,

I think what LGF did for me mostly was provide me an avenue to interact

with others in a delicate fashion, to know that it’s not going to erupt into

this huge confrontation that might get ugly, but, it provided me a skill to

engage and foster and encourage dialog with someone else who comes

from a completely different viewpoint. . . .Now I have the courage and the

skills to find out why people think the way they think and why.
She continues later on how this is a matter of bringing balance to her interaction with
others. “I just want to tell some people to get the hell out of my way because I know
exactly where I’m headed with this thing and I need to get it done, so, I can be
formidable. There’s got to be a balance there somewhere, so, I’m either a freight train or
I’m at stop, I think.” In summary, she provides the following, “In ways that I deal with
people in my personal life has entirely changed as a result of LGF, entirely chang .”

These examples and this frame work of understanding self in relation to others
brings together many examples of the learning shared by the LGF participants in several

of these themes. Another form of understanding self and others is a recognition of the

preconceived biases we bring to our relationships with those different than us.

Recognition of Personal Biases

A second key learning theme for the participants was the biases they carry with
them that influence their thinking and action toward others. The context and sources for
learning introduced earlier, combined with the platform of diversity woven through the
entire nine months, was directed toward this as a learning outcome.

An example of this as a learning is succinctly stated by Brian, “I think that that
whole experience gave me more appreciation for the culture of the community and the

diversity and biases that I may have had going into that I was able to adjust or change as

116

a result of having had the learning and the experience.” Laura provides a similar
statement, “One thing I learned about myself certainly was that I was no where near as
tolerant as I thought and needed to be a little bit more open and little bit more willing to
listen and hear people.”

For Sherri it was a recognition of her own bias through the interaction and
observation of others not like her in gender, race, or background. As she describes it:

I’ll use the word disrespectfirl, I was being disrespectful about issues of

race when I’m the one who has the most to gain by other people getting

their arms around it and I needed to be more respectful when it came to

that question and I learned that by watching someone in Leadership really

act the way I was headed and so that really turned me around, it really was

one of those, ah ha’s and that really helped me take a step back and say,

wait a minute, I need to be far more respectful than I’ve been.
With this recognition, she also developed an understanding of her role as an African-
American woman in helping others move to a new understanding of culture and
prejudice. The new awareness is communicated in the following, “People just sometimes
don’t get this and you need to be willing to help them get it not hit them over the head but
invite them to learn and understand what your perspective is, so, I was just being
disrespectfirl in some environments, so, I learned quite a bit.”

Rachel describes it in terms of developing a deeper understanding of how her
beliefs interfere with hearing the beliefs of others, “I learned that 1 know that I know I’m
coming. . .I have my own beliefs and values in thinking about certain things or if you
want to call them issues or subjects in that I’m one person and I bring that in but I also
know that there is all those other perspectives.” She continues on a point of self

reflection, “I asked myself, how open minded am I if I have certain beliefs and values?

Am I willing to think about something completely different than what I believe in and try

117

to understand that perspective or that idea?” She describes the leadership implication for
this in the following manner, “Just knowmg that information would help me I guess be
able to work with people in a better way or maybe make a decision that it wouldn’t just
be my focus that there’s all these other ideas about that.”

[aura provides detail on a similar learning. She describe it as, “That discovery
was a little hard for me, that I was probably not as tolerant as I was strutting around
feeling.” She continues by providing a specific exarnple of peOple for whom she felt this:

I recognize, and I’ll tell you who they were, that there are people in that

group that outside of leadership I would have not liked and I would have

judged them based solely on their opinions on certain things. Poverty was

a huge issue and is a huge issue for me and there’s opinions in our society

that people have created their poverty and there were people of that

opinion in our group.

She then shares her learning through the form presented in LGF:

When I listened to why they thought that, I could understand why they

thought that, so, we could both learn from each other and so I realized that

I almost have, and still do, it’s almost a reverse, it’s not bigotry but, I have

this understanding and tolerance of people who are poor and peOple of

color but I have definite stereotypical bias on the other side of that, you

know the white, wealthy business person.

At a personal level she then summarizes, “If I’m going to be tolerant, I need to be
tolerant across the board and listen to everybody.” She continues, “I have to
understand the business person who thinks that that guy did create his substance
abuse problem and I have to dig a little deeper and see why that person thinks
that way and recognize that it’s, for the most part, is not with ill intent.”

The recognition of personal bias was a key learning for the participants.

This learning about self was in part a manifestation of understanding and

experiencing the power of diversity. As people began to understand the real

118

value of diversity they began embracing the last theme, the value of

collaboration.

The Value of Collaboration

The value of having everyone’s voice in the room or collaboration was
another key learning for the participants. As persons and leaders, they shared the
discovery of the need to listen to other before deciding, to slow down so that
others have the time to provide input, and to value diversity as a way to make
better decisions. In understanding collaboration, this theme goes beyond simple
cooperation, but embraces an environment where the decisions and
responsibilities are shared within a group to the maximum capacity of the
members of the group.

Laura first describes this inclusiveness as a form of listening. “It’s really
important to have been able to communicate that with someone or to talk that out or to
listen to their perspective of maybe why something didn’t get done or why something
didn’t get followed through on.” She continues as a point of self reflection, “I think what
I knew as myself as a leader that I just can’t assume or jump to a conclusion that I need to
really sit down one on one and talk that out.”

Brian provides a similar perspective, “It gave me that reference point that being
back in the work setting to make sure that I was listening to the points of reference.” He
provides an example of facilitating dialogue between two different “camps” in his
organization that both had strong opinions on how controversial issues should be dealt
with. He describes the process as having both parties in the same room and, “Making sure

that all voices were heard, each individual was given time, each individual felt

119

comfortable expressing themselves.” The results of this process were that the problem
was solved in a way that satisfied both parties. .

Sherri describes this as the need to “slow down” and to assure that “everybody is
on board.” She contrasts this with her previous leadership style, in which she was,
“Oriented to a flat edict that I expect you to move because I asked you to and I really
believe that’s good enough and I don’t want to talk about it long. I just expect that you’re
gonna get up and do what I ask you to do. And so with that knowledge I was able to take
a different approach.” This understanding came from the information shared in LGF and
is described by her as a reflection on the personal, “Understanding what those tools are
and how they best fit me and all those types of things are important but you have to learn
where you are and that’s what Leadership did.”

Laura also describes it as a knowledge of self. “I’m a participatory manager but
I’m not sure I am. Leadership helped me realize I wasn’t quite sure I really was that
because I always kind of had an idea in my head to start with and so leadership helped me
kind of get rid of some of that and truly be more of a participatory leader and listen to
what people have to say.” Rachel supports the value of diversity in leadership, “knowing
too, that from people’s perspectives in leadership and the diversity that was there, you
know, the values, the cultures, the different perspectives all that kind of, you know, told
me that what I learned was right, I mean it was another piece that just helped that
thinking.”

John provides a specific example how he has brought this perspective of diversity
to the workplace:

Those experiences [in LGF] gave me an opportunity to be more of an
advocate for diversity within our organization to try to ensure in the areas

120

that I am directly responsible for that we promote a level of acceptance.
That then makes it more accepting of individuals with diverse opinions,
diverse preferences, people of color and so forth, just diversity in general.
That’s been kind of an ongoing take away.
Rachel summarizes this point, “You can’t just make a decision based on one
thing because this is what you believe, there’s lots of connections.”
The final learning theme thus directly supports the platform of diversity

and provides the participants with personal awareness as well as a practical

application for the role as a leader.

Additional Data

As a source of additional data, others were interviewed beyond the six
LGF graduates. The others included the past executive director of Leadership
Great Falls and six people who knew the LGF graduates during and after their
experience in the nine month program. The primary findings from the executive
director were reported in the previous chapter introducing the Leadership Great
Falls experience. The findings for the interviews of the significant others are
presented here.

In general, these interviews did not provide rich and specific data useful
for this study. During the interviews, the interviewees were positive about the
LGF participant as persons but gave general responses in regards to the questions
about the experience. Examples of these responses include comments about how
the person was “always learning” or “open to change.” Another example was

how a significant other believed that the participant, “always brings a lot to a

121

group” that the others in the LGF experience probably learned as much from her
as she learned from them. 4

A few of the interviewees had also been participants in LGF after the
persons in this study. In this case they often referenced their experience in
responding to the questions. An example being that, “I’ve learned so much about
our community through LGF, I’m glad he encouraged me to attend.” It was also
difficult for the interviewees to provide specific responses about how the program
had effected the graduate. A typical response was, “She’s always been really
good at getting others to share their opinion. I think her experience reinforced this
behavior.”

As a group, they provided no evidence to contradict or negate these
findings, and in general, affirmed the findings. What they did not do was provide
specific data around how this LGF experience was transformative for the other
person. The individual interviews with the participants themselves were much
richer and specific and so it is their voices that are present in this findings

chapter.

Chapter Summary

Each of the participants in this study entered Leadership Great Falls with varying
reasons. Most indicated a desire to connect with other leaders, learn more about the ‘
community, and improve their leadership skills. One, Sherri, had no desire to participate
but did so out of professional obligation. The opening retreat began with tension as there

were no traditional introductions around titles, work roles, or any other professional

122

affiliation. During these two days, the participants were introduced to the skill of
dialogue. This skill became integral to the experience as it created the guiding principles
for this and future sessions. They also engaged in a variety of team building exercises
concluding in a ropes course. All of the retreat was planned and facilitated by previous
LGF graduates.

Leaving this retreat there was a strong sense of connection and trust between the
participants. They had learned something about themselves as persons and leaders. They
had formed as a community and believed that they knew the people in their group at a
deep level, as people, not as professionals. This was supported by the surprise that they
experienced after receiving the LGF membership directory and seeing the positions many
of their classmates held in the community.

The foundation that was established in this opening retreat was continued in seven
monthly sessions. During that time the participants had their full day meetings at different
locations around the city, again planned and facilitated by previous LGF participants.
Here they were introduced to content around systems thinking, housing, policing, and
other community and leadership issues. The content and place as a source of learning was
continually connected to the personal, professional, and community based lives of the
participants. Each session was bounded by the framework of dialogue and allowed
significant time for personal reflection and participant interaction.

This context, combined with the monthly content of the sessions, and the diversity
of the participants often caused cognitive disequilibrium in the participants. What they
were being exposed to in real data, or the lived experience of their fellow students, at

times conflicted with their understanding of themselves or the world. Trying to make

123

sense out of this tension became a time for continued public meaning making through the
interaction with others and personal meaning making through individual reflection.
Outside of the monthly sessions, participants worked in smaller teams to
understand selected topics around community leadership issues. The overall experience
culminated in a retreat planned by the participants. Part of this final retreat included a
community service project, presentations on what they had learned in their group project,
and final dialogue and reflection about the entire experience. Participants left this nine
month experience believing they had a deeper understanding of themselves and how they
interact with others, a recognition of some of the hidden biases that had been shaping
their beliefs and behaviors, and a new understanding of the value and power of diversity

and collaboration.

124

CHAPTER SD(
THE TRANSFORMATIVE LEARNING EXPERIENCE

In the stories of these six individuals who participated in the Leadership Great
Falls experience, transformational learning was felt at a personal level, processed within a
community of others, and shaped by the larger cultural context. Transformation was ’
experienced as a disruption of the person’s current sense of self in relation to a
community’s shared assumptions about the world. A new understanding of self was
facilitated through personal and social meaning making of this disruption within the
cultural context of a community of others.

This chapter provides a deeper perspective on this experience of the participants.
As a study in individual transformation, it begins by defining transformation. It then
applies this definition to the participants to develop an understanding of their level of
learning in Leadership Great Falls. The chapter concludes by providing a theoretical
perspective on the elements within Leadership Great Falls that facilitated this learning.
Defining Transformation

A scan of the literature does not provide a clear, operational definition for
transformative learning. Many adult learning theorists suggest a difference between
learning in an informational sense and learning of a personally deep or transformative
nature. The following draws upon several different perspectives to develop a functional
definition for the analysis if this study.

The person most associated with the concept of transformative learning is Jack
Mezirow. Mezirow (1991) distinguishes between learning that is instrumental and that

which is transformative. Instrumental learning is a technical or type of learning where

125

truth can be known using empirical methods. It is about building upon existing
knowledge structures the acquisition of new, testable data. Transformative learning is the
process of changing one’s meaning perspective or frames of reference. Frames of
reference being the structures or assumptions through which we understand or make
meaning from our experiences (Mezirow, 2000). Adams provides a similar definition of
transformation as, “ Profound fundamental changes in thought and actions which create
an irreversible discontinuity in the experience of a system. Generally the result of the
emergence of radically new belief systems (paradigms)” (1984, p. 32).

Drawing on the work of Jung and neo-Jungian scholars, Boyd (1991) provides a
definition of individuation as integrating the multiple parts of the psyche through
imagination. This process results in the full emergence of the authentic or Original Self.
Dirkx (2003) provides a simplified working definition that transformation is about
making the unconscious, conscious. Within this perspective, an alteration of the psychic
energy changes the way one sees his or her self and his or her relation to the world.

What is clear from the literature, as described by Brookfield, transformation is not
“Having a more informed, nuanced, sophisticated, or deeper understanding of something”
(2000, p. 139). In referencing these definitions and scanning the literature, the common
difference between transformational and informational learning is that transformation
causes real change - something about the person is different than before. As described by
Sue Scott (1997 Summer) transformation is when an old way of seeing or doing is
changed to a new way of seeing and doing.

For the purpose of this study, transformative learning is defined as deep personal

learning resulting in a qualitative change in one’s understanding and being in the world.

126

Identifying Transformation

In determining if this was a transformative learning experience for the participants
we need to identify a qualitative change in the person’s understanding and being in the
world. Since transformation is an individual process, each of the six subjects must be
considered by themselves. The following section highlights sections from the previous
chapter for each of the participants in relation to their new understanding of self and the
world. In addition, because this is also a study of transformation framed within the
context of Leadership Great Falls, I will also end with a summarization of some of the
leamings that occurred across the group.

As can be expected, the effect of this learning experience had a differing impact
on each person. Laura and John are the most articulate about the effect of this learning
experience. They can identify the specific activities and time when they felt changed
because of Leadership Great Falls.

