Fluent Essays

Cohesive response  based on your analysis ...See attachment for detailed instructions   Cohesive response No plagiarism  APA citing 3-4 paragraphs  ** Due 24 hours or ASAP **** 1 Social Media 1 Week 4 Discussion 1: Human Dynamics, Development, and Systems This week we conclude the first half of our course. The week ahead addresses cultural norms within the organization. A culture can change by individual, team, group, department, industry, and organization. A single individual can alter the culture and attitude of an organization. The shift in CEO or leadership can alter the course of the company. The naysayer in the office or the perky person that will invest in and care about everyone impacts the workplace environment. The individual that keeps to themselves and the individual that believes something different from the majority also impact the workplace environment. All these situations can alter your organizational culture. Please read the following articles:  Bunshaft, J. A. (2018). The quest for employee voice and the role of Appreciative Inquiry. AI Practitioner, 20(3), 46–51 .  See attachment Laarakker, H., & van Kesteren, B. (2019). Appreciative Inquiry and the value of conflict. AI Practitioner, 21(4), 43–48. See attachment Assignment – Cohesive response Peter Senge is a world-renowned author whose book, The Fifth Discipline received numerous honors. In 1997, Harvard Business Review identified the book as one of the most influential management books of the past 75 years.  When finished viewing the clip, share your thoughts on his message in a “Cohesive response” classmates.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFo8fRDeH7E&feature=related   (3:11) · What did you think about what he had to say? · What surprised you? · What disappointed you? · What tools can you use moving forward? · APA citing · No plagiarism · 4-5 paragraphs 46More articles at www.aipractitioner.com Practitioner August 2018 ISBN 978-1-907549-36-6 Volume 20 Number 3 dx.doi.org/10.12781/978-1-907549-36-6-8 Year after year, decade after decade, we in Human Resources have heard it again and again. We are going to use the great ideas our employees have to enhance the workforce, to drive for greater customer service and make this a best place to work. And still, for all of the work that has gone into such initiatives, very little has changed. S o many of our organizations have conducted employee engagement surveys to determine our strengths and weaknesses. What do your employees love? What do they hate? What can we do better? In many cases, the areas needing improvement come down to two things: communication and recognition. Our success or failure in those areas are huge factors in determining the level of employee engagement. Rightfully so. We focus on improving those areas because superior employee engagement remains the holy grail of human resources management and development. Drive better employee engagement, and you drive better customer service. Better customer service makes for happier, more loyal customers. Happier customers interact better with your employees, thereby further driving better employee engagement. Who doesn’t love to work in a place where the people coming through the door are happy to see you? Ideally, you create a perpetual motion machine of success! Where we’ve been The problem has been how to move the needle on employee engagement. We have tried all sorts of approaches. There have been idea generation programs, with group meetings, suggestion boxes, incentives and a host of other methodologies to connect with employees and request their feedback. We have done these the old school way – on paper – and with a more modern approach, taking things online. We have designed recognition programs, with everything from annual service awards to financial incentives to giving away fancy trips for group achievements. Jess A. Bunshaft Jess A. Bunshaft, Esq., has served in HR management for over twenty years and was Executive Vice President & CHRO at Goodwill Industries of Greater New York and Northern New Jersey. He is president of Synergist Workforce Solutions LLC (www.synergistwfs.com), providing HR management and employee development and training. Contact [email protected] The Quest for Employee Voice and the Role of Appreciative Inquiry AI Practitioner, August 2018, Bunshaft: The Quest for the Appreciative Voice and AI 47More articles at www.aipractitioner.com Practitioner August 2018 ISBN 978-1-907549-36-6 Volume 20 Number 3 To encourage communication, we have designed newsletters, have held Town Hall meetings, have done weekly small group breakfasts with the CEO. The best we usually get is bits of feedback. True breakthroughs in engagement and communication are a rarity. In a recent discussion with a colleague at a recognized “best place to work”, she said what many of us are thinking… “The problem with current programs is that they’re the same old programs” – tweaked and repackaged with new names. Since she knew the “big bosses” wouldn’t be happy with that view, as they’ve ignored her requests to change the approach, she asked that I not use her name. But the sentiment shouldn’t be unfamiliar to most of us. At that top tier employer, it seems like it’s all been done before. Yes, employees who exemplify the best of the organization have been identified. They have found the core values and behaviors that make those employees special, and they have trumpeted the successes, setting examples for other employees, putting these top performers front-and-center in public campaigns meant to drive greater public awareness and greater business for the organization. For all that, this veteran HR professional, herself a top performer, can see that these are just retreads of things we’ve been doing for ages. How we can do better While we do get feedback from some employees through these methods, we all know we can do better. In our practice, we have been exploring the possibilities for Appreciative Inquiry (AI) as the driver to take the search for employee voice – and our quest for that holy grail of engagement – to the next level. As most readers will know, AI goes beyond the usual work-focused communications. It doesn’t look just to past experiences – particularly to failures as learning experiences – but rather looks at both the employees’ best work and their vision for the best possible future. As stated in Positive Momentum (HR Magazine, June 2013), “Instead of asking ‘What’s wrong with this organization?,’ it’s asking ‘What’s right?’ and ‘What gives life to this organization when it’s most alive?’”, citing David Cooperrider of the Weatherhead School of Management at Case Western Reserve University. Right there, we see the difference between what we have traditionally done and what we could, and should, be doing. What gives the organization life when it is most alive? At an employee level, what makes the job its best? When do we hit our peak as employees? And it’s not simply a matter of identifying those peaks. Rather, the inquiries themselves are as important as the information gathered. True breakthroughs in engagement and communication are a rarity. AI Practitioner, August 2018, Bunshaft: The Quest for the Appreciative Voice and AI 48More articles at www.aipractitioner.com Practitioner August 2018 ISBN 978-1-907549-36-6 Volume 20 Number 3 So how do we move in this new direction to explore employee voice and see what gold is waiting to be discovered? Taking existing tools, we can easily build in AI and engage with employees like we never have before. In our consulting practice, we’ve built AI into an existing facilitated brainstorming framework to begin employee discussions, designed to introduce AI into the workforces we serve. The open contribution framework of a facilitated brainstorming approach, when implemented properly, makes clear to the employees in a brainstorming session that we really want them to share their best ideas. Why, you may ask, is that particular framework important to this process? Because AI values employees’ goals and vision above all else, building on what has worked in the past and where employees dream of taking things in the future. For those not familiar with the AI framework, the four components, as shared in A Positive Revolution in Change: Appreciative Inquiry, are: Discovery: Mobilizing a whole system inquiry into the positive change core. Dream: Creating a clear results-oriented vision in relation to discovered potential and in relation to questions of higher purpose: “What is the world calling us to become?” Design: Creating possibility propositions of the ideal organization, a design people feel is capable of magnifying the positive core and realizing the articulated new dream. Destiny: Strengthening the affirmative capability of the whole system, enabling it to build hope and momentum around a deep purpose and creating processes for learning, adjustment, and improvisation, like a jazz group over time. So why does this matter? What’s different and how will we make new discoveries? We have had employee communication, recognition and engagement initiatives for many years. They have been called different things, but we have rolled them out in lots of workplaces and in various formats. As noted in Linking Perceived Employee Voice and Creativity, “Individuals who believe that a given work role activity is personally meaningful are intrinsically motivated to invest themselves more fully in it” (Ganjali and Rezaee, 2016). This article notes that research has demonstrated that strengthening employee voice leads to more intrinsic motivation, and more intrinsically motivated employees tend to be more flexible, persevering and creative. These all are characteristics we value when we want our employees to create a top-performing environment. Further supporting this push in a positive direction, we see many sources examining the value of forward-thinking initiatives. In Hope: A New Positive AI Practitioner, August 2018, Bunshaft: The Quest for the Appreciative Voice and AI Research has demonstrated that strengthening employee voice leads to more intrinsic motivation. 