Stefan P. Cantore
The period since 2000 especially has seen a growing interest in positive approaches to organizational change. This has been generated by both academic researchers and organizational change practitioners.
One reason for this is undoubtedly the growth in popularity of positive psychology. Much of the research in this allied field, as it relates to work, has been concerned with a diverse range of topics including, for example, the value of identifying and using employee strengths (Rath & Conchie, 2009), optimizing work experiences (Csikszentmihalyi, 2014), and the value of positive emotions (Fredrickson, 2001). The chapters in this book reflect this wide range.
On the other hand, some organizational development/change practitioners and organizational leaders have been searching for meaningful and effective new ways in which whole organizational change efforts can benefit from a generally more positive and engaging approach to change. Here the use of dialogical approaches to change have made an impact and been identified as new and different, in a similar way perhaps to how positive psychology has marked itself as new and different when contrasted with more established humanistic psychological approaches (e.g., Bushe & Marshak, 2009; Grant & Marshak, 2011; Marshak & Bushe 2013; Oswick, 2009).
This chapter begins with a context‐setting discussion concerned with what may lie behind the felt need for “new” approaches to organizational change and the disillusionment with what are perceived to be the “old” approaches. Given that it is particularly concerned with “the positive,” brief consideration is given to the philosophical notions of pessimism and optimism. The aim is to draw attention to some of the fundamental, and frequently under‐reflected upon, assumptions behind organizational change theorizing and practice with a view to signposting their potential influence on the development of positive approaches to organizational change.
Making the connection between psychological insights, which essentially begin with individual behavior, to whole organizational efforts is an intellectual and practice development process. The content and structure of this chapter reflects this and in the later sections key strands of theory and practice are followed by critical reflections. The intention is to contribute to the learning process with which scholars, practitioners, and scholar‐practitioners are currently engaged. Furthermore the research base is still relatively “thin,” which means that philosophical perspectives, theorizing, some relevant research findings combined with self–reported case studies form much of the literature. The penultimate section identifies areas for further research and the chapter concludes with a summary.
In this chapter a very broad definition of organization is adopted to include its many forms. An organization is “an organised group of people with a particular purpose” (Stevenson, 2010, p. 1240). The implicit, and optimistic, belief is usually that organizations can accomplish much more than individuals. Likewise “change” as a construct, in organizational management contexts, invariably seems to be defined as any effort intended to bring some measure of improvement. Change is therefore also perceived optimistically, at least by those charged with designing and leading organizational change processes! This chapter is concerned with approaches to organization‐wide change that make this positive, or optimistic, dimension explicit and assume it to be a sustaining force behind effective change processes.
By contrast, and arguably particularly since the global financial crisis of 2008, there has been a steady diminution in the belief in the intrinsic goodness or positivity of organizations and their ability to marshal resources and people in a way that leads to a better world. Instead people across the globe have become more suspicious of organizations, both doubting what they can achieve, and concerned about how they treat individuals and whether or not they are amenable to planned change (Roth, 2009). This section considers some of the meta‐thought trends in which thinking about organizations and organizational change is located.
You do not have to look very hard to find evidence of organizations that are perceived to have let down the people they were originally conceived to serve. In a global context the 2008 banking crisis left a bitter taste in the mouth as people who trusted their investments and house mortgages with large prestigious organizations found that banks’ public relations assertions did not match the reality of poor governance, and unethical business practices and cultures that rewarded greed while ignoring the needs of the investor. Even high‐reputation, value‐driven organizations, like Apple Inc., have been accused of poor employment and supply‐chain management in China (“Stark reality of iPod’s Chinese factories,” 2006).
In the UK an inquiry into the Mid Staffordshire Hospitals Foundation Trust (Francis, 2010) found a widespread disengagement of professionals, a negative culture, patients’ needs and concerns being ignored, poor governance, and lack of effective external scrutiny. The consequence of poor organization, although contended, is said to have resulted in avoidable deaths. Two of the main outcomes, however, were both a reduction in trust by the local community and an urgent call by Sir Robert Francis, the chair of the inquiry, for the hospital to “make its visible first priority the delivery of a high‐class standard of care to all its patients by putting their needs first” (2010, p. 403). This is how far away from its original purpose this health care organization had drifted.
Alongside these narratives of disappointment sit narratives of frustration that organizational change efforts seem to not be sufficient to make the much‐needed difference. Academic researchers have made their own contributions to this sense of despondency. For example, the notion that 70% of organizational change efforts fail has become folklore frequently referred to by academics and change practitioners. This figure, originally estimated by Hammer and Champy (1993), has subsequently been cited by Beer and Nohria (2000), Kotter (1995), and many others. Even though Hughes (2011) has helpfully pointed out that the 70% is an unsupported figure with no empirical evidence behind it, the end result is a pessimistic sense that it might not even be worth making the effort to help organizations change.
This chapter works from the premise that behind this somewhat depressing context sits a deeper, more pervasive and often unspoken set of philosophical and cultural beliefs about the nature of reality, organizations, and change. Without exploring the broader discourses of optimism and pessimism within which organizations exist it is not easy to fully appreciate the current apparent attractiveness of explicitly positive, uplifting, and optimistic approaches to change. Also, given that positive organizational change is an emerging construct, academics, and to an extent practitioners, are keen to locate its philosophical positions as a way of differentiating it from the rest of the field. This also perhaps begins to explain the imbalance between the amount of empirical research material available and theory and practitioner narratives.
Dienstag (2006) makes the thought‐provoking point that the dominant discourse in Western philosophical thinking is inherently an optimistic one. He argues that optimistic philosophies encourage us to believe that improvement is always our trajectory and that human rational thought is sufficient to solve our problems.
If Dienstag’s perspective is accepted then it is not a step too far to conclude that when those tasked with organizational change talk about it they are usually assuming that the intentions they hold behind such change efforts will be an improvement or positive, even if people might experience them initially as negative. A brief consideration of the language used by those involved in theorizing about organization development (OD) support this view. French and Bell (1999) speak of increasing individual and organizational effectiveness, while Margulies and Raia (1978), along with others, speaks about the focus on improvement. Schein (2010) changes the metaphor as he talks about building and maintaining the health of the organization (emphasis added).
