Appreciative Inquiry

 

In the middle years of the twentieth century psychoanalysis was all the rage.  Anyone who could afford it (and it took a great deal of money to afford it) had an analyst.  It was the “in thing”.

   

By that time not all analysts were Freudians. Freud ’s students Adler , Ellis , Jung , Erikson and others had developed their own versions of psychoanalysis.  This type of psychological treatment was known as the “talking cure” because, rather than prescribing medication or using electric shock therapy for a psychiatric illness, the psychotherapist would have the patient sit in a comfortable chair or lie back on a couch.  The therapist would then encourage the patient to talk about his or her life.  From the therapist’s perspective it might just as well been called the “listening therapy”. The therapist would primarily listen to the patient and then help the patient to make connections and discover symbolic content in an attempt to understand the origin of the illness in order to provide treatment.

 

When I was in graduate school in the 1960s this was still the gold standard of psychotherapy, but there were other therapies that, since the Second World War, were gaining popularity: Gestalt Therapy, Rational Emotive Therapy and, most popular at that time, Rogerian Therapy, the technique of Psychologist Carl Rogers who seemed to simply echo back whatever the patient told him.  If the patient were to say “I have a stomach ache”, instead of asking the patient to be more specific or even “tell me more” as other therapists would, Rogers might reply “You are feeling some discomfort in you midsection.”  The theory was that this alone would provide just enough response, without muddying the waters by adding new information, so that the patient would know that the therapist not only heard but, also, understood what had been said.  The patient would, then, feel comfortable enough to  continue the conversation.  The next statement was responded to in a similar way, continuing like this through the 50 minute hour so that the patient was encouraged to delve deeper and deeper into whatever issue concerned him or her.  A parody of Rogers used an early computer to echo back each of the patient’s statements, with just a slight revision.

 

A scientific study was conducted in the early sixties which sought to discover which of several prominent therapies was most effective.  A group of patients with the same diagnosis and severity of symptoms was randomly divided into groups and paired with a therapist using one of these therapies.  A therapist met with one of the patients for an hour a day for three months, at the end of which post-study evaluations were compared with pre-study evaluations in proper scientific fashion. In order for the study to be as scientifically valid and reliable as possible a control group was required; so one of the groups received no therapy at all.  In order to leave no stone unturned, yet another control group was also included.  This group of patients also met for an hour every day but not with a professional therapist.  These patients met with a nursing student with no training in psychology at all.   

The results were very interesting, indeed.  As expected, the control group without any therapy did significantly worse than all of the others.   The groups with the different professional therapists using different therapies differed in their effectiveness as measured by the pre and post tests but none was statistically significant.  The big surprise of the study, however, was that the patients who had simply talked with the student nurses an hour a day did just as well as the patients who had spent an hour a day working with a professional therapist.  Simply talking with someone, especially someone who listens with empathy and compassion is of great value in and of itself. 

 

Yet another lesson of my study of psychology provided some very valuable information to me personally as well as professionally.  This was the results of the studies of how learning takes place, particularly the work of B.F. Skinner with what he called “Operant Conditioning”. His experiments with rats, pigeons, dogs and chimpanzees demonstrated, along with a host of other things, that learning is significantly improved when the desired behavior is rewarded, rather than punishing behavior that was not desired.   Skinner, a Unitarian, by the way, was so impressed with his results that he placed his young daughter in a large box similar to the ones that he used with the rats and pigeons and proceeded to train her in the same way.  Alas, Skinner was a much better scientist than a father.  The sterile environment that he raised her in, in order to be scientifically sound, resulted in a girl who turned out to be quite disturbed.   

 

Nevertheless, his point was well taken.  When, a few years later, my first wife and I were entrusted with the responsibility of child rearing we, more humanely than Skinner to be sure, used the knowledge gained in raising our child.  We did not place him in a sterile scientific box, but whenever his wants and our desires were in conflict, rather than spanking him we sought something to divert his attention as an alternative in order to take his mind off of the activity that we wished to prevent him from doing.  And we made sure to liberally praise even his smallest positive behavior.  It seems that we were better parents than Skinner since my son has turned into a wonderful young man.  He is now himself a psychologist studying learning and attention.

 

A few years ago Louise came home from work one day and told me about the conversation that she had had with her supervisor, Janet .  Janet , from the first day that Louise started working there, had frequently offered encouragement and praise to Louise .  She would thank Louise for even the smallest task.  (I guess she had read Skinner, too!) Every afternoon, as Louise headed out the door at 5:30 Janet would call out “See you tomorrow and thank you.”  Louise asked her, one day, “Why are you always thanking me for doing what I am being paid to do?” Janet responded, “You can do a job or you can do your best job.  Even with a paycheck you could still be the kind of worker who doesn’t show up every day.  My job as your supervisor is to give you the tools and the resources to enable you to do your job, but more than that, my role is to make sure that you understand how important you are to the team effort and how much I appreciate who you are and what you do for this organization every day.”  Janet , by the way, is also a Unitarian Universalist.    

With this background, then, when I learned about “Appreciative Inquiry” as part of the training for Interim Ministers I knew immediately that this was a process that could have some real merit for us as individuals and as a congregation.  The core of “Appreciative Inquiry” is based on rewards rather than punishments, affirmation rather that criticism coupled with active listening.  I didn’t need to know much more about the process in order to be captivated.   

 

“Appreciative Inquiry” is a process that comes out of the corporate and education fields and has, in the last few years become very popular among many religious groups and denominations.  It has become one of the primary tools in the toolbox of the UUA Interim Ministry program.

