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

Mon Oct 29 10:39:38 MST 2007

Enjoying the contributions.  I appreciate the idea that AI impacts folks at 
the attitudinal level.

For those of you interested in the process of change research borrowed from 
psychotherapy, take a look at the work from the folks at the Talking Cure, 
Scott Miller and Barry Duncan, et.al., which represents the most important 
work in human change processes to date in my opinion.  My guess is that many 
of you are already familiar with their ideas, which has its basis in the 
common factors.

As organizational development enters the world of empirical support it will 
become more important to adopt efficacy arguments such as these folks have 
done in psychotherapy.

I'll post a snippet below:

http://www.talkingcure.com

"What Works" in Therapy?
An Introduction . . .
Since the mid-1960's, the number of therapy models has grown from 60 to more 
than 250.  At the same time, virtually all of the research data finds that 
the various treatment approaches achieve roughly equivalent results.  This 
is true of both the biological and well as the much bally-hoed cognitive and 
cognitive behavioral revolutions.  When all is said and done, virtually all 
of the data find that the various approaches work about equally well.  As 
leading outcome researcher Michael J. Lambert, Ph.D. summarizes, "Research 
carried out with the intent of contrast two or more bona fide treatments 
shows surprisingly small differences between the outcomes for patients who 
undergo a treatment that is fully intended to be therapeutic" (p. 158, 
1994).

Such evidence makes clear that the differences between the various 
models-much promoted by the developers and marketers of the different 
approaches-can not account for the effectiveness of treatment.   Rather, the 
mountain of evidence for equivalent outcomes makes it clear that the 
similarities rather than differences between models account for the 
effectiveness of psychotherapy.  The question, of course, is what 
similarities approaches share that account for success?

The Facts...
Research points to the existence of four factors common to all forms of 
therapy despite theoretical orientation (dynamic, cognitive, etc.), mode 
(individual, group, couples, family, etc.), dosage (frequency and number of 
sessions), or specialty (problem type, professional discipline, etc.). 
Research found the one factor dominates the lion's share of change, 
extratherapeutic or client factors, accounting for 87% of change. The 
remaining 13% of change can be attributed to therapeutic effects, wherein 
the other three common factors are found. In order of their relative 
contribution to change, these elements include: (1) Alliance Factors [8% or 
60% of therapeutic effects]; (2) Allegiance Factors  [4% or 30% of 
therapeutic effects]; and (3) model or technique  [1% or 8% of therapeutic 
effects].  For more info/references: The Great Psychotherapy Debate [LEA, 
2001].

Research on the four common factors makes clear that various therapeutic 
techniques (e.g., confrontation, the "miracle question," EMDR) are better 
viewed as different means of empowering one or more of the factors 
responsible for treatment outcome rather than unique to a specific treatment 
model.  A therapists allegiance to a specific model of therapy is four times 
more important than the model being employed! Incidentally, this meta-view 
of therapy models also happens to fit the way experienced clinicians 
actually practice. Surveys conducted over the last several decades have 
consistently found, for example, that clinicians tend to identify less with 
any one approach the longer they have been in the field.  Rather, 
experienced therapists tend to pick and choose from a variety of approaches 
in an effort to tailor treatment to the makeup and characteristics of the 
individual client.

Of course, the challenge to practicing clinicians-owing to the many choices 
available-is which technique(s) or approach(s) to adopt when working with a 
particular client?  In this regard, research conducted by Duncan, Hubble, & 
Miller (see Psychotherapy With Impossible Cases [Norton, 1977]; Changing the 
Rules [Guilford Press, 1992]) as well as others (for a thorough review see 
Chapter 14, The Heart & Soul of Change [APA, 1999]) shows that the client 
view of the presenting complaint, potential solutions, and ideas about the 
change process form a theory of change that can be used as the basis for 
determining, which approach, by whom, would be the most effective for this 
person, with that specific problem, under this particular set of 
circumstances. This same research shows that the probability for success is 
greater when the treatment offered fits with or is complementary to the 
client's theory.

------

Kevin Kervick

> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 25179 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.business.utah.edu:8080/pipermail/ailist/attachments/20071029/eeb18d26/attachment.gif