FUTURE SEARCH AND APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY
Helen Spector, Ray Bradburn, Susan Dupre
Purpose:
To introduce the concepts of Appreciative Inquiry to the Future Search Network Community
To speculate on the places where Ai might increase the power of the Future Search structures and tasks
To share preliminary results of experiments we have conducted so far
To invite questions, dialogue, and more experiments
Basic introduction to Appreciative Inquiry
Appreciative Inquiry (AI) is both an intervention philosophy and an intervention practice. At the practice level AI is a collaborative approach to seeking, identifying and enhancing the life-giving forces which are present when a system is performing optimally in human, economic and organizational terms. As such it is a whole systems, multi-phase, rapid approach to transforming human systems (organizations, teams, families, relationships, etc.)
At the philosophical level, AI is an orientation or stance about knowing and understanding the world, and provides a new "golf bag” into which we can fit our organization development "clubs” such as strategic planning, organization structure redesign, team building, project and performance evaluation, coaching, diversity work, community development work, family and interpersonal relations, etc.
AI as an organizational practice, has been developed over the past 10 years by a number of folks, and is principally associated with David Cooperrider at the Weatherhead School of Management at Case-Western Reserve University in Cleveland. AI takes as its theoretical framework Social Constructionism, which holds (at a very oversimplified level) that we construct our reality in social interaction and conversation, and that reality does not exist in any essential or objective and fundamental form waiting to be discovered. AI also holds that energy follows attention (a very Aikido principle), that we get more of what we put energy into, and that we can choose what we pay attention to.
AI also draws our attention to "initial conditions”, because it holds that the first question is FATEFUL—meaning that what we inquire into first sets the direction for the rest of the inquiry and determines where our attention and energy will go. If we inquire into what is broken, we will find/get more problems, and we all know that we are trained to be superb problem finders and problem solvers. However, if we inquire into what is working, we can develop a deep understanding of what supports us at our best, and then we will get more of that.
The basic AI practice approach is based in story as the conveyer of meaning and as the principal means of gathering data about our experience. We can inquire into anything, and we focus the inquiry on our best experiences. This enables us to then inquire into what supported those experiences and what we can learn from them that has relevance for our future.
AI is very versatile. You can use it to structure an entire whole-systems change intervention. You can also use it to set the tone of a conversation or an event. In this article, we will suggest a variety of places within the process of developing and conducting a Future Search where AI can have a positive effect on the outcomes. We will give examples from our own experiments, where we have them, and we hope our readers will engage with us and each other in exploring the possibilities presented by the use of AI and Future Search together.
Future Search from an AI perspective:
In the large-systems approach using AI (called the 4-D Model—Larry, can we put in one or 2 references for people who want to find out more about AI?) the phases or steps are Discovery, Dream, Design, and Destiny. In most material describing the Dream phase, where the process involves a large group, many times they will refer to Future Search as the method of choice for developing the dream. Thus Future Search as a whole systems visioning approach is already part of the larger AI process.
We have been talking about AI for the past 9 months at the West Coast Future Search Network meetings, and some of us have used it experimentally in client settings and Future Search conferences we have conducted during that time. We have found the discussions exciting, and the client/conference results rewarding. So here goes.
The examples below come from 3 different situations and 3 different FSC practitioners:
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) opted for a Future Search Conference to address a much-needed improvement of its external and internal customer service. A conference involving some 50 staff plus 30 external stakeholders and 10 planning team members was held after a 10-week planning and preparation phase. The 10 planning team members served first as conference staff and then as action team members. Ray Redburn
Mariposa County lies just outside of Yosemite National Park. Several years ago when floods closed many local roadways the County experienced a rude awakening regarding their dependency on the Park. This prompted a local banker to gather a group of citizens to begin a visioning and planning effort. A Future Search conference was considered however the planning group wanted to invite and engage all Mariposa citizens. This led to a design of multiple meetings over a four-month period which in many ways replicated a Future Search - the past, present, future and planning. Susan Dupre
Diocese of Ohio—Leadership Summit to deepen the Bishop’s vision. They assembled 125 participants from across the diocese, not balanced around stakeholder designations. The conference was held over 3 days, using the basic structure of a Future Search, but taking each task from an appreciative stance. Planning group consisted of diocesan staff and Bishops. The process of taking the vision out and engaging others in the diocese about what it means for them, continues in the diocese. Helen Spector
1. During the planning process:
Many times we encounter clients who are so focused on the negative or problematic aspects of their situations that they can hardly imagine any other future. Using AI during work with the Planning Group can help them envision the possibility of positive outcomes and generate a different kind of energy to carry the planning through.
