See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249631477

Individual Leader Development: An Appreciative

Inquiry Approach

Article  in  Advances in Developing Human Resources · October 2008

DOI: 10.1177/1523422308321950

CITATIONS

17

READS

1,085

3 authors:

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Deliberate Practice View project

decision making exercise View project

Rama Kaye Hart

University of St. Thomas

10 PUBLICATIONS   114 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Thomas A. Conklin

Georgia State University

18 PUBLICATIONS   113 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Scott J. Allen

John Carroll University

40 PUBLICATIONS   224 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Thomas A. Conklin on 03 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

http://adh.sagepub.com

Resources Advances in Developing Human

DOI: 10.1177/1523422308321950 2008; 10; 632 Advances in Developing Human Resources

Rama Kaye Hart, Thomas A. Conklin and Scott J. Allen Individual Leader Development: An Appreciative Inquiry Approach

http://adh.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/10/5/632 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Academy of Human Resource Development

can be found at:Advances in Developing Human Resources Additional services and information for

http://adh.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://adh.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://adh.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/10/5/632SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):

(this article cites 25 articles hosted on the Citations

at GANNON UNIV on September 30, 2008 http://adh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Individual Leader Development:An Appreciative InquiryApproach

Rama Kaye HartThomas A. ConklinScott J.Allen

The problem and the solution. Leader development, expanding anindividual’s leadership capacity, may include learning to transform per-spectives as one objective.This paper explores how such transforma-tion might be achieved through appreciative inquiry (AI).The authorsdefine AI and transformative learning and articulate a perspectivebeing advanced which highlights the relationship between them. Usingtwo illustrative examples from organizational and educational set-tings, the authors describe the AI process and propose how theprocess might be conducted to achieve transformative leader devel-opment.Through these examples, they explore the types of affirma-tive questions that guided participants’ conversations and led tocommitment to action and shift in perspectives that are importantelements of transformative learning.The authors propose that AI mayincrease a leader’s capacity to generate his or her role anew throughinner work and an inside-out orientation (Hunt, 1987). They con-sider ways in which AI can be coupled with other sources of learning,expanding its use beyond a tool for developing organizationalleadership capacity through large-systems organizational change toone that is focused on developing individual leader capacity.

Keywords: appreciative inquiry; transformative learning; leader development

Leader development is seen as expanding a person’s capacity (McCauley &Van Velsor, 2005). Moreover, it is based on developing individual abilitiesassociated with the formal role (Day, 2001). On the other hand, leadershipdevelopment involves expanding an organization’s capacity to generateleadership for its work (McCauley & Van Velsor, 2005), and building and

Advances in Developing Human Resources Vol. 10, No. 5 October 2008 632-650DOI: 10.1177/1523422308321950Copyright 2008 Sage Publications

at GANNON UNIV on September 30, 2008 http://adh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Hart et al. / INDIVIDUAL LEADER DEVELOPMENT 633

using strengths in relating interpersonally within the organization (Day, 2001).In other words, leader development is development at an individual level, andleadership development involves interaction between the individual and thelarger social and organizational environment.

Leader development tools and sources of learning have been the focusof many organizational scholars (Cacioppe, 1998; Conger, 1989; Davis, 2001;Day, 2001, 2004; Fulmer & Wagner, 1999; Hernez-Broome & Hughes, 2004;London, 2002; McCall, Lombardo, & Morrison, 1988; McCauley, 2001;Pernick, 2001; Yukl, 2002). Conger (1992) suggests that leader developmentapproaches can be categorized into four primary areas:

1. Personal growth: Programs that induce participants to reflect on theirbehaviors (such as their orientation toward risk or personal intimacy),values, and desires.

2. Conceptual understanding: Programs that foster a conceptual under-standing of leadership theory (oriented by nature) focused on the issueof leader development through a cognitive understanding of the phe-nomenon.

3. Feedback: Programs where feedback constitutes a large portion of thetime and emphasis is placed on measuring the participant’s skill in awide range of leader behaviors.

4. Skill building: Program designers identify what they perceive to be thekey leadership skills that can be taught. These are formulated into mod-ules and introduced to participants who practice or model specificbehaviors. Participant performance is critiqued, and feedback directsthem to strengths and weaknesses. Participants then practice and refinetheir skills.

In addition to personal growth through building self-awareness, self-regulation, and self-motivation (Day, 2001), conceptual understanding is crit-ical to individual leader development. It is our belief that such new insightrequires transforming perspectives, as described by Mezirow (2000), who sug-gested that learning occurs when existing meaning structures (e.g., frames ofreference) are transformed or newly created.

In this paper, we will present appreciative inquiry (AI; Cooperrider &Srivastva, 1987) as an approach that can help generate transformative learning.We will define AI and transformative learning and articulate a perspectivebeing advanced which highlights the relationship between them. We willdescribe the AI process and propose how the process might be conducted toachieve transformative leader development, drawing on illustrative caseswhere we have employed it in workplace and educational settings. Finally, wewill consider ways in which AI can be coupled with other sources of learningto build leader capacity in individuals and identify opportunities for furtherresearch.

at GANNON UNIV on September 30, 2008 http://adh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Appreciative InquiryAI, a methodology most frequently used for organizational change, is

rooted in social constructionism (Berger & Luckmann, 1966) and inspired bythe positive psychology movement (Seligman, Steen, Park, & Peterson, 2005).Since its original conception as an alternative approach to traditional actionresearch for organizational change, AI has been applied, researched, and doc-umented as a transformational approach for a variety of uses, including devel-oping leadership capacity in organizations (Bushe & Kassam, 2005; Kierein &Gold , 2000; Ludema, Whitney, Mohr, & Griffin, 2003). Specifically, AI’s use-fulness as a tool for engaging participants in a collective process of reframingand generating possible futures has been demonstrated in many different con-texts, including organizations (Cooperrider & Avital, 2004; Cooperrider &Whitney, 2001; Ludema et al., 2003), personal relationships (Kelm, 2005;McNamee & Gergen, 1999; Stavros & Torres, 2005), adult education (Lander,2002), and diversity enhancement (Fry, Barrett, Seiling, & Whitney, 2002).