Alongside the optimistic voices of change agents and positive change literature are the voices of those who take a pessimistic viewpoint. The philosophical literature is rich in examples of such perspectives. Defining pessimism, however, is a challenge in itself. Bailey (2013), for example, suggests that we separate out our emotional responses to pessimism and optimism and consider that they are simply terms referring to “people’s shared judgements about the supposed direction of social (or organizational) change on criteria which can be made explicit” (p. 5). Bertrand Russell (1945/2013), on the other hand, takes an opposing perspective, arguing that both optimism and pessimism are to do with personal temperament and not related to any rational judgments. Arguably, whatever position is taken there is always an underlying assumption that organizations can be better places. This philosophy drives those with an interest in organizational change.
Understanding the philosophical assumptions that sit beneath positive organizational change will help make sense of both the theories and practices which follow as well as offering a basis upon which to critique the constructs. There is no right or wrong position, but rather an evident co‐existence of optimism and pessimism combined with an aspiration for better organizations.
This chapter makes the case for positive organizational change, not just because of an apparently attractive philosophical and values‐based stance, but also because the emerging evidence, in its many forms, is supporting effective practice and the development of useful theory.
This section briefly considers recent trends in organizational change theory and uses these as a lens by which to understand the terminology and constructs of positive approaches to organizational change.
The last two decades have seen shifts in how organizational change is to be understood and enacted in practice. Oswick, Grant, Michelson, & Wailes (2005) draw attention to a number of key ones, arguing that from the 1950s until the 1990s the focus had been on centrally managed top‐down change (OD), organized in an, apparently, predictable world. Subsequently they suggest the trend has been to perceive and talk about organizational change as turbulent and involving employees dispersed across the organization. The change process is now considered more emergent and less amenable to being carefully pre‐planned.
They go on to argue that OD, which once claimed to be the repository of much organizational change wisdom alongside expert OD consultants, is now being replaced by change management literatures and practices given that “the management of change has become more localized and, hence, the responsibility of in situ managers through direct engagement with employees as part of an unfolding and emergent everyday process of instigating new actions and formulating responses to issues, concerns and opportunities that arise” (2005, p. 386).
Since Oswick et al. made their observations there has been resurgence in the field of OD which Marshak and Grant (2008) call the emergence of “New OD.” From their perspective, the hallmarks of “Old OD” included an acceptance of a classical science‐based approach to thinking about change – that is, that there is a single objective truth about an organization, that analysis and reason will lead to discovering the truth, and that using valid data and rationality will enable leaders to problem‐solve. In contrast, “New OD” is shaped by post‐modern thought, especially social constructionism – there is no one truth or reality but one that emerges from the collective, power and political processes are integral to change negotiation, and the intention is to shift thinking rather than just behavior. Change in the “New OD” construct is continuous and can be self‐organizing, hence the greater emphasis on change management rather than pure OD, which tends to see change as linear and requiring special effort.
An interesting critique they offer of “New OD” is that they perceive “power has been neglected in favour of less confronting and more ‘optimistic’ or ‘positive’ approaches” (2008, p. S18). In relation to this point Marshak and Grant reference the work of Cameron and colleagues, who since the early 2000s have been publishing extensively on the theme of positive organizational scholarship (POS) (e.g., Cameron & Dutton, 2003).
In this initial work Cameron et al. (2003) explain that for them POS is a focus on organizational dynamics that can be described as representing “excellence, thriving, flourishing, abundance, resilience, or virtuousness” (p. 4). It distinguishes itself from other types of organizational studies in that it aims to research those things that are best about people in the way they organize together. Cameron et al. are careful to say that they don’t reject considering dysfunction, but that it is not the primary lens through which they consider organizational behavior. What can be considered to be “positive” is undoubtedly a value judgment. Fineman, in his extensive critique of POS, suggests that one of the consequences of positivity is “a convincing case that positiveness closes important doors, excluding opportunities that could well serve its own aims. Positive experiences, learning, and change are tied to negative occurrences and events, as well as to positive ones” (2006, p. 275).
Since that critique, defining what is meant by “positive” has occupied the work of scholars in the field. More recently Cameron and Spreitzer have acknowledged that the term positive is so broad it is very hard to define accurately. Instead they have categorized what they mean by positive in relation to organization studies under the following four headings:
Even these, they acknowledge, do not give a particularly precise definition, but do give a flavor of the stance taken by scholars in this field.
Parallel to the development of POS is the emergence and growth of interest in positive psychology. Boniwell (2008), reflecting the perspective of the founding fathers of this discipline Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, defines positive psychology as “a science of positive aspects of human life” (2000, p. 1). Broadly speaking, positive psychology has not particularly focused on organizational change, although it has offered the construct of positive institutions which enable individuals to move toward altruism, civility, and a better work ethic.
In the 2000s a research domain developed to incorporate positive psychology within the field of organization studies which Luthans called positive organizational behavior (POB) and defined as “the study and application of positively orientated human resource strengths and psychological capacities that can be measured, developed, and effectively managed for performance improvement in today’s workplace” (Wright, 2003, p. 437). The focus is on research that considers positive personality traits as they relate to work performance, core self‐evaluations (self‐esteem, generalized self‐efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability), and positive psychological traits (Luthans & Youssef, 2007).
What this suggests is that positive psychology as a subdiscipline within psychology has, over the past decade or so, contributed to the body of research and theory concerned with individual development and performance within an organizational context. The development of POB is one example within the field where the focus is on what needs to be done to help individuals perform positively in organization contexts (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008; Luthans, 2002; Luthans & Youssef, 2007). However, arguably it has not added significant understanding about how extensive organizational change can be enacted if a positive psychology frame of reference is adopted.
In the discourse about positive approaches to human psychology and to organizational change the term “strengths” is often used alongside, or instead of, the term “positive.” Again, there is some difficulty in defining precisely what is meant by the terminology in the context of organizations. Martin Seligman and his colleague Christopher Peterson compiled a character and strengths handbook which classifies positive human strengths (Peterson & Seligman, 2004).This classification is based on assumptions that human strengths are not secondary to weaknesses, that they can be understood scientifically, that they differentiate people, and are similar to traits but can be influenced by the environment. They concluded that there are six prime virtues against which strengths may be categorized. These are wisdom and knowledge, courage, love and humanity, justice, temperance, and transcendence.
