4
A Different Approach to Organizations and Change
Introduction
In the last 20 years a new understanding of organizations has been developed, understanding them as living human systems of enterprise and creativity. It offers an alternative to the dominant view of organizations as large and complicated machines of production. The methodologies described in Chapters 6–9 are all predicated on this new understanding of organizations. They allow the whole of the organizational domain to be approached from the living human system perspective. They allow us to address all organizational challenges, from recruitment to redundancy, within the same living human system frame. And while as methodologies they may be relatively new, they do also build on what went before. For example, Lewin (1951) noted that it was the learning produced by group activities in action research that was the most important outcome of the process. Learning is the basis of behaviour change.
Key Factors that Create Living Human System Learning and Change
1. The importance of learning for behaviour change
Learning means that something shifts in our understanding of the world; and understanding the world differently allows us to engage with it differently. The methodologies introduced in this text all effectively enable the system, that is, the people who make up the organization, to learn about itself. These methodologies facilitate increased understanding of how the organizational system behaves, what it believes, what it thinks, and its assumptions about both itself and the outside world. They facilitate greater understanding of how things connect, and of how the organization collectively understands forthcoming change. They facilitate identification and connection of the many different beliefs within the organization about what the changes mean. These shifts in the mental maps of the world held by those that make up the organizational system contribute to the organizational system’s mental model of its environment, which in turn influences ideas about how to engage with it effectively.
2. The importance of participation for system behaviour change
Participative Management was a core component of organizational development in the 1960s. The methodologies presented here build on this awareness of the importance of active participation. The key difference is that such participation is extended beyond the management cadre to the whole organizational membership. This is one of the many aspects of these ways of working that leaders can find very challenging.
3. The importance of dialogue to behaviour change
Dialogic approaches to organizational change emerged in the 1990s, the most notable being Appreciative Inquiry, as coherent yet different approaches to organizational development. The key distinguishing feature of these approaches from what had gone before was the recognition that “reality is socially constructed and socially negotiated and that organizations are (seen as) meaning-making systems” (Burnes & Cooke, 2012, p. 1411). Around the same time, Schein developed his process consultancy model, built on a recognition that “all organizational problems are fundamentally problems involving human interactions and processes” (Schein, 1988, p. 12).
These dialogic approaches were accompanied by the emergence of complexity theories of organization. These attracted attention because they suggested that using these approaches could lead psychologists to understand the complexity of organizations in the same way that natural scientists grasp complex natural systems (Wheatley, 1999). From this perspective, organizations are seen as dynamic non-linear systems, the outcome of whose actions is unpredictable, but, like turbulence in gases and liquids, is governed by a set of simple order-generating rules (Burnes, 2005). That is to say, they are complex but not chaotic.
4. The emergence of co-creative methodologies
The large group methods that are explained more fully in the rest of the book are also known as co-creative approaches to change. They are a separate and distinctive collection of approaches, not to be confused with some other communication methodologies such as town hall meetings, or even Work-Out sessions. While these processes might look similar, in that they gather a large number of people together in a room, they are fundamentally different in process and reflect different sets of underlying beliefs about organizations and change. The co-creative or transformational collaborative approaches that feature in this book have some distinctive features.
Distinctive Features of Co-creative Approaches to Change
1. The nature of their interaction is many-to-many rather than one-to-many
A key feature of these approaches is that conversation, discussion, and communication take place simultaneously within different groups of people for a large part of the process or event. So typically there will be a lot of pairs of people, or small groups, all talking simultaneously either in the same large space or across the organization. This contrasts with, for instance, town hall meetings where typically a few people on stage address the silent majority. The simultaneous conversation present in the co-creative approaches leads to some interesting sub-characteristics.
- No one hears everything that has been said.
- No one has a superior overview of what happened at the event.
- Different people will make different sense of the same event.
- Achieving sufficiently shared understanding to allow broadly aligned activity to take place takes precedence over achieving consensus.
In essence these approaches are predicated on a belief that we don’t all have to be singing from exactly the same hymn sheet to be able to move forward.