The positive principle, a central assumption within AI and one that is sharedby the positive psychology movement, is illustrated by the Pygmalion effect(Livingston, 1969) commonly understood as the self-fulfilling prophecy(Merton, 1968). To explain the power of positive image, Cooperrider also bor-rowed from the biological sciences, drawing an analogy between theheliotropic nature of plants and human systems (1990). Just as a plant willgrow toward the sun, organizations will also move toward images of theirfuture that are life-giving and hopeful. The alternative possibility of moving inthe direction of destructive images of the future, as outlined by Polak (1973),can be equally compelling. The conscious choice to focus on a life-givingimage rather than one of imminent demise mobilizes enormous energy and dif-ferentiates AI from other organization development approaches. This image isgenerated from the aggregate of experiences shared among participants thatcapture peak moments, life-giving factors, and stories of personal and organi-zational excellence.

The core principles of AI are supported by adult development and psychol-ogy literature. “Know yourself” (Laertius & Yonge, 2006) has long beenrespected as a quintessential element of personal development and central tothe idea of actualizing one’s potential. Hunt (1987) encouraged the reliance onand acknowledgement of experience as valid. He suggested “regain your trustin yourself and your experience” as an avenue to understanding human affairsand to “cut through the mystique of the experts, the experiments, and the sur-veys as royal roads to knowledge” (p. 3). Similar sentiments have been sharedby Rogers, who asserted “evaluation by others is not a guide for me. Experiencefor me is the highest authority” (1961, p. 23).

AI is predicated on narrating and reflecting on one’s lived experience, one’scontribution to, and the conditions surrounding that experience. This reflectionprovides the groundwork for creating images of possibility for transformation.

Advances in Developing Human Resources October 2008634

at GANNON UNIV on September 30, 2008 http://adh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

From a constructionist perspective, AI involves small-group dialogue to identifyconnection points and generatively build shared meaning out of experiences sothat action can be taken collectively. This concept of reflection-in-action (Schön,1983) is also supported by Schumacher (1973) in his writing on the value ofdoing “inner work” (p. 297) as an avenue to greater contribution to others andour projects. He asserts that the guidance for this cannot be found in science ortechnology but must be undertaken in the traditional wisdom of humankindthrough relationship and introspection.

Transformative LearningIn a previous issue of this journal, Brooks (2004) provided a review of

transformative learning theory and its potential contribution to human resourcedevelopment (HRD) in an increasingly complex organizational context.Brooks examined several theoretical perspectives on transformative learning,including that of Jack Mezirow (1978), who is widely regarded as having con-tributed most to the development of transformative learning theory. Mezirowfocused his work on how individuals interpret and make meaning of theirexperiences. He defined learning as “the process of using a prior interpretationto construe a new or a revised interpretation of the meaning of one’s experi-ence in order to guide future action” (Mezirow, 1996, p. 162). Likewise,Merriam and Caffarella (1999) suggested that “learning can consist of achange in one of our beliefs or attitudes (a meaning scheme) or it can be achange in our entire perspective. A change in perspective is personally eman-cipating in that one is freed from previously held beliefs, attitudes, values andfeelings that have constricted or distorted one’s life” (p. 320).

Transformative learning is adaptive work—there is likely no clear solutionor process (Heifetz & Linsky, 2002). New meaning-making systems must beintroduced to yield new results. As Mezirow described,

Transformative learning refers to the process by which we transform our taken-for-grantedframes of references (meaning perspectives, habits of mind, mind-sets) to make them moreinclusive, discriminating, open, emotionally capable of change, and reflective so that they maygenerate beliefs and opinions that will prove more true or justified to guide action. (2000, p. 7)

Mezirow (2000, p. 22) suggested that transformation usually occurs in someform of the following 10 stages:

1. A disorienting dilemma2. Self examination with feelings of fear, anger, guilt, or shame3. A critical assessment of assumptions4. Recognition that one’s discontent and the process of transfor-

mation are shared5. Exploration of options for new roles, relationships, and actions

Hart et al. / INDIVIDUAL LEADER DEVELOPMENT 635

at GANNON UNIV on September 30, 2008 http://adh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

6. Planning a course of action7. Acquiring knowledge and skills for implementing one’s plans8. Provisional trying of new roles9. Building competence and self-confidence in new roles and rela-

tionships10. A reintegration into one’s life of conditions dictated by one’s

new perspective

A few of these stages deserve commentary. First, a central theme of Mezirow’swork is the concept of a disorienting dilemma. According to Allen (2007),

A disorienting dilemma is a life event or crisis that forces individuals to see their world, theirrelationships, and/or their lives in different and new ways. As an aside, it does not necessarilyhave to be one event; a disorienting dilemma can be a string of events or combination of eventsthat cause people to change their views. (p. 34)

Mezirow underscored the need for critical reflection following the experienceof a disorienting dilemma.

Brookfield (1986) asserted, “Education is centrally concerned with thedevelopment of a critically aware frame of mind, not with the uncritical assim-ilation of previously defined skills or bodies of knowledge” (p. 17). In otherwords, when individuals practice reflecting on experience and “construe a newor a revised interpretation of the meaning of one’s experience in order to guidefuture action” (Mezirow, 1996, p. 162), the transformative potential from theexperience is greater.

