Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Resources
http://adh.sagepub.com
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Additional services and information for Advances in Developing Human Resources can be found at:
633
634
October 2008
Appreciative Inquiry
AI, a methodology most frequently used for organizational change, is
rooted in social constructionism (Berger & Luckmann, 1966) and inspired by
the positive psychology movement (Seligman, Steen, Park, & Peterson, 2005).
Since its original conception as an alternative approach to traditional action
research for organizational change, AI has been applied, researched, and documented as a transformational approach for a variety of uses, including developing leadership capacity in organizations (Bushe & Kassam, 2005; Kierein &
Gold , 2000; Ludema, Whitney, Mohr, & Griffin, 2003). Specifically, AIs usefulness as a tool for engaging participants in a collective process of reframing
and generating possible futures has been demonstrated in many different contexts, including organizations (Cooperrider & Avital, 2004; Cooperrider &
Whitney, 2001; Ludema et al., 2003), personal relationships (Kelm, 2005;
McNamee & Gergen, 1999; Stavros & Torres, 2005), adult education (Lander,
2002), and diversity enhancement (Fry, Barrett, Seiling, & Whitney, 2002).
The positive principle, a central assumption within AI and one that is shared
by the positive psychology movement, is illustrated by the Pygmalion effect
(Livingston, 1969) commonly understood as the self-fulfilling prophecy
(Merton, 1968). To explain the power of positive image, Cooperrider also borrowed from the biological sciences, drawing an analogy between the
heliotropic nature of plants and human systems (1990). Just as a plant will
grow toward the sun, organizations will also move toward images of their
future that are life-giving and hopeful. The alternative possibility of moving in
the direction of destructive images of the future, as outlined by Polak (1973),
can be equally compelling. The conscious choice to focus on a life-giving
image rather than one of imminent demise mobilizes enormous energy and differentiates AI from other organization development approaches. This image is
generated from the aggregate of experiences shared among participants that
capture peak moments, life-giving factors, and stories of personal and organizational excellence.
The core principles of AI are supported by adult development and psychology literature. Know yourself (Laertius & Yonge, 2006) has long been
respected as a quintessential element of personal development and central to
the idea of actualizing ones potential. Hunt (1987) encouraged the reliance on
and acknowledgement of experience as valid. He suggested regain your trust
in yourself and your experience as an avenue to understanding human affairs
and to cut through the mystique of the experts, the experiments, and the surveys as royal roads to knowledge (p. 3). Similar sentiments have been shared
by Rogers, who asserted evaluation by others is not a guide for me. Experience
for me is the highest authority (1961, p. 23).
AI is predicated on narrating and reflecting on ones lived experience, ones
contribution to, and the conditions surrounding that experience. This reflection
provides the groundwork for creating images of possibility for transformation.
Transformative Learning
In a previous issue of this journal, Brooks (2004) provided a review of
transformative learning theory and its potential contribution to human resource
development (HRD) in an increasingly complex organizational context.
Brooks examined several theoretical perspectives on transformative learning,
including that of Jack Mezirow (1978), who is widely regarded as having contributed most to the development of transformative learning theory. Mezirow
focused his work on how individuals interpret and make meaning of their
experiences. He defined learning as the process of using a prior interpretation
to construe a new or a revised interpretation of the meaning of ones experience in order to guide future action (Mezirow, 1996, p. 162). Likewise,
Merriam and Caffarella (1999) suggested that learning can consist of a
change in one of our beliefs or attitudes (a meaning scheme) or it can be a
change in our entire perspective. A change in perspective is personally emancipating in that one is freed from previously held beliefs, attitudes, values and
feelings that have constricted or distorted ones life (p. 320).
Transformative learning is adaptive workthere is likely no clear solution
or process (Heifetz & Linsky, 2002). New meaning-making systems must be
introduced to yield new results. As Mezirow described,
Transformative learning refers to the process by which we transform our taken-for-granted
frames of references (meaning perspectives, habits of mind, mind-sets) to make them more
inclusive, discriminating, open, emotionally capable of change, and reflective so that they may
generate beliefs and opinions that will prove more true or justified to guide action. (2000, p. 7)
A disorienting dilemma
Self examination with feelings of fear, anger, guilt, or shame
A critical assessment of assumptions
Recognition that ones discontent and the process of transformation are shared
Exploration of options for new roles, relationships, and actions
635
636
October 2008
6.
