[Ailist] Re: Applying leeches?

Tue Apr 15 08:15:05 MDT 2008

Well said, Roger! I have struggled with this for years -- long before I knew
about AI. I was the OD person on Sam Brown's staff when he was head of the
Action Agency (Peace Corps, VISTA, and Older American Volunteer Programs in
one agency in those days) during the Carter administration. The previous
administration had spent $5 million to create a computer program that would
"evaluate" a Peace Corp volunteer's success. Problem was, it cost about
$250,000. to run the program -- totally unrealistic given the PC budget. So
Sam gave me a task: "Get rid of that thing, Jane!" (He wanted to use
Shriver's notion of evaluation when he send journalists to the field to talk
to the volunteers and write their stories! Sound familiar???)

Thus began my journey that took me face to face with the "machine" image of
human organizations that came out of our Newtonian and dichotomous view of
the world -- that actually has roots in Plato's assertion that there is a
perfect tree out there somewhere and all other trees are somehow inferior
(it's the women and "perfect 10" thing!) Soooo, I began to investigate.
(Large project to train people; count number of people attending the courses
- but how the heck do we know what the attendees learned and can we afford
to follow each one into the field to see what they learned and how they use
it and how the heck do we know if what they learned and how they use it is
useful to the "target" population and -- you get the idea! 

I believe that it is our machine image of human systems that sends us on
this wild goose chase. So what is the next step? Here's how I've come to
make sense of it. In the early days of AI in the GEM (Global Excellence in
Management) project, we brought leadership teams of International
Development Organizations together and taught them how to use AI for
planning (strategic and otherwise). They left the training with plans for
ways to use the process in their organizations. Six months later, we went to
the organization, sat down with the team and asked the AI questions: What
are the best things that have happened since you got back from the training
session? What wishes do you have for next steps? For the long term future? 

That process led me to the notion of "Valuation" (I'm currently writing the
Foreword for a book by that name written by Mette Jacobsgaard and Bernard
Mohr that is being published this spring by the Taos Institute.) Valuation
is cyclical. It is a continuous process that is an integral part of the AI
cycle - thus, we go from Destiny/Deliver (the 4th or 5th "D" depending on
the model you use) back to Discover (i.e. valuation). The differentiation in
my mind is between "How did we do?" - content evaluation, and "How are we
doing? - process evaluation. In human systems it is possible to do both. If
we are looking for financial or mechanical (countable) outcomes, we can do
the first. If we are looking for behavioral change, the second process is
more effective and gives us the bonus of helping the organization understand
that "valuation" is a process that leads to rapid prototypes, agility, and
the ability to keep up with the rapidly accelerating changing rate of change
not to mention empowering the people of the organization to use their own
good sense! (Changing rate of change you ask? I started life with a hand
held telephone where an operator asked what number you wanted and connected
your call. Now I have a new BlackBerry that works by "magic" just pulling
voices out of the air from anywhere in the world and putting them into this
new-fangled machine, as my Grandmother called the new dial-up phone that she
refused to use!

I'd love to hear innovative ways that you are responding to the clients need
for outcome information. I agree that we sometimes need to meet their need
for information whether we think it is useful or not so my process is simply
to work with them to create what they need, offering suggestions that may
(or may not) be helpful. And then I suggest that in addition to a formal
process that they practice asking the "How are we doing?" question
continuously!

Great to chat with you folks. Appreciatively, Jane 

www.appreciativeinquiryunlimited.com

Appreciative Inquiry: Change at the Speed of Imagination by Jane Magruder
Watkins & Bernard Mohr can be ordered from Amazon.com or JosseyBassWiley

-----Original Message-----
From: ailist-bounces at lists.business.utah.edu
[mailto:ailist-bounces at lists.business.utah.edu] On Behalf Of Roger Davies
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 9:22 AM
To: 'Alice Leibowitz'; ailist at lists.business.utah.edu
Subject: RE: [Ailist] Re: Applying leeches?

Hi Alice,

I don't disagree but I think we've maybe not define our question (if at all)
and are therefore talking different sides of the same point.

Yes, ultimately something measurable is always required, otherwise it is not
possible to know where you started and whether or not you have improved.
After all the purpose of measurement is to understand. So research into
measurables with a direct connection to Ai intervention should be supported
and is valuable.

However at present it is very difficult to define the measurable outcomes
and link them directly to Ai. Not impossible though. I have no doubt that
reduced employee turnover, reduced absenteeism are directly related.
Improved productivity, safety and quality maybe less directly (though in my
mind absolutely essentially this is the case), and improved innovation maybe
almost impossibly. This last one is, for me, probably the most critical. In
business we're usually not always faced with intervening into a seriously
damaging situation. Quite often we're trying to help those enjoying success
become even more successful.

John's points relate to the pervading methodologies in business that require
success to be measurably guaranteed prior to embarking upon any kind of
improvement project or initiative. This is especially the case since recent
methodologies have really imposed this way of thinking. I believe that's
where the many frustrations begin with introducing Ai into a for profit
business. 

