APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY: NEW THINKING AT WORK

Sherene Zolno

Abstract: Many of us have been taught that legitimate knowledge derives from an
emphasis on what is rational, objective, empirical, and problematic. Called ‘critical
thinking,’ this ability to identify and successfully solve problems is viewed in most
workplace settings as crucial for organizational effectiveness and change. Other means
of understanding reality – “appreciation,” “valuing,” and “affirming,” – are considered
Pollyannish, i.e., soft-headed and non-essential.

By legitimizing only the first form of thinking we shut down an entire mode of learning
and severely limit the capacity for innovative approaches to organizing and change. A
new and inclusive philosophy and approach, however, legitimizes the second form of
thinking and facilitates positive organizational change. By connecting people to the
organization’s strategy, capturing their imaginations, respecting their contributions, and
energizing the change process, this approach, called Appreciative Inquiry, enables
organizational members to increase their influence on their organization’s structure and
nature.

Published in The 2002 Annual: Developing Human Resources, Pfeiffer & Company.

WHAT IS APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY?

David Kolb (1984), in his theory of experiential learning, describes the importance of
both appreciative apprehension and critical comprehension as different processes of
knowing. Critical comprehension is based on skepticism and doubt, while appreciative
apprehension is based on belief, trust and conviction.

One mistake we make is to define “appreciative” in a limited way as meaning only

“gratitude.” Appreciative also includes the meanings “to see” (where you pay attention),
“to value” and “to increase in value.” When Kolb says, “Appreciation is the process of
valuing,” he is reminding us that it takes more than just the facts to make effective
choices about the world.

“Appreciation of an apprehended moment is a judgment of both value and fact.     To  
appreciate apprehended reality is to embrace it.  And from this affirmative embrace flows  
a deeper fullness and richness of experience.” –David Kolb1

1
 Reprinted from D.A. Kolb, Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development,
copyright 1984, with permission from Prentice-Hall.
 Defining Appreciative Inquiry

"AI is: A whole system empowering process that looks for the best, what's even better,
and collaboratively plans how to arrive at a higher performing state?" Roland developed
from Mac’s definition below for Dale, a college Dean. 7-2005.

“An empowering process that looks for the best, what's even better, and how do we get
there?" Malcolm J. Odell, Jr., MS, PhD. Mac is the most experienced AI Consultant
Globally.

Appreciative inquiry is a philosophy that “invites us to choose consciously to seek out

and inquire into that which is generative and life-enriching, both in our own lives and in
the lives of others, and to explore our hopes and dreams for the future” (Watkins and
Mohr, 2001, p 58) From the best selling book on Appreciative Inquiry – Solicited by
roland and edited by roland and friends).

Instead of starting out to solve problems—a typical focus of traditionally trained

managers, steeped in a philosophy of management by exception—AI focuses on what is
going right, what is motivating, what is energizing, and what are the key strengths of a
setting. Instead of asking the question, “What is going wrong and how do we solve that
problem?” AI begins by asking, “What is going right and how do we leverage that
strength to achieve quantum leaps in productivity improvement?” Roland Sullivan on
Page 52- from just released second edition of “Practicing Organization Development”
edited by Roland Sullivan and Bill Rothwell.

Appreciative Inquiry is a collaborative, strengths-based approach to retooling our human

organizations through a positive approach to organization change and transformation. It
appreciates through recognizing the best past and present strengths and potentials. It
inquires through exploration and discovery in a systematic manner. It brings
organizations alive through the mobilization of cooperation. It is best integrated into
contemporary Organization Change theory and practice. Roland Sullivan created for a
Large British Company.

Here's what other people are saying about AI:

* Appreciative inquiry is a way to rediscover and tap into our core strengths and highest
potentials. It also helps us develop our self-talk in a constructive way and encourages us
to bring out our best qualities in serving this institution. Appreciative inquiry is a method
that helps us develop the goals and dreams that support the future of our Navy. It
involves soliciting ideas from people throughout our fleet. Admiral Vern Clark, US Navy

* We have reached the end of problem solving as a mode of inquiry capable of inspiring,
mobilizing, and sustaining human system change. The future of Organization
Development belongs to methods that affirm, compel, and accelerate anticipatory
learning involving larger and larger levels of collectivity. David L. Cooperrider, Case
Western Reserve University and co-founder of Appreciative Inquiry

* Appreciative Inquiry is the philosophy that is allowing us to engage the hearts, minds,
and souls of our people--all of our people. Only when we do that will we achieve
breakthrough performance. Cindy Frick, Director, Organizational Development & Human
Resource Planning, Roadway Express/Yellow Roadway
* We introduced the concept of Appreciative Inquiry into our 'Breakthrough Leadership at
Roadway' curriculum.. Our senior managers have been enthusiastic about using this
innovative approach to deal with some of our most pressing issues. It really does get
everyone to focus on what's possible through interactive discovery and design sessions.
The output has been amazing and provides a great map to desirable outcomes. Jim
Staley, President, Roadway Express/Yellow Roadway

* Appreciative Inquiry is currently revolutionizing the field of organizational development.

Robert Quinn, Distinguished Professor of Management, University of Michigan Business
School

Appreciative Inquiry is the study and exploration of what gives life to human systems
when they function at their best. This approach to personal change and organizational
change is based on the assumption that questions and dialogue about strengths,
successes, values, hopes, and dreams are themselves transformational. In short,
Appreciative Inquiry suggests that human organizing and change, at its best, is a
relationship process of inquiry, grounded in affirmation and appreciation. Diana Whitney
and Amanda Trosten-Bloom, AI Practitioners and authors of The Power of Appreciative
Inquiry

David Cooperrider (Srivastva & Cooperrider, 1990), of Case Western Reserve

University, who is one of the original developers of Appreciative Inquiry, describes it as
engaging people in “...an inquiry process that tries to apprehend the factors that give life
to a living system.” Based on information derived from the inquiry, people would then
“seek to articulate those possibilities that can lead to a better future.” The Appreciative
Inquiry process as he has presented it, is about finding ways to successfully translate
best intentions into reality, and values and beliefs into practice.

“It is important to recognize that the problem-solving method of organizational inquiry

quite systematically paints a picture of organizational life in which a whole series of
colors are considered untouchable. In this way, the totality of being is obviously
obscured, leading to a narrowed conception of human nature and cultural possibility.” –
David Cooperrider and Suresh Srivastva2

In other words, the expected outcome of the Appreciative Inquiry is an organization

which has affirmed its strengths and fundamental values, used that information to
engage in a process to envision a collectively desired future, and moved forward
towards enacting that vision in daily worklife.

2
  Reprinted from W.A. Passmore and R. W. Woodman, Research in Organizational Change and
Development, copyright 1987, with permission from Elsevier Science.
 Appreciative
“4-D” Cycl
PROBLEM SOLVING VS. APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY

Because it is highly counter-intuitive in Western culture, it’s difficult to understand how

affirming strengths and values can lead to transformational change. In fact, most leaders
would feel remiss if they failed to engage in a rational process using problem-solving
methods to identify ways to improve the cost effectiveness of internal systems. We need
to question, however, whether problem solving has already fixed that which is solvable,
and begin to focus on what is yet possible – the untapped potential beyond fixing what’s
already in place.

Carl Jung, early 20th Century psychological researcher and therapist, noticed
that a person’s problems faded when they were confronted with a new or stronger
interest. He asserted that the greatest and most important problems in life were
fundamentally unsolvable and could only be outgrown (Jung 1923).

For Jung, Cooperrider and others, problem solving appeared inherently

conservative, limiting and slow. The philosophy and approach they sought to introduce
instead focused on the future of the system as a whole, on engaging participants in
collectively imagining new possibilities for their future, and on bypassing the process of
solving yesterday’s problems.

Thomas White, President of GTE Telephone Operations, expressed his concerns

with the limits of problem solving by asking this question: “Should we demoralize a
successful group by concentrating on their failures, or help them over the remaining
hurdles by building a bridge with their successes?” He felt that using Appreciative Inquiry
helped GTE attain much better results than just trying to fix problems – that by shifting
their internal conversation away from its focus on negative problems and toward valuing
their capabilities, the re-energized organization improved financial results beyond what
was expected with traditional problem solving alone (White, 1996).

Destin
Desti
“We are among the best problem solvers in the world. We trouble shoot everything.
When used continually and over a long period of time, however, this approach can lead
to a negative culture. If you combine a negative culture with all the challenges we face
today, it could be easy to convince ourselves that we have too many problems to
overcome––to slip into a paralyzing sense of hopelessness.”–Thomas White President,
GTE Telephone Operations

Table 1 identifies some of the differences between problem solving, and Appreciative
Inquiry.
As many organizational leaders are far from achieving the results they want, the need to
reinvent the tools used in helping them is clear. The choice appears to be to stay in the
incremental problem based, diagnosis/treatment frame, or to move on to a fresh
perspective which can simultaneously address the compelling triad of strategy, structure
and culture during change.

The Appreciative Inquiry process makes available a whole new array of alternatives to
support organizational learning and expand possibilities for action. Using it, change
leaders have an opportunity to reframe their philosophical stance in a fundamental
way–– that is, during organizational improvement efforts, to be deliberately appreciative.
They would thus be working with optimism and hope, actively engaged in valuing and
celebrating the human spirit, while creating an enspirited environment welcoming to
creativity and imagination.

