Exploration of the “Appreciative Inquiry” approach in enabling URC churches to undertake mission planning.

ABSTRACT

Times have changed that requires churches in the United

Reformed Church to engage with society in order to become more

missional. This requires both evaluation their life as well as

‘mission planning’ in order to implement any changes.

This study was to determine attitudes about change due to

mission planning in local churches and to assess what

contribution Appreciative Inquiry, as a model of change

management, could make to improve the perceptions of change.

The research was conducted as a qualitative study based on

thematic analysis of data obtained from semi-structured group

interviews following presentation of the Appreciative Inquiry

approach and from subsequent questionnaires sent to

participants.

The study findings indicated that Appreciative Inquiry has the

potential to fulfill most of the requirements to reduce

concerns of congregation members and engage them more easily

with the concept and process of change in their churches. The

study also indicated the approach being a more inclusive

process that can embrace the participation of those on the

‘fringes’ of the church who are not necessarily regular i

attendees of the church. It also has the potential to raise

the level of conversation about change and in so doing reduce

the inevitable resistance to change often found in local

churches.

It is hoped that this study will help those involved in

mission planning and development in local churches to have not

just another approach for that work but one that is more

participative and inclusive than what has been previously

used.

ii

Table of Contents

Content PageAbstract iTable of contents iiList of Figures v

Chapter 1 Introduction and Context 11.1 Introduction 11.2 Background to the United reformed Church and

its Mission

1

1.3 The United Reformed Church and Change 2

Chapter 2 Change Management in Churches: A Change

of Approach?

4

2.1 introduction 42.2 The Nature and Practice of Change 52.3 Reaction to Change 52.4 The Use of a Particular Approach in a Faith

Context

6

2.5 Appreciative Inquiry as a Possible Approach 72.6 Significance and Aim of the Study 82.7 Conclusion 9

Chapter 3 Literature Review 103.1 Introduction 103.2 Current Audit Approaches in Churches 103.3 The Position of Appreciative Inquiry 12

iii

3.3.1 Background Theory and Basis for Appreciative

Inquiry

13

3.4 The Appreciative Inquiry Process 143.5 Appreciative Inquiry Compared to Other Change

Management Models

15

3.6 Possible Limitations of Appreciative Inquiry 163.7 Conclusions 17

Chapter 4 Methodology 184.1 Introduction 184.2 Research Design 184.3 Research Methods and Process 20 Sample selection 21 Researcher bias 21 Group feedback 22 Interview recording 22 Individual questionnaires 234.4 Data Analysis 244.5 Conclusion 25

Chapter 5 Data Findings and Analysis 265.1 Introduction 265.2 Attitudes towards Change 275.3 Attitudes towards Appreciative Inquiry 295.4 Willingness to Use Appreciative Inquiry 305.5 Perceived Limitations or Disadvantages of

Appreciative Enquiry

31

5.6 Dealing with Negatives 325.7 Unexpected Findings 325.8 Conclusion 32

iv

Chapter 6 Discussion Findings and Connections with

Literature Review

33

6.1 Introduction 336.2 Reaction to Change 346.3 Attitudes about Appreciative Inquiry 366.4 Willingness to Use Appreciative Inquiry 376.5 Dealing with the Negatives 386.6 Summary 39

Chapter 7 Conclusion and Recommendations

41

7.1 Introduction 417.2 Findings from the Literature Review 417.3 Findings from the Primary Research 427.4 Appreciative Enquiry and Theology 437.5 Concluding Remarks 45

Bibliography 46

Appendices 53Appendix 1: Letter of Invitation to Appreciative

Inquiry Workshop

53

Appendix 2: Poster Advertising Appreciative

Inquiry Workshop

54

Appendix 3: Proposed Group Interview Schedule 55

v

Appendix 4: Covering Letter Requesting Completion

of Questionnaires

56

Appendix 5: Questionnaire to Church Leaders about

Church Related Change

57

Appendix 6: Questionnaire to Training Officers and

Mission Enablers about Change Management and

Appreciative Inquiry

58

Appendix 7: Transcription of Thames North Synod

Group Interview

59

Appendix 8: Transcription of Wessex Synod Group

Interview

63

Appendix 9: Transcription of Southern Synod Group

Interview

67

vi

List of Figures

Figure Page

3.1 The 4-D Cycle of Appreciative Inquiry 14

3.2 Two Paradigms for Organisational Change 16

5.1 Numbers Attending Presentations and Receiving

Questionnaires with Indicated Responses from

Each

26

5.2 Coding and Emerging Themes from Data Analysis 27

6.1 Roller Coaster of Change 34

6.2 Force-Field Analysis of Change in a Church 39

vii

viii

Chapter 1

Introduction and Context.

1.1 Introduction.

This chapter will outline the context of the United Reformed

Church (URC) in which the study was located and explain the

reasoning for exploring the concept of change and how change

is perceived by many local church members.

The researcher’s role as a "Development and Support Officer"

in the Wessex Synod of the United Reformed Church means he

serves as a resource person to assist local churches with

evaluation and some form of change implementation.

1.2 Background to the United Reformed Church and its Mission.

The URC was formed in July 1972 and initially the

denominations of most of the Congregational churches in

England as well as the English Presbyterian Church(Cornick

1998: 179). It was an era of ecumenical hope and optimism for

the Church (Peel 2002: 191) despite the fact that the

preceding 1960’s was also an era of profound change in an

increasingly secular world (Cornick 1998: 171).

1

This optimism was still evident when the "Growing up" report

(Burnham n.d. 2) was presented in 1998, although indicating a

52% decline in membership from 1972 it was done using the

text:

A shoot shall come out of the stamp of Jesse,

and a branch shall grow out of his roots.(Isaiah 11:1, New Revised

Standard Bible)

This was used as a message of hope that despite diminishing

numbers it would still be possible for growth to occur in the

URC.

However it needs to be acknowledged that the URC is

struggling; it is struggling to maintain a dynamic mission due

to the falling ratio of members to church buildings which in

turn has caused difficulties in providing ministry for all

local churches (Cornick 1998: 187); and it is struggling (due

to its commitment to an ecumenical ethos) to develop an

identity for itself [ibid. 189]. Finally as the URC is made up

of many denominations; initially the Congregationalists and

Presbyterians in 1972; the Churches of Christ six years later

and the Scottish Congregationalists joined in 2002, there is

according to Peel (2002:3) "no such thing as the theology of

the URC."

Even the ecclesiological structure of the URC is a compromise

of its constituent Christian traditions: from the

2

Presbyterians a conciliar structure and high view of

Eldership; from the Congregationalists long serving Synod

Moderators and each local church being its own final authority

which rests with the Church Meeting; from the Churches of

Christ the freedom to appoint someone to preside at Communion.

All of this adjustment gives Peel (2002:9) the impression that

"URC folk are far more likely to show an interest in the

denomination’s history than in its theology".

Significantly the Church Information for Mission profile of

2002 indicated that the URC are “people who find it easier to

engage in social action than of speaking about their faith in

Jesus” (Catch the Vision report to the General Assembly 2005

n.d. 37).

Because of the URC's policy that the local church is a focal

point of mission instead of relying on a "mission plan" of the

denomination, it is up to each local church to undertake its

own mission planning in its context.

However as Cameron and Green (2009: 9) observe, individual

change is at the heart of everything that is achieved in

organisations so, in order to implement any necessary change

within a church, there is need for an approach that would

facilitate willingness by individual members to accept and be

involved in change.

1.3 The United Reformed Church and Change.

3

It might seem that the United Reformed Church is more open in

accepting change as inevitable but many local congregations

have become bedded down in terms of their way of operating

seeking a “haven of calm and stability” (Campbell 2000: 1).

Yet even in such congregations people feel that something is

missing from their life as a church; so they look for a

vision, a sense of direction, for leadership. However Burnham

(n.d. 14) observes this is usually related to a deep unease

about numbers. He suggests that there can be no simple

solution to the problem of numerical decline but a response

should be about greater maturity in faith; not looking

necessarily for a strategy for growth but rather of a "growing

up" [op. cit.]. Rendle (1998: 32) remarks it is not uncommon for

congregations to want growth but not to want to change and so

continue in their normal mode of operation.

The URC has tended to become a "programmatic church" in that

every few years a new initiative is launched as a missionary

basis for the churches to use. In 1998 the "Growing Up" report

provided a missionary strategy through to 2002 (Burnham n.d.:

23); this was followed by the "Catch the Vision” Report to the

General Assembly in July 2005; in 2007 “Vision4Life” was

introduced exploring aspects of Bible, Prayer and Evangelism;

Vision2020 has 10 mission ‘statements’ coming at the end of

2010 along with the introduction of a “Local Mission and

Ministry Review” programme resulting in increasing complaints

about denominational "initiative overload."

4

Significantly there is a growing reluctance on the part of

congregations to make any major changes to their normal

patterns of operation and many have developed a growing

aversion to most initiatives that imply change. Another

reticence is that many programmes for church evaluation

resemble industry approaches and are dismissed as having no

value in a church setting. This reluctance to use business

oriented change management approaches is because members see

them as incompatible with human faith considerations (Chew &

Ireland 2009: 10).

It is in this context that the researcher undertook the study

to determine the suitability of using Appreciative Inquiry

which has a different approach to those more generally used in

undertaking evaluation and change implementation in a local

church. In particular to explore Appreciative Inquiry’s

emphasis on expanding on the best experiences of the past and

building on the actual values of a group through

conversational approaches which could make it more accessible

and acceptable to church members as an approach to change

implementation.

Chapter 2

Change Management in Churches: A Change of Approach?

2.1 Introduction to mission planning and Change Management

According to Bosch (1991: 372) it is impossible to talk about

church without talking about mission while Kirk (1999: 30) 5

states that if a church ceases to be missionary it has ceased

being church and urges that a church needs a strong sense of

vocation to its missionary work.

Schenk (2001:120) suggests that much of the contemporary

Church is captive to a Christendom understanding of itself and

the world which has generally resulted in "perpetuating the

past rather than creating ... new ministries to reach new

generations" (Schaller, 2001:128). What is needed to counter

this tendency is a vision of the church through a "missionary

encounter with the world" (Schenk 2001: 123) which Durran

(2006:63) suggests requires a regeneration of the church

through engagement with its neighbourhood and community. These

comments suggest the need for much of the contemporary church

to evaluate itself and to implement some form of mission

planning and consequent change.

The field of Organisational Development focuses on change in

organisations and is "an applied behavioural science approach

to planned change and development of an organisation"

(Mullins, 1999: 800). A note of caution is given, for although

Drucker (1990:78, 83) suggests that non-profit organisations

can use management principles that might be common in the

normal business sector, Cameron (2004:149) warns that this

should be done whilst bearing in mind inherent assumptions

concerning bureaucracy and large business managerialism.

Malphurs (2005:10) says there is insufficient training given

in strategic thinking skills to ministers because like most

6

organisations, congregations also exhibit resistance to

change.

Cameron & Green (2009:135) avoid giving a simplistic

definition of change management stating that there are many

approaches to managing change (they list nine) and maintain

that there is not necessarily one right way of doing this (ibid.

331).

2.2 The Nature and Practice of Change

Paton & McCalman (2000: 8) mention that change is an ongoing

process and that it is incorrect to think that a “visionary

end state” can be reached in a highly programmed way. They

also state that most organisations view change as a planned

process which takes as its starting point a problem that needs

to be rectified, breaks it down to its constituent parts,

analyses possible alternatives, selects the preferred

solution, and then applies this.

Cameron & Green (2009:32) state that people go through a

psychological process during a change process. This is due to

the fact that apart from the main aspects that motivate people

to work--economic rewards, job satisfaction and social

relationships—another motivation is that of the "psychological

contract" which involves expectations between individuals and

the organisation which are not formally defined (Mullins,

1999:408; Ivancevich & Matteson, 2002:169).