2. They are predicated on an understanding that the social world is socially constructed
Social constructionism (Gergen & Gergen, 2003) is a philosophical understanding of the nature of knowledge that, broadly speaking, suggests that what we know and accept as truth is an emergent feature of our interactions and communications. It’s very easy to disappear in a miasma of qualifiers and circumlocutions when attempting to talk about or explain social constructionism – just take a look at any of the key texts. However, the concept does offer the idea that it is possible for a group of people to each see the same things differently. Accepting this we can see that shifts in perception may open up new possibilities for action. In other words, we might not be able to change the facts but we can change how we view things. Some fundamental social constructionist ideas are important to understanding how these co-creative approaches enable groups to effect change in the moment as their understanding of the situation they are in changes.
a) We see what we talk about/we hear what we listen out for
For many of us our default belief position is that we see what is in front of our eyes and we hear what is going on around us. Interestingly, much research has concluded that this is not so. What we hear or perceive is a function both of what is there and of the focus and preconceptions we bring to it. As we have already mentioned, we only attend to about 1% of what is going on around us (Achor, 2011). Many mindfulness exercises are about increasing this 1%. In this way attention is a crucial component of change: refocus our attention and we refocus what we can see. It also means that directing attention is a crucial leadership activity. These co-creative methods enable the system to focus its attention on a specific topic or question in a new way to bring new information into the light.
b) Reality is socially constructed and we create our realities in relationship and communication
This means that if we are trying to affect a whole system, then the whole system needs to create the new reality. Together we discover information by focusing our attention, together we negotiate the meaning of the information, together we identify some implications for action, and together we act to change the world. An individual trying to change a system in a directive way is almost certainly doomed to failure as the system is stronger, unless of course they use coercion. An individual working to create the conditions for system change is on a much better wicket. This is achieved by focusing the system’s attention so it “sees” new things and so adapts its behaviour.
c) Meaning is context bound
Words have a dictionary meaning, a formal definition, while at the same time their meaning is slippery, shifting with the context. Thus the same word can be comic, tragic, or ironic in its meaning depending on the context. In a more subtle way, some organizational words, such as strategy, change, and culture, will take on different meanings in different contexts. Organizations need to understand that the functional meaning of words in the specific context of their organization is a product of how they are used, by whom, and in what context.
For example, I am sometimes involved in helping organizations to “drive our values throughout the organization.” A typical scenario is that the senior team have spent some time working out the organizational values. To them the words have deep and specific meaning, although to an unbiased outsider they look fairly standard fare for such an endeavour, featuring, for instance, “respect,” “customer focused,” “striving for excellence,” and so on. Telling the rest of the organization that these are the values may mean that the people become able to recite them, but it doesn’t of itself ensure they can live them, or that they become deeply embedded in the organizational life. For that to happen the organization needs to have extensive conversations where the meaning of the value word is explored. Then their active function, their influence on behaviour and their meaning is negotiated in each individual’s context of work.
d) Language contains moral order
How we talk about someone or about a situation contains ideas about what might be an appropriate action to take. In this way we can’t separate talk from action. Action potential is contained within and created by talk. This is because when we talk we are making sense of things: we are constructing meaning. How we understand things affects how we feel we should act. From this perspective language is fateful and impactful; very powerful, in fact, and to be used with care. As we construct motive in conversation so we construct response. How we interpret the world affects how we act in the world; and we have choices about how we interpret the world, particularly regarding the actions of others. In this way morality is contained within the way we converse about the world.
e) Organizations are networks of conversation
I find this a very succinct expression of a powerful idea. Our “organization” is socially constructed, that is to say, the patterns of interaction and communication of groups of people create and recreate the thing we call our organization. All the artefacts, desks, machines, and so on would have no meaning if it weren’t for the meaning we create around and about them. This means that to change our organization we need to change the patterns of interaction and conversation, because it is these that hold our “organization” in place.
f) Information lies in difference
This idea articulates the value of diversity. Comparing two apples we learn little about apples; comparing an apple with an orange we learn something about both of them. Sometimes the more mechanistic planned approach to change strives for consistency; it requires, for example, “everyone to sing from the same hymn sheet” or for the organization to “have all its ducks in a row.” Too great an insistence on this can stifle the expression of different perspectives and experience that might be brought to bear on the challenge. It achieves simplicity and clarity at the cost of innovation and resource. Finding a constructive way to work with difference enhances the resource available to an organization during change.
g) We seek always to make sense and go on
We are social animals, we are wired to make sense of things so we can continue to act in the world. This has two important connotations in this context. First, as we have already touched on, it means that people don’t wait passively while you finesse that communication document. They are continually involved in a conversation that seeks to make sense of what is happening around them. When their attention is caught by a new feature in their environment, and we are wired to notice the novel, then that will be the focus of some sense-making. It also means that people only need to make “enough” sense to keep going, not necessarily complete sense. We can and do work from a place of “a working hypothesis” to enable us to continue to act in the world. The co-creative methodologies outlined here are all predicated on this ability of social groups.
h) The future is socially constructed
The future isn’t out there waiting for us to plan our way to it, nor is it in some way preordained. It is created by the actions we take today. In this way the future is contained in the present. To create a different future tomorrow we need to do different things today. We can influence how the future unfolds.