Debate continues about the validity and measurability of strengths and Boniwell (2006) argues that there may be some sense in working with both weaknesses and strengths at an individual level
Combining a focus on both strengths and the positive in the field of organizational and system change since the late 1980s has been the development and application of appreciative inquiry (AI). This process and its overtly social constructionist philosophical stance is covered in more detail in a later section, but it is worth mentioning in this discussion since it has made a profound impact on thinking about the nature of positive organizational change.
A straightforward definition of AI is “the study and exploration of what gives life to human systems when they function at their best” (Whitney & Trosten‐Bloom, 2010, p. 1). However, a number of texts elaborate on this in order to try and capture something of the philosophy and practices encapsulated by the term. So, for example, Cooperrider, Whitney, and Stavros (2008, p. 3) comment that AI is “the co‐operative co‐evolutionary search for the best in people, their organizations, and the world around them … it involves the art and practice of asking questions that strengthen a system’s capacity to apprehend, anticipate and heighten positive potential.”
A more recent development has been the attempt to integrate positive psychological approaches with what Cooperrider and Godwin (in Cameron & Spreitzer, 2012) have called innovation‐inspired positive organization development (IPOD). Interestingly they argue that this new discipline is a return to the optimistic philosophical stance taken by the early founders of OD and the work of Bennis in particular (1969). This concept will be explored later in greater depth. However, what is relevant here is their argument that positive approaches to organizational change are being manifested in three key trends. Firstly, the emergence of a “rich vocabulary of the positive” (Cameron & Spreitzer, 2012, p. 742). Secondly, the development by Cameron, Bright, & Caza (2004) of a framework in which to discuss negatively deviant and positively deviant performance; and thirdly, a growing body of research into positive deviancy.
To summarize, the field of positive organizational change:
Given the diverse and emergent nature of the field, this section covers a broad range of related topic areas. The criteria for inclusion and the amount of space spent on each area are dependent on the degree to which the topic explicitly relates to organizational change. Other chapters in this book focus on areas of positive psychology, which are complementary but often have the development of the individual or team as their prime interest. Here the aim is to expand the description, consider the practices, and critique the approaches that have been alluded to in earlier sections.
A further aim is to illustrate and signpost the research literature associated with each approach. This is easier said than done for a number of reasons. Firstly, for some processes, like World Café, Open Space, and Future Search, very little written formal research has been published. This does not mean that nothing is available. On the contrary there are plenty of self‐reported case study materials, as well as books and practitioner guides. This reflects the nature of the field that has, until relatively recently, been perceived as the domain primarily of practitioners rather than academics. Bartunek and Woodman comment that “it might seem like the academic/scholarly side of the field is trying to ‘kill off’ OD but OD practitioners persist in keeping it alive through practicing it” (2012, p. 730). One result of this tension is a bias in the literature toward the reporting of practice rather than research on practice.
Secondly, positive organizational change is an under‐researched area, particularly with respect to the interconnections between positive psychology and positive organizational change. Higgs comments cautiously that, in an organizational context “positive psychology may be valuable in developing an understanding of how we can implement change much more effectively” (2013, p. 74). There is, however, an assumption in the wider organizational change literature that a generally positive approach is going to be more successful than more negative, fear‐based approaches. Examples of this literature include peer‐reviewed evidence for the value of readiness for change, organizational commitment and well‐developed social relationships (Madsen, Miller, & John 2005), supportive change leadership behaviors (Caldwell, Chatman, O’Reilly, Ormiston, & Lapiz, 2008; Higgs and Rowland 2011), change and trust (Saunders & Thornhill, 2003), and emotional intelligence (Higgs, 2002).
Finally, and more provocatively, there is the argument by Gergen that to use scientific assumptions in order to analyze human social activity is neither fruitful nor relevant. Instead he suggests the creation of a new social science that is primarily future‐orientated and with a generative capacity. This he defines as the “capacity to challenge the guiding assumptions of the culture, to raise fundamental questions regarding contemporary social life, to foster reconsideration of that which is ‘taken for granted’ and thereby furnish new alternatives for social actions” (1978, p. 1346). Arguably Gergen’s approach has been taken to heart and much of the literature relating to positive organizational change tends toward theorizing about generative organizational change processes. Cooperrider’s construct of Innovation‐inspired Positive Organization Development, considered later in this chapter, is a good example.
In summary, what follows seeks both to describe the approaches and to augment the descriptions with relevant examples of the research literature that is currently available.
AI is probably the first positive organizational change process both to fully elucidate its philosophy and offer a framework for practice. Its focus on working with strengths and social constructionist philosophy made a break from old‐style OD and change management techniques with their positivistic approach to diagnosis and problem‐solving by experts. Taking all the definitions together, AI can be summarized as “as a living research process engaging with human systems and based upon a set of philosophical understandings about the way the social world in which we live is being continually co‐constructed between us” (Cantore & Cooperrider, 2013, p. 271).
AI is philosophically grounded in social constructionism and particularly the approach developed by Gergen, who argued that our sense of who we are and the knowledge we hold is generated within and between our social relationships (Gergen, 1997a, 1997b). He applied these ideas to both organizational science (Gergen & Thatchenkery, 1996) and social psychology (Gergen, 1997b).
Of particular interest in considering the positive nature of AI is the optimistic aspiration Gergen voices in his earlier key paper “Toward generative theory” (Gergen, 1978). Gergen sees social constructionist practices as a means to build what he called “generative capacity,” which, by Gergen’s definition, is the “capacity to challenge the guiding assumptions of the culture, to raise fundamental questions regarding contemporary social life, to foster reconsideration of that which is taken for granted and thereby furnish new alternatives for social actions” (1978, p. 1346).
Cantore and Cooperrider note that “AI picks up the notion of generative capacity and incorporates it into its methodology and language. Whilst not explicitly positive in its definition, it is implicitly, and often explicitly, positive in its practice” (2013, p. 272). The method is usually described as a five‐“D” process, beginning with the definition of the focus for change followed by discovery, dream, design, and destiny stages. Each element is intended to be co‐designed by participants and usually involves extensive conversational group work. There is no exact protocol, since each organization is expected to craft a process that meets its needs and respects its context.
