Search results

This chapter creates a logic that links the transformation of organizational consciousness with the creation of a more life affirming global consciousness. In it the author examines the relationship between the practice of Appreciative Inquiry, the concept of organizational consciousness and the need for global transformation. She suggests that Appreciative Inquiry, with its life giving focus, is uniquely suited to simultaneously bring about change in organizations and society through the elevation and evolution of organizational consciousness. Recognizing the need for transformation on a global scale, she challenges the field of organization development to move beyond the metaphor of organization culture toward the metaphor of organizational consciousness. Cultures are defined and bounded by national and corporate borders. Consciousness is all pervasive. It knows not boundaries of organizations, countries nor continents. Appreciative Inquiry practices, that involve the whole system in valuing the best of what is, envisioning generative possibilities and creating life-sustaining organizations, hold great potential for the evolution of organizational consciousness.

This chapter shares the experience of National Grid to orchestrate two Appreciative Inquiry Summits in Massachusetts. One was framed around sustainability for the City of Worcester, Massachusetts, and the other was an industry-wide effort on energy efficiency in Massachusetts. The chapter demonstrates the potential for generative impact and transformation in complex and highly contentious environments. It also presents possible implications for the highly regulated energy utility industry and for the energy utilities that choose to lead the way.

As part of a qualitative research project to map the use of contemplative practices in secular settings, in‐depth interviews were conducted with 79 people who have founded or lead organizations where contemplative practices play a key role. In a number of interviews, contemplative practices were introduced into the workplace not only as ancillary stress‐reduction techniques for individuals, but as a core part of the organization's structure. As interviewees described how their organizations function, a number of characteristics pointed toward “the contemplative organization” as an emerging model of an organization that infuses a contemplative approach into the workplace. Such an organization strives to incorporate contemplative practices into all aspects of work; embody and explore organizational mission and values; move between cycles of action and reflection; balance product with process; and have an organizational structure that reflects a contemplative philosophy. Interviewees also reported the impact of contemplative practice in the workplace, including improved communication and a greater sense of team and community.

It’s been thirty years since the original articulation of “Appreciative Inquiry in Organizational Life” was written in collaboration with my remarkable mentor Suresh Srivastva (Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987). That article – first published in Research in Organization Development and Change – generated more experimentation in the field, more academic excitement, and more innovation than anything we had ever written. As the passage of time has enabled me to look more closely at what was written, I feel both a deep satisfaction with the seed vision and scholarly logic offered for Appreciative Inquiry, as well as well as the enormous impact and continuing reverberation. Following the tradition of authors such as Carl Rogers who have re-issued their favorite works but have also added brief reflections on key points of emphasis, clarification, or editorial commentary I am presenting the article by David Cooperrider (myself) and the late Suresh Srivastva in its entirety, but also with new horizon insights. In particular I write with excitement and anticipation of a new OD – what my colleagues and I are calling the next “IPOD” that is, innovation-inspired positive OD that brings AI’s gift of new eyes together in common cause with several other movements in the human sciences: the strengths revolution in management; the positive pscyhology and positive organizational scholarship movements; the design thinking explosion; and the biomimicry field which is all about an appreciative eye toward billions of years of nature’s wisdom and innovation inspired by life.

This article presents a conceptual refigurationy of action-research based on a “sociorationalist” view of science. The position that is developed can be summarized as follows: For action-research to reach its potential as a vehicle for social innovation it needs to begin advancing theoretical knowledge of consequence; that good theory may be one of the best means human beings have for affecting change in a postindustrial world; that the discipline’s steadfast commitment to a problem solving view of the world acts as a primary constraint on its imagination and contribution to knowledge; that appreciative inquiry represents a viable complement to conventional forms of action-research; and finally, that through our assumptions and choice of method we largely create the world we later discover.