All this means that, as Shaw says, when working from a social constructionist perspective we are working with “the assumption that the activity of conversation itself is the key process through which forms of organising are dynamically sustained and changed” (2002, p. 10; my emphasis). Understanding this we “try to shift people’s perspective to see that organizational change is this process rather than an end product of it” (p. 33). However, as Stacey, Griffin, and Shaw say, “… the dominant voice in organization and management theory [is that] which speaks the language of design, regularity and control. In this language, managers stand outside the organizational system, which is thought of as an objective, pre-given reality that can be modelled and designed and they control it.” (2002, p. ix). This dominant view, they argue, is not aligned with an understanding of human life as “the co-evolution of jointly constructed reality” (p. x). I would agree. Box 4.1 gives an illustration of how our perspective affects what we see.
3. They recognize that conversation is a systemic process
Given the above, it’s easy to see why these methodologies focus on conversation, communication, and language. They recognize that conversation is a systemic process and that organizations are systemic contexts. A word here about a confusing word: systemic means how one thing unfolds in the context of another. On the whole, conversation is a systemic activity. These co-creative methodologies are context-sensitive systemic approaches to change. In other words, they don’t offer a one-size-fits-all approach, they take a systemic approach: the approach is responsive to the system it is working with; it will unfold differently each time within some broad parameters.
Systematic activity, on the other hand, is not context bound. It is a way of doing something that is thought to be transferable anywhere. It is driven by routine, not by context. For example, you will have your own systematic way of tying your shoelaces. There are a few different variations of this around, but you are likely to have one way you tie your shoelaces whatever lace-up shoes you are wearing and wherever you are. It’s quick, easy, mindless activity that you do the same way every time and it works for you. You don’t do it differently in the bathroom and the bedroom, or at work and at home: it is not context specific. Systemic and systematic, although only differing in two letters, are almost opposites in meaning. In my experience, the close correspondence of these two words means that people often “hear” a word they know (e.g., systematic) when one says one they don’t (e.g., systemic).
Planned change approaches are sold as being systematic: a series of steps that, if followed correctly, will produce the same result everywhere. David Cooperrider faced a dilemma related to this distinction as he attempted to explain Appreciative Inquiry practice: how to produce a sufficiently informative template that facilitated people to practise systemically without producing a rigidly prescribed systematic process. The answer was to produce a model of the process, and some guiding principles, and to ignore the invitation to produce a systematic, step-by-step guide.
The beauty of this approach is that it fully accommodates the abilities of the particular practitioner and the circumstances of the particular context. How you do Appreciative Inquiry in any particular setting is always going to be dependent on who you are, your resources and abilities, and the situation or context. The model and the principles create a frame within which to act. At its heart Appreciative Inquiry is an etymological choice, it is a philosophical approach and it is an ethical act. The other co-creative methodologies explored in later chapters, while more prescriptive in some of their detail, are also at heart systemic.
4. They recognize that organizations are about patterns and that change is about changing patterns
These methodologies are focused on disrupting the established patterns of organizational life by inviting different people in different configurations to have different conversations about different topics, framed differently. Since the organization is “a network of conversation,” as explained above, this creates change.
5. They are focused on effecting change at many levels simultaneously
All these methodologies are about involving the whole system in the change conversation. They construct change as a social process that can occur dynamically and simultaneously across the organization. Change does not have to be a top-down linear process. Change effected from this perspective is messier, yet has the potential to be faster and more coordinated.
6. They connect to values to gain commitment
These methodologies call not just on the power of logical argument but also on the power of emotional motivation. By involving people in ways that allow them to discover and share some of their deepest values and motivations, and to join with others in discovering how these can be expressed in the unfolding future, these methodologies can create a powerful and resilient motivation to action and change. This is particularly important for, as Cheung-Judge and Holbeche write, “The deep changes – in how people think, what they believe, how they see the world – are difficult, if not impossible, to achieve through compliance” (2011, p. 265). Discussing this further they note that there are two types of employee engagement: emotional commitment and rational commitment. They argue that emotional commitment is four times as strong as rational commitment in driving employee effort (p. 291). These co-creative methodologies help create this emotional commitment.