Table 1 Problem Solving vs. Appreciative Inquiry

PROBLEM SOLVING APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY

Identification of the problem Setting a context of appreciation of

(seeing) what is

Analysis of Causes Inquiry: Discovery Phase

“What’s going on” “Valuing the best of what is”

Proposed Solutions Envisioning: Dream Phase

“Fix the problem at hand” “What might be”

Action Planning Dialoguing/Aligning: Design Phase
“How to get it done” “This is what will be”

Action Innovating: Destiny Phase

“Fix the problem” “Creating and sustaining it now”
BASIC ASSUMPTIONS . . .
Problem Solving: Appreciative Inquiry:
That the organization is That the organization is
a problem to be solved a mystery to be embraced.
Reprinted with permission of the publisher. From Appreciative Inquiry, copyright 1999 by D. L.
Cooperrider and D. Whitney, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. San Francisco, CA. All rights
reserved.
OD Defined
While there are many definitions of Organization Development (OD) floating around
today, we consolidated definitions from past and contemporary leaders of the field and
came up with:

Organization Development (OD) is whole-system transformation and development using

a values-based collaborative process. It focuses on applying positive behavioral science
wisdom to perfecting, reinforcing, and measuring such organizational features as:

• Extraordinary performance
• Building of executive teams
• Aligned leadership
• Relevant strategies
• Synergistic and functional organization design
• Clear organizational structure/chart including roles, responsibilities, and
accountabilities
• Cost effective business processes
• Passionate and great human cultures
• Changed behavior and mental sets
• Globalization
• Quickened learning environments
• Or whatever the executive team believes must be focused on to achieve desired
results.
In essence, OD leads people to collectively learn and change to produce desired
outcomes.

Organization Development: Elaborated

In order to understand how OD works we would like to introduce you to the major
components of the core framework of OD.

1. Working with Whole Systems:

A systems perspective requires defining a boundary, which separates the system into an
internal set of interdependent parts and an environment (the next larger system) with
which it needs to interact (import/export energy). Thus, a system can be an entire
enterprise, a specific unit, or even an individual and always includes internal and
external customers/clients. When we apply the term “wholeness” to a system, we’re
referring to the regularly interdependent parts forming an effective and aligned whole,
interacting according to the influence of related forces. For a system to work smoothly,
everyone who is affected by the organization needs to be positively engaged. A balance
of influence from primary stakeholders such as owners, employees and customers is
desired.

2. A Unique Value-Based Process:

Values are enduring and positive beliefs on which the ideal or transformed state
attributes its existence. Values have always been an OD signature. Additionally, the soul
of OD is the process by which the desired state is achieved.
“Process: A progressive series of procedures and functions performed over a period of
time bringing about a result. For OD purposes, the thoughts, feelings and interactions of
those participating in the change process are of particular significance. For OD changing
processes often involves converting habitual patterns of thought, feeling, behavior
(action) and interaction to more desirable states.”

3. Transformational vs. Developmental:

'Transformation' is a fundamental paradigm shift from one state of being to a new state.
Transformation requires a shift to new behaviors and mindsets to sustain future change.
It is deep-rooted or second order change. 'Developmental' is first order change or
improvement of an existing state. Ideally, conscious transformation occurs when a
system requires it. Ongoing development then keeps the system moving forward. In
development, core processes and domains are continually adapted through a simple
continuous change cycle such as the classic Scan, Plan, Act, and Re-act model.

4.Strength-Focused Change:
Instead of having an obsessive pre-occupation with root causality of problems and
negativity, contemporary OD is leaning more and more toward strength-focused change.
Positive change is driven by an appreciative or value-added approach where inquisition,
hope, innovation, and engagement prevail.

5. A Research-Based Philosophy:
OD has a traditional foundation in an applied behavioral knowledge of business,
technology, sociology, anthropology, positive psychology, adult education, economics,
and organizational behavior. The situation itself, and the beliefs of the consultant, are
integrated with one goal in mind - achieving success for the organization and the
customer.
Tried and true relevant knowledge, skills and ways of being, especially about change are
transferred to the system. In addition,enterprise learning and intelligence are discovered,
reinforced and documented throughout the effort.

Guiding Concepts of Appreciative Inquiry Transformation (AIT)

By Paul Kope, Internal Consultant with a Major British Company

Appreciative – AI assumes there is ‘good’ in every system and seeks to bring that
goodness into the sunlight. The focus is on the “life-giving forces” present when the
system is performing optimally.

Inquiry – AI seeks to understand through questions. It is based on the simple

premise that organizations grow in the direction of what we repeatedly ask questions
about and focus our attention on.

Complexity Theory / Systems View – Our world is a constant flux of dynamic

processes. Questions are significant and can set in motion powerful change. AI
helps us move from Understanding language as the Descriptor of Reality, to
Understanding language as the Creator of Reality.

Positive Imaging -- Appreciative Inquiry turns our thoughts toward that which is
valued, that which gives us joy and feelings of worthiness. These stories of positive
and generative times lead to the creation of images that become the sunlight toward
which people and our organizations turn.
 Social Constructionism / The Power of Stories – We construct our realities
through interactions with one another. Stories are powerful constructs. They stick
like glue! They make information easier to remember, build identities and foster
relationships. They are a medium for conveying values and vision, and move the
internal dialogue of the system.

Change and Transition – AI is consistent with effective change & transition efforts –
emphasizing collaboration and participation of all voices in the system, and
approaching change as a personal journey (transition) versus just an event. AI is not
an intervention in and of itself; rather, it brings a new lens to existing Organization
Change and Development interventions/methodologies.

Best of Today – People become more confident when change includes carrying
forward parts of the past. We must capture the best of what and who we are when
we’re performing optimally, and build on top of that ‘foundation of excellence.’

Innovation for Tomorrow – The building process includes inquiring into people’s
wishes in order to bring new innovation to our ‘foundation of excellence.’ When the
collective imagination is mobilized, people find ways to move the organization
forward toward a shared image inspiring imagination and creativity.

Improvement / Problem Solving – AI brings a new ‘lens’ to traditional approaches.

People who live inside the system identify what they wish could be different, and by
starting from an appreciative perspective, create the energy to address the things
that need to change. AI does not deny problems. It redefines them.

Hope – AI speaks to human hope, an underrated power in our lives.

With gratitude and respect to the AI thought leaders who have authored these
statements and
inspired passion toward re-framing our organizations and our lives through a social
constructionist lens.- Paul .
MSA Comment: Paul created this for his client system where we assisted him in a grand
Change effort. He coined the phrase Appreciative Inquiry Transformation (AIT).

COMPARING APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY TO ACTION RESEARCH: OD PRACTITIONER PERSPECTIVES

Organization Development Journal, Summer 2005 by Egan, Toby Marshall,
Lancaster, Cynthia M

Abstract
This study examines the assumptions, approaches, and implications of appreciative
inquiry (AI) and action research (AR) for organization development (OD) from the
perspective of OD practitioners who use AI as an intervention approach. Interviews were
conducted with OD practitioner informants to explore the strengths and weaknesses of
AI compared to those of AR. Practitioners outlined the strengths and weaknesses of AI
and AR and elaborated on ways that AI complements AR and other intervention
approaches.

"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it."
Albert Einstein
Appreciative inquiry (AI) has been steadily gaining recognition in scholarly and
practitioner communities (Bushe, 1999) as an innovative approach to organization
development (OD). The number of publications, websites, and training programs
associated with AI appears to be rapidly increasing. Along with this increase in notoriety,
questions have emerged regarding the elements that make this approach different from
other OD interventions. Although AI is associated with action research (AR), there are
key differences with regard to philosophical assumptions and practices (Gotches &
Ludema, 1995). AR, a diagnostic intervention approach introduced by Lewin (1946) and
identified as a central process for OD (Rothwell, Sullivan, & McLean, 1995), involves a
focus on a particular problem and seeks to provide assistance in understanding and
addressing the problem identified. AI scholars (Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987) criticize
AR as being overly focused on problem solving. Although Lewin aimed the AR approach
toward real problems in social systems, the AI approach rejects a problem-solving
orientation. "The idea is to look at an organization as a positive force, understanding its
strengths, and figure out how to refine and enhance what it-or a system within it-is
already doing well" (Zemke, 1999). These and other comparisons are important to
understanding both AR and AI in the context of OD, and to understanding both as
approaches for the improvement of organizational learning and performance.

This article explores the use of AI from the perspectives of OD practitioners who have
extensive experience with AI interventions. Our interests as researchers and
practitioners led us to an examination involving relevant literature and the perspectives
of experts. We felt that AI (and AR for that matter) has been understudied and that
further critical examination of AI and its differentiation from AR was important to further
understanding of this emerging OD practice. Because we were unable to find literature
that featured perspectives from multiple practitioners regarding the strengths and
weaknesses of the approach, this study-exploring the experiences and viewpoints of OD
practitioners using AI-promises to be a valuable contribution to the OD literature.

Framing AI and AR

Describing, comparing, and contrasting concepts and practices under examination is a

key challenge. When you "frame" an issue you are naming it, and by naming it you are
focusing on how you might set up its analysis and set the criteria for evaluation. Framing
is a heuristic process, by which we mean that the definition of an issue already includes
elements of the solution. (Coghlan& Brannick, 2001, p. 75)

In this study, we view AR and AI as related to OD and to one another, at least in terms of
general aims and related processes. From our review of the literature and interviews
with practitioners regarding similarities between the two approaches, we found that both
AI and AR:

1. Engage real social systems

2. Are conducted in real time, not retrospectively or in advance of data gathering

3. Are change oriented processes interested in making improvements beyond the

current organizational state
4. Are interactive and require involvement by organizational stakeholders

5. Tend to be cyclical and iterative processes

6. May use a variety of data collection approaches

7. Are action and reflection oriented

8. Are values oriented

9. Were founded by individuals interested in theory-building

10. Are applicable to a variety of human systems from individuals to organizations and
even larger frameworks.

Although the intention of this study is to explore both AI and AR, within this article AR is
most often explored from the perspective of AI. Study informants were proponents of
and regularly used an AI approach to OD. The selection of this group of informants is
based on the assumption that AI is growing in popularity in the OD community, but has
not been explored for as long, or as in as much depth as AR. This assumption extends
to the organization of this article, as it is assumed that those exploring this new approach
to OD are likely more familiar with an AR approach to OD. Key references supporting the
exploration of Λ? and AR are, however, provided throughout. Finally, Cooperrider and
Srivastva (1987) have noted that those practicing and writing about AR have largely
stepped away from theory and theorybuilding in favor of an exclusive focus on action.
This was never the intent of Lewin, the father of AR (Lewin, 1946). This departure from
theory by AR practitioners and scholars is a rationale often associated with the
development of AI. We would like to acknowledge that this article is written for an
audience interested in theory with a predisposition to practice. We do, however, provide
some theoretical discussion and recommend theory-building associated with AI and AR.