It’s been nearly 30 years since the original articulation of Appreciative Inquiry in Organizational Life was written in collaboration with my remarkable mentor Suresh Srivastva (Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987). That article generated more experimentation in the field, more academic excitement, and more innovation than anything we had ever written. As the passage of time has enabled me to look more closely at what was written, I feel both a deep satisfaction with the seed vision and scholarly logic offered for Appreciative Inquiry (AI), as well as well as the enormous impact and reverberation. Following the tradition of authors such as Carl Rogers who have re-issued their favorite works but have also added brief reflections on key points of emphasis, clarification, or editorial commentary we have decided to issue a reprint the early article by David L. Cooperrider and the late Suresh Srivastva in its entirety, but also with contemporary comments embedded. To be sure the comments offered are brief and serve principally to add points of emphasis to ideas we may have too hurriedly introduced. My comments – placed in indented format along the way – are focused on the content and themes of furthermost relevance to this volume on organizational generativity. In many ways I’ve begun to question today whether there can even be inquiry where there is no appreciation, valuing, or amazement – what the Greeks called thaumazein – the borderline between wonderment and admiration. One learning is that AI’s generativity is not about its methods or tools, but about our cooperative capacity to reunite seeming opposites such as theory as practice, the secular as sacred, and generativity as something beyond positivity or negativity. Appreciation is about valuing the life-giving in ways that serve to inspire our co-constructed future. Inquiry is the experience of mystery, moving beyond the edge of the known to the unknown, which then changes our lives. Taken together, where appreciation and inquiry are wonderfully entangled, we experience knowledge alive and an ever-expansive inauguration of our world to new possibilities.

This article presents a conceptual refiguration of action-research based on a “sociorationalist” view of science. The position that is developed can be summarized as follows: For action-research to reach its potential as a vehicle for social innovation it needs to begin advancing theoretical knowledge of consequence; that good theory may be one of the best means human beings have for affecting change in a postindustrial world; that the discipline's steadfast commitment to a problem solving view of the world acts as a primary constraint on its imagination and contribution to knowledge; that appreciative inquiry represents a viable complement to conventional forms of action-research; and finally, that through our assumptions and choice of method we largely create the world we later discover.

Organizational development and change may be initiated from two different starting points. A diagnostic approach begins with an examination of problems to assess and correct dysfunction. In contrast, the Appreciative Inquiry approach begins by identifying an organization’s strengths as resources for change. An experimental study was conducted to compare the processes and outcomes that arise during the first phase of each approach. Results show that both approaches lead to different but favorable and complementary outcomes. Both participant gender and the gender construction of the dyads in which individuals participated moderate these effects in unexpected ways. The implications for understanding the processes by which both methods work, and the potential for combining them, are discussed

The purposes of this paper are to provide a description of AI and to document and compare two applications of AI, one in program evaluation and another in an applied research study.

Focus groups, interviews and observations were used to gather rich qualitative data which was used to detail Appreciative Inquiry's value in evaluation and research.

AI aided the researcher in connecting with the participants and valuing what they shared. In both studies, the use of AI amassed information that answered the research questions, provided a rich description of the context and findings, and led to data saturation. The authors describe and compare experiences with two applications of AI: program evaluation and a research study. This paper contributes further understanding of the use of AI in public education institutions. The researchers also explore the efficacy of using AI in qualitative research and recommend its use for multiple purposes.

Limitations occurred in the AI-Design Stage by using a positive viewpoint and because both program and partnership studied were new with limited data to use for designing a better future. So, the authors recommend a revisit of both studies through the same 4D Model.

This manuscript shows that AI is useful for evaluation and research. It amplifies the participants' voices through favorite stories and successes. AI has many undiscovered uses.

Through the use of AI the authors can: improve theoretical perspectives; conduct research that yields more authentic data; enable participants to deeply reflect on their practice and feel empowered; and ultimately impact and improve the world.

AI is presented as an evaluation tool for a high-school program and as a research approach identifying strengths and perceptions of an educational partnership. In both studies, AI crumbled the walls that are often erected by interviewees when expecting to justify or defend decisions and actions. This paper contributes further understanding of the use of AI in public education institutions.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute with knowledge concerning how to drive, generate and energize change and development in social systems. A potential key to meet this challenge is the strength-based change management approach called appreciative inquiry (AI). A central component of AI is the “AI interview”, which has evolved into a distinct activity that enables the past and the future to be used as a generative source for on-going learning about strengths, opportunities, aspirations and results. The AI interview has in previous studies shown an often surprisingly high ability to generate development and change in social systems. However, the understanding of the generative “mystery” of the AI interview, focusing on the value experienced by both the people conducting the interview and those being interviewed, is still in need of further exploration. Furthermore, the evident generativity of the AI interview has not yet been integrated to any large extent into quality management. The purpose of this paper is to change that.

The researchers have studied the customer experience of conducting an AI interview based on feedback from 97 AI students at Mid Sweden University.

Among the results, eight categories of value are identified.

The paper contributes with new knowledge concerning the values experienced during participation in an AI interview. The paper also highlights ideas on how the generativity of the AI interview could be increasingly integrated into quality management.