APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY AND POSITIVE CHANGE MANAGEMENT

Jay Martin Hays Swinburne University of Technology

Kathy Cowan-Sahadath Fielding Graduate University

Hydro One Networks Inc. This paper links Appreciative Inquiry1 and positive change management, or CM+2. Building towards this linkage, Appreciative Inquiry (AI) is first defined and explained, and a brief history of AI provided. The CM+ Roadmap is then introduced, its phases and steps outlined and its philosophical underpinnings described. In addition to the important linking of Appreciative Inquiry and CM+, this paper includes a concise introduction to Dialogue3. The topic is crucial because both AI and positive change management employ and rely on effective Dialogue to achieve their ends. The prominence of Dialogue as a central mechanism in change processes employing AI and CM+ is a special feature of this paper and a significant contribution to the sparse literature on the role of dialogue in organisational change.4 Both Appreciative Inquiry and CM+ are, essentially, approaches to promoting and managing change. Both have been shown independently effective in doing so, but this paper represents the first attempt to combine them and to report on preliminary results of integrated application. The paper builds on a general relationship between AI and organisational change and development already established in the literature.5 It adds to the extant literature by providing greater detail into how they relate and how they work together to produce desirable change at the individual, team, and organisational levels. While the thrust of this paper is organisational and of concern to managers, it should be noted that the principles and approaches outlined here are applicable for diverse institutions and communities. There are significant parallels amongst the objectives and processes of Appreciative Inquiry and positive change management. They both aspire to bring out the best in people and organisations. They focus on healthy attitudes and relationships, and build learning into their processes. They

1 Appreciative Inquiry is generally thought of as a participative approach to change and innovation. This paper references a dozen or so scholarly sources, but acknowledges David Cooperrider as an initial and primary source, with Cooperrider and Srivastva (1987) one of the earliest sources. The author’s first exposure to AI was Fitzgerald and associates in the early 2000s (2005 cited here) and incorporation of AI concepts into Organisational Development projects at the time. 2 Positive change management and the CM+ Roadmap. References to positive change management are generally oblique or peripheral. This paper defines and describes PCM (or CM+) and asserts the merits of a positive approach to change. The CM+ Roadmap is a synthesis of best practice principles and strategies from Organisational Development and organisational change management research and practice, as usefully summarised in Palmer et al (2009). The CM+ Roadmap was introduced and elaborated in Hays (2004a; 2006a; 2006b; 2010b). 3 As used here, Dialogue (with a capital D) is a formal process to reach shared understanding, improve problem-solving and decision-making, resolve conflict, and build community. Dialogue is effective and rewarding means and ends of change (see Jabri, 2004, and Rose-Anderssen and Allen, 2006, whose conclusions support this assertion). Hays has explored Dialogue at length in references included here: 2009; 2010a; and under review. While Isaacs (1993; 1999a; 1999b) is credited with popularising the importance and process of Dialogue, the earlier contributions of David Bohm (1987; 1990) are acknowledged. 4 Important exceptions include Kellett (1999) and Schabracq (2007). See also Ford and Ford (1995). It should be noted that dialogue as used here is a key feature of Appreciative Inquiry and that AI is a recognised change process or catalyst for change (see, for a prime example, Cooperrider and Whitney (2005). 5 See, as examples, Bramson and Buss (2002); Bushe and Kassam (2005); Cooperrider and Whitney (2005); Fitzgerald, et al (2005); Fuller, et al (2000); Lehner and Hight (2006). Palmer et al (2009) link and explain the relationship amongst Appreciative Inquiry, Positive Organisational Scholarship, and Organisational Development.

1

are, thus, not adjunct to approaches to change management but fundamental mechanisms for capability-building.6 Importantly, combining AI and CM+ can substantially improve the likelihood that organisational change and development priorities are achieved. Moreover, integrating the techniques ensures that the change process proceeds more smoothly and with fewer deleterious impacts than is often the case in organisational change initiatives. It is generally understood and often reported that change programs fail to deliver expected results.7 Likewise, change programs frequently are undertaken in ways that alienate and disempower staff and other stakeholders (Grubbs, 2002). Kotter and Schlesinger (1979) wrote that:

Few organizational change efforts tend to be complete failures, but few tend to be entirely successful either. Most efforts encounter problems; they often take longer than expected and desired, the sometimes kill morale, and they often cost a great deal in terms of management time or emotional upheaval. More than a few organisations have not even tried to initiate needed change because managers were afraid they were simply incapable of successfully implementing them (p. 107)

And, while not reported in the literature, it is reasonable to assume that at least some change programs are actually counterproductive.8 This might occur as a result of poor diagnosis, planning, or implementation, and become evident as unintended pejorative consequences arise. Change programs can also be counterproductive when staff or other stakeholders are driven to "change burnout" from relentless on-going change, or pessimism and negativity as the result of repeated failed or ugly change attempts.9 In a case of making matters worse, a poorly-planned or implemented "intervention" to resolve disputes between management and labour or between community factions may result in further entrenchment, solidified opposition, and greater conflict. Both Appreciative Inquiry and positive change management in their own ways reduce the risk of failure and counterproductivity. Together, they can make a meaningful, positive difference, further amplified through Dialogue--that is, they can work virtuously (see Footnote 7), compounding their positive affects to promote smooth and effective change. Like AI and CM+, Dialogue can also be conceived of as a positive approach to learning, development, and change. As explained below, Dialogue appreciates differences, leads to new and deeper understanding, and can build the consensus, shared commitment, and unified purpose that transformation requires. It is a key mechanism or enabler of the change process, from the dawning realisation that change is needed to the evaluation of the initiative.

6 Kirk and Shutte’s (2004) insightful article on community leadership development is of particular relevance to this paper, as they range across and link capacity-building, collaborative inquiry, dialogue, OD, and organisational learning and change. See, also, Rowland and Higgs (2008) who conclude that capacity-building is one of the chief concerns of change leaders and a major success factor in organisational transformation. 7 Indicative sources include: Berger et al (1994), Bushe and Kassam (2005), Robbins and Finley (1998), Rowland and Higgs (2008). 8 See Robbins and Finley (1998) for an exception. 9 While beyond scope of this current paper, counterproductive change programs can be understood as vicious cycles, where efforts with the best of intentions lead to unanticipated, undesirable results, each action reinforcing the worst in the system and resulting in long-term negative affects and system-wide impact. The good news about vicious cycles is that positive corollary exists in virtuous cycles; and vicious cycles can be reversed with a good understanding of the system in question. The systems thinking / systems dynamics literature is rich with examples and explanations of vicious and virtuous cycles. Because of its particular relevance, here, Losada and Heaphy (2004) is offered as a reference. See Hays (2010a) for a basic introduction. Lewis, et al (2006) and McClellan (2008) both cited elsewhere in this paper discuss “downward spirals” (the former) and escalating cycles of negative emotions and increasing conflict (the latter).

2

Appreciative Inquiry Appreciative Inquiry (AI) is [generally] a participative, collaborative approach to investigating phenomena with a positive or optimistic intent: to find the best in people, situations, and organisations.10 As Fitzgerald, et al (2005) indicate, "The most powerful tools at our disposal are our capacity to inquire together and focus the nature of the inquiry" (p. 226). Appreciative Inquiry is a "what's right?" approach rather than a "what's wrong?" one. Bramson and Buss (2002) tell us,

Appreciative Inquiry is a philosophy and an approach that is based on the discovery of the highest achievements, core values, and aspirations embedded in a system. The methodology begins a dialogue between individuals, expands to groups, and builds to embrace and declare community-wide intentions and actions (Table 1, p.213).

Appreciative Inquiry reframes questions and, thus, the thinking associated with them. It is not a problem or "deficit" approach (Lehner and Hight, 2006; Lewis et al, 2006; McClellan, 2008). AI would take a question such as what's missing here? and frame it as, Where are we fully present and successful in the organisation? or Describe a time when we felt we had everything we needed and wanted? It is important to reframe thinking and the conversations that flow from and substantiate thinking. Innovation and creativity depend on the ability to see things in new and different ways. Hence, the vital if over-used expression seeing "outside the square."11 While we all know the dictum, most of us remain inside the square most of the time. Inhabiting the square is known, comfortable, and predictable. We seldom realise we are trapped within it in a recursive cycle repeating habits that may be outmoded and inhibiting. We keep doing things we think should work--like the way we manage change--when what is needed is a new way. This often is described as working harder, not smarter. Such behaviour is a function of the way we think, the language we use, and the way we approach situations, notably problems. Harking to Einstein, Bushe and Kassam (2005) add: [yet] “…another inquiry into a problem that has already been a focus for lots of discussion” will not result in “new ways of thinking” (p. 164), thus is unlikely to produce new and effective solutions. We need new conversations and a language that will put us in the right frame of mind. AI is most widely known as an approach to change and innovation.12 Citing Cooperrider and others, Ncube et al (2006) note,

Appreciative Inquiry is the collaborative search for the best in people, their organizations, and the world around them. It involves systematic discovery of what drives the organization when it is most effective and capable. AI involves the art and practice of asking questions that strengthen a system’s capacity to heighten positive potential. In AI, intervention gives way to imagination and innovation, instead of negation, criticism. Linking this ‘positive change core’ directly to any change agenda results in the realization of changes never thought possible through democratic and collaborative effort (p. 79).13

10 CM+ and AI are both founded on notions of positive psychology, positive psychological capital, and positive organisational behaviour. See Avey, et al (2008); Luthans, et al (2004); Luthans, et al (2007); Peterson and Seligman (2008); and Passfield (2002) and Fuller, et al (2000) cited elsewhere in this paper. The next section on positive change management or CM+ explicates the meaning of “positive”. 11 Acknowledging its importance, Part I of Gouillart and Kelly’s (1995) book is “reframing”. 12 Examples: Bramson and Buss (2002); Bushe and Kassam (2005); Ncube et al (2006); Ricketts and Willis (2001). 13 Values and principles of democracy and emancipation run through the works on AI, explicitly or implicitly, as evidenced in (Bramson and Buss, 2002; Calabrese, 2006; Egan and Lancaster, 2005), as they do in Dialogue (see

3

In the introduction to their book, Ricketts and Willis (2001) state:

Appreciative Inquiry (AI) is a transformational organization change process. People experiencing an AI inspire each other to leverage their most powerful collective stories in order to dream and design a new affirmative future. In the process of truly hearing each other’s hopes and dreams, people create community—they discover affinity, build relationships, and develop common language with those who were previously only colleagues in the most formal sense. AI at its best generates an energy that causes people to change rapidly and positively in relation to each other and in doing so their organizations and communities are transformed to the extent that they are never again the same (p. 5).