49More articles at www.aipractitioner.com Practitioner August 2018 ISBN 978-1-907549-36-6 Volume 20 Number 3 Strength for Human Resource Development, Fred Luthans and Susan M. Jensen of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln note that “high-hope human resources seem especially needed for today’s extremely turbulent environment.” They go on to note that, “Emerging research also suggests a link between the use of appreciative inquiry, employees’ hope levels, and the expressed willingness to perform organizational citizenship behaviors” (Luthans and Jensen, 2002). Finding employee voice So how do we bring this background to exploring employee voice? Again, our focus needs to be on improving communication, so we hear our employees better. The use of facilitated brainstorming with an AI focus and the use of retention interviews can help us connect our Appreciative Inquiry structure to the quest for greater communication and hearing the voice of our employees. The tools for encouraging employee communication are already in place. As discussed in Promoting Employee Voice and Upward Communication in Healthcare, “Leaders created voice opportunity (Ashford, Sutcliffe and Christianson, 2009) through visibility and approachability and the use of both formal and informal communication channels” (Adelman and Stokes, 2012). In order to find appreciative voice, we then use our existing structures and the brainstorming methodology mentioned above to seek out the dreams of our employees. What is our higher purpose and what are our ideals driving us to become? In my recent role as chief human resources officer of a major not-for-profit organization in New York, our human resources department, working together with management across the organization, found ways, using limited resources, to connect with employees and move the needle on engagement. In a workforce spread across two states, through multiple divisions with different goals, including a large retail division and a large human services division, as well as youth programs and contracted business services, improving retention and driving engagement in the right direction were quite challenging, especially with limited financial resources. As generational change impacts the organization, as it is doing across the entire American workforce, it has become necessary to recognize the importance of an approach that connects with millennials as well as longer-serving employees. As Executive Vice President & Chief Development Officer Karen Means stated, “Because the workforce has changed dramatically, traditional employee engagement falls short of hitting the mark. Millennials in particular are looking for very specific ways to connect. The savvy employer, if they get it and are open to a paradigm shift, will have a dedicated, motivated workforce.” High-hope human resources seem especially needed for today’s extremely turbulent environment. Luthans and Jensen AI Practitioner, August 2018, Bunshaft: The Quest for the Appreciative Voice and AI 50More articles at www.aipractitioner.com Practitioner August 2018 ISBN 978-1-907549-36-6 Volume 20 Number 3 Of course, to really drive this type of new initiative forward, buy-in from top management is vital. When this is done correctly, it doesn’t only garner great results from the information collected and the follow-up, but the process shows respect from senior management and genuine recognition of the value of contributions from staff at all levels. That is a great motivator to drive CEOs and other senior managers to get on board. That should be our main selling point! Structuring our efforts As we move forward in group efforts based in AI, we may dovetail this with individual interviews, as well as brainstorming sessions. Individual interviews may serve multiple purposes, but they can largely follow the structure of a retention interview (sometimes called a “stay interview”), where the interviewer seeks from long-term star employees their feedback on what makes them stay and keeps them engaged with the organization. These interviews don’t always have the full components of an AI process, but they echo some of the same sentiments, as they are looking primarily for the positive. Rather than fixing things that are wrong, they