Two modes of inquiry compliment each other: (1) the diagnosis of problems, and (2) the search for energy.
For progress to manifest, we need to do more than solve problems. Things need energy to grow.
The first mode of inquiry enjoys alot more airtime because humans tend to notice what goes wrong more than they notice what goes right. But the first mode, problem diagnosis, has limitations. Among them:
(1) to diagnose a problem you must create a hierarchy
(2) people often allow "problem solving" to dominate the way they concieve their projects. This leeches energy from groups and causes people to neglect to attend to the reasons that they came together for in the first place.
In his book "Locating the Energy for Change ...," Charles Elliott tells two true stories in order to demonstrate the difference:
Rosemary Willson is a successful New York publisher. Her marriage broke up three years ago and she has custody of her 11-year-old son, Joel. Despite Rosemary’s determination to provide him with every material and emotional advantage, Joel is clearly having a hard time growing up as a lone child of a single parent. He has long had behavioural problems at school, has become truant and is truculent when challenged about this at home. He has never shown much affection for his caregiver, Joanne, though she is highly trained and does everything she can to win the boy’s trust and regard.
Rosemary has decided the situation is now so serious that she must tackle it more systematically. She tells Joanne to keep a list of Joel’s misdemeanours and to make sure to ask his teacher each day how he has behaved when she picks him up from school.
“He has to learn,” says Rosemary. “I will go through the list with him every evening—quietly, methodically, thoroughly, explaining why what he has done is wrong or unacceptable. We will soon see a big improvement. He’s a bright enough youngster; he just needs to have things pointed out to him in a consistent way. Once he sees that we are on to him, he’ll change....”
Joel’s behaviour has gotten no better; in some important respects, it has become worse since this list-and-tell regime was begun.
Two thousand miles to the South West, the Lakota people in New Mexico also have a delinquent youngster. He has been seen damaging people’s cars and trucks in the car lot outside the store. When challenged, he has been rude and dismissive of the authority of the elders.
The whole clan is called together one evening and forms a large circle. The young man’s father walks with him into the middle of the circle and then joins the other adults on the perimeter. The father begins to speak first.
“You are our first born, our most precious one. Your mother and I rejoiced the first time we felt you kick in her stomach. We ran from house to house, telling all these people that you were alive and well and strong. And so you were. You were born crying with a shout so loud they heard it three hundred yards away above the radio. How proud we were! How happy! You have always made us happy. Your first few steps—oh, how you fell over into a puddle. The look on your face! How we laughed....”
On and on, the father recounts, sharing the happiest memories of his son’s life. No word of criticism is uttered. The father’s task is to remind the young man of all that he means to the family, the clan, the people; of all the joy and happiness he has brought; of the delight his wider family have in him.
When he is finished, it is the uncle’s turn. He is followed by the two grandfathers. The sky is darkening, the stars plainly visible. It will be long past midnight before they have finished. After the men, the women speak, in gentler tones, in softer cadence—for it is on them that much of the work, from first labour pains to saving enough for schoolbooks, has fallen.
Finally, the clan chief speaks. He summarizes all that has been said. He speaks slowly, with long pauses, as though searching for the deepest ways of saying what has to be said. His theme, from which he never deviates, is the same: the pride and pleasure this young man has brought to all the Lakota people; the living, the departed and those not yet born. Like all the earlier speakers, he never mentions the vandalism and the malicious damage, the shame, the anger, the futility, the mindlessness. All that is left unsaid, unhinted. The sole refrain is that this young man is a beautiful gift to the whole people, one of inexpressible value.
When the old man has finished speaking, he makes a small sign. The ring of people stands still, almost at attention, looking ahead of them at the young man in the centre of the circle. Then they melt wordlessly into the night.
Which youngster has the better chance of transformational change: the one whose faults are catalogued and reviewed each day? Or the one who has been ritually assured of his place in the hearts of all his people?
This contrast is what the appreciative approach is all about.
Journal Articles:
AI begins with the discovery of the highest achievements, core values, and aspirations embedded in all human systems. It is a methodology that begins a dialogue between individuals, expands to groups and builds to embrace and declare community wide intentions and actions. The theory of social constructionism informs this work asserting that individuals in relationship with one another can and will co-create an effective future when a positive inquiry into the heart and soul of a system, its greatest accomplishments and deepest values, generates new meaning and inspires new possibilities. Deceptively simple, the system is based on a reversal of the expectations, practices, and limitations found in traditional problem solving methodologies and thus represents a significant shift in attitude and language.
Robust public dialogue that can move people beyond the constraints of their own certainties is key to helping community groups define and achieve their preferred future.
If recent politics have taught us anything, it is that we can readily be trapped in a discourse of polarization. This is true not only in the national conversation about a presidential election, but all too often in the conversation that is carried on when people come together to respond to concerns in communities or organizations. There may be competing interests, multiple voices clamoring to be heard, power differentials real and perceived, and factions convinced they hold a monopoly on the truth. Too many voices have routinely been excluded from participation in the very decisions that may affect them, or they may be too uncertain to enter the conversation. If we are to unleash the capacity of communities to create their desired future, we need to invite vibrant discourse among multiple stakeholders, while supporting and enhancing the network of relationships strengthening the fabric of the community and its ability to get things done.