For Laura the primary change came around trust. She describes her personal
history as being social, but always holding back big parts of herself from others. This
manifested in her being highly independent and always feeling as if she was responsible
for doing things herself. She attributes this way of being to her family structure and the
death of her mother. However, after her experience with LGF, she is different. As she
states it, “Absolutely, honestly, it changed, I sound overly. . . and I apologize for the
emotion. It literally was changed at that, forever at that moment, period. I am different
because of that experience.” She then provides examples of how she was able to trust on

the ropes course or be more open with her feelings to others in LGF or with me as a

127

“stranger” in an interview. All of this represents something she could not have done
previous to this learning experience. ’

John’s big moment of change was very similar in context to Laura’s. For him it
was the epiphany on the rope’s course that he was willing to risk the comfort and success
of the group for his own “ego.” This facilitated the recognition, that while he had thought
of himself as a “team player,” in fact he was oftentimes doing what was best for him.
This had a profound effect on John and changed the way he interacted with others in LGF
in the future, and eventually changed his intention and actions with others outside of this
experience.

Sherri and Rachel also provide specific ways in which they are different and how
the experience changed them. They are more general in identifying the cause, but clearly
associate this new way of being with the learning experience. Sherri’s deep change was
around finding her voice with others, particularly in a group. A big part of this
understanding was the value she provided as an African-American woman in helping
others comprehend what it is like being part of a marginalized group in the current
culture. She also came to understand that she has a mediating or calming presence that
she can use to improve the function and success of a group. This new way of
understanding herself continues in her work today.

Rachel identified how her biases or preconceived beliefs were effecting her
decision-making. How she had made judgments about people or actions within the
community without even trying to understand the “perspectives” or “ideas” of others. She
developed the same rmderstanding of how oftentimes she was making decisions based on

what she assumed the data should be around an issue, without actually seeking the data.

128

She also links this to her need to be “nice” and avoid conflict. This understanding has
caused her to change her behavior and inclusiveness of others in her personal'and
professional life.

Brian is more general about the deep lasting effect of this experience on him as a
person. He describes that because of his vocation, he already had a good understanding of
systems thinking. He speaks highly of the tools of dialogue and the value of community
developed during LGF. He identifies the emotions he felt around possible police profiling
of people of color and how that experience changed his understanding of the justice
system. He provides some specific examples of how he is different in some of his
behaviors because of LGF. He is clear about how he now uses dialogue to develop a
shared understanding of complex issues between people. He shares how he has learned
the value of diversity and uses his leadership position within the organization to promote
diversity.

Sharon is very clear that this experience changed her as a person. When reflecting
on what she learned about herself in the experience, she responds with great energy, “A
lot. I learned a ton.” She points to LGF bringing some balance to the way she interacts
with others. It provided her with the ability to ,“. . .interact with others in a delicate
fashion. . .to foster and encourage dialog with someone else that comes fi'om a completely
different viewpoint.” Previous to LGF she avoided the dynamics of such an encounter,
afraid it would “get ugly.”

The biggest effect on Sharon was identified by her in relation to her family. She
begins her description in this manner, “I learned that my mother and father are not always

right. I learned that some of my childhood lessons were not maybe as meaningful as they

129

could have been. I learned that I am the person that I am today based on some of the
experiences, be it good or bad, and my role in that.” She elaborates further on, the change
that was caused in her in relationship to her father because of LGF:

He and I use to go at it, just go at it and then not talk for maybe two

months, and he would say some of the most hateful, hideous nasty things

to me. I was crushed for a long period of time and then through LGF I

figured out that, you know, it’s okay for him to have those views, that’s

his I don’t have to own it.

She continues with, “I feel, reconnected in the greatest of fashions, in fact, he’s
on the top of my list today as being one of the people I most admire and honor.”

Her father recently died of cancer, and she provides one more example of
the value of LGF, “Those experiences and the skills that I learned in LGF
allowed me to reconnect with him and actually be a leader and help him through
the transition from the disease to death and dying and no one else in my family
was able to do that for him,” For Sharon, the personal effect is very clear.

These are a few specific examples attached to each subject, respectively.
However, there are many other examples of change beyond the creation of what
Brookfield refers to as, “. . .more informed, nuanced, sophisticated, or deeper
understanding of something.”(2000, p.139) The individual leamings identified in the
previous chapter provide several additional exarnples of change. Laura’s recognition of
her own lack of tolerance for “the white, wealthy business person” and the need to be
more collaborative as a leader illustrates this change. Sherri’s revelation of not being

“respectful” toward others who did not understand her experience. Sharon described a

similar need to find a better balance between her needs and those of others. For Brian it

130

was letting others lead in a group. John’s was increasing diversity through the hiring
practices of his company.

These leamings do not simply add to what the participants already knew, many of
them represent a fundamental shift in their sense of who they are. For these participants,
their relationship to diversity wasn’t enhanced, but experienced as a new form. The same
can be said for collaboration. It was more than getting a few peOple involved, it
represents a new understanding of how to make decisions, solve problems and lead. The
following section provides a deeper interpretation of LGF as a transformative learning

experience.

Learning as Transformative

This section revisits the data from a theoretical perspective, connecting the
learning experience with transformative learning. In expanding upon the finding in the
previous chapter, six themes emerge: 1) others shape our learning, 2) context influences
the form of transformation, 3) learning can be disruptive, 4) knowing comes through
practice, 5) who we are is entwined with what we know, and 6) learning is personal.
These categories were developed from the perspective that deep personal learning has the
potential of generating a qualitative change in one’s understanding and being in the

world.

Others Shape Our Learning

Others played a significant role in the learning and development of the Leadership
Great Falls participants. They were present throughout the entire experience in group

activities, community visits, dialogue sessions, session debriefs, and the service project.

131

The presence of others however is not evidence enough that they influenced individual
learning. The support for others shaping the learning and the eventual result of
transformation is inherent in the voices of the participants.

The effect of the dialogue sessions and listening to the experience and opinions of
other LGF participants was shared by all the subjects in this study. In these sessions, they
heard voices and opinions that oftentimes were different or even challenging to their
understanding of the world. The same was true in other LGF settings where participants
openly shared ideas and beliefs. Others provided a new perspective on the world.

The development of a new or deeper understanding of the world was facilitated
through interactions with others in groups and one-on-one settings. Participants in the
study shared how the diversity of the group, the acceptance of the group, and rules of
dialogue allowed them to discuss some very'contentious issues. By doing this with
others, there was a synthesis of information that allowed people to make meaning in a
new and different way. The group process created a public forum for understanding that
was~ much richer and very different than attempting to understand such issues in isolation.

The importance of others to the learning process was evident both within LGF
and outside its structure and process. Participants shared how they spoke with others
outside their group about what was happening within the experience. These people
listened, or gave advice, or asked clarifying questions, etc. They did what friends do. The
value of these conversations was to help the participant make sense of the experience
itself. Similar conversations happened between LGF participants but outside of the
process. The subjects in this study shared how they made a phone call or had breakfast

with someone else in the experience to try to understand what was going on. This did not

occur often, but again, others were helping an individual make sense out of the
experience.

Another role of others was in providing support for courageous acts, trying
something new outside of one’s normal beliefs or behaviors. Trusting others as you jump
off a wall, not being afraid to share your opinion in a group, or admitting to yourself that
you have a strong bias against a group of people are all acts of courage when you do them
for the first time. The participants shared how others supported them in taking these, and
other, first steps towards a new understanding of who they are. In addition, the subjects
communicated that the ability to maintain this new sense of self was aided by the positive
involvement of others.

The importance of others in the learning of LGF demonstrates that who shows up
shapes the learning. The design of LGF is to have a diverse group of participants.
Diversity is constructed through as many factors as possible; workplace, age, gender,
sexual orientation, race, and so forth. Had the group been more congruent in its
composition, the learning would have been different. Even with diversity, there is no
predictability on what each individual brings to the setting as exemplified by personal
experience, beliefs, or personality. So the group becomes an amalgamation of the
individuals present in the experience. Different people create a different group . (Bushe,
2001) A different group creates different learning. Different learning creates a different

personal transformation.

Context Shapg The Final Form Of Teaming

The experience of the participants in this study was situated in a specific context

that includes a host of variables. The shared assumptions, beliefs, values, traditions and

133

behavior expectations of those planning and facilitating the sessions, as well as those that
control resources, and even the larger community values shape this experience.
Leadership Great Falls is not a separate entity from the surrounding culture but is tightly
interwoven with the larger environment. What was learned at an individual level was
dependent on what was expected at a cultural level.

The experience of the participants in this study was not arbitrary, but part of a
history that preceded them. The Leadership Great Falls initiative is part of a larger
community based leadership development program that was started when a plane full of
community leaders were killed in a plane crash and a city was left with few people to fill
the void. Thus there are hundreds of Leadership programs within cities, villages, and
regions throughout the United States that take on the name of the geographic region they
serve such as Leadership Orlando or Leadership Detroit. While each of these is
autonomous, they share a common goal of providing a community with sufficient
leadership capacity regardless of the circumstances.

This particular program is housed within the city’s Chamber of Commerce. The
executive director reports to the head of the chamber. The funding resources come item a
variety of corporate and non-corporate resources. Fund raising is a continual aspect of
maintaining the program. There is a board of directors made up of prominent leaders in
the community. Given this, the belief and assumptions of those who provide resources to
the program are represented in the participants’ experience.

A curriculum was implemented in 1996 and designed by people who had specific
beliefs about leadership and learning. The committee was formed by the board to revamp

the old information based curriculum. The designers of the new curriculum brought to the

134

program a strong set of beliefs: learning must be active, and requires interaction between
people and time for personal reflection. Also, leadership requires an understanding of the
larger community context, and the curriculum should be framed by the four platforms of
community connections, diversity, leadership skills, and systems thinking. This
curriculum model shaped the experience of all subsequent classes.

All of this history and structure and shared beliefs were present in the experience
of the participants. The tool of dialogue represented a particular belief about interaction
between people. The makeup of the group communicated a shared assumption around the
definition and value of diversity. The sites visited, the team building exercises and the
ropes course were all part of larger cultural context.

Beyond the larger structure and activities creating context, the shared beliefs and
expectations about being a leader were also Communicated in smaller symbolic ways.
One example was at the end of the opening retreat. Each participant received a carabineer
to keep as a reminder of the experience and what they learned. Many of the participants
in this study still kept this object in a prominent location years after their personal
participation in LGF. A “bineer” was also used as a talking talisman in the dialogue
circle. The person who had the bineer had the privilege of speaking and being listened to
by the group. This object communicated the shared rules of dialogue. A final example of
a symbolic act was the inclusion of an empty chair in the opening circle. This represented
the greater community that was always present and that should be considered in all the
participants’ leadership decisions.

Thus, the context shapes the eventual form that emerges from the transformative

process. In Leadership Great Falls, the transformational leamings where exemplified as

135

self in relations to others, recognition of personal bias, openness to diversity, and using
dialogue to solve problems. Each of these results can be linked to the shared assumptions
of those who maintain and influence Leadership Great Falls. As a specific example, the
use of dialogue posits a particular way of interacting with others. Leadership Great Falls
could have introduced argument, coercion, or no interaction with others as a viable
leadership strategy. Had these been the values of the larger cultural context, individual
transformation would have been different.

The specific context of Leadership Great Falls is also part of a larger cultural
belief about leadership that is dynamic. In Chapter Two, it was demonstrated that what it
means to be a leader has changed often over the last 80 years. It is a reasonable
assummion to make that had Leadership Great Falls been around 40 years ago, the shared
assumptions, beliefs, values, traditions and behavior expectations would have been
different. What we learn and how we transform is thus interwoven with various levels of
culture. The form in transformation is shaped by the context. In this example, the context
is a set of shared assumptions about what it means to be a leader and the processes of

leadership development (Block, 2002 ; Kaagan, 1999; Palmer, 1999; Wheatley, 1992).

Learning Can Be Disruptive To The Person

The role of comfort in the process of transformative learning is a somewhat
contested issue, with some questioning whether transformative learning always requires a
level of discomfort. The experience of Leadership Great Falls, however, demonstrates
that the process was not always pleasant for the participants. Through the interaction with
others, the experiential activities, the community visits, or other stimuli, the participants

in this study found their understanding of the world and themselves disrupted.

136

Participants identified disruption as integral to their learning, findings consistent with the
intentions of the designers and facilitators of Leadership Great Falls.

From the very beginning, the participants were put on edge. Not using titles or
labels as introductions, learning a new way to communicate, the ropes course and
interacting with others not like them were all designed to create disequilibrium in the
participants. These activities and the many that followed caused the participants to
reassess their understanding and behaviors in the world. It also connected them to the
community of Leadership Great Falls.

The disruption of the person was generally done in community. The dialogue
sessions were a key location for this questioning of personal meaning making as reported
by all the participants. This also occurred in other communal environments such as the
ropes course for Laura and John or in the community project for Rachel. In addition, time
was always allocated to debrief or make sense of the activities in community. This
process of personal disorganization and reorganization brought about membership in the
community of Leadership Great Falls. Membership included a deeper understanding of
the way this group of people made sense of the world. And of course, this group of
people was situated in the cultural conth of shared assumptions, beliefs, and appropriate
behaviors as identified above.

Given this, the events that initiated the disruption communicated certain values.
Using a visit to the jail and talking about racial profiling or visiting a center that built
homes for the homeless to evoke disequilibrium was a choice that communicated the
cultural values of Leadership Great Falls. The tools of dialogue or systems thinking and

the process of social interaction in making sense of this experience also represented the

137

values of LGF. The type of disruption and the process of resolution was all part of the
design of this learning experience. 1

Within the literature, transformative learning is often associated with and thought
to follow a significant life event, such as job loss or childbirth (Mezirow, 2000). In LGF,
however, this learning experience integrated disruption as an intimate part of the
experience. The disruption itself arose from and then further contributed to the learning
experience. It was through this personal disequilibrium caused by the disruption that
facilitated the new meaning making that resulted in transformation. This meaning making

while personal, was still within a community participants and a larger cultural context.
Knowing Comes Through Practice

As shared by participants in Leadership Great Falls, their understanding of the
experience came through practice. As exemplified by more than one participant, it is easy
to think you are an accepting, open person. You only come to understand how true this is,
or isn’t, through the interaction with others, particularly others not like you.