Mezirow also emphasized the need for discourse to make meaning of expe-rience. Discourse may occur with a close friend, a therapist, or colleagues.Regardless of the venue, discourse offers individuals an opportunity to explorepotential meaning for the experience. In addition, Mezirow underscored theimportance of action, which offers learners the opportunity to try new roles,build efficacy and confidence, and integrate the new ways of being intotheir lives.

The Transformative Nature of AIThere are several ways AI may support Mezirow’s elements of transforma-

tive learning. First, a disorienting dilemma may precede the decision to partic-ipate in a learning process such as AI. Second, AI requires participants to seethemselves anew as having the capacity to juxtapose their excellence in thepast with the capacity to construct a possible future. Because AI is based in asocial process as well as an internal one, it supports the need to make mean-ing out of experiences collectively. And finally, AI is fundamentally an action-oriented approach, requiring participants to choose the most critical areasrelated to their topic and then make commitments to take responsibility for

Advances in Developing Human Resources October 2008636

at GANNON UNIV on September 30, 2008 http://adh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Hart et al. / INDIVIDUAL LEADER DEVELOPMENT 637

specific action. In their discussion of the connections between AI and transfor-mative learning for organizational change, Donovan, Meyer, and Fitzgerald(2007) highlighted the complementary aspects between AI and transformativelearning as comprising stories and narratives, reflexivity at the individual andorganizational levels, and the ability of AI to provide the strategy to createchange necessary for transformative organizational learning to be successful.

Critics of AI as a viable approach for transformative learning may arguethat by placing a singular focus on life-giving forces and positive and/or suc-cessful experiences, leaders may not engage in the examination of how men-tal models have developed and consequently fail to unmask counterproductiveroutines (Argyris, 2000). However, we stress that AI can help people generatea new frame or mindset and end the downward spiral into defense mechanismsreminiscent of Argyris and Schön’s Model 1 theory-in-use (1974). As Barrettsuggests (1995), “Generative learning requires an appreciative approach—anability to see radical possibilities beyond the boundaries of problems as theypresent themselves in conventional terms. High performing organizations thatengage in generative, innovative learning are competent at appreciating poten-tial and possibility” (p. 37).

Thatchenkery and Metzker (2006) applied this notion to the individual, see-ing reframing as a major component of what they call appreciative intelli-gence. They assert that appreciative intelligence involves insight, shifting howsomething is viewed in the present. They do not deny that the negative ele-ments exist. But appreciative intelligence, they add, also involves appreciatingthe positive and then seeing how the future unfolds. They suggest that there arefour qualities exhibited by people with appreciative intelligence, includingpersistence, conviction that one’s actions matter, tolerance for uncertainty, andirrepressible resilience.

By engaging in such a reframing and radical shift of perspective from thestatus quo and from theories-in-use, AI allows individuals to generate some-thing beyond espoused theory: an ideal theory through imagining what is pos-sible in the future based on what has been most successful in the past.Powerful evidence to support this assertion comes from studies of after-eventreviews, which test whether differences exist in the ability to learn from fail-ures and successes. Ellis and Davidi (2005) found that after-event reviews thatinclude an opportunity to reflect on successes as well as failures generate anincreased ability for participants (soldiers conducting navigation exercises) torevise their mental models compared to reviews that focused solely on learn-ing from failures.

Applying Appreciative Inquiry to Leader DevelopmentThe process of conducting AI is based on conversations guided by affirma-

tive questions which can help generate new insight and awareness. These

at GANNON UNIV on September 30, 2008 http://adh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Advances in Developing Human Resources October 2008638

questions are explored by all participants in a social system through small-group conversation. This process begins to reflect the interdependent nature ofdialogue and its contribution to the creation of a reality based on the synergis-tic power of each person’s thoughts, actions, and words.

AI is typically conducted using the 4-D cycle (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2001).The 4Ds represent the four phases of AI: discovery, dream, design, and destiny.Figure 1 illustrates the 4-D cycle and the activities conducted during the process.

The discovery phase is devoted to reflection on high points and peak expe-riences related to the organization generally and to the topics of interest morespecifically. This experience allows participants to appreciate life-giving fac-tors (the best of what was and is) through a cocreated conversation, in whichinterviewer and interviewee are at once describing and generating an affirma-tive memory of what has worked in the past. The discovery phase lays thegroundwork for the process by building an appreciative vocabulary, givingparticipants the opportunity to benefit from the positive affect experiencedwhen they were at their best, and provides content to build upon in the subse-quent phases. To illustrate, in an AI process for leader development, the dis-covery stage may include questions such as:

• When have you experienced great leadership at [your organization]?• Think of a peak moment or high point in your experience of

leading here or elsewhere.

Destiny:What will

be?

AffirmativeRelationships and

Topic Choice

Discovery:What has

been?

Design:What

should be?

Dream:What could

be?

FIGURE 1: Appreciative Inquiry 4-D Cycle

at GANNON UNIV on September 30, 2008 http://adh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Hart et al. / INDIVIDUAL LEADER DEVELOPMENT 639

• What did you/others do to help that take place?• What happened as a result of that leadership?• What was life-giving about that leadership?• What gave life to that leadership?• What did you value most about that experience? Yourself?

Others? The organization?