Purpose and Scope of the Study

We examine the philosophical assumptions, strategies, and processes utilized in AI from

the perspective of existing literature and experienced OD practitioners. From this
vantage point, comparisons are made between AI and AR. The research questions
utilized in this study were (a) what are the strengths and weaknesses of the AI approach
from the perspective of experienced OD practitioners utilizing AI?, and (b) what are the
comparative strengths and weaknesses of AR?

Philosophical and Theoretical Assumptions of Appreciative Inquiry in OD

AI was principally developed by David Cooperrider, an associate professor at the

Weatherhead School of Management, case Western Reserve University. Cooperrider
developed the AI approach along with Suresh Srivastva, Frank Barrett, John Carter, and
other colleagues approximately twenty years ago. They challenged the traditional
problem-solving approach to change management and introduced the term appreciative
inquiry. In recent years, many practitioners have contributed to the extension and
development of AI. AI has been used in international development efforts as well as
within public and private sector organizations.

Although no study indicating the breadth or frequency at which the approach has been
deployed was identified, organizations that have been identified in ??-related literature
as utilizing AI include GTE (now Verizon), Avon, Nutrimental, The MYRADA project in
Southern India, the Manitoba Skownan First Nation Project, The United States Navy,
Roadway Express, McDonalds, John Deere, Green Mountain Coffee Growers, Lafarge
North America, Benedictine University, and many others. The increased use of AI has
led to its inclusion in the most frequently used OD texts (Cummings & Worley, 2004;
French & Bell, 1998). According to Bushe (1999), AI is one of the more significant OD
innovations in recent years. AI "refers to both a search for knowledge and a theory of
intentional collective action, which are designed to help evolve the normative vision and
will of a group, organization or society as a whole" (Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987, p.
159). AI has been described as a philosophy of knowing, a methodology for managing
change, and an approach to leadership and human development (Cooperrider &
Srivastva, 1987; Hammond, 1998). Cooperrider and Whitney (1999) provided the
following "practiceoriented" definition:

Appreciative inquiry is the cooperative search for the best in people, the organizations,
and the world around them. It involves systematic discovery of what gives a system "life"
when it is most effective and capable in economic, ecological, and human terms. AI
involves the art and practice of asking questions that strengthen a system's capability to
heighten positive potential. It mobilizes inquiry through Grafting an "unconditional
positive question" often involving hundreds or sometimes thousands of people. In AI,
intervention gives way to imagination and innovation; instead of negation, criticism, and
spiraling diagnosis there is discovery, dream and design. AI assumes that every living
system has untapped, rich, and inspiring accounts of the positive. Link this "positive
change core" directly to any change agenda, and changes never thought possible are
suddenly and democratically mobilized. (Cooperrider & Whitney, 1999, p. 10)

Although AI is often identified as being related to AR (Barrett, 1995), a significant

difference is that AI is a product of the socio-rationalist paradigm (Gergen, 1991; 1999).
From this perspective, reality is a product of the moment and is thus open to constant
and ongoing change. Cooperrider and Srivastva (1987) argued that there is nothing
inherently real about any particular social form. From this vantage point, there are no
trans-cultural, everlasting, or valid principles of social organization to be uncovered.
Although the underlying assumption of logical empiricism is that social phenomena are
sufficiently lasting, stable, and replicable to allow for generalizations, socio-rationalism
contends that social order is fundamentally unstable. According to AI practitioners and
scholars, "Social phenomena are guided by cognitive heuristics, limited only by the
human imagination; the social order is a subject matter capable of infinite variation
through the linkage of ideas and action" (Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987, p. 139).
According to Bushe (1995), "Socio-rationalists argue that the theories we hold, our
beliefs about social systems, have a powerful effect on the nature of social 'reality.' Not
only do we see what we believe, but the very act of believing creates it" (p. 15). From
this point of view, development of new theories for organizational change is a powerful
way to influence how OD interventions are formulated and applied.

The AI approach often engages an entire organization (Murrell, 1999). Cooperrider

offered the "heliotropic hypothesis," which posits that social forms evolve toward the
"light," toward images that are affirming and life giving (Hammond, 1998). From this
perspective of AI, groups, organizations, communities, or societies have images of
themselves that underlie selforganizing processes. AI promotes the principle that social
systems tend naturally toward the most positive images held by their members (Bushe,
1995; 2000). AI posits that a conscious elaboration of positive imagery will support and
extend positive results for the social system as a whole.

AI, it has been argued, alleviates the conflict and resistance to change often identified in
literature about other approaches to OD and change (Barron & Moore, 1999). Where
other organizational interventions concentrate on the problems to be fixed (Cooperrider
& Srivastva, 1987), AI focuses on "what's working well." Instead of viewing an
organization as having problems, AI views an organization as doing things right, and
using those right things to build the organization's future (Hammond & Royal, 2001).

AI practitioners and authors have emphasized the importance of the appreciative

interview. "We believe the seeds of change are implicit in the very first questions we ask"
(Cooperrider & Whitney, 1999, p. 12). The appreciative interview and the "affirmative
topic choice" have been reported to be essential parts of the initial stage of an AI
intervention (see Figure 1). The selection of the topic for exploration is viewed as
essential because AI researchers "believe the seeds of change are implicit in the very
first questions" (Cooperrider & Whitney, 1999, p. 12). The step following topic
identification, the discovery phase, is aimed at disclosing positive capacity regarding a
chosen topic. AI researchers often recommend that everyone involved in the OD effort
participate in interviews "because, in the process, people reclaim their ability to admire,
to be surprised, to be inspired" (Cooperrider & Whitney, 1999, p. 14). A distinguishing
characteristic of AI is that every question is positive in orientation (Hammond & Royal,
2001).

The third step is the dream phase (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2000). During this stage of
intervention, insights from the first steps of the intervention are elaborated upon. From
the perspective of the AI practitioner, the outlook and vision of the future for organization
members is influenced by organization members' shared review of the data gathered in
the previous phase. AI practitioners typically engage in a thematic analysis of interview
data focusing on the positive stories and capacities identified by interviewees. The
reported results are identified as the organization's "dream" (Cooperrider & Srivastva,
1987). The dream is often described as a compelling statement of strategic intent in, a
vision for what might be, or a powerful purpose. This phase often culminates in the
drafting of a statement summarizing the organization's vision, purpose, and strategic
intent.

The fourth step in the AI process, the design phase, is identified as focusing on the
creation of agreed-upon concepts and principles. The positive narratives collected in the
discovery phase are used to create provocative questions and propositions (Cooperrider
& Whitney, 2000). Because of their connections to positive stories, provocative
questions or propositions are said to come from the positive core of the organization. An
example of such a question provided by Cooperrider and Whitney is, "What would our
organization look like if it were designed to maximize the positive core and accelerate
realizing our dreams?"

When individuals come to agreement on the design stage, the AI process moves to the
final destiny phase: "Originally, the final 'D' stood for 'delivery' and was dedicated to
writing action plans, building implementation strategies and monitoring progress"
(Zemke, 1999, p. 31 ). According to Zemke, however, the stage has moved away from
concrete activities to more of an open process. The final step in the AI process has more
recently been described as focusing on sustaining the efforts of the previous stages
(Cooperrider & Whitney, 1999). This step is focused on empowering, improving, and
making adjustments toward ongoing change. Common models of the AI process are
circular and imply that the steps are iterative-meaning, in this case, a return to another
affirmative topic choice or to discovery.

The Foundations of the Action Research Approach in OD

AR was developed in the 1940s and 1950s and was focused on creating a research
method that would lead to both practical results and the development of new social
theory. AR was positioned as an important tool in social and organizational change
(Goldstein, 1992). A key emphasis of AR has been the establishment of a co-research
agenda whereby practitioners and organizational members work side-by-side to analyze,
implement, and evaluate systems change. The outcomes of AR involve both the overt
solving of a problem as well as the generation of new knowledge about the inner
workings of AR as a learning process. This new knowledge is transferable to areas of
focus for AR (Coghlan & Brannick, 2001). AR was and continues to be a cornerstone of
OD (Rothwell etal, 1995).

In examining AR from the perspective of Lewin, the founder of AR, Argyris (1993)
identified four key themes: (a) identifying theory and problems as inseparable elements
in the exploration of social science; (b) developing research designs that considered the
system or situation under study both holistically and as separate parts; (c) the creation of
key concepts fthat were transferable frora'one AR situation to another; and (d) changing
the way in which research was conducted so that subjects became clients engaged by
skilled helpers/researchers, not as guinea pigs who are to be periodically prodded and
analyzed from a distance.

Coghlan and Brannick (2001) utilized the work of Argyris, Putnam, and Smith (1995) in
summarizing key elements of AR:

1. It involves change experiments on real problems in social systems. It focuses on a

particular problem and seeks to provide assistance to the client system.