A constant theme in LGF was to experience each of the tools or ideas presented in
as real of a setting as possible. For some, dealing with such issues as respect for diverse
opinions or the rules of dialogue, this was integrated into the sessions themselves. For
others there were active simulations that were designed to give meaning to a concept.
Throughout the nine months, participants were encouraged to look for ways to observe or
practice the learning of LGF back in their outside world. This was continually reinforced
through an opening question and closing remark at each of the sessions and was given
precious time within the dialogue session for sharing and interaction. Rachel describes

this part of the experience in the following way, “We left [our session with a question],

138

okay now see how this will connect with you in the next month? What did you learn in
this session that connects to what you are doing in the next month? So, through the month
we’re supposed to be thinking about it. I think that was a good way to open up the session
was sharing one of those connections.”

It was through using the concepts or tools that people developed understanding.
As reported by the participants, some of the people with a business background found
dialogue foreign to their understanding of human interaction. As described by Sharon,
“there were a lot of us that just didn’t get it, but most of us that didn’t get it were in the
business sector, had never been exposed to it, didn’t know what the heck the ’
instructor/facilitator was talking about.” She continues that understanding dialogue
developed, ”through that practice field, I mean, that’s where it came.” Thus it was
through application that she and the other participants made sense of dialogue.

The value of diversity was another example. Many people spoke of supporting
diversity, but it was only after their experience of hearing the life stories of others and
seeing how a solution is better formed when more voices are in the room, that they fully
embraced the power of diversity. This process began in LGF and according to the
subjects in this study, continues today in their work environments.

From the perspective of transformational learning, a new form requires active
experimentation with new ideas and concepts (Dirkx, 2000; Mezirow, 2000). It is the
activity that causes the type of deep understanding that is transformative. A new concept
without practice, such as tolerance, can be rationalized into the old form. Discernment of

this new concept as a truth within the individual can only be known through application.

139

Who We Are Is Entwined With What We Know

Each of the participants shared their personal history. What they spoke about
exemplified how their understanding of the world and themselves was woven into this
personal narrative. Key events or people highlighted these stories and their effect;
spending a college semester in France, the death of a mother when the subject was 22,
losing a job in midlife when the company closed, or becoming bored with a job at midlife
and changing careers. These might be framed as disruptive events as outlined above. The
participants also shared how unexceptional life experiences such as growing up in a small
town where everyone knows your business or working in a bank shaped who they were.

The participants were clear that such experiences constituted their sense of self
and understanding of the world. Their roles as CEOs, as Information Officers, as an
employee in the religious sector or a bank also provided them with a form for their being
in the world. Within the context of Leadership Great Falls, as the participants learned
more about others and their community, their understanding of who they were changed.
As an example, Rachel considered herself a “participatory" leader and someone who has
always sought the voice of others. What she discovered is who she thought she was did
not align with her way of being. She discovered that she was much more authoritarian
than she believed herself to be. This learning caused her to change her sense of self and
her behavior. John gives a similar example in that he considered himself a “team player.”
What he learned was that he was more ego driven than he allowed himself to believe.
This discovery caused him to think differently about himself and eventually evoked a

transformation in his way of being in the world.

140

These examples come from the participants discoveries about themselves as
leaders. It needs to be noted that these discoveries around the inclusion of the opinion of
others or teamwork are culturally bound definitions of what it means to be a leader. As
outlined in chapter two, the socially agreed upon form of leader has changed over several
decades. The idea of leader, as other roles in society, is a social construct (Hewitt, 2000;
Senge, 1990; Wheatley, 1992) and represents the values and assumptions of the culture in
which it exist (Rost, 1993).

Each of the six people in this group identified themselves as leaders coming into
Leadership Great Falls. During this experience, a new concept of leader was presented.
For them to adapt this new form, they would have to change. Whether this became
transformational or not depended on the distance between the old concept of leader and
the new concept and their acceptance of the new form.

As an example, the idea of a leader as a community steward did not change
Laura’s understanding of self. She identified bringing this thinking to LGF from personal
history and work experience. She already understood herself in this role. However,
learning about trusting others had a profound effect on her sense of self. The leadership
concept that even those at the top must abdicate some responsibility and trust in the team,
changed Laura’s understanding of herself as a leader and very much so as a person.

Beyond the leadership role, other examples were given about changes in
individual’s beliefs through learning. Sherri learned that as an African-American woman
she had a voice worthy of sharing in a group. Brian came to know himself differently as
he developed an understanding of his role in a society that provides a different level of

justice for people of different races. Sharon learned about herself as a daughter. Each

141

participant gave several examples of how their learning in LGF caused them to question
what they believed to be true about their world and themselves.

Who we are is thus constructed by what we know. What we know is situated
within the relationships between ourselves, others, and the larger cultural context. As we
learn new information, interact with others in community, or come in contact with a
different cultural context, we create a possibility of transforming who we are in the
world. Our sense of self and the form of transformation is thus shaped by our interaction

with that outside of us.

Learnin Is Personal

Six subjects participated in this study. For each of them, this experience was at
some level transformational. However, rarely did the same event in this learning
experience trigger the same response in each participant. When speaking about their own
moments of discord or self-awareness, there was no common event. Similar experiences
such as the ropes course, dialogue sessions, or the community project were identified, but
no common activity evoked the same reaction by all participants.

To elaborate, Laura, John and Sharon found the ropes course a very powerful
experience. Laura identified her problems with trust. John discovered he was more self-
centered than he thought himself to be. Sharon spoke of it with emotion, but did not
equate it to any specific point of self awareness. However, even within this common
activity, they describe the process and the outcome differently.

Outside of the ropes course, Sherri spoke about the value of the readings. No one
else mentioned readings, which was valuable to Rachel and Brian. For these two the

process was the same, but the content was different. Rachel’s was the effect of urban

142

development on low income housing. Brian’s was the criminal justice system. The
process of dialogue was mentioned by everyone, but the content of the discussions varied
in regard to what was disruptive and what was not.

There was no predictability on what activity might be potentially
transformational. For some it was racial bias, for others it was poverty, for others systems
thinking. For some the event appeared small or gradual. For others it was something big
or immediate. The stimulus for change was as different as the persons in this study. Thus
while similar, each person experienced Leadership Great Falls in his or her own unique
way.

What these experiences suggest is that for transformative learning as a practice,
there must be diversity in delivery. Leadership Great Falls had a shared vision for the .
process and outcomes of this experience, but they provided diverse avenues toward
meeting these objectives. A set of shared assumptions, beliefs, values, traditions and
behavior expectations guided the work. However, within this structure, the design called
for as much diversity of experience as possible to facilitate the desired learning. Based on

the experience of the subjects in this study, there was no single trigger event, but many.
Conclusion

There is evidence to suggest that the participants in this study did experience deep
personal learning resulting in a qualitative change in one’s understanding and being in the
world. How the learning occurred was dependent on a wide array of factors. This study
identified six; others, context, disruption, practice, our sense of self, and personal
difference. In transformation, the final form is different depending on these factors. Said

succinctly, given the individuals in this study, if the other participants or the context had

143

been different, transformation may have not occurred. And if it had occurred, it would
have resulted in a different form. Transformation is thus a shared process between the

individual and his or her relation to the world and others.

144

CHAPTER SEVEN

IN TERPRETATIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONCLUSION

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to examine the role of others, society, and culture
in the process of personal transformation and transformative learning. In the previous
chapter I present data to suggest that a deep personal change or transformation did occur
in these participants because of this learning experience. The literature provides several
theories on how this happens, two of the more common examples being the cognitive
model of transformative learning closely associated with Mezirow (2000) or the depth
psychology perspective associated with Boyd (1991; 1988) and Dirkx. (1997 Summer;
2003) There is significant research to support these perspectives. However, there is an
ever-stronger position to further investigate or associate this learning with a model that
includes the social. (Clark & Wilson, 1991, Winter; Collard & Law, 1989, Winter;

Taylor, 1997 Fall; Tisdell & Tolliver, 2003)

Sociocultural Model

This chapter will provide a broad understanding of the role of the social and
cultural context in transformative or deep personal learning. This model considers the
interaction of people as well as the impact of shared assumptions, beliefs, values,
traditions and behavior patterns within a group, community, or society on how
individuals make sense of their world. Unlike the cognitive or depth psychology

perspective, there is currently no comprehensive model that draws upon the sociocultural

145

perspective. Thus to do this investigation, we must first create a sociocultural framework
by which to evaluate this learning experience. In reviewing the literature, I’ve chosen a
sociocultural perspective based on the work of Lev Vygotsky, and Jean Lave and Etienne
Wenger. .

Vygotsky is the Russian cultural-historical psychologist upon which much of the
sociocultural tradition is constructed. Lave and Wenger have created a model of learning
framed within context and community. The combination of these three authors, and the
extensive research by others based on their theoretical framework, will provide an
appropriately comprehensive model for understanding Leadership Great Falls fiom a

sociocultural perspective.

Cultural Historical Psychology

There is an overarching fundamental in the sociocultural tradition that how we
learn, how we know knowledge, and ourselves in general, are social phenomena. For
Vygotsky and his cultural historical model of psychology, learning and development are
different; whereas learning is the acquisition of new information, development is a
qualitative change in the person (Holzrnan, 1996). While intricately woven together,
learning precedes development. In this construct, Vygotsky’s concept of development
aligns with adult learning theorist’s model of transformation.

Given this context, to draw on the framework provided by Vygotsky, I will use
three of his primary concepts in application to this research; Dialectic, Mediation, and the
Zone of Proximal Development. In addition, there is one other theoretical construct that

crosses through all of Vygotsky’s model, this being that all learning and development

146

begins at a social level and then moves to the personal. As described by Wink and
Putney, “Development begins as an interpersonal process of making meaning-and then
becomes an individualized process of making sense” (Wink & Putney, 2002, p. 91). They
continue, “When we enter into discussion and meaningfirl interactions with others, we
employ the process of moving from inter- to intrapersonal communication.” Thus,
development or qualitative personal change always occurs twice, first on the social and
then at the personal (V ygotsky, 1978).

In the Leadership Great Falls experience, the dialogue and interactions that were
occurring at the personal level was about public meaning-making. Through the
introduction of diverse opinion and experiences, guided by the form of dialogue, the
group was negotiating a public understanding of the current issue, experience, or
phenomena. As this process continued, the external dialogue moved from the group, to
the individual in the form of internal dialogue. The sociocultural learning model is a
constructivist model. Thus the person is internalizing, or making personal sense of this
experience in his or her own unique way.

The fundamental issue is that the meaning making occurs first in community,
before it is integrated into the personal. Truth is thus constructed by those present, guided
by the larger historical context. In this study the historical context are those shared
assumptions, beliefs, practices, and rituals that structure the program. Rachel
acknowledges this when she reflects on planning a retreat after completing her time in
LGF, “If I had not been there. . .or someone else hadn’t been there. . .it would have been
different.” What cannot be lost, however, is that Rachel is also describing the individual

role in the creation of culture. Sociocultural theory is one of co-creation. The individual is

147

shaped by the culture but at the same time creates the larger context. It takes much longer
to shape culture, but it is a manifestation of the collective.

Even times of quiet, personal reflection as identified by the participants, fall
within this framework of human development in community. As described by Wertsch
(1991), mental action carried out in isolation is still situated within a social context. The
language we use for internal dialogue, the points we consider for critical analysis, our
historical lifeline, the books we read and so much more are extensions of the larger
environment. Thus the personal reflection that was so important to the participants, in

time and process, was personal, but it was also socially framed with the cultural context

of LGF.
Dialectic

In understanding how this process of group meaning making occurs, one must
understand the concept of dialectic. Vygotsky was influenced by the work of Hegel and
thus the dialectical process was a key element in his theory. Dialectic is a juxtaposition of
Opposing directions of thought to achieve synthesis. In dialectical synthesis, two opposite
ideas are united in a continuous whole (V anderVeer & Valsiner, 1991).

Vygotsky (1986) uses the metaphor of water to describe a dialectic. Water is the
combination of two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen. When combined, they become
something completely different than their original form, which is still present in water. In
fact, the new form is the opposite of its origins. Hydrogen is highly volatile and oxygen
fuels fire. When combined as water however, they squelch fire. Thus in a dialectic, two
distinctly different entities firse to create something qualitatively different. In applying

this to learning, Wink and Putney provide the following; “One cannot separate the

148

individual from the context and still have a complete understanding of either. The
unification of a person within that social, cultural, historical, and political context informs
our understanding of the dialectical relationship” (2002, p. xii).

The dialectic in reference to transformative learning provides a foundational
understanding important to the sociocultural view. In applying a dialectical perspective to
the Leadership Great Falls experience, I argue that personal transformation was ’
facilitated through the coming together of opposites. Key examples of where these
opposites originated include the opinions presented in dialogue, specific data presented at
session, and community visits. These, as with many other opposites, created conflict
within the individual or the individuals and the group, and the context for the creation of
a new form of understanding among the LGF participants. Within the data collected from
the LGF experience, dialectical processes are most present in the appreciation of
diversity, new information, collaboration and the group process.

The appreciation of diversity was obvious with the group. Where the participants
found value was around the ways in which this diversity shaped the whole. As described
by John, “It gave me the opportunity to meet with others [to] view their opinions and help
them mold part of mine or help my opinion mold part of theirs.” He is giving this
example within the context of interacting with a diverse community of others. He is
describing a process where ideas, opinions, experiences and information are coming
together in community to create something new. The energy present in this experience is
described in another of his quotes where he refers to, “the decibel level could be real

loud.”

