Caroline Brazill
Professor Craig
30 October 2011
“I’m going to ask you questions today that will change your life,” began Deborah Maher, a woman in her mid-fifties. Mrs. Maher works at a consulting firm in Washington, DC, that specializes in a new field of problem solving techniques: appreciative inquiry. She spoke to a group of American University students in the Compass Fellows program to get us thinking about what our own personal strengths were and how we could utilize those strengths when developing a social venture. The material that she presented peaked my interest; I wanted to know more about when exactly appreciative inquiry can be harnessed.
Appreciative inquiry is a flip from traditional problem solving techniques that was developed at Case Western University. Its tagline, “Turning problem solving into solution finding,” promotes a positive, strength-based innovation. Mrs. Maher displayed the traditional problem solving approach before moving to the appreciative inquiry approach. In traditional problem solving, an individual (1) identifies a problem, (2) conducts a root cause analysis, (3) analyzes possible solutions, and finally (4) develops an action plan, or treatment.
Appreciative inquiry outlines completely different steps to solution finding. In the appreciative inquiry model, an individual (1) appreciates or values what is already present, (2) imagines what might be, (3) dialogues and designs to determine what should be, and (4) creates what will be. The underlying assumption of appreciative inquiry is asking, “What’s working here?” rather than “What needs to be fixed?”
To be honest, I wasn’t completely convinced when Mrs. Maher began speaking. The whole process she detailed sounded a bit naïve: imaging and dialoguing our way to a perfect future peaked with a rainbow. But the more she spoke, the more I was convinced; appreciative inquiry represents a shift in the way we think, from automatically negative (what’s wrong) to automatically positive (what’s working and how can we make it even better). I remembered our international relations textbook chapter about decision-making. There are models that assert that leaders rely on standard operating procedures and cost benefit analysis, but could appreciative inquiry soon join these ranks?
I dove into more research. It turns out that appreciative inquiry has really taken off over the past decade, in sectors such as business, healthcare, environment, and social services. In June 2004, Then-Secretary-General Kofi Annan convened the Global Compact Leaders Summit at the UN Headquarters in New York. This Summit employed the appreciative inquiry methodology. Over 500 leaders gathered, “to explore the global struggle for corporate responsibility” (APA Consulting). The United States Navy also held a three-day appreciative inquiry conference in 2001.
In international development, a group known as APA (Appreciative Planning and Action) Consulting hosted a major conference in Nepal. The 2009 World Appreciative Inquiry Conference featured 400 top leaders, businessmen, and other representatives from 40 countries who focused on strength-based approaches for change and development. The goal of the conference was to highlight and dialogue about stories of success in international development around the world. One of the programs that the conference highlighted was a women’s empowerment initiative in Nepal. Advocates of appreciative inquiry founded a program that reaches rural women and conducts action-oriented sessions to helps them celebrate their sense of self-reliance and inspires them to continue to make sustainable change for themselves and their villages.
Appreciative inquiry is a relatively new thought process and solution finding approach that is relevant to and has been successful in a wide range of fields including government and international relations. Its innovative and refreshing design has the potential to influence development and policy. I am interested to see what other positive changes appreciative inquiry inspires and propels.
Caroline, I think this topic is so interesting! I like that appreciative inquiry seems to be positive thinking that has a real logic to it. I think that having a more structured way of positive thinking will be more effective and taken more seriously by the corporate and political world. I would have been skeptical at first like you were, but focusing on strengths rather than weaknesses seems like a more productive way to generate new ideas to improve society.
ReplyDeleteCaroline, I must agree with Alana, this is very interesting. I like just how much room it provides for new and interesting thoughts rather than always having to follow the age-old process of problem-solving. Do you think that it is completely better than problem-solving though? Do you think that by combining both problem-solvers and appreciative inquirers' minds together, it is possible to come up with a near perfect result, or do the two conflict too much in their thinking process?
ReplyDeleteCaroline, I agree with both Alana and Will. It allows us to truly broaden the range in how we some up with a reasonable solution. Also, it allows us to dig beyond the seemingly routine negativeness that the world has come to have. How do you think realists would approach this new problem-solving method? Do you think it will continue to become popular? Although focusing on the positive notes of things would be more productive, shouldn't we focus more on what needs to be fixed instead of bettering what is already good?
ReplyDeleteCaroline, do you have an intuition that Appreciative Inquiry will be more successful than other techniques currently being used? In other words: what's the potential for this new technique to resolve currently unsolvable problems? Do you see this as having the potential to change what counts as a 'roadblock' in IR discussion/problem-solving?