7

Added to this Handy (1993:153) says that people do not work

purely as individuals within an organisation but also as

members of groups in order to have a means of sharing the

common activity; gaining help and support; and for satisfying

their affiliation needs. Mullins (1999:825) adds most people

are not detached from their work but experience “a range of

emotional involvements through their membership of the

organisation”.

While it might be normal that the stimulus for change in

organisations is induced from the external environment

(Mullins, 1999:822), the primary motivator for how change is

accomplished remains with the people in the organisation

(Benjamin & Mabey, 1993:181).

2.3 Reaction to Change

Malphurs (1993:80) asserts that in most churches there are

people who resist change because they do not feel the need for

change; traditions, vested interests and practices having

become so ingrained that change is either not wanted or almost

impossible to implement.

Cameron & Green (2009:113) point out that people in groups

will change only if there is a felt need to do so, although

Paton & McCalman (2000:12) suggest that change is assisted by

a climate of enthusiasm and participation as resistance is

often a result of fear, prejudice, anxiety and ignorance on

the part of members. Nadler (1993: 90) states that any major

8

organisational change presents three problems which need to be

dealt with:

1. resistance to change because people have a need for a

degree of stability,

2. disruption to the normal course of events because

organisational arrangements are designed for stable

states rather than transition states,

3. significant change poses the possibility of upsetting or

modifying the balance of power among groups.

According to Pugh (1993:109) resistance to change can be

understood when it is realised from a behavioural point of

view that organisations are often “coalitions of interest

groups in tension” and changes inevitably alter the current

balance between them. For this reason the argument that wider

participation might help alleviate some problems is refuted by

Beer, Einstat & Spector (1993:103) who suggest that simply

letting members help develop a new vision is not enough to

overcome resistance to change and good leadership is crucial

because commitment to change is always uneven.

In light of the above it would appear that successful mission

planning and change would depend on the approach taken to

implement change as well as who would be leading the change

process (Kotter, 1995:60). Cameron & Green (2009:178) argue

against the need for visionary leadership and advocate

"adaptive leadership" in taking people out of their comfort

9

zones and exposing them to tensions while Mullins (1999:283)

insists that there is no one best form of leadership as

different forms are appropriate at different stages in the

organisation’s development.

2.4 The Use of a Particular Approach in a Faith Context.

For change management to be more accepted in a church it would

need to be something that is amenable to a church environment.

The approach used to facilitate change also needs to be a way

of helping a faith community to grow in maturity through

"enabling the community to journey towards a greater awareness

of itself ... [so that the] relational process is itself the

goal" of change management (Savage & Boyd-Macmillan 2007:

231).

The church as a gathered social entity may have a lower level

of awareness than the members may have individually (ibid: 232)

so an aim of church mission planning would not be about

problem solving but rather helping people to find out about

who they are and what they believe is important to do (Rendle

& Mann 2003: xii). A way of facilitating this is by means of

conversation which Wheatley (2009: 7) suggests is the easiest

way to cultivate conditions for change as well as being a

natural way that people think together (ibid: 33).

Another consideration is that according to Isaacs (1999: 5)

people tend to "live out of their memories" so it is important

10

to allow members of a congregation not merely to look forward

in terms of mission planning but also to make connections with

those aspects that they remember which is a key approach of

Appreciative Inquiry.

2.5 Appreciative Inquiry as a Possible Approach.

A dilemma faced by the researcher in his role is to both

affirm churches in what they already doing as well as strongly

encourage them to undertake and evaluation of where else they

could be focusing they work in order to engage more

effectively in local mission. The researcher decided to

experiment with Appreciative Inquiry (or AI as it is commonly

referred to) because it is largely affirmative. A criticism

could be made that this ignores the fact that there is God

given grace to deal with the difficulties if there is only a

focus on the positives but theologically we embrace both the

Incarnation plus the Atonement just as Grace and Judgement are

seen together in Scripture.

The significant aspect of AI is that it focuses on the

positive aspects of organisations. It explores the encouraging

stories of how an organisation has been at the best of times,

as well as the dreams of what it could be like.

AI is not a traditional specialist consultative process making

use of a consultant’s skill. It is a consultation method

whereby the organisation discovers for itself what has been

11

good and affirmative and how successful it can become. AI is

not a purely analytic approach but has a psychological core

based on the principle that the process of obtaining

information affects the way people think about their

organisation.

AI could make a significant contribution towards managing

change within local churches because it is not just a set of

techniques for change but is also a "philosophy and

orientation to change" (Reed 2007: 25). AI works by focusing

on the culture of an organisation so that rather than focusing

on any problem with the culture it will focus on the positive.

Interviews will typically ask questions about best

experiences, what gives meaning and satisfaction in being a

member of the organisation, as well as what dreams members

have for it. The results of these interviews are then used to

build a transformational change plan for the organisation.

Whitney & Trosten-Bloom (2003:1) emphasise that AI has as its

base a relational process of enquiry which is grounded in

affirmation and appreciation and paradoxically rather than

aiming to change anything it aims to bring out existing

strengths, hopes and dreams in order to identify and amplify

the "positive core" of the organisation (ibid. 15).

Doetzel (2010: 94) makes a case for AI being able to cultivate

a spirit in workplaces as well as being able to enrich

spiritual development, the latter being borne out by Whitney &

12

Trosten-Bloom (2003: 60) who talk of the process evoking

dreams for the future and us generating "life-giving

possibilities".

2.6 Significance and Aim of the Study

The significance of this study lies in the fact that

Appreciative Inquiry is a largely unknown change management

approach in churches within the URC. This being confirmed by

expressions of curiosity when speaking about AI with local

church leadership.

For any change to be introduced successfully a change agent

must change the church’s values before attempting to change

its programs and practices (ibid: 84). To do this new and

different approach to managing change in local churches needs

to be found.

2.7 Conclusion

Change is at the heart of any congregation attempting to

remain relevant in today's shifting context. According to

Bevans & Schroeder (2004:72) the church only "becomes the

church as it responds to God is calling in mission and

changes" which Morisy (1997: 7) refers to as the

"transformation process in mission." For many URC churches

this often means making painful decisions about ministry

13

provision, the use of buildings, and the use of scarce

resources of time, money and people.

As discussed above churches resist change for various reasons

but even where the notion is accepted their previous

experiences of change management have caused reluctance to set

in. As the Literature Review in the following chapter

indicates, the Appreciative Inquiry approach to managing

change could provide a more affirming model for churches to

use in mission planning and determining their way forward.

This is because AI encourages transformational change due to

the entire process, including the initial interviews that,

often subconsciously, enabling people to alter their views and

consequently their actions.

14

Chapter 3

Literature Review

3.1 Introduction

This chapter examines how church evaluation and mission

planning is being undertaken with regard to the different

programs currently in use. These are discussed in terms of

their approach to data gathering, participation and

interaction by church members. Appreciative Inquiry is then

explored in terms of how it differs and what it might have to

offer as an alternative method for conducting church mission

planning.

3.2 Current Audit Approaches in Churches

Gibbs & Coffey (2000:67) state that the mission planning of

church can never be reduced to marketing although it can be

informed by marketing insights. There is ample material

designed to enable churches to undertake some kind of

evaluation of how they function. Organisations have been

established to produce such material such as the Church

Pastoral Aid Society, the defunct Administry group, and Grove

Books. In addition mainline denominations have also produced

material. Although there is variety in the approaches with

most utlising group discussion, the primary method is to

assess aspects of church life by using a scoring system.

15

For example the URC "Vision Workshop" of 1998 listed 12

aspects which needed to be scored between 1 (being untrue) and

10 (true). People worked in groups to score by means of group

agreement but they were only allowed 45 minutes in total to do

this giving little time for discussion of the aspects. The

second part of the workshop consisted of listing the group’s

"dreams" for the next 5 to 10 years; there were nine aspects

that needed to be completed in 30 minutes. This gave little

opportunity for real discussion resulting in limited uptake by

local churches to this approach.

A regularly used program is from the "Healthy Churches

Handbook" based on data compiled from characteristics drawn

from (mainly Anglican) churches which had experienced growth

in the early 1990’s and developed as the Seven Marks of a Healthy

Church (Warren, 2004:2). The primary exercise involves getting

members to score seven aspects of their church based on a

scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). This scoring is done by members

individualy without conferring. The information is compiled

into a "church profile" which is then discussed in a plenary

session paying attention to the highlighted strengths and

weaknesses (ibid:107). From this it is determined what specific

areas need to have action taken, with planning undertaken by a

leadership group.

Another approach is "Natural Church Development" based on

principles "distilled" from research data from over 1000

16

churches in 32 countries (Schwarz, 1996:18). Members

individually complete questionnaires which are then analysed

against the base model churches. Churches receive an “index"

for each of eight quality characteristics which highlights

aspects that have a "minimum factor" in order to set

priorities which can improve the “minimum factor” (ibid:51).

These approaches do not allow for much congregational

discussion and are similar to Organisational Development

approaches that seek to fix problems. Of concern is the lack

of discussion available in these approaches especially as

Wheatley (2009:7) suggests that conversation is "the easiest

way to cultivate the conditions for change". Senge (1993:22)

warns that all too often conversations in organisations are

dominated by concern with events and this “does not allow

[people] to be creative.” Nevertheless, he and others advocate

conversation as the primary medium to build up the

capabilities of reflection and enquiry in organisations

(Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, & Smith, 1994:353).

Rendle & Mann (2003:xii) suggest that planning in the church

is not about problem-solving but is about helping people to

have a purposeful conversations about who they are and what

they believe is important to do. Savage & Boyd-Macmillan

(2007:12) also suggest the use of conversation in a church as

a way of introducing change but warn about the use of

religious language being both a help and a hindrance in terms

of communication (ibid.: 31).

17

In view of all these considerations, this study investigates

the role that Appreciative Inquiry could have in being an

approach to help with change in local churches as well as

facilitating better and more creative conversations by church

members.

3.3 The Position of Appreciative Inquiry

The process of change has to take into account members’

attitudes towards change and the Appreciative Inquiry (AI)

framework works with what people value. Lewis, Passmore, &

Cantore (2008:49) comment that AI "is about connecting today

to the history which is the life blood of the organisation".

This positive approach has the potential to overcome

resistance that people might have towards change.

Appreciative Inquiry aims to use what is important to an

organisation and its members and then build the future on

those aspects so that any sense of loss is replaced by a sense

of continuity and hope which is something that Durran

(2006:19) states as being important in moving an ailing

congregation in a new direction. The AI process is also in

line with suggestions by Ivancevich & Matteson (2002:457) that

the selection of an appropriate decision-making process

involves considering two criteria; decision quality and a

subordinate commitment which allows for decisions to be

successfully implemented.

18

The origins of Appreciative Inquiry date back to the 1980s

when David Cooperrider - then a doctoral student - undertook

research for the Cleveland Clinic into what was wrong with the

organisation (Watkins & Mohr, 2001:15). Cooperrider then

focused on the positives in the research data wanting to

define what it was that gave life to the organisation and its

people when it was most effective (Cooperrider, Whitney, &

Stavros, 2008:xxvii).

Although the original focus was on change management in the

Organisation Development field, Appreciative Inquiry has

developed and been used in areas such as strategic planning,

leadership development, team development, organisational

culture change, and community relationships (Watkins & Mohr,

2001:xxix).

3.3.1 Background Theory and Basis for Appreciative Inquiry

Lewis, Passmore, & Cantore (2008:34) looked at key figures

whose theories provided input to the development of

Appreciative Inquiry; they are Kurt Lewin regarded as the

"father" of social psychology and the early development of

Action Research and Force-field Analysis; Kenneth Gergen who

developed the notion of social constructionism that suggests

we create the world by the language used to describe it; and

Martin Seligman who brought “positive psychology” to the fore

19

which focuses on what works for the person rather than what

doesn't.

