Question

At its core, an Appreciative Inquiry worldview would stand in stark opposition to unethical practice, which could explain why scarcely little is available in print that discusses the need for ethical behavior in Appreciative Inquiry . One clear ethical concern that was raised during the lesson on competency for effective Appreciative Inquiry practice was the idea of practitioners who view Appreciative Inquiry simply as another tool for facilitating OD, but don't necessarily buy into its philosophy. "Appreciative Inquiry is used as a technique or methodology by individuals who do not live the concept, but the majority of the study participants find that usage to be something different than truly effective Appreciative Inquiry practice, something contrived and empty of life-giving energy" and thus, an ethical issue (Newhard, 2010, p. 232). Those who do not embody the philosophy of AI could be doing a major disservice to the integrity of the concept. Using a casual, anecdotal scenario, imagine an established skeptic participating in his/her for first AI event facilitated by a practitioner who follows a deficit-based worldview. The facilitator does not believe in the efficacy of the methodology and questions its results orientation. The participant overhears the practitioner making disparaging remarks about the approach to change to a colleague on the phone. What might the gaff do to the audience's overall perception of the concept as the participant inevitably shares his/her story in sidebar conversations throughout the day? It would likely tarnish the hard-fought reputation in one thoughtless moment. I would argue that the AI approach deserves to be facilitated only by believers of the philosophy. What do you think?

Answer 1

Yes, the Appreciative Inquiry (AI) approach should ideally be facilitated only by practitioners who genuinely believe in and embody its philosophy. An individual who views AI merely as a tool without embracing its underlying principles risks compromising the integrity of the process, potentially leading to negative perceptions among participants and diminishing the effectiveness of AI as a positive change methodology.

Step-by-step explanation:

In the realm of Appreciative Inquiry (AI), the philosophy is not just a theoretical framework but a crucial element contributing to its success. AI is fundamentally rooted in a positive, strengths-based approach to organizational development, emphasizing the importance of affirming and amplifying what works well within a system.

When a practitioner conducts AI without genuine belief in its principles, it can manifest in subtle ways that undermine the process. In the scenario described, a skeptic facilitator who disparages AI during an event sends conflicting messages to participants. This incongruence between words and actions can erode trust and impact the overall perception of AI.

Furthermore, the impact of such a situation extends beyond the immediate event. Participants are likely to share their experiences in sidebar conversations, potentially tarnishing the reputation of AI as an effective methodology. Word-of-mouth plays a significant role in shaping perceptions, and a single instance of a practitioner not embodying AI principles can overshadow the positive aspects of the approach.

Therefore, to safeguard the integrity and reputation of AI, it is crucial that practitioners leading AI events are true believers in its philosophy, ensuring a congruence between their values and actions throughout the facilitation process.