7.
8.
9.
Mezirow underscored the need for critical reflection following the experience
of a disorienting dilemma.
Brookfield (1986) asserted, Education is centrally concerned with the
development of a critically aware frame of mind, not with the uncritical assimilation of previously defined skills or bodies of knowledge (p. 17). In other
words, when individuals practice reflecting on experience and construe a new
or a revised interpretation of the meaning of ones experience in order to guide
future action (Mezirow, 1996, p. 162), the transformative potential from the
experience is greater.
Mezirow also emphasized the need for discourse to make meaning of experience. Discourse may occur with a close friend, a therapist, or colleagues.
Regardless of the venue, discourse offers individuals an opportunity to explore
potential meaning for the experience. In addition, Mezirow underscored the
importance of action, which offers learners the opportunity to try new roles,
build efficacy and confidence, and integrate the new ways of being into
their lives.
specific action. In their discussion of the connections between AI and transformative learning for organizational change, Donovan, Meyer, and Fitzgerald
(2007) highlighted the complementary aspects between AI and transformative
learning as comprising stories and narratives, reflexivity at the individual and
organizational levels, and the ability of AI to provide the strategy to create
change necessary for transformative organizational learning to be successful.
Critics of AI as a viable approach for transformative learning may argue
that by placing a singular focus on life-giving forces and positive and/or successful experiences, leaders may not engage in the examination of how mental models have developed and consequently fail to unmask counterproductive
routines (Argyris, 2000). However, we stress that AI can help people generate
a new frame or mindset and end the downward spiral into defense mechanisms
reminiscent of Argyris and Schns Model 1 theory-in-use (1974). As Barrett
suggests (1995), Generative learning requires an appreciative approachan
ability to see radical possibilities beyond the boundaries of problems as they
present themselves in conventional terms. High performing organizations that
engage in generative, innovative learning are competent at appreciating potential and possibility (p. 37).
Thatchenkery and Metzker (2006) applied this notion to the individual, seeing reframing as a major component of what they call appreciative intelligence. They assert that appreciative intelligence involves insight, shifting how
something is viewed in the present. They do not deny that the negative elements exist. But appreciative intelligence, they add, also involves appreciating
the positive and then seeing how the future unfolds. They suggest that there are
four qualities exhibited by people with appreciative intelligence, including
persistence, conviction that ones actions matter, tolerance for uncertainty, and
irrepressible resilience.
By engaging in such a reframing and radical shift of perspective from the
status quo and from theories-in-use, AI allows individuals to generate something beyond espoused theory: an ideal theory through imagining what is possible in the future based on what has been most successful in the past.
Powerful evidence to support this assertion comes from studies of after-event
reviews, which test whether differences exist in the ability to learn from failures and successes. Ellis and Davidi (2005) found that after-event reviews that
include an opportunity to reflect on successes as well as failures generate an
increased ability for participants (soldiers conducting navigation exercises) to
revise their mental models compared to reviews that focused solely on learning from failures.
637
638
October 2008
Discovery:
What has
been?
Destiny:
What will
be?
Affirmative
Relationships and
Topic Choice
Dream:
What could
be?
Design:
What
should be?
FIGURE 1:
questions are explored by all participants in a social system through smallgroup conversation. This process begins to reflect the interdependent nature of
dialogue and its contribution to the creation of a reality based on the synergistic power of each persons thoughts, actions, and words.
AI is typically conducted using the 4-D cycle (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2001).
The 4Ds represent the four phases of AI: discovery, dream, design, and destiny.
Figure 1 illustrates the 4-D cycle and the activities conducted during the process.
The discovery phase is devoted to reflection on high points and peak experiences related to the organization generally and to the topics of interest more
specifically. This experience allows participants to appreciate life-giving factors (the best of what was and is) through a cocreated conversation, in which
interviewer and interviewee are at once describing and generating an affirmative memory of what has worked in the past. The discovery phase lays the
groundwork for the process by building an appreciative vocabulary, giving
participants the opportunity to benefit from the positive affect experienced
when they were at their best, and provides content to build upon in the subsequent phases. To illustrate, in an AI process for leader development, the discovery stage may include questions such as:
When have you experienced great leadership at [your organization]?