Those exposed to Ai seem to be generally convinced of it's benefits. It's
hard in business to get the exposure if one cannot guarantee success ahead
of time. At present there is little information to help with that. So at
present it takes a few crusaders and hopefully some enlightened employers to
get started. I believe those are the companies that will succeed in the near
future and maybe overtake some less enlightened ones.

There's no question about the benefits of a measurable focus on human values
and behaviors. There are just few tools around at present to help and there
is a pervading attitude in business that focuses on financial data as a
generator of success rather than as an indicator of success. This last point
is I think the key one and a rich area for research. What does really drive
business success and are we measuring the right things? Anyone working in
safety will tell you that measuring accident rates is not the key to
improvement as you have to have had the accident first. The question is what
do you measure that prevents those accidents from occurring? Every thought
process I follow comes down to simply caring about what you do and how it
affects others. What measurements do we have for that?

Roger

-----Original Message-----
From: ailist-bounces at lists.business.utah.edu
[mailto:ailist-bounces at lists.business.utah.edu] On Behalf Of Alice Leibowitz
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 5:46 PM
To: ailist at lists.business.utah.edu
Subject: [Ailist] Re: Applying leeches?

I see a lot of people on this list and also on the Future Search list who
are opposed to evaluating the measurable results of our organizational
interventions, on the ground that such data doesn't convince skeptics to
hire us.

It may be true that this data doesn't convince skeptics, but that's not the
most important reason for gathering the data. The most important reason is
for our own integrity.

If the work we do makes people feel unified and creative for a week, but
does not result in some form of increased success in the long run, we have
failed. I don't feel ethical asking people to pay me to do something that
may not work.

I know from my past work in teen pregnancy prevention that interventions
designed to change human behavior rarely make a difference. Many
interventions which are backed by strong theory and compelling values turn
out to have no result. I believe that changing group behavior is even more
difficult than changing that of individuals.

For ourselves, as well as for the benefit of our clients, we should support
meaningful evaluation research on Appreciative Inquiry (and Future Search)
methods, so we can know what difference we are making.

-- 
Alice Leibowitz
Partner
Insight Unlimited LLC
Non-profit, Community, and Grassroots Consulting
Hartford, CT
alice at insightunlimited.org
www.insightunlimited.org
(860) 956-9299

~Contact us for a free 1-2 hour consultation

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ailist-bounces at lists.business.utah.edu
> [mailto:ailist-bounces at lists.business.utah.edu] On Behalf Of John Loty
> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 10:57 PM
> To: 'Roger Davies'; 'Stephanie West Allen'; 'AI list'
> Subject: RE: [Ailist] Is Appreciate Inquiry like "applying leeches"?
>
>
> Presumably patients that sought medical assistance and received the 
> "applying leeches" treatment were sick in the first place.
>
> I also assume that there were some successes or at least stories of 
> success.So that treatment continued for a while?
>
> Did belief in the efficacy of the treatment lead to success/relief or 
> was it the treatment?
>
> I don't know but I do know that numerous case studies that establish 
> overwhelming supporting evidence of improvements including ROI stats 
> will not open a closed mind.
>
> There have been many examples of 'smart' (even business) people 
> believing unproven theories and investing very large sums of money in 
> the hope of making a whacking huge ROI. Some would call this gambling 
> and others stupidity but it has been going on for a long long time.
>
> I am also reminded of the stories of people trying to give away real 
> cash
> (dollars) on street corners being resisted for whatever reason/feeling.
>
> Many recent studies have established that financial success (optimal 
> return on investment) is more connected to developing and maintaining
> non-material,
> spiritual values evidenced by collaborative cohesive meaning and purpose
> throughout the organisation.
>
> One way for people to come to understand those deeper qualities about 
> themselves and their organisation as a whole is to look for those 
> qualities and reward/celebrate them when discovered. Then they can 
> build on that.
>
> The investment (in dollars) to do this, is in the scheme of things not 
> really that significant anyway.
>
> If it does some good (and it will if applied consistently - a bit like 
> taking modern medicine)then will the ROI be that significant?
>
> I think the underlying issues (when people start on about ROI and the 
> like)are fear and conviction that problem solving is the only path to 
> organisational recovery/improvement/salvation.
>
> The fear I am talking about is the Fear of the unknown and very 
> closely connected is that curious facility our mind/brain has of 
> converting/labelling/characterising new behaviours 
> (dieting,exercise,quitting whatever is killing us, etc) into "error" 
> (a
> mistake) that must be avoided lest we befall unspecified consequences
> (fear
> or not sufficient ROI).
>
> I am a keen AI Advocate because I do believe that people sharing 
> stories about "best experiences" is useful, uplifting and is supported 
> by more case studies than you can jump over.
>
> In a former life I thought it important to argue and convince but now 
> I see that as largely something I will leave to others.
>
> This is my second rant today. Enough for a few months!
>
> John Loty
>
>
> ~
_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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