Intergenerational Appreciative Inquiry in Conversation and in Action

Written By Jacqueline Wong | May 2015

Edited By Marge Schiller, Matthew Moehle, Peter Whitehouse

Towards a Model for Engaged Governance: Citizen Conversations for a Participatory Democracy

I wish to dedicate this Feature Choice article to Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the founding father of Singapore who built a nation where there was none. Singapore woke to the news of his passing on 23 March 2015, coincidentally the morning this article was completed. Mr Lee Hsien Loong, current PM of Singapore, shared in a national address that morning that Mr Lee Kuan Yew ‘gave of himself in full measure to Singapore. Even as we mourn his passing, let us also remember his spirit to keep Singapore exceptional.’ Thank you for showing us that with dedication and hard work, we can create miracles for ourselves and our future generations.

As Singapore turned 50, the country’s leaders sought a new narrative, one based on the positive core of Hope, Heart and Home. This article is a review of the Our Singapore Conversation (OSC), citizen engagement process that Singapore embarked on spanning over a year from 2012 to 2013. On 9 August 2015, Singapore will celebrate its Golden Jubilee. What lessons can we draw from this large-scale change process that might be useful for our future? During a two-hour National Day Rally on 26 August 2012, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong asked of millions of Singaporeans “What is the next chapter of the Singapore story? In our shared future, the world may be completely different, but our drive to keep the Singapore story vital and fresh for all of us must never falter.”

In one of his most impassioned speeches, PM Lee called on everyone to look beyond present woes in transport or housing, saying that these would be fixed in time. He then called for all to participate in a national conversation led by Education Minister Heng Swee Keat, to contribute ideas and to work together to create a better Singapore.

It was against this backdrop that the OSC was conceived. It was the largest ground-up citizen-dialogue ever held in the history of the nation, with the purpose of engaging citizens from all walks of life in an envisioning process. The composition of the 26-member OSC Committee included seven political office holders, a taxi driver, a polytechnic student, an artist and a television host. The process spanned over a year, involving 660 dialogues, 47,000 who met in face-to-face facilitated meetings and 4000 more engaged online. The OSC took place in 82 different locations and used seven languages. It added up to approximately 1645 hours of in-person sessions and deployed over 120 volunteer facilitators. (Source: OSC Refections).

In retrospect, it was one that stretched beyond the comfort zones of both the government and citizens. The OSC was greeted with substantial skepticism when it began. “Messy”, “organic”, “another talk shop” or “how is this different from previous engagement exercises?” were some of the comments we heard from an increasingly vocal and critical citizenry. They drew comparisons of the OSC with other large-scale visioning exercises Singapore had embarked on in the past, where more formal and structured engagement methods were used. The organisers really wanted this to be different.

Rather than a detailed process plan, the OSC was conducted with a high degree of improvisation, flexibility and engaged emergence (Holman, 2010). It was an exercise that focused on the process of coming together, supported by a collective will to engage in an open and honest refection about our past, present and future.

As a social constructionist and a strengths-based change practitioner, I was interested in learning about the key ingredients that breathed life into the Singapore Conversation. Beyond the policy outcomes, what were some of the intangible takeaways we had gained from the exercise? What must we attend to so that we could maximize the value of such engagements? What sustaining infrastructures can we put in place to ensure this deeper way of connecting citizens to one another carries on?

I was involved as a process consultant and a volunteer facilitator for the OSC. In this article, I will share my refections on the key factors that supported the OSC, the fruits of the process, and offer a blueprint for developing a sustainable effort in citizenry engagement.

What factors breathed life into the Singapore Conversation?

Compelling questions What kind of Singapore do we want for our children and ourselves in the future? What positive attributes and aspects of our national identity must we preserve? What do we need to change or let go of? What is our own role as citizens in creating the future we want? What is at stake?