build on things that are right and look for opportunities across the organization, infecting the other staff with the same kind of dedication and forward drive. Examples of stay/retention interview questions include: • What motivates you? • What do you look forward to when you come to work every day? • What talents of yours would you like to use more at work? • If you could change something about your job, what would it be? These questions can open the door, as they focus on the positive. Building in elements of AI lets us drive for the brightest future for an organization. By marrying the elements of AI to a robust communication program, we can drive the appreciative voice into what we are doing and find the very best of our workforce, revealing a path forward to greatness. We explore the best of our best employees, find their dreams for the best future for themselves and our organizations, and build to levels previously unattainable. Through these efforts, organizations can climb from being good employers to great ones, from being great to one of the handful who can see themselves as the best of their industry! To really drive this type of new initiative forward, buy-in from top management is vital. AI Practitioner, August 2018, Bunshaft: The Quest for the Appreciative Voice and AI Back to Table of Contents 51More articles at www.aipractitioner.com Practitioner August 2018 ISBN 978-1-907549-36-6 Volume 20 Number 3 REFERENCES Adelman, K. and C. Stokes. (2012) Promoting Employee Voice and Upward Communication in Healthcare: The CEO’s Influence/Practitioner Application. Journal of Healthcare Management, 57(2), 133–4. Bengtsson, J. and M. Rokka. (2011) How is Appreciative Inquiry Experienced by the Employees at Abba Seafood? University of Gothenburg School of Business Economics and Law. Bushe, G.R. (2007) Appreciative Inquiry Is Not (Just) About the Positive. OD Practitioner, 39(4), 30–35. Clayton, M. (2015) Appreciative Inquiry and Employee Engagement. Unpublished dissertation. Trinity Washington University. Cooperrider, D. L. and D. Whitney. (2005) Appreciative Inquiry: A Positive Revolution in Change. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Ganjali, A. and S. Rezaee. (2016) Linking Perceived Employee Voice and Creativity. Iranian Journal of Management Studies, 9(1), 175–191. doi: 10.22059/IJMS.2016.55041 Hart, R., T. Conklin, T., S. Allen. (2008) Individual Leader Development: An appreciative inquiry approach. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10(5), 632. Johnson G., W. Leavitt (2001). Building on Success: Transforming Organizations Through Appreciative Inquiry. Public Personnel Management, 30(1), 129–136. doi: 10.1177/009102600103000111 Lee, T.H. (2014). The Strategy That Will Fix Healthcare. PressGaney Associates. Ludema, J., M. Manning and A. Johnson. (2016) Six Questions That Can Lift Your Leadership: An Intro to Appreciative Inquiry. Center for Values-Driven Leadership, Benedictine University. Luthans, F. and S. Jensen. (2002). Hope: A new positive strength for human resource development. Human Resource Management Review, 1(3), 304–322. doi: 10.1177/1534484302013003 Marwah, P. (2012). Appreciative Inquiry: The emerging need for training and development. International Journal of Management Research and Reviews, 2(5), 821–828. Meinert, D. (2013) Positive Momentum. HRMagazine, 58(6), 68–70,72,74. Srithika, T. and S. Bhattacharyya. (2009) Facilitating Organizational Unlearning Using Appreciative Inquiry as an Intervention. Vikalpa, 34(4), 67–78. Suciu, C. and C. Baughn. (2016) Design Thinking and Organizational Change: Developing a human- centered culture. European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 44(6), 2274–2306. doi: 10.1177/0149206317744252 Whitney, D., D. Cooperrider, M. Garrison and J. Moore. (1999) Appreciative Inquiry and Culture Change at GTE: Launching a positive revolution. Available at: https://appreciativeinquiry.champlain.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/chapter_7_GTE.pdf Whitney, D. and A. Trosten-Bloom. (2005) The Liberation of Power: Exploring how Appreciative Inquiry “powers up the people.” In D. L. Cooperrider, P. F. Sorenson Jr., T. F. Yaeger and D. Whitney (Eds.), Appreciative Inquiry: Foundations in Positive Organization Development, 231–255. Champaign, IL: Stipes. AI Practitioner, August 2018, Bunshaft: The Quest for the Appreciative Voice and AI Copyright of AI Practitioner is the property of AI Practitioner and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. 