CHAPTER 8

Appreciative Inquiry: Humanistic Values at Work

Niels Tekke

In this chapter we will present Appreciative Inquiry (AI) as a full member of the family of humanistic approaches, being both a philosophy and a method for organizational development that elevates people to a higher level of dignity, synergy, and impact.

We believe that AI can really help you as a manager to bring humanistic values to life in your daily practice. To inspire you, we will share consultancy practices of ourselves and others, applying AI in an organizational context. Doing this, we will focus on both the successes and the challenges that we encountered. Also a customer will give their view on the added value of appreciative interventions done in their organization. This will be completed with the findings of a case study comparison done for us, concerning the transformative power of AI. Finally, we will invite you to look in the mirror by presenting the basic recipe for Appreciative Leadership and by asking you some questions that challenge the humanistic manager in you.

Our Perspective on Humanism

Humanism goes way back to Plato and Aristotle and it still has a profoundly deep impact on our values and the way we think in daily life. In this article, we consider humanism to be the advocate of human dignity and sovereignty, by focusing on the questions: How can we create a “human condition” that fully honors our freedom of choice, that invites us to discover and develop our individual potential and that helps us to actively give meaning to our lives?

For one answer to this big question, we refer to three advices that Blomme (2013) extracted from various works of humanist Albert Camus. To summarize these in our own words:

1. Live intensely—Look for new experiences all the time.
2. Be a creator—Whatever it is that you make, not the product itself but the creative process leading to it is most important, for this creative process honors your human existence.
3. Positively resist any form of inequality or injustice—This means that no man should submit himself to “powers that be” or submit others to his own will. This positive resistance manifests itself in solidarity with all other human beings.

I Am Not Human Capital, I’m Human

It is most interesting to mirror these three advices to the daily practice of organizations. Being consultants in organizational development, we have the opportunity to see all kinds of organizations from the inside. If Camus’ spirit would be floating along with us—proving his denial of afterlife to be a mistake after all—what would he think?

In some organizations a culture of “command and control” gives little space for Camus’ advice of living intensely, being creative, or celebrating equality. It is in these kinds of organizations that people often feel exploited and alienated; they feel they are being reduced to an economic means in a system that is far from serving all in an equal way. In other organizations we see a high level of freedom and creativity; people feel connected through a collective higher purpose and are invited to cocreate and deliver a significant contribution.

We notice that these times are in favor of the latter, more “humanistic” type of organization. This has some particular reasons.

First, we notice the tendency that people are getting self-aware and fed up with being “instrumentalized” by a system that seems to be overly focusing on profit. This emancipation is nicely summarized in the saying: “I’m not human capital, I’m human.” The recent crises in our global financial system and the following costly rescue operations of banks that are “too big too fail,” have only contributed to the growing resistance toward the amorality and indifference of big institutions.

Secondly, leaders in organizations are faced with an unprecedented speed of change of the playfield, due to the pace of globalization and technological innovations. Nowadays, the abilities to be agile and adaptive are keys to success for organizations. This requires a fundamentally different organizational model; one in which people are invited to think, create, and decide for themselves. Small and innovative companies fit this profile and manage to defy big corporate mastodons. This leads to one conclusion: top-down, centralized management is getting more and more outdated.

Thirdly, research in the field of Human Development and Positive ­Psychology shows how fruitful it is to create an organizational ­environment in which people feel they are valued for who they are. We refer to the work of the Gallup Organization that aims to unleash a ­“strengths-revolution.” In “Now, Discover your strengths,” ­Gallup-researchers Buckingham and Clifton (2002) debate that people and organizations prosper when we encourage every individual to develop his or her unique, personal talents.

Summarizing, it appears to us that these times are on the side of ­organizations with a humanistic heart. We also would like to refer to the instant classic “Reinventing Organizations” by Frederic Laloux (2016), in which he describes the inevitable evolution toward a next type of organization that is functioning more like an eco-system: “In a forest, there is no master tree that plans and dictates change when rain fails to fall or when the spring comes early. The whole ecosystem reacts creatively, in the moment.”

Appreciative Inquiry: Humanism at Work

How can you as a leader take your organization to this next level and bring humanistic values into daily practice? From our own experience, we believe that Appreciative Inquiry, often abbreviated as “AI,” can help you give an answer to this question. In the following paragraphs, we will introduce this philosophy and method for organizational transformation. We will do this by answering some basic questions about AI, its guiding principles, and its process.