  1. Openness and leaning into emergence

For this conversation, we felt that it was important at the start to leave things as open as possible so that we can see what are the issues that Singaporeans feel and care for. We would like Singaporeans to not only chat with us but with each other. And to hear what others feel about concerns that matter to them. This process will take the better part of half a year to a year. In fact, I hope that the platform can take on a life of its own and continue as a place where Singaporeans converse with each other. — Tan Chuan-Jin, OSC Committee Member and Minister of Manpower

Compared to previous national-level public engagement exercises, the OSC reached out to larger and more diverse group of Singaporeans. It gave birth to a new pathway for citizen participation and most importantly, it brought diverse people together in constructive and creative ways. Compared to the previous sessions that tended to be more hierarchical, structured and problem-solving oriented, it was more organic in quality, and emphasized more citizen-to-citizen engagement. The questions asked in the OSC were also markedly future-oriented, versus past-oriented or downloading (Scharmer and Kaufer, 2013), and more “we” versus “me” in focus.

Great pains were taken by the facilitators to ensure that the sessions were open and reflective, and the office holders made a deliberate effort to suspend conclusions and prescriptions. Instead, they took the time to listen, were open to feedback, immersed themselves in these sessions as equals and were candid with sharing their perspectives and concerns. The news of the quality of the initial sessions spread through the informal networks and social media as participants started sharing what they experienced and encouraged more Singaporeans to join in. It drew a life of its own and had a knock-on effect as many communities and community organisers, such as the labour movement and other social sector organisations also initiated their own version of OSC to engage their constituents.

As Kenneth Paul Tan from the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy wrote in a postOSC refection, “The context of a more diverse and critical citizenry and an active social media environment raised the bar for OSC, since its efforts had to pass the scrutiny of skeptical public.” While some said that it was a protracted effort by the government to repair the social compact between the citizen and the elected government which has become strained over the years due to increasing economic and social divides, it was evident that the OSC also precipitated a rich and fertile ground for constructive political evolution.

Chaordic principles

Holman (2010) ofers as a working defnition of emergence that it is simply a process of “order arising out of chaos”. The word “emergency”, the cousin of the word “emergence”, refers to a negative disruption. In a neutral sense, the disruption could be a planned or unexpected catalyst that causes the entities of a system to interact or coalesce in unexpected ways. What results is that a new pattern of coherence appears that is more sophisticated in its ability to deal with the increased complexity. Emergence in human systems has produced new technologies, new organisations and nations; it also creates a new level of consciousness or sometimes the capacity for self-refection.

This framework came from the work of Dee Hock, founder of Visa, the credit card company, and author of The Birth of the Chaordic Age (1999), where he shared a groundbreaking story of how Visa was created following the principles of emergence in living systems. He was the fIrst to use the term “chaordic” to represent a new capacity for leadership that treads the “sweet spot” between that which is chaotic, complex and unpredictable and that which is ordered, systematic or predictable.

The path between the two is also the birthplace of collective learning, collaboration, creativity and innovation. Leaders today see the need to tap into the collective intelligence and collective wisdom that is latent in people, but this convening of diverse people can at times be a “messy” process, until we reach a new level of understanding and insight. There is substantial relearning required on both the part of the government and the citizens. Part of the work we need to do is to enable leaders to be comfortable with “embracing the mess”, and to realise that they need to harmonize “left brain”, mechanistic approaches with “right brain”, relational understanding, to take on new roles of leading, and to function more as a coach and facilitator, rather than as a technocrat or solution-provider.

Similarly, organisational complexity expert and author, Margaret Wheatley, in numerous writings, challenged management and leaders to rethink an outdated paradigm that viewed organisations and human systems as machines. She espoused a vision in which organisations (nations and communities included) are adaptive, flexible, self-renewing, resilient, learning and intelligent — all of which are features found only in living systems. In her book, Finding Our Way: Leadership for an Uncertain Time, she laid out four core principles for change to truly happen:

  1. Participation is not a choice — we must invite people to rethink, redesign and restructure the organisation (add: nation and community).
  2. Life always reacts to directives, but it never obeys them. Therefore, we must expect reactions as varied as the individuals who hear the directives.
  3. We do not see reality; rather, we each create our own interpretation of what is real. The paradox of this assertion is that we do not have to agree on something or hold identical values, but if we come together and listen to different perspectives we become open to new ways of thinking. 4. In order to create better health in a living system, we need to connect it to more of itself. In other words, solutions are actually found within a system, if more and better connections are created (Wheatley, 2007).

