[Ailist] AI - an established business strategy

Thu Mar 8 08:13:21 MST 2007

Brian,

You have made many good points and stimulated a lot of thinking. 

I have used Ai as one of several approaches to employee engagement and organizational transition. Through this period, our office has improved employee retention significantly--employee turnover has dropped from 26% 2 years ago to less than 10% today. Over the same period we have moved from 6th place in our firm for revenue generation and 9th in profitability to lead our global firm now in both measures. 

An Ai philosophical approach is how we work as an organization; however, as an ongoing change model (4D cycle/summit) we do not use it. It does not seem to be engaging after we have used it more than once. The principles of Ai are inherent in out team's work but we have designed no specific ongoing Ai intervention process.

So, I think one reason it may not have reached a tipping point yet is the Ai change model as it exists currently has no robust set of processes for ongoing change.

Best regards,

Dan

Daniel K. Saint, Ph.D.
Managing Director
Jefferson Wells
1000 Town Center, Suite 1000
Southfield, MI  48075
alternate email: Saint at LTU.edu

--- brianjguest at yahoo.com wrote:

From: Brian Guest <brianjguest at yahoo.com>
To: mukul.kumar at rogers.com, ailist at lists.business.utah.edu
Cc:
Subject: Re: [Ailist] AI - an established business strategy
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 02:09:49 -0800 (PST)

Hi Mukul,

I am sure some list members can quantify better than I can the speed at which AI is growing. I know some major organisations in Europe are using it, but I believe it is a small minority.

I would suggest the main reasons that AI is not mainstream include:

* power, politics, heirarchy and ownership

I have worked in several major organisations and I doubt any of the top managment would have wanted to employ such democratic methods on any significant scale for the type of objectives to which AI is commonly applied. They may have used some of the principles of AI with smaller "on-side" personnel or groups, as long as they could continue to control the agenda, ie the decisions and destiny. 

Rightly or wrongly in many situations the leaders fear the implications and the risks: perception of weakness (strategy and control are "theirs" - they have the "competence", its what they are paid for by the Board / remuneration committee), loss of control - embarking on a journey with an unknown destination, fear that the destiny / destination may mean they no longer have the right profile to lead. 

Here we have the complex and necessary dynamic of trust versus control.  

* human nature - how leaders go up the organisation 

Most people at the top of an organisation have a high "expressed control" characteristic, with a weaker "wanted control" characteristic (as in FIRO-B assessments). They often got there by taking charge. Its human nature to think that you need to keep doing what got you to the top of the tree in the first place, even though its often not the case. 

* organizational culture

For most organizations AI on any significant scale and scope would not fit with the real culture. It might fit with what the organization says about its people culture in its report and accounts. But its real culture is defined by its stories (what is said at the "water cooler" not at the AGM), who gets promoted and why, what the organisation rewards and rejects and many other things. There are many command and control organizations with alpha personalities running them.

So AI could imply, or indeed be, the beginning of a major cultural change. It takes significant courage for a leader raised in a certain type of culture, who fitted in and benefitted from it, to turn around and say we need a major change in culture.

* leadership / national culture 

There are national cultures (as well as organizational ones) for which AI would be virtually impossible. Simplifying, in some cultures bosses are there to tell you what to do and suggestions of things that the boss has not thought of can be perceived as impertinent to say the least.

* business situation and priorities

Say an organization is in difficulty. The tendency of most leaders in such a situation would be to take charge even more, control even more. Usually in crisis situations leaders have to be more autocratic. There is, or is perceived to be, no time for democracy and "dreaming". 

Leaders like to define, prioritize and own the change agenda.

* perceptions on the need for analytical and controlable changes 

Kaplan's and Porter's models fit better with what top management perceive as analytical, rational and controlable tools for improving the bottom line.

I know many leaders who would worry that AI could become unfocused, irrational and emotional -"fuzzy people stuff". I have not worked for any bosses with a feeling preference over a thinking one on the Myers Briggs scale of personality.

I guess AI is growing as the dynamics of organizations advance in a more complex world. More employees want involvement / engagement. There are generational leadership / followership changes taking place too. 

It would certainly be interesting to see a comparison of the relative growth, penetration and size of major AI interventions against other strategic and organizational improvement tools. 

I don't know how close AI is to a tipping point in national cultures where it is most suited. We are, I understand, going through some kind of a transition trending away from industrial age command and control dynamics. 

Hope some of this helps.

Kind regards,

Brian

----- Original Message ----
From: Mukul Kumar <mukul.kumar at rogers.com>
To: ailist at lists.business.utah.edu
Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2007 2:20:16 AM
Subject: [Ailist] AI - an established business strategy

Hi everyone:

Looking at the past e-mail postings in the AIlistserve and my experiences
for pursuing AI in my organization, I am just wondering why AI has not been
established as an acceptable business strategy or tool so far.  Though it
has been developed in early 80's, it is based on positive environment and
consensus of all the participants (which is a perfect approach (win-win
approach in my opinion) in the current dynamic environment, even then the
people doubt its effectiveness and capability.  That's why it is not
popular.  Most of the people are not aware of AI and do not wish to invest
the resources for its trial.  Then we look around for the various ways if we
could get their acceptance.    

There are many other tools such as Kaplan's Balance Score Card, Porter's
Value Chain model, which are so popular and people accept them so easily
with no arguments or doubts.  

Would any one like to elaborate why AI is not gaining the acceptance?  Even
I too, foresee huge potential in AI approach and look forward to
study/involve more actively around this approach.  I am curious to know
whether am I missing any perspective in demonstrating its effectiveness.

Would appreciate your insights?   

Mukul

_______________________________________________
The Appreciative Inquiry Discussion List is hosted by the David Eccles School of Business at the University of Utah. Jack Brittain is the list administrator. For subscription information, go to:
http://mailman.business.utah.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/ailist

____________________________________________________________________________________
It's here! Your new message!  
Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
_______________________________________________
The Appreciative Inquiry Discussion List is hosted by the David Eccles School of Business at the University of Utah. Jack Brittain is the list administrator. For subscription information, go to:
http://mailman.business.utah.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/ailist

_____________________________________________________________
A Member of CEOExpressSelect - www.ceoexpress.com