43More articles at www.aipractitioner.com Practitioner November 2019 ISBN 978-1-907549-41-0 Volume 21 Number 4 I n our work, we often encounter relational tension, controversy, even conflict. It keeps us busy, even when we have an appreciative approach. We encountered reactions from clients and colleagues like: “we don’t have room for negative thoughts”, “we work appreciatively, and we only focus on the positive”, “no, don’t mention negative comments, that’s not appreciative”. The real concerns have no place. Sometimes the effect is that people drop out, and their concerns live on under the surface. That’s why we like to talk about tension and conflict, and we like to do that in an appreciative way. But that can be very challenging. We asked ourselves, how do other AI practitioners think about this subject? How do they deal with tension? Can we identify different approaches? How does AI help in situations where there is tension? The idea of a workshop was born. AI and conflict: Research Appreciative Inquiry (AI) is an approach that advocates harmonious relationships and positive interactions. Cooperrider and Srivastva (1987) argue that an approach to leading, managing and changing organizations focusing on problems, deficits and dysfunctions is demoralizing and ineffective in bringing about change. They called, instead, for a focus on opportunities. Focusing on what is working in an appreciative way raises morale and promotes generative AI Practitioner, August 2019, Laarakker and van Kesteren: AI and the Value of Conflict dx.doi.org/10.12781/978-1-907549-41-0-6 Hanneke Laarakker Hanneke Laarakker is a psychologist with a post-master’s degree in OD. After twenty years of working as a trainer/ consultant, she discovered AI and started to work as a consultant in appreciative OD. She is working on various AI projects in the Netherlands. She also provides AI and OD courses with Barbara at the Instituut voor Interventiekunde. Contact [email protected] Appreciative Inquiry and the Value of Conflict In this article the authors discuss what different researchers have written about the effects of AI on situations which involve tension, what the downfall of AI is and what their own experience was through a case study. They also discuss how they provoked tension in a WAIC 2019 workshop, how they dealt with this, the participants’ responses and what their conclusions were. Barbara van Kesteren Barbara van Kesteren is a social psychologist with a post- master’s degree in OD. While studying, she discovered AI and started to work as a consultant in appreciative OD. Recently, she has worked on various AI projects in the Netherlands. Barbara is co-owner of Instituut voor Interventiekunde where she teaches in OD and AI, and works for clients.. Contact [email protected] 44More articles at www.aipractitioner.com Practitioner November 2019 ISBN 978-1-907549-41-0 Volume 21 Number 4 inquiry. AI generates spontaneous, transformational action on the part of individuals, groups and organizations, which leads to a better future. According to some researchers, such as Ralph Stacey, Robbert Masselink and Gervase Bushe, by focusing on the positive, AI creates an incomplete image that conceals the real processes going on when we are negotiating our realities (Masselink in Stacey, 2016). There seems to be a dread of “negatives” such as conflict and a conviction that success can only be achieved when all share the same view, with breakdown as the consequence of not doing this (Stacey, 2016). The critics of AI argue that positive and negative feelings are intimately connected (Stacey, 2016). Without friction, no shine. And with exclusive attention to the positive and trying to reach consensus, AI denies patterns of power relations, resistance, conflicts and difference, resulting in a positive fantasy. In that way AI focusses attention only on a small part of ordinary, daily life in organizations (Stacey, 2016). According to Gervase Bushe (2007), the positive can enhance generativity and change. It is generativity that is the core of AI. Not the positive. “If someone wants to talk about what they don’t like in their organizations telling them ‘no, we can’t talk about that, this is an appreciative inquiry’, is likely to turn people off” (Bushe, 2007). Especially if they have a lot of emotional charge around a discussion, it is not wise to banish it. You can’t simply ignore it; it won’t go away (Bushe, 2007). In addition to that, research by Johnson, Johnson and Tjosvold (2000) shows that it is very important to discuss controversy. In well-structured controversies, participants are challenged with opposing views and get the chance to incorporate others’ perspectives and reasoning into their thinking to reach a new set of conclusions. This process significantly increases the quality of decision making and problem solving, relationships and psychological health. Although constructive controversy occurs naturally, it may be consciously structured in decision making and learning situations. A case from our own practice We are part of an institute that educates professionals in Appreciative Inquiry and intervention studies: how to help our clients to build bridges between what they need, feel, think and say to what they really do, in order to make personal and professional meaning out of their actions. One of our groups had a hard time. They started their studies with three teachers. But one of their teachers passed away and, shortly after that, another teacher AI Practitioner, August 2019, Laarakker and van Kesteren: AI and the Value of Conflict Although constructive controversy occurs naturally, it may be consciously structured in decision making and learning situations. It is generativity that is the core of AI. Not the positive. 