Appreciative inquiry
Appreciative inquiry (AI) is a model that seeks to
engage stakeholders in self-determined change. Ac-
cording to Bushe “AI revolutionized the field of orga-
nization development and was a precursor to the rise
of positive organization studies and the strengths based
movement in American management.”[1] It was devel-
oped at Case Western Reserve University's department
of organizational behavior, starting with a 1987 article
by David Cooperrider and Suresh Srivastva. They felt
that the overuse of “problem solving” hampered any kind
of social improvement, and what was needed were new
methods of inquiry that would help generate new ideas
and models for how to organize.[2]
1 History
Cooperrider and Srivastva took a social constructionist
approach, arguing that organizations are created, main-
tained and changed by conversations, and claiming that
methods of organizing were only limited by people’s
imaginations and the agreements among them.[3]
In 2001, Cooperrider and Diana Whitney published an
article outlining the five principles of AI.[4]
In 1996, Cooperrider, Whitney and several of their col-
leagues became centrally involved using AI to mid-wife
the creation of the United Religions Initiative (www.uri.
org), a global organization dedicated to promoting grass-
roots interfaith cooperation for peace, justice and heal-
ing. This early and partnership between URI and AI is
chronicled in Birth of a Global Community: Apprecia-
tive Inquiry in Action by Charles Gibbs and Sally Mahé.
AI was also used in the first (1999) and subsequent meet-
ings of business leaders that created the UN’s Global
Compact.[5] In another of the early applications, Cooper-
rider and Whitney taught AI to employees of GTE (now
part of Verizon) resulting in improvements in employ-
ees’ support for GTE’s business direction and. as a part
of continuous process improvement generated both im-
provements in revenue collection and cost savings earning
GTE an ASTD award for the best organisational change
program in the US in 1997.”[6]:176
On May 8, 2010, Suresh Srivastva died.[7]
Gervase Bushe, a researcher on the topic, published a
2011 review of the model, including its processes, cri-
tiques, and evidence.[8] He also published a history of the
model in 2012.[9]
1
2 Basis and principles
According to Bushe, AI “advocates collective inquiry into
the best of what is, in order to imagine what could be, fol-
lowed by collective design of a desired future state that
is compelling and thus, does not require the use of in-
centives, coercion or persuasion for planned change to
occur.”[10]
The model is based on the assumption that the questions
we ask will tend to focus our attention in a particular di-
rection, that organizations evolve in the direction of the
questions they most persistently and passionately ask.[11]
In the mid 80’s most methods of assessing and evaluat-
ing a situation and then proposing solutions were based
on a deficiency model, predominantly asking questions
such as “What are the problems?", “What’s wrong?" or
“What needs to be fixed?". Instead of asking “What’s the
problem?", others couched the question in terms of “chal-
lenges”, which still focused on deficiency, on what needs
to be fixed or solved.[12] Appreciative Inquiry was the first
serious managerial method to refocus attention on what
works, the positive core, and on what people really care
about. Today, these ways of approaching organizational
change are common[13]
The five principles of AI are:[10]
1. The constructionist principle proposes that what
we believe to be true determines what we do,
and thought and action emerge from relationships.
Through the language and discourse of day to day
interactions, people co-construct the organizations
they inhabit. The purpose of inquiry is to stimulate
new ideas, stories and images that generate new pos-
sibilities for action.
2. The principle of simultaneity proposes that as we in-
quire into human systems we change them and the
seeds of change, the things people think and talk
about, what they discover and learn, are implicit in
the very first questions asked. Questions are never
neutral, they are fateful, and social systems move in
the direction of the questions they most persistently
and passionately discuss.
3. The poetic principle proposes that organizational life
is expressed in the stories people tell each other ev-
ery day, and the story of the organization is con-
stantly being co-authored. The words and topics
chosen for inquiry have an impact far beyond just
2 4 QUALITY IMPROVEMENT AND SOAR

the words themselves. They invoke sentiments, un- 3 Distinguishing features

derstandings, and worlds of meaning. In all phases
of the inquiry effort is put into using words that point The following table comes from the Cooperrider and
to, enliven and inspire the best in people. Whitney (2001) article and is used to describe some of
the distinctions between AI and approaches to organiza-
tional development not based on what they call positive
4. The anticipatory principle posits that what we do to-
potential:[22]
day is guided by our image of the future. Human
systems are forever projecting ahead of themselves Appreciative inquiry attempts to use ways of asking ques-
a horizon of expectation that brings the future pow- tions and envisioning the future in order to foster pos-
erfully into the present as a mobilizing agent. Ap- itive relationships and build on the present potential of
preciative inquiry uses artful creation of positive im- a given person, organization or situation. The most com-
agery on a collective basis to refashion anticipatory mon model utilizes a cycle of four processes, which focus
reality. on what it calls:

