W4D1 Granth

43More articles at www.aipractitioner.com

Practitioner November 2019 ISBN 978-1-907549-41-0 Volume 21 Number 4

I n our work, we often encounter relational tension, controversy, even conflict. It keeps us busy, even when we have an appreciative approach. We encountered reactions from clients and colleagues like: “we don’t have

room for negative thoughts”, “we work appreciatively, and we only focus on

the positive”, “no, don’t mention negative comments, that’s not appreciative”.

The real concerns have no place. Sometimes the effect is that people drop out,

and their concerns live on under the surface.

That’s why we like to talk about tension and conflict, and we like to do that in an

appreciative way. But that can be very challenging. We asked ourselves, how do

other AI practitioners think about this subject? How do they deal with tension?

Can we identify different approaches? How does AI help in situations where there

is tension? The idea of a workshop was born.

AI and conflict: Research

Appreciative Inquiry (AI) is an approach that advocates harmonious relationships

and positive interactions. Cooperrider and Srivastva (1987) argue that an

approach to leading, managing and changing organizations focusing on

problems, deficits and dysfunctions is demoralizing and ineffective in bringing

about change. They called, instead, for a focus on opportunities. Focusing on

what is working in an appreciative way raises morale and promotes generative

AI Practitioner, August 2019, Laarakker and van Kesteren: AI and the Value of Conflict

dx.doi.org/10.12781/978-1-907549-41-0-6

Hanneke Laarakker Hanneke Laarakker is a psychologist with a post-master’s degree in OD. After twenty years of working as a trainer/ consultant, she discovered AI and started to work as a consultant in appreciative OD. She is working on various AI projects in the Netherlands. She also provides AI and OD courses with Barbara at the Instituut voor Interventiekunde. Contact [email protected]

Appreciative Inquiry and the Value of Conflict In this article the authors discuss what different researchers have written about the effects of AI on situations which involve tension, what the downfall of AI is and what their own experience was through a case study. They also discuss how they provoked tension in a WAIC 2019 workshop, how they dealt with this, the participants’ responses and what their conclusions were.

Barbara van Kesteren Barbara van Kesteren is a social psychologist with a post- master’s degree in OD. While studying, she discovered AI and started to work as a consultant in appreciative OD. Recently, she has worked on various AI projects in the Netherlands. Barbara is co-owner of Instituut voor Interventiekunde where she teaches in OD and AI, and works for clients.. Contact [email protected]

44More articles at www.aipractitioner.com

Practitioner November 2019 ISBN 978-1-907549-41-0 Volume 21 Number 4

inquiry. AI generates spontaneous, transformational action on the part of

individuals, groups and organizations, which leads to a better future.

According to some researchers, such as Ralph Stacey, Robbert Masselink and

Gervase Bushe, by focusing on the positive, AI creates an incomplete image

that conceals the real processes going on when we are negotiating our realities

(Masselink in Stacey, 2016). There seems to be a dread of “negatives” such as

conflict and a conviction that success can only be achieved when all share the

same view, with breakdown as the consequence of not doing this (Stacey, 2016).

The critics of AI argue that positive and negative feelings are intimately

connected (Stacey, 2016). Without friction, no shine. And with exclusive attention

to the positive and trying to reach consensus, AI denies patterns of power

relations, resistance, conflicts and difference, resulting in a positive fantasy.

In that way AI focusses attention only on a small part of ordinary, daily life in

organizations (Stacey, 2016).

According to Gervase Bushe (2007), the positive can enhance generativity and

change. It is generativity that is the core of AI. Not the positive. “If someone

wants to talk about what they don’t like in their organizations telling them ‘no,

we can’t talk about that, this is an appreciative inquiry’, is likely to turn people

off” (Bushe, 2007). Especially if they have a lot of emotional charge around a

discussion, it is not wise to banish it. You can’t simply ignore it; it won’t go away

(Bushe, 2007).