7. They create hope and other positive emotions
A key effect of these approaches, because of their emphasis on involvement, participation, and seeking out the positive, is that they create hope. The more I work with organizations going through change the more I understand the importance and power of this particular emotion. The more people start to feel helpless (unable to affect what is happening to them, in their world) the more likely they are to start feeling hopeless. Appreciative Inquiry explicitly works to create positive emotions. However, the other methodologies mentioned here also have this capacity, which can be further encouraged by positive framing of the topic or the questions used.
8. They encourage high-quality connections and the formation of high-energy networks
These are two concepts from positive psychology, and I wrote about them earlier (Lewis, 2011). High quality connections are characterized by trust and respect. They are intimate and meaningful. They are a foundation of connectivity and resilience. The experience of them is life-enhancing. The probability of experiencing a high-quality connection with a colleague is heightened in these co-creative encounters compared to a standard “board meeting” discussion of change. Positive energy networks are a related phenomenon. The term describes a network of people that has a high proportion of these kinds of connections. Quite often the network is focused around one particular person, but either way it is generative, responsive, breeds positivity, and generates possibility, hope, and commitment of discretionary time to activities. It is easy to see how helpful these organizational features are during times of change.
9. They allow people to feel heard
A key point of these co-creative methodologies is the exchange of voices or perspectives. The voice of everyone present is valued. Everyone gets to talk about what they think is really important. They may even get to make decisions, depending on the decision-making status of the event. I can’t stress enough how important this is during organizational change. As we mentioned earlier, during imposed, top-down, programmatic planned change people can feel voiceless, reduced to inert components of a machine or a chess game, moved about at the behest or whim of others. Forced, perhaps, in the apparent interests of fairness, to, as they see it, “reapply for their own jobs” they feel their confidence and power dribble away. By the time management thinks to ask for their “suggestions” about the change via a suggestion box, they have lost the belief in their power to influence, or the goodwill towards management to contribute. And so a vicious circle of “they don’t contribute: they don’t listen” is re-enforced.
Co-creative methodologies are a powerful antidote. Ideally, of course, a system-wide co-creative event would be held at the beginning of the process. However, such processes can create a space where people can have influence over what is happening in their work environment at any point in the process. Be warned though, some preparatory work may be necessary in the organization to create or release the belief or hope that this event might actually “make a difference.” Those who are resigned to their fate can find the invitation to contribute to, or to experience, hope as unsettling as it is exciting. Their re-engagement with hope can be very tentative. Assuming the event is of a voluntary nature, a minimal level of hope needs to be engendered beforehand if people are going to risk even engaging in your event.
To ensure that your event or process maximizes the positive features and benefits of co-creative events as outlined above, it is useful to understand a few key principles of practice.
Principles of Practice for Achieving Change in Living Human Systems
1. Seek to discover strengths and resources in people
Developing an appreciative eye or ear, and the ability to affirm the good that you see, acts to magnify and grow the best of what is around you. It also creates a different conversational or interactional dynamic. I am currently engaged in a coaching assignment for the first time in a while. Much of each session involves me eliciting and amplifying the coachee’s successes, and affirming how they are an appropriate expression of his strengths in action. In this way I am very consciously looking for the positive, and I thoroughly believe in the value to be gained from learning from success and in “strengths-spotting” as a coaching practice. Even so, I am mildly astonished by how useful and informative the coachee finds this process. Not only does he always declare that the sessions have been so but he also talks about how energizing he finds the sessions. The effectiveness of this approach is supported by the fact that the positive change in his management style and his growth as a leader have been noticed and commented on by those above and below him in the organization, as well as by others with whom he interacts in the organization. He credits much of this to our sessions, which is highly flattering and affirming of course; however, I credit it to the power of a positive approach to elicit growth and change.
Whitney and colleagues, discussing the characteristics of appreciative leaders, talk about the strength of strengths-spotting. Strengths-spotters are “able to hear positive potential through the haze of problems, dilemmas, issues and troubles” (2010, p. 68). As they note, appreciative leaders find strengths in people and situations because they look for them. Meanwhile, O’Hanlon and Beadle (1997) remind us to inquire about resources beyond the person, to recognize that everyone is plugged into a bigger network that contains resources that might be useful. The key question to access these is “Who or what else can help?” In this way we are working with the theory of the world as a network and as an economy of strengths. By helping people tap into the resources around them we quite literally increase their resourcefulness.