What is Appreciative Inquiry?

“What is Appreciative Inquiry?” It is an action research method that was introduced by researcher David Cooperrider and his promotor Suresh Srivastva (1987), for developing the potential of a social system, by mobilizing and magnifying the strengths that are already present in the system. This social system can be any group of people: A team, a company, a school, or a city community. The research is not done “from the outside” by a small group of experts, but by the various members of the system themselves, preferably as many as possible. The main research focus is to study the success factors, or in other words, what “gives life” to the system, to learn from this and generate new ideas, perspectives, and initiatives. The most fascinating impact of AI to us as consultants is, however, not in the content that the research process might generate. We specially value the relational impact of this approach. AI can really help to transform the interaction between people toward a level that is far more energetic, creative, and generative. This approach is very close to the Camusian focus on the creative process itself, instead of its product. From the ­AI-perspective, the search for “what gives life” to the system is evoking this life at the same time. Looking for the best in people and their organizations seems to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The Basic Principles of Appreciative Inquiry

The essence of AI and its connection with the humanistic perspective, we would give the five basic principles that are described in literature about AI. In the following we explain them one by one. We will also link this to our own experiences with these principles in our daily practice as organizational consultants.

The Social-Constructionist Principle

This first principle is based on the work of social constructionists such as Ken Gergen (1999), who states that by the way we give meaning to our world, we actually create it: “Words create words.” So we shape our reality by the way we use language. In our own practice we see this principle at work all the time, in positive and negative varieties. We recently heard of a training agency that promoted a training program for all employees around the topic of Customer Service; literally translated to English the program was titled “The Car Wash.” It gave us all kinds of associations, for example that the employees were in need of some “cleaning,” but also that they were life-less, uniform objects that could be “processed.” We wonder how this name by itself influenced the commitment of the people, their learning progress, and the outcome.

The Poetic Principle

Built upon the social-constructionist principle, the poetic principle invites us to see an organization as a “story in the making” that we can influence every day. This influence is determined by what we focus on. To state it popularly: “everything you give attention to grows.” This conviction is clearly recognizable in the way research topics are chosen in AI. These topics are always stated in terms of a desired future, instead of what the organization wants to get rid of. For example, recently we facilitated an action research for three schools that had merged some years ago, to survive in a changing education landscape. Looking at the level of distrust between the teachers and also the managers from the different schools, the research topic could have easily been “Dealing with resistance, setbacks and conflicting cultures.” Instead, with the poetic principle in mind, the following research topic was chosen: “We are proud of our school.” What evolved from this topic choice was a vast inquiry about what made all stakeholders feel proud about their school. Teachers interviewed other teachers, parents, and students about this topic. This helped to shift the attention to the positive potential that already existed among the people involved, and that could be used to elevate the newly formed school to a higher level of success. Moreover, the chosen topic stimulated the teachers from the different schools to have a new type of conversation with each other; one that was hopeful and energetic; one that honored their different backgrounds and at the same time generated the common ground necessary to build the new school.

The Simultaneity Principle

In the field of organizational change, there is still a persistent belief in the “freeze-unfreeze-refreeze” metaphor that was introduced by Lewin (1958). This metaphor expresses that the work prior to an intervention, such as doing an analysis and designing the intervention, has no impact whatsoever on an organization. Only from the moment we “launch” the planned intervention, the organization “unfreezes” and change starts. At the moment we finish the intervention, the organization ideally has reached the desired new state and we “refreeze” it again. AI follows a different belief, expressed in the simultaneity principle; as soon as we start to design the change process, we have started it. This makes it very important to thoroughly think about how we work on a process of change, development, or innovation and who we involve in this process. We facilitated a development process for an IT department of a banking organization around the topic of “High Quality Interaction” between them and their internal customers. Very early in the process, and to the surprise of the IT department, we suggested giving internal customers an active role from the first phase on in the AI, this suggestion was followed. What happened then was a clear illustration of the simultaneity principle: by talking with their customers about a high quality of interaction, they were ­simultaneously enhancing this quality. This led, among other things, to the IT specialists frequently taking initiative to leave their desk and work in the office of their customers, to be visibly close and available for questions. This was highly valued by the customers.

