A comparative case study of appreciative inquiries in one organization: implications for practice

Eight different sites in a large, Canadian urban school district engaged in an appreciative inquiry into “what do we know about learning”. Data collected over the following year indicate that four of the sites experienced transformational changes, two sites had incremental changes and two showed little or no change. This paper describes the AI intervention in detail and then explores differences in each site that may explain differences in level of change. The level of positive affect and ratings of success of the AI Summits at each site showed no meaningful relationship to change outcomes. Level of change did appear to be related to how generative the inquiries were, how well the Discovery phase was managed and the quality of Design statements that came out of the summits. Other factors exogenous to the design of the AI also appeared to play a role. These included relations between teachers and principals, credibility of local change agents, passionate and engaged leadership, and linkage to pre-existing, shared concerns. Recommendations for AI practice are given.Appreciative Inquiry Summit; Collective Dream; Transformation; Case Study

Transforming Leadership

The complex challenges of today’s organizations are calling for a new kind of heroic leader. The unquestioned assumption that vision is a pre-requisite for successful change, and that leaders need to be visionaries who can show us the way, presumes the future is predictable, organizations are controllable, and that plans can be implemented.  We argue these assumptions are responsible for the abysmal failure rate of organization change programs. In this paper we will describe how our  ongoing study of newer change practices (Bushe & Marshak, 2009, 2014, 2015) leads us to argue that successful leadership in situations of volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity (VUCA), which describe most transformational change scenarios, will require very different assumptions about organizing and leading from the prevailing “Performance Mindset” that emphasizes instrumental and measurable goal setting and achievement.  Rather than identifying what the change will be, leaders need to identify and lead processes for  ngaging the necessary stakeholders in emergent change processes.  To do that successfully requires a Generative Leader Mindset that acknowledges and works with the social construction of organizations.  We identify seven assumptions we think underlie successful leadership practice in a VUCA world. The continuing emphasis on being a solitary, strategic thinker who can envision viable futures and the path to those futures does little to prepare today’s leaders for the complex, ever-changing challenges they face. Instead, leaders need to be able to hold the space of complexity and uncertainty in ways that encourage and enable emergent and generative transformational change

生成的なリーダーシップと対話型組織開発

南山大学人間関係研究センター公開講演会 日時：2018年7月13日（金）17:00～19:00 場所：南山大学 D棟DB1教室 講師：ジャーヴァス R. ブッシュ（サイモンフレーザー大学教授） （通訳：鈴木美津子、山口めぐみ） （編集：森泉哲、中村和彦

Using discrepancy theory to examine the relationship between shared cognition and group outcomes

This empirical study tests hypothesized relationships between team effectiveness and a measure of shared cognition that quantifies the degree of similarity between knowledge of the actual group and beliefs about preferred group states. The proposed model of shared cognition is based upon the triadic structure of actual-ideal-ought cognitive representations employed within self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987). The measure of shared cognition is derived by comparing the actual group-state representations of each member with both the ideal and ought group-state representations of the other members. This extends the measurement of shared cognition beyond the aggregation of individual measures and creates the potential for capturing group level cognitive structures that have the potential to evoke affect, influence motivation and impact outcomes. Hypotheses proposing a relationship between team effectiveness and both shared actual-ideal and shared actual-ought group-state representations are supported

Using Discrepancy Theory to Examine the Relationship between Shared Cognition and Group Outcomes

Purpose This empirical study tests hypothesized relationships between team effectiveness and a measure of shared cognition that quantifies the degree of similarity between knowledge of the actual group and beliefs about preferred group states. Design/methodology/approach The proposed model of shared cognition is based upon the triadic structure of actual‐ideal‐ought cognitive representations employed within self‐discrepancy theory. Self discrepancy theory proposes that the degree of discrepancy (similarity) between cognitive representations of the actual self and representations of both the ideal and ought self represents particular emotional situations. This study elevates the concept of a self‐state representation to the group level by asking group members to list attributes associated with the actual, ideal and ought group‐states (group‐state representations). Shared cognition for 56 project teams is measured by comparing the actual group‐state representations of each member with both the ideal and ought group‐state representations of the other members. This extends the measurement of shared cognition beyond the aggregation of individual measures and creates the potential for capturing group level cognition structures that have the potential to evoke affect, influence motivation and impact outcomes. Findings Hypotheses proposing a relationship between team effectiveness and both shared actual‐ideal and shared actual‐ought group‐state representations, mediated by cohesion and confidence in the team\u27s ability, respectively, are mostly supported. Originality/value By examining the degree of similarity between perceptions of what currently exists (knowledge) and what is preferred (belief) this research examines evaluative cognitive structures that have the potential to evoke affect, influence motivation and impact on outcomes

The NTL

O rganization development (OD) emerged in the 1960s as an identifiable field ofpractice that included action research, survey research, T-groups, humanistic psychology, open systems theory, team building, and process con sultation. Since then, ideas and methods have enriched and expanded its range of theories and approaches. Many of these ideas and methods have converged since the 1980s into a form of OD that differs in important ways from earlier OD theory and practice. We have labeled this recent develop ment "dialogic OD" and contrasted it with forms of "diagnostic OD" based on the earlier, foundational ideas and practices Basic Differences Between Diagnostic and Dialogic Organization Development In the last thirty years the postmodern and linguistic turn in the social sci ences, and the discoveries in non-linear and complexity natural sciences