Bushe (2007:35) suggests that the core of AI is "generativity"

especially in "the images and models that inhabit our

collective aspirations ... and make available decisions and

actions that didn't occur to us before." Cooperrider, Whitney,

& Stavros( 2008:14) add to this that people manage their

destiny by envisioning what they want to occur and developing

actions to move toward that outcome.

Branson (2004:24) listed “assumptions” in AI such as: the

language we use creates our reality; organisations are

heliotropic (so people are drawn to the positive); and what we

focus on becomes our reality, all of which show its social

constructionism underpinning. These principles of AI according

to Cooperrider, Whitney, & Stavros, (2008:8) acted to inspire

and move Appreciative Inquiry from a theory to a practice.

A summary of the principles is given by Whitney & Trosten-

Bloom (2003:54):

1. Constructionist principle: "Words create worlds" because

reality as we know it is subjective and socially created

through language and conversation.

2. Simultaneity principle: "Inquiry creates change" because

as soon as we ask a question we initiate change.

20

3. Poetic principle: "We can choose what we study" and what

we choose will make a difference because it creates the

world as we know it.

4. Anticipatory principle: "Image inspires action" as human

systems tend to move in the direction of the future

images.

5. Positive principle: "Positive questions lead to positive

change" especially when these questions amplify the

"Positive Core" (the strengths, goals and achievements)

of an organisation.

3.4 The Appreciative Inquiry Process

Cooperrider & Whitney (2005:8) define Appreciative Inquiry as:

"The cooperative, co-evolutionary search for the best in people, their

organisations, and the world around them. It involves systematic discovery of

what gives life to an organisation when it is most effective and most capable

in economic, ecological, and human terms."

Watkins & Mohr, (2001:39) refer to "generic processes" that

are applied as a framework for organisation change and list

these as:

1. choosing the positive as the focus of enquiry;

2. enquiring into stories of life-giving forces;

3. locating themes that appear in the stories and select

topics for further enquiry;

4. creating shared images for preferred future; and

5. finding innovative ways to create better future.

21

The most common model used by practitioners is the 4-D cycle

and is based on that first introduced by Cooperrider (Watkins

& Mohr, 2001:42).

Figure 3.1 The 4-D Cycle [adapted from Cooperider et al

(2008:34)]

22

The process moves from enquiry into peoples’ best experiences

(what gives life) in Discovery allowing connections to be made

with the history of the organisation. These shared experiences

form the basis for Dreaming of the future for the organisation

and act as a bridge between the best of "what is" and "what

might be". The Design step makes decisions about the imagined

future to agree a common future dream and the actions to

support this. The Destiny phase is about planning and

implementing the actions identified during the design phase.

Before the change process can start the organisation should

define the focus of enquiry, although not always a

prerequisite because AI is suited to "emergent change" when

this focus is initially unclear (Lewis, Passmore, & Cantore,

2008:48).

In a congregational context this approach helps members to

share their beliefs, understandings and what they value

through the sharing best experiences. Cooperrider & Whitney

(2005:8) refer to this as the "positive core" of the

organisation and they maintain that AI deliberately seeks to

work with accounts of this positive core so that the shift

from problem analysis to positive core analysis is placed at

the heart of affirmative change (ibid. 11).

3.5 Appreciative Inquiry Compared to Other Change Management

Models

23

Cooperrider & Whitney (2005:1) argue that Appreciative Inquiry

"turns the practice of change management inside out" while

Bojer, Roehl, Knuth, & Magner (2008:37) claim AI "inverts

problem solving approaches".

Voyle (2006:7) contends that the appreciative approach differs

from traditional problem-solving approaches that are rooted in

the ‘medical model’ of assessment, diagnosis and treatment

while Branson ( 2004:55) argues that generative change is

improbable if effort is focussed on problems, failures and

blame.

Whitney & Trosten-Bloom (2003:11) state that organisations are

often prevented from fully knowing or drawing upon the

positive potential because of focusing on problems rather than

possibilities. Appreciative Inquiry challenges the traditional

paradigms so that instead of looking for problems it looks for

what is good and builds upon that. To this end they offer the

following as a means of comparison:

Problem Solving vs Appreciative Inquiry

Identification of a problem“Felt need”

Appreciating and “valuing thebest of What is”

Analysis of causes Envisioning “What might be”

Analysis of possible solutions Dialoguing “What should be”

24

Action planning as “treatment” Innovating “What will be”

Basic assumption: Organising is a problemto be solved

Basic assumption: Organising is mystery tobe embraced

Figure 3.2 Two Paradigms for Organisational Change [Adapted

from Cooperrider, Whitney, & Stavros (2008:16)]

3.6 Possible Limitations of Appreciative Inquiry

There are criticisms concerning Appreciative Inquiry, and not

surprisingly, many of them concern its strengths-based

orientation. "Appreciative Inquiry has been accused of being

naive and individualistic in the way that it concentrates on

positive experiences, which some may feel paints an unduly

sanitised picture of human life" (Reed, 2007:39). Bushe

(2007:33) maintains that when the underlying motivation of

"keeping the focus on the positive" is to avoid the anxiety of

dealing with real concerns or to suppress dissent, then AI

becomes “nothing more than a form of repression dressed up as

something else.”

In response it is argued that negative aspects are easier to

address in an affirmative environment and, as conversations

occur, people will voice their criticism if they need to as AI

can even enable constructive criticism as it avoids creating a

blame environment (Reed, 2007:39).

25

Another criticism is that Appreciative Inquiry does not

necessarily deal with issues of power in organisations.

However the very fact that an AI process has been initiated

(and can also be terminated by its commissioners) is

recognition of power dynamics in an organisation (Reed,

2007:40). However Appreciative Inquiry should not get lauded

above other approaches to change management as can often

happen with any new approach (ibid:41).

Another concern raised by Bushe (2007:35) is that Appreciative

Inquiry is so often described by contrasting it with

traditional organisational development approaches that it has

lead some people to think that AI is so positive that it will

almost run itself.

Against this Bojer et al. (2008: 32) argue that although AI

requires facilitation it does not need an experienced

facilitator to implement the process.

3.7 Conclusions

The literature reviewed in this chapter showed that

Appreciative Inquiry could be used as an alternative approach

with regard to church evaluation and mission planning.

Although used primarily as an Organisation Development tool,

the principles of AI are adaptable and flexible so they could

be used in local churches.

26

The positive, future oriented, strength-based approach of

Appreciative Inquiry could resonate with many church members

who would link it with a theology of hope. AI is not

theologically neutral but accepts that not all aspects are

positive but that all "work together for good for those who love God"

(Romans ch.8 v.28). This is in line with the struggle seen in

the Pauline Epistles of affirming congregations while trying

to spur them on to further effort.

AI appears adaptable enough that, as a process, it can be

implemented over a period of hours, weeks, or even months

depending on local requirements. Finally it does not require

highly trained facilitators to introduce and run a basic

programme.

Chapter 4

Methodology.

4.1 Introduction

The research undertaken was to explore the viability of the Appreciative

Inquiry approach in enabling local United Reformed Church churches to undertake

mission planning by obtaining answers to the following questions:

The general attitudes of church members towards the

concept of change.

27

Church leaders’ views about Appreciative Inquiry when

compared to other change management approaches and would

they consider using it.

According to Marshall & Rossman (1999:21) research in social

sciences is a process of strategies to gather information

about actions and interactions in order to reflect on the

meaning and arrive at conclusions so as to put forward an

interpretation.

Based on the research question plus the fact that the

Literature Review in Chapter 3 yielded only sparse information

on Appreciative Inquiry (AI) being used in churches in the

United States and little in the United Kingdom, the research

approach adopted was qualitative in nature. This is in line

with AI which by its nature is more suited to a qualitative

research due to its focus on experience, storytelling and

imagination and as Denscombe (2003: 267) indicates,

qualitative research is concerned with meanings and the way

people understand things.

4.2 Research Design

As Appreciative Inquiry is little known within the URC, the

researcher, as part of the research design, needed to expose

church leaders to the approach in order to assess their

perceptions of it and willingness to use it in their churches.

This conforms to what Marshall & Rossman (1999:33) suggest in

28

undertaking qualitative research in that the "researcher can

assert taking action as part of the intention of the proposed

study ... [and] can assert empowerment as a goal."

The research was undertaken with a small group of 36

participants from three Synods of the URC; Thames North,

Southern, and Wessex. The participants were all involved in

local church leadership as ministers or Elders. In addition 23

other members of the URC who hold positions relating to

training or development work were sent questionnaires relating

to their experiences concerning change management, exposure to

AI, and their readiness to use it in local church situations.

Ivancevich & Matteson (2002: 63) mention that with regard to

studying organisational behaviour and management practice,

qualitative research tends to be open-ended and interpretive

by design and that a researcher's interpretation and

description are the significant collection acts in a

qualitative study.

The research design was of an interpretivist qualitative

approach because, as Thomas (2009:75) points out,

interpretivism has as its focus the concept of understanding

and in particular how people understand and conceptualise the

world.

According to Cohen & Crabtree (2006:1), interpretivists share

the following assumptions about the nature of knowing and

reality:

29

Relativist ontology - where reality is constructed

through meanings and understandings that are developed

socially and experientially.

Transactional epistemology which assumes that we cannot

be separated from what we know and so the researcher and

the object of research are linked and as such the

researcher’s values are inherent in all parts of the

process.

Knowledge is created as the research proceeds based on

dialogue in which interpretations are negotiated.

Pragmatic and moral concerns are important so that

dialogue between researchers and respondents is critical.

Interpretations are based in a particular moment in that

they are located in a particular context and time and so

can be open to reinterpretation.

"Relativism" and mission theology are not necessarily

compatible and Bosch (1991:481) explores this as part of a

postmodern response by some missiologists to earlier "short-

sightedness" of Christian mission amongst other cultures. Many

URC members would not see their task as converting adherents

of other religions but look to their rival "truth claims" as

being part of a larger religious mosaic in the community they

need to embrace.

For a local church theology does matter for purposes of

worship, life and witness but the URC sees itself as a "broad

30

church" and not having a theological focus (Peel, 2002:3) it

relies on an "unfolding theology." This is borne out by the

URC's "Statement concerning the Nature, Faith, and Order of

the United Reformed Church" (Service Book, 1989:118) which

affirms its right and readiness to "make new statements of

faith." The AI process allows for sharing of experiences which

is important in terms of mission and being "dialogue"

involving the sharing of religious experiences "Bevans &

Schroeder (2004:303).

Cohen & Crabtree (2006:1) state that a methodology appropriate

to the interpretivist paradigm would involve the following

aspects:

A reliance on interviewing, observation and analysis of

existing texts.

Reliance on adequate dialogue between researchers and

respondents in order to collaboratively construct a

meaningful reality.

Meanings generally emerge from the research process.

Qualitative methods are typically used.

4.3 Research Method and Process

Following Marshall & Rossman (1999:33) suggestion as sometimes

being required, and in order to get reactions to Appreciative

Inquiry from URC church leaders, the researcher conducted

three day-long presentations of AI covering aspects of theory,

hands-on exercises, and exploring ways in which AI could be

31

used in local churches. These presentations were concluded by

short group interviews and then followed up by questionnaires

to the participants.

This format was conducted in adjacent Synods of Thames North

and Southern as well as in the researcher’s own Wessex Synod.

This raises questions about aspects such as sampling and the

researcher's personal interest:

Sample selection

Thomas (2009:101) maintains there are no ground rules for

sample size in interpretive research as the expectation is not

generalising but rather that the "sample" gives insights.

Denscombe (2003:24) maintains that a small sample size is in

keeping with a qualitative method of research while Winstanley

(2009: 142) suggests that who is selected for the sample is

more important than actual numbers.

