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...

Trying to get some bearings...

It's been a while since I managed to get back to the blog and I have a lot to say. At the same time, I really want to learn how to say whatever I am trying to say in less space. One approach could be to use several smaller blog postings (to create the illusion of using less space). Another is to try and use visual media (to really use less space). I think I will use a combination of the two.

In any case, here are the main things on my mind that I want to blog about a little bit more (though not in any particular order) in the coming days:

1. How most communication takes place (and why)
   
2. How this leads to the mess we're in (and why)
   
3. What getting out of it might involve (and why)
   
4. The place for spirituality in all this (and why)
   

All of these seem to be connected to each other - within myself at least. Making sense of this all will be an important part of my own learning journey. All this is inspired by various things I have experienced and read over the last couple of months, including:

1. Re-visiting my early reflections on Action Science
   
2. Reading Dave Snowden's work on stories and complexity
3. My recent engagement with anthropology
4. Reading the Katha Upanishad and the Tao Te Ching
5. Facilitating communication between a volunteer and organisational staff
6. Witnessing various conflicts within my 'home' and within the organisation
   
7. Late night and other engaging discussions with friends on much of the above
8. A good bit of improvised fictional story-circle
9. Some reflections on stepping out into the unknown and how this makes me feel

Let's see how this unfolds.

Full Circle? Maybe more of a spiral!

Today, I am reminded of a dream I had when I first joined this organisation. I entered a room, lit by sunlight and decorated with potted plants. In the room there were a series of low tables (of the coffee table kind) with chairs around them. People were sitting around these tables engaged in conversation. The people were from all the different units in the organisation and they were excitedly and passionately sharing their ideas. The air was ripe with inspiration...

An odd dream, I suppose (it's not made up, honestly!)... Clearly a sign that I am obsessive! But today, having completed my first Appreciative Inquiry (at least the first part of it), having discovered World Cafe, Open Space and the Art of Hosting, having come across the work of people like Dave Snowden and Shawn Callahan of Anecdote, and having discovered all this gigantic world of story-telling and meaningful conversations, I feel a little like I am coming home. Is this the reason why I came here (here being this 40 year old organisation in Udaipur, Rajasthan with whom I am presently associated)?

The reason I came here, and stayed on, was simple: I wanted to make a 'sustainable contribution'. The more I worked, the more I learned about people, systems, organisational learning, systems dynamics and complexity theory, the more I came to understand what this 'sustainable change' really meant and what it might take to bring it about.

The more I think about it, the more i realise that the deep change will take place when the patterns of conversation within the organisation change. And changing the patterns of conversation within the organisation is, by and large (not meaning to sound overly naieve), a matter of opening spaces for conversations and asking the right questions to get the right kind of conversations. And the message that I am getting now, after reading and listening to all kinds of things on the subject, is that stories need to be the basis of this conversations.

Of course, the conversations can build on, manipulate, deconstruct, reconstruct and distill the stories in myriad ways - all guided, of course, by matters of purpose (why these stories?) and context... But those stories are the foundation of any learning and change that is going to emerge. They are the raw data for creating meaning collectively. Story, it seems to me, only really has significance, only really comes to life, in an inter-personal setting.

I have been using anecdotes throughout my time here at a personal level to explain or justify things. Not very effectively though! For the most part, I seem to have used them almost accidentally - not as the foundation of a carefully considered way of generating deeper understanding. Now I feel that a whole new universe has opened up before me based on story-telling. It is as though the entire organisation just dissolved into its basic unit: stories.

The story has the potential to connect the women's group leader who isn't getting the support she needs to the chief executive in a way that a target (30 women's group leaders trained) doesn't. It can also connect the health in-charge to the education in-charge through the story of the child in the community school who got ill and none of his friends had basic first-aid knowledge. (By the way, I just made these stories up... to prove a point).

Another realisation, and one that came just now, is that the real pressing need - to complete the learning cycle - is to link the stories of the villagers themselves (the local leaders, the users of the irrigation system, the trained birth assistants, the children in the community schools) to the stories of the field workers and to link the stories of the field workers to the stories of the block staff and the stories of the block staff to the unit staff and the executive committee and beyond.

Now I may be obsessing a little. But for an oral culture, of which Mewar (the region I am living in), I do believe, is a fine example (though it has its writing too), story telling should be a piece of pie as natural as herding goats or collecting berries from the forest! All we need to do now is navigate the donors and their out-dated obsession with de-contextualised numbers that drain time and energy away from meaningful, inspiring, change-inducing conversations based on stories!

This is all, perhaps, a gross simplification of what will probably take a lot of perseverance and (self-)mastery to apply. And I by no means intend to do injustice to story-work. But I feel I have just reached a new level in my understanding of something of great importance.

The excitement of the adventure continues! Or, rather, begins (again, only more so)!