An example of this occurred in the Diocese of Ohio, where the initial discussion focused on all the ways the outcomes of the conference would produce more problems than they had already. Shifting to an appreciative stance turned their attention to imagining the best possible outcomes they might experience from the conference. This generated incredible energy for going forward in ways that they had not be able to imagine before.
The process of a planning group can be powerfully affected by beginning with AI. The Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife’s (ODFW) planning team’s firsts moments were AI interviews that led them to declare the kind of team they wanted to be. They became a team that mirrored their originally declared attributes. Better yet, they continued to be a highly effective and high performing team throughout the pre-conference phase and at the conference.
Some groups want to involve people in the process ahead of time, before the actual conference occurs. The rationale is twofold—that more input can be brought to bear in the conference, and that this builds a more receptive "audience” for the conference outcomes, when literally the whole system cannot come to the conference. AI interviews or group conversations in advance allow the broader system to participate, and provide positive input and hopes for the actual conference participants to consider as they come together.
Example from Mariposa: The first meetings were held on two nights in various locations around the County. To set the tone for the entire four months journey, to tap people’s positive experiences with the County and to give people a concrete way of inviting others not at one of these first meetings into the process, AI was used. Individuals were asked to interview one another, taking notes, using a standard AI format. The notes were collected and people were asked to interview at least three other neighbors, colleagues, or friends. Data didn’t pour in, however, there was a visible ripple as people around the County started talking about why they love living in Mariposa and the effect captured some new people for the next round of meetings.
Example from Dio of Ohio: We used AI story-gathering formats for groups of clergy, Commissions and Committees and congregations around the Diocese. Over 600 people took part, and the data was translated into 3 large wall murals by a graphic facilitator. These greeted people at the Summit when they arrived, set a positive tone, and served as a constant reminder that the participants were part of something much larger than themselves.
The ODFW process provided several opportunities for pre-conference involvement by the approximately 1000 staff members. A brief survey was made available to all employees via web page as were in person dialogue opportunities. Members of the planning team partnered with managers throughout the state to get in front of as many work groups as possible. Listening to staff was the principal aim of this effort. A secondary aim was to prompt appreciate inquiry into ODFW’s customer service.
2. Opening the conference:
Introductions from an appreciative perspective set a tone of positive possibility and can impact the range of experiences people consider during the tasks which follow (time lines, mind maps, etc.) It probably takes more time than we usually plan, to have pairs interview each other appreciatively and then introduce their partner to the group based on what they heard.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife: Introductions within the groups began with the participant’s "homework.” The letter of invitation instructed each participant to bring two things to the conference: two different stories of outstanding customer service to people inside or outside an organization. So the conference began appreciatively with Mixed groups introductions. Group members introduced themselves by saying who they were and telling one of their two stories about great customer service. Later when people shifted to working in stakeholder groups, they again introduced themselves in terms of their second favorite customer service story.
Example from Dio Ohio: We did not have the standard mixed groups; rather we wanted people to work with people they did not know well, to build relationships and have conversations that they would not ordinarily experience throughout the conference. SO we had people pair up for initial introductory stories with people they did not know, and then form larger groups (4 pairs) also with people they did not know. This generated tremendous energy and openness that set a precedent for the rest of the conference.