The dream phase of AI is spent focusing on the possible future, or “whatmight be” for the participants. This phase is an unconstrained look at the ideal.In the case of leader development, this involves having participants imaginetheir greatest potential as a leader and envision that potential realized.Participants are encouraged to use the affirmative images described during thediscovery phase to help them envision how they might practice leadership inthe future. Thus, they use their constructed narrative of what has worked wellas a lens through which they may begin to reframe what is possible for thefuture. By focusing on the ideal, perspective transformation is facilitated:Participants shift their point of view from one that is informed by deficits theymight have experienced in organizational leadership and/or by their ownleadership gaps to a new perspective fed by reflections on the qualities thathave contributed to leadership success. The participants are asked to reflect onthese questions individually, in small groups, and again in a plenary discus-sion. Examples of the questions during this phase include:

• What are my highest hopes for leadership at [my organization]?• What would I see happening at [my organization] if great

leadership lived at all levels of this organization?• Who might I be as a leader?• What would great leadership look like in me/us?• What would I/we be doing as a great leader(s)? What are those

activities that we would be engaging in if we were great leaders?• What would have to happen for this to occur?• How would we relate to each other (peers) in this organization?• How would we relate to our subordinates here?• What would we be creating in the organization? Ourselves?

Others?

The third phase of the AI process, design, begins in a plenary group withtime available for the group to discuss its thoughts on what has been shared.Observations, interpretations, and new meanings are expressed in the interestof gathering a clearer understanding of what each small group generated. Inaddition to the pursuit of clarity, there is also one last opportunity to “get onthe ballot.” This offers one last chance for participants to present somethingthat they felt passionate about before moving on to the final step.

at GANNON UNIV on September 30, 2008 http://adh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

At the close of this discussion participants are given the opportunity toidentify what was most important for them individually. This is introduced bydescribing the idea of a gallery walk similar to a stroll through an art museumwhere they can review and reflect on the “jewels” that have been created. Onceparticipants have an opportunity to review those factors believed to contributeto peak leadership, they are asked to rank the three items that are most relevantfor them personally.

After this step, they return to their small groups to generate a provocativeproposition to present to the large group. These statements bridge the best of“what is” with what “might be” based on the themes that emerge. They reflectthe leader characteristics identified as essential to excellence and are createdwith attention to the following criteria:

• Is it provocative—does it stretch, challenge, or interrupt?• Is it grounded—does it represent the ideal as a real possibility?• Is it desired—if it could be actualized, would the organization

want it; is it a preferred future?• Is it stated in affirmative and bold terms?

In the destiny phase, participants commit to actions to help them move fromthe individually identified items that are central to creating peak leadershipcapacity to the manifestation of this potential in their work lives. This step isbest summarized by answering the question, Who will do what by when andhow will we know? Following this session participants are asked to make apublic commitment to what they will do to enact greater leader potential on thepremise that a public commitment encourages follow-through beyond what anunspoken personal commitment might engender.

Appreciative Inquiry in PracticeWe will describe two examples to illustrate how elements of transformative

learning can be achieved through the use of the AI methodology describedabove. The first example is an inquiry into leader development in middle- andlower level managers at a multinational corporation that manufactures indus-trial and commercial products in the electrical, fluid power, truck, and automo-tive industries. Statements representing individual commitments to actionrepresented the outcome of the AI process, and illustrate how AI can addressan action orientation through a dialogic process. In the second example, AI isconducted in a classroom environment to engage students in leading theirlearning experience through a cocreation process. Participants reported theimpact the exercise had on their learning, which reveals that transformation inperspective can occur.

Advances in Developing Human Resources October 2008640

at GANNON UNIV on September 30, 2008 http://adh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Hart et al. / INDIVIDUAL LEADER DEVELOPMENT 641

AI for Leader Development Among ManagersThe AI Process

The Midwestern manufacturing organization had approximately 59,000employees with customers in more than 125 countries and a production pres-ence in 29 countries. The AI workshop was conducted with 45 to 50 managerscoming together from six different facilities across the country for a 2-dayretreat. The morning of the first day was occupied with comments from thevice president of the division, a review of their lean corporate philosophy, anda brief discussion of high performance work places. The actual workshopbegan in the last hour of the morning session on Day 1 prior to lunch when thefacilitator presented a high-level review of the AI process and how it related toleader development.

The retreat was intended to help production managers see the link betweenindividual leader behavior and business results, to challenge and change behav-ior, and to develop effective positive language to drive results and encourage highperformance. The specific objectives of the training were to develop:

• Skills to build and motivate a team to increase ownership, account-ability, and results.

• Managerial courage and risk-taking ability.• Leadership skills to coach and recognize employees and

achieve higher performance levels.

This group of managers had not received training for a number of years,was reportedly feeling neglected, and had experienced significant turnover inrecent years that led to limitations among the current cohort. AI was selectedas the ideal approach for this work because it leverages best experiences in agiven topic area. Because the group consisted of those who had experience andothers who were new to their manager role, AI would enable participants toreflect on best experiences of leading or being led in the current or previouscontexts. The same small groups of 4 to 5 stayed intact over the course of theevent. They moved through the four stages of the AI process including the dis-covery, dream, design, and destination phases.

The image driving the group design was the possibility that at the end ofthis workshop there would be enough relationship among participants that theymight call each other to follow up on ideas and commitments after the work-shop ended and each of them returned to their respective facility. The ran-domly composed small groups included members from the same facilities(there were only six facilities represented) who knew one another as well asthose from other facilities who were meeting one another anew.

Once groups were established, a brief get-acquainted exercise was com-pleted among dyads to facilitate relationship development. This exercisehad an appreciative orientation to it that fostered stories of success. The

at GANNON UNIV on September 30, 2008 http://adh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Advances in Developing Human Resources October 2008642

participants used this exercise to introduce one another to the entire group. Thequestions that were asked included:

• What is your name and where are you from?• Tell me of your greatest success in your life, not just at work

but as you consider your entire life so far.• What is your greatest hope for your life? What do you hope to

accomplish before you shuffle off this mortal plane that wouldmake your life complete?

