Abstract
In this experiential exercise, students learn about and participate in an abbreviated Appreciative Inquiry (AI) workshop. AI is an approach to organizational change that focuses on strengths and aspirations of what is possible (positive inquiry) in contrast to more traditional approaches to change which often hinge on the assumption that the organization is broken and needs to be fixed. By interviewing each other and engaging in idea generation about the positive aspects of their university, students experience the first two stages of the AI process. Through this activity, students can reflect on the benefits of a strengths-based model of change.
Keywords
This experiential exercise introduces students to an organizational change method called Appreciative Inquiry (AI; Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987), an intervention described as a social technology (Burke, 2011). “In its broadest focus, ‘AI’ involves systematic discovery of everything that supports a system when it is most vibrant in economic, ecological, and human terms” (Cooperrider & Fry, 2020, p. 267). Rather than focusing on a diagnosis of what is wrong with an organization (a deficit-based view), AI orients dialogue and analyses toward the strengths and positive aspects of an organization. Experiencing AI is a powerful means for students to learn several concepts in parallel: planned organizational change, large-scale, whole systems approach to change, and positive approaches to organizational behavior (OB).
Planned organizational change can seem abstract particularly to undergraduate students whose work experience is primarily in lower-level jobs. Descriptions of organizational change and resistance to it can be one-dimensional, leaving students with a limited sense of the complexity of change processes. The organizational development (OD) and change processes typically prescribed in management and OB textbooks—most notably Lewin’s (1947) unfreeze-change-refreeze model—appear simple, linear, and maybe even unrealistic to students. Indeed, the traditional, diagnostic approaches to OD (Bushe & Marshak, 2009) which often rely on a critical diagnosis of the problems organizations face, followed by change interventions designed to fix them, are limited when dealing with environments that are constantly in flux (Morgan, 1997).
In contrast, AI belongs to a family of dialogic OD methods that have emerged as alternatives to diagnostic OD (Bartunek & Woodman, 2015). Grounded in social constructionism (Gergen, 2009), AI assumes that words create worlds. Positive questions guide and stimulate conversations among internal and external stakeholders at all levels of the organizational hierarchy, enabling participants to envision an ideal future that can be co-created together (Whitney & Trosten-Bloom, 2003).
The workshop described here not only introduces AI at a cognitive level but also engages students at the experiential level. Students examine their own organization—in this case their university—through the lens of positive inquiry. The exercise is flexible, accessible, and easy to implement in the classroom. Instructors do not need deep or extensive knowledge of AI to conduct the exercise, which can be completed in 75 minutes.
Students experience the first two phases of AI’s 4D cycle, Discover, Dream, Design, and Deploy. In the discovery phase, they interview one another about their peak university experiences, forming a positive foundation and scaffolding for generating themes and ideas to increase the vitality of the university. Being asked to dream and imagine aspirational ideas for their university in the second phase enables students to experience firsthand, the power and potential for organizational change through positive inquiry and dialogue. Because the workshop focuses on their experience with the university rather than work experiences which differ, the exercise creates a sense of community in the classroom.
The exercise is designed to teach students about the AI process. It is differentiated from other exercises that try to resolve a range of pedagogical issues through AI such as class design (Conklin, 2009), student engagement (Gray et al., 2019), course feedback (Scandura, 2017), peer feedback (Van Dellen, 2024), and hospitable learning spaces (Trinh et al., 2021). It can be used in an undergraduate Management or OB course, especially for modules on organizational change. The exercise can also be used to introduce positive OB and scholarship. Students who have already studied multiple concepts such as decision-making, ethics, organizational culture, the triple bottom line, and organizational strategy will likely gain the most benefits out of this exercise because they can tap into their understanding of a range of organizational concepts from which to consider when generating aspirational topics during the exercise.
Theoretical Foundation
AI was originally articulated as a form of action research (Lewin, 1946) to stimulate an organization’s capacity for social innovation (Srivastva & Cooperrider, 1986). Social interactions move an organization toward a shared image of the future through inquiring what is possible (Batra & Singh, 2023). This image is co-created by asking questions about the positive aspects and strengths of the organization rather than problems, magnifying the change needed to transform the organization (Cooperrider, 2012).
The theoretical framework for AI consists of five principles (Cooperrider et al., 2008) starting with the constructionist principle, which assumes that realities are socially constructed as an outcome of conversations (Gergen, 2009). The simultaneity principle referred to the dynamic feedback loop of inquiry and change which posits that the act of inquiry is in and of itself an intervention (Senge, 2006; Weick, 1979). The poetic principle assumes that an organization’s ongoing narrative affects outcomes (Boje, 2008). The anticipatory principle considers how prospective images of the future can shape current behavior (Weick, 1979). Finally, the positivity principle proposes that positive emotions provide the energy and momentum needed to generate change (Cooperrider et al., 2008).
Critics of AI’s focus on positivity (e.g., Fineman, 2006) warn of the dangers of ignoring the underlying structural tensions and conflict of an organization which might undermine change efforts and be detrimental in the long run (Barge & Oliver, 2003; Dematteo & Reeves, 2011). Despite these concerns, successful interventions propelled AI’s adoption by OD practitioners (Bunker et al., 2004), and has been used by organizations including Walmart (Laszlo et al., 2024), Green Mountain Coffee Company (Stiller, 2024) and the U.S. Navy (Powley et al., 2004). Research in positive psychology and team dynamics provide AI with further theoretical support including the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions (Fredrickson, 2001) and psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999).