149

The result of this dynamic was something new and unique to this group. In
relation to diversity, the individuals did not simply add to or deepen their understanding
of diversity, but created a new way of knowing, valuing, and applying diversity. Laura
and Sherri’s sharing about their lack of respect or tolerance for the dominant culture was
more than a shift, but constituted a reconstruction of their understanding of diversity.
This is an example of a dialectic, not because several ideas were generated through
brainstorming, because two opposing belief sets came together with great force that
created something new. I

When Laura, the champion of the “poor and people of color” came head on into
the meaning making of the “wealthy business person” who believed in a “boot strap”
approach to dealing with the poor, the result was deeper than a more informed
understanding. It fundamentally shifted the Way Laura saw these business people, the
way she now works them, and her understanding of who she is (or was.)

The experience of receiving new information, processing it within a group, and
creating a shared understanding is another example of a dialectical process. The new
information stands alone; it is the intersection with the beliefs and knowledge of the
group that causes the dialectic. It is the energy that is present that melds this into
something different. This is inherent in the comments by Laura when she speaks about
the, “process being more important than the activity.”

This process is part of the larger dynamic created around being and functioning as
a group. Developing and working as a group were continual elements of the LGF
experience. The resulting shared experience by the participants was that the group

process itself, was more than the sum of its parts. Or to use another common phrase, in

150

the group process: Two heads are better than one; not because they create something that
is better, but because they create something that is better and qualitatively different,
something that cannot be created by the same individuals working alone. In this
experience, they come to know that there are problems in this world that cannot be solved
by one person (just as with the ropes course), but for which a group can find a solution.

Further support for this perspective is how the participants came to value group
tension. Sherri describes how “explosions” during the session where important and
helpful to the group in moving forward. The participants generally recognized that
tension was required for group success. Merging two hydrogen molecules and one
oxygen to create water requires great energy; so does the dialectical process of positive
group dynamics. Conflicting beliefs, ideas, experience and data sets create a highly
charged environment resulting in a new form of understanding.

Another measure of how conflicting beliefs formed new understanding is present
in the participant’s learning outcomes as manifest in their new commitment to
collaboration. While coming in to LGF, many perceived themselves as open to the
opinions of others or as participatory leaders. What they identified in the interviews
however was that they were not as open to the opinions and ideas of others as much as
they had previously believed. The structure of this learning experience caused them to
listen to and to seek out people and ideas different than their own. The personal outcome
being a new understanding of the power of diversity through collaboration resulting in
better decision making.

As a result of this learning, participants communicated how they have made

collaboration with others a key component in their life after Leadership Great Falls.

151

Individuals provide several examples around how they lead, seek multiple voices in
decision making, and are shaping their hiring process to increase organizational diversity.
They have created what Bruffee (I995 Jan/Feb) refers to as a philosophy of collaboration
- an understanding that the group process exceeds the authority and expertise of the
individuals. A new way of being that requires the dissenting voice.

Without using the language of dialectic, the subjects are talking about how
conflicting information and differing perspectives come together to create a unique,
single entity that is an amalgamation of the diversity present in the group. It is this
dynamic that is unique in the true process of collaboration. The result being the creation
of knowledge that is qualitatively different than the sum of the knowledge inherent in the
group. Sharon speaks specially about the role of opposites and their value in the process
of LGF.

It’s kind of at a paradox on one hand, when you walk into the opening

retreat they don’t have any nametags or anything and they want you out of

your comfort zone, you do the high ropes, you’re out of your comfort

zone, you’re talking about sensitive issues, you’re out of you comfort

zone, yet, the paradox is and the dialogical piece is they give you practice

rules and dialog skills and then they want you to talk about sensitive

issues and get down to the crux of it, so, it’s a co-existence.

Paradoxical, or more specifically, dialectical processes in transformation
are two opposing beliefs, ideas, assumptions, expected behaviors or other ways of
being coming together to form a new understanding and way of being in the
world. In the dialectic, the change does not happen within one person but happens
in-between the person and one or more persons or entities. However, the result of

this new way of being is not arbitrary. While unique, it is still framed within a

cultural context. The process that causes the opposites to exist, the quality of the

152

opposites, and the preferred new understanding are all shaped by the larger
culture. This instrument for this structure is introduced as mediation in the next

section.
Mahatma

Mediation provides a crucial framework for understanding personal
transformation as manifest in Leadership Great Falls Experience. Mediation is the
process by which the cultural artifacts of a society shape a person’s learning and
development. These artifacts are part of the sociocultural domain and are coded with the
expectations of the context in which they reside. They perform as communicators or
“bridges” to first shape a person’s actions and higher mental firnctions fiom outside and
over time become internalized into the person’s understanding of the world (W ertsch,
1985). Presented from the opposite perspective, human activity can only be understood if
we take into consideration the “tools” that mediate this activity (Moll, 1990).

Language is the most universal form of mediation. Vygotsky (1978) posits that an
individual’s cognitive meaning making and self regulated behavior are manifest in a form
of private speech. Private speech is our internal dialogue and forms through the social
interaction with others and the mediational or cultural tools of society. Again, this is
further evidence that knowing begins at the social level and then moves to the individual.

While language was a very important aspect of Leadership Great Falls, it is the
tools that were provided that best illustrate a sociocultural understanding of this
experience. A clear example of this is the skill of dialogue. Dialogue was introduced as a
skill and a framework by which the group would be together. There was a very specific

form as described by Laura, “You don’t out people off, you don’t interrupt, you hear

153

them through, you try and understand as deeply as you can.” This was apposed to other
forms of communication such as argument, debate, or negotiation. The use of dialogue
was a choice that represented the shared assumptions, beliefs, values, traditions and
behavior patterns inherent in LGF.

This tool was first taught at a very instrumental level. Next it was practiced in
abstract. From that point forward it wasiused often. Each session began and ended with
dialogue. Dialogue was used to debrief each activity. Along the way the facilitators and
eventually members of the group maintained the form of dialogue within the group
process. By the end of the nine weeks, the subjects in this study had come to understand
dialogue as a fundamental way of being in the world. This was evidenced not only in
their reference to dialogue throughout the interviews but by the continued application of
dialogue in their lives.

Dialogue was not the only tool that shaped the participants. Systems thinking was
another. The idea that much (if not all) in this world is connected changed the way the
participants now understand their world. There was a new recognition that solving
problems required expanding their perspective. and the recognition of systemic
connection. They came to know that effecting one part of an issue will effect something
else - oftentimes with unforeseen consequences. Sharon provides an example of how
systems thinking was new to her understanding of the world when referencing her grasp
of how business, not-for—profits, and government are connected, “There’s a lot of
interconnectedness that goes around in the systems process that came to light for me, so,
it was another one of those eye opening experiences.” The result of being provided with

this tool shaped the way the participants experienced and made meaning in the world.

154

Dialogue and systems thinking are examples of the pedagogy and content of
Leadership Great Falls respectively. Thus in a learning environment, these elements can
be seen as central to the mediation process. From the perspective of this research, the
introduction of dialogue can be viewed as a cultural shift. As described by the
participants, it was not a typical form of communication for them before LGF. Systems
drinking is also relatively new in the leadership arena. Most widely associated with Peter
Senge (1990), it would not have been part of most curricula much more than a decade
ago and is still not present in many leadership development activities.

How transformation was effected through curriculum choice is also in evidence in
the absence or removal of mediated symbols in the LGF experience. If language and
words are mingled with roles and norms (Pavlenko & Lantolf, 2001), then the removal of '
certain words shape the roles and expectations of the community, exemplified in the
opening retreat when people were not introduced by their titles and job fimctions. By not
presenting a person with his or her occupational label, the individuals were not affected
by the strong socially constructed symbolic meaning attached to the label.

Not having these cultural clues to guide their interaction, the participants avoided
some of the cultural dynamics around power and privilege. Sherri provides support about
the effect of removing labels. “So much that comes with title, it’s all about power and,
you know, history and, you know, breadth of experience and all of those things that you
overlay on people by virtue of what letters are behind their name or what position they
have.” These boundaries were recognized not only in the interaction with others, but as

suggested by Laura, she felt freed from the constraints of her role as a CEO.

155

Given this context, they interacted on a personal level, getting to know each other
as individuals. Rachel describes this in the following, “I got to know people based on not
a title, not their job category or their skills that they had for their job but I got to know
them on how we interacted in our group and how we built the team together, kind of their
personality came out.” Mediation thus comes not only in the tools presented, but in the
tools or symbols not present.

The final element of mediation is activity. When tools are present, it’s their usage
or activity within a larger sociocultural context that gives them meaning. (Dreyfus, 1995)
From a personal perspective, it is learning to interact with the mediated elements that
cause personal meaning (Bredo, 1997). In the LGF experience, dialogue went fiorn the
simple learning of a new skill to continued application in ways that were relevant and
applicable to the participants.

It is this practical activity that causes a shift in human psychological functionality
(Cole, 1990). For the participants in this study, it was the connection of the active
application to their world that made it meaningful. As described by Laura, “You could be
talking about something in a practical way, like systems, and how they interrelated and
how you can focus on these issues but you’re really taking it down, or up, to a level that’s
beyond the technical learning. It actually makes sense then in application.” Again, as a
mediated activity, the participants made meaning in application, and by making meaning
of the tool at the social level, they constructed meaning at the personal level.

The tools, language, activities, and way of interaction with Leadership Great Falls
were examples of sociocultural mediation. They were choices that communicated the

culture of LGF. As presented by Wertsch, “ Human activity can only be understood if we

156

 

take into consideration the ‘technical tools’ and ‘psychological tools’ and ‘signs’ that
mediate. . .These forms of mediation, which are products of the sociocultural milieu in
which they exist, are not viewed as simply facilitating activity that would otherwise take
place. Instead, they are viewed as firndamentally shaping and defining it” (1990, p. 114).
Within this framework, transformation of persons in this learning experience was within
a larger context. The value of diversity, collaboration, sense of self, and so forth was in
concert with the context of Leadership Great Falls. If the context had been different, the

transformation would have been different.

Zone of Proximal Development

The last concept drawn directly from Vygotsky, the Zone of Proximal
Development or ZPD, is probably his most well known. The Zone of Proximal
Development is the distance between what an individual is capable of doing on his or her
own and what he or she is capable of doing with the assistance of a more capable other
(V ygotsky, 1978). This zone measures potential development. The “other” in the
definition represents a person or persons.

To understand the Zone of Proximal Development we must revisit the idea that
learning precedes development. We learn to do something at a spontaneous level before
we understand it at a scientific level (Moll, 1990). In the LGF experience, the participants
learned to use dialogue at a spontaneous level, which created an experiential path for the
development of the complete understanding of dialogue at a scientific level. The path to
this development was the more capable others facilitating the process. This included not
only the actual facilitators but any written material which would be mediated artifacts.

Cazden (1981) refers to this as performance before competence. Going back to the

157

beginning of this section, we are reminded that development first happens at the social or
interpersonal and then moves to the individual or intrapersonal.

A further elaboration on the ZPD is that the “more capable other” need not be an
obvious expert working in relationship with a novice. Research on students solving
complex academic math problems have shown that two people working in collaboration,
who cannot solve a problem on their own, can oftentimes find a solution working
together. Later, they can then solve a similar problem on their own (T udge, 1990). This
was exemplified in many of the team building exercises. No one person was initially
capable of solving the problem, but through team collaboration, a solution was found.

There are many examples in the LGF experience where learning from others
occurred as a possible precursor to personal transformation. The dialogue sessions, the
ropes course, team projects, and so forth. There are also examples where learning did not
occur. Sharon describes some business folks who either took a long time to learn or never
understood dialogue. Others describe how for some participants, they could never
connect in a meaningful way to issues such as race, sexual orientation, or poverty. Using
the ZPD as a theoretical construct, this learning was beyond the zone for these
individuals.

In these instances, the place where they were on their developmental path was too
distant from the ideas or concepts being presented. This could be because they were well
behind on that particular path as exemplified by John telling a story about a young white
girl who could not understand the prejudice experienced by an much older Afiican-
American woman. It could also be because they were on a completely different path. This

was exemplified by some of the business folks who were identified as finding

158

collaboration non-productive. For them, there was nothing in their personal history or life
path that allowed them to connect with this form of personal interaction.

The concept of the zone of proximal development also has value in the group
dynamics process. Participants gave examples where in a dialogue session the group
might approach a level of discord or emotion around a topic and then just back down. In
this instance, as the same with dialectics, it is possible to conceptualize the group as one
entity and the individuals in the group as others. As a group, their ZPD, or potential for
development, was still too distant to engage in such activities. However, with the
guidance of another, in this case a facilitator, it was typically possible to deal with
volatile issues. The same is true as the group developed. Over time, the group could
approach topics that they would not have dealt with in early session. By then, the group’s
zone of proximal development had narrowed.

This example points to the value of community building as experienced in
Leadership Great Falls. These activities narrowed the zone of proximal development
between the participants so that they could work both as a team and in developmental
collaboration with others. The initial community building process began with a zone of
simple group problem solving and continued to move forward, ending in the ropes
course. To have started at the ropes course would have been outside the ZPD of the group

and would have most likely failed.

Communities of Practice

The previous components of sociocultural theory come from the work of Lev

Vygotsky. This section introduces the Lave and Wenger (1991; 1998) model of

159

Communities of Practice. Communities of Practice are theoretically consistent with
Vygotskian concepts, draws upon them, and build upon them, to create a model of
learning that has been applied at both the level of individual and organization. The basic
premise is that knowledge is integrated in the life of communities that share values,
beliefs, languages, and ways of doing things (Stucky, 1993).

The four components of this model are learning as doing, learning as experience,
learning as becoming, and learning as belonging (Wenger, 1998). This section will
introduce each of these components and apply them to the LGF experience. I will
introduce these parts in the order listed above, ending with learning as belonging. This
order will present these concepts, beginning with those most similar to Vygotsky, ending
with the most distinctive and drawn upon construct in the communities of the practice

model.
Learning as Doing

Learning by doing is the human activity of engaging with others in a shared
practice. Practice here is defined as one might use the term “medical practice.” It denotes
a communal understanding of ways in which members of a community engage in
enterprise. It includes the artifacts of this practice such as books, procedures, tools,
stories, theories, myths, rules, etc. (Wenger et al., 2002). In the same sense as Vygotsky’s
mediation, the artifacts of the community communicate the cultural norms and
expectations for members of that community. Wenger (1998) defines this as reification.
In this perspective, it makes explicit the expected actions as well as the tools. This
knowledge is held in the community and can only be fully known through belonging in

the community.