The AI questions described previously were presented to participants in thedream step of the AI 4-D model. They were intended to be provocative stim-uli to unleashing their greatest hopes for the organization and their leaderpotential. The conversations during the stages of AI were facilitated by partic-ipants while the facilitator moved among the groups to provide clarity of theprocess.

Analysis and Discoveries

Thematic analysis (Boyatzis, 1998) was used to interpret the commitmentstatements made during the destiny stage of the AI process. The authors ana-lyzed the statements individually and then compared their coding to establisha measure of reliability and to identify the codable statements while attendingto the greatest distinctions between them. Ongoing dialogue between theauthors of the study contributed to inter-rater reliability that yielded the cate-gories reflected in the paper. Three areas for leader development emerged fromthis case example: (a) self development, (b) employee development, and (c)change leadership. Statements reflecting these themes are captured in Table 1.

This case is limited in that the individuals were not asked directly about thenature of their development—whether the experience was transformational ornot. However, several elements described by Mezirow (2000) as being critical fortransformative learning were present for this group of managers. After the event,the participants in this AI process anecdotally reported that they moved from feel-ing “neglected” and demoralized as a result of significant turnover for the pastseveral years to being able to identify multiple ways in which they could developthemselves and their employees. This situation created an opportunity for the dis-orienting dilemma provided by AI in that it represented a novel approach to inter-preting their experience and a realization of their agency in constructing andbeing able to change it. The products of the experience, the commitment state-ments, do represent an orientation to action—one of the factors Mezirowdescribes as comprising transformative learning (2000).

The significant discussion component of AI seeks to facilitate greater dis-covery of self and deeper understanding of that self in relation to others. AIalso relies on relationship building that emerges through the interview process

at GANNON UNIV on September 30, 2008 http://adh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

643

TA

BL

E1:

Co

mm

itm

ent

Sta

tem

ents

Res

ulti

ng F

rom

App

reci

ativ

e In

quir

y In

to L

eade

rshi

p

Sel

f D

evel

opm

ent

Em

ploy

ee D

evel

opm

ent

Cha

nge

Lea

ders

hip

I will

tak

e in

itiat

ive

and

lead

I will

par

ticip

ate

I wan

t to

tak

e a

stan

d an

d fin

d m

y vo

ice

I wan

t to

be

cons

iste

ntI w

ant

to b

e a

solu

tion,

not

a pr

oble

mI w

ill fi

nish

wha

t I s

tart

edI w

ill n

ot b

e af

raid

to

ask

for

help

I will

be

conf

iden

t in

my

pers

uasi

on s

kills

betw

een

man

agem

ent

and

staf

f (bu

ild t

rust

)I w

ill b

e ho

nest

I will

MBW

A (

man

age

by w

alki

ng a

roun

d)I w

ill b

e ca

utio

us o

f fir

st im

pres

sion

sI w

ill g

row

thr

ough

sel

f-dev

elop

men

tI w

ill p

ract

ice

lead

ing

I will

pra

ctic

e w

hat

I pre

ach

I will

be

impa

rtia

lI w

ill t

ake

the

time

to b

e a

bett

er li

sten

erLi

sten

,lis

ten,

liste

nI w

ill t

ake

the

time

to h

ear

wha

t th

ey’re

sayi

ngI w

ill lo

ok 'e

m in

the

eye

whe

n I’m

list

enin

gI w

ill t

ake

risk

s an

d tr

ust

peop

le

I will

enc

oura

ge p

artic

ipat

ion

and

buy-

infr

om o

ur g

roup

I will

del

egat

e re

spon

sibi

lity

I will

rec

ogni

ze a

nd a

ppre

ciat

e ot

hers

I will

net

wor

k an

d ca

ll on

oth

ers

I will

hel

p ot

hers

und

erst

and

I will

set

the

exp

ecta

tion

that

“w

e w

ill w

ork

wel

l tog

ethe

r”I w

ill b

e ac

cess

ible

to

empl

oyee

sI w

ill c

oach

and

giv

e fe

edba

ckI w

ill g

ive

up o

wne

rshi

p of

tas

ksI w

ill t

each

oth

ers

the

busi

ness

at

my

leve

lI w

ill h

elp

othe

rs b

e m

ore

self-

suffi

cien

tI w

ill e

mpo

wer

oth

ers

I will

sha

re s

ucce

sses

of i

ndiv

idua

ls o

n m

yte

am w

ith o

ther

s ou

tsid

e m

y te

am a

nd n

otpr

otec

t m

y em

pire

I will

be

spec

ific

in p

rais

eI w

ant

to b

e a

coac

hI w

ant

to g

et t

o kn

ow m

y st

aff

I wan

t to

del

egat

e an

d de

velo

p ot

hers

I wan

t to

dev

elop

tru

st a

nd m

aint

ain

my

sani

tyI w

ant

to s

uppo

rt e

mpl

oyee

s in

thei

r ad

vanc

emen

t

I will

look

for

oppo

rtun

ities

to

mak

e th

ings

bett

erI w

ill k

eep

a po

sitiv

e at

titud

eI w

ill p

rom

ote

and

supp

ort

chan

ge a

ndco

mpa

ny a

ctio

nsI w

ill h

elp

othe

rs u

nder

stan

dI w

ill d

rive

out

fear

I will

be

a ge

nuin

e ch

eerl

eade

rI w

ant

to fa

cilit

ate

chan

geI w

ant

to h

ave

the

cour

age

to c

hang

e

at GANNON UNIV on September 30, 2008 http://adh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Advances in Developing Human Resources October 2008644

and small-group focus. These conversations have the potential to reveal facetsof self in relation to issues salient to the organization and how those areengaged at the intersection of work and self. That these commitment state-ments emerged for participants reveals some tacit understanding (Polanyi,1983) of activities and relational orientations that, heretofore, have not mate-rialized or may have been neglected—a growth in conceptual understanding ofwhat it means to be a leader (Conger, 1992).