3. Analysis of the Past
Time Lines Posting: The milestones that people put on the Conference Task and Society time lines tend to fall on the negative or catastrophic side than the positive and generative side of the spectrum. When we have opened with appreciative interviews, we have noticed some increase in balance with more generative or positive milestones posted.
Time Lines Analysis: An alternate set of questions to use for organizing the analysis can be looking for opportunities for change that people see in the data posted on the time lines. Where the conference has already devoted more time to introductions, this task may no longer need to serve the same deep getting-to-know-who-is-in-the-room purpose. This would not be a good idea, however, it the system is very diverse and does not have some sense of itself as a system.
ODFW: The four assignments given to the mixed groups analysis of the time lines were as follows:
A Personal—Tell a story about the data in terms of who we are and what we bring to the conference’s task
B. Global Tell the story you find in the data, noting the events that have shaped who we are today.
C. ODFW Customer Service: Tell us the story in the data and note what we care about that brings us here to work on our future
D. All Three Time Lines: What patterns and trends for all eras and all three time lines?
Diocese of Ohio: With 125 people in one conference, we had 12 groups of 8, we needed a way to have groups share their analysis without sitting through endless reports. We asked each group to analyze at 1 of the 4 time lines, identify 4 opportunities or challenges for the diocese, and post them on large pieces of paper (11x17) on the time line itself. This is, in a way, collapsing the mind-map into the time lines. We later used these opportunities/challenges as the basis for a second round of story-telling about the great things that are happening in the diocese, and what people wish for in particular areas.
4. PRESENT TRENDS:
In the analysis of mindmap trends , we have experimented with the question we ask people to use in choosing where to put their dots. We have begun asking them to focused on opportunities for "us” to make a difference, or areas where we might want to focus our energy (since energy follows attention and we get more of what we give energy to.)
Stakeholder trends—what we’re doing and what we would like to be doing—opportunities for deepening our understanding with stories, and not just "analytical” approaches to trends.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife: The significant AI tilt here asked the stakeholder group to make the scaled down version of the mind map as usual. But it then instructed them to show the trends that represent the greatest opportunity and to add trends that did not appear but which they saw as important.
5. PROUDS AND SORRIES:
Many of us find that the brainstorming of Prouds and Sorries leaves the groups with a fairly superficial understanding and while the emotional shift may take place from the "owning”, we leave a great deal of information behind as we move to imagining the future. Using AI with this task provides opportunities for telling stories about our best experiences and our greatest disappointments. We can use stories in the small groups or in the reports out, to communicate these important experiences more robustly and fully. (Prouds and Sorries from an appreciative stance.)
ODFW Just had groups select a proudest proud and sorriest sorry and tell a story about each.
6. POSSIBLE NEW TASK:
Introducing novelty into the system directly—We have experimented with asking people to tell stories of what are others doing elsewhere that really excites them. This task helps them to understand that there are others wrestling with the same issues and finding different solutions. It also primes the pump with new ideas from other places as well as with our own best experiences and wishes.
Diocese of Ohio: This exercise allowed people to bring into the conversation ideas that they would not have had a space for in a traditional future search format, unless it came in under the guise of "what we wold like to be doing” in the Stakeholder trends analysis. It built an extra measure of excitement, as people shared stories of other places that they would like to see happen in their church.
7. IDEAL FUTURE PRESENTATIONS
ODFW: This was done per the standard instructions. But a noteworthy AI dimension was added during the presentations. Participants had a worksheet entitled "Listening for Ideal Futures—Important Themes” It’s stated purpose was to discover the Common Ground desired by the conference. Participants were instructed to capture two kinds of information from each group’s presentation:
1. What the presenting group found most exciting and
2. What the participant as observer would have wished for in that scenario
Mariposa County: In the Mariposa project described above the third meeting’s purpose was to focus on the present and future. Unlike previous evening meetings in scattered places around the County, this meeting was a full day scheduled at the local Fair Grounds. Approximately 70 people gathered to create their preferred future. Using general themes from the previous interviews another interview protocol was developed that focused people on the future that they wanted for Mariposa. Pairs conducted interviews and then shared in groups of eight. Following the small group sharing the whole group gathered in a large semi-circle around a large blank mural on the wall. People were asked to share something from their small group that someone else said that excited or moved them. One after another people rose to share rich stories and hopes for their community. As people spoke a graphic recorder (Leslie Salmon) drew a beautiful mural depicting their future. (This artifact has been laminated and has made it’s rounds to various locations around the County - Burger King, the County Fair, the bank.) The challenge was to take this forth and engage yet MORE people in the community for the next step - planning.