The Anticipatory Principle

This is about the “pull factor” of a shared dream. With this principle, the popular idea of a “burning platform,” which is arguably needed to create change (John Kotter of Harvard Business School has popularized this idea) is traded for a “compelling purpose.” Tjepkema and Verheijen (2012) state this as follows:

The idea of AI is, that if we create powerful, inspiring and engaging images of the desired future of an organization, the capacity of the system will increase to realize that future and grow towards it. An important principle for change is urgency. This will evolve from experiencing a problem, but also when the people involved feel a “call” to change and to develop.

The Positive Principle

This principle is reflected through the name “Appreciative Inquiry” as it expresses that this method is looking for the positive. The reason for this is described by Barrett, Fry, and Wittock (2012):

Humanistic psychology describes the power of positive ­appreciation, affection and support in building or maintaining the human capacity to work together. People and organizations are ­heliotrope: they tend to grow towards the helio—the sun, the light, the source of life. A positive image of the future, in this way, radiates a life force and light. A positive dialogue—that evolves when people talk with each other about things that inspire them and that bring them feelings of joy and hope—is the most important factor in realizing sustainable change and building healthy social systems.

The Process Steps of AI

Now that we have explained the philosophy of AI and its most important guiding principles, we would also like to give a brief description of the methodical steps that are often used to bring these principles into practice. These are the following:

Define

In this first phase of an AI, we “set the stage.” One of the first actions is to form a coordinative team that will create the set-up of the inquiry. This team is preferably as mixed as possible, representing multiple perspectives in and around the organization: coworkers, managers, customers, and so on. A well-known AI-saying is “Get the whole system in the room.” It is the practical consequence of the Simultaneity Principle; the immediate involvement of representatives of all stakeholder groups feeds the level of engagement from the very beginning of the intervention. An important consideration is that participation in the coordinative team should always be voluntarily. The atmosphere and energy in the team will strongly ­benefit from this.

The coordinative team will focus on answering important questions such as:

• What is the challenge we want to deal with?
• What is the affirmative topic that evolves from this challenge and that we want to inquire into?
• Who should we involve in the inquiry, in what way?
• In what combination would we like all persons involved to talk with each other?
• What questions could help them to have an energetic and productive dialogue around the affirmative topic?

Furthermore, the coordinative team prepares the logistics and communication around the upcoming AI phases. These next four phases are often named the “4D-cycle,” that are centered on the chosen affirmative topic.

Discover

This is the first phase of the 4D-cycle, in which the participants will invite each other to tell stories about their best, first-hand experiences with the affirmative topic. This is done through the appreciative interviews that have been set up in the first phase. In Box 8.1, we present an example of an interview that was used for one of our customers. The affirmative topic was “Engaging Leadership.”

Box 8.1 Example appreciative interview

Through these kinds of interviews, people discover together what knowledge, qualities, values, and insights they incorporate; assets that could help them to take the next steps in the development process. This generates new, interpersonal knowledge that is very useful in uplifting the organization to the next level. Moreover, this mutual investigation of strengths opens up a dialogue that has a powerful relational capacity; it creates a connection between the interview partners that is stronger, deeper, and more focused on a common higher goal. Again, the simultaneity principle is at work; collecting stories about “what gives life” to an organization definitively gives life to the relationships in that organization.

We noticed this relational effect, for example, during the AI-process in the school we mentioned earlier. When we just started the process, there was a lot of “us and them-thinking” among the participants of the coordinative team, especially between teachers originating from different schools. This changed drastically after they interviewed each other with appreciative questions. The team participants started to listen to each other, get inspired, and build a positive relationship. This was illustrated when one of the participants asked his fellow team participants: “Okay, how are we going to take them (the rest of the school) with us?”

Dream

The “Dream” phase of an AI invites the participants to “imagine what might be” when all discovered strengths would be combined and fully applied. What transformative potential do we have in store together and what would the future look like if we would use this potential to the fullest?

In our own practice as consultants, we notice that the step to this next phase is a very natural one. When people talk about “the best from the past,” it fuels their perspective on a better future. In this phase, the participants often literally visualize this future by creating images together that represent what could happen if all found strengths were used to the fullest and in combination with each other. Sometimes a professional visualizer makes this image (see Figure 8.1), sometimes the participants do it themselves, but we always see a powerful effect. Another form that is used, often in combination with visualization, is the generative metaphor. This metaphor symbolizes the desired change in a powerful, understandable, and appealing way. It appears that when people visualize a better future for themselves, especially when it is inspired by their own transformative potential, they are filled with joy and hope.

