The Theoretical Basis for Appreciative Inquiry

Social Constructionism

Appreciative Inquiry is, in its essence, rooted and grounded in the theory of social constructionism. As practitioners of Appreciative Inquiry it is essential that we have a working knowledge of the theory, its impact on our beliefs about social knowledge, and how it plays out in theories about how organizations change. Understanding social constructionism gives us a basis for the scientific research (much of it done in the current paradigm’s pure science method) that points to the power of images and the way we use them to create our own realities and even our own futures. We believe that only through a solid grounding in these concepts and theories will practitioners have the knowledge needed to co-create with clients the kinds of organization change processes that will be congruent with the need of a particular client.

Social constructionism is a theory that answers the age-old question: How do we know what we know? Social constructionism calls all of our traditional answers to and beliefs about that conundrum into question. Ken Gergen, whose work on social constructionism has had a major formative impact on AI, describes the power of the idea of language as creator of reality and lists: “Social constructionist dialogues—of cutting-edge significance within the social sciences and humanities—concern the processes by which humans generate meaning together. Our focus is on how social groups create and sustain beliefs in the real, the rational, and the good. We recognize that, as people create meaning together, so do they sow the seeds of action. Meaning and action are entwined. As we generate meaning together we create the future” (Taosinstitute.net).

To enlarge on that definition, we include here a dialogue between Ken Gergen and the participants who visit the Taos Institute website:

It is fair to say that this statement and the nine concepts capture the core of Appreciative Inquiry as an organization change process. As the people of organizations create meaning through their dialogue together, they sow the seeds of the organization’s future.

We have talked about the shifting paradigm (in Chapter 1) that is moving our understanding of the world from Newtonian linearity to quantum relational theories. This shift in beliefs about how we see and experience the world has been at the heart of academic debate that focuses on the “modernist” era (the 20th Century’s paradigm) and the “post-modern” era (the emerging paradigm in the 21st Century).

To recap briefly, the “modernist” era is usually dated from the period called the Enlightenment (approximately the mid-18th Century). In reaction to the dogma of religion when the arbiter of truth was the church, the Enlightenment—no doubt influenced by the ascendancy of “pure science” typified by Newtonian thinking—shifted the focus for judgments about morality and what is real to the individual. People began to make judgments based on what was conceived to be “objective, scientific evidence” about what was real and what was true. This search for truth led to the belief that there were underlying rules and structures that defined the “right” way of doing things. There was also the assumption that this “right” way could be discovered.

This enlightened thinking and scientific focus impacted the arts and architecture, literature, the social sciences, indeed, every sector of human endeavor. The belief during this period, and by many today, is that there is one all-embracing principle that, if we could discover it, would explain the world. We are much like the scientists climbing the mountain of questions about the origins of the universe that Simon Singh (2004) describes in his book, Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe. He quotes American astronomer Robert Jastrow, speaking of the role that the struggle between science and religion has always played in this discussion. Jastrow describes a scientist climbing to find the answer to his conundrum: “He (the scientist) has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peaks; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” It will not be one person or one group that discovers a predetermined truth about reality. It will be, instead, a continuous and perhaps endless dialogue among us all.

“Post-modernism” rejects the idea of an underlying structure and of an underlying truth. Instead of one grand design, post-modern thought embraces the idea of multiple and contextually determined “realities.” Social constructionism is a formative theory of the post-modern idea. Social constructionists argue that our world is shaped by the many dialogues and discourses that we have with each other—conversations in which we both selectively make sense of our past and present, experience, and history and create shared images of what we anticipate in the future. Appreciative Inquiry takes this one step further into an intervention process based on the power of dialogue generated by inquiry itself, that is, the power of the questions we ask. It is with those questions that we shape our destiny.

As Cooperrider (1995) says:

“The most important thing we do as consultants is inquiry. We try to read situations, we do organizational analysis and diagnosis. It all starts with inquiry. The key point is that the way we know is fateful. The questions we ask, the things that we choose to focus on, the topics that we choose determine what we find. What we find becomes the data and the story out of which we dialogue about and envision the future. And so, the seeds of change are implicit in the very first questions we ask! Inquiry is intervention.”

