Unlike most models I will discuss, Appreciative Inquiry (AI) is a formal model of participative leadership and organizational development. AI requires more skill and attention in preparation and leading than the informal models but it also has a sizable literature and there are actual certifications available for AI practitioners. For someone wanting to learn to use AI, there are copious resources and practitioners available to teach it.
AI begins with the assumption that no matter how dysfunctional the overall organization, something somewhere within the organization is working right; identify that and you can effect posistive organization wide change. AI teaches us identify that thing that works well, figure out why it works well and emulate it system wide.
Among its most powerful insights, AI teaches us that questions generate energy and direct our attention; if we talk about problems our energy and attention go to the problems which usually doesn't actually solve them. Questions direct our energy and feed the behavioral dynamics. If we focus on problems or what doesn't work, we feed those things and those behaviors. Powerful questions unleash our attention and focus and enable us to make positive changes.
There is four stage cycle in Appreciative Inquiry:
1. Discover
2. Dream
3. Design
4. Deliver
Because it is more formal, AI is worth studying before using it; Appreciative Inquiry Handbook: For Leaders of Change, by David Cooperrider is a sort biblically vast book, The Thin Book of Appreciative Inquiry by Sue Annis Hammond is a good down and dirty guide, Appreciative Inquiry: A Positive Revolution in Change, by David Cooperrider and Diana Whitney is also a good one; The Power of Appreciative Inquiry by Diana Whitney is an excellent resource; that list barely scratches the surface; many of these books are expensive - paying anywhere from $40-$70 even for Kindle editions isn't uncommon. There are some great online resources - Case Western University and Harvard both have good online resources for AI.
Using AI in the real world requires intentional planning, care and insight. But, it can be incredibly powerful.
A few years ago I was on the leadership team for a non-profit. We'd experienced a major crisis a few years before and after a period of cooling were ready to move forward. We set aside a day, gathered as a team (24 or so people) and did a day of Appreciative Inquiry. It looked like this:
We met at the retreat location (a nice cabin up the canyon) at 8 a.m. and shared breakfast. Beginning at 9, we divided into pairs.
In each pair, the partners interviewed one another (about 30 minutes each). The interview began with the question "Please you describe a time when you experienced our organization at its best." The interview guides included space for notes and some questions to help people get started or to get extra information:
Was this at a planned event or was informal?
Who was involved in this experience? What did they do or say?
Do you recall your emotions at the time? What did you feel as you had this experience?
What did you say or do?
What happened that made this a "peak" experience for you?
Afterwards, what did you think, do or say to other people about this experience?
With one or two exceptions, as people began talking, they found it was easy to recall the organization at its best and the stories themselves were a rich vein of insight, laughter, tears and joy. As it was a newe experience, more than a couple people felt the process unfamiliar and at first felt awkward; working in pairs allowed them to feel more comfortable sharing their experiences. The one on one interview invites sharing and within a few minutes, the problem wasn't trying to figure out what to say, it was trying to fit everything someone had to say into the alloted time.
After the first hour, teams took a short break, got coffee etc, then met with another pair. This foursome now took time to share the interviews they'd just conducted - each person shared what they'd heard and written down. After going around, the foursomes then began a discussion about "What did you hear as we shared our interviews? Where there common experiences? Did they remind you of other experiences you've had that you'd like to share?" In the guides there was sufficient space to record these discussions. We found the problem wasn't a lack of things but say but having more to say than the time allowed; once again, stories were shared with laughter, tears, joy, even sorrow. We touched something authentic in the sharing of these stories.
That second stage took easily 90 minutes, which got us to lunch time.
After lunch, the foursomes re-assembled. With lunch in their bellies and some time to think, they were challenged to spend about 90 minutes discussing a set of questions:
What did the stories you heard have in common with each other?
What themes and/or ideas did the stories you've heard share in common?
Thinking about those themes or ideas or experiences, how would you summarize them? As a team, please write a statement that captures the essence of the stories you've heard and shared.
We gathered as a large group and shared these statements. It's been seven years and I still remember that all five groups produced remarkably similar statements about the strength of relationships, mutual caring for one another, the freedom to know and be known as our authentic selves by other people.
As we let those statements settle in our consciousness (and took a coffee break), the facilitators prepared the final step - crafting "provocative propositions". Each foursome was given blank sheets of paper, an easel pad, markers and an hour to craft their proposition; they were then given a definition of a provocative proposition.
A provocative proposition is a statement about the future, written in the present tense. The foursomes were told, "Imagine it's five years from now and the summaries we just shared have been our template for live in our organization. Describe, as if it is happening now, what life is like for people in our organization."
The teams worked for an hour and produced five powerful provocative propositions. As we read them together, several of them were almost identical and those teams worked together to craft single statements. At the end of the day, we had two statements we could share with members of our organization that amounted to vision statements of "Here's what can be at our best - if we choose."
Following our day of AI, our leadership team used the statements to craft new programs and policies - essentially we'd discovered and dreamed together, now we had to design and deliver.
Design meant more discussion, more brainstorming, more thinking but it was on a solid basis. Suddenly, the problems that had occupied us weren't getting our attention. Instead, we were able to talk about core, positive values and experiences. When we confronted problems afterwards, people who had experienced the retreat were would say, "Okay, we realized that we're at our best when we're in authentic community and relationship with one another - how do we come together in that way?"
AI allows organizations to shift their awareness and means of operating.
A couple notes:
AI requires a truly skilled facilitator. It's not that you have to be formally certified but you need to be a strong facilitator who can keep things running and help when individuals get stuck without being too directive; the facilitator needs to be able to step back from the process and demonstrate trust in the participants. In addition, as a faciliator you need to dedicate sufficient prep time to AI; you can't throw a session together in an afternoon. Planning the session can become very involved - one resource I read actually recommended (if possible) assignign the interview teams to guarantee that people would be with someone they knew but not well, someone for whom their story might be new.
AI requires sufficient time - you can't rush it during the process. If you're spending a day of AI, have that be the only thing you do. Bear in mind it is also an extended process; the interviews can easily extend over a period of months, followed by months of synthesizing the results of those interviews into a design which you then implement. That doesn't mean it has to take that long - a well desigend summit can in the course of a few days with a motivated group of individuals work through all four D's. The process itself takes the time it takes and rushing it will just frustrate folks.
You need to plan ahead and plan well. AI requires a significant investment of time planning and preparing. You need to craft good questions and think through the flow of the day, and work with leaders to design and deliver on the insights gathered during the apprectivie interviews. You can't just throw an AI summit together in an afternoon and expect to get results.
Finally, AI is a formal process which doesn't work in every setting. If you only have six people, AI may not be the way to go though it's insights can provide incredibly useful.
Although it may sound a little crazy, imagine Democratic activists from across the country coming together to answer qeustions like "When did you experience Democratic politics at is best? What experience have you had that exemplified Democratic principles at their best? What happened, who was there, what did they say or do that helped make that experience a peak experience?" And so on. We can transform politics by asking the right kind and the right questions.