SYS380 FINAL SUMMER Explain The Difference Between Appreciate Inquiry Positive Organizational Schol

Prepared by: Zaidan Saif
Feel Free to contact on WhatsApp: +966562317268
Instructions
You should attempt ALL questions in this section
The questions carry equal weight
Q2
Explain the difference between appreciate inquiry, positive organizational scholarship and dialogic
organizational development. Use a case of your choice as an example to your argument. (Case
example: 40 mark + theory: 60mark)
Answer
Appreciative Inquiry (AI)

Techniques of “inclusion” appropriate to large-scale or large-group interventions led to
them being labelled as part of a new “engagement paradigm” (Axelrod, 2001, p. 25), a
“new type of social innovation” (Bunker and Alban, 1992, p. 473), a “paradigm shift”
(Dannemiller and Jacobs, 1992, p. 497), and “an evolution in human thought, vision and
values uniquely suited to our awesome 21st Century technical, economic, and social
dilemmas” (Weisbord, 1992, p. 6). They represented a shift from the emphasis on problem-
solving and conflict management, common to earlier OD programs, to a focus on joint
envisioning of the future. For example, Fuller and colleagues (2000, p. 31) maintain that
with a problem-solving approach comes the assumption that “organizing is a problem to
SYS380 Final summer 2022/2023

This study source was downloaded by 100000850584413 from CourseHero.com on 02-21-2023 23:26:45 GMT -06:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/161356046/SYS380-FINAL-SUMMER-Explain-the-difference-between-appreciate-inquiry-positive-organizational-schol/
be solved,” one that entails steps such as problem identification, analysis of causes and
solutions, and the development of action plans.
Contrary to this logic, Fuller et al. (2000) point to the assumptions underlying the
appreciative inquiry approach to change, which seeks to identify what is currently working
best and to build on this knowledge to help develop and design what might be achieved in
the future. They outline the technique as involving four steps:
➢ Discovery or appreciating the best of what is currently practiced.

➢ Building on this knowledge to help envision (or dream) about what the future could be.
➢ Designing or co-constructing (through collective dialogue) what should be.
➢ Sustaining the organization’s destiny or future.
The technique is also depicted diagrammatically in figure 9.1. An illustrative sample

of questions for this four-step process is provided in table 9.5.
In these techniques the act of participation or inclusion of a wide variety of voices itself
constitutes a change in the organization: the “what” to change and the “how” to change
cannot be easily separated.
Positive Organizational Scholarship (POS)

Dubbed as a “new movement in organizational science,” positive organizational
scholarship (POS) is an umbrella term that emerged in the early 2000s to encompass
approaches such as appreciative inquiry and others, including positive psychology and
community psychology (Cameron and Caza, 2004, p. 731). POS developed out of a view
that for most of the history of OD, attention had mainly been paid to identifying instances
of “negatively motivated change” (or problems) in organizations and designing change
programs to eliminate them (Cameron and McNaughtan, 2014). Following this line of
argument, thinking about the positive aspects of organizational life—and building change
programs to spread these aspects elsewhere in organizations—has been relatively
neglected.
To take a POS perspective involves what one of its founders, Kim Cameron,
describes as “four connotations” (Cameron and McNaughtan, 2014, p. 447):

(i) “adopting a positive lens,” which means that whether one is dealing with
celebrations/successes or adversity/problems, the focus is on “life-giving
elements”;
(ii) “focusing on positively deviant performance,” which means investigating
outcomes that are well in excess of any normally expected performance, that is,
outcomes that are spectacular, surprising, or extraordinary;
(iii) “assuming an affirmative bias” involves holding the view that positivity
generates in individuals, groups, and organizations the capacity for greater
achievements; and
(iv) “examining virtuousness” involves assuming that all “human systems” are
inclined toward “the highest aspirations of mankind.”
In line with the coaching metaphor, POS can be depicted as coaching organizations to
identify their “best plays,” to understand the behaviors and dynamics underlying them, and
then to work out how to spread them to other parts of their “game” (the organization).
POS has had its critics. Fineman (2006, pp. 270–73) raises four issues that question
whether POS can really live up to its “positive” aims. First, he questions whether we can
really agree on which behaviors are “positive.” What passes for being positive will vary in
different environments. For example, in reviewing a number of research studies, he points
out how “‘courageous,’ ‘principled’ corporate whistle-blowers are also readily regarded as
traitors, renegading on the unspoken corporate code (‘virtue’) to never wash one’s dirty
linen in public.”
Second, he (2006, pp. 274–75) questions whether the positive can be separated from
the negative or whether they are really “two sides of the same coin, inextricably welded
and mutually reinforcing.” For example: “Happiness may trigger anxiety (‘will my
happiness last?’). Love can be mixed with bitterness and jealousy. Anger can feel
energizing and exciting.” By focusing on positive experiences, he maintains, approaches
such as appreciative inquiry fail “to value the opportunities for positive change that are
possible from negative experiences, such as embarrassing events, periods of anger, anxiety,
fear, or shame.”