At the crux of AI is the choice we make in the first question we ask. For example, an organization wanting to heal the wounds of racism can (1) inquire into instances of racism in the workplace with the idea that once we are really clear on what racism looks and feels like and what causes it, then it can be eliminated, or (2) the organization can choose to inquire into instances of exceptionally good cross-race working relationships and the conditions present at those times, creating images of desirable relationships. The practice of AI is founded on the theory that the very act of inquiry causes the system to shift in the direction of the inquiry by evoking anticipatory images that are created in the dialogue that is part of any inquiry. AI chooses the positive inquiry precisely because it leads to positive images that, in turn, create a positive future.

The Power of Image

With this understanding of the shift in the theories about social knowledge, about what is real and true, and about the power of language to create reality, Cooperrider turned to research in a wide range of social sciences to understand more fully the impact of positive images in the creation of the future. And he began to tie this into his thinking about the impact that these new theories could have on organizational change theory and practice. In his story, from our interview with him in 1999, he says:

“I decided to refocus my dissertation on Appreciative Inquiry. Then, of course, we had to explain the ‘why’ of this phenomenon. We did this by bringing together a multidisciplinary group in a conference at Case. The purpose of that conference was to explore the relationship of image to action; to understand where the positive images come from and how they are developed. That conference provided the basic material for my chapter ‘Positive Image: Positive Action’ in the book Suresh and I edited called Appreciative Management and Leadership.”

The information on that research and from “Positive Image; Positive Action” form the basis of this discussion of the role of image in our lives. Taking research from widely diverse fields such as medicine, sports, behavioral science, and anthropology, Cooperrider thoroughly documents the phenomena of the relationship between our images and our behavior, between what we believe to be true and what we create as truth.

For example, since the mid-1950s, Western medical science has become aware of the power of the mind to heal the body. This concept has always been the basis of healing in Eastern cultures. The split in mind and body that began with the Greeks, was reinforced by the Newtonian paradigm, and dominants in Western thought and behavior even today, is giving way to a greater understanding of the mind/body connection. Scientific experimentation and documented data are increasing and the belief in the holistic nature of the “self” is becoming mainstream in major scientific research institutions as well as in the daily press.

What does this have to do with Appreciative Inquiry? AI is, in part, the art of helping systems create images of their most desired future. Based on the belief that a human system will show a heliotropic tendency to move toward positive images, AI is intentionally focused on the generative and creative images in a system that can be held up, valued, and used as a basis for moving toward the future. The research that follows is abundant and well documented, a fact that was not the case a decade ago. As with social constructionism, our intention here is to give a very brief description to familiarize practitioners with the roots of AI while, at the same time, providing citations of resources for those who want to explore these ideas in greater depth.

In the middle of the last century, research began in earnest on the impact that the language we used and the images we created had on our mental and physical health and well-being. These studies are useful in helping us make the cognitive leap from our world of parts to a more holistic sense of the cosmos. It is hard to imagine that we are only now, in the West, taking seriously the notion that our minds are indivisibly connected with our bodies, but that has been the case. Following are examples introduced by David Cooperrider in his original writing about AI. The examples come from studies of positive images and positive thinking in four different areas.

The Placebo Effect: The Power of Our Own Images of Ourselves

Perhaps the best-known studies of the impact of our minds on our bodies are the widely documented placebo experiments that began in the mid-1950s. Although the placebo phenomenon has been controversial, most of the medical profession now accepts as genuine the fact that anywhere from one-third to two-thirds of all patients will show marked physiological and emotional improvement in symptoms simply by believing that they are being given an effective treatment, even when that treatment is just a sugar pill or some other inert substance. Further, the effect is even more powerful if the doctor prescribing the medicine or treatment also believes that it will help (Beecher, 1955; White, Tursky, & Schwartz, 1985).