160

In understanding Leadership Great Falls, the skill of dialogue again provides a
specific example of learning by doing. This practice of being together was introduced in
the opening retreat. It included specific behaviors, rules, and expectations. Within this
community, membership included engaging in the practice. However, the practice was
not stagnating. As identified by Laura, after being taught dialogue the group “made it
ours” through small modification that fit this community. Thus knowledge is dynamic,
always being renegotiated by the members of the community. In this example, dialogue
as practiced within the context of Leadership Great Falls can only be known as a member

of Leadership Great Falls.

Learning as Exmrience

Learning as experience is about meaning making. In communities of practice,
individually we derive our meaning of the world through doing with others and the
reified objects of that doing. Thus meaning making is a result of doing or participation in
a community. This process is continually being negotiated as we engage in the world
(Wenger, 1998). Negotiation happens at the intersection of the individual and the larger
community or cultural context.

Continuing with LGF and the skill of dialogue, the participants came to
understand the practice of dialogue and eventually the value of dialogue through
experience. This is clear in that they begin using dialogue as an external set of rules to
guide their being together. By the end of the nine weeks they have internalized the tool of
dialogue and are applying it as a vital part of their life.

A similar example is their eventual understanding of diversity. The makeup of the A

group, the places they attended, the activities they shared introduced diversity as an

161

experience. As part of this communal experience they found conflict in their personal
meaning making. This conflict was voiced through participants’ comments of personal
realizations of being “disrespectful” or “not as tolerant as I thought.” The participants
were voicing their renegotiations of meaning. Introduction to new experiences, within a
community of practice — a community that has its own reified ways of being - caused

them to construct a new way of making sense at a personal level.

Learning as Becoming

Leaming as becoming is about a person’s sense of self and the personal changes
that occur because of learning (W enger, 1998). A sense of self or identity is constructed
through practice and reification. Identity is negotiated in the same way as meaning.
Within this theoretical construct, identity is located between the interplay of the person
and the community of practice. One’s sense of self is defined both by the communities in
which we participate and by those in which we do not belong.

In the LGF experience, all three themes identified as Individual Learning
(Understanding of self in relation to others, recognition of personal bias, the value of
collaboration) constitute examples of a changing sense of self. In the diversity example
given in the previous section around meaning making, this renegotiation of meaning
around the learning experience also caused a renegotiation of the participants’ identity.
Laura’s sense of trust was about renegotiating her identity as a completely independent
women who had to do everything for herself. Rachel’s recognition of personal bias
caused her to renegotiate what it meant for her to be an open minded person. Brian’s

experience with dialogue allowed him to renegotiate his identity as a leader.

162

Throughout the LGF experience, as persons came into contact with meaningful
experiences that conflicted with their present sense of self, they needed to renegotiate
their identify. Identity is thus the produce of doing and experience. The negotiated

understanding of who we are is framed by our community of practice.

Learning as Belongm' g

Learning as belonging is the process of having a membership in community of
practice. Learning is social participation and thus to learn, one must engage in social
practice. The activities and reified objects of society are held and taught within a
community. Examples within Leadership Great Falls include the rituals of the day
sessions, ways of listening, a particular understanding of systems, the meaning of the
bineer, or “how to approach another graduate to donate money to your political
campaign” as described by Sherri. ’

As individuals, we begin on the outside of a community, not knowing the
knowledge held within that community. Through an individual’s own effort, or the needs
of the community, he or she can be provided peripheral status within a community. Here
the person is allowed to learn from the community but not fully participate as a member.
As the person becomes more competent, he or she may be brought in as a full member.
This process of engagement between core members and those on the edge is termed as
legitimate peripheral participation. It signifies the complex dynamic between the member
of a community, its activities, its process of reification, and outsiders. In this case,
learning increases with participation in communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991).

Learning communities are also involved in renegotiation. While they have a _

strong core, they know that new knowledge comes from the periphery. They also know

163

that members of one community are also part of other communities, and thus to maintain
a vibrant community there must be room for interaction within the community. Within
the community, experience and competence are continuingly in varying degrees of
tension. Without this tension, the community becomes complacent, reproductive
communities of practice (W enger, 1998).

The systemic picture of Leadership Great Falls constitutes a community of
practice. There is a formal organizational structure that continues before, during and after
the learning session. However, this is not enough. Communities of practice are defined by
their community, not their formal structure (Wenger et al., 2002). In this case we can
identify a clear communal structure for LGF. Past participants stay involved with the
organization in a variety of leadership roles. All of the activities of LGF are planned and
facilitated by past graduates. They have a shared understanding of the purpose of LGF
and feel connected to the community that is Leadership Great Falls. This is evident in the
executive director’s comments about the continual help that she received in planning each
of the events from the many program participants and from the ongoing connection of the
subjects in this study. These people are at the core and maintain the reification of LGF.

Non LGF participants are on the outside of the community. They apply to
participate and are selected by a subset of the community. This allows them to formally
engage. It gives them periphery status. When they attend sessions, the sessions are
facilitated by core members of the community. These activities are directed toward the
reification of the objects of LGF such as dialogue, diversity, and systems thinking. Many

start to belong in the community such as those identified in this study. In doing so, they

164

learn and eventually begin the process of renegotiating their own sense of self and the
LGF community itself.

Not everyone who joins Leadership Great Falls becomes part of the community.
Sherri identified some participants who were never comfortable with the LGF
curriculum. She attributed this to a curriculum change that began with her class. The
previous LGF sessions were very instrumental. Each month participants went to different
parts of the city and met important people. It was very unidirectional in its approach, in
contrast to the more constructivist curriculum identified in this research. However, for
those peeple that never engaged, this new curriculum did not represent a community they
had interest in joining.

Others did not join the community because the community would not let them
move beyond the periphery. Sharon provides an example of how one person was not
brought to the core because of his, “Very closed mindedness about sexual orientation and
sins, and the people who are of a certain orientation are sinners and are no good.” So
participation required a shared desire to belong, both with the individual and the
community. This belonging provided the deep learning described by the participants.
This is evidenced in their high praise for the community building exercises, the dialogue
skills that allowed people to be in community and the projects that required “doing,

experiencing and becoming.”

Summary of the Sociocultural Tradition

The key element in the sociocultural tradition is that learning is a collaboration

between the person and cultural context. The cultural context includes the norms,

165

 

behaviors, expectations, beliefs and all that there is that defines being human within a
given community. These artifacts are present in the tools and activity of mediation as
described by Vygotsky or the reification of objects and behaviors as described in
communities of practice. In the Leadership Grand Falls experience, this is manifest in the
four platforms of systems thinking, diversity, community connections and leadership
skills. Each of these words has a very specific meaning. As an example, leadership for
LGF is described by the executive director as, “Someone who knows themselves and
where they fit and is comfortable with it .. . who learns how to develop the support
systems for some of the weaknesses they may have . . . of creating opportunities and being
successful at what they’re driven at.” Had these words (symbols) had different mediated
values, the learning for the participants would have been different.

There is a recognition of the ever-evolving relationships among objects. For
Vygotsky this is present in the framework of the dialectic. For communities of practice,
this is present in the continuing renegotiation at each level of learning. The dialogical
nature of LGF made this obvious. Causing people to be uncomfortable through the ropes
course, the interaction with others not like them, visiting places in the community outside
their domain, the interactions between individuals and the group, required the creation of
a new way of understanding their world.

Action defining meaning is present in the sociocultural tradition. In the
Vygotskian perspective, tools are defined through their usage. Activity causes meaning.
The same is true for communities of practice where doing and experience are

cornerstones in the way people make sense of the world. In LGF, this was present in

166

having people engage in real projects, in real time application of their learning outside of
this experience, in the active nature of the sessions themselves.

Interaction with others within a larger cultural context is the central theme of both
theories. For Vygotsky this is present in the zone of proximal development. In
communities of practice, this is manifest in belonging. Individuals can only learn when
they are appropriately connected with others. Learning first happens at the social level
and then at the individual level. This is described in Vygotkian terms as moving from the
interpersonal to the intrapersonal. For communities of practice, this public meaning
making happens as a precursor to personal internalization. The team building, group
process, and dialogue circles in LGF was directed toward the creation of community. The
time for reflection created the space for personal meaning making.

The final theme across the two traditions is the forming of the person through
everything identified in the previous section. Within a Vygotskian framework, learning
proceeds development. Doing, experience and belonging contributes to becoming in
communities of practice. In both Vygotsky’s development, and learning as belonging
from communities of practice, there is a qualitative shift in the person. He or she now
sees him or herself differently and understands the world in a uniquely different manner.

The individual learning reported in the previous chapter is evidence of this phenomenon.

A Sociocultural Perspective on Transformative Learning

This section draws upon the theoretical constructs of the sociocultural tradition
and the theoretical analysis of this study in the previous chapter to identify elements

within the social and cultural context, which provide a deeper understanding of

167

transformative learning. While learning in general, or instrumental learning, are affected
by the social and the cultural in many ways, from the perspective of transformative
learning the sociocultural perspective can be presented in two major findings;
transformation is shaped by the culture, transformation involves expanding a persons

belonging in community.
Transformation is Shaped bv the Culture

The Leadership Great Falls experience was constructed through a set of shared
assumptions, beliefs, values, traditions and behavior expectations. The original
curriculum designers had shared beliefs about leadership and learning. The Chamber of
Commerce, LGF board, and financial sponsors all shape the experience. The session
planner and facilitators, all past LGF graduates are part of the context. The executive
director and the participants themselves combine with all of these elements to experience
the culture of Leadership Great Falls.

This cultural context is inherent in the tools, rituals and artifacts of LGF. It is
exemplified in the four platforms, the definition of leadership, LGF’s particular approach
to diversity, the site visits, the use of dialogue, the opening circle, and all the other
activities that create this experience. These are choices that represent or mediate the
shared assumptions, beliefs, values, traditions and behavior expectations of Leadership
Great Falls. Combined, these are its culture.

Knowing comes through doing. Through activity the participants make sense or
come to understand or make meaning of these experiences. It is this meaning making that
shapes the individual transformation. If Leadership Great Falls had a different culture, if

their definition of leadership had been different, if dialogue had not been provided as a

168

tool, if it had not been active, if any number of other significant choices been different,
the individual transformation would have been different. Transformation as a form is thus
shaped by the culture in which the new meaning making occurs.

Within a sociocultural perspective, the form is the co-construction of meaning
making that resides between the person and the cultural context. The context is what
brings meaning to the experience. An individual’s knowing cannot be separated fiom
cultural mediation (Wertsch, 1990). This meaning making that first occurs on the outside,
over time becomes internalized into an individual’s understanding of the world. The
internalization process takes time and is what creates stability in an individual’s meaning
making. In the Leadership Great Falls experience, there was nine months of active
engagement with the context, allowing for the social meaning making and eventual

internalization of the tools representing the culture of LGF.

Transformation Involves Expanding A Person’s Belonging In Community.

The majority of learning in Leadership Great Falls was facilitated through group
activity. Group process as a form of pedagogy has been well researched as a valuable
form of learning (Bruffee, 1995 Jan/Feb; Cross, 2000). In relationship to being
transformational however, the group process constitutes more than shared learning.
Transformational learning involves becoming .part of a new community while developing
a more permeable membership between other communities.

From the very beginning, the Leadership Great Falls experience worked toward
creating a community. The structure of the opening retreat, the team building exercises,

the participation of past members were designed to create a psychological connection

169

between the new participants in LGF and the established members of this community.
This community building was an intentional and represented the culture of LGF.

A component in the LGF creation of community included disrupting old
connections and creating new ones within the community of participants. The disruption
was exemplified through not using titles in the opening retreat, through challenging the
participants’ definition of tolerance, through providing them with experiences in the
community that conflicted with their existing knowledge. After the disruption, meaning
making was established within community. Individual knowing then became dependent
on those present in the group making sense within a cultural context.

While entering into the community of Leadership Great Falls, there was no
requirement that participants abandon their existing communities. There were cultural
values, beliefs and expected behaviors that were part of LGF. To be part of this
community, participants did need to adopt these cultural standards. In doing this it was
acceptable for participants to hold membership in other communities. This was made
clear in Leadership Great Falls approach to leadership. As conceptualized by the
designers of this curriculum, the intention wasn’t to create a new definition of leader but
an expanded definition (Olivarez, 2003).

The transformational impact of Leadership Great Falls was in the development of
individuals who understood and fully participated in LGF as well as making more
permeable the boundaries among additional communities in which they had membership.
This was inherent in the learning outcomes defined in the findings chapter. Trust, ego and
confidence exemplified the understanding of self in relation to others. For Laura it was in

trusting others. For John it was the recognition that his ego was keeping him from

170

participating as a team. For Sherri it was confidence in the value that she provided to a
group as an African-American woman. Each of these examples is about expanding their
relationship with others, and about expanding their connection to others in community.

The two other findings of recognition of personal biases and the value of
collaboration performed the same function. In the first learning, the removal of biases
expands the authentic involvement a person has with another. Embracing the value of
collaboration demands the inclusion of many diverse individuals in meaningful activities.
Each of these learrrings moved the LGF graduates toward participation in a larger range
of community. Transformation for these participants thus became a process of
participating in a new community as well as more easily residing and holding the values
of other communities.

This transformational process not only changed the person’s relationship with
others in community; it also changed the person’s sense of self. From a sociocultural
perspective, a person’s sense of self is defined by the communities in which he or she
participates. It is an ever negotiated relationship between the person, others and the social
context (W enger, 1998). As a person joins or expands the communities in which he or
she is a member, so does his or her sense of self. Transformation thus becomes not only a
process of meaning making in the world, but it also constructs a new way in which the
person understands his or her self. For Laura, it was not only that she could trust, but that
she now perceived herself as a trusting person. For Sherri, it wasn’t just that she could
add the perspective of an African-American woman to the conversation, it was that she

saw herself as having value as an African-American woman.

171

Implications for Practice

The Power of Context

The context of Leadership Great Falls shaped the learning that occurred in
this study. In practice, the tools that a teacher provides to students in method,
material and content selection; the amount of information that leaders share or the
way they perform performance evaluations; all that is done creates meaning
making at a larger social context. No behavior or object is incidental.