The researcher attempted to get a typical sample which would

be the purposive sampling of URC ministers and local church

leadership and accords with a suggestion by Winstanley (op. cit.)

as the research design was reliant on interpretive data

(Thomas, 2009:104).

This was achieved by invitations to attend the presentation

(including that it was being done as part of research for a

dissertation) to ministers and church leadership in each of

the synods. See Appendix 1 and 2 for a typical invitation and

32

flyer advertising the day. Based on the invitation the numbers

that attended were 19 in Thames North, 16 in Southern and six

in Wessex Synod.

Researcher bias

According to Marshall & Rossman (1999:28) the qualitative

researcher’s challenge is to demonstrate that their personal

interest will not bias the study despite the fact that a

“strong autobiographical element may have driven the research

interest in the first place.” Thomas (2009:75) insists that in

undertaking an interpretivist approach the researcher becomes

a participant in the research situation which has an advantage

in them being able to understand it as an insider. However it

is imperative that the researcher recognise their position

while trying to remain detached, as this affects the nature of

the observations and the interpretations made (ibid: 110).

To counter this the researcher conducted presentations and

group interviews in two other Synods where he was less well-

known as well as in his own Synod as described above.

Group feedback

A short group interview was held by participants willing to be

involved to seek initial thoughts and reactions to the

Appreciative Inquiry approach. These could not be in-depth due

to factors Thomas (2009:169) mentions such as a different

group dynamic in operation; the likelihood that the group will

make riskier decisions than those taken by individuals on

33

their own; and the possibility of the group being dominated by

one or two voices which may not be representative of the

general opinion.

Denscombe (2003:168) states that group interviews have several

advantages over individual interviews as they help reveal

consensus views; they could generate richer responses through

participants by challenging one another's views; and may be

able to verify ideas of data gained through other methods. He

acknowledges that some disadvantages could be that opinions

expressed would be the ones perceived to be acceptable within

the group; the prospect of drowning out certain views; and

these interviews provide no opportunity of posing questions to

a sequence of individuals (op. cit.).

In order to maintain some comparability across the three

presentation days, with three different groups, a Proposed Group

Interview Schedule was used (see Appendix 3).

Note was taken of Denscombe’s (2003:169) comment about the

"interviewer effect" whereby interviewees respond differently

based on how they perceive the interviewer and the topic being

discussed. This was another reason that the researcher chose a

semi-structured form of interview as it is a more relaxed

style and allows the interviewee to feel more comfortable

(Winstanley 2009:148).

Interview recording

34

In order for the group interview to proceed in a relaxed

manner without interruptions due to note taking, the

researcher asked for permission to make an audio recording in

addition to a few written notes. Assurance was given about the

confidentiality and safekeeping of the recorded material as

well as the fact each interviewee would be given a codename to

protect their anonymity (Winstanley 2009:153).

Audio recordings needed transcription but an approach

advocated by Michaels (n.d:1) could reduce the load by using

what he calls "intelligent verbatim transcription" which aims

to capture the meaning of what is said rather than exactly

what was said. In this way the essence of the speech is

retained while aspects like filler words, repeats and other

even relevant material is removed.

Individual questionnaires

Denscombe (2003:145) suggests questionnaires can be used to

gather information directly about points concerned with the

research and offers the following situations that lend

themselves to the use of a questionnaire for research:

When needing to address a large number of respondents in

different locations

When there is a need for standardised data which can be

obtained without requiring face-to-face interaction

When time can allow for the process.

35

The researcher’s decision to use questionnaires was twofold:

firstly, as described above under group interviews, it would

prove difficult to get pertinent information from each

participant in sequence; and secondly, the researcher’s desire

to obtain similar information from those responsible in the

different Synods for training.

It is accepted that there are certain pitfalls associated with

the use of questionnaires and Winstanley (2009:141) lists some

of these as:

Low response rate

Long wait for responses to be returned

No control over how seriously the questionnaire is taken

Questionnaires can come back incomplete

People can change the answers to preclude giving

spontaneous answers.

The researcher distributed the questionnaires at the end of

the presentation asking for responses to be returned by the

date given in the covering letter. See Appendix 4 and Appendix

5 for examples of the covering letter and questionnaire for

ministers and church leaders attending the presentation and

Appendix 6 as a sample of the questionnaire sent to Training

Officers and Mission Enablers in the URC along with the same

covering letter.

Denscombe (2003:147) and Thomas (2009:181) mention the

importance of piloting a questionnaire to get feedback to

36

ensure that questions are correctly worded, have no ambiguity

and if the open-ended questions provide useful answers.

The researcher conducted a pilot study of the questionnaires

within the Wessex Synod with four people who were involved in

training or who had been involved in church-related change.

The results were noted and the documents amended.

4.4 Data Analysis

Denscombe (2003:271-273) describes the steps of data analysis

as:

Descriptive accounts of the situation investigated

Coding and categorising the data

Reflection on early coding and categories

Identification of themes and relationships

Return to the field to check out emerging explanations

Develop a set of generalisations

Use the new generalisations to improve any relevant

existing theories.

The researcher chose a thematic analysis approach as the

method for doing the qualitative data analysis. Thomas (2009:

200) suggests the following steps:

Transcribing and examining the data for recurring ideas

that are coded.

Re-examining the data to determine themes emerging from

the initial coding

37

Reviewing the themes and determining any connections,

matches as well as contradictions or paradoxes

The researcher followed the steps described by these authors

as follows:

The group interviews were recorded by Dictaphone which

was then transcribed on a computer.

These transcriptions were re-read and initial codes were

assigned.

The research questions were used as a basis for

identifying the codes.

A similar process was followed for the questionnaires

with the returned answers placed in a spreadsheet for

coding.

The researcher examined general patterns of answers and

expressed perceptions from the data to determine any

recurring themes.

These themes were defined according to what they

represented.

A thematic map was drawn up to represent any

relationships between the themes and the relationships

were also examined.

The report is presented in chapter 5 on data findings.

4.5 Conclusion

This chapter addressed the methodological assumptions and

consequent research design and process including questionnaire

38

and interview procedures, data management and confidentiality

aspects. It was not the purpose of the research to attempt to

verify any theory but rather to explore any emerging patterns

or themes which could themselves be included in a further data

collection processes as can (and should) happen in qualitative

research.

39

Chapter 5

Data Findings and Analysis

5.1 Introduction

Results from the three group interviews with some participants

plus information from follow up questionnaires and

questionnaires to Training Offices are presented in this

chapter.

The participants attending the three presentations were self

selected by responding to invitations to church leaders to

attend a presentation and training workshop on the aspect of

Appreciative Inquiry. The Synod Training Officers were

purposely targeted (as discussed in 4.3.1) for having wide

influence when dealing with local church change.

Location of

Participants

No

attending

presentatio

n

No in

Group

Interviews

No receiving

Questionnair

es

No returning

Questionnaire

s

Thames North

Synod19 16 16 7 44%

Southern

Synod18 15 15 5 33%

Wessex Synod 7 6 5 4 80%

Presentations

Subtotal 44 37 36 16 44%

Synod ---- ---- 23 13 57%

40

Training &

Development

Officers

Figure 5.1 Numbers Attending Presentations and Receiving

Questionnaires with Indicated Responses from Each [Self

Generated]

To proceed with the data analysis the information was

organised into codes correlating to the three research

questions outlined under 2.5 above and were in line with the

approach taken in the group interviews as well as the

questionnaires. These coded aspects were then examined to

discover any emerging themes spanning both interviews and the

questionnaires and are shown in the table below.

Categories Initial

Codes

Emerging Themes

Church members’

attitudes towards

change

Negative

Desire for church stability and traditions

Change implies decay or

loss

Reluctance

Concede the need for

change

Dependence on outside facilitator and/or change programme

Church leaders’ and Good Good for use in church

41

Training Officers’

views on

Appreciative

Inquiry

Better than other programs

Reasonable

Not a totally new concept

An approach not a program

Willingness to use

Appreciative

Inquiry

Positive

A good framework for

churches

Particularly in small

groups

Cautious

Adapted form and needs

time

Require training and

information

Limitations/

disadvantages of

Appreciative

Inquiry

Preparation

Wider involvement and "buy

in"

Need for leadership &

facilitators

Limits

Only use in long-term work

Especially suited for

small groups

Figure 5.2 Coding and Emerging Themes from Data Analysis [Self

Generated]

5.2 Attitudes towards Change

"Negative" responses signified the concept of change implied

aspects of decline and is picked up in statements like

"something we do when we're declining" as noted by Woman E

42

from the Southern Synod. She qualifies this by stating "we

don't change when we think things are going well".

Woman A from Thames North Synod perceived some congregants

having such a negative view of change that they "dread it" and

one reason is given by Man E from Southern being that the

church will be changed into "something we don't want to be".

Themes that emerged include the desire by church members about

the church remaining a place of stability amidst changes in

wider society. This was stated by Man A in Thames North in

that the church becomes "a place of relief for people with a

know what to expect" or by Woman B from Wessex whose

perception was that for many the church is "a place to get

away from it all."

Another theme whereby change was perceived negatively was the

way Woman A in Wessex (and echoed by Man C in Southern) said

that church members equated change with decay. Another

perception reported by Woman B from Thames North was that most

people saw change as "dealing with the loss" and so were

reluctant to be involved in the process.

"Reluctance" towards change was noticeable in all three

Synods. Although being unwelcome, change would reluctantly be

tolerated under certain conditions such as Man A from Southern

reporting "as long as you don't change what I hold dear." This

was reinforced by Woman B who remarked that change would be

tolerated "if you can change us as we were."

43

It was voiced in all three Synods that generally church

members acknowledged the need for change as Woman A in

Southern explained, "they approve principle but not

necessarily in their heart."

A Theme occurring in all three Synod groups was about

concession; in Thames North Woman B commented of there being

"an element of conceding to the need for change"; in Southern

Synod Woman A thought people recognised "the need for change"

but that they find it hard; in Wessex Synod Woman C spoke of

this conceding in terms of a "washing of hands".

Another theme was of requiring outside help. In Wessex Woman C

mentioned the impression church members have that change will

be implemented by "someone else" who will "come in and tell us

what change we need" while in Thames North Woman B talked of a

"desire for someone to wave a magic wand" in order to

implement change.

5.3 Attitudes towards Appreciative Inquiry (AI)

Synod Training Officers were asked if they had encountered the

concept of Appreciative Inquiry and 10 of the 13 respondents

acknowledged that they had; one was made aware of AI by his

dissertation supervisor; one was informed of it by a minister

from the USA; and eight through an Education and Learning

conference held for Training Officers in December 2009 run by

44

Mark Lau Branson in which he described his work using AI in a

congregation (Branson, 2004).

Of the 10 Training Officers who responded having encountered

the concept of Appreciative Inquiry before, five rated it as

"very good" and one rated it as "excellent" in terms of being

an approach that could be used to help implement change.

Four of the 10 Training Officers rated AI as being a

"reasonable tool" to use as an approach for church related

change.

Responses from the group interviews were coded as above in

terms of AI being "good" or "reasonable" when asked how it

rated against other approaches they were aware of. Responses

were rated "good" if the interviewees responded favourably

with words or phrases such as "good", "better than others."

Woman A from Wessex said "I like the affirming nature of this

idea" and in Southern Man D said it had a "far more positive

emphasis” when compared to other approaches.

Themes which emerged were about AI being good for use in the

church with Woman A in Thames North stating that "it's very

Christian" while Man B in Southern Synod indicated that AI

could involve those people "to whom the church thought it had

a mission."

Another theme that emerged under this was that AI was better

than other programs because for Man E in Southern, this

45

process “started with the positives” which created a momentum

to move forward. Similarly Woman A commented on building on

the positives so that the process started off “with a feeling

of success.”

