[Ailist] Appreciative Inquiry - What's in a Name?

[Bill Scott]

Hello all,

 

I've been following the "Six Sigma" thread and the side conversations that
it has fostered.

 

Jane's reminder that AI is a state of being is an important one. In my view,
AI is becoming far too closely aligned with models - such as the 4-D  cycle
- as opposed to a philosophy or way of being. I think that may be in large
part because of the explosion in relative newcomers to appreciative thinking
and philosophy. Novices typically find models to be helpful learning tools.
The models do help to explain the "how" of AI. They don't do a great job of
explaining the "what." While they are great conceptual tools, models are
usually far too simplistic - witness the proliferation of 2 by 2 matrices in
Organizational Behaviour courses as an example. 

 

Adult learning objectives are typically developed around the acquisition of
knowledge, the development of skills and changing attitudes. It is this last
category that truly personifies AI to me. Much of the AI literature contains
the phrase "being AI." That really is attitudinal and it is at the heart of
what differentiates AI from other "approaches."

 

It seems our expectations with respect to learning as a society in general
are that you should be able to learn about it today, apply it tomorrow and
act as an expert the next day. People are so impressed with the seemingly
intuitive nature of AI and  possibilities for its use that they want to get
straight to implementation. The difficulty, in my opinion, is that the
development of a new way of being - of shifting attitudinally - takes time
and it is what personifies AI.

 

When you think about it, when you are asking organizations to adopt
appreciative processes you are asking them to make a significant shift in
their culture - and we know that takes time (as much as 5 - 10 years in
large bureaucracies if the research is on the mark). Thus, like every other
"intervention," AI runs the risk of becoming a fad. This is particularly so
if organizations think of it as another quick fix methodology that keeps the
troops at bay during a time of crisis.

 

For the past year or so, I've been talking to people about appreciative
process, rather than Appreciative Inquiry. (My thinking has definitively
been influenced by Gervase Bushe's recent articles on the subject of
appreciative process.) It allows me the opportunity to speak more about the
attitudinal shifts that are required for AI to truly take hold. Once we
have clarity about the importance of the attitudinal shift that needs to
occur, then we can talk about how to make that happen and what model ought
to be used. In my opinion, there really isn't a point to exposing someone to
an appreciative model if they don't first understand the concept of
generativity and the shift in thinking and being that is required for the
philosophy to take hold. 

 

I know some of this seems quite semantical. Yet we know that AI perhaps more
than any other process depends on clarity of language. I'd be interested in
the thoughts of others relative to any differences you might see between
"Appreciative Inquiry" and "appreciative process."

 

Regards,

Bill

 

WJS Consulting Inc.

Vancouver, B.C., Canada

wjs.consulting at shaw.ca

 

Engaging human potential