In comparing Appreciative Inquiry to Organisational Development,14 Bushe and Kassam (2005) found that AI can be distinguished from other OD interventions in that it results in “new knowledge, models, and / or theories” and “a generative metaphor that compels new action” (p. 163). This is in contrast to conventional approaches to OD that begin with given problems or views of the desired future state. Traditional models tend to work on improvements within current structures and understandings, but do not challenge those givens or do not invite reconceptualisations.15

The 4D Model

Discovery

Appreciating what is.

Identify the strengths, successes, and positive potential of the team or organisation through shared inquiry.

Dream

Imagining what could be.

Create a vision of the ideal future state that builds on and surpasses the depth and breadth of past achievements and current abilities.

Design

Determining what should be.

Formulate goals and strategies to achieve dreams; that is, to implement. This may include goals around the learning and development needed achieve the desired future state. Design (implementation) principles must be founded on and incorporate the positive ideals of participation, democracy, emancipation, and empowerment.

Destiny

Creating what will be.

Commit to agreed approaches to sustain the design from the dream that was discovered and build-in assurance models premised on positive principles and values.16

Bowers, 2005, and Wright and Gehring, 2008). This may pose a problem with universal application, which is acknowledged in the conclusion to this paper. 14 Readers are encouraged to explore Organisational Development more broadly. The ideas put forward in this paper with respect to AI and CM+ emerge from the author’s own interpretation of OD, which is strongly oriented to learning and capability-building. Provocative, complementary, and reliable sources on OD include: Cacioppe and Edwards (2005); Leppitt (2006); and Stace (1996). 15 Readers might recognise the parallels, here, to distinctions between single-loop (first order) thinking / learning and double-loop or higher-order. References, here, include: Denning (2005) and Kindler (1979) who compare incremental and transformational change; Driver (2002) who distinguishes between routine-incremental and radical-innovative; Senge (1990) who conceived of the distinction as between adaptive (or coping) versus generative (or creating); Kaplan and Norton (1996) discuss and distinguish single-loop and double-loop learning and feedback; and Bergmann-Lichtenstein (2000) covers first-order and second-order learning. 16 Egan and Lancaster (2005) note that the final stage (destiny) once was called “delivery,” and involved “writing action plans, building implementation strategies and monitoring progress” but has evolved from these concrete activities to a more organic process geared toward “sustaining the efforts of the previous stages” through “empowering, improving, and making adjustments toward ongoing change” (p. 34). The authors also emphasise that

Table 1. The Generic 4D Model of Change (Steps in Appreciative Inquiry).

4

Ncube et al (2006) suggest that generative metaphors are like a new lens for seeing differently. They are “…sayings or phrases that are in themselves provocative and can create new possibilities for action that people had not previously considered” (p. 164). The author has found metaphors quite useful in promoting learning and change, and to help see things from a new perspective. The Journey Metaphor (Hays, 2010b)--an expedition to places no one has been before--helps individuals and teams prepare for change. The New Earth metaphor requires of people to decide what they really want most to take with them to establish a new and thriving colony and what they know they should leave behind. Peelle (2006) presents a cogent case for the use of Appreciative Inquiry in problem-solving teams, finding that teams employing AI developed solutions that were more novel and practical than teams using a typical creative problem-solving approach, had more confidence in the efficacy of their proposed solutions, and reported higher levels of team identification and potency. His findings are quite relevant with respect to AI’s contribution to innovation and change. Much has been written about AI since popularised by Cooperrider and his associates in the late 1980s and 1990s,17 with a spate of scholarly works appearing since 2000.18 The problem with reporting on Appreciative Inquiry is that, while inspiring and effective, it is also very simple. Without diminishing the process or those who practice it, AI is relatively easy to understand and the steps to implementing ostensibly simple. For example, there are four steps generally acknowledged as comprising AI: Discovery, Dream, Design, and Delivery (Table 1). These comprise what is referred to as the 4D model of change, as outlined in Egan and Lancaster (2005), Moody et al (2007), Ncube (2006), Ricketts and Willis (2001), and Wasburn and Crisp (2006) as indicative sources. Scholars sometimes refer to a five step model, as is the case with Fitzgerald et al (2005) and Lehner and Hight (2006). Here, a Define step, as the first D, precedes the other four. The last D is often referred to as Destiny, perhaps a more inspiring term than Delivery. Few easy-to-understand and recall steps do not assure that application is always easy or successful. Both skill and discipline are required, as is learning as you go. This is one of the main reasons the author insists on inserting reflective moments and activities into the AI process.19 There would be, potentially, reflective activities in points during each of the four steps enumerated in Table 1 intended to help participants identify and surmount limits to their inquiry, dialogue, and thinking. The basic premise behind Appreciative Inquiry is that asking a question wrongly may be as bad as or worse than asking the wrong questions. A critical, threatening, pessimistic, or otherwise negative question can result in individuals and groups “shutting down,” as opposed to opening up (Losada and Heaphy, 2004). An example might be, Where did the process break down? A question in which a given response or course of action is implicit or expected (even if merely perceived so) reduces response to the expected. Is there a problem in the marketing area? The too-frequent rhetorical-declarative question exemplifies this: Don't you think we need to...? A

AI is iterative, cycling through new affirmative topics. This is similar to the idea of the CM+ Roadmap as a continuous cycle of learning and change. 17 Cooperrider and Srivastva (1987); Cooperrider (1990); Cooperrider and Whitney (1999); Cooperrider at al (2001). 14 Some of the more useful, recent references reviewed for this paper include: Bushe and Kassam (2005), Egan and Lancaster (2005), Lehner and Hight (2006), and Ncube and Wasburn (2006).

19 See Hays (2009; 2010a, and under review) for thorough description of the value and processes for shared reflection.

5

positively-phrased, appreciative question can be uplifting.20 Spin questions that point to problems and weaknesses around: What’s right with this picture? In addition to the four or five steps typical of an Appreciative Inquiry approach, there are a number of principles that underlie it. Drawing on Cooperrider and Srivastva (1987), the first four are simple and direct. Inquiry:

1. begins with appreciation; and is: 3. provocative and

2. applicable 4. collaborative

These four were followed by another five (Cooperrider and Whitney, 2001), the:

5. Constructionist Principle How we know and what we do are closely interwoven.

6. Principle Of Simultaneity Inquiry is intervention: as we inquire into systems, we change them. Questions are fateful: change begins the moment the system begins to inquire.

7. Poetic Principle Organisations are like books being continually co-authored by their members through the stories they share.

8. Anticipatory Principle What we do today is guided by our image of the future, positive, bleak, or vague.

9. Positive Principle Momentum and sustainable change require positive affect and social bonding.

These principles are explained clearly in Ricketts and Willis (2001); and in Bushe and Kassam (2005), themselves quoting Cooperrider and Whitney (2001) liberally: 1. The constructionist principle. “The purpose of inquiry, which is viewed as totally inseparable and intertwined with action, is the creation of ‘generative theory,’ not so much mappings or explanations of yesterday’s world but anticipatory articulations of tomorrow’s possibilities” (p 166). 2. The simultaneity principle. “The seeds of change—that is, the things people think and talk about, the things people discover and learn, and the things that inform dialogue and inspire images of the future—are implicit in the very first questions we ask” (p. 166). …the simultaneity principle requires spending considerable time and effort to identify what the inquiry is about and paying close attention to the exact wording and provocative potential of the questions that will be asked” (p. 166). 3. The poetic principle. “The words and topics that we choose to talk about have an impact far beyond just the words themselves. They invoke sentiments, understandings, worlds of meaning. …the language of the inquiry has important outcomes in and of itself. In all phases of the inquiry, effort is put into using words that point to, enliven, and inspire the best in people” (pp. 166 - 167). 4. The anticipatory principle. “…human systems project ahead of themselves a horizon of expectation … that brings the future powerfully into the present as a mobilizing agent. To inquire in ways that serve to refashion anticipatory reality—especially the artful creation of positive imagery

20 See Beers et al (2006) and Fay et al (2000) for relevant analyses of communication processes. Wright and Gehring (2008) helpfully distinguish monologic and dialogic communication forms.

6

on a collective basis—may be the most prolific thing any inquiry can do” (p. 167). “…sentiments like hope, excitement, inspiration, camaraderie, and joy are central to the change process” (p. 167) 5. The positive principle. “…the more positive the question we ask in our work the more long lasting and successful the change effort” (p. 167).

AI practitioners do not go into an AI process with a clear or fixed idea of what the problem is or what needs to change, but rather a commitment to “uncovering and amplifying ‘the positive core’ of the organization” (p. 168). A very important finding of Bushe and Kassam (2005) relates to a new way of thinking about organisational change, itself provocative, if not contentious; and that is that Appreciative Inquiry encourages if not firmly relies upon an organic, emergent, improvisational approach.21

Appreciative Inquiry can be distinguished “from traditional change management and OD practice [in its avoidance of] creating plans and processes for implementing agreed-upon changes and rather to create plans and processes that encourage and nurture improvised action by system members (p. 168)

The assumption—backed up by thorough research—is that the Discover, Dream, and Design phases of AI “should create a set of images and ideas that are so compelling to system members that they voluntarily find ways to transform their social and work processes” in the delivery, or Destiny phase (p. 169). Such a view is in stark contrast to typical project management. This is quite different from

…most of the OD literature that advocates implementation of consensually or centrally agreed-upon change. And it is very different from change management, which could be defined as the process of managing the implementation of changes into a population that had little say in those changes (p. 169).