2. Create accounts of possibility that motivate
Positive approaches to change are predicated on drawing motivation out of people rather than on the more traditional method of trying to push it in. Attractive images of the future – images that people have helped to create and of which they can see themselves as being a part – draw people towards them. In so many situations, asking people about how things could be, rather than how they currently are, acts to switch their focus away from the current stuck situation. The shift in motivation from wanting to get away from something (i.e., the unrewarding present) to wanting to move towards something else (i.e., the potentially rewarding future) creates hope, which in turn releases new resources of energy and cognition.
3. Ask, don’t tell
Key to producing change in people is asking questions rather than telling answers. Asking questions usually stimulates thought and engagement. Telling answers often produces push-back, resulting in the familiar “Why don’t you? – Yes, but” conversation. As mentioned earlier, Whitney and colleagues note that, “Inquiry requires daily practice: to ask more and tell less” (2010, p. 29). It also requires a shift in our understanding of what leadership looks like. When we move to ask more and tell less it can induce a strange sense of dereliction of duty. Essentially we ask ourselves, “Aren’t I supposed to have answers? Isn’t that why I’m paid more?” So the guidance here is all predicated on that shift in mindset from “I am here to direct change” to “I am here to create the conditions that enable change to happen.” Asking questions is a key skill in enabling change to happen. I find the potential of questions to produce effects endlessly fascinating. Here are a few examples of different kinds of questions and their potential effects. There is more about different kinds of questions and their effects in Lewis, Passmore, and Cantore (2007).
a) Expanding questions
Cooperrider refers to the “exponential inquiry effect” (2015). As we inquire into the good and the positive from an appreciative mindset, so we “establish the new and eclipse the old” (2015). This is another way of expressing the power of focusing people’s attention on what they want rather than on what they don’t want, what they can do rather than what they can’t, and what excites them rather than what depresses them; this refocusing of attention establishes these as the important topics to which we must attend. The new topics, the new energy, the new motivation eclipses the old attention grabbers. It’s not so much that these approaches resolve the “old” problems as that they dissolve them. What loomed so large in the mind, the imagination, and the world is now diminished, its power much reduced; without the oxygen of constant attention it no longer fills our vision.
Appreciative questions expand our dialogue about what works, increase our appreciation of the possible and expand our awareness of our resources and resourcefulness even as they build them. Appreciative questions are growth questions, and growth is at the heart of change. Appreciative leaders use questions to access both their own potential and that of other people.
b) Energy questions
Hoogendijk classifies some specific questions such as “What are you most proud of?” and “Can you remember a person who highly inspired you?” as energy questions, noting, “The act of remembering positive emotions boosts one’s energy” (2015, p. 32). He recommends them as great starters to a constructive conversation. He identifies the positive virtuous circle that can stem from these simple questions. “Asking these questions puts you in an appreciative mode. Being in an appreciative mode helps you find more energy questions. It’s generative!” (p. 32). Having energy is essentially a state of being motivated.
c) Positive questions
Whitney and colleagues suggest that “All you have to do is ask, and a wealth of information, ideas and knowledge unfolds” (2010, p. 28). Positive questions, that is, questions focused on the best of experiences, reveal “treasure troves” of best practices, success stories, and creativity (2010). Positive questions produce the positive emotions that are at the heart of high performance. Emotions such as pride, courage, confidence, and generosity encourage initiative-taking and high performance; they also encourage learning and innovation. We consider how to create positive and appreciative questions in Chapter 6 (see Box 6.3). A typical positive question focuses on a highlight moment such as “When have you felt at your best at work?” or “What has been your proudest moment in the last few months?”
d) Focusing questions
Questions focus our attention. They are not neutral data-gathering tools; they have an impact on what we see in the world, what we consider to be important. So ask questions about the things you want people to be focusing on. Very typically, this is what you want more of, so instead of asking, “What went wrong in that last project?” you might ask, “What did we do really well in the project and what can we do even better next time?” Alternatively, you might want people to focus on the small things that make a difference, so you might ask “Thinking about the best meeting you have ever been part of, and one almost but not quite as good, what made the difference?” Or you can ask people at loggerheads to identify each other’s best qualities. We learn about what we ask about, so we should think carefully about what we inquire into.
e) Magic questions
These are great. These transport people out of their enmeshment with the current world into another world. Classics include: “Imagine a miracle whereby this problem/issue/bad thing was solved/disappeared/wasn’t affecting your life any more. How would things be? How would you know the miracle had occurred? What would be different? Talk me through your day without this problem”; “If you had three wishes of how things could be different, what would they be?”; “Imagine I have a magic wand and I make it possible for you to give a great presentation/get that sale/have a great conversation with that difficult person, what would be happening?”; and “What if your wildest dreams came true?” These questions can produce great moments of insight and energy for change.
