Evans, Martyn and Shaw, Annie and Na, Jea, eds. (2020)Design revolutions:
IASDR 2019 Conference Proceedings. Volume 1: Change, Voices, Open.
Manchester Metropolitan University. ISBN 978-1-910029-59-6
Downloaded from:
Version: Published Version
Publisher: Manchester Metropolitan University
Please cite the published version
iasdr2019.org
IASDR 2019 CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS | VOLUME
EDITORSProfessor Martyn Evans, Dr Annie Shaw, Dr Jea Hoo Na
IASDR 2019 Conference Proceedings | Volume 1
Edited by Martyn Evans, Annie Shaw, Jea Hoo Na Published by Manchester Metropolitan University
About IASDR
The International Association of Societies of Design Research (IASDR) is an international, nongovernmental, non-profit-making, charitable organisation, and is comprised of member societies of design research from around the world. Established on 01 November 2005, its purpose is to promote research or study into or about the activity of design in all its many fields of application, through encouraging collaboration on an international level between independent societies of design research.
IASDR members include the Chinese Institute of Design (CID), the Design Research Society (DRS), the Design Society (DS), the Japanese Society for the Science of Design (JSSD) and the Korean Society for Design Science (KSDS).
www.iasdr.net
About Manchester School of Art, Manchester Metropolitan University
Manchester School of Art believes an art school is more than just a place.
Based in Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester School of Art was established in 1838 and is the second oldest Art Schools in the UK. As one of the largest providers of art and design, we place importance on experimentation and generating creative surprise. We have a playful yet serious approach to media, materials and processes. We are home to around 3,700 students from all corners of the world who study a range of undergraduate and postgraduate courses taking inspiration from specialist staff, Manchester and each other.
www.art.mmu.ac.uk
Conference Visuals by Benjamin Greenhalgh www.bybg.co.uk
“Manchester School of Art believes an art school is more than just a place.”
i
About the IASDR 2019 Conference
DESIGN REVOLUTIONS
As the cradle of the industrial revolution, Manchester is known for its radical thinking. Through heritage, culture and innovations, it is a city that embraces revolution. As Tony Wilson famously claimed, “This is Manchester, we do things differently here”...
Design Revolutions explored how design drives and responds to revolutionary thinking through questioning the norm, probing the now and embracing the new. For the first time IASDR conference was held in the UK and fostered new thinking towards a compelling, meaningful and radical dialogue regarding the role that design plays in addressing societal and organisational issues.
The biannual conference enables academics, practitioners and students join together to explore contemporary agendas, emerging directions and future challenges that are at the forefront of design research. IASDR 2019 will provide opportunities for the presentation and publication of a collection of high-quality peer reviewed research papers alongside the space to discuss and debate the evolution and revolution of design.
“This is Manchester,
we do things
differently
here.”
Editorial
Martyn Evans, Annie Shaw and Jea Hoo Na
iii
First name Family name Contribution Affiliation
Martyn Evans Chair Manchester Metropolitan University
Annie Shaw Co-Chair Manchester Metropolitan University
Rachel Cooper Co-Chair (Advisory) Lancaster University
James Moultrie Co-Chair (Advisory) University of Cambridge
Steve Gill Co-Chair (Advisory) Cardiff Metropolitan University
Jea H. Na Coordinator Manchester Metropolitan University
First name Family name Contribution Affiliation
Martyn Evans Conference Management Manchester Metropolitan University
Annie Shaw Conference Management Manchester Metropolitan University
Jea H. Na Conference Management Manchester Metropolitan University
Fabrizio Cocchiarella Radical Responses (Curator) Manchester Metropolitan University
Adam Griffiths Radical Responses (Visuals) Manchester Metropolitan University
David Grimshaw Special Collections (Curator) Manchester Metropolitan University
Benjamin Greenhalgh Conference Visuals Manchester Metropolitan University
Janett Adler Student Committee Manchester Metropolitan University
Phoebe Kowalska Student Committee Manchester Metropolitan University
Gemma May Potter Student Committee Manchester Metropolitan University
Sarah Walker Student Committee Manchester Metropolitan University
CONFERENCE ORGANISERS
TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
Chairs, Committee and Reviewers List
CH A N G E
DESIGN CONTINUALLY EVOLVES AS IT RESPONDS TO THE CONTEXT IN WHICH IT OPERATES. IT SPANS BOUNDARIES AND IS SHAPED BY DISRUPTIONS – BE THEY POLITICAL, IDEOLOGICAL OR CONCEPTUAL. WHAT FORMS OF CHANGE SHOULD DESIGN EMBRACE AND WHO ARE THE THOUGHT LEADERS THAT ARE INSTIGATING CHANGE?