Appreciative Inquiry is a bottom-up, high stakeholder involvement, and organic approach to positive change; not a mechanistic or managerial approach foisted upon people. Bushe and Kassam (2005) conclude:

…if we can create a collective sense of what needs to be achieved, create new models or theories of how to achieve that, and align those with the inherent motivation people have in relation to their organizational life, then a great deal of change leading to increased organizational performance can occur if people are allowed and encouraged to take initiative and make it happen (p. 177; emphasis added).

Elleven (2007) enumerates a set of assumptions inherent and explicit in AI (as originally put forward in Walker and Carr-Stewart):

1. In every society, organization or group something works. 5. People have more confidence and comfort to journey to the future (the unknown) when they carry forward parts of the past (the known).

21 See Rowland and Higgs (2008) who discuss the importance of considering complexity and emergence on managed organisational change.

7

2. What we focus on becomes our reality. 6. If we carry parts of the past forward, they should be what is best about the past.

3. Reality is created in the moment, and there are multiple realities.

7. It is important to value differences.

4. The act of asking questions of an organization or group influences the group in some way.

8. The language we use creates our reality.

Appreciative inquiry is the new frontier in Organisational Development, asserted Fitzgerald et al (2002): “it encourages us to rethink and enlarge how OD professionals … work, possibly leading to reinventing of OD itself” (p. 223). It is not a technique or method, they tell us, but “an affirmative worldview that shapes what we look for in organizational inquiry, …a conscious value choice to seek the most affirmative, valuing, and generative information available” (p. 223). They note that AI involves the “…practice of creating dialogue [that] helps to bring out what a fuller and deeper appreciation means” (p. 224). Drawing on Whitney and Cooperrider (1998), Fitzgerald et al (2005) provide four reasons or preconditions for the use of AI in organisational change efforts: 1. High levels of participation and cooperation are required.

2. The change process needs to be accelerated.

3. The work requires innovation amongst diverse stakeholders.

4. Multiple change initiatives need to be integrated and leveraged.

Positive Change Management and the CM+ Roadmap This section discusses positive change management, a very important concept about which one hears little in industry and that is seldom covered in the literature on change. Also introduced here is a five-phase, twelve-step approach to managing organisational development and change called the CM+ Roadmap (see Figure 1). 22 The Roadmap was developed from the notions of

22 This section relies on Hays (2004; 2006a; 2006b; 2010b). Berger et al (1994) is acknowledged as offering “a road map to corporate transformation” but do not provide a roadmap as icon or use the term as here. Heifetz (1993) exemplifies scholars presenting a step-wise, iterative approach to change. His has seven, roughly equivalent to the five phases of CM+. One of the strengths of the Heifetz’ model is its formal recognition of the importance of learning (Stage 6). Like many, however, it tends to assume that organisational change is predominantly a top-down

Some examples where AI has been used: GTE, U.S. Postal Service, NFP healthcare, SmithKline Beecham, Academy of Management, commercial banking, product design. Fitzgerald et al (2005).

BP Castrol Marine. Gilmour and Radford (2007).

Building university community. Groen and Kawalilak (2006). (Also link Dialogue and AI, and use of AI as an interpretive lens (analytical tool).

Postgraduate classroom. Head (2006). (Also as a means to create common ground from diverse experiences. “the one thing all members have in common is peak experiences…” A way to build teams of people who come from different areas or backgrounds.)

Student affairs. Lehner and Hight (2006). (Also AI as an OD philosophy / approach to change. AI as a PM tool.)

Metropolitan health care system. Lewis et al (2006). (also AI and appreciative leadership. Relationship of appreciative leadership to supporting and sustaining AI change programs. AI as a tool for transformation.)

Mediation. McClellan (2007). (Also AI and solution-focused counselling. Positive psychology. Self-fulfilling prophecy. Problems with deficit approach: raising things to the level of the status quo; asking what should be, not what might or could be.)

Leadership. Moody et al (2007). (Also AI as a change strategy. Complexity. Diversity. Values.)

Mentoring. Wasburn and Crispo (2006). “…positioning individuals to assume increasing levels of responsibility within an organization” (p. 21). Part of team-building.

8

positive change management and the ideals and principles of Organisational Development,23 including an emphasis on stakeholder engagement throughout the change process. The Roadmap, described in more detail below, provides a flexible framework for change. It accommodates a wide range of contingencies, including the nature and scope of change, and leadership styles and organisational culture. Positive Change Management. PCM refers to organisational change that is positively managed, where positive connotes a constructive and healthy approach to change. A positive organisational change will deliver the intended business or technological outcomes while at the same time building the capabilities of and fortifying employees and other stakeholders. They will understand, embrace, and be equipped to make the most of the change. Furthermore, having been involved meaningfully in the change throughout the process, staff and other stakeholders will have acquired critical knowledge and deepened skills that will help them undertake future changes or solve other problems that might arise. In short, they will have developed in positive ways. From positive psychology and we identify a range of attributes that operate in individuals and organisations to enhance quality of life and performance. These include hope, optimism, trust, and resilience.24 Joy, vitality, passion, nourishment, inspiration, love, and compassion are also indicative of positive spirit. In no way will there be a net loss in morale, goodwill, working relationships, or operating effectiveness. According to Cooperrider and Whitney (2005), positive change is:

Any form of organization change, redesign, or planning that begins with a comprehensive inquiry, analysis, [and] dialogue of an organization’s positive core that involves multiple stakeholders, and then links this knowledge to the organization’s strategic change agenda and priorities (p. 12).

Summarising a broad review of the positive psychology literature, McClellen (2007) concludes:

The transition from negativity to optimism and positive emotions has been found to contribute to motivation, social helpfulness, effective leadership, productive relationships, creativity, resilience, problem solving, improved decision making, learning, and facilitating change (p.31).

affair. A cursory examination of process change models reveals a heavy emphasis on or bias towards directive approaches with attendant "selling" and "telling." This appears to assume that change cannot or should not be instigated from within, below, or around, but that senior managers propagate it. Palmer et al (2009) overviews some of the better-known change management approaches. Their synthesis of OD-type change approaches is concordant with the CM+ Roadmap: (1) Problem identification; (2) Data gathering and problem diagnosis; (3) Feedback; (4) Joint problem diagnosis; (5) Joint action planning; (6) Change actions; (7) Further data gathering (evaluation and beginning of next change cycle). "Consultation with OD practitioner", here, excluded as a required step. Mink et al (1993) provide what they call the Total Transformation Management Process whose steps generally correspond to and lend credence to the CM+ Roadmap. 23 See any of the following classic sources for basic references on Organisational Development: Beckhard (1969); Beckhard and Harris (1987); Burke (1994); French and Bell (1995); French, Bell, and Zawacki (2005); Harvey and Brown (1996); Nadler (1977). Palmer et al’s (2009) book on managing organisational change is an excellent resource and compatible with the ideals of Organisational Development and the CM+ Roadmap. 24 A fundamental positive scholarly reference is Snyder and Lopez (2002). Bandura is an important source on self-efficacy; see, for instance, Bandura (1998). See also Madsen (2003) who links wellness and change readiness. Schabracq (2007) identifies the “virtues” inherent in Dialogue as faith / belief, hope, courage, prudence, and justice. Losada and Heaphy (2004) cover both positivity and inquiry in their fascinating study on business team performance.

9

Losada and Hephy, 2004) agree, and citing Echeverría, suggest that “positivity generates expansive emotional spaces that opens possibilities for action, whereas negativity creates restricted emotional spaces that close possibilities” (p. 745). They offer this compelling quote from Echeverría:

In a state of enthusiasm, our horizon of possible actions is widened…. Fear narrows the space of what is possible…. Emotional spaces not only contain the actions that are possible, they also modulate the way in which we carry out those actions (p. 745).

Performance GapInitial Problem

DefinitionInitial DataCollection

Refinement orRevision of Problem

Collection andAnalysis of Data

Data Feedbackand Confrontation

Develop ChangeApproach

Search/SelectChange Strategies

Evaluate ChangeImplement ChangeStrategies

Implementation Evaluate and Follow-Up

Action Planning and Problem Solving

Reality Check

Change Program Initiation

Modify Change Strategies,If Required

Develop Measuresof Performance

PlanningConceiving

Implementing Monitoring and Improving

Elaborating Confronting

Sensing Clarifying Verifying Defining

GainCommitmentto andCreateClimate forChange

SustainChange andContinuallyImprove

Figure 1. The CM+ (positive change management) Roadmap.

The CM+ Roadmap. The CM+ Roadmap is a high-stakeholder involvement approach to Organisational Development and managing change. Its main phases include:

1. Change Program Initiation; 3. Action Planning and Problem Solving;

2. Reality Check; 4. Implementation; and

5. Evaluation and Follow-Up.

The CM+ Roadmap was developed as an alternative to prescriptive and inflexible change models while acknowledging the legitimacy of change as a process and series of stages that organisations move through more or less quickly and with greater or lesser impact. It assumes that change and learning coincide. It, thus, conceives of organisational change as a learning process, and is designed to cultivate and make the most of learning that can and should occur as part of the change effort. It is in this synthesis and mutual benefit that CM+ is most like Organisational Development approaches. It also draws partly on contingency approaches such as Stace and Dunphy (2001)--developmental transitions--and Huy (2001)--teaching and socialising interventions --while excluding their more directive and mechanistic models. The CM+ Roadmap is also a team-based approach to change, advocated by scholars such as Heifetz (1993), Maira and Scott-Morgan (1997), and Mink et al (1993). One fundamental premise of the CM+ Roadmap is that high-stakeholder involvement throughout the change process reduces barriers to change, including so-called resistance to change, and increases the

10

likelihood of successful, sustainable, and repeatable change. It is a key capability-builder. The five phases are briefly described below. I. Change Program Initiation describes the period of increasing awareness that change is needed or where more organisational members are conscious of problems and that things “could be better”. Change consultants are often brought in at this stage to help managers clarify the current situation and propose strategies for proceeding. Some data may need to be collected to validate and inform understanding of the issues. Two related problems occur at this stage. The first is “jumping to solution”. The second is premature initiation of ambitious study (again, assuming what the problem is). The key task of this phase is definition of an initial problem or objective; more extensive data gathering begins only then. Millikin et al (1990) detail this phase thoroughly in their paper on organizational adaptation to changes in the environment, outlining five steps: scanning, noticing, interpreting, choosing, and learning. Kellet (1999) conceived of this phase as

…the definition and framing of the ‘problem’ or challenge the organization faces, along with the initial perspectives on its origins and effects (p. 215).

