Appreciative inquiry, when applied to human relationships,

brings out the best in people,

builds enduring emotional bonds

and lays the groundwork for quality engagements.

The appreciative inquiry model, is normally applied to systems, projects and individual issues to achieve positive outcomes. In this article,we have  focused  the model on human relationships which are always a key component of appreciative inquiry but not always the subject of the inquiry itself.  

Appreciative inquiry brings out the best in people.

Appreciative inquiry is the opposite of problem-solving, and critical inquiry. What we focus on  positive aspects, we emphasize and amplify them.  Thinking the best of people,  brings out the best in them.

Appreciative Inquiry builds enduring emotional bonds.

Knowing  you are valued and your contributions, right or wrong, have meaning, encourages us to show up with positive intent.  To listen to others and provide our responses. We are willing to be less critical of others because others are less critical of us.

Appreciative Inquiry lays the groundwork for quality engagement.

Practising Appreciative Inquiry as part of the culture creates an environment where people are willing to offer more diverse suggestions.  Confident that others will seek to understand, rather than shoot down an idea that deviates from the status quo.

The following definition of appreciative inquiry is from appreciativeinquiry.case.edu:

“Appreciative Inquiry is the cooperative search for the best in people, their organizations, and the world around them. It involves systematic discovery of what gives a system ‘life’ when it is most effective and capable in economic, ecological, and human terms. AI involves the art and practice of asking questions that strengthen a system’s capacity to heighten positive potential. It mobilizes inquiry through crafting an “unconditional positive question’ often involving hundreds or sometimes thousands of people.”

Cooperrider, D.L. & Whitney, D., “Appreciative Inquiry: A positive revolution in change.” In P. Holman & T. Devane (eds.), The Change Handbook, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., pages 245-263.

Ap-pre’ci-ate, v., 1. valuing; the act of recognizing the best in people or the world around us; affirming past and present strengths, successes, and potentials; to perceive those things that give life (health, vitality, excellence) to living systems 2. to increase in value, e.g. the economy has appreciated in value. Synonyms: VALUING, PRIZING, ESTEEMING, and HONORING.

In-quire’ (kwir), v., 1. the act of exploration and discovery. 2. To askquestions; to be open to seeing new potentials and possibilities. Synonyms: DISCOVERY, SEARCH, and SYSTEMATIC EXPLORATION, STUDY.

Authenticity is the degree to which one is true to one’s own personality, spirit, or character, despite external pressures.

Becoming authentic is an ongoing process of self-discovery that includes realizing our personal and collective potential and acting on that potential. Part of the process is accepting  responsibility for our choices and their consequences. The process leads to congruency between our ideals, values and our actions.

Authenticity in the microcosm of the individual,  propagates to the macrocosm.  Our intention to be authentic in every interaction both individually and collectively results in resilient human relationships.   By being mindful of our interactions we enculture authenticity.

Authenticity is essential for  building sustainable communities.  When we can show up as ourselves and genuinely like the people we engage with,  then collectively,  we are better able to adapt,   find new solutions and  flourish in a changing environment.

Individual Authenticity

• Do I think for myself and speak my truth?
• What fascinates me, what potentials do I want to explore?
• Do I own the consequences of my choices?
• What qualities do I value in myself and in others?
• Is my behavior congruent with my values?
• Where is my compass pointing me to at this time?

Authentic Interaction

• Am I mindful of how my choices may influence another person?
• Do I recognize diversity and appreciate the differences in others?
• Do I interact with others with  respect and courtesy?
• How do I extend degrees of trust?
• Do I respond appropriately when a personal boundary is crossed?
• Is my behavior appropriate given my role and the interaction?
• Do I observe and process the results of my interactions?

Authentic Group Engagement

• What is the group formed to accomplish?
• What am I here to do? What is my role? What contribution is expected of me?
• Is there an expectation of mutual accountability – if so what is it?
• What strategies is the group applying to find solutions?
• How will the group negotiate an impasse should one occur?
• How can we cultivate the positive dynamics of this team?