2. Like social management more generally, it involves iterative cycles of identifying a

problem, planning, acting, and evaluating.

3. The intended change in an action research project typicalIy involves re-education, a

term that refers to changing patterns of thinking and action that are currently well
established in individuals and groups. A change intended by change agents is typically
at the level of norms and values expressed in action. Effective re-education depends on
participation by clients in diagnosis, fact finding and free choice to engage in new kinds
of action.

4. It challenges the status quo from a participative perspective that is congruent with the
requirements of effective re-education.

5. It is intended to contribute simultaneously to basic knowledge in social science and to

social action in everyday life. High standards for developing theory and empirically
testing propositions organized by theory are not to be sacrificed nor the relation to
practice be lost. (Coghlan & Brannick, 2001, p. 5)

AR is a framework for diagnosing, implementing, and evaluating a change process (see

Figure 2). "It allows for collaboration between practitioner and client throughout the
process in order to distribute knowledge and understanding within the organization"
(Cady & Caster, 2000, p. 80). Additionally, AR utilizes empirical data collection and
feedback systems that are rigorously defined and analyzed. There does not appear to be
complete agreement regarding the core philosophical assumptions underlying Lewin's
perspective on action research. One interpretation, however, is that his support of
empirical data collection and the development of theory with an apparent aim toward
generalizability imply support of a logical empiricist perspective. In general, the logical
empiricist perspective supports the idea of a shared reality and the possibility for
replicating empirical approaches to social science problems that could be reused with a
variety of people in a variety of settings.

Although there are several AR approaches varying from five to fourteen steps (Argyris,
1993; Barker & Barker, 1994; Cummings & Worley, 2004; Davis & Cook, 1998; DePoy,
Hartman, & Haslett, 1999; McLean & Sullivan, 1989), the general approach involves
data gathering, diagnosis, implementation, and evaluation of the intervention. All AR
models appear to be comparable to the basic premises found in the Shewart cycle
(Shewart, 1939) and the action research cycle forwarded by Lewin (1946) and include
variations on the basic steps of (a) generating an initial idea, (b) engaging in fact finding,
(c) planning, (d) taking the first action step, (e) evaluating, (f) amending the plan, and (g)
taking another action step (see Cady & Caster, 2000, for comparisons of several AR
models).

Most AR models appear to be cyclical or iterative. This cyclical effect implies a second
process occurring concurrently with the aforementioned steps. This meta-learning step
involves discovery of the process during engagement in the process. Knowledge is
created through action and reflection about how the process itself is going. Inquiry into
how the steps are being undertaken becomes as important as action about them. Figure
2 identifies the eight-step AR process presented by McLean and Sullivan (1989). Two of
the differentiating factors between AR and AI can be found in the Assessment and
Feedback stage, as well as the Evaluation stage, presented in the AR model.

Critical Comparisons of the Al and AR Approaches

AR has been criticized as a flawed method of organizational change and as an

inadequate process for developing new theory. Cooperrider and Srivastva (1987) were
critical of the lack of useful theory generated by traditional AR. They contended that both
the method of AR and implicit theory of social organization used by AR are at fault. The
problem, according to AI practitioners and scholars, is that most AR projects use rational
empirical assumptions (Sussman & Evered, 1978) that treat social and psychological
reality as something fundamentally stable and enduring, or external to the individual and
organization. As previously mentioned, AI advocates criticize AR as a problem-
solvingfocused approach. According to the AI literature, the problem-solving approach of
AR limits the opportunities for organizations to be successful because it reinforces
existing beliefs instead of addressing the possibilities for the creation of new (and
presumably better) beliefs. AR is additionally criticized because it keeps the organization
moving from one unsolved problem to another (Zemke, 1999).

According to Cady and Caster (2000), there are three main challenges facing AR: (a) AR
is problem-solving oriented in comparison to the "positive process frameworks" utilized
in AI; (b) AR has been left open to interpretation resulting in AR models that have
become complex and somewhat intimidating for practitioners; and (c) AR has not been
utilized in conjunction with other OD and change approaches. Despite these challenges,
AR has been widely utilized for several decades (Cummings & Worley, 2004). There
have been recent suggestions (Cady & Caster, 2000; Golembiewski, 1999; McLean,
1996) to integrate AI and AR approaches. The general suggestion for doing so is to
emphasize the positive questions and focus of the AI approach while collecting critical
and constructive feedback during the intervention process.

Although both are intervention approaches to OD and change, AI and AR involve

different assumptions and steps. AI practitioners and scholars identify the AI approach
as a process focused on the creation and actualization of new principles, beliefs, and
provocative propositions. According to Cooperrider and Srivastva (1987), AR is focused
on problem solving in the forms of assessment and evaluation. Even though both
intervention approaches may share the goal of learning or OD, the differences between
the socio-rationalist assumptions in AI and the rational empiricist assumptions in AR are
demonstrated in the models and descriptions of each approach. Although often
described as being in direct opposition, many of the differences between AI and AR are
neither dualistic nor exclusive to one or the other.

AI has also received criticism as an approach to OD and change. According to

Golembiewski (1999), executives tend to favor an AI approach to OD over other
approaches because it is more likely to heighten integrative rather than punitive
impulses. If executives ask employees to think of the accomplishments of the
organization and of leadership, the only option the AI process presents is positive
information. Therefore, AI may be viewed as attractive to those holding positional power
because it averts focus away from organizational challenges and specific performance
or behavioral issues that may be of concern to employees. Employees may become
frustrated, however, with managers and executives unwilling to discuss important
challenges being faced by the organization.

Critics of AI argue that there is currently little research supporting AI or differentiating it

as more favorable than other approaches. McLean (1996) stated,

Does appreciative inquiry have anything to say to our practice of OD? Certainly. But it's
interesting how Cooperrider (legitimately) points to the paucity of research supporting
the use of the AR model, yet provides no "proof (what would that look like, anyhow?) that
appreciative inquiry can do any better. A synergistic approach will surely benefit all
involved, (p. 3)

Golembiewski (1999) went on to say, "Social constructivism is an inhospitable

foundation for anything that can be called empirical research, even loosely. And this
'creative theorizing' in AI takes on less the character of science than of advocacy, if not
of self-serving spinning" (in Livingston, 1999, pp. 109-110).

Critics of AR have stated that AR focuses on only negative aspects or problems. A lack
of cumulative research in support of AI may lead to the idea that a balanced approach
including the challenges and problem areas, organizational accomplishments, and best
practices may be equally or more effective (Burke, 1982). An organizational intervention
that includes features from both approaches has been pondered. As McLean (1996)
stated:

Appreciative Inquiry, however, seems to fall into the opposite trap of focusing only on
what's going well, but still for the purpose of improving the organization and those within
it. Improvement requires an understanding both of what's not working well and what can
be built on because it is working well. (p. 2)
In response to some of the dialogue regarding integrated approaches, Cady and Caster
(2000) suggested a model and process for the combination of AI and AR. The next
section will explore experienced OD practitioner perspectives based on the theory,
research, and practice of AI and AR.

Methodology and Research Design

Because of the apparent lack of current research and exploration of practice

perspectives regarding the strengths and weaknesses of AI in comparison to AR, an
exploratory, qualitative study was undertaken. Although not typically generalizable, data
gathered from qualitative research can provide a breadth of understanding not easily
accessed through other modes of inquiry (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Key respondents were
selected and questioned with the support of a consistent interview protocol. The data
obtained through these interviews consisted of text in the form of rich oral descriptions
(qualitative data). Frequencies and percentages of responses were organized to supply
the reader with a summary of responses provided by interviewees.

Interviews with OD Practitioners

The following is a discussion of the interview protocol used to obtain more information
regarding the strengths and challenges of AI and AR.

Participant Interviewees

Because we were unable to identify a public list of AI practitioners, a thorough literature

search of OD-related journals was undertaken. The researchers identified four
professional associations that, based on available printed materials, journal articles, and
advertised workshops, were most likely to have practitioners involved in AI. Four
professional associations (ASTD, ODI, ODN and AHRD) were contacted and asked for
access to their published list of members. The identification of individuals who were
known to facilitate AI was supported by cross-referencing literature from the professional
associations with member listings. Assistance in identifying those professional
association members involved with AI interventions was also requested from and
provided by professional association contacts. The criteria for study participant
identification included that they (a) had been involved in multiple AI interventions, (b) had
participated in AI interventions of an ongoing nature (not just a training event), and (c)
had more than ten years of experience in OD or related area.

Twenty-three OD professionals were identified as prospective participants. After

contacting prospective participants, fourteen participants were identified as being
experienced with AI to the level desired for the study. Twelve OD professionals agreed
to participate in the study. The participants in the study included four Fortune 500
corporate OD managers, two HR managers from medium-sized private sector
organizations, two HRD managers from a medium-sized public sector organization, and
four external OD consultants. The OD consultants worked with a variety of clients on AI
interventions, including Fortune 500 organizations, medium-sized private sector
organizations, and large and medium-sized public sector organizations. The
interviewees' involvement in AI interventions included a variety of private sector
industries, such as financial services, retail merchandising, pharmaceuticals, information
technology, food and agricultural products, energy, and manufacturing. Additionally,
these OD consultants were involved in public sector AI interventions, including public
schools, foundations, healthcare organizations, and environmental associations. The
employee size of the organizations reported to be part of AI interventions ranged from
7,000 to 160,000 in the private sector and 100 to 11,000 in the public sector.