Research on the effectiveness or otherwise of AI needs to be drawn from a wide range of sources which may not necessarily be specifically solely focused on AI. For example, Choi (2007) notes that with regard to change‐oriented Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB), strong collective vision and an innovative climate, both of which AI explicitly encourages, support both individual and collective psychological empowerment to effect change. Interestingly, in his study of a large Korean company, it was the focus on organization‐wide approaches that offered most promise for change, rather than group work. AI, of course focuses on the whole organization rather than individuals or groups. This organization‐wide finding is supported by Powley, Fry, Barrett, and Bright in research on a large AI process in a U.S. Navy organization. They comment that AI processes appeared to “create spaces that intrinsically motivate people to assume more task responsibility for the incorporation of change” (2004, p. 77). They also noted that AI encouraged what they called normative consciousness, holistic collegiality, and communal conviction, not just for the duration of the process but continuing well after the intervention had formally concluded.
Looking at AI through a community psychology “lens,” Boyd and Bright conclude, following a piece of case study research, that AI is “consistent with ecological analysis and the concept of person–environment fit” (2007, p. 1033). They argue that, given the transactional nature of the relationship between people and their environments, AI supports an alteration in the perceived environment which enhances the psychological “fit” between individuals and the organizational context in which they work. Interestingly, they also observed that AI enhances the toleration of individual differences between organization members. Furthermore, they make the link between the concept of learned optimism (Seligman, 1991) and AI, arguing that participants in their research demonstrated the avoidance of “negative psychological states,” creating a sense of greater control over the process of change (p. 1034).
From yet another perspective, the research literature around the organizational impact of positive emotions adds weight to the usefulness of AI. Fredrickson argues that positive emotions “serve to broaden an individual’s momentary thought–action repertoire which in turn, over time, has the effect of building that individual’s physical, intellectual and social resources” (1998, p. 300). Subsequent research by Sekerka and McCraty links what goes on physiologically for people when they experience appreciation (2004). This supports the earlier work of Staw, Sutton, and Pelled (1994), who reported connections between work outcomes and positive emotions. Work by Fredrickson and others has linked positive emotions with resilience (Fredrickson, Tugade, Waugh, & Larkin, 2003), indicating that creating organizational spaces where positive emotions can flourish is likely to support change processes which, by their nature, require resilience.
In an interesting study, initially focused on exploring the gender aspects of AI, Sekerka, Brumbaugh, Rosa, and Cooperrider concluded that “Appreciative Inquiry with a self‐focus engenders more favorable emotional responses than diagnostic approaches, makes salient positive aspects of participants self‐concepts, and enhances engagement and creativity among men who might exhibit lower levels of each in a more traditional change exercise” (2006, p. 474). This does not preclude benefits from other approaches to organizational change, but does strengthen the case for links between positive emotion and positive approaches to change.
Using this and other examples of positive psychology research, Sekerka and Fredrickson have concluded that there is a case to be made for an evidence‐based theory of positive organizational change with AI being one example among a growing number of change approaches (2013). This theory links strengths‐based approaches, positive emotions, positive organizational emotional climates, organizational relational strengths, and organizational growth and development.
The question remains: Does AI actually effect positive organizational change? As with many organizational change processes, verifiable evidence of effectiveness is hard to find especially in empirical research literature. It is the case‐study, qualitative research literature that offers most material. Carter (2006) describes and positively critiques the use of AI in supporting the development of excellent nursing practice and research in a UK context. Richer, Ritchie, and Marchionni (2009) confirm similar beneficial findings in a Canadian context. Bright, Cooperrider, and Galloway (2006) record the impact of using AI to strengthen the collaborative capacity of a large department of the U.S. Environment Protection Agency. Ryan, Soven, Smither, Sullivan, and VanBuskirk (1999) outline how AI was used to support school reform, while Giles and Alderson (2008) report on a similar project in a New Zealand adult learning institution and More (2011) describes the value of AI in a school improvement program in India. Calabrese and Cohen (2013) relate how AI was used to transform the culture of a U.S. Drug Offenses court.
In a commercial context, Vanstone and Dabliez (2008) outline how AI was used to revitalize the corporate values of a very large multinational company, while Stavros and Sprangel (2008) illustrate the use of AI to develop a new company strategy. Higgs (2013) offers a case of AI being used in a professional services firm illustrating specifically how leadership behaviors that support the expression of positive emotions can have a significant impact on creativity and organizational citizenship behavior, at least in the short term. Case‐study literature continues to grow in scale and an up‐to‐date repository can be found at http://appreciativeinquiry.case.edu/
Bushe and Kassam (2005) take an overview and ask the question: When is AI transformational? This is the only meta‐case analysis available in the literature. The authors examine 20 published cases where AI was adopted as a process for change, some transactional and others transformational of culture in intention. In summary, their findings are that if AI is used as a transactional change process then it is as effective as any other conventional change process. However, where the process was intentionally transformational, AI supported the emergence of new thinking and generative images and led to desired shifts that the organizations themselves would consider transformational.
Taken together, the evidence base linking positive psychology knowledge and positive organizational change approaches, including AI, is available but not as extensive as it might be. However, this should only encourage further research and development in organizational change practice.
As indicated earlier in the chapter, given its longevity, AI has by far the most extensive evidence base compared to other positive organizational change processes. This is reflected in the comparatively fewer cases cited in the sections that follow. It is also fair to say that evidence used in support of AI is often also relevant in support of other positive approaches where the focus on inquiry, strengths, positive emotions, and transformational change in thinking is also prevalent.
Frequently linked with AI is the emerging field of DOD. Providing a definitive definition of DOD is a challenge, given its ongoing development as an approach. Bushe and Marshak (2009, p. 362) describe it as a paradigm in which:
Given the focus it places on socially constructed realities and generative imagery, it fits within an understanding of positive approaches to organizational change. This is underscored by the sense of inclusivity suggested by the definition which is a hallmark of positive approaches. Change management is not perceived as vested in elite managers, but becomes a wholly collective effort.