Think of a peak moment or high point in your experience of
leading here or elsewhere.
639
640
October 2008
641
642
October 2008
participants used this exercise to introduce one another to the entire group. The
questions that were asked included:
What is your name and where are you from?
Tell me of your greatest success in your life, not just at work
but as you consider your entire life so far.
What is your greatest hope for your life? What do you hope to
accomplish before you shuffle off this mortal plane that would
make your life complete?
The AI questions described previously were presented to participants in the
dream step of the AI 4-D model. They were intended to be provocative stimuli to unleashing their greatest hopes for the organization and their leader
potential. The conversations during the stages of AI were facilitated by participants while the facilitator moved among the groups to provide clarity of the
process.
Analysis and Discoveries
Thematic analysis (Boyatzis, 1998) was used to interpret the commitment
statements made during the destiny stage of the AI process. The authors analyzed the statements individually and then compared their coding to establish
a measure of reliability and to identify the codable statements while attending
to the greatest distinctions between them. Ongoing dialogue between the
authors of the study contributed to inter-rater reliability that yielded the categories reflected in the paper. Three areas for leader development emerged from
this case example: (a) self development, (b) employee development, and (c)
change leadership. Statements reflecting these themes are captured in Table 1.
This case is limited in that the individuals were not asked directly about the
nature of their developmentwhether the experience was transformational or
not. However, several elements described by Mezirow (2000) as being critical for
transformative learning were present for this group of managers. After the event,
the participants in this AI process anecdotally reported that they moved from feeling neglected and demoralized as a result of significant turnover for the past
several years to being able to identify multiple ways in which they could develop
themselves and their employees. This situation created an opportunity for the disorienting dilemma provided by AI in that it represented a novel approach to interpreting their experience and a realization of their agency in constructing and
being able to change it. The products of the experience, the commitment statements, do represent an orientation to actionone of the factors Mezirow
describes as comprising transformative learning (2000).
The significant discussion component of AI seeks to facilitate greater discovery of self and deeper understanding of that self in relation to others. AI
also relies on relationship building that emerges through the interview process
643
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Employee Development
Change Leadership
Self Development
TABLE 1:
644
October 2008
and small-group focus. These conversations have the potential to reveal facets
of self in relation to issues salient to the organization and how those are
engaged at the intersection of work and self. That these commitment statements emerged for participants reveals some tacit understanding (Polanyi,
1983) of activities and relational orientations that, heretofore, have not materialized or may have been neglecteda growth in conceptual understanding of
what it means to be a leader (Conger, 1992).
645
646
October 2008
References
Allen, S. J. (2007). Adult learning theory and leadership development. Leadership
Review, 7, 26-37.
Argyris, C. (2000). Flawed advice and the management trap: How managers can know
when theyre getting good advice and when theyre not. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
647
648
October 2008
Argyris, C., & Schn, D. (1974). Theory in practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Avital, M. (2005). Innovation information systems education I: Accelerated systems
analysis and design with appreciative inquiry-an action learning approach.
Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 15, 289-314.
Barrett, F. J. (1995). Creating appreciative learning cultures. Organizational Dynamics,
24(2), 36-49.
Bennett, B. (2003). Developmental coaching. Training Strategies for Tomorrow, 17(4),
16-19.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966) The social construction of reality: A treatise in
the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and
code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brookfield, S. (1986). Understanding and facilitating adult learning. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brooks, A. K. (2004). Transformational learning theory and implications for human
resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6(2), 211-225.
Burns, S. (2005). The so what test: A case study of strategic educational change.
Organization Development Journal, 23(4), 92-95.
Bushe, G. R., & Kassam, A. F. (2005). When is appreciative inquiry transformational?
A meta-case analysis. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41(2), 161-181.
Cacioppe, R. (1998). An integrated model and approach for the design of effective
leadership development programs. Leadership and Organization Development
Journal, 19(1), 44-53.