In addition to that, research by Johnson, Johnson and Tjosvold (2000) shows

that it is very important to discuss controversy. In well-structured controversies,

participants are challenged with opposing views and get the chance to

incorporate others’ perspectives and reasoning into their thinking to reach a new

set of conclusions. This process significantly increases the quality of decision

making and problem solving, relationships and psychological health. Although

constructive controversy occurs naturally, it may be consciously structured in

decision making and learning situations.

A case from our own practice

We are part of an institute that educates professionals in Appreciative Inquiry

and intervention studies: how to help our clients to build bridges between what

they need, feel, think and say to what they really do, in order to make personal

and professional meaning out of their actions.

One of our groups had a hard time. They started their studies with three teachers.

But one of their teachers passed away and, shortly after that, another teacher

AI Practitioner, August 2019, Laarakker and van Kesteren: AI and the Value of Conflict

Although constructive controversy occurs naturally, it may be consciously structured in decision making and learning situations.

It is generativity that is the core of AI. Not the positive.

45More articles at www.aipractitioner.com

Practitioner November 2019 ISBN 978-1-907549-41-0 Volume 21 Number 4

quit her job, leaving the group feeling abandoned. The last teacher standing

asked new teachers to continue the curriculum. But the group didn’t accept their

presence so easily. Some participants threatened to quit the curriculum because

of all that had happened. It was really a difficult time for the whole system.

To sum up: we had to deal with resistance against the new teachers, who also felt

uneasy. The company feared losing participants – and income. The participants

who didn’t want to leave feared they might lose their group members. Also, there

was unresolved conflict between a few people. On top of that, there was a lot of

emotional charge. What did we do with this situation?

Back to the case

To deal with this conflict, we decided to work on a Wall of Wonder together,

combined with “Think Advising” (Edu Feltmann), around the question “What

happened?” The new teachers asked the group members, the director of the

company who was also the wife of the teacher who had passed away and the last

teacher who went through it all to list all the events of the previous few months.

In doing so, they asked them to only list those things that were facts: things they

have seen and heard with their own eyes and ears. While they were creating the

list, one of the participants said with tears in her eyes: “I can’t go any further,

I am so sad. We need to talk!” We made room for all the pain, discomfort,

distrust, resistance, anger, grief, etc. to come out. Once it came up, we were able

talk about it. By talking about it, it started to dissolve. In the end, all the group

members graduated with good results. They worked really well together, as well

as with all the teachers. One of them explained: “From that day on I felt more

secure, so I could experiment more and eventually learn more”.

Conclusions from our case

We couldn’t go any further until we dealt with the tensions first. Like Bushe

(2007) suggests, if we had continued without doing so, there would have been

more tension and anger, and group members might have left.

We organized a group conversation with all the people involved, trying to

neutralize the emotional charge by talking about facts. Importantly, emotions are

facts too. The group shared the facts, so everyone could hear the different points

of view, learn from them, and be able to immediately respond to the emotions

that were present in the here-and-now. This case encouraged us to explore

dealing with tension further, as well as how AI helps that process.

AI Practitioner, August 2019, Laarakker and van Kesteren: AI and the Value of Conflict

They asked them to only list those things that were facts: things they have seen and heard with their own eyes and ears.

We couldn’t go any further until we dealt with the tensions first.

46More articles at www.aipractitioner.com

Practitioner November 2019 ISBN 978-1-907549-41-0 Volume 21 Number 4

The workshop

We decided to do a short experiment, formed into a workshop. During the WAIC

2019 in Nice, we introduced this workshop with the title “How to appreciate

conflict”. We were scheduled at 8 o’clock in the morning. We thought: “way too

early, nobody will come.” But over thirty participants joined us in this workshop,

a sign that the topic is relevant for a lot of AI practitioners. They came from

different cultures, countries, and fields. We asked them to think about how they

deal with tension, as an AI practitioner. And after that, they divided themselves

in four groups*, as showed in Figure 1.

*Ignoring in this context means not actively doing anything with the tension, keeping focus on the positive. Inquiring means immediately and in the here-and-now inquiring into the tension, which sometimes means talking about the negative. Flipping means flipping something negative into something positive, and from then on focusing on the positive core of the theme. Acknowledging means acknowledging by naming the tension, and then letting it be, not intervening.