8. COMMON G ROUND versus COSMIC "YES!”:
After the Desired Future Presentations, consider that all of what we have seen and heard could be and will be part of the future that these people will create. How does this set the stage differently for the reality dialogue? It keeps everything in the future vision, and does not force our common ground statements to such a high level of abstraction that people can no longer find themselves in the statements. Then they do not need to fight their way back into the picture in the REALITY DIALOGUE. They can consider what parts of the future they want to support with their energy, and let others support what energizes them, just as we know people will do after the conference.
Oregon DFW—Used Mind Mapping of what participants heard in the desired futures This "Vision Map” yielded a common picture of the future with all the richness of the presentations and none of the compromises that normally get made in our development of common ground. This approach also, served to keep the energy at the large group level. In the 50 or so FSC events we have participated in (collectively) we have seen a pattern of fragmentation of the powerful energy generated up to and through the future scenarios. That fragmentation of the whole conference energy always occurred during the so-called "Reality Dialogue.” The difference between the energy of this conference and all others was considerable and it seemed to carry positively through to the last moment of the conference.
Diocese of Ohio—Overnight the stories of what makes this a Diocese that works was turned into a graphic including themes or specifics from all of the 21 stories told in the Ideal Future presentation. This formed the basis for people to discuss what they usually would during the Reality Dialogue. People continued to hold up their particular passions, but had created in themselves noticeably more "space” for the interests and passions of others. IT set the stage for the next activity, which in this conference was Possibility Statements, not action plans per se.
9. ACTION PLANNING:
Provocative Propositions based on what people want to pursue, or in general groups in support of the vision as a whole serve to provide a solid base for action planning and in some ways deepen the articulated vision much better than we generally see in a Future Search Action Planning round. It shifts the action planning group task work to connecting, understanding their common purpose and getting their first meeting date established.
ODFW-- Action Planning was done with an Open Space format. What was notable here was that all themes identified by the whole conference had action teams form around them. In my 14 previous Future Search Conferences, I had never seen this occur. There had always been several themes that remained unworked. The difference here was the energy of the whole conference was not subopitmized at the level of the groups as had occurred at previous conferences not using the AI enhancements.
Diocese of Ohio—We formed back into the original groups and people developed strong, and in some cases poetic statements that captured the vision they wanted for their diocese. This deepening of vision was the focus of the conference, and these statements were incredibly moving. While overlapping, they did not duplicate each other, but together built a robust and action-able vision for Diocesan Leadership to take forward.
10. INDIVIDUAL COMMITMENTS:
These take action on the vision to the individual level, and allow those who want to work in the same arena to find each other. While these are not an AI innovation, they anchor the energy generated the entire conference back into the individuals before they leave.
ODFW--Participants sat in a huge 90-person oval and passed the microphone as each person declared one commitment they were making.
Diocese of Ohio—Participants sat in a single circle and shared their individual commitments. They had developed them after sharing in pairs what they appreciated most about the conference and what they wished would happen as a result of the conference. We asked them to organize themselves in the circle by regions (geographically) so they could connect further in their actions with those who are located close to them. The result was very moving. Commitment cards were turned in as part of the Offertory during the closing prayer service celebration.
11. CLOSING COMMENTS
ODFW--Each participant called out a one word comment on the conference. These were overwhelmingly positive, enthusiastic, and encouraging.
