half full or half empty... the muddle continues

It's way past my bedtime but I feel compelled to write. Failing to follow on from my last blog, this is a return to a lingering question of growingly nagging proportions: appreciative inquiry - is it a biased way of looking at things and does this make it somehow less useful or worthwhile in the broader endeavour to make positive change in the world?

This question first began to move beyond being a simple blot on my landscape to a kind of subject for inquiry after reading an article by Dave Snowden. A recent blog post by Dave Snowden got me thinking about this again. He wrote:

One of my real concerns here is the frequent conflation of Cognitive Edge methods with NLP and that other current popular method Appreciative Inquiry (AI). Now there is a big difference. My concern about AI is that it privileges one type of story over an other. Why should anyone tell people what type of stories they should tell? Despite my disagreements I can respect its practitioners and see that it has utility in constrained circumstances. [He then goes on to talk about NLP - for which he clearly has less respect than he does for AI]

So, the question that I am really grappling with is: in what contexts does applying Appreciative Inquiry makes sense? Or even better, where does the role of purpose fit in to the whole practice of story-work?

It seems that Dave's approach is concerned with eliminating any kind of bias into the 'inquiry' or story-eliciting process. Now, I may be just fuddling my way through, but it seems to me that any process of gathering stories will need to have some kind of a purpose (am I missing something?) - whether it is simply to generate a database of contextualised organisational happenings from diverse perspectives (why would we want this) to something more overt like enabling an organisation to become more effective at what it does (e.g. by becoming more responsive to its clients needs, learning more effectively, improving leadership and communication patterns, etc.).

I recognise that I may have the wrong end of the stick (please point this out if I do). I also recognise that the very process of surfacing a question or purpose for 'inquiry' itself may require an inquiry in its own right... But even this sense that 'something needs to be done' will be informed by some kind of nagging notion that... well, there is something that needs to be done... about something!? Hmmm...

But Dave's critique focuses not so much on the subject or purpose as the 'type of story' - i.e. in the case of AI, this would be the story of what worked and what were the conditions that led to this thing actually working - a positive take. I suppose, the point is that it makes good sense to look at what isn't working and how things end up not working -because this might tell us what we ought to avoid doing.

In various articles of Dave's that I have read, he talks about using the story of the chap who discovered that latitude could be calculated simply by using a clock as a way of getting people to feel comfortable about telling stories of times when good ideas were scrapped because of bosses with old-paradigm world-views... Now isn't this as much an attempt at telling people what kind of story to tell as doing an AI would be?

So is the point that we should ask people to tell all kinds of stories - the good, the bad and the ugly? How do we decide how we should lead the questions? It seems that we have to elicit a certain type of story - at least in a number of situations - in order to get at the juiciest bits which may not respond to a simple question like 'tell me about leadership in the organisation' - it just seems way too vague - and therefore liable to elicit a vague series of answers that have to be gradually probed to get to the depth by gradually making it more specific (e.g. by using the latitude example).

The other tendency that I have observed is that people love talking about negative stories. Huge amounts of staff time go into ranting about problems, complaining about things, etc. My sense is that this tends to breed a negative mindset and can be very counterproductive. Just imagine if some more of this time was spent by people having constructive conversations about how to solve problems, or for sharing knowledge and experience, coming up with new initiatives and so on... Now wouldn't this lead to a dramatic increase in effectiveness? Perhaps I am completely missing the point!? What if bosses could listen to stories about times when their staff had really felt able to perform and deliver change?

In the end, I suppose that both the positives and the negatives are essential. It seems to be as important to know what we can do as it does to know what we shouldn't do. But when we are on the move, and we don't have vast resources to put in place high end knowledge management systems (as in the case of the NGO where I am working in India), might not an AI allow us to get rather a lot done - even if only in such constrained circumstances?

In any case, I have resolved to take this question with me into my practice and really have a go at unearthing all manner of stories - positive and negative - with the hope that I can begin to get a sense for what all of this adds up to...