Figure 8.1 Example of a visualization made in an AI process

Design

In the Design phase, the participants answer the question: “What should we change first, to help us realize our dream?” It is about generating proposals together, which challenge the current status quo in the organization and that help to move toward the desired future. These proposals can be about reorganizing the internal communication process within the organization, it could concern changes in the service to customers, anything. The participants present these proposals to each other, give feedback, enrich the proposals, and select the ones that show the biggest potential in realizing positive change in the area of the affirmative topic.

Destiny

The Destiny phase is the process step in which plans are put into action; tasks are divided and executed by the people involved. Being true to the AI principles, the results of all actions taken are often evaluated in a positive way: “In what area did you manage to create change and how did you actually succeed? What were the success factors? And how can we apply these success factors in the areas that we need them most?”

Although we have described AI as a process with different phases (see Figure 8.2.), these phases should be serving the process instead of dictating it. It is permissible to deviate from it to use what serves the shared purpose. An AI is a dynamic process that thrives on improvisation; it implies that the facilitator of an AI process is very open and sensitive to the ideas of the participants for new actions that could enrich the process.

Figure 8.2 The 4D cycle ( Whitney and Trosten-Bloom 2010)

Does It Really Work? Research on the Transformative Power of AI

As a reader you might express some skepticism, and wonder: “Would this really work as positively in my organization?” That is a good and legitimate question. And although our own business practices have helped us to become enthusiastic about AI, we were also curious about more objective proof of the effectiveness of AI interventions. This is why we asked Sabine Greijmans at Human Resources Studies at Tilburg University to do a literature review of AI interventions in organizations (2015). The goal of this review was to assess to what extent AI interventions had the capacity to realize transformational change. It provided the first updated review on transformational effects of AI interventions after Bushe and Kassam’s meta-case analysis (2005). We stick to their definition of transformational change: “changes in the identity of a system and qualitative changes in the state of being of that system.” In summary, the conclusion of Greijmans’ review is as follows:

Most AI based studies have composed successful outcomes, wherein the current study even shows that the majority are transformational in nature. To achieve these transformational outcomes, organizations should especially focus on creating new knowledge, using generative metaphors, and using an improvisational approach. (2015)

We recognize this conclusion and its threefold recommendation in our own practice. The success of an AI change process not only depends on how appreciative the participants are toward each other and the central topic, although this will strongly help to create the right focus and conditions for a successful development process. The real driver for change is the combination of appreciation with inquiry, in other words, being profoundly investigative about “what works best.” This combination offers the best guarantee to generate new knowledge. The use of generative metaphors strongly helps because it lifts people from their daily operational thinking to a state of hope and imagination; it has a strong pull-factor. And lastly, the improvisational approach acknowledges that a change process is complex and unpredictable. It cannot be programmed, like a computer or a machine. Along the way, it can be necessary to add or skip interventions to realize the best possible impact.

We have given an overview on AI and based on our experience with it, claimed that it has the potential to transform an organization; the AI change process tends to resonate sustainably in the organization, long after the “formal” change process has been finished. This is possible because the process has not only helped to generate new initiatives and actions; it also affected the relationships between the participants in a profound way. To underline this relational impact, see the comment from a customer in the separate box, about the “Merging school case” that we mentioned earlier.

The transformational power of AI helps the organization to develop a more humanistic character, by engaging people by placing trust in their ability to lead. Let us compare the three “advices” of Camus with the essence of AI. An AI process encourages everyone to be curious and look for new experiences, it nourishes the creative process, and it advocates equality and solidarity between the people involved. Thus, AI can help to create a “human condition” that honors the value, unity, and dignity of people.

The Need for Appreciative Leadership

The outcomes can vary. In the first AI processes we facilitated, we sometimes experienced that the impact of the change process was not so transformational and sustainable as we had hoped for. In most cases, this could be linked to the dominant leadership style in the ­organization. Although we had made sure that within the AI process the involved ­leaders did not exert their power in a limiting way, outside of this process hierarchy ­smothered equality, initiative, and creativity. Even under these ­circumstances we noticed that the AI process still was good for ­generating new ideas and initiatives, but just as long as the process lasted. The AI sessions seemed to be part of a parallel universe that was only thinly connected with daily reality. This was frustrating to us and of course also to the participants; after every promising AI-session that gave them the space to think and act for themselves, they came back in an organization that seemed not to be interested at all in their ideas to create a better future. The human condition seemed to be influenced by other conditions that we had not included in the change process.