Data Collection

The data were collected through in-depth qualitative interviews. The researchers
conducted phone interviews with these twelve experienced AI facilitators. A semi-
structured interview guide was used to organize data collection during the interview
process. Semistructured interviews were selected because they are "reasonably
objective while still permitting a thorough understanding of the respondent's opinions and
the reasons behind them" (Borg & Gall, 1989, p. 452). Interview questions focused on
process, perceptions, experiences, status, and outcomes. Because content analysis was
the planned mode for data analysis, questions were developed with sufficient breadth so
as not overly to direct the responses to specific issues. An AI approach (Cooperrider &
Whitney, 1999) was used for the first half of each interview before the introduction of
critical or problem-solving questions.

Data Analysis

A qualitative thematic strategy for data analysis was employed to organize and to make
judgments about the meaning of the data. Content analysis is an approach utilized for
the systematic examination of text from the interview data. The researchers utilized an
inductive approach to the development of the coding scheme utilized to analyze
participant responses (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Lincoln & Cuba, 1985).

Findings: Strengths of Al and AR Approaches

As indicated in our introductory remarks, although we will identify and discuss themes
from both the AI and AR interviews, we provide more discussion regarding AI as the
interviewees selected had extensive experience in the facilitation of AI. We also found
that, not surprisingly, the literature available on AI is considerably smaller than that of
AR, making AI an important area for further exploration. Through responses to open-
ended questions, interviewees identified contributions of the AI and AR approaches.

In response to the question, "In your view, what are the strengths of the AI approach?,"
OD professionals identified several areas associated with improved relationships among
co-workers and between managers and employees. Each respondent emphasized the
importance of the AI approach to the development of a shared sense of new possibilities
for the organization. Sample comments illustrating the importance of AI to improved
relationships and shared understanding included:

Appreciative Inquiry is an invitation to organization members from all levels to participate

in the accessing of new possibilities for the organization and for all to engage in a goal
setting process that begins with their collective imagination. Organization members
discover the rich capacity of the system and the strengths of those around them.

I am impressed with the ability of the AI approach to support organization members in

the development of possibilities for the future. The process allows for new ground to be
broken around creativity, cooperation, and a clarified vision for the future that involves
everyone.

An examination of the responses from participants indicated that all identified one of the
most significant contributions of AI to be the development of cooperation in conjunction
with improved skill development or improved utilization of interpersonal skills. This skill
development was often attributed to the impact of the discovery phase of the Al process.

I find AI useful in assisting organization members to develop a deeper understanding of

one another through listening more effectively. This appreciative regard is demonstrated
by listening, and responses support cooperation between employees and [between]
employees and managers. This support fuels the movement toward organizational
improvement and success.

During an Al intervention, and beginning with my first question of them, the culture for
appreciating one another shifts. Employees listen to each another more intently and
focus more on the strengths each brings to the game.

The benefits of AI discussed by OD professionals were not unlike those described to be

the benefits of AR (Goldstein, 1992) or identified as the intended outcomes of
organization development (Egan, 2002). OD professionals interviewed for this study,
however, emphasized many of the points found in the AI literature, particularly accession
of the "capacities of the organization" toward a "better future." As stated by one OD
professional, "Participants in the AI process experience a shift away from the problems
toward the resources available to them and their coworkers. There is movement toward
a realistic, more productive future that is high performing and dynamic."

Sixteen themes were identified during the interview process. The themes are provided in
Table 1 with associated frequencies and percentages for each response.

The positive contributions identified by the participants are supported by the literature
reviewed in this study. Participants' descriptions of the contributions of AI are found in
the language and explanation of the AI process. Interviewee comments parallel those of
the AI literature, such as the opportunity to be involved in the discovery phase, whereby
participants access and understand their organizational capacity and share in positive
organizational stories. The creation of the dream, whereby positive imagery about the
organization can be developed, is also referred to indirectly through mentioning
opportunities for individuals to access possibilities and create positive imagery for the
organization. Additional references by interviewees that supported the concepts
associated with AI included the power of the narrative or story, the heliotropic
hypothesis, and the organization's inner dialogue. The themes from the discussion about
AI appear to have been more about the discovery and dream stages than the design and
destiny stages in the AI model (Figure 1). As one participant said,

Because AI is so new, it is important that we emphasize the initial stages of the AI

process, so that we may better understand where it may lead. Without starting the
process correctly, we may be unable to determine the long term impact of AI.

Participant responses to the question "What are the strengths of the AR approach?"
identified several contributions. The manner in which some interviewees responded,
however, was different from the discussion about the strengths of AI. Four respondents
often qualified their identification of AR strengths with comments comparing them to AI
strengths. For instance, one said, "A strength of AR is that it often includes members of
the organization from a variety of backgrounds and roles. However, AI is more effective
at making interpersonal connections while including organization members."
Nonetheless, all respondents provided commentary regarding the strengths of AR. The
themes for these responses are provided in Table 2.

Similar to the identified strengths of AI, OD practitioners' perspectives regarding the

strengths of AR were similar to perspectives provided in the literature, including
emphasis on inclusion and empowerment of employees, datadriven responses from
assessment and evaluation, the transferability of the process from OD practitioner to
client, and the focus on improvement of key organizational processes. These responses
were different from the responses about AI, but were not disparaging regarding the AR
process. All interviewees indicated that they were formally trained in OD and had
learned about AR first, before AI, and that the foundations of AR influenced their work as
OD practitioners.

Findings: Weaknesses of the AI and AR Approaches

In response to the question "What are the weaknesses of the AI approach?" all
participants identified three challenges: Difficult interpersonal situations may be
overlooked and remain unidentified as challenges to the success of the group or
organization; feelings of anger or frustration are not voiced and may become barriers for
some employees; and dissatisfied organization members may retreat and withdraw from
the process because they are unable to feel included by the AI approach. Two OD
professionals responded as follows:

[During an AI intervention] it is sometimes difficult for the deeply rooted challenges

between individuals to be addressed effectively. Employees may find some challenges
to engaging authentically in the process when previously strained relationships show
themselves in one-on-one relationships. This has been an ongoing challenge for a
couple of my clients.

We want everyone to participate in the process but find that some refuse and withdraw.
They don't directly impair the development of the team; they just remain passive. Some
[organization members] have indicated that they feel they are unable to voice their true
feelings... like anger.

Another theme from the interviews was that managers might avoid challenges by
focusing on "the positive." As indicated by one interviewee, "I have been asked a couple
of times by employees as to how they can be heard when their manager is not open to
acknowledging when difficulty occurs." Several of the OD professionals discussed their
observations that managers may use the AI approach inconsistently, resulting in a lack
of focus on the key messages forwarded by the AI process. The long-term commitment
to AI may be more challenging for organizations than other interventions. The ten
themes identified by interviewees are in Table 3.

Interviewees also responded to the question, "What are the weaknesses of the AR
approach?" Responses from interviewees to this question centered on a concern that
the AR process did not lead to the creation of a vision for the organization, and did not
thoroughly empower participants in the process to examine the breadth of organizational
capacity that could be tapped for better use. Additionally, interviewees stated that a clear
exploration of available opportunities could be overshadowed by negative perceptions or
feelings, and that negative historical events or trends in the organization are often given
too much attention. see Table 4 for key themes.

The themes identified by interviewees reflected many of the same concerns found in the
literature. Few participants felt that the lack of research on AI was an important
consideration in the identification of challenges to AI. It was explained that AI is too new
of an approach to have been well researched. The major concerns are associated with
the challenges faced when only positive content is the focus of workplace interactions.
One study participant stated,

It is difficult to watch individuals who feel they must speak in negative or critical terms;
some of them seem unable at times to redirect their energy into a positive direction. We
must continue to pay attention to the more subtle interactions between organization
members, so that we can better understand how the focus on positive imagery and
communication is or is not transferred.

Responses regarding the weaknesses of AR were also parallel with discussion in the
literature, but provided a practice level perspective. The weaknesses of AR that were
identified in the interviews reinforced how important these OD practitioners feel the
emphasis of vision, full assessment of capacity, and de-emphasis of negative
perceptions are to successful interventions. These discussions made the more academic
notions, like the aforementioned heliotropic hypothesis and constructivism, easy to
understand as respondents tended to raise questions about the relevance of the past
and overly narrow examinations of the organization were to longterm organizational
success. The criticisms of AR were not provided in a manner that rejected the AR
process wholesale, but rather challenged some of the underlying presumptions during
the facilitation of AR.

Finally, interviewees were asked whether AI could effectively be included with AR or

other problem-solving approaches. Interviewees were divided in their responses. A few
OD practitioners indicated that the movement toward a combined AI and AR approach
was "misguided and misses the point of the AI approach. We need to embrace the
philosophy behind AI, not just use part of it." Other interviewees disagreed indicating that
AI could be used in conjunction with other approaches because "it is important that the
strength of AI be tapped, but it is also recognized that in some cases it is a consulting
approach that can be used in conjunction with other approaches." A combined AI-AR
model supported by the discussions with these practitioners is explored below. The
mixed response from interviewees to this question is similarly to the various discussions
in literature about AI (Bushe, 1995; Cady & Caster, 2000; Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987;
Golembiewski, 1999; McLean, 1996; Schiller, 1998).

Discussion

This study explored AI and AR approaches to OD, outlined key elements from each, and
provided several strengths and weaknesses of both as identified by OD practitioners
who use AI. The participants in this study confirmed many of the strengths of AI and AR
found in OD literature (Bushe, 1995, 1998, 2000; Cady & Caster, 2000; Coghlan &
Brannick, 2001; Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987; Jones, 1998; Lewin, 1946). Further, this
study found support for the potential limitations of AI as an exclusive organization
intervention approach (Cady & Caster 2000; Golembiewski, 1999; McLean, 1996) and
also elaborated on the limitations of AR. The perspectives shared by the participants in
this study further detailed AI as an OD practice. Although there may be a difference of
opinion regarding the exclusive use of an AI approach in OD interventions, the
uniqueness of the AI approach may be beneficial to OD, even if merged with an AR
approach (see Cady & Caster, 2000). Those interviewees from this study who indicated
that they had used an OD approach that combined AI and AR insisted that further
exploration of the best of both AI and AR or a systematic combined OD approach would
be beneficial. There is much more to investigate regarding the potential for a combined
model. We will conclude our exploration comparing AI and AR with the exploration of
such a model.