If we appreciate that communities are living systems and are meant to connect in diverse, creative and unpredictable ways, we will understand the need for open dialogue, refection and deliberation. While risky, this is also the place where common ground needs to be forged and the highest potential for new solutions lies. Rather than prediction and control, the work is guided by emphasizing a higher common purpose, collective meaning-making, refection, inquiry, transformation and co-evolution. The symbiotic processes of mutual learning and trust-building reinforce one another. Just as inquiry and change are simultaneous, engagement is a two-way process, and creates spontaneous learning and change. The community will become more fragmented and divided along diverse interests unless we are committed to evolving new pathways together, not just between the government and citizens, but also amongst ourselves as citizens.

In many ways, the OSC’s development mirrored the characteristics of a “chaordic” process and embodied the four principles that Wheatley wrote about. While many reported that they still held differing views at the end of the session, they also experienced an expanded appreciation that included the perspectives of others. The effort taken by the leaders to ensure that it was truly an open, egalitarian effort by Singaporeans for Singaporeans, gave room for people to step up, learn and experience new ways of talking and listening. This is one of the most important takeaways of the process.

2. Inclusiveness and iterative learning

OSC taught me valuable lessons on courage. Our approach of proto-typing — “fail fast, learn faster” — gave us confdence to adapt new approaches not tried before in national-level engagements. Our partnership with volunteer facilitators, and community groups, also helped many of us in the organising team, to keep the process open (even if messy), authentic, and inclusive. Melissa Khoo, Director, OSC Secretariat

Following the above, we can draw lessons from the intentions and principles that supported the design of the OSC. Although these were never explicitly stated, they were shared amongst the core design team and process advisers, and provided a structure and foundation to ensure consistency in all the citizen conversations.

  • Create an authentic safe and open space for people to voice their perspectives.
  • Weave an inclusive process that will enable people from all walks of life to take part in the deliberation and co-articulation of what they care most about creating.
  • Make the process and language simple and accessible to people from all walks of life (no process or management jargon).
  • Honour the best of the past, present and future.
  • Leave people with a feeling of hope, optimism and possibilities.
  • Capture and harvest ideas and inputs in a way that honours all who turned up and channel them to the respective ministries for consideration.

Iterative prototyping

The design of the OSC was an iterative process. Several prototypes of the initial process were created and tested with smaller groups of internal participants. The process was further refined and the first open dialogue was held in October, 2012.

Most of the sessions made use of the “cover story” approach, where we had people creating headlines for the future of what they wanted to see transformed in their vision of the ideal. Circle conversations became the most frequently used process for the closing and gave an empowering sense of one-ness to all who turned up.

A typical session outline would follow a structure as follows:

The principles for whole-system, large-scale change provided a starting point, and we tapped on a blend of participatory processes such as Open Space, World Café, Appreciative Inquiry, Future Search, Art of Hosting and Scenario Planning in the design.

3. Leaders as hosts and facilitators

The reason is the focus has always been on the final product. The OSC, on the other hand, is a process. At the end I am really less concerned with the final product. The process of this engagement is getting people to learn that “I can talk!”, and people are listening and realising that “he is saying something different although we are Singaporeans.” Prakash Nair, OSC Facilitator

Another key element that made a diference to the process was the way the leaders showed up in these sessions. The OSC Secretariat, led by Minister of Education, Heng Swee Keat, would have a representative of at least ministerial level to participate in every session, so that citizens’ views were heard and listened to in person by a senior office holder. The committee leader would play the role of host and convener, rather than the conventional authority figure or spokesperson.

The team of process facilitators also played a pivotal role in the process. They were empowered to ensure all views were treated equally. A total of 120 volunteer facilitators and 80 note-takers were mobilized from the International Association of Facilitators (IAF) to support the entire effort. The facilitators operated with the guidelines given above and they were empowered to improvise with the process, with the end goal that there was a safe and hospitable space, and all voices were heard. The scribe’s role was to ensure that the perspectives were well summarized and captured.

Several graphic recorders were also engaged to create a visual capture of the sessions as they were progressing. While these 200 volunteers came from all sectors and organisations, they were united and energized by a common purpose — to help uplift citizen voices so as to co-evolve a shared vision for the nation. Many participants reported that their initial sense of fear or alienation melted away because the facilitators were warm, welcoming and open to their perspectives.