It became more and more clear to us that to realize sustainable change, it is not enough to make leaders join the AI process; it is ­necessary to coach them in developing a leadership style that propagates the AI ­principles in daily operation. We found a lot of inspiration in the work of Dr. Diana Whitney, who developed a model for ­“Appreciative ­Leadership” (­Whitney, Trosten-Bloom, and Rader 2015). This model has its origin in a vast research among leaders that appeared to be ­particularly ­successful in realizing positive, sustainable change in their ­organization, using AI. What made them different? According to ­Whitney, they ­combined five core leadership strategies: Inquiry, Illumination, Inclusion, Inspiration, and Integrity. In the following paragraph we will explain Whitney’s ­leadership model and add our experiences with it.

The Five Core Strategies of Appreciative Leadership

According to Whitney, appreciative leadership is “the relational capacity to mobilize creative potential and turn it into positive power—to set in motion ripples of confidence, energy, enthusiasm and performance—to make a positive difference in this world” (2010). Of course, we recognize the typical AI-focus on “what gives life” in this definition. Whitney claims that the responsibility of organizations and their leaders goes much further than creating a profitable business; they hold the key to making people, organizations, and communities flourish. With this statement she expresses how much influence leaders have on “the human condition,” not only within organizations but also in the entire society.

Honoring the social constructionist principle of AI, Whitney regards appreciative leadership primarily as a relational practice; a practice that should not separate the leader from the other people in the organization, but one that should be inclusive. Whitney refers to the African UBUNTU—principle: “I am because we are.” In other words, my human existence is defined by my connection with others.

This immediately brings us to Inclusion, one of the five core leadership strategies that form Whitney’s model. Her definition for this strategy is “Engage with people to co-author the future.” In other words, the leader invites others to join and contribute to the ongoing process of organizational development. He or she also stimulates individuals and departments to include each other in communication, brainstorming, and decision making. In our job as organizational development consultants, we see inclusion not only as an important ingredient of the development process, but also as one of its biggest results. It reshapes organizations from inflexible pyramids to agile ecosystems that are far better in responding to the fast-changing landscape around them. In Whitney’s view, inclusion is about encouraging “wholeness,” on both the individual and organizational level. This is an interesting concept that is also given a central role by Laloux (2015). Wholeness on the individual level is about taking the “complete you” to work; this means not only the rational part that is normally most encouraged in business environments, but also the emotional part, the spiritual part, and so on. On team and organizational level it means to be open for connections, to be inviting toward everyone around you. From a humanistic point of view, by the process of inclusion the leader encourages equality within the organization and actively dignifies people; it is an effective way to pay respect to the unique identity and full potential of the professionals in the organization.

The strategy of Inquiry tells more about the way an appreciative leader communicates and includes others. Whitney’s brief definition: “Ask positively powerful questions.” She advises leaders to reflect on their “ask–tell ratio” and to make a habit of asking more questions. These questions are positively focused, helping to investigate “what is valued most” and “what works.” In our daily practice we see that asking these types of questions has a big impact. It creates a safe environment that encourages people to take risks, explore their potential, and share their ideas. In other words, a leader asking appreciative questions stimulates the learning process of the organization.

Illumination is described by Whitney as “Bring out the best of ­people and situations.” It is about being able to see what every person has to offer to an organization when he is at his best, to explicitly give feedback on this and to encourage to do this more. Combining this with the strategy of inquiry, a “Root cause analysis of success” could be done.

Inspiration is about “awakening the creative spirit.” Whitney explains it quite poetically: “Inspiration opens people to the source of life that moves through us all and among us all. It gives people hope and courage to shed habitual ways of living and working and move in new, innovative and more life-affirming directions. Inspiration, hope and creativity—three essential ingredients for personal and collective transformation—go hand in hand.” In other words, an inspirational leader knows how to move people, both emotionally and practically, by envisioning a better future that people can relate to. A very important vehicle for this is storytelling, a skill that has recently been “rediscovered.” But we do have to stress here that inspiration is not only about envisioning; it is also about the leadership that stimulates concrete action and walks the path toward the desired future. Whitney calls this the combination of “will power” and “way power.”