The paper from which the above definition is taken argued that OD was, at that point, experiencing a bifurcation. The field was splitting into two branches. The first is characterized as a focus on diagnosis and problem‐solving, while the other is conversationally or dialogically oriented and implicitly more positive in orientation. AI is cited as one of these positive, future‐orientated approaches. Subsequently practitioners and academics who align themselves with this new development have developed the literature in support of the theory (e.g., Bushe & Marshak, 2009, 2014, 2015; Cantore & Passmore, 2012; Lewis, Passmore, & Cantore, 2008; Marshak, 2013; Marshak & Bushe, 2013; Rothwell, Stavros, Sullivan, & Sullivan, 2010).
In presenting the case for DOD, Bushe and Marshak sense that they are pulling away from the “old” way of doing and thinking about organizational change:
The term dialogic organization development will become, we hope, a generative image that will allow OD scholars and professionals to reimagine and reinvigorate the theory and practice of OD. In offering the image of Dialogic OD, we hope to create a space where conversations can take place about the nature of organizations and organizing, about the nature of change processes and change agentry, and about the nature of leadership and consulting, that adhere to OD values but fall outside the traditional diagnostic mind‐set. (2015, p. 3)
In positioning DOD in this manner, they align with positive organizational change, which can appear not be fully able to articulate what it does do or think but is clearer about its contention that it wants to be perceived as significantly different from what has come before. It is this sense of newness and a break from the past that is a key characteristic.
Oswick adds a cautionary note about the dangers of giving primacy to DOD. Firstly he suggests that many forms of change, like outsourcing and downsizing, rely less on OD and are the result of economic pressures. In these circumstances OD is perhaps seen as less relevant to organizations. Secondly, he sees a danger in ignoring the material aspects of both convening conversations and enacting the outcomes with the risk that “tangible, material outcomes are overlooked or underplayed in favour of a preoccupation with, or predisposition towards, intangible, discursive content” (2013, p. 374). The minutiae and perhaps the materiality of organizational change tend to be viewed as those management activities that will work themselves out and need not be of significant concern in the meta‐change effort. It is an interesting point and one that draws attention to the large scale transformative focus of DOD in particular and positive organizational change in general.
Bushe suggests that there are three broad phases to working with DOD (2013): firstly, the reframing of concerns and problems in a manner that is optimistic about the future; secondly, intentionally convening conversations across the organization to stimulate the emergence of generative images; and thirdly, encouraging people to speak, think, and act differently to enable the emergence of a new shared social reality. Enacted within this framework are a series of conversational processes. These have been, and continue to be, developed by consulting practitioners who use them with organizational clients. This highlights one of the notable characteristics of positive organizational change, which is the emergence in the field of both theory and practice through the continuing interplay of learning between practitioners and academics. Bartunek and Woodman argue and evidence the criticality of these scholar and practitioner links, making the case that “Organisation Development lives because it effectively bridges the scholar–practitioner gap” (2012, p. 731).
Cantore and Hick (2013) offer a detailed description of both the design and implementation of a DOD intervention in a UK primary school. The intention in this case is to demonstrate how creating spaces for people to engage in conversation can be combined with intentionality around transforming the images people hold about the organization and their role in it. In this case creating a coaching culture was seen as critical in addressing the needs of both the school as an organization and individuals as practitioners. The result was a school whose rate of performance improvement outstripped virtually every other school in the UK using external inspection ratings. Baldwin recounts a very similar experience in leading the performance transformation of a school in Florida, USA (in Lewis, Passmore, & Cantore, 2008, pp. 112–114). In this instance AI was the primary framework adopted and other change processes like World Café and Open Space were incorporated as needed. Gordezky (2015) cites work with a social enterprise to reclaim contaminated land. DOD processes enabled a sense of relatedness between stakeholders and in so doing encouraged the emergence of a new shared identity and core narrative. The work they were called to do was therefore enabled to move forward.
Of interest in these examples is that often in the background to DOD change processes is a felt need in the system for a transformational change. The implicit and often explicit assumption is therefore that there will emerge a widespread commitment to organizational change by most, if not all members of the organization. Jaros (2010) noted that there is a growing body of research literature concerned with employee commitment to change. In his critical review of the empirical literature he observed that commitment to change is dependent on the extent to which: employees’ values are in some way aligned with the proposed change; managers exhibit empowering behaviors; people are familiar with the change process adopted; and groups or teams preceive the impact of change on their role/work. Jaros also observed that across the literature there is recognition that positive feelings play a role in commitment to change however this construct may be defined. He suggests that “maybe feelings of commitment to a change effort cause the formation of a behavioral intent to act, which leads to actual change‐supportive behaviors. This implies a causal ordering among the concepts, testable by structural path analysis” (p. 325).
Interestingly the 2015 handbook of Dialogic Organization Development (Bushe & Marshak) makes just one explicit mention the role of emotions in change commitment. However, implicit in the practice and theory of DOD is that emotions do play a fundamental role as people engage in conversations both with their reason (dialogue) and emotionally (conversing) (Cantore, 2014). This suggests that further research in the affective aspects of change commitment is required to contribute to the further development of the theory and practice of DOD.
Since DOD is focused on enabling participation of employees and consequently transformational change, it is worth considering research that links the two constructs together. Lines and Selart (2013) draw attention to the literatures that apply to both participation and organizational commitment, and participation and organizational change. The first domain, they argue, is most investigated and includes empirical studies relating to high‐involvement work processes, team empowerment, and employee participation in decision‐making. They conclude that “generally the main‐effect relationship has been hypothesized to be a positive one, a relationship that has been supported by the findings from a number of empirical studies” (p. 290). The inference is therefore that DOD is likely to impact positively on organizational commitment. But does it impact on transformational change? Lines and Selart found that it is difficult to differentiate in the literature between participation in organizations and participation in change (2013). In their review of the evidence they found that participation in change leads to lower levels of resistance to change (Hideg, Michela, & Ferris, 2011), reduced levels of cynicism (Brown & Cregan, 2008), and higher levels of commitment to the change (Neubert & Cady, 2001). This supports the potential of DOD as an effective approach to supporting change given the extensive participation it encourages.
Perhaps the most significant conclusion Lines and Selart come to is the view that if the degree of radical (or in DOD terminology “transformational”) change grow, then the implications of the change as perceived by employees grows and their psychological need to exert control also grows. As a result they conclude “it is likely that employees’ willingness to participate in change‐related activities increases as change becomes more radical. Furthermore we believe that the positive emotions, cognitions, attitudes and behaviors that are often associated with participative processes will be more pronounced during radical compared to evolutionary change” (p. 299).