WHAT NEW BUSINESS MODELS AND MODES OF OPERATION SHOULD DESIGN SUPPORT? HOW SHOULD DESIGN TRANSITION FROM THE NOW TO THE NEW?
Copyright © 2019. Copyright of this paper is the property of the author(s). Permission is granted to reproduce copies of the works for purposes relevant to the IASDR conference, provided that the author(s), source and copyright notice are included on each copy. For other uses, please contact the author(s).
Manchester School of Art Manchester Metropolitan University 02-05 September 2019 International Association of Societies of
Design Research Conference 2019 DESIGN REVOLUTIONS
Leadership Thinking for Design Discipline. Coaching how to Navigate between Potential DYNAMIC and Power ENERGY
Galli, Francesco*a; Suteu, Irinab
a IULM Università , Milano, Italy
b NABA - Nuova Accademia di Belle Arti, Milano, Italy
* francesco.galli@iulm.it
“Revolution” is defined in two different ways: first as a word used to explain the movement of a celestial body around the orbit and the period made by the regular succession of a measure of time or by a succession of similar events; second as a sudden outbreak in the accepted social norm, a fundamental change in the way of thinking and a change of paradigm1. While the former explanation has extensively been used to mark innovative technological progress, in the next paper we propose a different way of looking as revolutions in design education, not as sudden outbreaks but as cyclical adjustments to the reality of the working environment for which design education prepares the students. While the design market place and working habits changed radically in the last 20 years, the perception of the role of the designer in design schools didn’t adjust accordingly.
The paper is therefore reflecting on the following question: given the uncertainty of the future and the, what is the role that designers are most likely to step-in? Starting from the
assumption that the working space doesn’t have physical boundaries anymore and designers have to re-invent themselves with each job, we speculate on the raising importance of
teaching a leadership attitude in conjunction with practicing design skills from the first years of design training. To support this argument we will stress out how leadership implies projecting the potentiality of taking responsibilities, and preserve the creative energy, in contrast with the deployment of effort and skills intrinsic to the traditional design process.
Keywords: critical thinking, design education, empowerment, leadership, coaching
1 Introduction. From expressing to preserving creativity
Design leadership has been widely recognized as a strategy for the future of “advanced design” (Mozota, 2006), anticipating the role of the designer as an “interpreter” who assumes an advocacy role (Buccolo et al., 2012). Several literatures argue the importance of teaching design leadership as a competency at undergraduate and graduate levels (Baars & Rüedi, 2016) in order to draft and test new coaching strategies that will acknowledge the
emergence a new role for the design professionals. Nevertheless, these concepts are
difficult to be found in the undergraduate design education that still focuses on teaching skills
1 Miriam Webster dictionary
196
without integrating components of leadership training nor challenging the traditional and somehow out dated system of thinking about the role of the designers in the industry.
In this paper we ponder on the potential of introducing the notion of design leadership from the very beginning of the design training. We firstly present the different levels of expertise from novice to master and visionary leader, secondly will report the findings on how a group of design students perceive the meaning of leadership in design and thirdly outlines the differences between “expressing” and “preserving” creativity. The survey was not intended to provide definitive answers but to change the rhetoric based on skills and expertise, and to provoke a discussion on the shifting role of the design professionals. In conclusion we argue that while “expressing creativity” was the norm for design education, the next generation of designers will primarily have to be taught to assume the responsibly to preserve creative resources, first of their own and then of their team of collaborators.
The importance of acknowledging the manifestation of power and authority and acquiring leadership competencies, has been discussed elsewhere by the authors (quote). This paper instead aims at re-adjusting the vision of design revolution widening it to include the concept of preserving potentiality in contrast with expressing creativity. In order to understand the validity of this assumption, and as an attempt to get closer to the younger generation’s way of thinking about design, the authors of this paper have asked a class of 30, 3rd year
students in product design, a set of 10 questions regarding their understanding of design revolutions, the necessity of design leadership and the future role of designers.
As shown by Cross (2003) (2004), design expertise develops gradually in several steps. By crafting a personal set of skills and procedures, acknowledging the responsibilities implied by the leadership role, and understanding design leadership as a capability that develops in time and so requires an initial level of design expertise. Moreover in order to achieve master and visionary capabilities (Dreyfuss, 2003), it is necessary to first re-frame the role of the designers in organizations and look at them not as creative executors but as responsible leaders.