The last core leadership strategy to mention is Integrity. Whitney’s description: “To make choices for the good of the whole.” This could be seen as a “meta leadership strategy” that includes the other four strategies. It is about setting the example, showing ethically and morally just behavior as a leader. Again Whitney refers to “wholeness”: “Appreciative Leadership stays on the path of integrity by making choices that serve the whole. Any time your thoughts, words, and deeds bring greater wholeness to people and groups, you are on the path of integrity.” This is a truly humanistic perception of the leader: one that helps people and their communities to flourish.

The Translation to Practice

The conceptual framework of AI, including appreciative leadership, connects with humanistic values, honoring the unicity, dignity, equality, and potential of human beings. Application of this framework can have a positive impact on organizations. The main question we would like to address now is: how to experiment with Appreciative Leadership and honor humanistic values?

Looking at our own experiences, we acknowledge Whitney’s emphasis on the relational aspect of leadership. We suggest reconsidering the “rules of engagement” that are present in your organization. Do this by having alternative conversations with the people you work with, encouraging equality and the exploration of human potential. Instead of monologue, create a dialogue, about best practices, ambitions, and dreams. Ask more questions than you would normally do, investigating “what gives life to the organization” and the underlying potential for creating a better future together. Involve more people in this dialogue than you would normally do. Also encourage them to have these types of conversations together, with or without you.

We would like to leave you with some questions that will help you to start up the process above:

• What are the topics that you and other people see as most relevant for the current and future reality of the organization? How could you phrase these topics positively, in terms of what you want to achieve (instead of what you want to leave behind)?
• Who could you involve in this issue to create a new and richer perspective on the topic? On what occasions and in what way could you start up the dialogue?
• What questions would help you to investigate everybody’s dreams, aspirations, potential, and possibilities around the selected topics?
• Which qualities and (latent) potential deserves more of your attention and appreciation? How can you express this?
• What stories can you tell that express your vision on the future and the path that leads to it? Who would you like to share your story with?
• In what way are you already serving “the whole” with your daily actions? How can you enhance this to an even higher level of integrity?

Conclusion

Since working with AI, we find our work more meaningful. We have noticed the vitalizing and elevating effect it has on people and their organizations. We believe that AI and Appreciative Leadership can help bring the humanistic perspective into practice. We hope that you have become curious and motivated to experiment with AI.

References

Barret, F., R. Fry, and H. Wittockx. 2012. Appreciative Inquiry. Het basiswerk [Appreciative Inquiry. The Fundamentals]. Tielt, Belgium: Lannoo.

Blomme, R.J. 2013. “Camusiaanse Wijsheid voor de Management praktijk [Camusian Wisdom for Management Practice].” In Wijsheid in Bedrijf [Wisdom in Business], eds. R.J. Blomme and B. Van Hoof, 59–74. Assen, The Netherlands: Koninklijke van Gorcum.

Buckingham, M., and D.O. Clifton. 2002. Ontdek je Sterke Punten [Now, Discover Your Strengths]. Houten-Antwerpen, The Netherlands: Unieboek Spectrum.

Bushe, G.R., and A.F. Kassam. 2005. “When is Appreciative Inquiry Transformational? A Meta- Case Analysis.” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 41, no. 2, 161–81. doi:10.1177/0021886304270337

Cooperrider, D.L., and S. Srivastva. 1987. “Appreciative Inquiry in Organizational Life.” In Research in Organizational Change and Development, eds. W. Pasmore and R. Woodman, 1, 129–69. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Gergen, K.J. 1999. An Invitation to Social Construction. London, UK: Sage.


Greijmans, S.D. 2015. Achieving Transformational Change: A Literature Review of Appreciative Inquiry Interventions in Organizations (Masters Thesis). Retrieved from https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22459142

Lewin, K. 1958. “Group Decision and Social Change.” In Readings in Social Psychology, eds. E.E. Maccoby, T.M. Newcomb, and E.L. Hartley, 197–21. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, Winston.

Laloux, F. 2016. Reinventing Organizations (D.Grabij, transl.). Tielt, Belgium: Frederic Laloux, & Lannoo.

Tjepkema, S., and L. Verheijen. 2012. “Appreciative Inquiry.” In Canon Van Het Leren [Canon of learning], eds. M. Ruijter and R.J. Simons. Deventer, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Whitney, D.D., and A. Trosten-Bloom, and K. Rader. 2015. Appreciative Leadership: Focus on What Works to Drive Winning Performance and Build a Thriving Organization. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.