Organisational Authenticity

• As an organisation do we mean what we say?
• How do our customers experience us?
• Is integrity infused in our products? Is quality a priority?
• How is our culture expressed in our day to day activities?

In Fritjof Capra’s 2002 book The Hidden Connections he uses the principles of complexity theory to analyze human interactions. In order to be sustainable, the principles underlying our social institutions must be consistent with the organization that nature has evolved to sustain the web of life . In this book he shows how the theoretical ideas of science can be applied to the practical concerns of human nature. He describes culture as resulting from human social dynamics which produces a sustainable system of shared values and beliefs :

Our ability to hold mental images and project them into the future not only allows us to identify goals and purposes and develop strategies and designs, but also enables us to choose among several alternatives and hence to formulate values and social rules of behavior.  All of these social phenomenon are generated by networks of communications as a consequence of the dual role human communication. On one hand, the network continually generates mental images, thoughts and meaning, on the other hand, it continually coordinates the behavior of its members. From the complex dynamics and interdependence of these processes emerges the integrated system of values, beliefs and rules of conduct that we associate with the phenomenon of culture.

For our systematic analysis of social reality we need to focus on the anthropological meaning of culture, which the Columbia Encyclopedia defines as “the integrated system of socially acquired values, beliefs and rules of conduct that delimit the rage of accepted behaviors in any given society.”  When we explore the details of this definition, we discover that culture arises from a complex, highly nonlinear dynamic. It is created by a social network involving multiple feedback loops through which values, beliefs and rules of conduct are continually communicated, modified and sustained. It emerges from a network of communications among individuals; and as it emerges, it produces constraints on their actions. In other words, the social structures, or rules of behavior, that constrain, the actions of the individuals are produced and continually reinforced by their on network of communications.

The social network also produces a shared body of knowledge – including information, ideas and skills – that shapes the culture’s distinctive way of life in addition to its values and beliefs. Moreover, the culture’s values and beliefs affect its body of knowledge. They are part of the lens through which we see the world. They help us to interpret our experiences and to decide what kind of knowledge is meaningful. This meaningful knowledge, continually modified by the network of communications, is passed on from generation to generation together with the culture’s values, beliefs, and rules of conduct.

The system of shared values and beliefs creates an identity among the members of the social network, based on a sense of belonging. People in different cultures have different identities because they share different sets of values and beliefs. At the same time, and individual may belong to several different cultures. People’s behavior is informed and restricted by their cultural identities, which in turn reinforces their sense of belonging. Culture is embedded in people’s way of life, and it tends to be so pervasive that it escapes our everyday awareness.

Cultural identity also reinforces the closure of the network by creating a boundary of meaning and expectations that limits the access of  people and information to the network. Thus the social network is engaged in communication within a cultural boundary which it members continually re-crate and renegotiate.  This situation is not unlike that of the metabolic network, which continually produces and recreates a boundary – the cell membrane – that confines it and gives it its identity.  However there are some crucial differences between cellular and social boundaries.  Social boundaries, as I have emphasized are not necessarily physical boundaries but boundaries of meaning and expectations.  They do not literally surround the network but exist in a mental realm that does not have the topological properties of physical space.

A cognitive bias is the human tendency to draw incorrect conclusions in certain circumstances based on cognitive factors rather than evidence. Such biases are thought to be a form of “cognitive shortcut”, often based upon rules of thumb, and include errors in statistical judgment, social attribution, and memory.

Eric Fernandez of The Royal Society of Account Planning has produced a visual study guide for cognitive bias.