1. DISCOVER: The identification of organizational

5. The positive principle proposes that momentum and
processes that work well.
sustainable change requires positive affect and social
bonding. Sentiments like hope, excitement, inspira-
2. DREAM: The envisioning of processes that would
tion, camaraderie and joy increase creativity, open-
work well in the future.
ness to new ideas and people, and cognitive flexibil-
ity. They also promote the strong connections and 3. DESIGN: Planning and prioritizing processes that
relationships between people, particularly between would work well.
groups in conflict, required for collective inquiry and
change. 4. DESTINY (or DEPLOY): The implementation (exe-
cution) of the proposed design.[15]

Some researchers believe that excessive focus on dysfunc-

tions can actually cause them to become worse or fail to
become better.[14] By contrast, AI argues, when all mem-
bers of an organization are motivated to understand and
value the most favourable features of its culture, it can
make rapid improvements.[15]
Strength-based methods are used in the creation of orga-
nizational development strategy and implementation of
organizational effectiveness tactics.[16] The appreciative
mode of inquiry often relies on interviews to qualitatively
understand the organization’s potential strengths by look-
ing at an organization’s experience and its potential; the
objective is to elucidate the assets and personal motiva-
tions that are its strengths.
Bushe has argued that mainstream proponents of AI focus
too much attention on “the positive” and not enough on
the transformation that AI can bring about through gen-
erating new ideas and the will to act on them.[6][17][18] In
a 2010 comparative study in a school district he found
that even in cases where no change occurred participants
were highly positive during the AI process.[19] What dis-
tinguished those sites that experienced transformational
changes was the creation of new ideas that gave people
new ways to address old problems. He argues that for
transformational change to occur, AI must address prob-
lems that concern people enough to want to change. How-
ever, AI addresses them not through problem-solving, but
through generative images.[20] Some of this is covered in
a 90-minute discussion about AI, positivity and genera-
tivity by Bushe and Dr. Ron Fry of Case Western, at the
2012 World Appreciative Inquiry Conference.[21]
The aim is to build – or rebuild – organizations around
what works, rather than trying to fix what doesn't. AI
practitioners try to convey this approach as the opposite
of problem solving.
4 Quality improvement and SOAR
Operational strategic plans are sometimes generated with
the best intents, only to be forgotten and put on a shelf
and reexamined only when performance reviews are tak-
ing place. Operational strategic plans need to be flexi-
ble enough to meet the needs of changing environments.
The SOAR strategic plan should be reviewed on a regu-
lar basis and adjusted to guarantee that it endures to meet
the needs of the organization. Soar techniques help to
provide specific applications of AI principles, helping or-
ganizations with an enhanced framework for operational
strategic planning. Using SOAR within the strategic op-
erations planning process allows organizations construct
their pathway to success. SOAR analysis is one of the
most important aspects of the strategic planning process
for any organization (McKenna, Daykin, Mohr, & Sil-
bert, 2007).[23]
Our Operations group is good at identifying stakeholders
who participate in planning meetings. These stakehold-
ers represent all levels and functional levels within the or-
ganization, as well as creating an interview questionnaire
to find and categorize employee and stake holder strong
point, perceptions and aspirations.
 3