Pettigrew (1985) referred to this as the problem-sensing stage, which, according to Pettigrew, is followed by a second stage "development of concern." This groundswell of concern comes about in the second phase of the CM+ Roadmap. II. Reality Check, Phase II, covers acquiring real data and confronting organisational members with it. Where possible, staff should be involved in designing and administering the data gathering process and tools, and in interpreting data obtained and presenting results. As Figure 1 suggests, this activity is all about gaining commitment to and creating a climate for change. The greater the stakeholder involvement, the better their understanding of the process and the results obtained, the more likely their belief in the credibility of the findings, and the higher their commitment to actually doing something about issues surfaced. Kellett (1999) described this phase as “the framing of the degree and type of change needed to address the problem” (p. 215). Pettigrew's (1985) the third stage, "acknowledgement and understanding of the importance of the problem," is incorporated in the Phase II of the CM+ Roadmap. III. Sustaining the change and continually improving are promoted through involving personnel in the Action Planning and Problem Solving step (and in the feedback loop; next steps). Usually under facilitation, staff or internal change agents select or create a change approach based on what they’ve learned during the Reality Check. At the same time, they determine the measures by which they’ll assess the efficacy of the change. Here, Kellett (1999) refers to:

…the expression of stakeholders’ viewpoints on the problem, and their framing of the appropriate approach to the change process and the desired outcomes of the change (pp. 215 – 216).

This is essentially Pettigrew's (1985) fourth stage, which he describes as "planning and acting." Pettigrew's fifth stage, is "stabilising change." This stabilising stage is Phase IV in the CM+ Roadmap. Change strategies are implemented in the Implementation phase (IV) and evaluated and modified, if necessary, in the Evaluation and Follow-Up phase (V). As the feedback loops in Figure 1 suggest, managing organisational development and change is a continuous process. Performance at the completion of one change cycle (and lessons learned) will determine performance

11

objectives and change strategies in the following cycle. This is a typical point where Appreciative Inquiry comes into play. Stakeholders would inquire, for instance: What went particularly well? Where are examples of learning taking place and feeding back into the change process? How did project champions positively influence the change process? Which units exemplified the values and aspirations of the project, and how did they do so?

Involving staff throughout the process is the great advantage of the CM+ model. This is consistent with Grubbs’ (2002) admonition:

…engagement in change must be inclusive of … the broadest possible cross-section of those who may influence, who may be affected by, or who may be called upon to evaluate the change (p. 292).

Not only are greater understanding of and commitment to the change achieved, but staff acquire important skills enabling them to undertake future changes more proactively and with less reliance on change experts for guidance. Staff potentially impacted by the change are often utilised in data gathering, analysis, and presentation, with facilitation and guidance provided by someone experienced in the conduct of such work. This involvement has two strategic benefits: • Ownership of change (and its approach) is built from the earliest days and those heavily

involved become program champions: the educators, communicators, and enthusiasts. • Individual skills and organisational capability are built of use long into the future. These

include invaluable problem-solving and decision-making skills, in addition to the important collaborative and communication skills embodied in Appreciative Inquiry and Dialogue.

Organisational change is a journey. While the term journey may be overused, thinking of organisational change in this way is liberating and enriching. The journey metaphor (Hays, 2010b) permits a much more organic and emergent understanding of change than the typical project management “checklist” approach. Organisational change is anything but mechanical. Think of change as an adventure, an expedition; something to be navigated, explored. It is not just about where we want to go. Of equal importance is how we want to get there. Even travelers to uncharted lands rely on star charts and compasses to keep their bearings. They have navigators and guides.25 They are provisioned for the unexpected. Everyone needs an anchor sometimes. The CM+ Roadmap addresses the need recognised by Reynolds and Ablett (1988) for

…a practical tool which allows organizations to ascertain where they are and to determine what they want to achieve, together with a realistic plan to get there (p. 31).

Why Change the Way we Change? Organisations of all types and sizes undergo change. Few undertake or respond to it well. The current environment, with its rapid changes, is difficult enough to contend with; simultaneous changes compound the problem. Staff undergoing such change become stressed, which can lead to exhaustion, frustration, neglect, and other conditions costly to employee health and organisational vitality. Yet, change will continue, and adaptation and learning are essential to organisational survival. In the hands of a capable facilitator, the CM+ Roadmap minimises the

25 See van Eijnatten's (2004) reference to orienteering and path-finding.

12

disruption and distraction that change can produce, increase the probability of sustainable change, and, enable organisational members to better deal with future changes. Supplementing the healthy approach to change embodied in the Roadmap, Appreciative Inquiry and Dialogue provide forums for stakeholders to collectively deal with, learn from, and contribute positive to change. While we’d like to believe the installation of new technology or adoption of a new business process is a straightforward affair, lessons from countless implementations have revealed the fallibility of plans. It is not so much the solution, per se, that is the problem, rather inattention to change process that lies at the heart of failure. How the solution is derived is as important to its success as its intrinsic merits.26 Most managers are eager to jump into implementation as soon as a problem is discovered or a potential solution or change suggested. They commonly underestimate the amount of time and work involved and required before actually beginning to implement. The “just do it” mentality, for all its glamour and excitement, causes more problems than it ever resolves. The activity it generates is deceptively costly. Experience, however, shows time invested up front in problem solving and analysis saves time later and develops skills that can be drawn upon again and again. Here, again, Appreciative Inquiry and Dialogue are invaluable. They impose a healthy discipline problem-solving and change planning, promote greater inquiry, and build shared understanding, commitment, and working relationships essential to sustained and coordinated effort. Outsourcing transitions and other types of organisational change are usually methodically and rationally managed, but often the most difficult part of the change is irrational; that is, the “people” side of change seldom responds predictably or desirably. The CM+ Roadmap compensates for this neglect, focussing on the people aspects of change—their “hearts and minds.” This explains the emphasis on working toward understanding, commitment, motivation, and mobilisation, most often through involvement. Key mechanisms in engaging the hearts, minds, and souls of stakeholders include Appreciative Inquiry and Dialogue, which, fundamentally, are about working and learning collectively. Both help stakeholders find and create deeper meaning in what they are attempting to do, as they build good will and trust amongst one another. The CM+ Roadmap, coupled with Appreciative Inquiry and Dialogue, can be employed very productively to help clarify organisational issues, concentrate attention and efforts, align strategy and activities, contribute to forward thinking and creativity, develop environmental scanning capabilities, and foster organisational learning and effectiveness.

Dialogue27 Dialogue is generally understood as discussion between and amongst people to explore issues and solve problems. As used here and building on Schein (1993), dialogue is deliberate, purposeful, and sustained. It implies a continuing relationship and set of interactions amongst those involved, which is why it is germane to teams, workgroups, and Communities of Practice. This said, Dialogue can and is used with groups assembled for a very specific purpose or a brief period of time.

26 Robbins and Finley’s (1998) book on why change doesn’t work provide useful background here. 27 This section draws largely on Hays (2009) and Hays (under review), both sources providing a review and synthesis of the literature on Dialogue.

13

Dialogue hinges on shared concern, invokes a spirit of inquiry and curiosity, and depends on openness to new ideas and willingness to shift position and learn from and with others (Jabri, 2003; Gear et al (2003); Schabracq, 2007). Schein (1993) notes that dialogue is at the core of effective group work and a driving force in organisational change. Passfield (2002) emphasises that Dialogue is the primary mechanism in collaboration. Schabracq (2007) notes that the objective of dialogue is to come to “…a new common ground, a new reality” (p. 109). Gear at al (2003) state that

…dialogue has become important as an aspect of understanding the difficulties and possibilities of learning and change. …[It] is seen as a collective way of opening up judgements and assumptions to processes of change (p. 89).

Dialogue is a means to get teams and organisations “unstuck”—to see the beliefs and practices that inhibit learning, growth, and innovation and to move effectively beyond them.28 As Gear et al (2003) note, “Certainties that seem to hold individuals and collectives in fixed positions can be sufficiently loosened so that new possibilities can come into existence” (p. 89). One way this is achieved is by the use of metaphors and paradoxes and the commitment to exploring complex issues to achieve, first and foremost, deeper understanding (rather than a drive to reach quick consensus or decision). Calton and Payne (2003) explain:

Dialogue invites participants to shift their perspectives away from a struggle to decide between either / or dichotomies and toward the encouragement of inclusive both / and approaches to problem identification and response (p. 35).

Kellet (1999) observes that “Collaborative learning through dialogue is one approach to creating ongoing, intentional change in organizations” (p. 211). It is the collaborative nature of dialogue that makes it central to learning and change, and particularly significant in the CM+ Roadmap. Kellett (1999) adds:

Sometimes the objective of dialogue is to create shared visions of the future from the perspective and interests of multiple constituents so that a more inclusive and enduring future might be achieved (p. 211).

Baker and Sinkula (2002) directly link Dialogue and learning, “…the type of learning that enables radical innovation” (p. 5) or what they refer to as Phase III generative learning. Metcalfe and Game (2008) also tie Dialogue directly to learning, asserting that it is “…not simply metaphorical to say that dialogue changes lives and opens minds” (p. 343). It is, in their words, “always a learning experience” (p. 346). They conclude:

Dialogue is not just the way to some desirable … outcome, although it may be that. It is simply the way. We do not know where it leads. That is what we are learning (p. 356)

Dialogue is neither casual conversation nor brief exchange; it is not discussion (Levine, 1994). Dialogue is certainly not one-way as in directives, advice, or advocacy. It is not the kind of “conversation” we often have where one person speaks and—while the other has his or her turn—is preparing to speak again, as opposed to giving the other speaker full attention and

28 Sometimes the term used to describe this phenomenon is “unlearning” (see, for example, Baker and Sinkula, 2002). Bettis and Prahalad (1995) note that before strategic learning can occur, the old logic used in an organisation must be unlearned. Gharajedaghi (2007) stressed that “To change, systems need to go through an active process of unlearning” (p. 473). Rampersad (2004) linked unlearning with reducing change resistance.