As a result of the research reported on within this article and other inquiries regarding
the possible integration of AI and AR, Egan (2004) created an Appreciative Action
Research Model that combines the strengths of AI with AR while addressing some of the
weaknesses. The model (see Figure 3 ) provides support for the aforementioned
discovery, dream, and design steps in AI (Cooperrider & Whitney, 1999) supported by
the assessment and feedback, and evaluation steps found in AR (McLean & Sullivan,
1989). As interviewees indicated, there is benefit in the development of a clear positive
picture regarding capacity, vision, and what is working well in an organization.

By conceiving of the discovery and dream stages prior to assessment and feedback, the
model supports the appreciative interview process, without interruptions or questions
regarding problems or barriers to organizational success. In the Egan (2004) model, the
problemoriented focus (Lewin, 1946) is addressed following the development of a clear
understanding through an appreciative examination of the capacity of the organization
and the creation of an affirming vision statement for the future of the organization.

This new model (Egan, 2004) supports insights provided by interviewees in the current
study who reported combining AI and AR in practice. Additionally, it is not intended to
negate the affirmative or the socio-rationalist assumptions underlying AI. We recognize
that the integration of AR and AI actions and assumptions into one model presents some
ambiguity. There is much more work required by OD practitioners, clients, and scholars
to validate a combined approach, like that suggested by study interviewees and
presented by Egan (2004). We have reviewed the work of scholars who manage the
tension between paradigms in mixed method research (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998) and
we suggest that a similar exploration is possible while using an appreciative action
research approach.

Cady and Caster (2000) have discussed some of the additional merits of a combined
framework. Their DIET (diagnose, intervene, evaluate, and transfer) approach is similar
to Egan's (2004) in that it attempts to combine key assumptions of AI and AR, but
different in that Cady and Caster attempt to integrate AI and AR perspectives from the
beginning-suggesting the exploration of positive and negative feelings and analysis in
the first step of an OD effort. As we understand Cady and Caster's process, there
appears to be no clear suspension of a problem orientation at any point in their
"bimodal" process that we interpret as a rejection of the aforementioned socio-rationalist
perspective that is foundational to the AI process. Unlike Cady and Caster, Egan (2004)
emphasizes that OD begins with the appreciative development of an understanding of
collective capacity, mission, vision, goals, and steps that could be taken to accomplish
those goals. These appreciative steps are followed by a mixed affirmative and problem
solving approach to assess the established goals and what it would take to accomplish
them.

This brief examination of the potential for combining AI and AR provides a starting point
for additional exploration in this area. There is much more practice and research needed
to determine if a model combining AI and AR would be beneficial to OD practice. We
believe this article will support further exploration of the possibilities of AI and AR as
independent intervention approaches and in a combined framework for OD.

Conclusion
The results from this study are not generalizable, but elaborative. The choice to interview
OD practitioners regarding their approaches to AI was formulated in response to an
apparent lack of studies exploring AI and AR from this perspective. Future examination
of AI and AR interventions from both interpretive and empirical research perspectives is
recommended. For instance, the strengths and weaknesses of AI and AR discussed in
this study could be used as the basis for future development of a survey to be used with
a larger sample of OD practitioners. Additionally, comparative research, such as that
performed by Jones (1998), and other case study research may be of benefit to
determine the impact of AI practices. Interpretive studies examining the experiences of
practitioners and participants involved in AI and AR interventions may be of benefit to
scholars and practitioners. Finally, as mentioned earlier, AR and AI were founded by
individuals who believed that interventions should contribute to and be guided by theory
and theory-building. It is important that future AI, AR, and combined approaches to OD
embrace theory and theory-building as part of the practice-to-research-to-theory cycle.

In conclusion, as Cady and Caster (2000), McLean (1996), Golembiewski(1999), and

others have suggested, there is not only much more to learn about both AI and AR, but
there is also an imperative for further investigation regarding the integration between
these two approaches to OD. As Cady and Caster stated,

[Blending] the humanistic side of OD with the empirically driven data collection is needed
to add rigor to our field... [and] allows for seemingly polar opposite theories, such as the
problem approach and the appreciative approach, to exist in a synchronous relationship,
(p. 90)

Further discussion regarding these and many other issues associated with AI and AR is
important to the future of OD. We hope that related exploration and dialogue regarding
these provocative approaches to organizational change continues.

References

Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for action. A guide to overcoming barriers to

organizational change. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & McLain Smith, D. (1985). Action science: Concepts, methods,
and skills for research and intervention. San Francisco: JosseyBass.

Barker, S. B., & Barker, R. T. (1994). Managing change in an interdisciplinary inpatient

unit: An action research approach. Journal of Mental Health Administration 27(1), 80-91.
Barros, I. O., & Cooperrider, D.L. (2000). A story of Nutrimental in Brazil: How
wholeness, appreciation, and inquiry bring out the best in human organizations.
Organization Development Journal, 18(2), 22-27.

Barrett, F. J. (1995). Creating appreciative learning cultures. Organization Dynamics,

24(1), 36-49.

Barron, N., & Moore, J. (1999). Reconnecting with people. Menlo Park, CA: Crisp
Publications.

Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1989). Educational research. New York: Longman.

Burke, W. (1982). Organization development: Principles and practices. Boston: Little,

Brown.

Bushe, G. R. (1995). Advances in appreciative inquiry as an organization development

intervention. Organization Development Journal, 13(3), 14-22.

Bushe,G. R. (1998). Appreciative inquiry with teams. Organization Development Journal,

16(3), 41-49.

Bushe, G. R. (1999). Advances in appreciative inquiry as an organization development

intervention. Organization Development Journal, 17(2), 61-68.

Bushe, G. R. (2000). Five theories of change embedded in appreciative inquiry. In D. L.

Cooperrider, P. F. Sorensen, Jr., D. Whitney, & T. F. Yaeger (Eds.), Appreciative inquiry:
Rethinking human organization toward a positive theory of change (pp. 99-121).
Champaign, IL: Stripes Publishing.

Cady, S.H., & Caster, M. A. (2000). A DIET for action research: An integrated problem
and appreciative focused approach to organization development. Organization
Development Journal, 18(4), 79-93.

Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2001). Doing action research in your own organization.
London: Sage Publications.

Cooperrider, D. L., & Srivastva, S. (1987). Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. In

R. Woodman & W. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and
development: Volume 1 (pp. 129-169). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Cooperrider, D., & Whitney, D. (1999). Appreciative inquiry. San Francisco: Berrett-
Koehler.

Cooperrider, D., & Whitney D. (2000). A positive revolution in change: Appreciative

inquiry. In D. L. Cooperrider, P. F. Sorensen, Jr., D. Whitney, & T. F. Yaeger (Eds.),
Appreciative inquiry: Rethinking human organization toward a positive theory of change
(pp. 3-26). Champaign, IL: Stripes Publishing.

Cummings, T. C., & Worley, C. G. (2004). Organization development and change (8lh
Ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing.

Davis, J., & Cook, S. (1998). Parents as partners for educational change: The Ashgrove
healthy school project. In B. Atweh, S. Kemmis, & P. Weeks (Eds.), Action research in
practice: Partnerships for social justice education, (pp. 59-86). New York: Routledge.

Depoy, E., Hartmann, A., & Haslett, D. (1999). Critical action research: A model for
social work knowing. Social Work, 44(6), 560-569.

Egan, T. M. (2002). Organization development: An examination of definitions and

dependent variables. Organization Development Journal, 20(2), 59-71.

Egan, T. M. (2004). An affirmative action research model. Unpublished manuscript.

French, W. L., & Bell, C. H. (1998) Organization development: Behavioral science

interventions for organization improvement. New York: Prentice Hall.

Gergen, K. J. (1991). The saturated self: Dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. New
York: Basic Books.

Gergen, K. J. (1999). An invitation to social construction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

Goldstein, J. (1992). Beyond planning and prediction: Bringing back AR to OD.

Organization Development Journal, 10(2), 1-8.

Golembiewski, R. (1999). Fine-tuning appreciative inquiry: Two ways of circumscribing

the concept's valueadded. Organization Development Journal, 77(3), 21-27.

Gotches,G., & Ludema, J. (1995). An interview with David Cooperrider on appreciative

inquiry and the future of OD. Organization Development Journal, 13(3), 5-13.

Hammond, S. A. (1998). The thin book of appreciative inquiry (2nd ed.). Piano, TX: Thin
Book.

Hammond, S. A., & Royal, C. (2001). Lessons from the field: Applying appreciative
inquiry. Piano, TX: Thin Book.
Head,R. L., & Young, M. M. (1998). Initiation culture change in higher education through
appreciative inquiry. Organization Development Journal, 16(2), 65-71.

Jones, D. A. (1998). A field experiment in appreciative inquiry. Organization

Development, 16(4), 69-78.

Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(2),
pp. 34-46.

Lincoln,Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Livingston, J. (1999). An appreciative inquiry interview with Robert Golembiewski: The

human organizational dimensions of global change. Organization Development Journal,
17(1), 109-115.

McLagan, P. (1989). Models for OD practice. Alexandria, VA: American Society for
Training and Development.

McLean, G. N. (1996). AR in OD: RIP? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7(1),

1-3.

McLean, G. N., & Sullivan, R. S. (1989). Essential competencies of internal and external
OD consultants. Unpublished manuscript.

Merriam, S. B., & Brockett, R.G. (1997). The profession and practice of adult education.
San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.