The Operations group engages employees and stakehold- • Whitney, D. & Trosten-Bloom, A. (2010) The
ers, which includes clients, vendors, and partners, if ap- Power of Appreciative Inquiry (2nd Ed.). San Fran-
propriate. This helps the Operations group to realize the cisco: Berrett-Koehler.
conditions that created the organization’s greatest suc-
cesses, while ignoring threats, weaknesses and/or prob-
lems. The discussions need to focus on what do we want, 6 Uses
and not on what we don't want, while inspiring.
Our operations group could improve its function ability AI is used in organizational development and as a
processes by assessing and improving systems. By build- consultancy tool in an attempt to bring about strategic
ing and implementing management systems, by estab- change. It has been applied in businesses, health care
lishing sustainable continuous improvement processes, by bodies, social non-profit organizations, educational insti-
implementing lean business practices, and by establishing tutions, and government operations.[26] Although origi-
process and correlating business result metrics and “dash- nating in the US, it is also used in the UK – for exam-
boards”, as well as building and measuring customer and ple in the National Support Teams and around the world.
employee loyalty. Since 2000, The AI Practitioner, a quarterly publication,
SOAR takes the appreciative inquiry philosophy and ap- has described applications in a variety of settings around
plies it to provide a strategic thinking and dialog process. the world.
By using SOAR (strengths, opportunities, aspirations, re- AI has various business applications and can effectively
sults) and AI (appreciative inquiry) will help guide our op- be used to elicit information from stakeholders.[27] Pos-
erations group through planning in a manner that is both itivity is paired with a group consensus to envision and
results oriented and co-constructive at the same time. Ap- begin producing an optimistic future based on existing
preciative inquiry and SOAR approaches to strategy de- strengths and successes. As seen in Harbarian process
velopment lend tremendous potential for success, essen- modeling, AI has been used in Business process model-
tially keeping our Operations group positive and partici- ing to elicit information about an organization’s present
pative (Kessler, 2013).[24] state and desired future state.
In Vancouver, AI is being used by the Dalai Lama Center
for Peace and Education. The Center, which was founded
5 Implementing AI by the Dalai Lama and Victor Chan, is using AI to facil-
itate compassionate communities.[28]
There are a variety of approaches to implementing appre-
ciative inquiry, including mass-mobilised interviews and
a large, diverse gathering called an Appreciative Inquiry 7 See also
Summit.[25] These approaches involve bringing large, di-
verse groups of people together to study and build upon • Geoffrey Vickers introduced concept of 'Apprecia-
the best in an organization or community. tive Systems’ (1968)
Current resources on AI include(in alphabetical order): • Kenneth J. Gergen instrumental in social construc-
tionism and the concept of generativity
• Barrett, F.J. & Fry, R.E. (2005) Appreciative In- • David Cooperrider originated the theory of appre-
quiry: A Positive Approach to Building Cooperative ciative inquiry in his 1986 doctoral dissertation.
Capacity. Chagrin Falls, OH: Taos Institute
• Organization Development
• Cooperrider, D.L., Whitney, D. & Stavros, J.M. • Social Constructionism
(2008) Appreciative Inquiry Handbook (2nd ed.)
Brunswick, OH: Crown Custom Publishing. • Complexity theory and organizations