2 Design leadership, from thinking to mind frame.
Drawing from the above literature, the development of expertise is directly related to the level and perfection of the skills through continuous practice. Moreover, the examples brought by Nigel Cross, show accomplished designers that achieved the leading status by perfecting their skills, nevertheless the level of expertise doesn’t necessary relate with the leadership capabilities of experts. While design leadership requires a thorough
understanding of the design process, we argue that the skills necessary to develop and assume a leadership attitude are not necessary related to the level of expertise. In the next chapter we review the design thinking literature, showing how design thinking is grounded in the practice, but in the mean time suggesting that the design leadership mind-set has to be equally integrated in the design practice.
2.1 Thinking grounded in practice.
Design thinking literature, has so far concentrated on designers’ skills and their ability to adapt to the brief practicing their skill and knowledge to generate the most innovative solutions. This perspective concentrates on the professional expertise acquired through practice and has at its core the relation between designers and clients or client organizations in a demand and offer dynamic mediated by the design brief. The working process and
197
design thinking patterns of exceptional designers has been researched by Nigel Cross and focuses mainly on designers and architects leading their own private practices (2003, 2004).
Cross shows how expert designers have the capability to think in terms of the co-evolution of the solution and problem spaces, having the goal of finding matching problem-solution pairs (Dorst & Cross, 2001). Discussing the dynamics of the teamwork Cross distinguishes between three different types of processes: a technical process, a cognitive process and a social process, arguing for their acknowledgement and integration in the overall design thinking process (Cross & Clayburn Cross, 1995). The successful integration of these processes develops in time and as shown by Dorst and Lawson (2009) is part of the evolution of the designers from novice to expert. This underlines the importance of the design thinking in multidisciplinary team-work and the relevance of design thinking framework in other professions (Martin, 2009).
As a reaction to increasing migration of the design thinking concept into other disciplines, Kimbel seeks to re-establish the understanding of the design thinking in the perspective of design practice (Kimbel, 2009). Furthermore, Tonkinwise suggests that the design thinking paradigm grew into an autonomous concept, increasingly dislocated from the design practice by the means of downplaying the importance of aesthetics and style (Tonkinwise, 2011). He argues for the necessity of re-introducing the design practice as an intrinsic component of the design thinking as a way of preventing sterile interpretation of what essentially defines a design skill acquired through hands-on experience.
In the design education, the hands-on experience has always been the starting point for shaping the sensibility and craft of the young designers, nevertheless little attention is usually given to the organizational component of an essentially collaborative discipline such as design. Perhaps one of the most important tacit skills acquired in design schools is the versatility of thought and the capability to connect and investigate a variety of practices from other disciplines. In this perspective the young designers learn to create a relational system that supports their activities. In this sense, the ingredient that misses from the design education is the acknowledgement of one’s personal limits and the recognition and respect of other’s contribution to what essentially is a collaborative work.
2.2 From thinking to mind frame
We suggest that the change of paradigm in the undergraduate design education revolves always around the design practice but encompasses a wider trajectory that integrates the design leadership mind-set. In this sense we relate to Lucy Kimbel’s perspective on design thinking which presents design thinking,
… generated as a way of understanding what is distinctive about what designers do but viewing it as a social accomplishment in which bodies, minds, objects, agency, process, structure and knowledge are all implicated, and linking what designers do with what users do in their practices. (Kimbel, 2009).
This perspective introduces the relational level mentioned before and shifts the focus from the final outcome of the design activity – the design artefact, to the system of relationships that the designers have to envision and lead.
The design leadership mind frame – the capability of perceiving the overall system transforms isolated thinking into an expanded awareness of the self in relation to the
organization and therefore the readiness to act as a guide for the overall organization. In this
198
sense the design expert thinking transforms into an expanded leadership mind frame in which the practical expertise reinforces the leadership capabilities. In this concern, previous literatures have shown how design leaders have to encompass several core responsibilities in order to engage and guide. As such, Muenjohn drafts a conceptual framework that underlines the following core responsibilities of the design leaders:
- envisioning the future - manifesting strategic intent - directing design investment
- creating and nurturing an environment of innovation (Muenjohn, et al., 2013)
2.3 Design leadership in design education
The previous distinction between design thinking as a problem solving methodology and design leadership mind frame as a systemic understanding of the problem solving process, and its impact in the organizational context can be better understood when mapped on the skill levels and mental functions at the different levels of expertise (Fig.1).
fig. 1 The expertise levels modified from (Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1980) to include the 6th, visionary level.