The research appears to signpost a set of linkages between the individual psychology of participation, the experience of collective commitment to change through participation, and the proposed degree of change. The greater the scale and extent of organizational transformation, the greater the likelihood of active participation. DOD is therefore potentially a useful set of constructs and practices when transformational change is needed. Researchers agree that this remains an underexplored area in organization studies.
Some of the most well‐known examples of DOD practice are outlined below.
By recreating a café atmosphere, anywhere between 12 and 1,500 people can feel relaxed and encouraged to have a series of 20‐ to 30‐minute conversations around a question that matters. Volunteer table hosts remain at the tables to connect conversations while participants move twice or three times to new tables. At the end of each round of conversations the café host facilitates a whole café conversation that surfaces underlying themes and key insights. The process can then be repeated with a new question. When the café concludes there is an opportunity for participants to share their sense of emerging themes (Brown & Isaacs, 2005). This process is often incorporated into an AI event when people need encouragement and the space and time to engage with one another in some depth. The approach encourages the mutual ownership of the generative images and discourses that emerge.
Ward, Borawski, & Brown (2008) describe in some detail both the design, delivery, and impact of a large World Café intervention in the American Society for Quality. Reported outcomes include the use of dialogue across the organization as an integral aspect of business processes, leading to more meaningful engagement with stakeholders, and reduced internal politics as a result of greater trust and transparency.
Bastien (2005) recounts how World Café processes enabled Sanofi‐Synthelabo to generate new business ideas and an image of community impact that has successfully shaped relationships with significant stakeholders. Others relate similar successes when using the World Café process (e.g., Burke & Sheldon, 2010; Delaney, Daley, & Lajoie, 2006; Fouché & Light, 2011; Fullarton & Palermo, 2008; Hechenbleikner, Gilburg, & Dunnell, 2008; Prewitt, 2011; Ritch & Brennan, 2010).
Open Space begins with self‐selected participants meeting in a circle invited to consider a pre‐determined theme, moves onto working with a community bulletin board, and then a market place that helps participants structure their own agendas and meetings. A series of self‐managed conversations, usually lasting about one and a half hours, then follows and the event concludes with participants back in a circle, each given an opportunity to make a closing comment. An Open Space event can last half a day or as long as three days dependent on the issues being considered (Owen, 2008a).
As its name implies Open Space has a loose structure and relies on people taking their own responsibility for hosting conversations on subjects that matter to them. The interventions by the facilitator are very minimal. Their prime role is to “hold the space,” thereby allowing participants to enjoy the freedom to converse. This enables free‐flowing and usually energized conversations which open up themes previously not considered within the change process (Cantore & Passmore, 2012).
What is the impact of Open Space on organizational change? Alongside the benefits of participation outlined in an earlier section of this chapter there are numerous case studies published in support of this process. Thakadipuram and Stevenson (2013), for example, use an interpretive case‐study method to analyze the process and its reported effectiveness. They conclude that Open Space offers a simple process that creates the conditions for complex self‐organization to take place. Responsibility for design of the process is largely handed over to all involved to maximize the potential for participation. Owen (2008b) describes the use of Open Space for American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T) in which a highly complex set of design and planning changes were agreed in 2 days rather than the 10 months such a process would normally be expected to take. The focus here is on the perceived time efficiency of the process. Elenurm (2012) evaluates the use of Open Space as both a change metaphor and a process for supporting knowledge‐sharing across a very diverse range of participants in a large‐scale civic society project in Estonia. Owen, the designer of the Open Space, offers a free download book containing a very wide variety of case studies (1995), while Hallgren (2009) explores the use of Open Space as a means to engage people in participating in an innovation audit and research project.
A Future Search conference typically involves 25–100+ people focused on joint action toward a desired future for a community, organization, or issue. Its structure is designed to explore the past and present and then, using these, to help create ideal future scenarios. The conditions for success identified by Weisbord and Janoff (2010) include an invitation to the whole system to be present and the exploration through conversation of common ground. During a Future Search event a wide range of processes will be used to surface knowledge and support learning. These include small group work, brainstorming, mapping, and dialogue sessions that bear a strong resemblance to Open Space in design (Lewis et al., 2008). Again the notable emphasis is on the future and generative images that inspire action. Weisbord (2004) outlines a major transformation of work processes at the furniture company Ikea as a good example of the ability of Future Search processes to enable rapid change. Further case studies and details of how Future Search can be used can found through the dedicated website: http://www.futuresearch.net
These are but three examples of DOD processes. Bushe and Marshak (2015) identify no fewer than 40 distinctive conversational processes that are available to those who plan to use a DOD approach to organizational change. This is 17 more that they described in 2013, such is the growth in the field (Bushe & Marshak, 2013).
Evidence in support of the effectiveness of each process is often available in the form of practitioner‐authored case‐study material. Empirical evidence in relation to the deeper, psychological and organizational change processes is available to a limited but growing extent. However, such material is distributed across a range of academic domains and is rarely connected directly with practitioner practice and theorizing. This of course makes evaluation and critical review of both research and practice a considerable challenge.
As mentioned previously in this chapter, POS is a broad and evolving meta‐construct encompassing a whole range of ideas and research related to positivity and strengths. To illustrate this point, Cameron and Spreitzer (2012) in the Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship review positive individual attributes, positive emotions, strengths and virtues, positive relationships, positive human resource practices, positive organizational practices, positive leadership and change, and a positive lens on problems and challenges. A significant number of these are referenced elsewhere in this volume. Of particular interest here is what POS has to say about the nature of organizational change.
Several different themes are evident: Firstly, recognition that OD and POS are different but that there is a congruency between them in terms of their aspirations to develop human potential and fulfillment (Bartunek & Woodman, 2012). Secondly, the potential to fully integrate OD with POS (Cooperrider & Godwin 2012). Thirdly, the potential to develop deeper understanding of the links between the positive approach to organizational change and encouraging positive change behaviors and mindsets in individuals (Quinn & Wellman, 2012). What is apparent is a degree of caution expressed by most authors that POS and positive organizational change are a perfect fit.