Conger, J. (1989). The charismatic leader: Behind the mystique of exceptional
leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Conger, J. (1992). Learning to lead: The art of transforming managers into leaders.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Conger, J., & Benjamin, B. (1999). Building leaders: How successful companies
develop the next generation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Conklin, T. A. (in press). Creating classrooms of preference: An exercise in appreciative inquiry. Journal of Management Education.
Cooperrider, D. L. (1990). Positive image, positive action: The affirmative basis of
organizing. In S. Srivastva & D. L. Cooperrider & Associates (Eds.), Appreciative
management and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cooperrider, D. L., & Avital, M. (Eds.). (2004). Advances in appreciative inquiry:
Constructive discourse and human organization (Vol. 1). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Cooperrider, D., & Srivastva, S. (1987). Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. In
R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and
development (Vol. 1, pp. 129-169). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Coopperrider, D. L., & Whitney, D. (2001). A positive revolution in change. In
D. L. Cooperrider, P. Sorenson, D. Whitney, & T. Yeager (Eds.), Appreciative inquiry:
An emerging direction for organization development. Champaign, IL: Stipes.
Davis, N. (2001). Building muscle: Developing leaders with follower weight.
Organization Development Journal, 19(3), 27-25.
Day, D. (2001). Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly,
11(4), 581-613.
Day, D. (2004). Leadership development. In G. Goethals, G. Sorenson, & J. Burns,
(Eds.), The encyclopedia of leadership, volume 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Doltich, D. L., & Noel, J. L. (1998). Action learning: How the worlds top companies
are creating their leaders themselves. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Donovan, L. L., Meyer, S. R., & Fitzgerald, S. P. (2007). Transformative learning and
appreciative inquiry: A more perfect union for deep organizational change.
Proceedings of the Academy of Management, Philadelphia.
Ellis, S., & Davidi, I. (2005). After-event reviews: Drawing lessons from successful and
failed experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 857-871.
Fry, R., Barrett, F., Seiling, J., & Whitney, D. (Eds.). (2002). Appreciative inquiry and
organizational transformation: Reports from the field. Westport, CT: Quorum.
Fulmer, R., & Wagner, S. (1999). Leadership: Lessons from the best. Training &
Development, 53(3), 29-32.
Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership on the line. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Business Review.
Hernez-Broome, G., & Hughes, R. L. (2004). Leadership development: Past, present,
and future. Human Resource Planning, 27(1), 24-32.
Hunt, D. E. (1987). Beginning with ourselves: In practice, theory, and human affairs.
Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Kelm, J. B. (2005). Appreciative living: The principles of appreciative inquiry in personal life. Wake Forest, NC: Venet Publishers.
Kierein, N. M., & Gold, M. A. (2000). Pygmalion in work organizations: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 8, 913.
Laertius, D., & Yonge, C. D. (2006). The lives and opinions of eminent philosophers
(C. D. Yonge, Trans.). Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing, LLC.
Lander, D. A. (2002). Teaching and learning research literacies in graduate adult education: Appreciative inquiry into practitioners ways of writing. Canadian Journal of
University Continuing Education, 28(1), 31-55.
Livingston, I. S. (1969). Pygmalion in management. Harvard Business Review,
47(4), 81-90.
London, M. (2002). Leadership development: Paths to self-insight and professional
growth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ludema, J. D., Whitney, D., Mohr, B. J., & Griffin, T. J. (2003). The appreciative
inquiry summit: A practitioners guide for leading large group change. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
McCall, M. W., Lombardo, M. M., & Morrison, A. M. (1988). The lessons of experience:
How successful executives develop on the job. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
McCauley, C. D., & Van Velsor, E. (Eds.). (2005). The center for creative leadership:
Handbook of leadership development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McCauley, C. D. (2001). Leader training and leader development. In S. J. Zaccaro &
R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), The nature of organizational leadership: Understanding the performance imperatives confronting todays leaders (pp. 347-383). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McNamee, S., & Gergen K. J. (1999). Relational responsibility: Resources for sustainable dialogue. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1999). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive
guide (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press
Mezirow, J. (1978). Perspective transformation. Adult Education Quarterly, 28, 100-110.
Mezirow, J. (1996). Contemporary paradigms of learning. Adult Education Quarterly,
46(3), 158-173.
649
650
October 2008