Looking into detail at each category of mental functions and tasks helps envisioning the dimensions in which the coaching for mastery in design leadership can evolve.
With respect to the recollection of situations at the expert level in which "the expert has learned to distinguish those situations requiring one reaction from those demanding another"
(Dreyfus, 2004, pg. 180), at the master level it is the observation of the situation at hand that provides the cues for orientation. In other words the master's mind-set is not projected solely on the past experiences but remains alert to the present and incoming stimuli. This enables him/her to recognize the specificity of the new circumstances in a holistic perspective and activate almost instantly the decision and action. The speed of reaction with which the master activates his/her perceptive resources coordinating them with the decision process requires an inward attention towards the emotional signals that guide intuitive action. This underlines the state of absorbed awareness concentrated on self-consciousness. Figure 1
199
shows how bringing the levels of expertise in the context of the design environment, the professional expert, that before was confined to his/her skills and ecosystem of the own studio, gains a strategic leadership role for an extended community of practice. In this context, coaching adaptive behaviour and an increased awareness, which mutates from individual skills to attain the visionary mind frame described above.
3 Introducing a leadership mind-set to undergraduate students.
As shown in the previous part, to achieve an expanded, visionary level it is necessary to project the design perception in a systemic perspective. In the next chapter we advance the hypothesis that young design students can benefit by being exposed to the possibility of envisioning their role in an organization at an early stage in their design education. This can give them a better grasp not only on the skills that they have to acquire in order to become design professionals but also on the different responsibilities that they should assume from the beginning of their professional career.
The observation on the different capabilities of the young students comes also from the senior teaching experience of the authors. Although all design schools ask students to fill in a survey regarding their aspirations after graduation, teachers are the first ones to sense the potentialities on their students, which go beyond the acquired skills. Moreover, while the young generation of designers is expected to challenge the norm and eventually change the out-dated practices, it is the role of the educators to prepare them for actually being able to do it.
In the following sections we will describe the results from an open answer survey which asked students the role of the designer in the society, the understanding of the concept of design revolution and the meaning of leadership in design. The questionnaire was intended to stir a discussion on themes not necessary related to the project brief and inquire the understanding of the concept of leadership in design.
3.1 “Design revolution” in conversation with future designers.
In his recent book “Beyond the infinity. The story of potentiality from sacred to technique”2 Mauro Magatti wrote:
“During time, the process was pushed so far as to make the “what is made” more and more irrelevant (and even more why), to the whole advantage of the very act of being made (and with the prevalence of how). From this point of view, the efficiency is the fundamental criteria that legitimizes the technical potential: that what is efficient, or what is being made,
overcoming the value of the reality proof, in the framework of the technical world that man himself built, is powerful.”(Magatti, 2018, p.170).
This paragraph synthetizes well the emphasis put on the process with respect to the
meaning of the design artefacts. This is a trend we witness in particular in the product design, where the advances of digital technology drain the significance of the actual outcome. The questions asked to the students, which we will present below, were aimed at contextualizing the process of designing in a larger frame, in an attempt to induce a critical view on the purpose of expressing the creativity.
The questions was divided in 3 types:
2 Original title in Italian: “Oltre l’infinito . Storia della potenza dal sacro alla tecnica”
200
1. Questions regarding the relevance of the design discipline in the social context:
a. In what ways can design contribute to world’s most pressing issues?
b. How can design be part of the solution and not the problem?
2. Questions concerning the meaning of “design revolution”.
a. What is a design revolution?
b. What is the difference between “trendy” and “revolutionary?
3. Questions related to the role of the designer and the relevance of design leadership.
a. Name a revolutionary designer.
b. A designer should be: 1. a skilled professional; 2. a creative artist; 3. a good manager;
4. a good leader. Indicate the order of importance.
The answers revealed several important aspects that shown in the first category of questions the assumption that design provides solutions to incoming environmental problems, the majority of students focused on how to “fix” the environmental issues by improving products and services, or presented the design discipline as a “tool”. In the second category, the “design revolution” was mostly seen as referring to the way in which the design practice was changed by the incoming technological advances, somehow self- referenced and detached from the overall socio-historical context. Nevertheless the
“revolution” was perceived as a long-term drastic change. In the third category the majority of students placed creativity as the most important characteristic of the good designer, while the leadership capabilities were not regarded as some of the most relevant.