AI is structured around the 4D Cycle of Discover, Dream, Design, Deploy/Destiny that is used to facilitate discussions of complex organizational issues across entire organizations (Whitney & Trosten-Bloom, 2003). The deficit-based diagnostic approach is a dominant paradigm in management and in our daily lives, so it is important for students to experience a strengths-based approach to comprehend the difference. Due to limited class time, we suggest an abbreviated AI workshop exploring the Discovery and Dream stages.
Learning Objectives
At the end of the exercise, students will be able to:
LO1. Describe AI.
LO2. Explain how a strengths-based dialogic approach to organizational change compares with a diagnostic or deficit-based approach.
LO3. Summarize the benefits and limitations of a strengths-based model of change.
Exercise Overview
This exercise revolves around a positive inquiry about the students’ university to develop an aspirational vision of the future. It is best suited for large undergraduate classes, ideally 40 or more students. For classes larger than 80 students, we recommend using teaching assistants to help capture and distill themes emerging from the discussions. In smaller classes, common themes may be less obvious, but students will nevertheless benefit from the experience. The target student population is sophomores through seniors. It is helpful to include a mix of majors which can lead to broader and more diverse perspectives about the university.
There is some flexibility over how to time the exercise. To complete the entire process in larger classes, the exercise will take close to 110 minutes. To comfortably facilitate the exercise in 75-minute class periods, lecture in one class period, facilitate the exercise in a class period, and assign the reflection as homework. With a class smaller than 40 students, where the reflection is assigned outside of class, the exercise can be completed in a 75-minute class period.
Logistics
Preparation and Materials
Instructors should prepare a lecture (see Supplemental Appendix A) on organizational change and AI. Students can grasp AI’s important concepts through the introductory lecture and the exercise.
Before running the exercise, create and print a copy of the simplified version of an interview protocol for each student (see Supplemental Appendix B). Sections of the protocol include an introduction, overview of the interview and theme building process, tips for interviewing and handling negative comments, and at least four interview questions that reflect the first two steps—Discovery and Dream—of the Appreciative Inquiry 4D cycle (Cooperrider, 2012). Customize the protocol to integrate the university’s mission and values.
Class Session(s)
Introduce the idea that the class will experiment with the appreciative approach to allow an aspirational vision of the future for their university to emerge.
Step-by-Step Instructions
1. Lecture (Supplemental Appendix A; 20 minutes). Introduce AI and its related constructs to help students understand the theoretical basis for the exercise and put it into context of alternate models
(a) Introduce diagnostic deficit-based models to planned organizational change.
(b) Ask students to brainstorm a target for change related to the University.
(c) Introduce Appreciative Inquiry Theory and AI workshops.
2. Distribute and review the student handout (Supplemental Appendix B; 5–10 minutes). Talk students through each step of the guide explaining the process.
3. Conduct interviews (Supplemental Appendix B; 15–20 minutes). Students form pairs and interview each other using the interview guide.
4. Generate themes (10–15 minutes). Combine pairs into groups of four to six students to generate themes from the interviews. The goal is to capture as many themes as possible.
5. Post themes (Supplemental Appendix C; 10 minutes). Each group writes their themes on a whiteboard or flip charts.
6. Clarify themes (Supplemental Appendix C; 5–10 minutes). Students explain to the entire class the context of their themes. Identify meta themes across the class.
7. Debrief (Supplemental Appendix D; 5–10 minutes). Once the process is complete, ask questions to ensure that students understand the key learning objectives.
8. Reflect (Supplemental Appendix E; 15 minutes). Give students the reflection questions in a handout or as an assignment. The reflection exercise confirms that the learning objectives are met.
Potential Challenges
The challenges that can arise in this exercise are consistent with issues that arise in many exercises. There may be a subset of students who struggle to focus on the positive aspects of the university. You can use this behavior to discuss how some participants in an organization may want to discuss what is wrong. A solution is to review the “tips for conducting interviews,” specifically the directions around how to handle negative ideas. In addition, explain that if an interviewee insists on discussing negative ideas, the interviewer can jump to the question which grants participants three wishes to increase university vitality. Guide students to acknowledge the negative and ask what wish would turn the complaint to a positive. Complaints often come from believing something could be better.
Variations
This exercise could be expanded to be a larger class project. Students can participate in researching and creating the interview materials. They can write an introduction letter based on their understanding of the school’s values and vision. They could target a particular challenge or opportunity within the institution or the larger community.
In a small class, students can interview people outside of class to bring in more perspectives about the university. Then they will have data from twice as many students.
Finally, if students get excited about ideas that emerge, you can have them develop recommendations or plans for those. Students might present recommendations to a dean or other administrator.
Conclusion
Because of its flexibility and accessibility, AI lends itself to creating a powerful classroom experience. Through learning about AI, students can explore and integrate concepts such as social constructionism, organizational culture, and decision-making. Facilitators can adjust the balance of conceptual and experiential learning to match the level and needs of the students in each class. The exercise allows students to experience the expansion of organizational change processes beyond deficit-based approaches to include positive strengths-based approaches.
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-1-mtr-10.1177_23792981261446265 – Supplemental material for Teaching Appreciative Inquiry: A Positive Interviewing Approach to Organizational Change
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-mtr-10.1177_23792981261446265 for Teaching Appreciative Inquiry: A Positive Interviewing Approach to Organizational Change by B. Ariel Blair and Emi Makino in Management Teaching Review
Footnotes
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