Meaning making comes from the use of the mediated objects. As an
example, utilizing teams in a classroom is a tool. Meaning making comes from
how the tool is used. Is it a collaborative, power sharing tool or is it a way to
organize students share information to complete a diagram? How the tool is used
creates the meaning. As a practical implication then, practitioners must decide not
only what tools they are to use, but why, and what is being communicated in the
use of that tool.

What is selected to be taught or excluded in the way of content communicates
cultural values. What is presented as worth knowing shapes the relationship of the class
at both a social and individual level. At the social level, content is the medium for
interaction. In LGF, the dialogue was always structured around the daily content. System
thinking, police profiling and urban sprawl helped create the context for the class. Within
a sociocultural perspective, the content becomes part of the social meaning making.
Because meaning making happens at both the social and individual level, the process of

individual transformation is thus effected by content choices.

172

Pedagogical decisions have equally powerful, but less obvious ramifications.
Mediation, or reification as described in communities of practice, includes not only
objects but also the actions of a culture such as expected behaviors, procedures or rituals.
Inviting students to construct the syllabus or decide methods of assessment creates a
context of social participation. The uses of groups or learner contracts are mediated
choices just as classroom lecture and the attendance policy. For students, each of these
constitutes activity at a social level. These and many other choices create a level of
meaning making for the student that effects his or her learning beyond the content. From
this perspective, the process of teaching is equal to the content being taught.

The value of activity in meaning making emerged as a key component of
transformative learning from a sociocultural perspective. The active engagement with a
mediated object creates the meaning. If content and pedagogy are mediated objects, then
students must actively engage with them to construct the intended understanding. As an
example, teaching content as a passive activity causes passive meaning making. It
communicates that the content has little value. To elaborate fiom a different perspective,
if there is no communally guided mediated application of the content, the student will
bring his or her own understanding, which may be very different than the intended

learning.
The Power of Others

Collaboration as a teaching strategy is not new. Bruffee ( 1993; 1995 Jan/Feb) and
others have provided strong evidence in support of a collaborative learning environment.
However, what this study suggests is that transformative learning involves participation

in a community, not just the collaboration with others. Creating the community requires

173

time and intention. LGF spent an entire weekend retreat just creating the learning
environment or context before introducing the content. This is important to the outcome
but it is also important for a successful process. Students bring a larger cultural context to
the classroom. Working in community is not always part of their history. If a class is
going to deviate from those student expectations, time and process must be allocated to
moving the students outside of their expectations.

The value of creating this community is that meaning making happens first in
community. There are many formal and informal communities in which all of us live.
Students have multiple communities. Not all communities are equal. For some, students
are full participants, for others they are on the periphery. For students to engage in deep
learning in a class, they must be full participants of the class as a community of practice.
This requires a desire on their part to have a “role of the community. Creating such an
environment requires making the overall curriculum meaningful and valuable to the
student. To be a commrmity, the student must also have his or her own rights and

responsibilities in the class. For legitimate communities to form, power must be shared.

Critical Pedagogy

\

The history of adult education, from Lindeman (1926) forward to Welton (1995)
and Tisdale (1993), has argued for the purpose of education to create an egalitarian,
power neutral society. Building upon the arguments presented above about curriculum, a
critical teacher needs to look deeply at how his or her students are being shaped by
mediated content and teaching strategies. When content is selected and shared, it is being
mediated as knowledge worth acquiring. Given this, several questions need to be

entertained with making curricular decisions. An example from content is, “Who

174

 

determines which knowledge is best known? In reference to teaching strategies, “Who
decides what behaviors are most appropriate?” Since individual and culture are intricately
entwined, the answers to these and other similar questions determine a person’s behavior
and sense of self. If knowledge is socially constructed as suggested in this study, what

community is making the decisions?

Professional Deve10pment

This study provides support for a concept posited by Wenger that much of what is
of value to a person in the workplace is learned through the interaction with more capable
peers. (W enger et al., 2002) While the curriculum did include specific content that was
introduced each session, the participants in the study made little reference to this learning
as valuable. They focused on leaming from others within a meaningful context. They
reported on how the nine months allowed them to consider themselves in relation to their
community, their practice and their personal life. This study does not suggest that training
at an instrumental level has no value, it only suggests for this population, the real learning
was about themselves and their relationship with a larger community.

The implications here are, however, that professional development should be seen
as more than the technical acquisition of facts. Deep learning that may be
transformational requires a focus on the person within his or her personal context. In
addition, given the premise that meaning making is a reciprocal process between the
individual and the social, the impact of the type of education provided to employees is
powerful. As an example, by only providing technical or skill based education to
employees, the mediated message is that a person’s job can be reduced to a few sets of

measurable tasks. Larger issues of quality, respect for others, connection to the

175

 

organization are lost within this context. Said another way, How an organization treats

learning mediates its value to the person.
firdership Development

The overall purpose of this educational experience was leadership development.
Each of the areas for application discussed so far inform the context of leadership
development. Leadership itself is a socially constructed concept. What it means to be a
leader is a mediated process. The content of the four platforms communicated a specific
approach to leadership. The group process and time for reflection mediated a specific
approach to leadership. The learning reported by the participants is a manifestation of
these decisions. Given the process and outcomes in this experience, compared to typical
leadership institutes, this one could be considered counter-cultural.

From a cultural perspective, the pedagogy and content selection of the program in
this study was very important. Leadership was not narrowed to a set of skills or activities;
it was made larger to connect to the entire community. Participants did learn skills
important to their organization. They did this however in the context of the role and
responsibility of leader as community steward. The active application of their learning
was connected to their lives, personal or professional, and the community in which they
lived and worked. The participatory nature of the experience communicated to them that
they had something to contribute as a person and a leader. The larger context allowed
them to see their work as connecting to the common good.

Beyond the community focus, this leadership development program was focused

on the leader as a person who needs to understand his or her inner self . The framework

176 .

 

for this leadership development is parallel to the definition of a leader as provide by

Parker Palmer:

A leader is a person who has an unusual degree of power to project on 1

other people his or her shadow, or his or her light. A leader is a person

who has an unusual degree of power to create the conditions under which
other people must live and move and have their being-conditions that can

either be as illuminating as heaven or as shadowy as hell. A leader is a

person who must take special responsibility for what’s going on inside

him or her self, inside his or her consciousness, lest the act of leadership

create more harm than good. (Palmer, 1990, p.2)

If this is considered counter cultural, the implications from this study are
derived from the fact that every person in this study had socially important
positions in the community. They were generally well educated, had high level
job experience, and had participated in extensive workplace training through
conferences, institutes, etc. Given this, these leaders found this to be one, if not
the, most important learning experience to their career. When reflecting back on
their learning experiences since college, only one person could describe a
similarly powerful personal experience. That learning was of a similar nature
directed at understanding race through white privilege.

The implications thus being that this type of leadership development does
have value. Those leaders from many professional sectors may find value in
knowing self as a leader. As reported by these leaders, this type of learning was

equal or more valuable to their role as a leader than most other learning

experiences they have had as professionals.
Recommendations for Further Research

This study opened the door on an area of transformative learning that others have

suggested he opened - a deep understanding of the role of culture and society in personal

177

 

transformation. Further research is required to develop a more comprehensive
understanding of this phenomenon. The fiamework presented in this study should be
continued to develop a deeper understanding of the role of community in transfonnation.
A specific question arises around the qualitative posture of transformation. If
transformation is human development toward a more complete self, does joining another
community alone posit transformation? This answer seems to be a definitive no. What are
the elements of belonging that do initiate positive personal development?

This research focused on a geographically bound group of six leaders who all
participated in the same experience (while at different times.) Expanding each of these
parameters would be of value. The location of the learning experience could be made
larger. Other areas of learning could be researched which might include formal, academic
education. A single research study could consider individuals from different learning
experiences.

This leaming experience was highly social. This area of study could be informed
by the study of transformative learning experiences that appear to occur in a more
didactic approach. The interactive nature of this research may have affected the findings.
If the sociocultural perspective is present in transformation, it will be present regardless
of the delivery system.

This study interviewed those people for whom this was a valuable learning
experienceFuture studies could study a cross section of students to determine if there is
a difference why something is transformative for some and not for others. A question
arises around how might individual learning styles and preferences affect transformative

learning?

178

 

This study used the lens of the sociocultural tradition to make meaning from the
research. After the fact, this was contrasted in a theoretical way with the two dominant
theories of transformative Ieaming. Further research is suggested to look at where these
theories align and where they contrast. An interesting question would be to determine if
these three approaches to transformative learning align in any way to individual
differences. Does one approach work well with certain people and a different approach
with different people?

From a methodological perspective, this study tried to use significant others in
collecting evidence of individual transformation. While the interviews with these I
individuals generally supported the results, they did not provide specific examples of
change. There are two speculations why this occurred. The first is the length of time
between the experience and the interviews. These people were asked to reflect on events
that ranged from three to seven years past. So, while the memories were still available in
the participants themselves, the timefiame was too distant for those who may have
observed or heard about the experience.

A similar issue of distance speaks to the second possibility. All six subjects
provided contacts that were professional acquaintances, not personal. So while the leader
may have changed his or her professional practice, it is less likely that colleagues or
subordinates understand or remember the path of change. Future research studies in
transformative learning may have better results interviewing others who know the
participants as the experience is in progress or from third party observation using

individuals more intimate with the subjects.

179

Conclusion

Transformative learning as a theory of adult learning and a philosophy of
education has a significant place in the domain of adult and higher education. More than
two decades ago, Mezirow (l 991) suggested that deep personal learning that transforms
an individual results in a more inclusive, differentiating, permeable, critically reflective,
and integrative understanding of the world. This suggestion created both an ideal and a
theoretical foundation for others to move forward, creating a more encompassed
understanding of what transformation really means. However, there is still a loss of
understanding around one possibly significant element of transformation, the role of
others, society, and culture (Clark & Wilson, 1991, Winter; Collard & Law, 1989,
Winter; Mezirow, 1999; Sveinunggaard, 1993).

The results of this study suggest that others, society and culture play a significant
role in transformation. Context, the use of mediated tools is an important learning.
Everything done in a learning environment matters. The content, pedagogy, assessment,
even the way the facilitator engages with the participants, communicates the values,
norms, expectations of a larger culture. Nothing is incidental. The understanding of the
cultural tools came through activity. People need to use something to make meaning.
Since transformative learning is flamed in meaning making, individual transformation
requires activity.

The power of community emerged as equally important to context. The personal
meaning making around the tools of culture is first created within a community of others
and is then internalized at the personal level. Time is required to develop inclusion in a

new community. A psychological connection is also required. The knowledge held in the

180

 

new community may result in a disruption within the person and his or her previous
communities. The reestablishment of order through social meaning making and
individual internalization results in personal transformation.

This research was not meant to replace, prove wrong, or contradict the previous
research and models of transformation. Rather the intention here was to provide an
additional perspective on a previously underdeveloped element within transformative
learning. There are still some large epistemological and ontological differences between
these theories. The creation and location of knowledge at a social level within the
sociocultural tradition is counter to both the cognitive and depth psychology tradition.

A multiplistic self known through the involvement and interaction with others in
community is in opposition to the cognitive perspective on transformative learning which
has a unitary notion of self. While both the depth psychology and the sociocultural
embrace a multiplistic sense of self, from the depth psychology perspective multiplicity
coming from the various selves or persona within the unconscious and its entwinement
with the conscious self. Mutiplicity from a sociocultural perspective comes from the idea
of self as a continuous process of becoming while actively engaging in multiple
communities situated within a cultural context. These are important questions and
concerns beyond the scope of this study. The hope for this research is at the functional
level, it may provide some new ways of understanding and facilitating transformative

learning.

181

APPENDDGSS

182

APPENDIX A

Initial Telephone Interview Protocol for LGF Grad
Initial Script

Hello, my name is Frank Conner and Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning
at Grand Rapids Community College and I am a PhD. student working toward an my
dissertation at Michigan State University. I received your name from Cynthia Wood as
someone who participated in Leadership Great Falls. 1 am studying Leadership Great
Falls with the intent of developing an understanding of the experience by the
participants. Would you be willing to talk to me about being a participant in my study?

If they agree to talk further about my study -
Would tell me a little bit about your experience over the phone.

If it is apparent during this short conversation that they have experienced a form of
transformation that they attribute to this learning experience, I will ask them if they
would like to participate further in the study. I will explain that doing so would include
two interviews of about 90 minutes each. Both interviews would be taped, but their
identity would remain confidential. Also, if they chose to participate, I would like them to
identify a significant person in their life that could speak about their change. I am
particularly interested in a person who has had a sustained connection to the subject;
knowing him or her before, during, and after, the learning experience.

If they agree to participate in the study —

I will schedule our first meeting and inform them that I will be sending them a letter and
a consent form outlining the research and procedure for confidentiality. I will also get the
name of the significant person at this time and inform them that I will be calling that
person within the week.

If at any time they communicate that they are not interested in participating in this study,
I will thank them for their time and end the conversation.

183

 

APPENDIX B

<date>

Dear <name>:

Thank you for agreeing to spend some time with me talking about your experience in Leadership
Great Falls. Our 90 minute meeting is scheduled for <time> on <date> at <location.>

In preparation for our meeting, I’ve enclosed a copy of the Consent Form that outlines the details
and parameters of this interview. I will review this document with you prior to our beginning the
interview to clarify any questions or concerns you may have.

Should you have any questions before that date, or need to reschedule our meeting for any reason,
please feel free to contact me at xxx.xxx.xxxx (work) or xxx.xxx.xxxx (home) or email me at

xxxxxx@xxx.edu.

I look forward to our meeting.

Sincerely,

Frank L. Conner

184

APPENDIX C

February 1, 2003

UNDERSTANDING LEADERSHIP GREAT FALLS
AS AN ADULT LEARNING EXPERIENCE

Participant Consent Form
Purpose of this study

The purpose of this study it to develop a deeper understanding of how adults learn and the impact
of this learning on their lives. This research will focus on one particular adult learning experience
— Leadership Great Falls (LGF) . This study is a part of a dissertation for a Ph. D. in Higher,
Adult, and Lifelong Learning at Michigan State University

Procedures

As a participant in this study, you will participate in two sets of interviews. These interviews will
contain questions about your background, experience in Leadership Great Falls, and any
continued results of the LGF experience. Each interview will be no more than 90 minutes. These
interviews will be audio taped and for analysis purposes, the audio tapes will be transcribed.