One reason for this may be the still underexplored differences between the philosophies held by those who adopt a psychological stance and those who take an organizational change perspective. Psychology, including positive psychology as a discipline, takes as its starting point that psychology is the “scientific study of the human mind and its functions especially those affecting behaviour in a given context” (Stevenson, 2010, p. 1420). It is important here to note that the starting point is the individual mind combined with a belief that the mind can be subject to scientific study. This study is presumed then to link the individual mind with behavior. This may or may not be possible and “true,” but it is not the starting point for those who adopt a positive organizational change lens on the field. Their starting point tends to be not the individual mind but rather the collective sense‐making and new realities that emerge from multiple conversations and narratives. In their groundbreaking work on positive psychology, Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) clearly identified “Positive Institutions” as a construct that would need to be given attention. It is fair to say, as evidenced by the volume of published papers, that compared with individual well‐being, institutional well‐being has received much less attention from experimental psychologists. It is possible that one reason for this is that the social constructionist perspective taken by those with an interest in positive organizational change does not always fit easily with a scientific perspective intending to analyze change through an experimental or scientific lens.
Cantore and Cooperrider suggest that positive psychology and social constructionist theory are
answering two different but allied questions from two different change paradigms. Appreciative Inquiry (in this instance) answers the question what people can do to create new ways of working by suggesting the use of a co‐designed relational inquiry process that will enable them to make the future happen as they inquire together. Positive psychology answers the question of what makes for the greatest satisfaction, happiness and effectiveness in the workplace by offering the use of formal scientific methods to test theories on sample groups. (2013, p. 280)
So while POS and positive approaches to organizational change share a positive, optimistic, and strengths‐based stance, when it comes to adopting them both in a change effort there are evident differences to be either overcome or actively worked with. One approach that aims to do just this is IPOD (Cooperrider & Godwin, 2012).
IPOD draws upon AI and positive psychology for its inspiration, but adds to them the constructs of design and biomimicry. Cooperrider and Godwin argue that at the intersections of these different domains is “a breakthrough moment in the field of organization development and change” (2012, p. 743).
IPOD consists of three principal areas or “pillars” of activity that, when acted upon together, build momentum toward a positive trajectory for the organization:
IPOD does not offer a step‐by‐step methodology, but rather suggests a blending of approaches with some, like positive psychology, more useful at some points than others. The authors describe the three pillars generating a significant amount of positive energy as they combine in a double helix of positive development and change. There is little research to support the effectiveness of the model.
In common with all positive organizational change approaches, IPOD sets itself apart from the “old” and, according to Cooperrider and Cameron, “problem‐centered and negative orientation in OD” (2012, p. 748). IPOD can be characterized as having a significant degree of optimism about the nature of change, becoming almost poetic in style: “change is all about strengths; we live in a universe of strengths, in which the appreciable world is profoundly larger than our normal appreciative eye; and positive change is a powerful, self‐renewing and clean resource – much like an energy source that is abundant and renewable” (p. 746). This almost evangelical belief in the importance of positive change opens up IPOD and other similar processes to significant critiques explored in the next section.
However, it is worth noting that in IPOD interesting connections are made with both the purpose of change and the ethical underpinnings of change. These are not made so explicitly in other POS organizational change approaches. For the Cooperrider and Godwin, the opportunity to bring about an environmentally sustainable world is integral to the reason for practicing IPOD – for example, they ask how will it be possible to implement a green solar economy and shift away from oil dependency? They also express a concern about the ethics of using fear as a means to prompt change, citing Kotter’s work (1995) as typical of this approach, and instead suggest that positive psychology should be harnessed to prompt strong positive feelings which readily embrace change.
This chapter has illustrated a range of approaches to organizational change that proponents argue have a bias toward the positive. Because of the difficulty in defining what “positive” actually means there remains some confusion and ambiguity, although the implication is always that the positive is better than what has come before it. In turn there can be a tendency to define what is “positive” by referencing what is deemed to be less so, or even “negative.”
Of all the elements of positive organizational change that have been subject to critical comment, positive psychology has been pre‐eminent. McDonald & O’Callaghan take a Foucauldian perspective and suggest that “positive psychology needs to acknowledge its limitations, and that, far from liberating psychology from the negative and pathological, it has instituted a new set of governmental and disciplinary mechanisms by means of defining what is ‘positive’ in human existence via a prescriptive set of constructs (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), and in its attempts to silence critical reflexivity and alternative perspectives” (2008, p. 128). Using Foucault’s concept of the intimate relationship between power and knowledge, they argue that a dominant discourse around positive psychology has been formed and normalized in a way that controls and coerces other voices. They go on to suggest that those promoting positive psychology, as a part of this process, deliberately discredit and disengage from humanistic psychology arguing that the “old” and “negative” psychology failed in being sufficiently scientific in its experiments. Space here precludes a more detailed look at the supporting argument, but if at least this aspect of their argument is accepted then it is possible to critique positive organizational change approaches as follows in a similar manner.
DOD advocates, for example, say that:
The assumption that there are objective data that can be used in a process of social discovery, therefore, is a central aspect of the change process in Diagnostic (“old”) OD. … these bedrock premises and practices are now being challenged by newer OD practices operating implicitly or explicitly from other assumptions. (Bushe & Marshak, 2009, p. 351)
The implication is that there is something fundamentally wrong with the old and of greater significance in the new. Whether these new practices are or are not more effective is not the principal issue being commented upon. What is the issue, if we follow McDonald and O’Callaghan’s line of thinking, is the way new OD is being positioned and promoted as likely to be the most hopeful and optimistic or positive means to the end of developing better organizations.
In a similar vein, IPOD originators Cooperrider and Godwin juxtapose IPOD against what they call the “storehouse of problem‐focused interventions and diagnostic methods of analysis” while at the same time saying that they are enabling OD to “surpass this deficit‐based detour and come full circle back to its positive roots” (2012, p. 740).
This mirrors to an extent the claims of positive psychology to recapture the true science of psychology from the mistaken ways of the past. They go even further when they claim that the most effective transformational change, an implicitly positive construct, is “really about establishing the new and eclipsing the old” (2012, p. 746).