• Gibbs, C., Mahé, s. (2004) “Birth of a Global Com-

munity: Appreciative Inquiry in Action”. Bedford
Heights, OH: Lakeshore Publishers.
• Lewis, S., Passmore, J. & Cantore, S. (2008) The
Appreciative Inquiry Approach to Change Manage-
ment. London, UK: Kogan Paul.
• Ludema, J.D. Whitney, D., Mohr, B.J. & Griffen,
T.J. (2003) The Appreciative Inquiry Summit. San
Francisco: Berret-Koehler.
8 References
[1] Bushe, G.R. (2103) The appreciative inquiry model. In
E.H. Kessler, (ed.) Encyclopedia of Management Theory,
(Volume 1, pp. 41-44), Sage Publications, 2013.
[2] Cooperrider, D. L. & Srivastva, S. (1987). “Apprecia-
tive inquiry in organizational life”. In Woodman, R. W.
& Pasmore, W.A. Research in Organizational Change And
Development. Vol. 1. Stamford, CT: JAI Press. pp. 129–
169.
4 9 FURTHER READING
[3] Cooperrider, D. L.; Barrett, F.; Srivastva, S. (1995). “So-
cial construction and appreciative inquiry: A journey in
organizational theory”. In Hosking, D.; Dachler, P.; Ger-
gen, K. Management and Organization: Relational Alter-
natives to Individualism. pp. 157–200.
[4] Cooperrider, D.L. & Whitney, D (2001). “A positive
revolution in change”. In Cooperrider, D. L.; Sorenson,
P.; Whitney, D. & Yeager, T. Appreciative Inquiry: An
Emerging Direction for Organization Development. Cham-
paign, IL: Stipes. pp. 9–29.
[5] Cooperrider, David. “Current Commentary on AI and
Positive Change”. AI Commons. Retrieved July 6, 2016.
[6] Bushe, G.R.; Kassam, A.; et al. (2005). “When is ap-
preciative inquiry transformational? A meta-case analy-
sis” (PDF). Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 41 (2):
161–181.
[7] “Suresh Srviastva”. The Taos Institute. Retrieved July 6,
2016.
[8] Bushe, G. R. (2011). “Appreciative Inquiry: Theory and
Critique”. In Boje, D.; Burnes, B.; Hassard, J. The Rout-
ledge Companion To Organizational Change. Oxford, UK:
Routledge. pp. 87–103. Lay summary (PDF).
[9] Bushe, Gervase (2012). “Foundations of Appreciative In-
quiry” (PDF). Bushe’s website. Appreciative Practitioner.
[10] Bushe, G.R. (2013). Kessler, E., ed. The Appreciative
Inquiry Model (PDF). The Encyclopedia of Management
Theory. Sage Publications.
[11] Cooperrider, D.L. & Whitney, D (2005) A positive rev-
olution in change: Appreciative inquiry. In Cooperrider,
D. L. Sorenson, P., Yeager, T. & Whitney, D. (eds.) Ap-
preciative Inquiry: Foundations in Positive Organization
Development (pp.9-33). Champaign, IL: Stipes.
[12] “The Appreciative Inquiry Commons”. Case Western Re-
serve University’s Weatherhead School of Management.
[13] Bushe, G.R. & Marhsak, R.M. (2015) Dialogic Organiza-
tion Development: The Theory and Practice of Organiza-
tional Transformation. Oakdland, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
[14] Wallis, Claudia (January 17, 2005). “The Science of Hap-
piness” (PDF). Time Magazine. Archived from the origi-
nal (PDF) on July 11, 2006.
[15] “Background”. New Paradigm. Retrieved July 6, 2016.
[16] Franklin, Scott (February 1, 2007). “Building Strength-
Based Organizations”. Maintenance Technology.
Archived from the original on September 28, 2011.
[17] Bushe, G.R. (2007). “Appreciative inquiry is not (just)
about the positive” (PDF). Organization Development
Practitioner. 39 (4): 30–35.
[18] Bushe, G.R. (2013). D.L. Cooperrider; D.P. Zandee;
L.N. Godwin; M. Avital; B. Boland, eds. Generative pro-
cess, generative outcome: The transformational potential
of appreciative inquiry (PDF). Organizational Generativ-
ity: The Appreciative Inquiry Summit and a Scholarship
of Transformation. Advances in Appreciative Inquiry. 4.
Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. pp.
89–113.
[19] Bushe, G.R. (2010). “A comparative case study of ap-
preciative inquiries in one organization: Implications for
practice” (PDF). Revista de Cercetare si Interventie Sociala
/ Review of Research and Social Intervention. Special Is-
sue on Appreciative Inquiry. 29: 7–24.
[20] Bushe, G.R. (2013). “Dialogic OD: A theory of prac-
tice”. Organization Development Practitioner, special issue
on advances in Dialogic Organization Development. 45
(1): 10–16.
[21] “Webcast Plenary Session 6: Prof. Dr. Ronald Fry and
Prof. Dr. Gervase Bushe”.
[22] “What is Appreciative Inquiry?". Appreciative Inquiry
Commons. Case Western Reserve University. Retrieved
July 6, 2016.
[23] McKenna, C., Daykin, J., Mohr, B. J., & Silbert, T.
(2007). Strategic Planning with Appreciative Inquiry:
Unleashing the Positive Potential to SOAR. Retrieved
from http://innovationpartners.com
[24] Kessler, E. H. (2013). Encyclopedia of Management The-
ory: The Appreciative Inquiry Model. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
[25] http://www.positivechange.org/downloads/AI_and_
Spiritual_ResonanceV.Final.pdf%5B%5D
[26] “Easy Submit: Do you have a story, document, tool, event
to share?". AI Commons. Retrieved July 6, 2016.
[27] https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fe15/
76385b5e4767493f3d51224c721494b6ec10.pdf
[28] “Heart-Mind Inquiry”. Dalai Lama Center. Retrieved
July 6, 2016.
9 Further reading
• Barrett, F.J.; Fry, R.E. (2005), Appreciative Inquiry:
A Positive Approach to Building Cooperative Capac-
ity, Chagrin Falls, OH: Taos Institute
• Bushe, Gervase R. (2012), “Appreciative Inquiry:
Theory and critique”, in Boje, D.; Burnes, B.; Has-
sard, J., The Routledge Companion To Organiza-
tional Change, Oxford, UK: Routledge, p. 87-103
• Bushe, Gervase R. (2013), “The Appreciative In-
quiry Model”, in Kessler, E. H., Encyclopedia of
Management Theory (PDF), Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage, retrieved 13 March 2017
• Cooperrider, D. L.; Barrett, F.; Srivastva, S. (1995),
“Social construction and appreciative inquiry: A
journey in organizational theory”, in Hosking, D.;
Dachler, P.; Gergen, K., Management and Orga-
nization: Relational Alternatives to Individualism,
Aldershot, UK: Avebury, p. 157-200
 5