45More articles at www.aipractitioner.com Practitioner November 2019 ISBN 978-1-907549-41-0 Volume 21 Number 4 quit her job, leaving the group feeling abandoned. The last teacher standing asked new teachers to continue the curriculum. But the group didn’t accept their presence so easily. Some participants threatened to quit the curriculum because of all that had happened. It was really a difficult time for the whole system. To sum up: we had to deal with resistance against the new teachers, who also felt uneasy. The company feared losing participants – and income. The participants who didn’t want to leave feared they might lose their group members. Also, there was unresolved conflict between a few people. On top of that, there was a lot of emotional charge. What did we do with this situation? Back to the case To deal with this conflict, we decided to work on a Wall of Wonder together, combined with “Think Advising” (Edu Feltmann), around the question “What happened?” The new teachers asked the group members, the director of the company who was also the wife of the teacher who had passed away and the last teacher who went through it all to list all the events of the previous few months. In doing so, they asked them to only list those things that were facts: things they have seen and heard with their own eyes and ears. While they were creating the list, one of the participants said with tears in her eyes: “I can’t go any further, I am so sad. We need to talk!” We made room for all the pain, discomfort, distrust, resistance, anger, grief, etc. to come out. Once it came up, we were able talk about it. By talking about it, it started to dissolve. In the end, all the group members graduated with good results. They worked really well together, as well as with all the teachers. One of them explained: “From that day on I felt more secure, so I could experiment more and eventually learn more”. Conclusions from our case We couldn’t go any further until we dealt with the tensions first. Like Bushe (2007) suggests, if we had continued without doing so, there would have been more tension and anger, and group members might have left. We organized a group conversation with all the people involved, trying to neutralize the emotional charge by talking about facts. Importantly, emotions are facts too. The group shared the facts, so everyone could hear the different points of view, learn from them, and be able to immediately respond to the emotions that were present in the here-and-now. This case encouraged us to explore dealing with tension further, as well as how AI helps that process. AI Practitioner, August 2019, Laarakker and van Kesteren: AI and the Value of Conflict They asked them to only list those things that were facts: things they have seen and heard with their own eyes and ears. We couldn’t go any further until we dealt with the tensions first. 46More articles at www.aipractitioner.com Practitioner November 2019 ISBN 978-1-907549-41-0 Volume 21 Number 4 The workshop We decided to do a short experiment, formed into a workshop. During the WAIC 2019 in Nice, we introduced this workshop with the title “How to appreciate conflict”. We were scheduled at 8 o’clock in the morning. We thought: “way too early, nobody will come.” But over thirty participants joined us in this workshop, a sign that the topic is relevant for a lot of AI practitioners. They came from different cultures, countries, and fields. We asked them to think about how they deal with tension, as an AI practitioner. And after that, they divided themselves in four groups*, as showed in Figure 1. *Ignoring in this context means not actively doing anything with the tension, keeping focus on the positive. Inquiring means immediately and in the here-and-now inquiring into the tension, which sometimes means talking about the negative. Flipping means flipping something negative into something positive, and from then on focusing on the positive core of the theme. Acknowledging means acknowledging by naming the tension, and then letting it be, not intervening. The groups stood in the four corners of the workshop space. The