Murrell, K. L. (1999). International and intellectual roots of appreciative inquiry.

Organization Development Journal, 77(3), 49-60.

Rothwell, W. J., Sullivan, R., & McLean, G. N. (1995). Practicing organization

development. San Francisco: JosseyBass Pfeiffer.

Schiller, J. (1998). A dialogue about leadership and appreciative inquiry. Organization

Development Journal, 16(4), 79-83.

Shewart, W. (1939). Statistical methods from the viewpoint of quality control.

Washington: US Department of Agriculture.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and
quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Watkins, J. M., & Cooperrider, D. (1998). Organizational inquiry model for global social
change organizations. Organization Development Journal, 74(4), 97-112.
Weinberger, L. A. (1998). Commonly held theories of human resource development.
Human Resource Development International, 7(1), 75-93.

Zemke, R. (1999, June). Don't fix that company! Training, 27-33.

Toby Marshall Egan, PhD

Cynthia M. Lancaster, M.Ed

Toby Marshall Egan, Assistant Professor in the Human Resource Development (HRD)
program at Texas A & M University, received his PhD in HRD from the University of
Minnesota. An experienced OD teacher and researcher, Toby has over fifteen years of
practice in consulting. He has published OD-related articles in ODJ, Advances in Human
Developing Resources and Human Resource Development Quarterly. Toby excels as an
OD practitioner and has worked with numerous Fortune 500 and public sector clients.

Contact Information
Human Resource Development
Texas A & M University
511 Harrington
4226 TAMU
College Station, TX 77843-4226
979-458-3585
Fax:979-8624347
egan@tamu.edu

Cynthia McLean Lancaster received her M.Ed, specializing in HRD from the University of
Minnesota in 2003. She spent three years working as a Project Manager, helping to
develop customized web-based training for a nationally recognized HR and training
services firm. She has recently served as a consultant assisting with organizational
assessments.

Contact Information

Cynthia McLean Lancaster

McLean Global Consulting

1553 Albert Street N

St. Paul, MN 55108

651-487-5287

cynthia.lancaster@mcleanglobal.com
Copyright O D Institute Summer 2005
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved

Strategic planning is an essential process used by most organizations to define how they 
will move toward the future. This process influences not only the senior executives but 
the entire staff of the organization. Due to a clearer understanding of the importance of 
this process and whom it affects, it is time to rethink the method. To ensure that the 
strategies   become   completely   implemented   throughout   the   entire   organization,   a 
process   that   includes   the   ideas   of   all   stakeholders   and   moves   the   company   in   the 
direction   it   desires   is   required.   Appreciative   Inquiry   is   the   method   suggested   to 
successfully complete all of the necessary elements of strategic planning. 

Strategic planning is obviously an integral tool for any successful organization; however, 
the documented plan rarely becomes a full­fledged implementation. Executives need to 
share their vision with the rest of the organization but how can they ensure that the 
whole organization will move together in the planned direction? This paper will briefly 
discuss the history of strategic planning and explain why the traditional processes have 
continually   failed.   A   few   alternative   approaches   to   strategic   planning   will   then   be 
provided, followed by a full justification of why the author believes that Appreciative 
Inquiry is the answer.

Appreciative  Inquiry  (AI)   brings  out  the  best   of   people   and,  consequently,   of  whole 
organizations. After the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) implemented AI across 
their company in 2002, the executive committee’s director general, Greg Dyke, no longer 
had to say “this is what I believe should happen”, he could now say “This is what you 
told us you wanted” and it changed the entire culture and moved the company closer to 
their goals (Berrisford, 2005, p. 23­24).  Now, the core intrinsic values of the company are 
“owned by the staff, not imposed from ‘the top” (Berrisford, 2005, p. 24).
  
According to Cascio & Aguinis, (2005, p. 238), strategic workforce planning is “an effort 
to anticipate future  business  and environmental  demands on  an organization  and to 
meet   the   HR   requirements   dictated   by   these   conditions.”     Wikipedia   (2007,   p.   1) 
provides   a   definition   that   says   “strategic   planning   is  an   organization's   process   of 
defining   its   strategy   and   making   decisions   on   allocating  its   resources   to   pursue   this 
strategy, including its capital and people.”
It   is   a   process   that   is   usually   completed   annually   by   the   executives   and/or   the   top 
management team of an organization.  It is an important step for management to ensure 
that they are all moving in the same direction and to further extend their ideas into the 
various   business   units/departments   and   on   down   to   the   frontline   staff.   Senior 
executives spend a great portion of their time developing strategy as it is one of the most 
important parts of their job (Beinhocker & Kaplan, 2002), yet all this effort seems to have 
little payoff.
Throughout the 60s, 70s, and 80s, strategic planning was promoted as steps of a process 
that   usually   included:   external   environmental   analysis,   risk   analysis,   and   SWOT 
(strengths,   weaknesses,   opportunities,   and   threats)   analysis;   resulting   in   the 
development   of   corporate   planning  strategies   (Stavros,   Cooperrider,   &   Kelley,   2003). 
Gap   analysis   is   an   example   of   another   common   approach   (Fitzgerald,   Murrell,   and 
Miller, 2003). According to Beinhocker & Kaplan (2002), a strategic planning process 
should serve two purposes: building “prepared minds” to ensure that decision makers 
are together on the business and the strategies, and to increase innovativeness and drive 
strategic creativity.

The main problem with the typical strategic planning processes is that no matter how 
good the plan is, it will not work unless it is acted upon. In the 1990s, it became apparent 
that   something   more   had   to   occur   to   improve   the   current   strategic   planning 
methodologies. “In 1994, Mintzberg published "The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning" 
in the Harvard Business Review” (Stavros, Cooperrider, & Kelley, 2003, p.14). Mintzberg’s 
article explained that traditional strategic planning methods served little or no purpose 
in the daily operations of corporations because they were merely rigid documents that 
were filed away (Stavros, Cooperrider, & Kelley). Beinhocker & Kaplan (2002, p. 51) also 
remind us that Mintzberg says the key starting point to a strategic planning process is to 
accept   the   fact   that   it   should   “not   be   designed   to  make  strategy.”   Mintzberg 
appropriately   “calls   the   phrase   “strategic   planning”   an   oxymoron”   (Beinhocker   & 
Kaplan, p. 51) and argues that the real strategies are not usually defined in conference 
rooms   but   more   likely   to   be   discussed   informally   in   hallway   conversations,   casual 
environments, or reflection time during airplane flights (Beinhocker & Kaplan). Harrison 
Owen (1995, p. 2), founder of Open Space Technology, says this about formal planning: 
“The formal sessions, although generally outstanding, could not hold a candle to the 
moments when the real action took place: The coffee breaks.”

It is interesting to note that when reviewing the history of strategic planning, it shows 
that   the   first   writings   on   the   topic   were   related   to   military   strategies   (Stavros, 
Cooperrider,   &   Kelley,   2003).   Unfortunately,   the   same   mentality   of   command   and 
control   and   focusing   on   the   problems   is   often   used   in   today’s   strategic   planning 
meetings.   As   Ramsey   (2006,   p.   9)   reminds   us,   “traditionally,   much   (OK   –   most)   of 
organizational long range planning and day­to­day supervision has been content with 
pinpointing   problem   areas   and   finding   remedies.”   Beinhocker   &   Kaplan   (2002) 
performed   research   on   30   companies   and   found   that   the   annual   strategic   planning 
process usually only results in the following three things: (1) a replay of updates from 
the previous year’s presentations; (2) situations where most business unit leaders don’t 
want to take risks with announcing new ideas; and (3) these leaders work more on how 
to avoid embarrassment than on looking toward the future vision of the company.   It 
seems as though nothing good is really coming out of all of this effort and time, but as 
Beinhocker & Kaplan (2002, p.50) point out, “something good ought to come out of it. In 
a   business   environment   of   heightened   risk   and   uncertainty,   developing   effective 
strategies is crucial.”
The Wikipedia (2007, ¶ Why strategic plans fail) definition of strategic planning goes on 
to state the following about why strategic plans fail: Any method that works in contrast 
to the deficit­thinking, traditional strategic planning methods would be considered an 
alternative one. This paper will briefly discuss a few methods of choice; however, it does 
not claim to be all­encompassing.  The first method that could be extremely effective in 
ensuring   that   the   strategic   plan   actually   becomes   implemented   is   Open   Space 
Technology (OST). Open Space Technology is a contemporary practice of inviting the 
whole system into one room to share ideas and open up the dialogue to anything that 
comes to mind. It does have a bit of structure; however, the participants are the ones 
who create the agenda of the sessions. Founder of OST, Harrison Owen (1988, p. 7), 
explains that “In the "old days", there was validity to the thought that planning could 
operate by the simple formula that Past + Present = Future. However, when the world is 
changing as radically and discontinuously as  it seems  to be doing at the moment, a 
linear extrapolation from the past, through the present, into the future, is more than 
likely to bring the business to the point of failure.”

The only disadvantage of using OST for strategic planning events is that the focus can 
end up becoming a negative one and often­times is not focused on a particular topic. In 
Open Space, any topics can be discussed and a positive, strength­based approach is not 
encouraged.   In   the   1990s,   American   companies   such   as   Hewlett­Packard,   Ford,   and 
Xerox   began   using   a   Japanese   alternative   strategic   planning   method   called   Hoshin 
Planning. The Hoshin Planning methodology has several advantages including a matrix 
that is deployed once the strategy is identified to improve the odds of implementation 
throughout the organization (Stavros, Cooperrider, & Kelley, 2003). Another advantage 
is   the   tools   that   are   provided   to   assist   with   employee   involvement   and   buy­in.   The 
downfall is that the Hoshin Planning method still uses the traditional SWOT analysis 
which has failed to work effectively over the last 50 years. The Hoshin Planning strategy 
has led to other contemporary strategic approaches such as A Systems Thinking Approach  
to Strategic Planning and Management  (Haines, 2000). According to Haines, we should 
"stamp out the outmoded way of planning, which no longer works in today's dynamic 
world" (p. i). Haines is referring to the traditional U. S. strategic planning methods. It is 
clear that these methods rarely move the entire organization toward its strategies of the 
future and, therefore, a better method is required.