14

listening openly and without judgement.29 The two may as well be talking to themselves or to someone else because there is no meaningful exchange and building toward shared understanding (a requirement of dialogue). Dialogue is not debate, for its purpose is not to win arguments or prove points. While debate may serve to highlight the merits of oppositional views, it may also entrench positions, which would be antithetical to the ideals of dialogue. Dialogue seeks to get beyond the ordinary and beneath the surface, revealing hidden truths, untested beliefs, flawed myths, and both the beauty and ugliness of reality. Cowan Sahadath (2010) doesn’t use the term, but her dissertation work on leadership conversations and influencing the change process is all about dialogue. Her research extends our understanding of the organisational change process by focusing on the conversations that senior leaders use to create and sustain business transformation. The results speak to the significance of engaging in conversations, with the potential to profoundly change relationships. Relationships are key in organisational dynamics; understanding and working with or changing them may be crucial to successful organisational change. That conversation plays an important role in change is not a new idea. Numerous writers have stressed the importance of leadership communication (Kotter, 1996; Lewis & Seibold, 1996). As Ford and Ford (1995; 2009) have argued, and described by Barrett, Thomas and Hocevar (1995), successful change is a product of using different types of conversations at different times. Leaders may not realise they have a conversational pattern or that altering it can have significant implications for change. Dialogue does not represent (though may have to acknowledge and contend with) power differentials such as might be the case between supervisor and worker, manager and team, or privileged and disenfranchised. Perceived and real inequalities based on disparities in power will delimit dialogue. Much preparatory work might have to be done to enable real dialogue in such situations. (On the other hand, it may be meaningful dialogue between parties that begins to address real and perceived problems between them.) Further, Dialogue (with a capital D) is a defined process and formal method of communicating, as has been elaborated and exemplified by Isaacs (1993; 1999a; 1999b) and Senge, et al (1994).30 The essence of such Dialogue is that its result is a new and shared understanding built on mutual contributions. This means that personal motivations, agenda, and predetermined conclusions are put aside in the interests of coming to that new joint understanding and, potentially, a decision to which all participants commit. Since the process of Dialogue is a sustained one and its potential value so great, improving the process and the working relationships amongst interactants is a reasonable and meaningful aspiration. Dialogue is about seeing possibilities, opening up when some might shut down. It is a collective and concerted means for overcoming impediments to learning and change. By nature, it seeks

29 Jacobs and Coghlan (2005) devote an entire paper to the role of listening in group context and organisational learning; they conclude that listening preconditions social learning. 30 See, also, Baker and Sinkula (2002) who call for and describe dialogue as a means for improving [group] learning and promoting innovation (revealing and contending with mental models, belief systems, and assumptions that may be limiting a team or organisation’s adaptiveness and responsiveness). McKee (2003) explores “frames of mind,” dialogue, and collaboration; her work is well worth a read. Finally, Scharmer (2001) elucidates the process of producing higher-order knowledge and understanding in collaborative groups through “reflective dialogue” and “generative dialogue.” Calton and Payne (2003) describe “reflective dialogic inquiry” and outline its merits.

15

best answers, not quickest, easiest, cheapest, or initially favoured. It is also inclusive, not exclusive.31 Dialogue is understood first and foremost to be the co-creation of meaning. This implies that a solution, decision, or other conclusion is arrived at through a group process (dialogue) with which no individual contributor began. This is not to say that groups do not start out with a goal in mind (say, to improve organisational well-being), but that no particular agenda is pushed. By agenda, here, is meant specific, (predetermined and potentially exclusive or narrow) ways and means of achieving the desired outcome. The following quote (Isaacs, 1993) is suggestive of the relationship between Dialogue and Appreciative Inquiry—they both attempt to get people to think together in new and different ways, “to develop collaborative thought and coordinated action (p. 24):

Dialogue is an attempt to perceive the world with new eyes, not merely to solve problems using the thought that created them in the first place (p. 30) …the same thinking that created our most pressing problems cannot be used to solve them. Unless we find ways of transforming the ground out of which our thinking and acting emerges, we are likely to repeat the kinds of continued errors and produce the unintended effects we now witness (p. 39).

The Triad--AI, CM+, and Dialogue As suggested by the previous discussion, Appreciative Inquiry, positive change management, and Dialogue can be and have been used independently for a range of purposes, often, but not exclusively, for designated change initiatives or to solve specific problems. The purpose of this paper is show how the three approaches can work in concert to promote and sustain change and to outline the benefits of doing so. While it is instructive to think of AI, CM+, and Dialogue as three distinct elements working synergistically and virtuously, it is probably more useful to merge them--that is, to think of them as an integrated and holistic approach to change. Most change managers and Organisational Development practitioners employ some type of methodical approach, often a roadmap, implicit or explicit. A methodical approach would be at the minimum stepwise or logically sequential, and might be founded on principles, themes, or priorities. The idea of a roadmap is not new. Minimally (and, sometimes, exclusively), this would be served by a detailed project plan. Any successful and enduring approach, or roadmap, however, has embedded within it the values, principles, and methods inherent in Appreciative Inquiry and Dialogue--not just a change plan, but a change plan plus. Table 2, below, enumerates an indicative set of assumptions, principles, and values deduced from a synthesis of the three approaches. Fundamentally, in a positive and sustainable change, stakeholders are engaged from the outset and throughout the change process. They are engaged in rich and enriching Dialogue. They are involved deeply in understanding and creating rationale for change, inquiring into the nature of problems and implications for proposed solutions, architecting implementation plans, and assessing progress and achievement along the way. From the new academic field of organisational discourse (Markshak, 2002; Marshak & Grant, 2008a, 2008b), which supported Cowan Sahadath’s research (2010), these ideas expand our understanding of the importance of conversation as a critical variable in socially constructing change. Three key findings associated with organisational discourse theory and where leadership conversations are situated in the literature include the following: (1) Change is created by

31 See any of the following as valuable references with respect to this section: Beers, et al (2006), Calton and Payne (2003), Gear, et al (2002), Levine (1994), McKee (2003), and Passfield (2002). See also Raelin’s (2006a) work on collaboration, collective learning, and transformation.

16

understanding and managing the ideas and perspectives of the audiences leaders are addressing by changing the discourse(s); (2) this is a step by step process, where leaders have to get the first steps grounded in order to create new shared realities by fostering agreement on commitments; (3) and central to the creation of transformational change are conversations that establish strategic processes with the creation and change of discourses providing a whole new way of leading through conversation. Extant literature amply concurs with this commitment to change from senior levels in the organisation as critical to the success of organisational change efforts (Herold and Fedor, 2008; Kotter, 1996) and in guiding an organisation through a course of change by providing direction and support throughout the process. Cowan Sahadath's (2010) findings highlight the importance of leadership conversations the role they play influencing organisational change. No where does this suggest staff or other stakeholders are merely consulted, informed, or trained.32 They become not the hapless victims upon whom change is foisted, but its own best proponents. While each change and organisation is going to be different, this basically occurs because of the two fundamental change principles advanced by Hays (2004a; 2006a; 2006b; 2010b):

1. Use the targets of change as the instruments of change.33

2. The process is the solution.34

Organised around these core versatile and encompassing principles, positive change management also incorporates and embodies a set of values that undergird how change is conceived and put into practice. These values influence the vision of successful change—its aspired outcomes—the TO BE or ideal future state in change management jargon, as well as its implementation. They are, thus, important to what change achieves and how it achieves it. The idealist believes you cannot separate the ends from the means. An ardent practitioner would, for example, employ, model, and reinforce positive, appreciative behaviours and methods in the AS IS or current state as an instrumental means of transforming to the desired future state. This is, in fact, what the illustrative case presented in the next section reveals. Table 2 presents a set of assumptions, values, and principles deduced from the field of

Look for and bring out the best in every individual / group, and situation.

Seek to deeply understand the system or problem before deciding courses of action, acting to change, or attempting

The preponderance of communication in any setting or organisation is anything but dialogue. This needs to be replaced by genuine dialogue.

Dialogue requires skill, commitment, and opportunity, none of

32 Almost all change programs the author has observed have had formal and extensive communications. It appears there is a pervasive belief (hope?) that stakeholders will come on board if you tell and sell sufficiently. While people, minimally, may want to be told (or even sold) no volume of information about will ever take the place of involvement in. 33 One of Grubbs’ (2002) three requisites for effective change is that “...participants must be the source of the change” (p. 301), along with (1) being holistic and adaptive and (2) engaging all stakeholder groups. 34 Restated, the ends are the means (admittedly abstruse, as well). In other words, the greatest aspirations of the desired future state are incorporated into the process of achieving it--the implementation. If, for example, empowerment or shared leadership is an objective of change, then individuals concerned must be empowered throughout the process, given responsibility for determining how objectives can be met and carrying through their plans. Thus, they embody the future as it comes into being. This is quite different than being told (a) what the future will be like and (b) how it will be attained. It is differs from a common approach is giving change management authority to a project team or external consultants. This frequent a grave mistake is called partitioning where those who could and should be learning from the process are insulated from it.

17

to fix problems.

There is much more intelligence and capability in teams and groups than in [single] individuals.

People deserve care and respect at all times.

Everyone wants to do a good job and make a meaningful contribution.

People are brilliant; their brilliance too vital to ignore.

Perceived resistance and recalcitrance are due to lack of understanding and, perhaps, alienation, not innate inability or unwillingness. They are "givens" only when invited.

People tend to focus on the negative (half-glass empty). It can be much more constructive to focus on the positives, strengths, and successes (half-glass full).

People tend to "jump to task" and are quick to begin problem-solving.35 This needs to be minimised, supplanted by commitment and disciplined adherence to more thorough and inclusive dialogic inquiry. A fundamental objective of all change and learning endeavours should be to empower.

which are often present or sustained.

Every problem and every change is an opportunity to learn and to build capability amongst staff and other stakeholders. This opportunity is seldom realised.