members of each group had to discuss what was good about their point of view and discuss different statements that defended their position. Then they had a few minutes to present their opinion and defending statements to the other groups. They were also given the opportunity to ask questions to clarify what they had said. This set-up provoked tension. The different groups faced each other from different corners of the room. Because they had to “defend” their opinion, it was a “one against three” situation. And because the facilitators “cornered” AI Practitioner, August 2019, Laarakker and van Kesteren: AI and the Value of Conflict Figure 1. Way of dealing with tension 47More articles at www.aipractitioner.com Practitioner November 2019 ISBN 978-1-907549-41-0 Volume 21 Number 4 the groups, they also felt tension towards the facilitators. This was part of the design, so there was an opportunity to explore tension while present. After that, we asked participants to encounter a participant “from another corner” and have an appreciative interview about the tension provoked. The last question was: “How can I help you to overcome the tension in our conversation?” Results and effect After the interviews, we had a plenary conversation about what happened, and we were pleasantly surprised by the answers of the participants. Some of the quotes were: • The four groups are not distinct but different points of actions in the AI continuum. It’s not a straight line but a journey where you pick and choose action. • This was really helpful. I will continue to reflect on how AI helps me respond to conflict creatively. • Thank you for reaffirming that conflict in a session is a gift. • A very valuable question in this workshop was “What can I do to help you to overcome the tension?” After that, we were really in touch with each other. Lessons learned and general conclusions We learned a way in which conflict can turn into sympathy, using AI. We learned that every suggested approach to conflict and tension has its positive outcomes. The best approach depends on the situation. Also, talking about differences and tension can deepen relationships. Most of the time when people have a controversy and different interests, people only discuss their opinions, not feelings. When you acknowledge the feelings and give people the opportunity to talk with their “rivals” in an appreciative way, building a relationship is possible. This helps diminish tension so that conflicting interests are easier to discuss. That leads to help improving problem solving, relationships and psychological health (Johnson, Johnson & Tjosvold, 2000). AI Practitioner, August 2019, Laarakker and van Kesteren: AI and the Value of Conflict A very valuable question in this workshop was ‘What can I do to help you to overcome the tension?’ After that, we were really in touch with each other. Back to Table of Contents 48More articles at www.aipractitioner.com Practitioner November 2019 ISBN 978-1-907549-41-0 Volume 21 Number 4 Since facilitating the workshop, we have become more aware of the fact that people do experience tension when you talk about conflict but often only show it or talk about it when you invite them to discuss it. As in the case we described earlier in this article, the results of the workshop show us how liberating and tension-releasing it is when you are able to have a conversation about it. It makes it easier for us to bring up tension or conflict when we feel it in a group while facilitating. AI helps with this by starting the conversation with the right questions. So, our conclusion is, when working with AI, there is no reason to avoid tension and conflict. If you have questions, or would like to know more about the workshop, please contact us at [email protected] REFERENCES Bushe G. (2007) Appreciative Inquiry Is Not (Just) About the Positive, OD Practitioner, 39(4), 30–35. Cooperrider, D. L. & Srivastva, S. (1987) Appreciative Inquiry in Organizational Life. In Woodman, R. W. & Pasmore, W.A. (eds.). Research in Organizational Change And Development. Vol. 1. Stamford, CT: JAI Press. pp. 129–169. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. & Tjosvold, D. (2000) Constructive Controversy: The value of intellectual opposition. In M. Deutsch & P. T. Coleman (Eds.), The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice (pp. 65–85). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Stacy, R. (2016) The Paradox of Consensus and Conflict in Organisational Life. AI Practitioner, 18(1), 52–58. AI Practitioner, August 2019, Laarakker and van Kesteren: AI and the Value of Conflict When working with AI, there is no reason to avoid tension and conflict. Copyright of AI Practitioner is the property of AI Practitioner and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.