Appreciative Inquiry focuses on what gives life and meaning to an organization and 
brings out their positive core through appreciative interviews. It shifts the focus from 
one of deficit­thinking, where organizations spend most of their time analyzing their 
problems and remembering what they did wrong, to a strength­based approach that 
hones   in   on   the   organization’s   best   face   and   moves   toward   making   it   even   better. 
Appreciative   Inquiry   has   also   been   defined   as   “a   radically   affirmative   approach  to 
change which completely lets go of problem­based management and in so doing vitally 
transforms   strategic   planning,   survey   methods,   culture   change,   merger   integration 
methods,   approaches   to   TQM,   measurement   systems,   sociotechnical   systems,   etc.” 
(Cooperrider   &   Whitney,   1999,   p.   3).  Appreciative   Inquiry   should   be   foundationally 
appealing   to   senior   executives   and  top  management   for   strategic   planning   purposes 
since it is a methodology that is grounded in solid psychological/philosophical theories 
as described in the previous principles.

Another reason for the appealing nature of AI is the fact that it is generative in nature. 
The positive nature of AI will begin dispersing throughout  the organization  and the 
ongoing power of the AI cycle can be used over and over in all departments of the 
organization.   In   today’s   organizational   reality  of   constant   change,   leaders   must   look 
closely   at   where   and   how   they   want   to   change.   In   the   highly   competitive   world   of 
today’s companies, the ones that succeed and thrive are those who think strategically, 
plan well, effectively manage their human resources, positively lead their people, and 
successfully sustain their future (Stavros, Cooperrider, & Kelley, 2003).   But, the real 
question   is,   how   can   they   do   it   all?   An   Appreciative   Inquiry   approach   to   strategic 
planning is a step in the right direction. This method, appropriately labeled ‘Strategic 
Inquiry’ inspires the core stakeholders of an organization and focuses on the strengths 
that the organization currently possesses. Stavros, Cooperrider, & Kelley (2003, p. 11) 
explain Strategic Inquiry by providing a great example:

The best strategic planning method that will truly implement the vision throughout the 
entire organization is to use Appreciative Inquiry. It’s as simple as getting all the key 
players into one room and simply asking about what they are doing well and how that 
makes them feel.  The next step is to do as John Kello (2006, p. 22) says and ask “"What, 
specifically, can we all do to spread those winning strategies and practices throughout 
our whole operation?" When individuals are embraced as a part of the whole of the 
organization  in  a  positive  manner,  they  become  motivated to  work towards  a  better 
future.   Organizations,   then,   become   like   a   bright   light   pointing   in   the   direction   of 
unimaginable   outcomes.   As   Cooperrider,   Barrett,   &   Srivastva   (1995,   p.189)   put   it 
“organizations are, to a large extent, affirmative projections. They are guided in their 
actions by anticipatory forestructures of knowledge which like a movie projector on a 
screen,   projects   a   horizon   of   confident   construction   which   energizes,   intensifies, 
coordinates, and provokes action in the present.” 

Recent   studies   suggest   that   a   higher   level   of   Emotional   Intelligence   (EI)   in   an 
organization’s   leaders   is   the   “key   to   creating   a   working   climate   that   encourages 
employees to give their best” (Yoder, 2005, p. 48). Debra Yoder (p. 51) outlines a study 
that was performed to determine the relationship of EI to the organizational climate and 
found that “eight emotional intelligence competencies constituted 75% of the responses. 
These   included   developing   others,   teamwork   and   collaboration,   organizational 
awareness,   building   bonds,   visionary   leadership,   empathy,   respect,   and   open 
communication.” Yoder goes on to explain that EI (and, therefore, AI) are not simply 
methods of  ‘doing’  something but rather are  a way of being.  For example, a  person 
cannot just act empathetic; they must ‘be’ empathetic (Yoder).

Yoder (2005, p. 57) also accurately states “people perform at their best in an atmosphere 
of   respect,   empathy,   and   open   communication”   and   she   concludes   her   article   with 
“leaderful  organizations   are  the  result   of   inviting and  engaging  emotional  energy  in 
powerful ways.” That  is precisely the result of an Appreciative Inquiry process and, 
therefore,   the   ending   result   of   a   strategic   planning   session   implementing   Strategic 
Inquiry. As Ramsey (2006, p. 11) accurately states it in his recent article, “Today’s reality 
is that just fixing what’s broken isn’t good enough anymore.”

Cooperrider & Whitney (1999, p. 3­4) also explain it well when they explain that “human 
systems grow in the direction of what they persistently ask questions about and this 
propensity is strongest and most sustainable when the means and ends of inquiry are 
positively  correlated. The single most prolific thing a group can do if its aims are to 
liberate   the   human   spirit   and   consciously   construct   a   better   future   is   to   make   the 
positive change core the common and explicit property of all.” The team went around 
the room and had every person think about it and make an individual commitment to 
the team to try and live by the propositions defined.   These are the results of the AI 
process:   “At Leadshare in Canada AI was used to help this big eight accounting firm 
make   the   tough   transition   in   the   executive   succession   of   a   “legendary”   managing 
partner.   The   managing   partner   seized   the   moment   as   an   incredible   leadership 
development  opportunity for all 400 partners. Everyone was interviewed with AI. An 
extensive   interview   protocol   was   designed   (it   ended   up   taking   about   2   hours   per 
interview) focusing on affirmative topics like innovation, equality, partnership, speed to 
market, and valuing diversity (in Canada between francophone and anglophone). And 
not one outside consultant did the interviews. All were done internally, by 30 junior 
partners   as   part   of   a   leadership   development   program.   A   powerful   and   instant 
intergenerational connection was made, and organizational history came alive in face­to­
face story. Instead of amnesia, or a problem­to­be­solved, people began to relate to their 
history in a whole new way. Like a good piece of poetry filled with endless interpretive 
meaning,   people   at   Leadshare   ascended   into   their   history   as   a   reservoir   of   positive 
possibility. At the next annual partners meeting with over 400 people in the conference 
hall, the material was showcased and coupled to the future, as the strategic planning 
became one of the best the partners could ever remember.”  (Cooperrider & Whitney, 
1999, p. 7­8).

“Before   their   strategic   planning   session   in   1997,   Nutrimental   Foods   of   Brazil   closed 
down the plant for a full day to bring all 700 employees together for a day of Discovery 
into   the   factors   and   forces   that   have   given   life   the   system   when   it   had   been   most 
effective, most alive, and most successful as a producer of high quality health foods. 
With cheers and good wishes a “smaller” group of 150 stakeholders—employees from 
all levels, suppliers, distributors, community leaders, financiers, and customers—then 
went into a four day strategy session to articulate a new and bold corporate dream. The 
stories from the day before were used just as an artist uses a palette of colors—before 
painting a picture the artist assembles the red paints, blue, green, yellow and so on. With 
these “materials” in hand people were asked to dream: “What is the world calling us to 
become? What are those things about us that no matter how much we change, we want 
to continue into our new and different future? Lets assume that tonight while we were 
all asleep a miracle occurred where Nutrimental became exactly as we would like it to 
be—all of its best qualities are magnified, extended, multiplied the way we would like to 
see…in fact we wake up and it is now 2005…as you come into Nutrimental today what 
do you see that is different, and how do you know?” After four days of appreciative 
analysis,   planning,   and   articulation   of   three   new   strategic   business   directions   the 
organization launches into the future with focus, solidarity, and confidence. Six months 
later record bottom line figures of millions of dollars are recorded—profits are up 300%. 
The co­CEOs Rodrigo Loures and Arthur Lemme Nettto attribute the dramatic results to 
two  things:   bringing   the   whole   system   into  the   planning   process,   and   realizing   that 
organizations are in fact “centers of human relatedness” which thrive when there is an 
appreciative  eye—when people see  the  best in  one  another,  when  they can dialogue 
their dreams and ultimate concerns in affirming ways, and when they are connected in 
full voice to create not just new worlds but better worlds”  (Cooperrider  & Whitney, 
1999, p. 9­10).

Back to the definition from the text,  Applied Psychology in Human Resource Management, 
where Cascio & Aguinis (2005, p. 238) state that strategic workforce planning is “an 
effort to anticipate future business and environmental demands on an organization and 
to meet the HR requirements dictated by these conditions”. The author whole­heartedly 
feels that this is an extremely deficit­based, negative definition and does not accurately 
reflect the true purpose of strategic planning.

Strategic planning should be more than an ‘effort’ that simply ‘meets’ the requirements 
that have been ‘dictated’ from above. A definition such as this one is the reason that the 
traditional strategic planning processes continue to fail and become a waste of time of 
senior   executives   and   the   entire   staff.   Strategic   planning   should   be   an   inspirational, 
creative   process   that   moves   the   organization   toward   achieving   their   fundamental 
dreams.   It   should  be   a  proecess   where   the   people   of   the   organization   collaborate   to 
ensure that the new direction will “increase the odds that their strategic innovations will 
shape the world that lies ahead” (Beinhocker & Kaplan, 2002, p.57) A strategic planning 
session   for   organizations   should   ultimately   be   “the   inspiration   to  SOAR”   (Stavros, 
Cooperrider, & Kelley, 2003, p. 20)!