Participation

Participation in this study is voluntary. You may choose to not participate at all, or you may
choose to not answer certain questions. You may choose to discontinue the interview or your
participation in the study at any time.

Risks

There are no known foreseeable risks involved in participating in this study.
Benefits

There are no direct benefits involved in participating in this study.
Confidentiality

Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. The records for this
study will remain confidential. No individual identities will be used in any reports or publications
resulting from this study. All tapes, transcripts, and summaries will be given codes and stored
separately from any names or other direct identification of participants. Research information will
be kept in locked files at all times. Only the researcher and his academic advisor will have access
to the records generated from this study. Once this study is complete, the audio tapes will be
destroyed

185

Additional Information

As part of this research project, I would like to interview someone who knew you before, during,
and after your experience with LGF. This interview will be a 30 minute telephone interview and
will focus on what they observed about your LGF experience. The same confidentiality
procedures will apply to the interview with them as with you. They also have the right to not
participate. Please provide below the name of such a person and a telephone number. Doing so
documents your permission for me to contact them.

 

 

Name Telephone Number

Additional Interview

After interviewing the other participants in this study, as well as analyzing your interview, I may
contact you for a second interview. This interview will be of the same nature and will be '
governed by the same guidelines outlined in this document. The purpose of this second 90 minute
interview will be to probe deeper on issues of importance that have emerged in the original
interview(s) or to clarify what I perceive as possible contradictions within a single interview or
between participants. '

Contact information

If you have any questions about this study, please contact:

0 Frank Conner, Grand Rapids Community College, 143 Bostwick NE, Grand Rapids, MI,
49503, (616) 234-3612, fax (616) 234-3363, email — fconner@grcc.edu;

0 John Dirkx, PhD, MSU Professor and Dissertation Committee Chair, 408 Erickson Hall, E.
Lansing, MI, 48824-1034, (517) 353-8927, email - dirkx@msuedu

If you have questions regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time
or with any aspect of this study, you my contact—anonymously, if you wish—Ashir Kumar,
M.D., Chair of MSU‘s University Committee on Research Involving Hurmn Subjects (UCRIHS)
, (517) 355-2180, fax (517) 432-4503, email — ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall,
E. Lansing, MI 48824.

Your signature below indicates your voluntary agreement to participate in this study.

Signature: Date: __
Research Participant

 

Signature: Date:
Interviewer

 

186

APPENDIX D

Interview Protocol for LGF Grad

Review the consent form. Turn on tape recorder.
Ask participant if s/he has any questions before we begin interview.

Backgmund
I’d like to know a bit about your background.

Where did you grow up?

What was it like as a child?

What is your current work?

What brought you to this work?

What was your prior work experiences?

What has been your educational experiences?
Have you experienced other forms of learning?

Do any of these stand out as partially meaningful?
If so, what was it about that particular experience made it stand out from the rest?

LGF Exmrience
When did you attend LGF?

What do you see as the purpose ofLGF?
What led you to participate in LGF?
What were you trying to achieve?
Did you have any goals in participating in LGF?

Describe the experience for you -
Does any particular experience stand out as memorable?

What was the nature of this as a learning experience?

What was the roles of others in this experience?

Can you describe what else was going on in your life at this time?
What were you doing?
Who was involved?

What was or has been the result of this experience to you personally?

In what way are these results still present today?
Have there been other factors that have helped you continue the results of this experience?

187

APPENDIX E

Interview Protocol for Second Interview with LGF Grad.

Remind the person that the consent form is still in effect.
Ask person if he or she has any questions before we begin.
Turn on tape recorder.
Remind them of the purpose of this second interview
Could you please tell me more about the opening retreat?

No Name, No Labels

Team Exercises

Could you please tell me about the role of dialogue?

How did you experience new information in LGF?
Many described as “eye opening experiences”

Could you tell me how the group respected each other?
Tolerance of other view points
Acceptance of additional perspectives
How did this happen?
Could you tell me more about how the group interacted
Did roles emerge?
Did people make allies?
Were there times when you or the group experienced tension?
Could you elaborate on how systems thinking was part of the experience?

Are you still part of the LGF community?
Can you give examples?

What was the role of individual reflection in the experience?
What did you learn about yourself?

Self discovery?

How did this happen?

What did you learn about yourself as a leader?
How did this happen?

188

APPENDIX F

Interview Protocol and Script for LGF Significant Other
I_nitial Script

Hello, my name is Frank Conner and I am Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning and
Grand Rapids Community College and am pursuing a Ph. D. in Higher, Adult, and Lifelong
Learning at Michigan State University. Your name was given to me by

He/She informed me that you knew him/her during the time he/she participated m Leadership
Great Falls.

 

As part of my Ph.D., 1 ’m doing a study that looks at Leadership Great Falls as an adult learning
experience. Would you be willing to spend about 30 minutes to talk to me about what you
observed in in regards to his or her participation in LGF?

If they agree —
May I tape record our session? You can be assured that everything will remain confidential. If

you do agree to being tape recorded, I will turn it on now and read to you a consent form that
outlines the details of this study . [f you agree, you will be asked to speak your consent.

T urn on tape recorder and read consent form.
Ask participant if s/he has any questions before we begin interview.

Questions
How well do you lmow ?

What was your relationship with him or her during his or her experience in LGF?

While he or she was participating in LGF, what did they tell you about
’8 experience in the program?

 

 

Now that the program is complete, has the program effected . in any
noticeable way?

fata u' e mmunicate r; it . ' not inte rst' .' 9.; Mafia. in !‘_~' (I I i,
thank them to: their time and end the cgnmmatign,

189

APPENDIX G

February 1, 2003

UNDERSTANDING LEADERSHIP GREAT FALLS
AS AN ADULT LEARNING EXPERIENCE

Participant Consent Form

Purpose of this study

The purpose of this study it to develop a deeper understanding of how adults learn and the impact
of this learning on their lives. This research will focus on one particular adult learning experience
— Leadership Great Falls (LGF) . This study is a part of a dissertation for a Ph. D. in Higher,
Adult, and Lifelong Learning at Michigan State University

Procedures

As a participant in this study, you will participate in one 30 minute telephone interview. This
interview will contain questions about a person close to you who was a participant in Leadership
Great Falls. Your name was given to me by this person. These questions will be about your
observation of his or her experience as someone who new him or her during this time and if you
now know of any continued results of his or her participation in LGF. These interview is being
audio taped and for analysis purposes, the audio tapes will be transcribed.

Participation

Participation in this study is voluntary. You may choose to not participate at all, or you may
choose to not answer certain questions. You may choose to discontinue the interview or your
participation in the study at any time.

Risks
There are no known foreseeable risks involved in participating in this study.

Benefits
There are no direct benefits involved in participating in this study.

Confidentiality

Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. The records for this
study will remain confidential. No individual identities will be used in any reports or publications
resulting from this study. All tapes, transcripts, and summaries will be given codes and stored
separately from any names or other direct identification of participants. Research information will
be kept in locked files at all times. Only the researcher and his academic advisor will have access
to the records generated from this study. Once this study is complete, the audio tapes will be
destroyed

190

Contact information
If you have any questions about this study, please contact:

0 Frank Conner, Grand Rapids Community College, 143 Bostwick NB, Grand Rapids, MI,
49503, (616) 234-3612, fax (616) 234-3363, email - fconner@grec.edu;

- John Dirkx, PhD, MSU Professor and Dissertation Committee Chair, 408 Erickson Hall, E.
Lansing, MI, 48824-1034, (517) 353-8927, email —- dirkx@msu.edu

If you have questions regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time
or with any aspect of this study, you may contact—anonymously, if you wish—Ashir Kumar,
M.D., Chair of MSU‘s University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS)
, (517) 355-2180, fax (517) 432-4503, email - ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall,
E. Lansing, MI 48824.

A signed copy of this form will be mail to you at the following address:

Your verbal acknowledgment indicates your voluntary agreement to participate in this study.

Signature: Date:
Interviewer

 

191

APPENDIX H

Interview Protocol for LGF Executive Director
Review the consent form.
Turn on tape recorder.

Ask participant if she has any questions before we begin interview.

W
I’d like to know a bit about your background.

LGF Experience
How long were you the Executive Director at LGF?

During your tenure, what were the goals of LGF?

What kind of activities made up the experience for the participants?
What was it like for them?

IfI had been a fly on the wall, what might I have witnessed?
What did you observe about participants over the course of this program?

What have participants told you about their experience?

192

APPENDIX I

February I, 2003

UNDERSTANDING LEADERSHIP GREAT FALLS
AS AN ADULT LEARNING EXPERIENCE

Participant Consent Form

Purpose of this study

The purpose of this study it to develop a deeper understanding of how adults learn and the impact
of this learning on their lives. This research will focus on one particular adult learning experience
-— Leadership Great Falls (LGF) . This study is a part of a dissertation for a Ph. D. in Higher,
Adult, and Lifelong Learning at Michigan State University

Procedures

As a participant in this study, you will participate in one 90 minute interview. This interview will
contain questions about your observations of the student experience as participants in Leadership
Great Falls. This interview will be audio taped and for analysis purposes, the audio tapes will be
transcribed.

Participation

Participation in this study is voluntary. You may choose to not participate at all, or you
may choose to not answer certain questions. You may choose to discontinue the interview
or your participation in the study at any time.

Risks
There are no known foreseeable risks involved in participating in this study.

Benefits
There are no direct benefits involved in participating in this study.

Confidentiality

Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. The records for
this study will remain confidential. No individual identities will be used in any reports or
publications resulting from this study. All tapes, transcripts, and summaries will be given
codes and stored separately from any names or other direct identification of participants.
Research information will be kept in locked files at all times. Only the researcher and his
academic advisor will have access to the records generated from this study. Once this
study is complete, the audio tapes will be destroyed

193

Contact information
If you have any questions about this study, please contact:

0 Frank Conner, Grand Rapids Community College, 143 Bostwick NE, Grand Rapids, MI,
49503, (616) 234-3612, fax (616) 234-3363, email — fconner@grcc.edu;

0 John Dirkx, PhD, MSU Professor and Dissertation Committee Chair, 408 Erickson Hall, E.
Lansing, MI, 48824-1034, (517) 353-8927, email — dirkx@msu.edu

Ifyou have questions regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time
or with any aspect of this study, you may sonnet—anonymously, if you wish—Ashir Kumar,
M.D., Chair of MSU's University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS)
, (517) 355-2180, fax (517) 432-4503, email - ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall,
E. Lansing, MI 48824.

Your signature below indicates your voluntary agreement to participate in this study.

Signature: Date:
Research Participant

 

Signature: Date:
Interviewer

 

194

REFERENCES

195

Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995, Nov-Dec). From teaching to learning -- a new
paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, 27(6), 12-25.

Bass, B. M. (1997). New paradigm of leadership: An ipguiry into tranforrnational
leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Beach, K. (1999). Consequential transitions: A sociocultural expedition beyond
transfer in education. Review of resemh in education 24 101-139.

 

Belenky, M. F., Bond, L. A., & Weinstock, J. S. (1999). A tradition get has no
peme: Women's weys of leading. New York: Basic Books.

Bennis, W. (1998). On becoming a leader. London: Arrow.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial gp'd. Houston, TX: Gulf.

Block, P. (1991). The emmwered Manager; Positive mlitical skills at work. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Block, P. (1993). Stewardship: Choosing service over self interest. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler.

Block, P. (2002). The spewer to how is yes. San Francisco: Berrett Koehler.

Boden, M. A. (1989). Artificial intelligepce in psychology. Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.

Bolrnan, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1995). Leading with sou; An uncommon joumey
of epirit. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bolrnan, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Remng' ogganizations: Artisg, choice,
and leadership (3rd ed.). San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bolt, J. F. (1996). Developing three-dimensional leaders. In F. Hesselbein, M.
Goldsmith & R. Beckhard (eds.), The leader of the future (pp. 161-173). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass

Bonk, C. J ., & Kim, K. A. (1998). Extending sociocultural theory to adult
learning. In M. C. Smith & T. Pourchot (Eds), Adult learning and development;
Perspectives from education psychology . Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Boyd, R. D. (1991). Personal transformation in small ggoups: A JQgian
m. London: Routledge.

Boyd, R. D., & Myers, G. J. (1988). Transformative education. International
Journal of Lifelong Education, 7(4), 261-284.

196

Bredo, E. (1997). The social construction of knowledge. In G. D. Phye (Ed.),
fiendbook of academic learning: Construction of knowledge . San Diego, CA: Academic
Press, Inc.

Briskin, A. (1996). The stirrig of sogl in the workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Brookfield, S. (1991). The development of critical reflectionin adulthood:
Foundations of a theory of adult learning. New Educatiop, 13(1), 39-48.

Brookfield, S. D. (2000). Transformative learning as ideological critique. In J. M.

Associates (Ed), learning as transformation: Critical mrspeetives onJatheorv in
progress . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bruffee, K. A. (1993). Collaboratiye learning: Higher education, interlemndence,
and the authority of knowledge. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.

Bruffee, K. A. (1995 J an/Feb). Sharing our toys: Cooperative learning verses
collaborative learning. Change, 27(1), 12-18.

Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, mssible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bushe, G. R. (2001). Meaning making in teams: Appreciative inquiry with pre-
identify and post-identity groups. In R. Fry, F. Barrett, J. Seiling, & D. Whitney (Eds),

Appreciative inguig and organizational transformation: Reperts from the field (pp. 39-
63). Westport, CT: Quorum.

Cazden, C. (1981). Performance before competence: Assistance to'child discourse

in the zone of proximal development. marterly Newsletter of the Laboratog of
Comparative Human Cognition, 3(1), 5 -8.

Clark, M. C. (1991). Restructuring of meaning: An analfiis of the impact of
context on transformational learning. Unpublished E.D. dissertation, University of

Georgia.

