As I'm sure is the case with the rest of APLP Fellows, when I go back home, people always ask, "So what did you do in Hawaii?", often followed by "Did you surf?" though that latter comment requires a separate post (but yes, I did.)
I usually explained it like this: Semester One of APLP is class time. There were three big components. Component One is the kind of classes I like to call International Relations 101, which are Economy, Demography and Population, Culture, Politics, all in the context of Asia.
Component Two of class time is Leadership 101. Here we talked about leading out of who you are, reflexivity, leadership profile/types, composing a multi-year Action Plan for our personal + professional development, and so on.
Component Three is Field Study, which I guess makes it Experential Learning 101. Half of us went to China, the other half went to East Coast of US. It's a 3-week trip, then we came back and did the first ever APLP Field Study Presentation to the rest of East-West Center who, even though they share a building with us, are also not sure what we APLPers do in Hawaii.
Accross these three components, there's usually always something to be learned by everyone, which is why this program works. To be honest, I came to APLP looking to learn from Component One, but end up becoming most interested in Component Two. Here's why.
One day in one of our Leadership classes, we were asked to pair up. Each person told a story about the time they think they worked best as a leader. The partner listens, then ask questions to bring out the assumptions behind that story. It was later revealed that this is a simplified version of Appreciative Inquiry (AI).
Last time I applied AI in a classroom, we spent four months with nearly a hundred people. That was excellent for learning, but I also like the simple version. Simple is great, especially if you've seen the complicated messy bits. If I'm anticipating to use AI in GIST, I should find my own simple explanation for it. So let's start with something basic.
According to David Cooperrider, the founding researcher of Appreciative Inquiry, the framework stems from five scholarly streams, later known as AI Principles:
These are deceptively simple, those principles. In fact, if I were standing in front of a class, explaining these principles, this is the part where some people roll their eyes. Especially with words like "poetic", which is never uttered in polite conversations on the office. Some of the participants' reactions are clear: Oh please. Like we can get them to do what we want through poetry.
This is flawed in many ways (confusing "transformation" to "making people do what we want", for one), especially the assumption that we can't change mindsets. But we can. It's not impossible wizardry. There's a science to it, just like there's science on behaviors of all living creatures in this universe. Simple explanations work, but they need to be accurate. Appreciative Inquiry is not, as it appears, simply a positive way to ask questions. It's a framework for creating change.
As I said in my GIST proposal, changing the mind will be one of the most important skills in the 21st century. It's imperative for leaders hoping for lasting impact, and it's a skill, which means it can be learned. So far the commonly accepted best answer for creating change is coercion. Does it work? Yes. There are many governance or communal systems where order is built on obedience, reinforced by, well, force. It's effective. It just happens to be not my style, and if you're reading this, I'm guessing it's probably not yours as well. Of course, I don't know if AI is the best approach for change, and we can certainly have a debate about which method is best. Getting to that debate, and making it constructive, requires an acceptance to the possibility of change.
Source:
[1] Cooperrider, D., Whitney, D. (1999). A Positive Revolution in Change: Appreciative Inquiry. Taos, NM: Corporation for Positive Change.
I usually explained it like this: Semester One of APLP is class time. There were three big components. Component One is the kind of classes I like to call International Relations 101, which are Economy, Demography and Population, Culture, Politics, all in the context of Asia.
Component Two of class time is Leadership 101. Here we talked about leading out of who you are, reflexivity, leadership profile/types, composing a multi-year Action Plan for our personal + professional development, and so on.
Component Three is Field Study, which I guess makes it Experential Learning 101. Half of us went to China, the other half went to East Coast of US. It's a 3-week trip, then we came back and did the first ever APLP Field Study Presentation to the rest of East-West Center who, even though they share a building with us, are also not sure what we APLPers do in Hawaii.
Accross these three components, there's usually always something to be learned by everyone, which is why this program works. To be honest, I came to APLP looking to learn from Component One, but end up becoming most interested in Component Two. Here's why.