AI for Transformative Learning in the ClassroomThe AI Process

Our second example refers to Conklin’s (in press) use of AI with numerousorganizational studies classes to engage students at the beginning of thesemester in cocreating the learning experience. Specifically, the objectives ofconducting the AI include:

• To provide an opportunity for students to learn about and expe-rience a process that is being increasingly used in organizationallife and which they are likely to encounter once they enter thework force.

• To confront tacit and explicit norms of learning (powerless,other oriented, and recipient versus creator).

• To create an experience that fosters greater self-reliance, inde-pendence, self-direction, and autonomy.

• To invite students into a more responsible opportunity for theireducation through an exercise that celebrates their experienceas valid, worthy, and reliable. (Conklin, in press)

The questions used for the four phases of the AI process are similar to thoseidentified above; however, the focus is on learning rather than leading.

Analysis and Discoveries

In an effort to ascertain the level of transformation from the in-class exer-cise, students complete a follow-up questionnaire at the completion of theexercise to reflect and comment on the meaning, if any, of the exercise forthem in the class, as well in the larger arena of their lives. Numerous com-ments were shared that reflected some transformation in their perspective. Thequestions asked of the participants included:

• What did you like about this exercise?• What happened that you found life-giving, freeing?• What did you learn from this exercise?

at GANNON UNIV on September 30, 2008 http://adh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Hart et al. / INDIVIDUAL LEADER DEVELOPMENT 645

• How do you feel now about possibilities in other domains ofyour life after having engaged in this exercise?

• Are there new possibilities for you to impact other domains ofyour life and thereby change your experience there? (Conklin,in press)

Conklin (in press) described how several responses reflected a shift in pointof view as a result of this exercise. Students provided feedback such as:

• The group (AI) experience of sharing with others really openedup my line of thinking.

• Reflecting on what was successful was life-giving andreminded me that I do have leadership and management skills.

• I will think more “big picture” of how I’d want something to goand plan more around how that situation can be more ideal.

• I see new possibilities in group activities and my professionallife, as well as with significant others.

• It (the exercise) makes me wonder what possibilities exist andmakes me relate what is discussed in class to many otheraspects of my life.

• I feel like I can lead a group now.• I feel more open to possibilities.• I see opportunity to apply strengths to areas other than work.

Conclusions and ImplicationsImplications for Human Resource Development

As illustrated through the case study above, using AI for leader develop-ment resulted in greater self-awareness, commitment to self and employeedevelopment, and a commitment to serving as leaders of change for the orga-nization. In what ways can HRD professionals employ AI to assist in leaderdevelopment initiatives that accomplish these goals? We suggest using AI as acomplementary approach to other HRD tools for leader development, specifi-cally focusing on two areas: action learning and executive coaching.

Action learning is defined as:

Learning from concrete experience and critical reflection on that experience—through groupdiscussion, trial and error, discovery, and learning from and with each other. It is a process bywhich groups of people (whether managers, academics, teachers, students or “learners” gen-erally) address actual workplace issues or problems, in complex situations and conditions.(Zuber-Skerritt, 2002, p. 114)

An AI-focused action learning process would incorporate critical reflectionby seeking to learn from failures as well as successes in terms of the problem.

at GANNON UNIV on September 30, 2008 http://adh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

The notion of problem in action learning simply means challenges requiringadaptive solutions (Heifetz & Linsky, 2002) that are complex, do not have aright or wrong answer, and, if left alone, result in escalating issues. Group dis-cussion and relational dialogue are integral components of both action learn-ing and AI. The inquiry process for action learning traditionally focuses onproblem identification and problem solving. From an AI perspective, the iden-tification of the focus area would come through “topic choice” and problemsolving would be replaced by inquiry into the ideal past and future for thattopic. In conducting AI-focused action learning, attention must be placed on theneed for reflective learning throughout the process (Conger & Benjamin, 1999),remembering what Doltlich and Noel (1998) suggested: “Self-reflection iswhat distinguishes action learning from normal work” (p. 31).

Success with such an approach has been illustrated by Peele (2006). In astudy comparing teams engaged in creative problem solving versus teamsemploying appreciative inquiry, Peele found that individuals in the AI teamsreported higher self-efficacy and a stronger sense of team cohesiveness than inthe problem-solving teams. In addition, Avital (2005) describes how AI hasbeen successfully used in concert with action learning in information systemseducation. The workshop he designed incorporates AI with collaborative par-ticipatory design, shifting the traditional thinking in information technologydesign from a perspective that highlights mistakes, errors, and ways theirdesign process has failed to one that captures successes and seeks to recreatethose successes in future initiatives.

Executive coaching is another area that can be conducted in concert withAI. Witherspoon and White (1996) divided coaching into three distinct cate-gories: coaching for skills, performance, and development. Coaching for skillshelps individuals acquire specific knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Coachingfor performance assists individuals in performing better in their current rolesto correct ineffective behaviors in a reactive or proactive manner. Because goalclarity may be difficult to define, coaching for performance may be a long-term endeavor. Coaching for development focuses on the future; this is coach-ing in a proactive manner for high-potential individuals and could be easilyapproached through an AI perspective.