Time spent up front is time saved later on.

Don't pay a consultant to do what you could do. If you must hire in expertise, ensure the process affords sufficient transfer of knowledge and skill.

At the heart of every successful change effort is a compelling vision of a better future. Compelling visions are seldom conferred and never purchased, but emerge from those who will strive to accomplish them and enjoy the rewards of achievement.

The most important conversations are generally not had in organisations; but they can and should be.

Successful, sustainable change comes from understanding; understanding comes from Dialogue. Resolution of complex problems requires diversity of perspective and skill best brought to bear through the concerted effort of Dialogue and dialogic inquiry.

Table 2. Positive principles and values inherent in Appreciative Inquiry, Dialogue, and the CM+ Roadmap. Organisational Development and from the theory and practice of Appreciative Inquiry and Dialogue.36

Illustrative Case: Changing the Way We Change This succinct case provides a glimpse into an organisational transformation incorporating positive change management, Dialogue, and Appreciative Inquiry. At time of entry, the organisation was mired in change. There were twenty-five distinct projects, many technological improvements, but all intended to modernise operations and improve business effectiveness. A large consulting firm had been hired to do most of the work, including "managing change." Some projects were foundering, staff were in turmoil, and relations between buyer and supplier were fraught. There were breakdowns daily, and many were quick to find fault and shift blame. Customer service was also suffering as morale plummeted and operating procedures were in flux. Though early days, it was clear to the management team that the planned two-year process was already behind schedule and costs blowing-out. To make matters worse, project scoping had been insufficient and there seemed to be no end to problems arising from contention and gaps within and across the respective projects. One of the executives was familiar with the author and proponent of the CM+ Roadmap from a previous job. She was not convinced that the positive, capability-building approach would solve their problems, especially in the short run. She knew the author as an idealistic champion of Organisational Development, and had a fair measure of doubt that his ideas and ways of working would fit their conservative, very pragmatic, and sometimes authoritarian culture. Of one thing

35 The feelings associated with "productivity" (busy-ness) are inherently rewarding and the [pre]occupation with task may distract from real problems and detract from meaningful problem-solving and solution-finding. These dynamics comprise a grave and insidious vicious cycle. 36 This section is based on multiple sources, with the following references indicative: Egan and Lancaster (2005); Gilmour and Radford (2007); Hays (2010a; under review); McClellan (2008); Moody et al (2007); Ncube and Wasburn (2006). Palmer et al (2009) note that OD values "...build on humanistic psychology and emphasize the importance of developing people in work organizations and helping them to achieve satisfaction" (p. 194). Drawing on Nichol, they outline three sets of values of critical relevance here: humanistic (openness, honesty, integrity); democratic (social justice, freedom of choice, involvement); developmental (authenticity, growth, self-actualisation).

18

she was certain: their current change management process was chaotic and in grave risk of failure. The author was invited for an informal chat about their issues, which led to an initial brief engagement to assess the change program and recommend potential strategies for salvaging on-going efforts and rethinking implementation of initiatives not yet begun. It was hoped that the author could help make sense of the on-going change efforts and restore a bit of order and confidence. At the minimum, author and executive agreed, it was important to reassure staff and customers that the change process was under control and that, ultimately, they would benefit from it. Not surprisingly, the author found there was little integration amongst projects and those responsible for carrying them through. As each project had a separate manager accountable for his or her own project, with each anxious to succeed, efforts were disjointed and seeming achievements at the project level confounded overall program success. There was also an insidious tendency to cover up or at least not report mistakes and other problems. Much work was being done off-site by consultants and contractors who, while technically proficient, did not know the business. The assumption that staff should be insulated from change activities so they could "get on with the job" was proving counterproductive. Staff were becoming alienated and did not understand why tools, systems, and processes were changing or how to make the most of them. They felt victims at the whim of a seeming insensitive executive team lacking foresight. They felt constrained by self-serving, bureaucratic project managers and consultants who had little interest or ability to see beyond the letter of contracts and technical specifications. There was growing disenchantment, frustration, and conflict between and across all stakeholder groups. Senior management was not pleased and faith in the executive team was dwindling. In response to the evaluation, there was a range of measures put in place. None singly would solve the problem, but in concert returned a bit of sanity to the organisation and allowed it to gain control of its complex and convoluted change process. Some enhancements were fairly standard. These included installation of a program office, convening of an integrated implementation team, and retrofitting of a business and technology architecture across projects. This was all under the banner: New Business. New Way of Thinking. New Way of Working. New Set of Tools. Other improvements were novel and dramatic for the organisation. Having convinced the executive team that employees and other stakeholders should be more involved in reinventing the business, two months were spent organising and educating the workforce to adapt the CM+ Roadmap to their purposes and culture. Morale soared as employees realised that management valued their experience, needed their help, and trusted them. Almost everyone became involved, mostly through participation on teams set up of relevant stakeholders, and with many on more than one team to facilitate communication and coordination. Their first duty was to come up to speed on the initiatives underway, assess them, and propose revisions to a steering group set up of business line executives, program office personnel, and senior consultants. Some staff were sceptical. They doubted whether they would really have much say in the way things went, and awaited management to revert to control and edict. Meanwhile, many managers were dubious, if not anxious. They were not accustomed to staff demonstrating much initiative, having authority to shape decisions, or being given latitude in the conduct of their duties. By four months, however, confidence all round had improved and relations correspondingly so. Employees, managers, customers, executives, and consultants were working effectively together toward common vision and purpose. Having widespread and coordinated engagement, with teams matrixed across projects and functional organisational units helped considerably and was

19

an obvious enhancement. Less conspicuous was the quality of the communication and learning taking place and continually being fed back into the integrated change effort. Improvements in communicating and learning came about, in part, through the process of adopting and adapting the CM+ Roadmap and subtle influence the author had over initial teams. The team-based and high-stakeholder involvement nature of CM+ necessitates and promotes communication, coordination, and collaboration. In addition, teams were formed and developed in accordance with a self-directed team model (Hays, 2004b) emphasising, amongst other things, continuous learning. The team chartering process supplemented the Roadmap and the tasks associated with planning, implementing, and evaluating change. Finally, collaborative problem-solving and decision-making were bolstered through a corporate-wide focus on Appreciative Inquiry and Dialogue. Not originally part of the change program scope or a conscious strategy, a community of interest formed in the first couple of months to explore the Team Learning Pyramid (Hays, under review), Dialogue, Appreciative Inquiry, and other dimensions of team learning, including shared reflection. The group consisted of a dozen individuals from various business lines, and met once a week at lunchtime on a voluntary basis. Sessions were a mix of theory and practice, and continued for about one year. It was clear from the nature of conversation that members were developing consummate Dialogue and Appreciative Inquiry skills and deepening relationships and understanding amongst themselves. They came up with many innovative solutions to organisational problems in those lunchtime sessions that they were able to implement once back at the job. It did not take long before their affect was felt more broadly in the organisation. As a direct result of enhanced Dialogue and sympathetic inquiry amongst stakeholders, conflicts reduced, morale improved, problems arising became less frequent and severe. Response to problems was more coordinated, with solutions recognised as more coherent. There was, across the board, greater good will, confidence, trust. People generally felt good about what they were doing, and more equipped to deal with future challenges. After two years and on-going, it would be premature to declare the change program a total success. Indications are quite positive, however. In a recent periodic progress check, there was--unlike when the author first came upon the scene--no blaming or scapegoating. Instead of dwelling on problems and losing themselves to negativity, a healthy, positive spirit reigned. There seemed to be a shared ownership for problems reported and an eagerness to work together to solve them in the best way possible. Even the language of the progress meeting had evolved from a problem orientation to a constructive and appreciative one. "Let's talk about some of the successes we've had over the last couple of months to get us going," invited the rotating chair for the meeting. And, when it came to reporting on problems, one senior manager said to the group, "We need some really lateral thinkers from the different business lines to help us come up with a better way to track customer movements. The system doesn't seem to want them to move. Who's done something really different lately?

Conclusions and Caveats This paper examined three distinct but related topics: Appreciative Inquiry, Dialogue, and positive change management. The CM+ Roadmap was put forward as a framework for applying positive change management. The three topics are generally treated separately in the literature and, presumably, in practice. Appreciative Inquiry and Dialogue as formal processes emerged approximately at the same time, late 1980s - early 1990s. They have become fairly widespread amongst human relations and Organisational Development practitioners since that time. Appreciative Inquiry has been linked most directly to Organisational Development and

20

organisational change management. At is closely associated with Action Learning and Action Research. Its practical emphasis may explain its popularity. Dialogue appears to enjoy less acceptance as an approach to organisational change, though it is recognised as transformative. Paradoxically, Appreciative Inquiry depends on and is a form of Dialogue. Positive change management is founded on the principles, values, and practices of Organisational Development. This essentially means that the change process is healthy and constructive; that people undergoing change learn and develop as a part of the process. They develop abilities and understanding that equip them to deal more effectively with future challenges, including subsequent change. The CM+ Roadmap is a positive and flexible framework for managing organisational change and innovation. It takes as a starting point that change and learning proceed together: any significant change or transformation involves learning; to learn something new and different requires change. Such change will be seen in new behaviours indicative that new skills, knowledge, or attitudes have been integrated. As with individuals, organisational learning and change can be adaptive and incremental or more radical and fundamental. Both can be vital, and the CM+ Roadmap is geared toward assisting and promoting organisational learning and change. Implicit in positive change management and the CM+ is the belief that individuals, teams, organisations, and communities can and should have a better life. Mere survival is not sufficient. These means that they are continually in a process of becoming greater. Effective, fulfilled, productive, and encouraging are terms that come to mind. No doubt readers would have their own understandings of lives, homes, and workplaces becoming better, richer, healthier, and stronger. Likewise Organisational Development and Appreciative Inquiry are concerned with more than adequate function. They hold human flourishing as paramount value and aspiration. Those who believe the workplace cannot or should not be in the business of flourishing are probably not very content themselves. With limited foresight, it is reasonable to suppose they impede the health and fulfilment of those who work for and with them, consciously or unwittingly. As suggested in this paper, positive change management and the CM+ Roadmap incorporate the spirit and substance of Appreciative Inquiry and Dialogue. Successful and enduring change hinges on stakeholder adoption. The best way to achieve adoption amongst stakeholders is to have them "be the change" desired; that is, to have them intensely and intimately involved in the change from conception through to evaluation. Essentially this implies putting into practice the highest aspirations and desired outcomes of the change as part of the change process. To reiterate two key principles of organisational change management of relevance here: (1) Use the targets of change as the agents of change and (2) the process is the solution. In summary, sustainable change depends on stakeholder buy-in, best achieved through collaborative engagement. Effective collaboration relies on constructive dialogues and appreciating inquiry. Moving toward positive change management that incorporates abundant stakeholder involvement, Appreciative Inquiry, and Dialogue often means changing the way we change--itself a journey in learning and change, as reported in Hays (2004a; 2006a; 2006b). It is a trip worth considering. These approaches change the way we think about and, thus, undertake change. And, this can make a profound difference. Bushe and Kassam (2005) concluded, for example, that Appreciative Inquiry has been shown to help leaders “accomplish their change goals and do so within time frames way beyond what many who work at and study organizational change would expect as reasonable" (p. 176).