The groups stood in the four corners of the workshop space. The members of

each group had to discuss what was good about their point of view and discuss

different statements that defended their position. Then they had a few minutes

to present their opinion and defending statements to the other groups. They

were also given the opportunity to ask questions to clarify what they had said.

This set-up provoked tension. The different groups faced each other from

different corners of the room. Because they had to “defend” their opinion, it

was a “one against three” situation. And because the facilitators “cornered”

AI Practitioner, August 2019, Laarakker and van Kesteren: AI and the Value of Conflict

Figure 1. Way of dealing with tension

47More articles at www.aipractitioner.com

Practitioner November 2019 ISBN 978-1-907549-41-0 Volume 21 Number 4

the groups, they also felt tension towards the facilitators. This was part of the

design, so there was an opportunity to explore tension while present.

After that, we asked participants to encounter a participant “from another

corner” and have an appreciative interview about the tension provoked.

The last question was: “How can I help you to overcome the tension in our

conversation?”

Results and effect

After the interviews, we had a plenary conversation about what happened, and

we were pleasantly surprised by the answers of the participants. Some of the

quotes were:

• The four groups are not distinct but different points of actions in the AI continuum. It’s not a straight line but a journey where you pick and

choose action.

• This was really helpful. I will continue to reflect on how AI helps me respond to conflict creatively.

• Thank you for reaffirming that conflict in a session is a gift.

• A very valuable question in this workshop was “What can I do to help you to overcome the tension?” After that, we were really in touch with

each other.

Lessons learned and general conclusions

We learned a way in which conflict can turn into sympathy, using AI. We learned

that every suggested approach to conflict and tension has its positive outcomes.

The best approach depends on the situation. Also, talking about differences

and tension can deepen relationships. Most of the time when people have a

controversy and different interests, people only discuss their opinions, not

feelings. When you acknowledge the feelings and give people the opportunity to

talk with their “rivals” in an appreciative way, building a relationship is possible.

This helps diminish tension so that conflicting interests are easier to discuss.

That leads to help improving problem solving, relationships and psychological

health (Johnson, Johnson & Tjosvold, 2000).

AI Practitioner, August 2019, Laarakker and van Kesteren: AI and the Value of Conflict

A very valuable question in this workshop was ‘What can I do to help you to overcome the tension?’ After that, we were really in touch with each other.

Back to Table of Contents

48More articles at www.aipractitioner.com

Practitioner November 2019 ISBN 978-1-907549-41-0 Volume 21 Number 4

Since facilitating the workshop, we have become more aware of the fact that

people do experience tension when you talk about conflict but often only show

it or talk about it when you invite them to discuss it.

As in the case we described earlier in this article, the results of the workshop

show us how liberating and tension-releasing it is when you are able to have

a conversation about it. It makes it easier for us to bring up tension or conflict

when we feel it in a group while facilitating. AI helps with this by starting the

conversation with the right questions.

So, our conclusion is, when working with AI, there is no reason to avoid tension

and conflict.

If you have questions, or would like to know more about the workshop, please contact us at [email protected].

REFERENCES Bushe G. (2007) Appreciative Inquiry Is Not (Just) About the Positive, OD Practitioner, 39(4), 30–35. Cooperrider, D. L. & Srivastva, S. (1987) Appreciative Inquiry in Organizational Life. In Woodman, R. W. & Pasmore, W.A. (eds.). Research in Organizational Change And Development. Vol. 1. Stamford, CT: JAI Press. pp. 129–169.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. & Tjosvold, D. (2000) Constructive Controversy: The value of intellectual opposition. In M. Deutsch & P. T. Coleman (Eds.), The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice (pp. 65–85). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Stacy, R. (2016) The Paradox of Consensus and Conflict in Organisational Life. AI Practitioner, 18(1), 52–58.

AI Practitioner, August 2019, Laarakker and van Kesteren: AI and the Value of Conflict

When working with AI, there is no reason to avoid tension and conflict.

Copyright of AI Practitioner is the property of AI Practitioner and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.