The benefits accrued by coaching may be strengthened by AI and wouldenhance the potential for transformative learning. First, the term coachingimplies a long-term and in-depth relationship as opposed to a seminar or class-room experience (Niemes, 2002; Tobias, 1996). AI, as we have explained,occurs most successfully in relational conversation, and the intersubjectivityinvolved with the AI process would well serve the lengthy leader/coach rela-tionship. As a result, the AI-centered coaching intervention can meet the spe-cific needs of individuals (Niemes, 2002; Tobias, 1996; Witherspoon & White,1996), which sustains their focus and assists them in developing new habitsand ways of being (Tobias, 1996). A final benefit is that the learning is of

Advances in Developing Human Resources October 2008646

at GANNON UNIV on September 30, 2008 http://adh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

immediate relevance to the individual being coached (Bennett, 2003; Niemes,2002). AI-centered coaching would guide the leader/coach conversations inrealizing the ideal vision each leader has generated for his self-developmentand effective action within his career and organizational life.

Implications for Research

In this paper, we have expressed the possibility that AI provides anapproach to perspective transformation in leader development. We illustratehow this is possible through examples of an AI in an organizational setting forleader development and an educational setting for learning design, and we citesupport for this perspective emerging in theory and research.

Bushe and Kassam (2005) provided an excellent template for evaluating AIas a tool for transformational change in organizations. However, they point outthat systematic research linking AI to outcomes is limited. There are field stud-ies linking AI to learning outcomes through follow-up assessment, such aswhat Burns (2005) accomplished when evaluating the effectiveness of AI forwhole systems change with educators. The work of Neville (2008) and Avital(2005) illustrated applied research in which AI was used to develop replicablepedagogical approaches and which resulted in positive learning outcomes.

We acknowledge that further research specifically measuring outcomesrelated to transformative learning—how AI helps leaders develop new framesof reference, habits of mind, and points of view—is critically necessary. AImethodologies and potential applications to HRD will be significantlystrengthened by studies that examine its effect on outcomes related to leaderdevelopment, learning, as well as organizational change.

An important area for research will be an exploration of the relationshipbetween transformation perceived as a result of participation in the AI processand behavioral changes in the workplace. For example, are the commitmentsto action sustained after participation in AI? Also, comprehensive researchmust be conducted to examine whether the elements of transformative learn-ing as described by Mezirow (2000) can be accomplished through an AIprocess for leader development or whether AI for transformative learning isbest approached through a combination with other more critical methodolo-gies such as action learning or creative problem solving.

References

Allen, S. J. (2007). Adult learning theory and leadership development. LeadershipReview, 7, 26-37.

Argyris, C. (2000). Flawed advice and the management trap: How managers can knowwhen they’re getting good advice and when they’re not. Oxford, UK: OxfordUniversity Press.

Hart et al. / INDIVIDUAL LEADER DEVELOPMENT 647

at GANNON UNIV on September 30, 2008 http://adh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Advances in Developing Human Resources October 2008648

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1974). Theory in practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Avital, M. (2005). Innovation information systems education I: Accelerated systems

analysis and design with appreciative inquiry-an action learning approach.Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 15, 289-314.

Barrett, F. J. (1995). Creating appreciative learning cultures. Organizational Dynamics,24(2), 36-49.

Bennett, B. (2003). Developmental coaching. Training Strategies for Tomorrow, 17(4),16-19.

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966) The social construction of reality: A treatise inthe sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis andcode development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Brookfield, S. (1986). Understanding and facilitating adult learning. San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.

Brooks, A. K. (2004). Transformational learning theory and implications for humanresource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6(2), 211-225.

Burns, S. (2005). The so what test: A case study of strategic educational change.Organization Development Journal, 23(4), 92-95.

Bushe, G. R., & Kassam, A. F. (2005). When is appreciative inquiry transformational?A meta-case analysis. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41(2), 161-181.

Cacioppe, R. (1998). An integrated model and approach for the design of effectiveleadership development programs. Leadership and Organization DevelopmentJournal, 19(1), 44-53.

Conger, J. (1989). The charismatic leader: Behind the mystique of exceptionalleadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Conger, J. (1992). Learning to lead: The art of transforming managers into leaders.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Conger, J., & Benjamin, B. (1999). Building leaders: How successful companiesdevelop the next generation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Conklin, T. A. (in press). Creating classrooms of preference: An exercise in apprecia-tive inquiry. Journal of Management Education.

Cooperrider, D. L. (1990). Positive image, positive action: The affirmative basis oforganizing. In S. Srivastva & D. L. Cooperrider & Associates (Eds.), Appreciativemanagement and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cooperrider, D. L., & Avital, M. (Eds.). (2004). Advances in appreciative inquiry:Constructive discourse and human organization (Vol. 1). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Cooperrider, D., & Srivastva, S. (1987). Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. InR. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change anddevelopment (Vol. 1, pp. 129-169). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Coopperrider, D. L., & Whitney, D. (2001). A positive revolution in change. InD. L. Cooperrider, P. Sorenson, D. Whitney, & T. Yeager (Eds.), Appreciative inquiry:An emerging direction for organization development. Champaign, IL: Stipes.

Davis, N. (2001). Building muscle: Developing leaders with follower weight.Organization Development Journal, 19(3), 27-25.

Day, D. (2001). Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly,11(4), 581-613.