4. The process as outcome

The OSC process was, to me, an important outcome in and of itself. It aimed to reach out to as many Singaporeans as possible, from all walks of life, and to create space for them to understand each other’s perspectives and aspirations. Our volunteer facilitators played a key role in holding the conversation space that brought Singaporeans together, to envision our shared future. In my view, they exemplifed the very spirit of authenticity, generosity and mutual understanding, that helped create quality conversations and strengthen trust amongst fellow Singaporeans. — Heng Swee Keat, Chairman, OSC Committee, and Minister of Education

Finding the Commons Across Generations and Diverse Perspectives

The OSC brought people closer to one another and affirmed the strong alignment for things that Singaporeans valued. Mr Heng Swee Keat, in his post-OSC Refections, shared that not everyone had been comfortable with the OSC’s diversity at first. He recounted that at the first public dialogue, a 15-year-old student asked him if he could change his conversation group. He said, “I want to be in a group with younger people.” Mr Heng asked the student to stay in his group because the whole point was to talk to people with different perspectives. After the conversation, the student thanked him, because the elderly members in his group had helped him see things in ways that he had never considered before.


Singaporeans desire opportunities to make a good living and pursue their aspirations. Amidst global uncertainties, we will need a strong, competitive economy and workforce to support businesses that provide good jobs. We want to build a society where all Singaporeans have chances to realise their potential, regardless of their family background.


Singaporeans want to live purposefully — as individuals, as members of our communities, and as Singaporeans. We want to live in a community that celebrates achievements beyond the economic. We want to look to the things that link and bind us — our national heritage, shared memories and communal spaces. We want to create a better Singapore for future generations — together.


Singaporeans want assurance that basic needs such as housing, healthcare, and public transport are affordable and within their reach. We all contribute differently, but we hope to share in the nation’s progress. We strive to live with dignity and to do our best to provide for our families and prepare for a rainy day. But we also hope for adequate support to buffer shocks and weather life’s uncertainties — for example, when our loved ones fall ill or when we lose our jobs.


Singaporeans want a society anchored in our common values, as these values help define us. The OSC process has enabled us, as a society, to develop a deeper understanding of the challenges that our fellow Singaporeans face and how best we can extend a helping hand to the less advantaged among us. We respect the elderly, the disabled, those with special needs, ex-offenders and others who may be at the margins of society. We aspire to a strong “kampong spirit”, and we want to strengthen our sense of togetherness and build a compassionate society.


Singaporeans want to contribute towards building our common future. This requires deepening trust among Singaporeans and between the government and citizens. We value open and sincere engagement, and believe civic-minded Singaporeans should be welcomed to engage meaningfully with policy makers and with one another. The OSC process has also helped foster understanding of the interests and cares of different groups of Singaporeans, and an appreciation of the importance of compromise and give-and-take. — Source: Refections of Our Singapore Conversation, Reach Singapore

The last core theme of trust underscored the desire expressed by citizens for greater involvement in policies that impact them. The OSC helped sensitise the government to the sentiments of the people and provided insights that would shape policy directions subsequently. It also sensitised citizens to competing aspirations and why there were no easy answers.

For example, as reported in the Refections publication, “affordability means different things to different people. What are basic needs to some, could be discretionary wants for others. We desire broader definitions of success, but hold different views of what this means in terms of our life choices in education, work and beyond. We want to extend a helping hand to those in need, but have different views about how to do this in a way that respects each Singaporean’s dignity. Traditional family values are still important to Singaporeans, but some among us also wish to respect those who pursue alternative lifestyles”. (Refections, 2013)

The most important outcome was a deepened experience of community amongst Singaporeans and renewed the sense of trust for the government’s genuine interest in citizens’ perspectives.

A proposed model of engaged governance — nurturing skills, awareness and capacities for citizenry involvement

Singapore, like many other global cities, faces challenges that are dynamically, socially and generatively complex (Kahane, 2004). To solve complex problems, merely having the right answers is not sufficient. It is only through the coming together of diverse people to talk and listen differently that we can forge a deeper level of shared understanding.

This will require a long-term and ongoing investment in a concerted effort dedicated to cultivating reflective and deliberative capacity in both citizens and government. Tom Atlee, in his book Empowering Public Wisdom — A Practical Vision of Citizen-Led Politics, offered a definition for deliberation as “a thorough, thoughtful consideration of how to best address an issue or situation, covering a wide range of information, perspectives, and potential consequences of diverse approaches” (Atlee, 2012).