Some theoretical underpinnings of Appreciative Inquiry
Appreciative Inquiry is a post-modern approach to organizational and community change, representing a radical departure from classic organization development interventions. Traditional modes of inquiry into organizational life emerged from a paradigm in which sources of knowledge are derived from logical reasoning and empirical, verifiable experience. This inquiry seeks to determine cause and effect leading to knowledge having predictive value for organizational effectiveness. It relies on an action-research model that focuses on problem solving through a progression of steps: identifying problems or deficiencies in the system; analyzing the causes; proposing solutions; and developing an action plan to ‘‘treat’’ the problems (French and Bell, 1984). This ‘‘medical model’’ of diagnosis and cure treats the organization as sick, deficient or metaphorically as ‘‘a problem to be solved.’’ Looking at human systems through this lens can be limiting, at best, and potentially demoralizing and exacerbating of the very problems to be ‘‘solved’’. It can easily create a culture of blame, tearing at the fabric of the community. People are apt to become defensive in an effort to avoid blame, with the likely result of distancing themselves from one another and eroding trust. Further, a defensive posture acts as a brake on the learning and thinking that can move the system forward (Barrett, 1995).
Traditional problem solving has served us well in many ways, particularly in advancing our knowledge in the physical sciences and in technology. However, it has not always proven adequate for addressing human systems issues and if it is our only approach, we are shutting off a whole other method of inquiry. Action research that has become synonymous with focusing on what is wrong ‘‘has largely failed as an instrument for advancing social knowledge of consequence. . . . Advances in generative theory will come about for action-research when the discipline decides to expand its universe of exploration, seeks to discover new questions, and rekindles a fresh perception of the extra ordinary in everyday organizational life’’ (Cooperrider and Srivastva, 1987).
AI offers a way to expand that universe. It is an inquiry-based model uniting theory and practice. Rooted in social constructionist thinking, it challenges the long held view that knowledge accrues from objective and unbiased observations of a stable, enduring external world (Gergen, 2000). Rather, it asserts that the locus of knowledge is in our relationships and that we construct our reality through our conversations and social interactions. Knowledge is an artifact of the culture, myths, traditions, values, and language of the people in systems. Thus there are multiple ways of knowing, multiple realities, and no one way has primacy over another. It emphasizes the importance of the stories, metaphors, meanings, and theories expressed in the language used in the collaborative process of constructing reality. Social constructionist thinking shifts the focus of action research. Giving expression to the multiple voices and multiple perspectives in the community can generate data that is practical, applicable, and replete with new and provocative possibilities as the system attempts to understand itself and its positive potential in a particular time and context. It views the world as ‘‘an unfolding drama of human interaction whose potential seems limited or enhanced primarily by our symbolic capacities for constructing meaningful agreements that allow for the committed enactment of collective life’’ (Cooperrider and Srivastva, 1987).
The premise that we can come together to influence how the drama unfolds leads us to the five principles of AI:
The constructionist principle. Human knowledge and organizational destiny are interwoven. The way we know has a direct effect on what we do.
The principle of simultaneity. Inquiry is intervention. Change begins with the first questions we ask and the questions we ask determine what we find. Stories elicited by our questions become the scaffolding for conceiving and constructing the future. The emphasis in AI rightfully belongs on inquiry and the questions we craft have profound implications for changes in social practice. AI questions do not seek ‘‘right’’ answers, but rather they generate conversations that seek out the ‘‘essential goodness’’ of the system as a platform for creating an even ‘‘better’’ system.
The poetic principle. This principle shifts the metaphor of organization as machine to that of organization as text. Like a poem, the Bible, or a Shakespearean play, any human system is subject to endless interpretation. The story is constantly being rewritten through our shared interpretations. We can look into the system with any lens we choose. We can look for what is going wrong or what is going right and the greater gains are made when the means and ends of inquiry are aligned. Therefore, if we seek to increase employee retention, e.g., it makes sense to inquire into why people stay in our organization rather than focus on employee turnover.
The positive principle. Language matters. The many applications of AI in diverse settings demonstrate that the more positive the inquiry the more it endures. When we inquire into those times when we are at our best, most successful, or most energized, people are drawn together. The positive data that emerges from such inquiry inspires people to form networks of collaboration to build on their strengths and reach for their dreams.
The anticipatory principle. Our greatest resource for generating constructive organizational change is our collective imagination and discourse about the future. An anticipatory view of organizational life posits that the image of the future is a guiding force in organizational life. Considerable research from such diverse areas of study as medicine, sports psychology, education, and sociology support the relationship between positive imagery and positive action (Cooperrider, 2000).
Books:
Appreciative Inquiries into Occupations: