34
SWOT vs. SOAR: Engaging Staff in Institutional Planning An Introduction to Appreciative Inquiry Heather Berringer, Deputy Chief Librarian, University of British Columbia - Okanagan Campus Gillian Byrne, Manager, Council of Atlantic University Libraries - Conseil des bibliothèques universitaires de l’Atlantique CLA 2013 – Winnipeg MB June 6, 2013

SWOT vs. SOAR: Engaging Staff in Institutional Planning

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Presented with Heather Berringer at Canadian Library Association Conference, 2013.

Citation preview

Page 1: SWOT vs. SOAR: Engaging Staff in Institutional Planning

SWOT vs. SOAR: Engaging Staff in Institutional

Planning

An Introduction to Appreciative Inquiry

Heather Berringer, Deputy Chief Librarian, University of British Columbia - Okanagan Campus

Gillian Byrne, Manager, Council of Atlantic University Libraries - Conseil des bibliothèques universitaires de l’Atlantique

CLA 2013 – Winnipeg MB

June 6, 2013

Page 2: SWOT vs. SOAR: Engaging Staff in Institutional Planning

Appreciative Inquiry - a definition

"Appreciative Inquiry (AI) is an energizing approach for sparking positive change in people, groups, and organizations. It focuses on what is working well

(appreciative) by engaging people in asking questions and telling stories (inquiry)."

Cockell,J. and McArthur-Blair, J.2012. Appreciative Inquiry in Higher Education: a Transformative Force.

.

Page 3: SWOT vs. SOAR: Engaging Staff in Institutional Planning

AI is ... a research method:

"Appreciative Inquiry did not begin life as an organizational change technique; it began as a research method for making grounded theory-

building more generative."

Bushe, G.R. 2011. Appreciative inquiry: Theory and critique. In The Routledge Companion To Organizational Change.

Page 4: SWOT vs. SOAR: Engaging Staff in Institutional Planning

AI is ... an organization development tool:

“Appreciative Inquiry enables organizations to build their own generative theory for enabling

transformational shifts by learning from their most positively exceptional moments.”

Sharma, R. 2008. Celebrating Change: The New Paradigm of Organizational Development. Icfai University Journal of Soft Skills, Vol. 2 (3).

Page 5: SWOT vs. SOAR: Engaging Staff in Institutional Planning

AI is ... a change paradigm:

“The traditional approach to change is to look for the problem, do a diagnosis, and find a solution. The primary focus is on what is wrong or broken;

since we look for problems, we find them. By paying attention to problems, we emphasize and

amplify them. …Appreciative Inquiry suggests that we look for what works in an organization."

Hammond, S. 1998. The Thin Book of Appreciative Inquiry.

Page 6: SWOT vs. SOAR: Engaging Staff in Institutional Planning

Core Principles 1. THE CONSTRUCTIONIST PRINCIPLE Words create worlds

2. THE SIMULTANEITY PRINCIPLE Inquiry creates change

3. THE POETIC PRINCIPLE We can choose what we study

4. THE ANTICIPATORY PRINCIPLE Image inspires action

5. THE POSITIVE PRINCIPLE Positive questions lead to positive change

Page 7: SWOT vs. SOAR: Engaging Staff in Institutional Planning

Additional Principles

Whitney D. and Trosten-Bloom, A. 2003 / Barrett, F. & Fry, R. 2005 / Stavros, J. & Torres, C. 2005.

THE WHOLENESS PRINCIPLE Wholeness brings out the best

THE ENACTMENT PRINCIPLE Acting “as if” is self-fulfilling

THE FREE CHOICE PRINCIPLE Free choice liberates power

THE NARRATIVE PRINCIPLE Weaving stories creates bonds

THE AWARENESS PRINCIPLE Surfacing assumptions is important in good relationships

Page 8: SWOT vs. SOAR: Engaging Staff in Institutional Planning

Strengths of AI

1. Focus on the positive2. Participatory3. Creative thinking4. Systemic

Page 9: SWOT vs. SOAR: Engaging Staff in Institutional Planning

Criticisms of AI

1. Time intensive2. Ignores deficits3. Uncertain outcomes4. Anti-evidence

Page 10: SWOT vs. SOAR: Engaging Staff in Institutional Planning

Those who imagine that appreciative inquiry is by definition a pain-free, contented chewing of the

organizational cud of recalled best practice need to bear in mind that any attempt at depth learning

within an organizational setting is likely to exact its own psychic price.

Elliott, C. (1999).Locating the energy for change: An introduction to appreciative inquiry.

Page 11: SWOT vs. SOAR: Engaging Staff in Institutional Planning

“The negative is seductive”

-Maureen Sullivan

Sullivan, M. (2004). The promise of appreciative inquiry in library organizations. Library Trends 53(1), 218-229.

Page 12: SWOT vs. SOAR: Engaging Staff in Institutional Planning

Psychological theory from other disciplines:

• Pygmalion Theory (Education, Management)

• Placebo Effect (Medicine)

• Performance Theory (Sport Psychology)

Page 13: SWOT vs. SOAR: Engaging Staff in Institutional Planning

Sullivan, M. (2004). The promise of appreciative inquiry in library organizations. Library Trends 53(1), 218-229.

Page 14: SWOT vs. SOAR: Engaging Staff in Institutional Planning

Discovery

Dream

Design

Deliver

The “4D” Framework

Page 15: SWOT vs. SOAR: Engaging Staff in Institutional Planning

Discovery

Dream

Design

Deliver

The “4D” Framework

Appreciate the “best of what is”

“Numbers are not good or bad. They are just interesting.”

Alison Sivak, Assessment Librarian, University of Alberta

Page 16: SWOT vs. SOAR: Engaging Staff in Institutional Planning

Discovery

Dream

Design

Deliver

The “4D” Framework

Imagine what could be

“Let’s have a buddy system at the service desk and have 2 staff members working together at each terminal. Pair a circulation and reference person to make a team. This team can then handle any transaction – one stop shopping!”

“Or, what if the circulation and reference person was actually just one individual?”

Page 17: SWOT vs. SOAR: Engaging Staff in Institutional Planning

Discovery

Dream

Design

Deliver

The “4D” Framework

Determine what should be

Have conversations that matterFrom Whitney & Trosten-Bloom(2003)

Page 18: SWOT vs. SOAR: Engaging Staff in Institutional Planning

Discovery

Dream

Design

Deliver

The “4D” Framework

Create what will be

“In golf, as in life, it is the follow through that makes all the difference.”

(Author Unknown)

Page 19: SWOT vs. SOAR: Engaging Staff in Institutional Planning

Discovery

Dream

Design

Deliver

The “4D” Framework

Page 20: SWOT vs. SOAR: Engaging Staff in Institutional Planning

Some Practical Applications:

• Four Generic Questions

• Mapping the Positive/Mapping the Dream

• Words Create Worlds/Provocative Propositions

• Positive Change Networks, Consortia, and Meetings

Page 21: SWOT vs. SOAR: Engaging Staff in Institutional Planning

Four generic questions:

1. Best Experience Question

2. Values Question

3. Life-giving Force Question

4. Wishes and Images of the Future

Remember: the act of asking questions of an organization or group influences the group in some way

Adapted from Magruder Watkins & Stavros (2010)

Page 22: SWOT vs. SOAR: Engaging Staff in Institutional Planning

Mapping the Positive/Mapping the Dream:

1. Read and share stories collected in the interview process

2. Conduct a “root cause of organizational success” analysis to identify all of the factors that lead to your organization’s success

3. Map the success factors (e.g.: mural, collective art project, input for a time capsule – use your imagination!)

Adapted from Whitney & Trosten-Bloom (2003)

Page 23: SWOT vs. SOAR: Engaging Staff in Institutional Planning

Words Create Worlds:

1. The terms by which we understand our world and our self are neither required nor demanded by “what there is”

2. Our modes of description, explanation and/or representation are derived from relationship

3. As we describe, explain, or otherwise represent, we also fashion our future

4. Reflection on our forms of understanding is vital to our future well-being

Gergen, K. (1999). An invitation to social construction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Page 24: SWOT vs. SOAR: Engaging Staff in Institutional Planning

Provocative Propositions:

1. Narrative statements, proposing the ideal

2. Provocative, in that they stretch the organization beyond its norm into novel and more desired forms of interaction

3. Stated in the affirmative, using vivid positive imagery

4. Statements of belief, that constitute the ideal organization

Whitney & Trosten-Bloom (2003)

Page 25: SWOT vs. SOAR: Engaging Staff in Institutional Planning

Positive Change Networks, Consortia, and Meetings:

• Groups of people dedicated to creating or facilitating change;

• Task groups brought together to work on major design themes and report back to a larger group;

• Cross-organizational inquiry teams who look for topics and themes of mutual relevance; or

• As simple as asking at the end of a meeting, “What do you think went especially well today?”

Page 26: SWOT vs. SOAR: Engaging Staff in Institutional Planning

SOAR Exercise

• Alternative to SWOT in strategic planning processes

• Focusses on the positive rather than insurmountable problems

• Focusses on 'what should be' rather than 'what is'

Page 27: SWOT vs. SOAR: Engaging Staff in Institutional Planning

SOAR Model

Page 28: SWOT vs. SOAR: Engaging Staff in Institutional Planning

STRENGTHS

1. What story can you tell about the benefits of being involved with CLA?

2. What is it you value most about your interactions with CLA?

ASPIRATIONS

1. What would you like to be able to say about CLA this time next year?

2. What inspires you about the work of associations?

OPPORTUNITIES

1. What are the best parts of CLA that you want to perpetuate?

2. Where does your passion for your work match with CLA’s goals?

RESULTS/RESOURCES

1. How will you know CLA is successful?

2. What can you offer to assist CLA in getting there?

Page 29: SWOT vs. SOAR: Engaging Staff in Institutional Planning

Strengths

1. What story can you tell about the benefits of being involved with CLA?

2. What is it you value most about your interactions with CLA?

Page 30: SWOT vs. SOAR: Engaging Staff in Institutional Planning

Opportunities

1. What are the best parts of CLA that you want to perpetuate?

2. Where does your passion for your work match with CLA’s goals?

Page 31: SWOT vs. SOAR: Engaging Staff in Institutional Planning

Aspirations

1. What would you like to be able to say about CLA this time next year?

2. What inspires you about the work of associations?

Page 32: SWOT vs. SOAR: Engaging Staff in Institutional Planning

Results/Resources

1. How will you know CLA is successful?

2. What can you offer to assist CLA in getting there?

Page 33: SWOT vs. SOAR: Engaging Staff in Institutional Planning

Thank you!

Heather Berringer, [email protected]

Gillian Byrne, [email protected]

Page 34: SWOT vs. SOAR: Engaging Staff in Institutional Planning

Selected BibliographyBarrett, F. & Fry, R. 2005. Appreciative Inquiry: A Positive Approach to Cooperative Capacity Building.

Chagrin Falls, OH: Taos Institute Publishing.

Cockell, J. & McArthur-Blair, J.2012. Appreciative Inquiry in Higher Education: a Transformative Force.

Jossey-Bass.

Cooperrider, D. L., Whitney, D., & Stavros, J. M. 2003. Appreciative inquiry handbook. Bedford Heights,

OH: Lakeshore Publishers.

Elliott, C. 1999. Locating the energy for change: An introduction to appreciative inquiry. Winnipeg,

Manitoba: International Institute for Sustainable Development.

Hammond, S. 1998. The Thin Book of Appreciative Inquiry. Thin Book Publishing Company, 1998.

Lewis, S., Passmore, J., & Cantore, S. (2008). Appreciative inquiry for change management: Using AI

to facilitate organizational development. Philadelphia: Kogan Page

Magruder Watkins, J., & Stavros, J.M. (2010). Appreciative inquiry: OD in the post-modern age. In W.J.

Rothwell, J.M. Stavros, R.L. Sullivan, & A. Sullivan (Eds.), Practicing organization development: A

guide for leading change, 3rd ed. (pp. 158-181). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Stavros, J. & Torres, C. 2005. Dynamic Relationships: Unleashing the Power of Appreciative Inquiry in

Daily Living. Chagrin Falls, OH: Taos Institute Publishing.

Sullivan, M. (2004). The promise of appreciative inquiry in library organizations. Library Trends 53(1),

218-229.

Whitney D. & Trosten-Bloom, A. 2003. The Power of Appreciative Inquiry: A Practical Guide to Positive

Change. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.