The appreciative inquiry process essentially consists of four steps, or “Four D’s,” often
played out in a large-group meeting over a two- or three-day time period, and overseen
by a trained change agent:- Discovery.The idea is to find out what people think are the strengths of the
organization. For instance, employees are asked to recount times they felt the
organization worked best or when they specifically felt most satisfied with
their jobs. - Dreaming.The information from the discovery phase is used to speculate on
possible futures for the organization. For instance, people are asked to envi-
sion the organization in five years and to describe what is different. - Design.Based on the dream articulation, participants focus on finding a com-
mon vision of how the organization will look and agree on its unique qualities. - Destiny.In this final step, participants discuss how the organization is going to
fulfill its dream. This typically includes the writing of action plans and the
development of implementation strategies.
Appreciative inquiry has proven an effective change strategy in organizations such as
Toronto-based Orchestras Canada, Ajax, Ontario-based Nokia Canada, Burnaby, BC-
based TELUS, Calgary-based EnCana, and Toronto-based CBC.
The use of appreciative inquiry in organizations is relatively recent, and it has not yet
been determined when it is most appropriately used for organizational change.^51
However, it does give us the opportunity of viewing change from a much more positive
perspective.
RESISTANCE TOCHANGE
One of the most well-documented findings from studies of individual and organizational
behaviour is that organizations and their members resist change. In a sense, this is pos-
itive. It provides a degree of stability and predictability to behaviour. If there were no
resistance, organizational behaviour would take on characteristics of chaotic random-
ness. Resistance to change can also be a source of functional conflict. For example,
resistance to a reorganization plan or a change in a product line can stimulate a healthy
debate over the merits of the idea and result in a better decision. However, there is a def-
inite downside to resistance to change: It hinders adaptation and progress.
Resistance to change does not necessarily surface in standard ways. Resistance can be
overt, implicit, immediate, or deferred. It is easiest for management to deal with resistance
when it is overt and immediate. For instance, a change is proposed, and employees respond
immediately by voicing complaints, engaging in work slowdowns, threatening to go on
strike, or the like. The greater challenge is managing resistance that is implicit or deferred.
Implicit resistance efforts are more subtle—loss of loyalty to the organization, loss of
motivation to work, increased errors or mistakes, increased absenteeism due to “sick-
ness”—and hence more difficult to recognize. Similarly, deferred actions cloud the link
between the source of resistance and the reaction to it. A change may produce what
appears to be only a minimal reaction at the time it is initiated, but then resistance surfaces
weeks, months, or even years later. Or a single change that in and of itself might have
little impact becomes the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Reactions to change can
build up and then explode in some response that seems totally out of proportion to the
change action it follows. The resistance, of course, has merely been deferred and stockpiled.
What surfaces is a response to the accumulation of previous changes.
Let’s look at the sources of resistance. For analytical purposes, we have categorized them
as individual and organizational sources. In the real world, the sources often overlap.350 Part 4Sharing the Organizational Vision
6 Why do people and
organizations resist
change?