3.2 Activating the awareness about the importance of teaching design leadership Although the questionnaire presented above was just an attempt to test the understanding of the leadership in design it is important to stress out the necessity to improve the awareness about the social impact that design has in all the facets of everyday life. For this reason we argue that in order to activate the learning about leadership it is necessary to remember the importance of imagination in blending the hands-on skills with the knowledge and expertise of the design professionals. Rather than delineating designers' “place” it is more important to focus on the role of the design leaders and understand empowerment as an important responsibility. This process of empowerment is necessary in order to acknowledge the changing reality of the market place and prepare the new generation of designers to face its challenges. In this sense the actual task of the designers from a leadership perspective is to guide from within the organization with an experiential learning approach (Kolb & Kolb, 2005) (Kolb, 2014). The most important contribution of the design leaders it is to push the
boundaries of the limited perspectives with the use of imagination, continuously enlarging the domain of vision, action and possible achievements.
201
Fig.2 Experiential Learning Model (Kolb, 1976)
The ultimate goal is not to find solutions to incoming problems, but to revert the perspectives transforming the obstacles in opportunities for change, or introduce new problems with the objective to frame the context of change. We argue that, the experiential learning model (EL) proposed by Kolb (fig. 2) is a valid coaching methodology that can integrate design thinking and practice into the design leadership mind frame, in particular because its cyclical
integration of concrete experience in the abstract conceptualization required by a strategic leadership. In this sense design “penetrates” into the everyday life, it also has the potential power to induce disruption “ CHANGE “ in a mainstream behaviour of unquestioned acceptance, favouring an attitude of readiness and openness towards the unknown.
3.2 Conclusion. Shifting from “efficient” to “dynamic” energy in design.
Rather then stressing the understanding of the “design revolution” in terms of a breakthrough, we suggested in this paper that the design education can benefit from shifting the focus on expressing creativity through efficient artefacts to teaching the young generation how to preserve resources and adopt a leadership attitude.
We argued that this type of “revolution” can have a deeper and longer term impact on the design education helping to adjust the expectations of the students to the reality of the continuously changing work environment. In this respect we conclude by stressing out how the “efficiency” contradicts “dynamic” or the possible change, for as Magatti explains,
“…being efficient ,means aligning oneself to a collective imaginary of potentiality subtended to the idea of growth: we are too many, the resources are limited and the demand infinite;
nevertheless we are morally expected not only to efficiently use the resources but also to be efficient in order to avoid being a nuisance to the well functioning of the overall system.”
(Magatti, 2018, p.171)
The question remains if the new generation of designers will be able to challenge the efficiency and maintain the energy of the possible change?
References
Agamben,G. (1999). Potentialities: Collected Essays in Philosophy, edited and translated with an introduction by Daniel Heller-Roazen Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Baars, J-E & Ruedli, S. (2016). A Competency Framework for Bachelor and Beyond. Proceedings of the 20th DMI: Academic Design Management Conference. Boston 20-30 July 2016.
202
Bass, B. M., & Stogdill, R. M. (1990). Handbook of leadership.
Bennis, W. G. (1989). Managing the dream: Leadership in the 21st century. Journal of organizational change management, 2(1), 6-10.
Bonsiepe, G., & Cullars, J. (1995). The Invisible Facets of the hfg ulm. Design Issues, 11(2), 11-20.
Borja De Mozota, B. (2003). Design management. New York.
Bucolo, S. (2015). Mentors, catalysts and provocateurs. The changing role for designers in the shift to design integrated business. In Anderson, L.; Ashton,P.; Colley, L.. Creative business in
Australia.
Bucolo, S., & Matthews, J. H. (2011). Design led innovation: Exploring the synthesis of needs, technologies and business models. In Proceedings of Participatory Interaction Conference 2011.
Christiaans, H. H. (2002). Creativity as a design criterion. Communication Research Journal, 14(1), 41-54.
Cooper, R., & Press, M. (1995). The design agenda: a guide to successful design management. John Wiley and Sons.
Cooksey, R. W. (2003). “Learnership” in complex organisational textures. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(4), 204-214.
Cross, N. (2003). The expertise of exceptional designers. Expertise in Design, Creativity and Cognition Press, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia, 23-35.
Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: an overview. Design studies, 25(5), 427-441.