One day in one of our Leadership classes, we were asked to pair up. Each person told a story about the time they think they worked best as a leader. The partner listens, then ask questions to bring out the assumptions behind that story. It was later revealed that this is a simplified version of Appreciative Inquiry (AI).
Last time I applied AI in a classroom, we spent four months with nearly a hundred people. That was excellent for learning, but I also like the simple version. Simple is great, especially if you've seen the complicated messy bits. If I'm anticipating to use AI in GIST, I should find my own simple explanation for it. So let's start with something basic.
According to David Cooperrider, the founding researcher of Appreciative Inquiry, the framework stems from five scholarly streams, later known as AI Principles:
- Constructionist Principle. As one of the early papers written about Appreciative Inquiry explained it, this Principle "is an approach to human science which replaces the individual with the relationship as the locus of knowledge." Conversely, "human knowledge and organizational destiny are interwoven."[1] It may seem too collectivist for some, but this Principle is saying that Contexts Matter. What we say, think or do is too strongly linked to our environment, it's impossible to understand human knowledge without capturing the context. I think this is why AI puts such heavy emphasis on collecting stories, because stories is what you use to communicate the incommunicable.
- Simultaneity Principle. Simply put, change and inquiry are not separate moments. They happen simultaneously. Change begins the moment we start to ask questions. This is why, if we seek to make changes, we have a responsibility to make sure our questions are generating good conversations
- Poetic Principle. As the Constructionist Principle suggests, human knowledge is extremely complex, and deeply entangled to organizations. And because the two feed off each other, a study of human organization is like looking at an open book that's constantly being co-authored and rewritten. The possibilities from an organization resemble the interpretations of a piece of poetry - they require an understanding of the past, present and future, and impossible to do without involving feelings and emotions. In other words, transforming an organization requires acknowledgement of joy, enthusiasm, high and low morale. Sorry. If this seems too touchy-feely, a part of me feel for you.
- Anticipatory Principle. This is commonly understood as the Positive Thinking approach, and is widely discussed, from things like placebos to The Secret. My understanding of this principle comes from one sentence: Our image of the future guides our current behavior. Although writing this has made me think: is anticipation the opposite of worry?
- Positive Principle. In short, stop looking at the world like problems to solve or improve. I've seen AI trainings that open with "Welcome to the end of problem solving". Or as the early AI paper suggests, "Building and sustaining momentum for change requires a lot of positive affects and social bonds - things like hope, excitement..and sheer joy in creating something meaningful together".[1]
- Personal note: I don't necessarily buy into the way this is worded. I love solving problems and I appreciate problems as they give me something to solve. I understand this is probably related to the Simultaneity Principle, which is why in an earlier post I've asked: can we be critical and appreciative at the same time? I think we can. I hope we can.
These are deceptively simple, those principles. In fact, if I were standing in front of a class, explaining these principles, this is the part where some people roll their eyes. Especially with words like "poetic", which is never uttered in polite conversations on the office. Some of the participants' reactions are clear: Oh please. Like we can get them to do what we want through poetry.
This is flawed in many ways (confusing "transformation" to "making people do what we want", for one), especially the assumption that we can't change mindsets. But we can. It's not impossible wizardry. There's a science to it, just like there's science on behaviors of all living creatures in this universe. Simple explanations work, but they need to be accurate. Appreciative Inquiry is not, as it appears, simply a positive way to ask questions. It's a framework for creating change.
As I said in my GIST proposal, changing the mind will be one of the most important skills in the 21st century. It's imperative for leaders hoping for lasting impact, and it's a skill, which means it can be learned. So far the commonly accepted best answer for creating change is coercion. Does it work? Yes. There are many governance or communal systems where order is built on obedience, reinforced by, well, force. It's effective. It just happens to be not my style, and if you're reading this, I'm guessing it's probably not yours as well. Of course, I don't know if AI is the best approach for change, and we can certainly have a debate about which method is best. Getting to that debate, and making it constructive, requires an acceptance to the possibility of change.
Source:
[1] Cooperrider, D., Whitney, D. (1999). A Positive Revolution in Change: Appreciative Inquiry. Taos, NM: Corporation for Positive Change.