Dear OSLIST, Peg Holman and I are being bumblebees.
We're both on the OS and AI listserves (along with BJ Peters and probably others). Peg compiled the OS/AI thread messages from our list a couple days ago and posted them on the AI list. Here are two responses from Bernard J. Mohr which I found to be important and illuminating. Information about joining the AI list is included at the bottom. Buzzingly Yours, Chris Weaver ---------- From: [email protected] To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Subject: Re: [Ailist] OS and AI Date: Sat, Apr 28, 2001, 2:40 PM Peggy - thanks for sharing this OS list thread with this AI list. Having been "trained" in OS in the early days and having had the opportunity to be with Harrison and you in at least one large OS, (and having run numerous other ones myself) I fully resonate with many (or perhaps all) of the positive attributions made to OS in the list comments. The difficulty I have in adding much beyond that is because Im aware that the understanding of AI underneath many of the OS list comments is quite diferent from my understanding of AI - so its almost as if we are speaking a different language - or to use a somwhat hackneyed term - we seem to standing within differing paradigms (ie beliefs about the nature of reality, the world etc) For example I hear people talking about AI as if it were a tool or a method rather than a set of principles which guide practice ( what a significant difference!) I hear people talking about AI as if it were the interviews - rather than a continual process people use to enagage each other in building the kinds of worlds and communities and organizations they want to live in I hear people talking about AI as if flexibility, customiztion and co-creation with our clients were somehow not core and central to AI practice. I hear people talking about AI as the 4 (or 5 ) D cycle - as if they were one and the same - rather than understanding that this is one of many articulations of a set of principles( for example Imagine Chicago calls it Understand-Imagine-Create ) I hear almost no reference to or understanding of the underlying theory and research base. (Social Constructionism, the Power of Image, and what is generally termed " the new sciences eg the principal of non locality, Participative Design, the work of Dee Hock etc etc etc) I see little or mention of the all important Design phase in AI - with respect to the importance of which Cooperider says "Too often we skirt these "tougher" issues, like the sharing and distribution of resources, or images of ideal power relations" and goes on to say... <<What is becoming increasingly clear to me is that if people do great work with Discovery and Dream, then rarely, if ever, do the older command and control structures of eras past serve the org; the new dreams always seem to have outgrown the structures and systems. If we, on an ongoing basis, start sharing propositions emerging in our work we might begin seeing patterns and connections, and images of post bureaucratic forms, where the future is brilliantly interwoven into the texture of the mosaic of all our inquiries. In my experience, which is curious to me, I have never seen people create propositions about creating more hierarchy, more command and control, more inequality, more degradation of the environment, more socially irresponsible business practices, etc. Indeed the propositions, as I°¶ve seen them written, have always moved in a direction of more equality, more self-organization, more social consciousness in terms of business practices, and the breakdown of arbitrary barriers between groups and functions. >> Peggy - Of course all of this could be dismissed as over complexifying - and I for one certainly like Harrisons invocation " what is one less thing to do and have the experience be whole?" But I think we need be cautious in our attempt to stream line and not forget the end concept from Harrison ...and still "have the experience be whole" What I do know is that there are many practitioners out there who are deeply committed to <<building a better world through the creation of organizations that are healthy and prosperous-- living systems that connect to the best and most positive in human beings and are in harmony with nature. >> ( the purpose/raison d'etre of AIC - Appreciative Inquiry Consulting) ...practitioners that use OS and or AI as guiding frameworks. My hope is that as a larger community, we begin by seeking to understand each other as fully as possible ie developing a common language perhaps, a shared set of meanings. - and perhaps your cross positngs are just the vehicle to help us do that ! Bernard J Mohr In a message dated 4/29/01 12:09:09 AM, [email protected] writes: << Bernard, Thanks for your very thoughtful reflections. I really take your point about "its almost as if we are speaking a different language - or to use a somwhat hackneyed term - we seem to standing within differing paradigms (ie beliefs about the nature of reality, the world etc)" I must admit I was a little nervous about sending the messages to this list wondering if some of the perceptions would seem insulting. As the discussion shifted to perceptions about role of the facilitator, it seemed useful to me to broaden the reflection to this list. Your hope of aiding greater understanding is certainly one I share. Peggy >> ==== Peggy - Since the point of departure for AI is dialogical place (ie Social constructionism and relational theory), how could anyone object to a conversation that says 'lets explore"! This of course doesnt mitigate the difficulty of shared meaning for so many words. Personally, I am continually impressed by my own inability to create new shared meanings in workshops of less than a week. People have no difficulty in grasping superficially the words associated with the 5 D's - after all its just basic action research isnt it. But it is the meaning, the nuance of choice and the whole world view within which one stands that makes the significant difference in deeper understanding and then practice. Its that moment, when people say, "so from this perspective, everything changes" - which incidentally is an experience I also associate with OS. None of this is particularly intellectually complex and many of these ideas are, Im certain shared by the OS community - but the dialogue needed to tease out the subtleties, those meaning full little differences that matter so much, (like the difference between action planning and design) is a challenge in general and via email it seems daunting But perhaps, given so much in the way shared ground between the communities, we have an opportunity here? Bernard J Mohr President/CEO The Synapse Group, Inc. "Supporting Positive Organizational Change for More Than 30 Years" Mailing address: 57 Coyle St. Portland, ME 04101 Bernard's office direct line and Voicemail 207-874-0118 (24 hrs) Synapse administrative office (207) 761-4221 (24 hrs) Fax (207) 874-0456 (24 hrs) Home (207) 775-6577 (only after office hours and before 9 pm) Email <[email protected]> Hope to see you at the First International AI Conference, Sept 30 - Oct 3, 2001, Baltimore, MD For more info go to < www.pegasuscom.com/ai/ > _______________________________________________ The Appreciative Inquiry Discussion List is hosted by the David Eccles School of Business at the University of Utah. Jack Brittain is the list administrator. For subscription information, go to: http://lists.business.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/ailist