You can download the PDF here http://www.mediafire.com/?rizzmmdn1bi

The list of  social cognitive biases was sourced from the wikipedia article where you can click on each bias for details

• Actor-observer bias – the tendency for explanations of other individuals’ behaviors to overemphasize the influence of their personality and underemphasize the influence of their situation (see also fundamental attribution error). However, this is coupled with the opposite tendency for the self in that explanations for our own behaviors overemphasize the influence of our situation and underemphasize the influence of our own personality.
• Dunning–Kruger effect – a two-fold bias. On one hand the lack of metacognitive ability deludes people, who overrate their capabilities. On the other hand, skilled people underrate their abilities, as they assume the others have a similar understanding.
• Egocentric bias – occurs when people claim more responsibility for themselves for the results of a joint action than an outside observer would.
• Forer effect (aka Barnum effect) – the tendency to give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people. For example, horoscopes.
• False consensus effect – the tendency for people to overestimate the degree to which others agree with them.
• Fundamental attribution error – the tendency for people to over-emphasize personality-based explanations for behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing the role and power of situational influences on the same behavior (see also actor-observer bias, group attribution error, positivity effect, and negativity effect).
• Halo effect – the tendency for a person’s positive or negative traits to “spill over” from one area of their personality to another in others’ perceptions of them (see also physical attractiveness stereotype).
• Herd instinct – common tendency to adopt the opinions and follow the behaviors of the majority to feel safer and to avoid conflict.
• Illusion of asymmetric insight – people perceive their knowledge of their peers to surpass their peers’ knowledge of them.
• Illusion of transparency – people overestimate others’ ability to know them, and they also overestimate their ability to know others.
• Illusory superiority – overestimating one’s desirable qualities, and underestimating undesirable qualities, relative to other people. (Also known as “Lake Wobegon effect,” “better-than-average effect,” “superiority bias,” or “Dunning-Kruger effect”).
• Ingroup bias – the tendency for people to give preferential treatment to others they perceive to be members of their own groups.
• Just-world phenomenon – the tendency for people to believe that the world is just and therefore people “get what they deserve.”
• Notational bias – a form of cultural bias in which the notational conventions of recording data biases the appearance of that data toward (or away from) the system upon which the notational schema is based.
• Outgroup homogeneity bias – individuals see members of their own group as being relatively more varied than members of other groups.
• Projection bias – the tendency to unconsciously assume that others share the same or similar thoughts, beliefs, values, or positions.
• Self-serving bias (also called “behavioral confirmation effect”) – the tendency to claim more responsibility for successes than failures. It may also manifest itself as a tendency for people to evaluate ambiguous information in a way beneficial to their interests (see also group-serving bias).
• Self-fulfilling prophecy – the tendency to engage in behaviors that elicit results which will (consciously or not) confirm existing attitudes.^[12]
• System justification – the tendency to defend and bolster the status quo. Existing social, economic, and political arrangements tend to be preferred, and alternatives disparaged sometimes even at the expense of individual and collective self-interest. (See also status quo bias.)
• Trait ascription bias – the tendency for people to view themselves as relatively variable in terms of personality, behavior and mood while viewing others as much more predictable.
• Ultimate attribution error – similar to the fundamental attribution error, in this error a person is likely to make an internal attribution to an entire group instead of the individuals within the group.

Understanding the power of a quality relationship management depends a good deal on an awareness of people’s behaviour and preferences. Soliciting from any group, community or department, what motivates, inspires and provides satisfying experiences is key to creating strong bonds and powerful alliances that drive buy in and support, no matter the context.

Currently relationship management, across all it’s various attributions, is poorly understood and even more abysmally executed. If the current understanding of relationship management is simply to monitor and respond to negative commentary on your reputation, your brand, your business or your services, or to follow up and cross sell when the customer or client has fallen off your radar, this is no better than shutting the stable door long after the horse has bolted it. It’s about listening, responding, reciprocating, acknowledging, modeling ethics and values, everywhere you are or your business is active.

The value of building and maintaining a reputation built on the seven principles of human givens (accountability, boundaries, respect, responsibility, honesty, support and trust) means creating cooperative alliances and rewarding relationships. This cannot be short cut, avoided, undeserved or manipulated. We are each being held to account on our behaviours in regard to our commitments and on this we stand or fall in peer assessment.

There is no excuse now, given the quantity and quality of tracking technologies and social media assets, not to create a formidable and very manageable strategy to build and sustain quality relationships and use all positive testimonials, word of mouth recommendations and quality referrals to build personal and professional capital as well as business advantage. To fail to implement such a strategy is to be asleep at the wheel in a fast moving and competitive world.