Clark, M. C., & Wilson, A. L. (1991, Winter). Context and rationality in
Mezirow's theory of transformational learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 41 (2), 75-91.

Cole, M. (1990). Cognitive development and formal schooling: The evidence
from cross-cultural research. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional

implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology .

Cole, M. (1998). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge,
MA: Belknap Harvard.

197

Collard, S., & Law, M. (1989, Winter). The limits of perspective transformation:
a critique of Mezirow’s theory. Adult Education Quarterly, 39(2), 99-107.

Collins, M. (1991). Adult education as vocation: A critical role for the adult
educator. London: Routledge.

Covey, S. (1991). Principle-centered leadership. New York: Summit Books.

Cranton, P. (1994). Understanding and promoting traneformative learninggg
flde for educators of adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cranton, P. (1996). Professional develepment as transformative learning: New
perspectives for teachers of adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative ingergy' and research desigp: Choosing among five
traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research desig: Qpalitative and quantitative epproaches.
London: Sage Publications.

Cross, K. P. (1999). learning is about making connections: The Cross pagrs
number 4. Mission Viej 0, CA: league for Innovation.

Cross, K. P. (2000). Collaborative learning 10]: The Cross pafl number 4.
Mission Viejo, CA: League for Innovation.

Cunningham, P. M. (1992). From Friere to feminism: The North American
experience with critical pedagogy. Adult Education Quarterly, 42, 180-191. ‘

Daloz, L. (1986). Effective teaching and mentoring: realizing the tranfonnational
power of adult learning experiences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Daloz, L. A. P., Keen, C. H., Keen, J. P., & Parks, S. D. (1996). Common fire:
Leading lives of commitment in a complex world. Boston: Beacon Press.

Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Free Press.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.

Dirkx, J. M. (1997 Summer). Nurturing soul in adult learning (V 01. 74). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dirkx, J. M. (1998). Transformative learning theory in the practice of adult
education: An overview. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 7, 1-14.

198

Dirkx, J. M. (2000). After the burning bush: Transformative learning a
imaginative engagement with everyday experience. Paper presented at the Third

International T ansforrnative Learning Conference, Teacher's College, New York.

Dirkx, J. M. (2003). Images, transformative learning, and the work of soul. Adult
Learning, 12(3), 15-16.

Dreyfus, H. L. (1992). What computers still can't do: A critique of artificial
reason. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Dreyfus, H. L. (1995). Being-in-the-world: A commenm on Heidegger’s Being
and Time Division 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

 

Drucker, P. (1994). The age of social transformation. The Atlantic Monthly,
274(5), 53-80.

Elias, D. (1997 Summer). It's time to change our minds: An introduction to
transformative learning. ReVision 20(1), 2-6.

 

Erickson, F. (1985). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittrock
(Ed), Handbook on research on teeching (3rd ed., pp. 119-161). New York: Basic.

Fensterrnacher, G. D., & Soltis, J. F. (1992). Approaches to teaching. New York,
NY: Teachers College Press. '

Fiedler, F. E., & Garcia, J. E. (1987). New approaches to effective leadership.
New York: John Wiley.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury.

Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. New York: Seabury.

Gilbert, W. S. (1995, September/October). Technology and the changing
academy. Change.

Gilligan, C. (1993). E3} different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Green, K. C., & Gilbert, S. W. (1995, March/April). Great expectations: Content,
communications, productivity, and the role of information technology in higher
education. Change.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1996). On becoming a servant-leader. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative

research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. 8. Lincoln (Eds), Handbook of qualitative research .
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

199

Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interest. Boston: Beacon Press.

Hesselbein, F., & Goldsmith, M. (2000). The communig of the future. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Hewitt, J. P. (2000). Self and society: A symbolic interactionist social
psychology. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

 

Hillman, J . (197 5). Re-insioning psychology. New York: HarperPerennial.

Hilhnan, J. (1996). The soul's code: In search of character and calling. New York:
Warner Books.

Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (1994). Phenomenology, ethnomethodology, and
interpretive practice. In N. K Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds), Handbook of qualitative
research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Holzrnan, L. H. (1996). Pragmatism and dialectical materialism. In H. Daniels
(Ed.), In introduction to Vygotsky (pp. 75-98). New York: Routledge.

hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transms: Education as the practice of freedom.
New York: Routledge.

Horton, M. (1990). The long haul: An autobiomphy. New York: Doubleday.

Horton, M., & Freire, P. (1990). We make the road by walking: Conversations on
education and social change. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Jarvis, P., Holford, J., & Griffin, C. (1998). The theogy and practice of learning.
London: Kogan Page Limited.

Johnson, R. (1986). Inner works: Usipg dreams and active knew tion for
personal grpwth. New York: HarperCollings Publishers.

Kaagan, S. S. (1999). Leadership games: Expep'ential learning for organzational
development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. ,

Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Universty Press.

Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demends of modern life.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kegan, R. (2000). What "form" transforms? A constructive-developmental
approach to transformative learning. In J. M. a. Associates (Ed.), Learning as

transformation: Critical firspectives on a theory in practice . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2001). Seven langg_ages for transformation: How the
way we talk can change the way we work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

200

King, P. M., & Kitchner, K. S. (1994). Develeping reflective judgment. San
Francisco: J ossey-Bass.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1995). The leadership challenge. San Francisco:
Jossey - Bass.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2003). The leadership challenge (3rd ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lave, J. (1988). Cogpition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in evegday
Jig. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Lave, J. (1997). The culture of acquisition and the practice of understanding. In D.
Kirschner & J. Whitson (Eds), Situated cogpition: Social, semiotic, and myehologi cal
persmtives (pp. 17-35). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lave, J ., Murtaugh, M., & de la Rocha, O. (1988). The dialectic of arithmetic in

grocery shopping. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds), Evegyday cogpition: Its development in
social context . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lave, J ., &. Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral
participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lawrence, J. A., & Valsiner, J. (1993). Conceptual roots of internalization: from
transmission to transformation. Human Develoment, 26, 150-167.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquig. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.

Lindeman, E. (1926). The meaning of adult education. New York: New Republic.

Luria, A. R. (1976). Co gpitive development: Its cultural and social foundations.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ‘

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1995). Desigping qualitative research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Marsick, V. (1987). Learning in the wofiplace. Croom Helm: London.

Marsick, V., & Finger, M. (1994). Jack Mezirow: in search of a social theory of
adult learning. In E. Brugger & R. Egger (Eds), Twenpieth Cm Thinkers in Adult
Education . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Marsick, V. J., & Neaman, P. G. (1996). Individuals who learn create
organizations that learn. In R. W. Rowden (Ed.), WoLkplace learning: Debating five
critical questions of theog and practice . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of entegprise. New York: McGraw Hill.

201

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind self and society: From the standmint of a social
behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

 

Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study resea_r:ch in education. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass Publishers.

Merriam, S. B. (1998a). Qu_a_litative research and case study applications in

education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. B. (1998b). filimtive research and case study applications in

education. San Francisco: J ossey—Bass Publishers.

 

Mezirow, J. (1981). A critical theory of adult learning and education. Adult
education quarterly, 32(1), 3-24.

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco:
J ossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. (1994 Summer). Understanding transformation theory. Adult
education quarterly, 44(4), 222-44.

Mezirow, J. (1995). Transformation theory of adult learning. In M. R. Welton
(Ed.), In defense of the lifeworld: Critical perspectives on adult [canning . Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.

Mezirow, J. (1999). Transforma_tive§_arning theory: A life histogy. Paper
presented at the 2nd annual international conference on transformative learning, San
Raphal, CA.

 

Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as Transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Mezirow, J., & associates. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A
gm'de to transformative and emancipatog learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. D. (1985). A critical theory of self-directed learning. In S. D.
Brookfield (Ed.), Self directed learning: From theog to practice (2nd ed., ). San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Moll, L. C. (1990). Vygotpg and education: Instruction implications and
applications of sociohistorical psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Moore, T. (1996). The re-enchantrnent of evegyday life. New York: Harper
Collins.

O'Banion, T. (1997). A learning college for the 21 st cent_u_ry. Phoenix: Oryx Press:

Olivarez, J. (2003). A conversation on the development of the new Leadership
Great Falls curriculum .

202

O'Sullivan, E. (1999). Transformetive learning: Educationg vision for the 21st
centug. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Palmer, P. J. (1990). Leading from within. Washington, DC: Potter's House
Book Service.

Pahner, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landgape rig
teacher's life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Palmer, P. J. (1999). Let yor_r,r life speek_. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Palmer, P. J. (2000) Seasons: A center for renewg: Kalamazoo, MI: F etzer
Institute

Palmer, P. J. (2002). The center for teacher formation [Web Page]. Available:
www.teacherformation.org [2002, February 14, 2002].

 

Pavlenko, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (2001). Sociocultural theory and second language

learning. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Second langgge learning as participation and the
construction of selves . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical develppment in the college
3m. New York: Holt.

Potter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Publishing.

Pratt, D. D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching. Adult education quarterly, 42(4),
203-3 30.

Pratt, D. D., & Associates, a. (1998). Five perspectives on teaching in adult and
higl_rer education. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company.

Ratner, C. (1989). A social constructionist critique of naturalistic theories of
emotion. Journal of Mind and Behavior 10(21), 1-230.

 

Ratner, C. (1991). Contributions of sociahistorical peflhology and
phenomenology to research methodology. Paper presented at the Fourth biemrial
conference of the international society for theoretical psychology.

Ratner, C. (1997). Cultural psychology and qualitative methodology: Theoretical
and emperical considerations. New York: Plenum Press.

Ratner, C. (2001, September). Analyzing cultural-pyschological themes in
narrative statements. Qualitative Social Researcp, 2(3).

Richland College. (2000). To teach with 30?: eyes: Reflection on a teacher/leader
formation experience. Phoenix, AZ: League for Innovation.

203

Rost, J. (1993). Leadership for the twenty-first cen_tu__;y. Westport: Praeger.
Sadler, P. (1997). Leadership. London: Kogan.

Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new desigp
for tegehing and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schon, D. A. (1991). The reflective practitioner. Hants, England: Arena.

Schon, D. A. (1995, Nov-Dec). The new scholarship requires a new
epistemology. Change, 27(6), 26-24.

Scott, S. M. (1997 Summer). The grieving soul in the transformative process. In
P. Cranton (Ed.), Transformative learning in action: Insights from practice (Vol. 74, ).

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization. New York: Doubleday.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1999). The lifeworld of leadership: Creating culture,
community, and personal meaning in schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Stein, M. (1998). Transformation: Emergence of the self. College Station, TX.
Texas A&M University Press.

Stucky, S. U. (1993). A new legning agenda: Putting mple first. Paper
presented at the Learning Forum, Grand Rapids, MI.

Sveinunggaard, K. (1993 ). Transformative learning in adulthood: A socio-
contextual perspective. Paper presented at the 35th annual adult education research

conference proceedings, University Park: Pennsylvania State University.

Taylor, E. W. (1997 Fall). Building upon the theoretical debate: a critical review
of the empirical studies of Mezirow's transformative learning theory. Adult Education

Quarterly, 48(1), 34-59.

Taylor, E. W. (20003). Analyzing research on transformative learning theory. In J.

M. Associates (Ed.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theopy in
progpess . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Taylor, K. (2000b). Teaching with developmental intention. In J. M. a.Associates

(Ed.), Learning as transformation: Critical pepspectives on a theopy in practice . San
Francisco: J ossey-Bass.

Taylor, K., Marienau, C., & Fiddler, M. (2000). Developing adult learners:
Strategies for teachers and trainers. San Francisco: J ossey-Bass.

Tennant, M. (1997). Psychology and adult learning. London: Routledge.

204

Tennant, M., & Pogson, P. (1995). Learning and change 1n the adult years. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tennant, M. C. (1993 Fall). Perpective transformation and adult development.
Adult education quarterly, 44(1), 34-42.

Tisdell, E. J. (1993). Feminism and adult learning: power, pedagogy, and praxis.
In S. B. Merriam (Ed.), An Mate on adult learning theog (Vol. 57, ). San Francisco:

J ossey-Bass.

Tisdell, E. J ., & Tolliver, D. E. (2003). The role of spirituality in culturally
relevant and transformative adult education. Adult Learning, 12(3), 13-14.

Tudge, J. (1990). Vygotsky, the zone of proximal development, and peer
collaboration: Implications for classroom practice. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and

education: Instructional implications and epplications of sociohistorieg psychology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

VanderVeer, R., & Valsiner, J. (1991). Understan ‘ V ots : A neat for
sypthesis. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society; The development of higher
psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and langu_age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Walschok, M. L. (1995). Knowledge without boundaries. San Fransico: Jossey-
Bass.

Welton, M. R. (1995). In defense of the lifeworld: Critical perspectives on adult
learning. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of pmtice: Legging, meaning, and identig.
New York: Cambridge.

Wenger, E. (1999). Email conversation on the appropriate methodology for
sociocultural researsh .

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of
practice. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Wertsch, J. (1991). Voices of the mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.

205

Wertsch, J. V. (1990). The voice of rationality in a sociocultural approach to

mind. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsfl in education: Instructional implications of
sociohistorical psychology . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wesorick, B., & Shiparski, L. (1997). Can the human being thrive in the:work
place: Dialogpe as a strategy of hog. Grand Rapids, MI: Practice Field Publishing.

Wheatley, M. (2000). Good-bye, command and control, The J ossey-Bass reader
on educational leadership . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wheatley, M. J. (1992). Leadership and the new science. San Francisco: Berrett-
Koehler.

Wheatley, M. J., & Kellner-Rogers, M. (1996). A simpler way. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler.

Whyte, D. (1996). The heart aroused: poet_ry and the preservation of the soul.
New York: Doubleday.

Wilson, A. (1993). The promise of situated cognition. In S. Merriam (Ed.), Q
update on adult leaming theog (V 01. 75, ). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Wink, J ., & Putney, L. (2002). A vision of Vygotsky. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Zinn, L. M. (1990). Identifying your philosophical orientations. In M. W.
Galbraith (Ed.), Adult Learning Methods . Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company.

206