4. Motivate through stories not lists
Appreciative questions are designed to provoke stories rather than lists. Sharing stories is a great way to stimulate growth and creativity that doesn’t provoke resistance. When we hear inspiring stories that resonate with us in some way we start to imagine ourselves in different scenarios and futures; we are inspired and motivated. Our brains are particularly geared to respond to storytelling. Stories may soothe, excite, frighten, or even bore us (especially if we are hearing them for the nth time!), but in general they engage us. Hearing other people’s success stories can inspire us to try new things or adopt new practices. They can inspire us through a competitive edge – “Well if they can learn that new thing I’m damn sure I can” – or through reassurance – “Well if this person I trust got good results from it then maybe I will give it a go.” They enrich our sense of possibility and build our confidence to face uncertainty. We can become hopeful. We begin to dream big and be more willing to take risks. They also inspire us to raise our game (Fredrickson, 2003).
5. Be alert to the holy trio
Inspiration, hope, and creativity are at the root of personal and collective transformation. We are always working to create these in situations where something needs to change.
6. Aim beyond engagement for flourishing
Flourishing is a term increasingly used to describe a state of positive wellbeing, emotionally, mentally, and physically. Given that we spend more time engaged with our work organizations than we do with our families, friends, or other institutions (Hochschild, 1997), work could be a major source of flourishing for people. Since flourishing is not traditionally a primary concern of organizations, we could ask, why should organizations take an interest in people’s levels of flourishing? Increasingly, research demonstrates that “happiness,” which we might accept as a proxy for flourishing, is positively related to engagement, energy, motivation, confidence, goal achievement, and contribution (Pryce-Jones, 2010, p. 3). How then can we create flourishing at work?
A positive work identity is a key source of flourishing. Work identities can be positive in four different ways. First, the work identity can be a function of the content of the work and the extent to which it allows people to exercise their “best self” in terms of character strengths and virtues. Second, there is the effect of someone’s subjective evaluation of their role, that is, the person feels good about their work identity as a fireman or doctor, for example. Third, our identity can be enhanced through our sense of self as the job enables us to mature and adapt, to grow and learn; and fourth, identity is enhanced when the job allows for integration of other important identities with the work identity – for instance, when someone can integrate other identities, such as being gay, or a single mum, or an enthusiastic trainspotter, into their work identity, rather than having to split them off in separate compartments (Dutton, Roberts, & Bednar, 2011, p. 156).
Ibarra suggests that positive work identities promote flourishing at work in three ways. First, people who explore new possible selves at work, to adapt to demands of changing work, experience more coherence between who they are and what they do (e.g., enhanced psychological functioning). Second, positive work identities also foster positive emotions, which, as is now well accepted, are positively related to the likelihood of succeeding (Achor, 2011). And third, positive work identities also promote more prosocial behaviour (Ibarra, 2003). In addition, research shows that positive self-evaluations of work-related identity are an important predictor of work engagement (Mauno, Kinnunen, & Ruokolainen, 2007), and that work engagement is associated with adaptive behaviours such as using initiative, which in turn affect the bottom line (Harter, Schmidt, & Keyes, 2003). All this means that people with positive work identities are more able to deal with current challenges and to take advantage of opportunities (Dutton et al., 2011, p. 157). Flourishing at work is also enhanced by the five factors identified by Seligman as key to individual flourishing (positive emotions, engagement, meaningfulness, positive relationships, and accomplishment) (2011), and Cameron’s factors for flourishing organizations (positive deviance, affirmation, and virtuous practices) (2003).
7. Pay special attention to leaders
Working in this way can be very hard for leaders. Asking questions rather than giving answers, calling on the collective wisdom of the organization rather than being the individual hero, being authentic rather than playing a part, all of these can be unusual or alien behaviours. They need to understand what they are getting into and what is required of them to make it work.