"Reasonable" included remarks about AI being "not new " as a

concept from Man B in Thames North; Woman B in Southern Synod

remarking that it was similar to a program she had used except

that this was more inclusive; and in Wessex Woman C thought

she may have used "some bits of it but not in such a

sequential way".

Themes emerging indicated for some like Man B in Southern it

was more "like a paradigm shift" while in Thames North Man B

stated that AI was not new because change agents would look

for "positive signs to encourage and initiate change" so that

part of AI that might have been used without knowing it was

AI. Similarly Man A saw AI not so much as a program but is a

useful "counter to negative thinking ... when analysing

situations."

5.4 Willingness to Use Appreciative Inquiry

"Positive" coded responses received from Training Officers

indicating that of the 10 who had encountered the concept of

AI, seven indicated a willingness to use AI with churches and

groups for implementing change.

46

Of the 16 returned questionnaires from church leaders who had

attended AI presentations, 10 indicated their willingness to

use AI as a tool in church related change.

Themes that emerged around this aspect from respondents

included comments about AI being a good positive approach as

well as it being good for use within a church community.

Four of the Training Officers indicated "cautious" possibility

of using AI with two of them qualifying this by saying they

required prior training. Three of the church leaders indicated

a similar response while three others wanted training or

further information before committing themselves.

Themes from this for the Training Officers was the idea of

using it with other "tools" or in an adapted form, while three

of them qualified their hesitance by saying that AI “required

time” to implement.

For the church leaders two of them wanted more information as

well as stating that the context would determine whether AI

would be used.

5.5 Perceived Limitations or Disadvantages of Appreciative

Inquiry

This category had coding as "Preparation" and "Limitations”

from the interviews.

47

"Preparation" included aspects of getting people more involved

as Woman A in Southern Synod remarked there tends to be "a

self-selection in church." In Thames North Woman B suggested

initial small group use of AI within the church so that it

could grow "organically" and be more widely accepted. Woman C

from Wessex suggested that if ongoing facilitation was not

available subsequent meetings could "disintegrate back into

the same old discussions."

Themes emerging from this coding had to do with "buy in"

whereby Woman B from Wessex suggested the need for

"enthusiasts" for the AI process lest it get sidetracked while

Man F from Southern mentioned the reluctance of people getting

involved if the work and outcome did not directly relate to

increased numbers.

"Leadership" was raised in Thames North when Woman B suggested

the AI approach would need "a huge amount of commitment" on

the part of leadership to take on an appreciative approach.

"Limitations" identified areas where the interviewees

considered that AI would either be insufficient to the task or

not the best approach.

In Thames North Man A stated that he would not use it above

level two conflict in a church while Man D suggested that the

church’s "legal system" which was based on a model relying on

detecting the problem would preclude the use of AI.

48

Themes that emerged were thoughts of Woman C from Thames North

who was not sure she would be inclined to use it in a short

session but thought it better to work "as a long-term

relationship with the congregation". In the same Synod Woman B

and Woman C thought AI was more applicable to small groups

than large groups.

5.6 Dealing with Negatives

Concepts like "negative thinking" (Man A in Thames North) or

"getting a lot of negatives" (Woman A in Wessex) and people

wanting to "start with the negatives" (Man D in Southern) were

remarked on. These were normally by way of "throwaway lines"

but showed the reality of church leaders regularly dealing

with negative attitudes of people which would inevitably arise

within discussions or evaluations.

5.7 Unexpected Findings

Some unexpected outcomes of the interviews in both Thames

North and Southern Synods were comments made during

questioning of possible disadvantages or limitations of AI

that were totally positive of and endorsing the use of AI

within churches. Remarks such as "this is a fairly good tool",

“this is a technique that you can use in ways that suits the

people", "the strength of empowering people to talk" and about

49

getting people "to move away from where they are stuck in the

past in order to think positively about the future" were made.

Additionally there were requests as the people departed for

the researcher to produce some kind of training manual. This

was also requested in a telephonic conversation with the

Secretary for Education and Learning Department of the URC.

5.8 Conclusion

The research was aimed to determine the possibility that

Appreciative Inquiry could contribute in terms of managing

change in a local church. The data analysed suggests that

those queried perceived that AI has potential to be used and

most respondents and interviewees were inclined to make use of

it as an approach.

Chapter 6

Discussion of Findings and Connections withLiterature Review

6.1 Introduction

Mission planning for URC churches has become necessary because

of the paradigm shift from a Christendom to a post-Christendom

era. Previously churches relied on people coming to them

whereas now churches need to engage with people so that

churches have to be intentional in terms of mission (Schenk

50

2001: 123) and as Bosch (1991:377) reminds us, church mission

is more than just trying to call people into membership. This

means the church dispensing with outdated habits of thought

and engaging in rethinking its relationship to contemporary

culture (Schenk 2001: 125) which is the basis of mission

planning.

Schenk (ibid: 103) mentions the ambivalence toward the concept

of "strategy" in churches because it is seen to involve an

amount of "calculation" which is at odds with the working of

the Holy Spirit. This could be particularly so when many

approaches to church evaluation and mission planning are based

on "scoring" aspects of church life and using a "medical

model" in an attempt to diagnose the "problems" and then

applies remedial action as a strategy.

Bevans & Schroeder (2004:348) propose that mission today

should be characterised by an exercise of dialogue noting that

the church must not only give itself in service but must also

learn from its involvements through interaction and listening.

To this end an approach called Appreciative Inquiry (AI) is

explored as a possible alternative for use in church mission

planning because it is not just a set of techniques for change

but is also a "philosophy and orientation to change" (Reed

2007: 25). AI is the study of what gives life to "human

systems" like a church when they are at their best and is

based on the assumption that inquiry into and dialogue about

51

strengths, successes, values, hopes and dreams is itself

transformational.

This chapter discusses the findings from the previous chapter

and connects them with the Literature reviewed in chapter 3.

6.2 Reaction to Change

The negative reaction is in line with what Rendle (1998:107)

mentions about leading change in the congregation in terms of

its naturally engaging "negative and angry feelings". To that

end he suggests the use of a "Roller Coaster of Change" (see

figure 6.1 below) which identifies a natural sequence of

feelings and relationships which are part of church related

change (ibid 108).

The interviewees’ perceptions of the negative attitude of

church members varied from what they saw as a desire for

stability and continuity to that of church members seeing

change in terms of loss or decay.

52

EnergyLevelHigh

Low

Present FutureTime

Change isannounced

Difficultfeelings

Tasks ofletting go

Decision to “stick with it”

(or leave)

Actions supportive of change

Reforming the purpose andstructure of the congregation

Feelingsof Hope

Figure 6.1 Roller Coaster of Change [Adapted from Rendle,

1998:110]

The need for stability accords with what Nadler (1993:90) in

2.1 suggests is a major problem to be dealt with in

organisational change and what Malphurs (1993:80) in 2.3

asserts is typical in most churches as resistance to change

because traditions, vested interests and practices have become

ingrained. Another aspect to remember is what Isaacs (1999:5)

reminds us in 2.2 about people "living out of their memories."

Regarding the perception of loss in connection with change, in

3.2 Malphurs (1993:82) reminds us that many churches still

continue practices of the 1940s to the 1960s while in 2.3

Nadler (1993:90) and Pugh (1993:109) remark that resistance to

change is due to a fear of loss of power among groups or at

least destabilising the current balance of power between

groups.

Lewis et al. (2008: 49) in 3.2 observe that Appreciative

Inquiry is about making connections between the present and

the past so that any sense of loss is replaced by a sense of

continuity and hope which Durran (2006:19) maintains is

important in terms of moving a congregation in a new direction

in mission planning.

Change was accepted with reluctance although there was

concession about the need for change which, according to

Cameron & Green (2009: 113) in 2.3, is the minimum requirement

53

for change to occur while Rendle (1998:32) in 1.3 suggests

congregations want growth but not necessarily change that will

alter their normal mode of operation. To counter this Schenk

(2001:131) calls for a "mission consciousness" in church

culture; requiring a transformational rather than incremental

change is so often happens with church mission planning

approaches.

An interesting aspect to arise from this was the comment in

Southern Synod by Man B who perceived individual members’

attitudes to change as "I don't respond as a group but I do as

one-to-one". This corresponds to a phenomenon termed the

"Abilene Paradox" which arises when a group makes a decision

or takes an action that nobody agrees with but which no one is

willing to question (Harvey, 1988). To overcome this it is

vital to create an environment where people can speak without

fear of mockery, reprisal or condemnation which is the

approach of Appreciative Inquiry in building and affirming and

trusting environment in order for real dialogue to occur

(Campbell 2000: 31).

Also mentioned was the perception that most members depended

on some kind of "outside help" whether in the form of a

program and/or facilitator in order to implement change. This

is in line with what Paton & McCalman (2000: 8) in 2.2 state

about most organisations viewing change as a "programmed

process".

54

Cooperrider & Whitney (2005: 34) in advocating AI state

organisational change needs to look more "like an inspired

movement than a neatly packaged or engineered product."

6.3 Attitudes about Appreciative Inquiry

Appreciative Inquiry was thought better than other church

evaluation programs with interviewees making comments about it

being "affirming" and having a "far more positive emphasis".

These aspects connected with 3.3 where Watkins & Mohr (2001:

39) mention the key strategy to AI is needing to "choose the

positive as the focus of enquiry" in order to generate ideas

and dreams of what could be while Whitney & Trosten-Bloom

(2003: 54) state that "positive questions lead to positive

change."

Other responses included phrases such as "gathering the mood

of people" and it giving the feeling of being "less of trying

to swim against the tide." In 2.4 Savage & Boyd-Macmillan

(2007: 231) claim that in church related change the

"relational process is itself the goal" and Malphurs (1993:84)

argues for the need to change a church's values before trying

to change its programs.

The paradox of AI according to Whitney & Trosten-Bloom

(2003:15) in 2.4 is that rather than aiming to change anything

it aims instead to bring out existing strengths and hopes. It

is for this reason that those presented with the AI

55

methodology see its positive attributes and so resonate with

its approach.

Interviewees who saw AI not necessarily is a new concept

because they may have used parts of its unwittingly in the

past or they saw it as a "paradigm shift" so that it was

regarded more as an approach than a program in itself and

could be useful to "counter negative thinking" and as a result

was rated as "reasonable".

In line with this in 3.4 Cooperrider et al. (2008: 16) suggest

that AI tends to challenge the "traditional paradigms" by

shifting from problem analysis to positive core analysis while

in 2.4 Reed (2007:25) talks of AI as a "philosophy and

orientation to change."

6.4 Willingness to use Appreciative Inquiry

By analysis 70% of the Training Officers who had encountered

the concept and 63% of those in church leadership who attended

the presentations responded positively about a willingness to

use AI in church related change.

Comments included aspects about AI being "very good" as a

tool, as well as it being "exciting" and a "positive approach"

for change management including the possibility of it being

used "with other tools". Other responses indicated the opinion

56

that AI was "very Christian" in approach, "good for church

community use", and that it could involve those "to whom the

church thought it had a mission".

This could come from reluctance mentioned in 1.3 by Chew &

Ireland (2009:10) of church leadership to use what they see as

business oriented change management approaches. Rendle & Mann

(2003: xii) in 2.4 suggest the aim of church mission planning

should not be about problem solving but helping people to find

out who they are and what they believe is important to do

which is an aim of AI. To this Branson (2004: 9) adds a

benefit of AI in church being the information and links that

can be made between congregational history, values, current

activities and its surrounding community. In 2.4 Doetzel

(2010:94) suggests that AI is capable of being able to "enrich

spiritual development" and is thus suited to a "church

environment."

Comments indicating a cautious reaction stem from responses

indicating that AI could be used in either an adapted form, or

needing time to implement the concept within churches, or that

some further training and information would be required.