• Cooperrider, D. L.; Sorenson, P.; Yeager, T.; Whit-

ney, D. (eds.), Appreciative Inquiry: Foundations in
Positive Organization Development, Champaign, IL:
Stipes
• Cooperrider, D. L.; Srivastva, S. (1987), “Appre-
ciative inquiry in organizational life”, in Woodman,
R. W.; Pasmore, W.A., Research In Organizational
Change And Development, Vol. 1, Stamford, CT:
JAI Press, pp. 129–169

• Cooperrider, D. L.; Whitney, D.; Stavros, J.M.

(2008), Appreciative Inquiry Handbook (2nd ed.),
Brunswick, OH: Crown Custom Publishing
• Ludema, J. D.; Whitney, D.; Mohr, B.J.; Griffen,
T.J. (2003), The Appreciative Inquiry Summit, San
Francisco, CA: Berret-Koehler
• Whitney, D.; Trosten-Bloom, A. (2003), The power
of Appreciative Inquiry: A practical guide to positive
change, San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler

10 External links
• Appreciative Inquiry Commons at Case Western
Reserve University

• Appreciative inquiry at Harvard Business School

• Inquérito Apreciativo (in Portuguese)

• Appreciative Inquiry France The reference site in

French on AI

• Appreciative Inquiry Conference 2007, The Power

of Positive Change

• Begeistring Organisations – The European Network

around AI and Strength Based Change

• Appreciative Inquiry: An Overview, scribd.

• Cooperrider, D. L. (2007). “Business as an agent

of world benefit: Awe is what moves us forward”.
Retrieved February 21, 2008.
• David L. Cooperrider Center for Appreciative In-
quiry at Champlain College
• Bushe’s papers on AI
6 11 TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

11 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

11.1 Text
• Appreciative inquiry Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appreciative_inquiry?oldid=792935442 Contributors: SimonP, Kku,
TonyClarke, Thseamon, Andrewman327, Tom Allen, Advanet, Kihosa, Rculatta, Bjelli, Spalding, Basilwhite, Mareino, Yamla, Mike
riversdale, Woohookitty, Mindmatrix, Jwbillharvey, Sasuke Sarutobi, Tony1, SmackBot, DuncanBCS, Ck4829, Bluebot, Deli nk, Frank
Walsh (1962), Jon Awbrey, Breno, RichardF, Justin T. Sampson, Fdssdf, Worksmarts, CmdrObot, Penbat, Gregbard, Cydebot, Wikipedi-
arules2221, Epbr123, RichardVeryard, Nancy Stetson, Snowded, LookingGlass, MartinBot, Johnpacklambert, Achristoffersen, Amanda
Trosten-Bloom, SQL, PeterIto, Cnilep, Salem21, SalineBrain, Jackmartinleith, Markwarnes, Eustress, Gnickett1, XLinkBot, Abigail3884,
Dthomsen8, Addbot, MrOllie, Editor2051, Aniiah, Rainsound, Yobot, AnomieBOT, Affirm, Xqbot, Lksriv, Omnipaedista, Free-
KnowledgeCreator, FrescoBot, LucienBOT, பரிதிமதி, Andrewebling, Wille Ellis, RohnySaylors, Dongerardor, Changedude, Dewritech,
Hypocaustic, Mjep, Pterosaurus, Bevmcphee, BarrelProof, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot, BG19bot, Dreaton, Ayabungy, Bernard Tollec, Me,
Myself, and I are Here, Moebenny2000, ClearOB, Dictionnaire75, Cpgibbs, Sondra.kinsey, Divya Joyce, ChamplainInquiry, Haven't Been
There, Hardball5 and Anonymous: 58

11.2 Images

11.3 Content license

• Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0