These events are predicated on relationship and trust as the source of leader power rather than command and control status. For leaders in many organizations this is unexplored territory. In addition, “We are biased toward telling instead of asking because we live in a pragmatic, problem-solving culture in which knowing things and telling others what we know is valued. We also live in a structured society in which building relationships is not as important as task accomplishment …” (Schein, 2013, p. 4), while at the same time, “… the art of questioning becomes more difficult as status increases” (p. xii). This is because in hierarchical systems “having to ask is a sign of weakness or ignorance, so we avoid it as much as possible” (p. 5). So it is wise to be aware of how much we are asking of leaders when we suggest working this way, and to give them time to understand these differences and what they mean. We also need to help them understand that they are part of the change, not just the commissioners of the change.
I have learnt from experience to be wary of the lip service agreement managers and leaders offer, the “yes, yes” of compliance that means “Just do it, it won’t affect me anyway, it’s their problem.” Inevitably, it isn’t just “their problem,” and, assuming the event is successful, it will affect the managers and leaders. Once or twice I’ve gone along with the “top and tailing” approach, where a leader suggests that they will come in at the beginning and return at the end to see what has been achieved. Big mistake. They need to be present (and I mean present, not in a corner working on their laptop), involved in and influencing discussions and decisions as they happen. Nothing kills an event dead quicker that an energized group presenting their ideas to a leader who has missed all the background to and investment in these ideas or decisions and who then proceeds to critically evaluate (pick holes) in them all. The group will visibly deflate before your eyes and not much will happen after the event.
8. Pay attention to the decision-making status of the event
This leads us to the important point of deciding beforehand the decision-making power of the event. Ideally, the event can make decisions there and then. Try to avoid the need to present the outcome of the event to some other decision-making body. Again, I have fallen foul of this with strategic-oriented large group events where the output has been ideas to go to “the strategic planning group.” This stops everything in its tracks and the energy to make the changes drains away.
9. Prepare for afterwards
Again, a lesson learnt the hard way is the importance of planning what is going to happen after the event. At one time I naively assumed it was obvious: the embryonic projects and project groups that emerge from a good event need to be supported; managers need to take an interest; a process needs to be put in place to encourage, coordinate, and celebrate the groups and what they are achieving. Turns out it was only obvious to me, and I wasn’t there to make it happen. Help those who are there understand the importance of tracking and fanning the small beginnings of change (Bushe, 2010). In his research into the effectiveness of Appreciative Inquiry interventions Stellnberger (2011) noted that the organization that had a clear follow-up structure of weekly Appreciative Inquiry branch meetings was still reaping the benefits of their big event some two to three years later, much more so than the two other organizations who hadn’t put such things into effect.
10. Aim for volunteerism
With all these methodologies the volunteer principle is important. This alone makes them counter-cultural in many organizations. Organizational realities mean it may not be possible to negotiate that attendance at the event is voluntary, although I would fight pretty hard for this for all sorts of reasons – one clear benefit being that the organization has to start experimenting with different behaviour just to get the event to happen. They have to entice people rather than order them, and that demands a different understanding of the relationship at play, which acts to recast the understanding of the organization from a power-based hierarchy to a relational-based system.
However, not all battles can be won. It is not uncommon to end up with the organizational fudge where attendance is “voluntary” yet people know they are expected to be there. So be it. Once they are at the event you are in charge. Creating choice creates choosing. So make it clear at the beginning to any that protest about being here that, while you are pleased they are there and hope since they are they will choose to take part, as far as you are concerned they are grown adults with many pressures and priorities to balance and it’s for them to decide where they need to be. If you give permission for them to leave if they feel there is somewhere more important they need to be, then you create choice for them. And given choice, they may choose to “hang around and see how it goes.” Key to facilitating this shift is doing everything to help them maintain face whatever choices they make, and making staying an attractive option. The organization may be treating them like a wayward child, but you are treating them respectfully as an autonomous adult daily facing the challenge of making choices among competing priorities. They must choose as they see fit. Given the choice, freed from the constraint of having to be there, usually people do choose to stay.
Conclusion
In this chapter we have considered some of the common characteristics of co-creative events and some of the key principles of practice that enhance the likelihood of creating successful, engaging, positive, and impactful change processes or events. We have described some further positive psychology research that supports these approaches and have identified, in passing, some of the challenges they can produce for organizations, leaders, and participants. Next I want to consider how to work with positive psychology at an individual and at a team level.