Therefore, leaders need to sharpen their skills for convening, designing and facilitating meetings as social architects. Citizens, on their part, need to be willing to step up their commitment to contribute to the co-creation of constructive viable solutions, rather than merely providing feedback as passive consumers or backbench critiques hiding behind the facade of an artificial persona on social media. In addition to policy outcomes, the process of engagement will help to sharpen our collective capacity for deeper listening, inquiry and advocacy.

Having experienced the OSC, I believe we can scale up what has been learned through the process and take it a step further. Beyond dialogues, we can experiment with ways to convene citizen-led design teams, committees or councils whose responsibility will include the brainstorming, designing and proto-typing of innovative ground-up solutions, supported by the inputs of policy makers and other domain experts.

The model of engaged governance I am proposing here is one whereby citizens are co-learners and collaborators, engaging in a thoughtful, respectful, creative process of conversation, with the aim of finding new and better pathways to complex, shared challenges.

Using the key success loops method (Kim, 2001), we can create theories of success to map out how an effort for growing an initiative can become self-sustaining. The following is an example of a reinforcing cycle for citizenry engagement efforts. The arrows in causal loop diagrams imply causality. When listened to citizens’ level of trust in the government’s engagement efforts increases, and this in turn encourages them to be more open in contributing their ideas, expertise and suggestions for deliberation. As citizens take part in the process, their appreciation and understanding of policy dilemmas will naturally increase, and this in turn bridges the understanding between government and their constituents, and further encourages leaders to continue listening. The end goal is the capacity to harness collective wisdom for a constructive and empowering democratic process.

Developing a sustainable effort in citizen engagement

The following is a framework taken from the field of organisational learning (Senge et. al.) called the “architecture and essence of a learning organisation”. Using this as a learning lens, we can create a working blueprint for embedding transformational change in our citizenry engagement efforts. In order for the change to last, we will need to invest in both the architecture and the essence of change.

The architecture

The triangle in the framework refers to the architecture. At the architecture level, we will be looking at overt and visible ways to sustain efforts for citizen engagement, hence it is referred to as the “domain of action”. Most policies and changes at the macro level will involve the articulation of overarching guiding idea, in the sense of its purpose and vision; the innovations of infrastructures may include the creation of committees, subcommittees, departments, secretariats and think-tanks to promote and support the efforts; and theories, methods and tools are the know-how, technology and philosophical disciplines that provide a consistent way for translating the vision into reality.

Applying the framework for our purpose, the guiding idea will be the notion of “engaged citizens who are co-owners and collaborators in the nation-building process”. Innovations in infrastructures will include the formation of the OSC Committee and OSC Secretariat for the OSC process. The idea of citizen deliberative councils suggested by Tom Atlee (2012), and the citizen design teams concept suggested in the earlier section this paper are also examples of innovations in infrastructures. They include investments in platforms, programmes and processes to ensure that there is a formalization and translation of the guiding ideas into the real world.

The theories, methods and tools for citizen engagement can be drawn from many large-scale change methodologies such as Appreciative Inquiry, World Café, Open Space, Future Search, Scenario Planning, Art of Hosting, Theory-U, Social Labs, Design Thinking and other innovative multi-stakeholder engagement methodologies. The theory undergirding most of these processes includes the principles of living systems and emergence covered in the earlier section of this article.

The essence

The circle, in contrast, refers to the more subtle process of internalization that happens when an individual experiences a deep change as he or she embarks on the journey. This change will usually begin with the acquisition of new skills and capabilities. These new skills and capabilities will in turn open up new levels of awareness and sensibilities and cause a shift in world views (attitudes and beliefs). For example, as the participants reported in the OSC, they discovered that as they engaged with others, they found others who felt the same way as they did, even though they came from different walks of life. They developed a new level of understanding or empathy that in turn gave them “new eyes” that shaped or expanded their perception of reality.

If all we focus on is the architecture without attending to the essence, the change will fail to touch individuals and remain “out there”. On the other hand, developing engagement efforts in the circle, without connecting it to the larger context, will create pockets of expertise or individual competence that are simply not relevant to the larger context and purpose.

The essence is also referred to as the domain of enduring change. It tends to be less visible and concrete than the architecture, which explains why it is often overlooked. However, it needs to be activated if the change is to last.