The respondents indicating this were all the Training Officers

and, without the benefit of individually questioning their

responses, the researcher would submit that it might due to

their exposure to AI when presented by Branson (2004) as

discussed in 5.3 who indicated that the process with the

57

congregation he was involved in was over a period of six

months. In the URC very few churches would be open to such a

long-term involvement and the best that can be hoped for is to

work with a church over two separate weekends.

Other aspects in connection with this requirement for further

training are highlighted in 2.1 by Malphurs (2005:10)

suggesting that insufficient training is given in strategic

thinking skills to ministers and as a consequence a number of

those Training Officers would want or need further training.

There was also concern by ministers as to their leadership

role in the URC so it would be useful to remember that in 2.3

Cameron & Green (2009:178) call not for the "popular notion of

[visionary ]leadership" but rather for what they call

"adaptive leadership".

6.5 Dealing with the Negatives

As mentioned above in 5.6 the aspect of negative remarks or

attitudes appearing in discussions was mentioned in all three

interview groups. As noted in 3.6 by Reed (2007:39) and Bushe

(2007:33) the most common criticism about Appreciative Inquiry

is the perception that it naïvely focuses only on the positive

with a consequent ignoring of negative experiences. Watkins &

Mohr (2001: 86) counter this criticism by offering techniques

for dealing with negativity during the AI process.

These include aspects like:

58

• Listening: Allow the person to express their feelings

while maintaining an appreciative & caring spirit.

• Postponing: Suggest dealing with it when asking for

‘wishes’ for the future.

• Redirecting: If the person has not encountered the aspect

in a +ve way ask if they have positively elsewhere.

• Using the negative data: For every negative image people

will hold a positive in mind so ask them to describe that

positive aspect.

In the researcher's experience of using AI in mission planning

these approaches proved to be beneficial as well as conveying

affirmation and respect to the people voicing their negative

feelings or experiences within churches.

6.6 Summary

The research explored the possibility of Appreciative Inquiry

being used as an approach to manage change within churches. To

summarise this Figure 6.2 a simplified Force-field Analysis

diagram below shows the main aspects of the "Restraining

forces" and the "Driving forces" in connection with perceived

concerns church members have about change.

59

Figure 6.2 Force-field Analysis of Change in a Church [Self

generated]

From the research data these feelings are listed as

"Restraining forces" in the above diagram while aspects of AI

are listed under the "Driving forces.” The benefit of using AI

in a congregation is to empower members to explore their

beliefs, understandings and what they value and to then build

upon that "Positive Core".

This means that, rather than experiencing uncertainty and

loss, they can experience an amplification of what they value

and best achieve instead of focusing on problems.

In addition the process of AI discovering the "Positive Core"

and building on that provides an opportunity to satisfy church

members' desire for continuity as AI is about "connecting

60

Implementation of Change in a Church

Restraining forces (forces against)

Driving forces (use of AI)

Fear of uncertainty &

loss

Desire for continuity

Imposition of changePerception of pre

planned programme

Feelings of achievement

& hope

Connecting today with

history

Building on the

“positive core”Collaborative and participative enquiry

today to the history ... If the organisation" Lewis et al.

(2008: 49).

Rather than seeing change as something that is imposed on them

AI aims to use what is important to the church and its members

and then build the future on those aspects. AI assists members

to discover their "Positive Core" which plays significant

roles in shaping their church's spirit and culture through its

practices (Malphurs, 2005:10).

Countering the notion of change being implemented through a

pre-planned programme the AI approach of collaborative and

participative approach of AI at all levels of the process

helps create trust and anticipation in the congregation

(Branson, 2004:13).

From this it can be seen that Appreciative Inquiry could go a

long way towards overcoming the concerns that most members

would have when church related change is mentioned during

mission planning.

61

Chapter 7

Conclusion and Recommendations

7.1 Introduction

The purpose of this research was to explore if Appreciative

Inquiry could be a viable tool in enabling local URC churches

to undertake mission planning.

The findings of the Literature Review and Data Analysis will

be reviewed to come to an overall conclusion about the use of

AI for mission planning in church and possible suggestions for

the future of AI in this context will be made.

7.2 Findings from the Literature Review

Many churches in the URC are declining in membership and

operating in the old ‘Christendom understanding’ with

attitudes of "come to" relying on inviting people to come to

them rather than the church seeking to engage with people.

There is a need for churches to become relevant and engage in

rethinking their relationship with contemporary society which

implies a church must change and dispense with its outdated

habits which sees mission as primarily calling people into

membership.

In order to do this a church would need to undertake an

evaluation of itself through mission planning and embrace any

62

needed changes in order to become more missional. By its

structure the URC cannot compel local churches to engage in

mission, but the various materials it develops nationally

(such as the "Vision Workshop" of 1998, "Growing Up" in 2002

and the "Catch the Vision" of 2005 plus the recent

"Vision2020" document as well as the introduction of a "Local

Mission and Ministry Review") all imply an expectation that

local congregations will undertake some sort of mission

planning.

Normally when mission planning and the implication of change

in a church is mentioned members undergo a range of feelings

including resistance and Malphurs (1993:80) suggests this is

due to traditions, vested interests and practices having

become ingrained to a point where change is either not wanted

or almost impossible to implement. In addition the concept of

mission planning brings with it notions of "strategy" which

does not fit easily with members who view it as involving the

possibility of "calculation" which could be at odds with the

working of the Holy Spirit.

As a consequence most churches have not faced the challenge of

becoming missional so that any mission planning would involve

taking people out of their comfort zones. It is also important

to realise that in organisations and in the church especially,

people tend to "live out of their memories" so that mission

planning needs to take this into account but must also be

about allowing the faith community to “journey towards a

63

greater awareness of itself” so that relationship building

rather than goal setting becomes the primary objective.

In examining currently used approaches to mission planning it

was seen that most used a "scoring system" for aspects of

church life much like Organisational Development approaches do

in search of problems to remedy. These approaches also

afforded little discussion and participation by church members

in order to share their beliefs and values as the focus is to

primarily change practices rather than values. This is at odds

with authors who talk about the power of conversation and

dialogue to change people which is important as it was noted

that change starts with people if it is to last.

Appreciative Inquiry is the study of what gives life to "human

systems" (such as churches) when they are at their best and is

based on the assumption that enquiry into and dialogue about

strengths, successes, values and dreams is itself

transformational. As such AI is not so much an analytical

system but has an underlying psychological approach which

encourages the sharing of beliefs and values concerning best

experiences thus exploring the "positive core" of a church

rather than undertaking "problem analysis."

7.3 Findings from the Primary Research

64

This research was undertaken to explore people's reaction to

the concept of Appreciative Inquiry as a possible tool to use

in mission planning in churches.

Interviewees, after exposure to a day-long presentation and

hands-on exercise of Appreciative Inquiry, made comments about

it being affirming and having a more positive emphasis than

other approaches with which they were familiar. Some spoke of

AI as being a "paradigm shift" and saw it more as an approach

rather than a program itself which would be useful to "counter

negative thinking" that often emerges during discussions about

aspects of church life.

Most interviewees and respondents indicated their willingness

to use Appreciative Inquiry as a tool in helping to evaluate

church life and undertake mission planning. Some thought that

they may have used bits of it previously without realising it

as they tried to gain positive stories from congregation

members which is in line with the key strategy of AI about

choosing the positive as the focus of enquiry in order to

generate ideas and dreams of what could be.

What also came out strongly was that AI was thought of as

being "very good" as well as being a "positive approach" for

church change management and could be used in conjunction with

other tools. Others thought that AI was "very Christian" and

also "good for church community use".

65

Although having evolved in the Organisational Development

field, AI does not set out to be a change programme as such

but change occurs within people as they explore the “positive

core.” This was borne out in that even when the researcher

asked about limitations with regard to the use of AI, people

in the group interviews gave positive comments; in a sense

saying "Yes, but" which signified a mind shift for them.

7.4 Appreciative Inquiry and Theology

Appreciative Inquiry is not theologically neutral and confirms

that some aspects of church life are good while some are not

but that everything "works together for the good of those who

love God". This is a similar struggle in the Pauline epistles

of affirming churches in what they are doing while addressing

what is remiss and trying to spur them on to further effort.

AI’s approach is also in line with the exhortation to think

about "whatever is true, whatever is honourable, whatever is just, whatever is

pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable" (Philippians 4: 8,

New Revised Standard Bible) in order to continue doing God's

will.

Appreciative Inquiry relates to a more contemporary

"expansion" of mission which embraces a doctrine of creation

and care (Bosch, 1991: 391) and the aspect of God naming

things as "good." This is seen in that one of the "Five Marks

of Mission" (Lambeth Conference of 1997) looks at "sustaining

Creation" so that people have become more "creation minded".

This could signify looking to God not just for Grace and 66

Atonement but also the idea of God finding pleasure with the

created order. This links in with a strength of Appreciative

Inquiry in terms of mission planning exploring and naming what

a church can see as "good."

In Wink's concept of the "Angel of the church" from the

Revelation to John there is acknowledgement of what has been

done in the church is good but also addresses what still needs

to be done (1986:72). This resonates with AI as it does not

ignore what needs addressing in the church as the mission

planning is developed in the Design and Delivery phases.

It could be asked that if missio Dei is "participating with what

God is doing” (Bosch, 1991: 390) then can church mission be

planned when it is part of God’s mission. In this regard AI is

more a discernment process than a strict planning process and

accords with what Kirk (1999:31) suggests that the church’s

missional purpose is not about a liberty to invent its own

agenda. This idea of AI being used as a process of discernment

for mission was endorsed in a comment by Man B from Thames

North.

For Bosch (1991: 33) mission is about "breaking barriers"

which is not just necessarily about going beyond the church

walls to engage with society, but also the "barriers" erected

in terms of comfort zones, attitudes and mindsets.

Appreciative Inquiry is an approach that helps facilitate that

transition by not being a "neatly packaged product" for change

67

management but rather a "philosophy and orientation to change"

that promotes transformational change in people resulting in

practical lasting changes in a church.

7.5 Concluding Remarks

The aim of this research has been to determine the viability

of using Appreciative Inquiry in enabling churches to

undertake mission planning. It investigated the reasons for

need for mission planning, some approaches often used to

undertake this and then exposed some church leaders to the

concept of AI in order to get their reactions to it as an

alternative approach.

AI was met with enthusiasm for its approach and methodology

and was thought to be good and suitable for use in churches as

a tool to assist in mission planning. Additionally AI meets

the requirements outlined in 2.4 about the use of a "change

management" approach that could be more appropriate than

current models in the faith context of a local church.

The results of the research provided evidence that AI can make

a positive contribution to mission planning in local churches

as a transformational ‘tool.’ The researcher suggests that

this study has shown that AI also can contribute towards

reducing fears and concerns that many congregations undergo

when faced with the thought of mission planning.

68

What has not been considered is the long term aspects of using

AI regularly in churches such as with the planned Local

Mission and Ministry Reviews which are planned for four year

cycles in URC churches. Will the ‘novelty effect’ of AI

dissipate and what if the same people keep returning to their

same best experiences? What would need to be done in those

cases?

Only wider application of the approach in the URC will reveal

if the merits of Appreciative Inquiry explored in this

research will make a real and lasting difference to attitudes

of churches about change. The AI approach has enabled the

researcher to better respond to churches requiring help with

mission planning and has become a prime tool in his ‘toolbox’

of approaches in working with churches, groups and even

individuals. It is his hope to continue developing the use of

AI not just for his benefit but for colleagues to use in

enabling their work with churches in mission planning.

Bibliography

Barna, G 1993, Turnaround Churches, Ventura, California, Regal

Books.

Beer, M, Eisenstat, R & Spector, B 1993, 'Why Programs Don't

Produce Change', in C Mabey & B Mayon-White (Eds.), Managing

Change, 2nd ed., pp. 99-107, London, Paul Chapman Publishing.