Third, he (2006, p. 276) points to how what are regarded as positive behaviors and
emotions differ, not just in different organizational environments but across different
cultural environments. Drawing on the work of writers on culture, he points out how “[e]
effusive hope, an energizing emotion in the West, is not a sentiment or term prevalent in
cultures and sub-cultures influenced by Confucianism and Buddhism.”
Fourth, he (2006, p. 281) suggests that there is “an unarticulated dark side to
positiveness.” This occurs where there is a lack of recognition that there are different
interests in organizations and that not all people respond well to so-called positive
programs like empowerment and emotional intelligence or practices that impose a “culture
of fun” in the workplace. These programs “have a mixed or uncertain record, and some can
produce the very opposite of the self-actualization and liberation they seek” (Fineman,
2006, p. 281).
In response to these criticisms, defenders of POS argue that their perspective

complements and expands rather than replaces the perspective of those who “only wrestle
with the question of what’s wrong in organizations” (Roberts, 2006, p. 294). Indeed, those
whose focus is on the latter question “may inadvertently ignore the areas of human
flourishing that enliven and contribute value to organizations, even in the face of significant
human and structural challenges” (Roberts, 2006, p. 295). POS is presented as “concerned
with understanding the integration of positive and negative conditions, not merely with an
absence of the negative” (Cameron and Caza, 2004, p. 732). Rather than assume that there
are no universally positive virtues, the task of POS is to “discover the extent to which
virtues and goodness are culturally influenced” (Roberts, 2006, p. 298). Roberts (2006)
suggests that criticism of POS may be due to a combination of the critics not wanting to
step outside of their comfort zone—an approach to managing change that is focused on
identifying problems—and lack of consideration for the relative infancy of POS as an area
of practice.
Where does this leave the manager of change? On the one side, proponents of POS
wish to change organizations with “an implicit desire to enhance the quality of life for
individuals who work within and are affected by organizations” (Roberts, 2006, p. 294).

On the other side are critical scholars who do not lay out an alternative call to action for
agents of change so much as caution them if they assume that they will be successful in
their “positive” ventures. Instead, the critics of POS urge POS advocates to recognize how
underlying power relationships and interests in organizations (and beyond) will limit their
actions; they also are urged to recognize that what passes as being positive will vary in
different contexts and may not be shared by all. However, such critical reflections do not
seem to have dented, in any significant way, the increasing momentum that the POS
movement has gained, at least in North America. Whether it achieves the same momentum
outside of the United States remains to be seen.
Cameron and McNaughtan (2014, p. 456) revisit the findings of a decade of application
of POS ideas to organizational change covering such variables as virtuous practices (e.g.,
compassion), humanistic values, the meaningfulness of work, high-quality inter personal
communication, hope, energy, and self-efficacy. They summarize the results as
“provid[ing] support for the benefits of positive change practices in real-world work
set tings.” However, adding a note of caution, they (2014, p. 456) state that the relative
new ness of the approach means that not enough is yet known to be able to be sure of
“what, how or when” it is most successful.
Dialogic Organizational Development

As OD developed through its various manifestations such as large group interventions
and appreciative inquiry, it was moving more and more away from the classic, diagnose-
driven approach to OD (as described in the initial sections of this chapter). Gervase Bushe
and Bob Marshak (2009) characterized this change by contrasting the traditional
“diagnostic OD” with what they described as “dialogic OD.”
Bushe and Marshak (2009) contrast the characteristics of diagnostic and dialogic OD.
Whereas traditional/diagnostic OD emphasizes that any problem requiring change could
be addressed by first applying an objective diagnosis of the circumstances of the situation,
dialogic OD treats reality as subjective so that the priority in intervening in an
organiza tion was to identify and acknowledge different stakeholders’ interpretations of
what for them was “reality.” In parallel with this, the role of the OD consultant moved from

being the provider of data for fact-driven decision making to being the facilitator of
processes that encouraged “conversations” around change issues (Marshak, 2013).
Central to the dialogic OD approach is the view that “real change” only occurs when
mindsets are altered and that this is more likely to occur through “generative conversations”
than persuasion by “facts.” Altered mindsets are represented by changes at the level of
language and associated changes at the level of actions taken by organization members.
This changed approach is also associated with moves away from (i) seeing change as a
relatively manageable, plannable, linear process to one that could be unpredictable, with
far from predictable moves from diagnosis to outcomes, and (ii) “the shift from fixing a
problem to cultivating a system capable of addressing its own challenges” (Holman, 2013,
p. 20) (see table 9.6).
For more detail on dialogic OD, see Gervase Bushe and Robert Marshak, Dialogic
Organization Development: The Theory and Practice of Transformational Change
(Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler, 2015), or the earlier OD Practitioner (vol. 45, no. 1, 2013)
special issue on this topic
As OD continues to evolve, it remains a major “school of thought” as to how

organizational change should be managed. However, not all OD practitioners are sure that
a move from [diagnostic] OD to dialogic OD is sufficient to position OD optimally for
being able to have an influence on how change in organizations is managed. For example,
both Worley (2014) and Bartunek and Woodman (2015) argue that the diagnostic-dialogic
dichotomy is unhelpful and that “we should be talking about whether a comprehensive and
systematic diagnostic OD can be integrated with a really good dialogic OD to create a
powerful change process” (Worley, 2014, p. 70). For Worley (2014, p. 70), the dialogic
diagnostic focus places too much attention on “OD as process”; he argues that for OD “to
capture its full potential,” practitioners must complement their process skills with skills
and knowledge “related to the principles and frameworks of strategy and organization
design.”

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

SYS380 FINAL SUMMER Explain The Difference Between Appreciate Inquiry Positive Organizational Schol

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SYS380 FINAL SUMMER Explain The Difference Between Appreciate Inquiry Positive Organizational Schol

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Prepared by: Zaidan Saif

Feel Free to contact on WhatsApp: +966562317268

Appreciative Inquiry (AI)

SYS380 Final summer 2022/2023

➢ Discovery or appreciating the best of what is currently practiced.

The technique is also depicted diagrammatically in figure 9.1. An illustrative sample

Positive Organizational Scholarship (POS)

SYS380 Final summer 2022/2023

SYS380 Final summer 2022/2023

In response to these criticisms, defenders of POS argue that their perspective

SYS380 Final summer 2022/2023

Dialogic Organizational Development

SYS380 Final summer 2022/2023

As OD continues to evolve, it remains a major “school of thought” as to how

SYS380 Final summer 2022/2023

You might also like