Above is an illustration of the essence of the citizen-dialogue process, and how the new skills and capabilities will help to bring new levels of awareness and sensibilities, giving rise to new attitudes and beliefs amongst citizens.

Thus, it will take much more than the year-long effort of the OSC and the coming together of citizens to make a lasting difference. These engagement processes must lead to a deepening of the country’s capacity for collective refection and enable us to engage with one another when dealing with increasingly complex challenges. Our future depends on our ability to forge a more robust government–citizen relationship and strengthen the “container” for us to thrive and flourish for the next 50 years. The OSC has been an important step in the right direction, but it is only the beginning.

Living in the future

In the practice of AI, we speak about the discovery of the “positive core” that resonates with the best of the past, best of the present and best of the future (Cooperrider and Whitney 2003). Because human systems grow in the direction of the questions they most frequently ask themselves, the act of engaging people in a collective inquiry to clarify and affirm what matters most to them creates a powerful force and energy for change. In this case, it was a collective inquiry into the true meaning of hope, heart and home for Singaporeans.

Singapore’s development and success over the past five decades has been built upon a strong foundation of trust and social compact between the government and citizens. The OSC has affirmed the importance of this relationship. By and large, Singaporeans want a government which thinks for the greater, long-term good of the nation rather than settling for popular policies that deliver short-term results but jeopardize the wellbeing of future generations. However, they also want to have a government which cares enough to listen, understands their concerns and hopes, and leaders who believe in the value and necessity of involving citizens in co-creating a better future for all.

The OSC Singapore which has been embarked on gives us hope that a constructive process is possible at a national level, even when there are diverse interests and concerns. This mutual understanding is forged through a learning process and must be built over time. As Margaret Wheatley described in the epilogue of her book, Leadership and the New Science, “we can turn to one another as our best hope for inventing and discovering the worlds we are seeking.”

In conclusion, I will share a quote by Aaron Maniam, a good friend and colleague who was instrumental in the design of the OSC process from its inception. He captured the spirit of the OSC process and how it was very much about living as if the future is already here:

The most memorable part of OSC for me was to participate, however tentatively, in actively creating in Singapore’s future. Not analysing, forecasting or predicting it with my head; but being in it, actively and with my entire self. This applied to both the public conversation sessions, where I had the privilege to meet citizens who cared deeply about different facets of Singaporean life; as well as our facilitators’ design sessions, where we “lived out” a collaborative, multi-sector future in how we co-created and co-crafted how each session might look and feel. Over many afternoons and evenings, we ended up improvising, riffng of one another, disagreeing in the most generative ways, learning from one another and — most of all — having huge amounts of fun. — Aaron Maniam, Civil Service leader involved in the design of the OSC Process


Atlee, T. (2012) Empowering Public Wisdom — A Practical Vision of Citizen-Led Politics. Evolver Edition, North Atlantic Books.

Bessette J. M. (1980) Deliberative Democracy: The Majority Principle in Republican Government in Goldwin R.A- Schambra W.A. (Eds.), How Democratic is the Constitution? Washington and London: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

Bessette J. M. (1994) The Mild Voice of Reason: Deliberative Democracy and American National Government. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Cooperrider, D. and Whitney, D. (2003) Appreciative Inquiry: The Positive Revolution in Change. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Hock, D. (1999) The Birth of the Chaordic Age. San Francisco: BerrettKoehler.

Holman, P. (2010) Engaging Emergence — Turning Upheaval into Opportunity. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Kahane, A. (2004) Solving Tough Problems: An Open Way of Talking, Listening and Creating New Realities. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Kim, D. H. (2001) What is your Organization’s Core Theory of Success? Organizing for Learning: Strategies for Knowledge Creation and Enduring Change. Pegasus Communications, Inc., p. 69.

Reach Singapore. (2013) Refections of Our Singapore Conversation. sg/Portals/0/Microsite/osc/OSC_Refection.pdf

Scharmer O. and Kaufer K. (2013) Leading from The Emerging Future: From Ego-System to Eco-System Economies. San Francisco: Berrett Koehler.

Jacqueline Wong is the founding director of Sequoia Group


Sequoia is a Leadership & Organisation Development consultancy firm. Our purpose is to create organisations that are truly worthy of people’s commitment.