Day, D. (2004). Leadership development. In G. Goethals, G. Sorenson, & J. Burns,(Eds.), The encyclopedia of leadership, volume 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

at GANNON UNIV on September 30, 2008 http://adh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Hart et al. / INDIVIDUAL LEADER DEVELOPMENT 649

Doltich, D. L., & Noel, J. L. (1998). Action learning: How the world’s top companiesare creating their leaders themselves. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Donovan, L. L., Meyer, S. R., & Fitzgerald, S. P. (2007). Transformative learning andappreciative inquiry: A more perfect union for deep organizational change.Proceedings of the Academy of Management, Philadelphia.

Ellis, S., & Davidi, I. (2005). After-event reviews: Drawing lessons from successful andfailed experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 857-871.

Fry, R., Barrett, F., Seiling, J., & Whitney, D. (Eds.). (2002). Appreciative inquiry andorganizational transformation: Reports from the field. Westport, CT: Quorum.

Fulmer, R., & Wagner, S. (1999). Leadership: Lessons from the best. Training &Development, 53(3), 29-32.

Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership on the line. Cambridge, MA: HarvardBusiness Review.

Hernez-Broome, G., & Hughes, R. L. (2004). Leadership development: Past, present,and future. Human Resource Planning, 27(1), 24-32.

Hunt, D. E. (1987). Beginning with ourselves: In practice, theory, and human affairs.Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

Kelm, J. B. (2005). Appreciative living: The principles of appreciative inquiry in per-sonal life. Wake Forest, NC: Venet Publishers.

Kierein, N. M., & Gold, M. A. (2000). Pygmalion in work organizations: A meta-analysis.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 8, 913.

Laertius, D., & Yonge, C. D. (2006). The lives and opinions of eminent philosophers(C. D. Yonge, Trans.). Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing, LLC.

Lander, D. A. (2002). Teaching and learning research literacies in graduate adult edu-cation: Appreciative inquiry into practitioners ways of writing. Canadian Journal ofUniversity Continuing Education, 28(1), 31-55.

Livingston, I. S. (1969). Pygmalion in management. Harvard Business Review,47(4), 81-90.

London, M. (2002). Leadership development: Paths to self-insight and professionalgrowth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ludema, J. D., Whitney, D., Mohr, B. J., & Griffin, T. J. (2003). The appreciativeinquiry summit: A practitioner’s guide for leading large group change. SanFrancisco: Berrett-Koehler.

McCall, M. W., Lombardo, M. M., & Morrison, A. M. (1988). The lessons of experience:How successful executives develop on the job. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

McCauley, C. D., & Van Velsor, E. (Eds.). (2005). The center for creative leadership:Handbook of leadership development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

McCauley, C. D. (2001). Leader training and leader development. In S. J. Zaccaro &R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), The nature of organizational leadership: Understanding the perfor-mance imperatives confronting today’s leaders (pp. 347-383). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

McNamee, S., & Gergen K. J. (1999). Relational responsibility: Resources for sustain-able dialogue. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1999). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensiveguide (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York: Free PressMezirow, J. (1978). Perspective transformation. Adult Education Quarterly, 28, 100-110.Mezirow, J. (1996). Contemporary paradigms of learning. Adult Education Quarterly,

46(3), 158-173.

at GANNON UNIV on September 30, 2008 http://adh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Mezirow, J., & Associates. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectiveson a theory in progress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Neville, M. (2008). Using appreciative inquiry and dialogical learning to explore dom-inant paradigms. Journal of Management Education, 32(1), 100-117.

Niemes, J. (2002). Discovering the values of executive coaching as a business transfor-mation tool. Journal of Organizational Excellence, 61-69.

Peele, H. E. III. (2006). Appreciative inquiry and creative problem solving in cross-functional teams. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42(4), 447-467.

Pernick, R. (2001). Creating a leadership development program: Nine essential tasks.Public Personnel Management, 30(4), 429-444.

Polak, F. (1973). The image of the future (E. Boulding, Trans.). Amsterdam, NY:Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company.

Polanyi, M. (1983). The tacit dimension. Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith.Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action.

New York: Basic Books.Schumacher, E. F. (1973). Small is beautiful. London: Abacus.Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress:

Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60(5), 410-421.Stavros, J. M., & Torres, C. B. (2005). Dynamic relationships: Unleashing the power

of appreciative inquiry in daily living. Taos, NM: Taos Institute Publications.Thatchenkery, T., & Metzker, C. (2006). Appreciative intelligence: Seeing the mighty

oak in the acorn. San Francisco: Barrett Koehler. Tobias, L. L. (1996). Coaching executives. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice

and Research, 48(2), 87-95. Witherspoon, R., & White, R. P. (1996). Executive coaching: A continuum of roles.

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48(2), 124-133.Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice Hall.Zuber-Skeritt, O. (2002). The concept of action learning. The Learning Organization,

9(3), 114-124.

Rama Kaye Hart is an assistant professor in the Department of Organizational Learningand Development at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Her teach-ing, research, and consulting interests and areas of focus include group dynamics andleadership, organization development, virtual/global team effectiveness, and interper-sonal relationships and communication in groups.

Thomas A. Conklin is an assistant professor in the Organizational Learning andLeadership doctoral program at Gannon University. His research interests are inleadership, appreciative inquiry, phenomenology, pedagogy, and careers.

Scott J. Allen is a visiting assistant professor at John Carroll University. His researchand interests include leadership, transformative development, emotional intelligenceand organizational change.

This refereed journal article is part of an entire issue on Emerging Practices inLeadership Development. For more information or to read other articles in the issue,see Ardichvili, A., & Manderscheid, S. V. (2008). Emerging Practices in LeadershipDevelopment. (Special issue). Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10(5).

Advances in Developing Human Resources October 2008650

at GANNON UNIV on September 30, 2008 http://adh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

View publication statsView publication stats