21

Cowan Sahadath's (2010) study on leaders and organisational change found that leaders make meaning and that conversations are a way of intervening strategically.37 Her work suggests new avenues to explore for leadership development and for effective organisational change management, and highlights the need to change the way change management professionals approach communication efforts for senior leaders. Considerations and Implications Despite lofty ideals and considerable evidence of their efficacy, positive change management and practices such as Appreciative Inquiry and Dialogue are not for everyone, and may not work in every situation. As Bramson and Buss (2002) note, they are:

…rooted in the value system of American democracy, pluralism, and pragmatism and in the more contemporary culture that encourages activism, self-expression and open communication as a way to overcome unnecessary obstacles to consensus and collective action among people with diverse interests (p. 215).

Cultures, national and organisational, may be so at odds with this philosophy and belief system that application could pose substantial challenges. As associates from diverse Middle Eastern and Asian countries have asserted, "this won't work in my country." Notions of democratic workplaces, egalitarianism, and empowerment may be quite foreign and believed untenable. This grave concern may be what prompted Gilmour and Radford (2007) to admonish:

Don’t take this approach if you don’t believe in the strength and success of your organisation. Don’t do it if you believe that logic and analysis alone will make a difference. Don’t do it if you intend to revert to a directive, deficit-based approach if things don’t move in the way you want or the pace you want. Be consistent with your own beliefs and values (p. 102).

Despite warnings and pessimism, there remains reason for optimism. Empowering conversations have spread like wildfire in a huge and very conservative government agency with which the author recently worked. Empowering conversations—the agency's version of Dialogue—have become respected forums for dealing with issues arising from an immense corporate change program. These conversations are now being included as part of the change infrastructure and process. Amongst those Middle Eastern and Asian contacts alluded to previously, a few inspiring managers have committed to making changes in their organisations and countries drawing on the principles and practices of CM+. Similarly, the executive mentioned in the case presented here doubted her company culture would accommodate positive change management approaches. Yet, her associates and staff were quick to adapt and adopt the philosophy and process, presumably to everyone's benefit. Finally, at time of writing, the author and an indigenous counterpart are adapting Dialogue and Appreciative Inquiry as mechanisms to enable Aboriginal and government stakeholders to collaboratively and effectively formulate and promulgate policy. There has been a long history of misunderstanding and contention between these groups, resulting in numerous failures to enact beneficial measures. It is hoped that Dialogue and Appreciative Inquiry will improve the way they interact, understand and value one another, and, ultimately, come to terms with respect to policy.

37 Readers are encouraged to review Raelin (2006b) for an insightful application of this with considerable relevance here. He explains: “…a meaning-maker is someone who gives expression to what members of the group or organization seek to accomplish in their work together” (Raelin, 2006b; p. 65). In this view, leadership, vision, and direction does not have to be top-down. It may be distributed and arise from the collective. Other sources on sensemaking or meaning-making of particular relevance to organisational learning and change and the themes of AI and Dialogue include: Dron (2007); Schwandt (2005); and van Eijnatten (2004).

22

References Avey, J., Wernsing, T., and F. Luthans. (2008). Can positive employees help positive organizational change? Impact of psychological capital and emotions on relevant attitudes and behaviours. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 48 – 70.

Baker, W. and J. Sinkula. (2002). Market orientation, learning orientation and product innovation: delving into the organization’s black box. Journal of Market-Focused Management, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 5 – 23.

Barrett, F., Thomas, G., and S. Hocevar. (1995). The central role of discourse in large-scale change: a social construction perspective. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 31, No. pp. 352 - 372.

Beers, P., Boshuizen, H., Kirschner, P., and W. Gijselaers. (2006). Common ground, complex problems and decision making. Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 15, pp. 529 – 556.

Berger, L., Sikora, M., and D. Berger. (1994). The Change Management Handbook: A Road Map to Corporate Transformation. Burr Ridge: Irwin.

Bergmann-Lichtenstein, B. (2000). Generative knowledge and self-organized learning. Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 47 – 54.

Bettis, R., and C. Prahalad. (1995). The dominant logic: retrospective and extension. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 5 - 14.

Bohm, D. (1987). Unfolding Meaning: A Weekend of Dialogue with David Bohm. London: Ark.

Bohm, D. (1990). On Dialogue. David Bohm Seminars, Ojai, CA.

Bowers, R. (2005). Freire (with Bakhtin) and the dialogic classroom seminar. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 368 – 378.

Bramson, R., and T. Buss. (2002). Methods for whole system change in public organizations and communities: an overview of the issues. Public Organization Review: A Global Journal, Vol. 2, pp. 211 – 221.

Bushe, G., and A. Kassam. (2005) When is appreciative inquiry transformational? A meta-case analysis. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 161 – 181.

Cacioppe, R., and M. Edwards. (2005). Seeking the holy grail of organisational development: a synthesis of integral theory, spiral dynamics, corporate transformation and action inquiry. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 26, No. 1 / 2, pp. 86 – 105.

Calabrese, R. (2006). Building social capital through the use of an appreciative inquiry theoretical perspective in a school and university partnership. International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 173 – 182.

Calton, J. and S. Payne. (2003). Coping with paradox: multistakeholder learning dialogue as a pluralist sensemaking process for addressing messy problems. Business & Society, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 7 – 42.

Cooperrider, D., Sorenson, P., Whitney, D., and T. Yeager (Eds). (2001). Appreciative Inquiry: An Emerging Direction for Organization Development. Champaign: Stipes.

Cooperrider, D., and S. Srivastva. (1987). Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. In Woodman, R. and W. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in Organizational Change and Development (Vol. I), pp. 129 – 169. Greenwich: JAI.

23

Cooperrider, D., and D. Whitney. (1999). Appreciative Inquiry. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Cooperrider, D., and D. Whitney. (2005). Appreciative Inquiry: A Positive Revolution in Change. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Cooperrider, D., Whitney, D., and J. Stavros. (2003). Appreciative Inquiry Handbook. Cleveland: Lakeshore.

Cowan-Sahadath, K. (2010). Leading Change One Conversation at a Time: A Phenomenographic Study of Senior Leadership Conversations (Dissertation).

Denning, S. (2005). Transformational innovation: a journey by narrative. Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 11 – 16. Driver, M. (2002). Learning and leadership in organizations: toward complementary communities of practice. Management Learning, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 99 – 126.

Dron, J. (2007). The teacher, the learner and the collective mind. AI & Soc, Vol. 21, pp. 200 - 216.

Egan, T., and C. Lancaster. (2005). Comparing appreciative inquiry to action research: OD practitioner perspectives. Organization Development Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 29 – 49.

Elleven, R. (2007). Appreciative inquiry: a model for organizational development and performance improvements in student affairs. Education, Vol. 127, No. 4, pp. 451 – 455.

Fay, N., Garrod, S., and J. Carletta. (2000). Group discussion as interactive dialogue or as serial monologue. Psychological Science, Vol. 11, No. 6, pp. 481 – 485.

Fitzgerald, S., Murrell, K., and H. L. Newman. (2005). Appreciative inquiry: the new frontier (Reading 22). In French, W., Bell, C., and R. Zawacki (Eds.) Organization Development and Transformation: Managing Change Effectively, (6th Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Ford, J., and L. Ford. (1995) The role of conversation in producing intentional change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, pp. 541 – 570.

Ford, J., and L. Ford. (2009). Decoding resistance to change. Harvard Business Review. Fuller, C., Griffin, T., and J. Ludema. (2000). Appreciative future search: involving the whole system in positive organization change. Organization Development Journal, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 29 – 41.

Gear, T., Vince, R., Read, M., and A.L. Minkes. (2003). Group inquiry for collective learning in organisations. Journal of Management Development, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 88 – 102.

Gharajedaghi, J. (2007). Systems thinking: a case for second-order-learning. The Learning Organization, Vol. 14, No. 6, pp. 473 - 479.

Gilmour, D., and A. Radford. (2007). Using OD to enhance shareholder value: delivering business results in BO Castrol Marine. Organization Development Journal, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 97 – 102.

Gouillart, F., and J. Kelly. (1995). Transforming the Organization. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Groen, J., and C. Kawalilak. (2006). Creating community—a new faculty perspective. Organization Development Journal, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 57 – 67.

Grubbs, J. (2002). Participation and change: using large group intervention methods to inform reflective practice in a community of public organizations. Public Organization Review, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 285 – 303.

Hays, J. (2004a). A roadmap for change in the healthcare sector. Nonprofit Marketing: Perspectives and Advances. Canberra: Australian National University.

24

Hays, J. (2004b). Building High-Performance Teams: A Practitioner's Guide. Canberra: Argos.

Hays, J. (2006a). Learning and change in the healthcare sector, in Campling, J., Poole, D., Wiesner, R., and J. Schermerhorn, Management: 2nd Asia-Pacific Edition. Milton: Wiley, pp.W-18 – W-25.

