appreciative inquiry

Notes on The Relationship between Appreciative Inquiry (Ai) and Positive Thinking and Affirmation David Cooperrider Ai theory has some "family" resemblance to the earlier positive thinking work and the more recent work on affirmation (both would hold that our positive images and thoughts of the future are powerful). But Ai... goes much further in a relational direction (it is "our" social constructions, not some separate or detatched "I"). It also goes much further in a creative direction, of open inquiry and flux.

One of the ironies of positive thinking, or "affirmation", is that it partially cripples itself in order to function. By definition a strong positive thought, or "to affirm", means to "hold firm". As the earlier writers on positive thinking argued, it is precisely the strength of the affirmation or positive thought, the degree of belief or faith invested, that allows for the positive thought to propel and sustain positive and self-fulfilling action. This is fine. But quite often our firmest thoughts, our most positive ideals, our most definitive values and visions, are the very things holding us back. This is where I might make a distinction (perhaps too artificially) between the act of affirmation, and the act of appreciative "inquiry". A quote from theorist Henry Wieman (1926) is useful to explain further:

We are very sure that the greatest obstacle in the way of individual growth and social progress is the ideal (...read affirmation or positive thought) which dominates the individual or group. The greatest instrument of achievement and improvement is the ideal, and therefore our constant failures, miseries and wickedness are precisely due to the inadequacy of our highest ideals. Our ideals have in them all the error, all the impractibilty, all the perversity and confusion that human beings that themselves erring, impractical, perverse and confused, can put into them. Our ideals are no doubt the best we have in the way of our constructions. But the best we have.. (reifies, gets old, is soon out of step with the potentials and possibilities). Our hope and full assurance are that we can improve our ideals. If we could not be saved from our ideals, we would be lost indeed.

The real challenge from this line is not creating and sustaining a positive thought per se, or getting everyone in an organization "on board" with single or even static shared vision, or the same positve
conversation. The big challenge is just the opposite!

The question for me quite often is: what are those processes through which a system's best affirmations can be left behind and fresh and perhaps even better visions/values/positive thoughts developed? What are those modes of learning and inquiry through which human systems
can fashion new affirmative projections or conversations on a dynamic and continuous basis? In contrast to the affirmative projection that seeks certainty and control over events, the appreciative eye actually seeks uncertainty as it is thrown into the elusive and emergent nature of organizational life itself. Appreciation is creative rather than conservative precisely because it allows itself to be inspired by the voice of mystery--where the miracle of life on this planet keeps our questioning authentic, fresh, off-balanced, humble, and unrelenting. As as active process of valuing the factors that give rise to the life-enhancing and liberating organization, appreciation has room for the vital uncertainty, the indeterminacy, the edge-of-chaos moment that is the trademark of something alive.

Life erupts and overflows common categories. Our most positive thoughts are obsolete, right now. Might we allow ourselves to move increasingly to the center of the edge, into the ever expanding
domain of uncertainy?

I've probobly gone on a bit too much. But last thought. I think Ai theory would say it loves positive thinking, especially to the extent it prepares us to see and learn in more positive ways (beyond deficit modalities). But appreciation, coupled with the word inquiry, differs from affirmation in that it is not instrumental. It gives up its capability of shaping the world closer to preexisitng wants because it tends, in the end, to transform those wants into something very different from that which was originally affirmed. Thats what happens in inquiry. That is what happens when we are learning. We end up somewhere else. Its an oddessy, not a journey!