69

Benjamin, G & Mabey, C 1993, 'Facilitating a Radical Change',

in C Mabey & b Mayon-White (Eds.), Managing Change, 2nd ed., pp.

181-186, London, Paul Chapman Publishing.

Bevans, S & Schroeder, R 2004, Constants in Context: A Theology of

Mission for Today, New York, Orbis Books.

Bojer, M, Roehl, H, Knuth, M & Magner, C 2008, Mapping Dialogue:

Essential Tools for Social Change, Chagrin Falls, Ohio, Taos Institute

Publications.

Bosch, D 1991, Transforming Mission: Paradigms Shifts in Theology of Mission,

New York, Orbis Books.

Branson, M 2004, Memories, Hopes and Conversations: Appreciative Inquiry

and Congregational Change, Herndon, Virginia, Alban Institute.

Brown, D & Harvey, D 2006, An Experiential Approach to Organisation

Development, 7th ed., New Jersey, Pearson Prentice Hall.

Burnham, T n.d., Growing Up-a Mission Strategy for the United Reformed

Church, London, The United Reformed Church.

Bushe, G 1995, 'Advances in Appreciative Inquiry Is an

Organisation Development Intervention' [Special issue],

Organization Development Journal, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 14-22.

70

Bushe, G 2007, 'Appreciative Inquiry Is Not (Just) about the

Positive', OD Practitioner, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 30-35.

Cameron, E & Green, M 2009, Making Sense of Change Management, 2nd

ed., London, Kogan Page.

Cameron, H 2004, 'Are Congregations Associations? The

Contribution of Organisational Studies to Congregational

Studies', in M Guest, K Tusting & L Woodhead (Eds.),

Congregational Studies in the UK: Christianity in a Post Christian Context, pp.

139-151, Aldershot, Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

Campbell, D 2000, Congregations as Learning Communities, Herndon,

Virginia, Albany Institute.

Catch the Vision report to the General Assembly 2005 n.d., London, The

United Reformed Church.

'Challenge to the Church' [Online], 2010, . Retrieved August

5, 2010, from

http://www.urc.org.uk/wat_we_do/ministries/docs/thallenge_to_t

he_church

Change-Management-Coach.com [Online] 2008, Retrieved August 2,

2010, from http://www.change-management-coach.com/definition-

of-change-management.html

71

Chew, M & Ireland, M 2009, How to Do Mission Action Planing: a Vision-

Centred Approach, London, Society for Promoting Christian

Knowledge.

Cohen, D & Crabtree, B 2006, 'Qualitative Research Guidelines

Project' [Online], Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Retrieved

October 10, 2010, from http://qualres.org/HomeInte-3516.html

Cooperrider, D & Whitney, D 2005, Appreciative Inquiry: a Positive

Revolution in Change, San Francisco, Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Cooperrider, D, Whitney, D & Stavros, J 2008, Appreciative Inquiry

Handbook Leaders of Change, 2nd ed., Brunswick, Ohio, Crown Custom

Publishing.

Cornick, D 1998, Under God's Good Hand, London, The United

Reformed Church.

Denscombe, M 2003, The Good Research Guide for Small-scale Social Research

Projects, 2nd ed., Maidenhead, England, Open University Press.

Doetzel, N 2010, May 30, Appreciative Inquiry: A spiritual approach to

research [Online]. Paper presented at the meeting of the

Concordia University, Montréal, Québec. Retrieved July 5,

2010, from

www.oise.utoronto.ca/CASAE/cnf2010/OnlineProceedings-2010/Indi

vidual-Papers/Doetzel.pdf

72

Drucker, P 1990, Managing the Non-Profit Organisation, Oxford,

Butterworth-Heinemann.

Durran, M 2006, Regenerating Local Churches, Norwich, Canterbury

Press.

Gibbs, E & Coffey, I 2000, Church Next: Quantum Changes in Christian

Ministry, Leicester, Inter-Varsity Press.

Handy, C 1993, Understanding Organisations, 4th ed., London,

Penguin Books.

Harvey, J 1988, the Abilene Paradox and Other Meditations on Management,

San Francisco, Jossey Bass.

Isaacs, W 1999, Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together, New York,

Doubleday.

Ivancevich, J & Matteson, M 2002, Organisational Behaviour and

Management, 6th ed., New York, McGraw-Hill.

Kirk, J 1999, What is Mission?: Theological Explorations, London, Darton,

Longman and Todd.

Kotter, J 1995, 'Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts

Fail' [Online], Harvard Business Review, pp. 59-67. Retrieved July

25, 2010, from

http://sbuweb.tcu.edu/jmathis/org_mgmt_materials/leading

%change.pdf

73

Lewis, S, Passmore, J & Cantore, S 2008, Appreciative Inquiry Change

Management, London, Kogan Page.

Mabey, C & Mayon-White, B (Eds.). 1993, Managing Change, 2nd

ed., London, Paul Chapman Publishing.

Malphurs, A 1993, Pouring New Wine into Old Wineskins, Grand Rapids,

Michigan, Baker Books.

Malphurs, A 2005, Advanced Strategic Planning, 2nd ed., Grand

Rapids, Michigan, Baker Books.

Marshall, C & Rossman, G 1999, Designing Qualitative Research, 3rd

ed., London, SAGE Publications.

Maxwell, J 1993, Developing the Leader within You, Nashville,

Tennessee, Thomas Nelson Inc.

Michaels, A , 'Audio Transcription - What Is Intelligent

Verbatim Transcription? [Online]' Ezine @rticles. Retrieved

October 10, 2010, from http://ezinearticles.com/?Audio-

Transcription---What-is-Intelligent-Verbatim-Transcription?

&id=2312655

'Ministerial Development Review Background Paper' [Online],

2009, Wales Synod of the URC. Retrieved August 5, 2010, from

74

http://www.urcwales.org.uk/attachments/112_local%mission%and

%ministry%review%20-%20background%20paper.edf

Morisy, A 1997, Beyond the Good Samaritan: Community Ministry and

Mission, London, Mowbray.

Morse, J, Barrett, M, Mayan, M, Olsen, K & Spiers, J 2002,

'Verification Strategies for Establishing Reliability and

Validity in Qualitative Research' [Online], International Journal of

Qualitative Methods, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 1-19. Retrieved October 7,

2010, from

http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/1_2Final/pdf/morseetal

.pdf

Mullins, L 1999, Management and Organisational Behaviour, 5th ed.,

London, Financial Times Management.

Nadler, D 1993, 'Concepts for the Management of Organizational

Change', in C Mabey & b Mayon-White (Eds.), Managing Change, 2nd

ed., pp. 85-98, London, Paul Chapman Publishing.

Paton, R & McCalman, J 2000, Change Management: A Guide to Effective

Implementation, 1st ed., London, Sage Publications.

Peel, D 2002, Reforming Theology, London, The United Reformed

Church.

75

Pugh, D 1993, 'Understanding and Managing Organisational

Change', in C Mabey & B Mayon-White (Eds.), Managing Change, 2nd

ed., pp. 108-112, London, Paul Chapman Publishing.

Reed, J 2007, Appreciative Inquiry: Research for Change, London, Sage

Publications.

Rendle, G 1998, Leading Change in the Congregation, Herndon,

Virginia, Alban Institute.

Rendle, G & Mann, A 2003, Holy Conversations: Strategic Planning As a

Spiritual Practice for Congregations, Location Not Given, Alban

Institute.

Savage, S & Boyd-Macmillan, E 2007, The Human Face of the Church,

Norwich, Canterbury Press.

Schaller, L 2001, What Have We Learned?, Nashville, Abingdon

Press.

Schwarz, C 1996, Natural Church Development, Moggerhanger, Beds,

British Church Growth Association.

Senge, P 1993, The Fifth Discipline, London, Century Business Press.

Senge, P, Kleiner, A, Roberts, C, Ross, R & Smith, B 1994, The

Fifth Discipline Field Book, London, Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

Shenk, W 2001, Changing Frontiers of Mission, New York, Orbis Books.

76

Smith, D 1996, Empowering Ministry: Ways to Grow in Effectiveness,

Louisville, Kentucky, Westminster John Knox Press.

Thomas, G 2009, How to Do Your Research Project, London, SAGE

Publishes.

'Vision 2020' [Online], 2010, URC mission committee. Retrieved

August 5, 2010, from

http://www.urc.org.uk/what_we_do/mission/mission_development

'Vision4Life prayer year' [Online], 2010, Vision4Life. Retrieved

August 5, 2010, from http://www.vision4life.org.uk

Voyle, R 2006, Core Elements of the Appreciative Way, Hillsboro,

Oregon, Clergy Leadership Institute.

Warren, R 2004, The Healthy Churches' Handbook, London, Church House

Publishing.

Watkins, J & Mohr, B 2001, Appreciative Inquiry: Change at the Speed of

Imagination, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

Wheatley, M 2009, Turning to One Another, 2nd ed., San Francisco,

Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

77

Whitney, D & Trosten-Bloom, A 2003, The Power of Appreciative Inquiry: a

Practical Guide to Positive Change, San Francisco, Berrett-Koehler

Publishers.

Wink, W 1986, Unmasking the Powers: The Invisible Forces that Determine

Human Existence, Philadelphia, Fortress Press.

Winstanley, C 2009, Writing a Dissertation for Dummies, Chichester,

England, John Wiley & Sons.

78

The United Reformed Church

Southern SynodRev. Dr Richard Goldring • Synod Office • East Croydon URC

Addiscombe Grove • Croydon CR0 5LPTelephone 020 8688 3730 (Synod Office) • 020 8680 4871 (Home)

Email developmentofficer@urcsouthern.org.uk

Dear friends, Appreciative Inquiry Workshop with Rev. Peter Hurter

Thursday 25 November 2010, East Croydon

When churches or groups review their life, we often seem to spend our time analysing our disappointments or shortcomings. A more encouraging and effective approach may be to look at our successes and hopes, to pay attention to “the best of the past and present” inorder to promote the “collective imagination” of the congregation/group about what might be. That thinking lies behind “Appreciative Inquiry” (“AI”), a methodology or tool to help churches or groups assess their life.

The Rev. Peter Hurter, one of Wessex Synod’s Development and SupportOfficers, is seeking to develop a model of AI suitable for our URC context (congregations, groups, etc.), or other similar contexts. Heis doing this as part of his dissertation work for a Master’s degreein Consultancy in Mission and Ministry. He has recently contacted meto offer a workshop on AI in our Synod. This would include a full explanation of what AI is and how it can benefit churches or groups;then a case study to explore how AI can be used. Finally, he would ask attendees to spend some time giving feedback and completing a

79

APPENDIX 1

questionnaire to assist his research. He is running similar workshops in Wessex and Thames North Synods. I attach his flyer about AI.

The workshop will take place as follows:Date: Thursday 25 November 2010Time: 10.30 a.m.-3.30 p.m. (with a break for lunch: please bring a packed lunch)Venue: East Croydon (either the church or the Synod Office, depending on size of group). Open to: ministers, elders, Local Church Leaders, others in leadership roles (including ecumenical colleagues)

I hope you will respond to Peter’s passion for mission and to see churches growing in confidence and effectiveness.

If you would like to come, please email Glenys Sibley (office@urcsouthern.org.uk), with a copy to Peter Hurter (dso-n@urcwessex.org.uk), giving name, contact details, church (etc) you are serving and your role in it.

Yours in Christ,

Richard Goldring, Development Officer for Education and Learning

80

81

"How Can URC Congregations Use Appreciative Inquiry to Think Creatively About Their Part in God's Mission?"Proposed Group Interview Schedule. (Remind them about a voluntary basis of participation and collected information will remain confidential)

Issue/topic Possible questions Comments/notes

What types or approaches of churchevaluation and/or change "tools" are you aware of?

Which of these approaches have you had personal experience with?