Daly, A. J., & Chrispeels, J. (2008). A question of trust: Predictive conditions for adaptive and technical leadership in educational contexts. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 7(1), 30-63.
Dorst, K., & Reymen, I. M. M. J. (2004). Levels of expertise in design education. In DS 33:
Proceedings of E&PDE 2004, the 7th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, Delft, the Netherlands, 02.-03.09. 2004.
Dreyfus, S. E., & Dreyfus, H. L. (1980). A five-stage model of the mental activities involved in directed skill acquisition (No. ORC-80-2). California Univ Berkeley Operations Research Center.
Dreyfus, H. L. (2005). Overcoming the myth of the mental: how philosophers can profit from the phenomenology of everyday expertise. In Proceedings and addresses of the American Philosophical Association (Vol. 79, No. 2, pp. 47-65). American Philosophical Association.
Farr, M. (2011). Design management: Why is it needed now. The handbook of design management, 47-52.
Gloppen, J. (2009). Perspectives on design leadership and design thinking and how they relate to European service industries. Design Management Journal, 4(1), 33-47.
Galli, F., & Suteu, I. (2013). Design thinking as a disruptive discourse embracing conflict as a creative factor. In Design Management Symposium (TIDMS), 2013 IEEE Tsinghua International (pp.
142-146). IEEE.
Galli, F. & Suteu, I. (2015). Design as power. An exploration into the dark side of design. Proceedings of the 11th European Academy of Design Conference (EAD11), Paris.
Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Publishing.
Fathers, J. (2003). Peripheral vision: An interview with Gui Bonsiepe charting a lifetime of commitment to design empowerment. Design Issues, 19(4), 44-56.
Kimbell, L., & Street, P. E. (2009). Beyond design thinking: Design-as-practice and designs-in- practice. In CRESC Conference, Manchester.
Kolb, Alice Y., and David A. Kolb (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of management learning & education 4, no. 2,193-212.
Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. FT press.
Kruss, G., Wildschut, A., van Rensburg, D. J., Visser, M., Haupt, G., & Roodt, J. (2012). Developing skills and capabilities through the learnership and apprenticeship pathway systems. Client report commissioned by the Department of Labour project–An impact assessment of the National Skills Development Strategy II. Cape Town. Human Sciences Research Council.
Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2013). Design expertise. Routledge.
Linsky, M., & Lawrence, J. (2011). Adaptive challenges for school leadership. Leading and Managing Schools, 1.
Muenjohn, N., Chhetri, P., Hoare, L., As-Saber, S., & Suzumura, Y. (2013). Design leadership: a conceptual framework of leadership, design and team performance. International Proceedings of Economics Development and Research, 60, 157.
203
Norman, D. (2010).The research-Practice Gap: The need for translational developers. Interactions, August 2010,
Magatti, M. (2018) Oltre L’ infinito. Storia della Potenza del sacro alla tecnica, Feltrinelli Editore Milano
Papanek, V., & Fuller, R. B. (1972). Design for the real world. London: Thames and Hudson.
9-12.
Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Harvard Business Press.
Polanyi, M. (1983). The tacit dimension. 1966. Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith.
Schumpeter, J. (1942). Creative destruction. Capitalism, socialism and democracy.
Tonkinwise, C. (2011). A taste for practices: Unrepressing style in design thinking. Design Studies, 32(6), 533-545.
Wrigley, C., & Bucolo, S. (2012). New organisational leadership capabilities: transitional engineer the new designer?. In Leading Innovation through Design: Proceedings of the DMI 2012
International Research Conference (pp. 913-922). DMI.
Zaleznik, A. (2004). Managers and leaders. Harvard Business Review, 1.
About the Authors:
Francesco Galli, PhD at Politecnico Milano.
Professor in Leadership Design at IULM University Milan.
Research at the divergence between leadership, design and power play.
Department of Business, Law, Economics and Consumer Behaviour;
Faculty of Communication; Rector’s delegate for Internationalisation
Irina Suteu, PhD is senior lecturer in interaction design at NABA in Milan, Italy. Since 2019 she is a member in the board of directors of Non Riservato network of cultural association based in Milan, Italy.
204
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIETIES OF DESIGN RESEARCH
MANCHESTER, UK 02-05 SEPTEMBER 2019
01 CHANGE 02 LEARNING 03 LIVING 04 MAKING 05 PEOPLE
06 TECHNOLOGY 07 THINKING 08 VALUE 09 VOICES 10 OPEN