Norman Cousins (1981) popularized the notion that a person’s mental state impacts health. In his book, Human Options, he writes of the therapeutic value of hope, faith, love, will to live, cheerfulness, humor, creativity, playfulness, confidence, and great expectations, all of which contribute to a healing system for the body. A landmark experiment was undertaken by Simonton, Creighton, and Simnton (1981) at their clinic in Texas, where they documented an unusually high rate of recovery from “terminal” cancer by patients who worked to resolve their psychological issues and practiced positive imagery. Bill Moyers created a whole series for the Public Broadcasting System on the power of the mind to heal the body. Almost daily new books and articles appear documenting studies or proposing theories about this connection between our mental processes and our mental and physical well-being.

The Pygmalion Studies: The Impact of Another’s Image on Us

A set of experiments called the Pygmalion studies, carried out in classrooms with schoolchildren, demonstrate the power that another person’s image of us can have in shaping our performance. In these studies, teachers were told that one group was made up of students who were not very intelligent, tended to do poorly, and were often not well-behaved in the classroom, while the children in the second group were bright, hard-working, and successful. The teacher believed these to be the facts while, in actuality, the division of students into the two groups was entirely random. Within a very short time, however, almost without exception those labeled low potential were performing poorly and those labeled high potential were excelling.

In observations of the teacher, researchers discovered that the teachers responded to students in line with what they believed about a student’s potential and ability. If the teacher thought that a student was smart and competent, body language was encouraging, verbal exchanges were supportive, and the teacher made allowances for the student when he or she did not perform well. On the other hand, the teacher’s interactions with those thought to be less capable were much more terse, perfunctory, and dismissive.

Long-term follow-up to the studies showed that the effects of this image held by the teacher affected the students far into the future. (By inference, the same effect can be anticipated with images held by parents, bosses, and other authority figures.) Furthermore, it was proven that the image that the teacher held of the student was a more powerful predictor of a child’s performance than IQ scores, home environment, or past performance. So damaging were these experiments to the students labeled “poor” that the scientific community discontinued them.

Positive Thinking

In another set of studies, behavioral scientists looked at the ratio of positive as opposed to negative thought patterns in people facing major heart surgery. The studies demonstrated that those who approached the operation with a feeling that the doctor was the best, the medical techniques were proven and safe, and their chances of being well again were excellent recovered at a much greater rate than those who approached the operation with fear and concern. In these studies, it was concluded that the desired ratio of positive thoughts to negative thoughts is approximately 2 to 1 (Srivastva, Fry, & Cooperrider, 1990, p. 109). With a 2 to 1 ratio, there is a marked difference in the level of well-being that a person experiences.

Metacognition: Using Our Internal Dialogue for Positive Impact

Evidence suggests quite clearly, especially in the arena of sports, that we can learn how to create positive images for ourselves that will impact our performance, our health, our sense of well-being, even our relationships with others.

There are many examples in the sports arena of the power of the positive image in creating success for athletes. Books such as Jack Nicklaus’ Golf My Way argue that the positive affirmation (“I’m going to hit it down the middle of the fairway,” rather than “Don’t hit it into the woods”) causes the whole body to respond to what the mind imagines is possible. Paradoxically, most of us believe that elimination of failures (negative self-monitoring, that is, “No, not the woods”) will improve performance when exactly the opposite appears to be true.

With this kind of scientific evidence emerging, it makes sense to rethink our approach to organization development. It is not hard to make the connection between the research and people’s lives in an organizational setting. The Pygmalion studies suggest that performance appraisals that focus on people’s shortcomings, particularly if the appraisals come from one who has power over the person being appraised, is likely to assure that the employee will not perform well in the future. The placebo studies document ways that the power of our minds can keep our bodies healthy. It is not an unreasonable connection to make that an employee who holds self-images of competence and success is much more likely to be high-performing. And the power of our inner dialogue to impact out behavior suggests that the cynicism so prevalent in Western culture is quite likely to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Taken to the organizational level, if we accept that there is at least a possibility that we socially construct our world and a reasonable amount of evidence that we have the power to create what we imagine, it follows that a process for facilitating organization change would consciously focus on empowering employees to believe that they can make a difference; reward leaders who know how to empower others; and focus the energy of the system on the positive, generative, and creative forces that give life and vitality to the work.