ReplyDeleteI also agree that this idea is very interesting. People/groups are so involved in their own thought processes that they often fail to consider other modes of thought. However, it seems to me that appreciative inquiry is viewed as somewhat as a novelty despite it's apparent ability to affect real and positive change. Did you also find this to be true and if so, what do you think could be done to correct this?
ReplyDeleteCaroline- I know that you mentioned that appreciative inquiry is a pretty new shenanigan, so there might not be that much research done into it. Are there any examples or case studies that demonstrates appreciative analysis results in a markedly different result from classical problem solving? Just curious
ReplyDeleteHoly comments, Batman! Hopefully this supplement answers most of the above questions, but if I didn't clarify anything let me know!
ReplyDeleteI just got off the phone with Marcia Odell, who is one of the founders of APA Consulting project. In our conversation, she emphasized the fundamental difference between appreciative inquiry and the traditional problem oriented approach as one of framing and articulation. It is not a question of what problems are being addressed, but how they are ultimately solved. She also was clear to address the common criticism of APA: that its approach neglects problems or sweeps them under the rug and only looks at the positive. To this, she responds that the appreciative inquiry model in fact does address the good, the bad, and the ugly, and it does address what needs to be fixed, but again, it approaches them in a way that is more affirmative and acknowledging than simply "This is what's wrong let's get rid of it," in the traditional approach.
With this additional perspective, I feel like I am better equipped to answer your questions. In terms of the overall benefits of appreciative inquiry, I think that it can be viewed as a better approach because it broadens thinking. In group discussions or problem solving meetings, I think it is easy for individuals and eventually a whole group to get "stuck." They zero in on what's wrong and as a result do not look outward as broadly--focusing on the immediate issue at hand as a task to be checked off the list. I think that appreciative inquiry can actually energize a group; by beginning with a success before approaching the problem, groups are looking toward the future in a much wider context. I think this fundamental difference in framing allows appreciative inquiry to conquer or avoid some traditional roadblocks in decision making. For example, we looked at how groupthink can hinder progress because group members focus on what is popular among the others. Appreciative inquiry avoids this roadblock by asking group members to approach a problem in a new way, and energizing them; it is a reflective process before immediately becoming one of A vs. B. vs. C, which I think in the end has more potential to result in cooperation and a wide sense of understanding. Something similar can be said for the roadblock of bureaucracy and the roadblock of the structure of decision making. Because Appreciative Inquiry does not automatically lay all the options out on the table and sort through detailed pros and cons, there are less variables to manipulate and less hoops to jump through; the focus is on what's already there, and the framing of how it can be made even better.
In terms of the relationship between traditional problem solving and appreciative inquiry, Mrs. Odell did say that APA's model is somewhat easier to address in a developing world context that in a western world context, because many westerners and leaders at least initially view appreciative inquiry as rudimentary and approach it with much skepticism, as in many of your comments about its novelty. I think that there is a "conflict," between the two modes of thinking because they frame problems in drastically different ways. That's not to say that if you put a group of traditional problem solvers and a group of proponents of appreciative inquiry together, nothing would get done. Mrs. Odell did say many of those who are skeptical at first quickly become enthralled with such a new way of thinking. Both systems have the potential to think of similar resolutions to a problem. But, again, they problem is approached differently, and one approach (Appreciative inquiry) usually tends to be broader.
I absolutely think that appreciative inquiry has the potential to continue to grow in popularity, because it can be used in literally any context; it's just a matter of re-framing a question before approaching technical details.
--I hope this helps! Let me know if I missed anything!
Caroline,
ReplyDeleteYou just make it to all the interesting talks, don’t you? Bring me along next time?
In all seriousness, though, this sounds like a fascinating alternative to traditional problem-solving. You mentioned that appreciative inquiry might work better in a developing world context than a Western world context, but do you think that it would be beneficial for leaders of the Western world to take a stab at it and see if they can’t better solve some of the age-old problems we’ve been trying to tackle? I think that the biggest roadblock western leaders would face lies in changing the way they think; would you agree? People get so stuck in their ways, so set in their frame of mind, that they have a difficult time looking beyond themselves, let alone adopting an entirely new method of thinking. That being said, I think that it is possible. How would you suggest leaders attempt to change their habits and give appreciative inquiry a try?
Absolutely Meg; I agree with everything you said. Mrs. Odell told me that people start out very skeptical of this idea of thinking, but many really do end up valuing it. I think it can be at least attempted in a number of older conflicts--worth a try indeed! I think that leaders should most importantly be open to the idea, and be wiling to give it a try. Like I've said, it's a shift of thinking: they need to enter a room not ready to talk in circles, but ready to change their viewpoint: from what's wrong to what's working and how can we make it better?
ReplyDelete