Hays, J. (2006b). Learning and change in the healthcare sector: an integrative case. Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Case Method Research and Application: Interactive Learning: The Next Generation. Hays, J. (2009). Virtuosity: the synergetic intertwining of wisdom and dialogue. Proceedings of the annual conference of the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM), Melbourne, Australia, 1 – 4 Dec 2009, ISBN 186308 157 7.

Hays, J. (2010a). Mapping wisdom as a complex adaptive system. Management & Marketing, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 19 – 66.

Hays, J. (2010b). CM+ Roadmap to Organisational Development and Change. Unpublished manuscript. Available from author upon request.

Hays, J. (under review). The team learning pyramid. Unpublished manuscript accessed at http://teaching.fec.anu.edu.au/MGMT7061/.

Head, T. (2006). Appreciative inquiry in the graduate classroom: making group dynamics a practical topic to address. Organization Development Journal, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 83 – 88.

Heifetz, M. (1993). Leading Change, Overcoming Chaos. A Seven Stage process for Making Change Succeed in Your Organization. Berkeley: Ten Speed.

Herold, D., and D. Fedor. (2008). Change the Way You Lead Change: Leadership Strategies that Really Work. City: Stanford University Press.

Huy, Q. (2001). Time, temporal capability, and planned change. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 601 - 23.

Isaacs, W. (1993). Taking flight: dialogue, collective thinking, and organizational learning. Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 22, pp. 24 – 39.

Isaacs, W. (1999a). Dialogic leadership. The Systems Thinker, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 1 – 5.

Isaacs, W. (1999b). Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together. New York: Currency-Doubleday.

Jabri, M. (2003). Team feedback based on dialogue: implications for change management. Journal of Management Development, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 141 – 151.

Jacobs, C. and D. Coghlan. (2005). Sound from silence: on listening in organizational learning. Human Relations, Vol. 58, No. 1, pp. 115 – 138.

Kaplan, R., and D. Norton. (1996). Strategic learning and the balanced scorecard. Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 18 – 25.

Kellett, P. (1999). Dialogue and dialectics in managing organizational change: the case of a mission-based transformation. Southern Communication Journal, Vol. 64, No. 3, pp. 211 – 231.

Kindler, H. (1979). Two planning strategies: incremental change and transformational change. Group & Organization Studies, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 476 - 478.

Kirk, P., and A. Shutte. (2004). Community leadership development. Community Development Journal, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 234 – 251.

Kotter, J. (1996). Leading the Change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

25

Kotter, J., and L. Schlesinger. (1979). Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review, Mar-Apr, pp. 106 – 114.

Lehner, R., and D. Hight (2006). Appreciative inquiry and student affairs: a positive approach to change. College Student Affairs Journal, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 141 – 151.

Leppitt, N. (2006). Challenging the code of change: Part 1. Praxis does not make perfect. Journal of Change Management, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 121 – 142.

Levine, L. (1994). Listening with spirit and the art of team dialogue. Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 61 – 73.

Lewis, D., Medland, J., Malone, S., Murphy, M., Reno, K., and G. Vaccaro. Appreciative leadership: defining effective leadership methods. Organization Development Journal, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 87 – 100.

Lewis, L., and D. Seibold. (1996). Communication during intraorganizational innovation adoption: predicting users' behavioral coping responses to innovations in organizations. Communication Monographs, Vol. 63, pp. 131 - 157.

Losada, M., and E. Heaphy. (2004). The role of positivity and connectivity in the performance of business teams. American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 47, No. 6, pp. 740 – 765.

Luthans, F., Avolio, B., Avey, J., and S. Norman. (2007). Positive psychological capital: measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, Vol. 60, No. 3, pp. 541 – 572.

Luthans, F., Luthans, K, and B. Luthans. (2004). Positive psychological capital: beyond human and social capital. Business Horizons, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 45 – 50.

Maira, A., and P. Scott-Morgan. (1997). The Accelerating Organization: Embracing the Human Face of Change. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Marshak, R. (2002). Changing the language of change: how new contexts and concepts are challenging the ways we think and talk about organizational change. Strategic Change, Vol. 11, pp. 279 - 286.

Marshak, R., and D. Grant. (2008a). Transforming talk: the interplay of discourse, power, and change. Organization Development Journal, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 33 - 40.

Marshak, R., and D. Grant. (2008b). Organizational discourse and new organization development practices. British Journal of Management, Vol. 19, pp. 7 -n 19.

McClellan, J. (2008). Marrying positive psychology to mediation: using appreciative inquiry and solution-focused counselling to improve the process. Dispute Resolution Journal, Nov 2007 – Jan 2008, pp. 29 – 35.

McKee, M. (2003). Excavating our frames of mind: the key to dialogue and collaboration. Social Work, Vol. 48, No. 3, pp. 401 – 408.

Metcalfe, A., and A. Game. (2008). Significance and dialogue in learning and teaching. Educational Theory, Vol. 58, No. 3, pp. 343 – 356.

Milliken, F., Dutton, J., and J. Beyer. (1990). Understanding organizational adaptation to change: the case of work-family issues. Human Resource Planning, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 91 – 107.

Mink, O., Esterhuysen, P., Mink, B., and K. Owen. (1993). Change at Work: A Comprehensive Management Process for Transforming Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Moody, R., Horton-Deutsch, S., and D. Pesut. (2007). Appreciative inquiry for leading in complex systems: supporting the transformation of academic nursing culture. Journal of Nursing Education, Vol. 46, No. 7, pp.319 – 324.

26

Ncube, L., and M. Wasburn. (2006). Strategic collaboration for ethical leadership: a mentoring framework for business. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 77 – 92.

Palmer, I., Dunford, R., and G. Akin. (2009). Managing Organizational Change (2nd Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Passfield, R. (2002). Creating innovation and synergy through a parallel action learning structure. The Learning Organization, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 150 – 158.

Peelle, H. (2006). Appreciative inquiry and creative problem solving in cross-functional teams. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 42, No. 4, pp. 447 – 467. Peterson, C., and M. Seligman, (Eds). (2004). Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification. Washington: Oxford University Press.

Raelin, J. (2006a). Does action learning promote collaborative leadership? Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 152 – 168.

Raelin, J. (2006b). Finding meaning in the organization. Sloan Management Review, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 64 – 68.

Rampersad, H. (2004). Learning and unlearning in accordance with organizational change. Organization Development Journal, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 43 - 59.

Reynolds, R., and A. Ablett. (1998). Transforming the rhetoric of organisational learning to the reality of the learning organisation. The learning Organization, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 24 – 35.

Ricketts, M., and J. Willis. (2001). Experience AI: A Practitioner’s Guide to Integrating Appreciative Inquiry with Experiential Learning. Chagrin Falls: Taos.

Robbins, H., and M. Finley. (1998). Why Change Doesn’t Work. London: Orion.

Rose-Anderssen, C., and P. Allen. (2006). Diversity and learning for innovation: dialogue for collaboration. Journal of Management Development, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 307 – 327.

Rowland, D., and M. Higgs. (2008). Sustaining Change. West Sussex: John Wiley.

Schabracq, M. (2007). Changing Organizational Culture: The Change Agent’s Guidebook (Ch. 5. Dialogue). West Sussex: John Wiley.

Scharmer, C. O. (2001). Self-transcending knowledge: sensing and organizing around emerging opportunities. Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 137 – 150.

Schein, E. (1993). On dialogue, culture, and organizational learning. Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 40 – 51.

Schwandt, D. (2005). When managers become philosophers: integrating learning with sensemaking. Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 176 - 192.

Senge, P. (1990). The leader’s new work: building learning organizations. Sloan Management Review, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 7 – 23.

Senge, P., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Smith, B., and A. Kleiner. (1994). The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization, pp. 351 – 391. New York: Double-Currency.

Snyder, C., and S. Lopez. (2002). Handbook of Positive Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University press.

Stace, D. (1996). Dominant ideologies, strategic change, and sustained performance. Human Relations, Vol. 49, No. 5, pp. 553 – 570.

27

Stace, D., and D. Dunphy. (2001). Beyond the Boundaries: Leading and Recreating the Successful Enterprise (2nd Ed.). Sydney: McGraw-Hill.

van Eijnatten, F. (2004). Chaordic systems thinking: some suggestions for a complexity framework to inform a learning organization. The Learning Organization, Vol. 11, No. 6, pp. 430 - 449.

Wasburn, M., and A. Crispo. (2006). Strategic collaboration: developing a more effective mentoring model. Review of Business, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 18 – 25.

Wright, R., and T. Gehring. (2008). From spheres of civility to critical public spheres: democracy and citizenship in the big house (Part I). Journal of Correctional Education, Vol. 59, No. 3, pp. 244 – 260.

Solid and Classical References on Organisational Development and Change Beckhard, R. (1969). Organization Development: Strategies and Models. Addison-Wesley.

Beckhard, R., and R. Harris. (1987). Organizational Transitions: Managing Complex Change, Addison-Wesley.

Burke, W. (1994). Organization Development: A Process of Learning and Changing. Addison-Wesley.

French, W., and C. Bell. (1995). Organization Development: Behavioural Science Interventions for Organization Improvement (5th Ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

French, W., C. Bell., and R. Zawacki. (2005). Organization Development and Transformation: Managing Effective Change (6th Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hanna, D. (1988). Designing Organizations for High Performance. Addison-Wesley.

Harrison, M. (1987). Diagnosing Organizations: Methods, Models, and Processes. Sage.

Harvey, D., and D. Brown. (1996). An Experiential Approach to Organization Development (5th Ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Limerick, D., Passfield, R., and B. Cunningham. (1994). Transformational change: towards an action learning organization. The Learning Organisation, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 29-40.

Mink, O., P. Esterhuysen, B. Mink, and K. Owen. (1993). Change at Work. A Comprehensive Management Process for Transforming Organization. Jossey-Bass.

Nadler, D. (1977). Feedback and Organization Development. Addison-Wesley.

Paton, R., and J. McCalman. (2008). Change Management: A Guide to Effective Implementation (3rd Ed.). London: Sage.

Robbins, H., and M. Finley. (1996). Why Change Doesn’t Work. London: Orion.

Swieringa, Joop, and Andre Wierdsma. (1992). Becoming a Learning Organization, Addison-Wesley.

28