This is an ideological position rather than one based on careful judgment and evidence. What if the “old” offers the most effective processes or even the most “positive” for all involved? These considerations do not have space for being voiced if the “new” is considered superior to all that has gone before. Oswick observes that one of the implications of this apparent shift to new OD is that “Forward‐facing interventions are undoubtedly a valuable addition to the OD repertoire of techniques. However, one of the unfortunate consequences of this temporal turn is the unanticipated and unintended marginalization and stifling of ‘backward‐facing’ forms of OD” (2013, p. 375).
From the perspective of McDonald and O’Callaghan, the unintended consequence is to “unwittingly support subjectivities tied to a neo‐liberal political and economic discourse” (2008, p. 129). As Oswick observes, in the day‐to‐day practice and experience of organizational change efforts “this is deeply problematic because the highly contingent nature of organizations and organizational situations means that there are likely to be circumstances in which a problem‐centred OD approach is particularly pertinent, but may be overlooked in favour of an alluring, projectively oriented, alternative” (2013, p. 375). The implication is that there is, alongside positive organizational change theory and practice, a shadow side encouraging, either knowingly or unknowingly, a discourse that privileges the “new” and the “positive” while relegating the “old” to the sidelines regardless of potential usefulness.
The positive turn in psychology and organizational change has further been critiqued by a number of academics and commentators. Fineman (2006), for example, highlights concerns that these approaches:
Miller (2008) supports Fineman’s critique, emphasizing the error of distinguishing between optimism and pessimism and suggesting that people are more complex in their perspectives and moods than positive psychology allows for. Sundararajan argues that there exists within positive psychology a hidden moral map that needs to be surfaced through self‐reflexivity and critical thinking (2005). The critique here is that positive psychology is not ideologically neutral, but ought to be honest and strong enough to bring to the surface the beliefs that drive its development and promotion. More recently, Ríos and Pérez go further by suggesting that the whole positive psychology endeavor is based on ignorance:
Positive Psychology has attempted to become a new paradigm in the theory and practice of Psychology but is not. A thorough analysis of the history of knowledge on the struggle to live leads to the conclusion that Positive Psychology is neither original nor as promising as many researchers believe. It has not contributed anything new from a theoretical point of view. (2012, p. 342).
This illustrates the antipathy that positive psychology can stir up, alongside concerns that there is relatively little evidence of critical thinking by scholars and scientists in the field.
How much of this critique can be translated across to the domain of organizational change is an interesting question. Given recent developments in theoretical frameworks, with IPOD for example making specific reference to the significant role of positive psychology, it seems reasonable to take careful note of the issues raised by critics. There remains also a continuing concern that, in the field of organizational change, evidence of effectiveness is very hard to come by. Indeed, at a very fundamental level Sturdy and Grey (2003) suggest that the notion of “organizational change” itself should not be beyond challenge. They argue that consideration also needs to be given to the idea of organizational stability and that the pro‐change bias of organizational literature forms part of a dominant, but not necessarily an evidenced‐based nor balanced, discourse.
To develop the field of positive organizational change and respond to the concerns of critics, a number of avenues for future research and theorizing open up. Firstly, there is a need to encourage both theorists and practitioners to engage in critical reflection both in respect of the positive organizational change constructs themselves but also in respect of how the discourse is being developed and engaged with. One potentially fruitful area to consider is an exploration of the intersections between social constructionism and critical realism in both theory and change practice (Cantore, 2014). Currently these philosophical positions can be portrayed as “either/or.” It may ultimately not be a case of “both/and” but rather a question of how to move with agility between them. Whatever the process or positions held by different groupings, ultimately the need is to create spaces for exploration of ideas without one discourse being privileged over another.
Bartunek and Woodman (2012) argue for the inclusion of practitioners in this process, since this historically has been one of the major strengths of OD. The call here is not just for abstract research, but research processes and relationships that build both scholarly and practitioner understandings and practices. An example of this is recent research by Cantore into the behaviors and attitudes of change practitioners using collaborative action research methods (2014). Furthermore a view that there is a lack of reflexivity apparent in the field is a critique that warrants some response. Is there a dominant organizational change discourse that excludes other voices and perspectives? If so, what might be done to open up the inquiry?
Secondly, if the construct of positive approaches to organizational change is to be further developed then probably more attention needs to be given to the organizational dimension. Cameron and Spreitzer make this point when they comment that “we still have much to learn about the ‘O’ in Positive Organizational Scholarship” (2012, p. 1040). This is particularly important given the changing nature of organizations and organizing in both local and global contexts. Questions remain about what is actually meant when people talk about change. There are plenty of typologies of change found in the change management texts (e.g., Carnall, 2007; Cummings and Worley, 2014; Hayes, 2014; Myers, Hulks, & Wiggins, 2012), but are these sufficient for the tasks facing both researchers and practitioners? Avenues for future research are likely to be through collaborative thinking and action that enables high levels of reflexivity and engagement. Without collective effort, the research and discourse around positive organizational change have the potential to become narrow and potentially unfruitful.
A question which remains to be asked is: Why concern ourselves with organizational change, positive or negative, at all? Perhaps it is time to consider afresh the purposes of organizing together in the 21st century. Why is it worth working together and what end purposes have we in mind in doing so? This opens philosophical, ethical, economic, moral, and spiritual questions for all to explore.
The field of positive approaches to organizational change is a broad collection of ideas and practices drawing upon a range of philosophical perspectives. It demonstrably is itself subject to development and debate. Theory and research, particularly in the domain of positive psychology, continue to have significant influence on the conversation around the future direction of the field with advocates like Cooperrider arguing that a blended approach that meshes positive psychology with organizational change is not only possible but the obvious way forward (Cooperrider & Godwin, 2012).
Recent critiques, however, call for caution and a careful consideration of the value of past learning alongside some questioning of the language and power strategies used by proponents of positivity. The explicit connection made between ideological positions about how positivity can change the world and organizations deserves more reflection and shared explorations between practitioners and scholars.
Behind organizational change efforts is an implicit and optimistic assumption that change inevitably will lead to improvement. Recognizing such beliefs and how they shape those who engage in organizational change efforts is an area for further inquiry. Similarly, the scholarly discourses that risk falling into a trap of dichotomous thinking – positing either negative or positive, new or old, and change or stability – need recognizing and careful handling to avoid missing wisdom that often emerges from “both/and” thinking.