 

David L. Cooperrider , one of the people introducing and promoting “Appreciative Inquiry” describers it this way:     

Appreciative Inquiry is about the co-evolutionary search for the best in people, their organizations, and the relevant world around them.  In its broadest focus, it involves systematic discovery of what gives “life” to a living system when it is most alive, most effective, and most constructively capable in economic, ecological, and human terms. 

 

An assumption behind “Appreciative Inquiry” is that, in the very normal human response to a question such as “how do you like such and such” we have a choice wherein we can answer with an underlying, sometimes unspoken, perspective that is either positive or negative.  It is very easy to criticize and we are all too prone to fall into that trap.  It is not more difficult to praise, but somehow, we constrain ourselves from doing that.  If someone walks into the room with a beautiful and colorful blouse and an equally beautiful skirt but with colors that clash with the blouse, what is our first reaction?  We may think it only to ourselves, but, nevertheless, the tendency is to criticize the mismatch rather than complement the beauty of the blouse or skirt.  It is only natural.  In a church we may lament what isn’t getting accomplished or being done well and take for granted all of the other good things that are going on.

  

Appreciative work in congregations, as anywhere else, begins with reflections, then questions, and then sharing the questions. What are your best images and associations with your congregation? In what ways are people engaged, clearly committed, and happy to participate? What do members most appreciate and value about this church, this denomination, and their engagement? What kind of opportunities do people have to really share each other’s stories? When people are treated really well in the Fellowship what is it like?  Identifying and reflecting on what is most life giving and meaningful to a congregation, giving members a safe place to talk about experiences and values, and learning to discover, enjoy, and gain from everyone’s engagement is where this will start.

 

Prior to my introduction to “Appreciative Inquiry”, when a congregation would ask me what they needed to do to grow either in membership, programming or in pledges, my first reaction was to look at what the congregation was doing wrong so that those area could be addressed and turned around.  My tendency was like a doctor when a patient enters the office reporting some ailment, or a mechanic when someone brings a car into the repair shop.  I don’t know how many times I have brought my car into the repair shop for an oil change or to rotate the tires and ended up with a $500.00 bill for all the “necessary maintenance” that I had neglected.  The attitude is “My job is to fix what is broken”.   

 

Unfortunately, I still react that way at times, but I realized, through the philosophy of Appreciative Inquiry that that misses the point!  A congregation of 85 or 185 or 385 members is clearly doing a lot right and has done a lot right for many years or these people would have dropped out long ago.  Yet, after all of the criticism has been aired and all of the problems have been listed, we are left with a negative and, perhaps, defeated feeling.  According to the philosophy of “Appreciative Inquiry”, the issue is not what is being done wrong so that it can be changed but what is being and has been done right so it can be repeated and enhanced. This, in itself, as I had discovered long ago about listening and learning, could be a valuable insight.

  

The Appreciative Inquiry process has an added benefit of enabling us to meet each other at a deeper, more intimate level.  In addition, another aspect of the “Affirmative Inquiry” program that is particularly exciting for UU churches is that it is not a top-down program.  Unlike a lot of recommended procedures that come from the UUA or the District office this process begins and ends with the members of the congregation.  Yes, I have recommended the process to the Transition Team and to the Board, and I have provided a book describing the process as a guide, but much of my work is essentially done.  (OK, yes, I’ll be there to cheer and coach and participate, but not to dictate.) The list of questions that are to be asked this morning, the analysis of the responses and the “provocative proposals” that arise from the process all will emerge from members of this congregation.  Everything from here on out will originate “right here in River City ” (well, actually, “Lake City ” – Muskegon ).

 

“Appreciative Inquiry” can help all of us ask better questions in a variety of areas.  Religious education opportunities are a universe to themselves. “Appreciative Inquiry” assumes that lifelong learning and development are as important to institutions as to individuals.  Ultimately, issues of mission, growth, and vision deserve a full appreciative exploration. What about appreciative ethics, morality, justice, and peace?  Clergy and church staff evaluations, like all job performance evaluations, have proven extremely difficult and often negative in its ramifications for both the minister or staff member and the congregation, itself.  An appreciative approach shifts the focus toward mutual valuation exercises that foster growth and improvement and a shared sense of collaboration.  According to the originators of “Appreciative Inquiry”:

 a conversion is required, by which a profound reorientation occurs in the way we look at the world and ourselves. It means developing one’s perceptions and valuation to discern and pay attention to what is most life-giving, most valuable, rather than focusing on cause and blame when difficulties arise. . . human systems grow in the direction of what they persistently ask questions about and this propensity is strongest and most sustainable when the means and ends of inquiry are positively correlated. The single most prolific thing a group can do if its aims are to liberate the human spirit and consciously construct a better future is to make the positive change core the common and explicit property of all.

  

“Appreciative Inquiry” is a process that can enable all of us to discern who we are and what we want for ourselves.  Although the focus of the Interim Ministry program is to prepare the congregation for the calling of a settled minister, it is not the only positive results that can occur.  The process of self discovery and self discernment of and by the congregation can have profound benefit no matter where the future lies.

 

Every congregation is unique and special.  It is the discovery, definition of, and delight in this uniqueness and specialness that, it is hoped, will result from “Appreciative Inquiry”.  This can only prove positive for this congregation and each of us individually.

  

After the service please join us for a Lasagna lunch followed by some time to experience the process of Appreciative Inquiry.  I think that you will find that it is quite rewarding just to meet one another again, for the first time.