What their relative advantages/strengths and disadvantages that you can think of?

How does the average member of a local church pew the idea of change?

How does what you now know about Appreciative Inquirycompare with these other methods?

Why do you think of it in that way?

What can you suggest are possible advantages and disadvantages of using AI in a local church?

What would enable or Based on the knowledge of your folkin your local church, how do you

82

APPENDI X 3

encourage you to make use of AI in a future evaluation and/or change scenario in your local church?

think they would welcome and understand any value of AI?

Who do you think would require training in AI in your local churchin order for it to be used?

Thank you for your time and thoughts in answering the questions!

83

Development and Support Officer: Revd. Peter Hurter6 Wetherby Close

Reading, BerkshireRG4 8UD

16th October 2010

Dear Sir/Madam/Colleague,

I am working in the United Reformed Church Synod of Wessex dealingwith training and development aspects in local churches. I am currently undertaking a postgraduate degree with the York Institute for Community Theology at York St John University and doing research on the subject: "How can URC congregations use Appreciative Inquiry to think creatively about their part in God’s mission?"

The purpose for my research is to determine the applicability or not of the Appreciative Inquiry approach for use in local church evaluation of and exploration their mission.

I will be most grateful if you would kindly help me with part of my research by completing the enclosed questionnaire. It asks about your involvement in church related change, your perceptions during the change process, the approaches used to implement the change process, and if you have any knowledge of the Appreciative Inquiry approach.

Please be aware that your participation is strictly voluntary. While your participation will be very helpful and gratefully received, you have the right to decline, refuse, or withdraw your participation at any time without consequence.

Synod Office: 120, Alma Road, Southampton, U. K., SO14 6UW dso-n@urcwessex.org.uk+44 (0)118 9472359 Mobile: 078 6750 8325

Wessex Synod

APPENDIX 4

All information collected will remain confidential. During the course of the research the data will be stored in a secured location and be destroyed after a period of three years. For the purpose of this research there is no need to link the identification of the participants to the data itself so that anonymity is assured. All data will be categorised and stored based upon research topic, principles and key concepts in showing participant identification status remaining anonymous.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding the purpose or process of this research, or Prof and electronic form of the questionnaire for completion please feel free to contact me directly or electronically. If you desire a copy of the results from this questionnaire, please tick the box' page and these will be sent to you in due course.

Please return your completed questionnaire by the end of November2010.

Yours in appreciation,Peter Hurter

Rev Peter Hurter:- Post-graduate research on: "How Can URC Congregations Use Appreciative Inquiry to Think Creatively About

Their Part in God's Mission?"

Church-related Change Questionnaire.Name

(Optional): ......................................................

....................

Role: .........................................

Church(es): ......................................................

............. Time in current church(es): .......... years (To the questions below please either tick your preferences or describe briefly your

thoughts/perceptions)

1. Have you been involved in a church-related change within the last 10

years? Yes No

2. What approach/method was used to implement the change

above?......................................................

85

APPENDIX 5

.........................................................................

.........................................................................

...................

3. Was that particular change implementation successful or not?

Yes No

4. To what do you attribute the success/failure in (2)

above? .................................................................

.........................................................................

.........................................................................

......................5. What are your feelings when church-related change is mentioned? (Select any of

the following aspects):Withdrawal

Trepidation Depends on the

change

Wonder who canhelp

Competence Joy of thechallenge

6. Which of the following aspects of a change management approach do you feel are important?(Select SIX aspects you think most apply & rank them successively in order of importance from 1[high] to 6 [low])

Linear, steppedapproach

Exploration ofexperiences

Selective small groupsto discuss & thenimplement change Method above

imaginationProblem/cause

analysis

Goal settingFlexible

repetitiveattitude

Value of roles overrelationships

Search for whatencourages

Best solution toproblem

Listing ofstrengths/weaknesses

7. Have you encountered the concept of Appreciative Inquiry (AI) before?

Yes No

If ‘Yes’ in what

context: ................................................................

....................................................................

86

Can you describe why? ....................................................................... ...............................................

8. Given that AI focuses on "the best of the past and present in order topromote the collective imagination of the congregation about what might be" rather than focusing on deficiencies in the congregation, would you (given suitable training) be willing to use it as a "tool" to help churches/groups in assessing their life?Yes No Maybe Need more information/persuasion about it

Reason for answer above: ...............................................................................................................................

.........................................................................

.........................................................................

.....................Thank you for your time and thoughts in answering the questions! Tick here if you want a copy of the questionnaire results.

Rev Peter Hurter:- Post-graduate research on: "How Can URC Congregations Use Appreciative Inquiry to Think Creatively About Their Part

in God's Mission?"Church-related Change Questionnaire for Training Officers/Mission Enablers.Name

(Optional): .............................................................

.......................

Role: .............................................

Synod/District

(Optional): .............................................................

.......................

(To the questions below please either tick your preferences or describe briefly your

thoughts/perceptions)

1. Have you been involved in a church-related change within the last 10

years? Yes No

2. What approach/method was used to implement the change

above?......................................................

.........................................................................

.........................................................................

...................

87

APPENDIX 6

3. To what do you attribute the success/failure in (2)

above? ..................................................................

.

.........................................................................

.........................................................................

......................

4. Which of the following aspects of a change management approach do you feel are important?(Select SIX aspects you think most apply & rank them successively in order of importance from 1[high] to 6 [low])

Linear, steppedapproach

Exploration ofexperiences

Selective small groupsto discuss & thenimplement change Method above

imaginationProblem/cause

analysis

Goal settingFlexible

repetitiveattitude

Value of roles overrelationships

Search for whatencourages

Best solution toproblem

Listing ofstrengths/weaknesses

5. Have you encountered the concept of Appreciative Inquiry (AI) before?

Yes No

6. Where and in what context did you come across the Appreciative Inquiry

(AI)

approach? ...............................................................

.........................................................................

.........................................................................

.........................................................................

....................................................................

7. How would you rate Appreciative Inquiry as a tool/approach for use in a local church?

88

Excellent Very good Reasonable Not that good Would

not use it

I______________I____________________I____________________I_______________

________I

8. From your experience and what you know about Appreciative Inquiry would you be willing to use it as a "tool" to help churches/groups in assessing their life?Yes No Maybe Need more information about it Need training first myself in it

Comments: ..................................................................................................................................................Thank you for your time and thoughts in answering the questions! Tick here if you want a copy of the questionnaire results.

Transcription of Thames North Group Interview 18th November 2010.

Question posed Responses from Group. My comments.First of all I would like to express my thanks in allowing me to present the information on AI and your willingness to answer a few questions.

What sort of approaches are you aware of orhave you used with regard to change management?

Questionnaires and community audits Vision workshops. Five marks of mission. Natural church development.

How do you think the average member in the pew considers change?

People are dying for it and also dread it. (People speak yearningly about it-"wouldn't it be lovely?"-But then also think of a lot of reasons why it can't happen.) Perhaps there are aspectsof distrust-what have they done to deserve it, self worth, can they achieve

Woman A

Man A

89

APPENDIX 7

Do you think this is specific to a particular age group?

it? (LB) Some people complain about the fact that

there is so much change going on so the church becomes a place of relief for them where they know what to expect and what is going to happen. They can find time and space and familiar faces and all the things that help support them incoping with all the change that they encounter elsewhere. For this reason that they wouldn't be particularly interested in changing any aspects in the church.

I think the more mature people and possibly those over the age of 30 or 40 [general laughter] while the younger people would love to see some kind of change inthe church.

While younger people accept change as part of their lives, most people see change as also dealing with "loss" and so are reluctant to change knowing that something's will be lost in the process.That feeling may increase as people get older but I'm not sure.

Do not think that is the case for the much older members is in their lives they have seen so much change and a muchyounger people are in the midst of constant change so I think it's more thegroup in the middle they tend to fear change.

I would echo that because in conversations I've had with much older people they tend to say that they can cope with change. I would caution about saying that much younger people can findchange a natural thing because in my experience of working with young people there is a lot around and that is changing so it would be good for some things to be stable and church can be one of them if church is a safe and welcoming place.

Man A

Woman B

Man B

Woman C

Woman A

90

How would you rate AI againstother approaches thatyou might have used in the past or only been aware of if you've not been aware of AI? I realise you not really been engaged with AI but this in terms of the principal of AI. How would you rate it as a process?

I think there's also something importantabout the concept of loss and change because we tend to intellectual we expect people to have a mindset that says "because you chose this [church] you should be happy about it". So one ofthe things that I find interesting aboutAI is can we not build into it the fact that it is going to be hard? Can we build in at the fact that it could hurt?I remember when my son was quite small Andy had to have some operations and I told him that it was going to hurt quitea bit because otherwise how was he to know? We are intellectual all the time and we think somehow that if we have chosen it will somehow be all right. Of course it won't, it's going to be painful. But very often there is a feeling that because we've chosen that we'll retain a stiff upper lip.

I think there is an element of concedingto the need for change if it is needed but also the desire for someone to wave a magic wand so that you can be there and it will be all okay. You know it haschanged but you're still safe within it.The process is the difficult thing-I've heard someone explained change like turning around the ferry in Newhaven harbour because they such a small space you have to keep going backwards and forwards backwards and forwards and churns up huge amounts of silt and muck in the process. And that's the bit that makes people scared.

I think it's very Christian.

I think the concept is not new at all. Imean unless things were really awful youwould be looking for positive signs to encourage and initiate change. It's a bit like leadership, if you haven't got anybody there or behind you then it's a bit pointless to initiate change anyway.

Woman B

Woman A

Man B

Man C

Man A

Man A

Woman B

91

That leads me to the next question: wheredo you see the limits or limitations of AI and again I realise that wehave just shared a few aspects?

So then who would need to be committed toit you think interms of the group?

There is a sense of gathering the mood whether the mood is frustration because things should be better; you take your hints from other people as well as your own insights. So there are parts of appreciative inquiry that we might have used without knowing it was appreciativeinquiry.

So it brings back aspects of transactional analysis; I'm okay you're okay and all the stuff around that. 30 years on and we're still doing it. [General laughter].

I'm not sure if I see it as a program but I do see it as a useful counter to the sort of negative thinking that we can get into when analysing situations. I think that is one thing that needs counterbalancing all the time. I'm sure it is useful but I will certainly use itfor that. But I think they are also situations where it will be totally impractical.

I think in any church above level two conflict; you cannot use it once you have got people locked into personal conflict.

But it would be needed for people to tell the story and get it off their chest. When they have a need to tell their story you need to hear it first before you are aware of any conflict.

I'm not sure if I would be inclined to use it in a short session as I think it would work as a long-term relationship with a congregation. Perhaps with a smaller group it might be different so for instance it might work in working with ministers to show them how to work with their congregations. Particularly as an outsider in my role [as training officer].

Woman C

Man D

Woman B

Woman B

Man B

Man D

92

My own experience is that it will dothat. I have been amazed at how invigoratedsome churches have been just by using it because it is adifferent approach.

Our "a legal system"[in the church] is probably based more on a traditional model which relies on detecting the problem and then[indistinct-could be punish] and quite a lot of legal aspectsare in church life particularly pastoralrelated situations and where it didn't follow the process laid down by the legal systems the Synod would be caught.So that is some kind of binding that won't allow us to tinker with the legal processes.

They would probably have to be a huge amount of commitment to turn your whole way of thinking around to an appreciative way otherwise you are scuppering your efforts all the time. You would be going so far and then turning backward to the old negative way.

Hopefully first the eldership and then when you use the approach like "open space technology" it would rely on the mass creating its own vibrancy. So if you've got groups who are particularly interested you could find that appreciativeness is actually growing organically within that group and then it networks and crosses over each other where you have people who are in two or three interest groups to make it stronger.

I wonder if it could also be used as a process of discernment for mission. So the process could be used not just for sowing the seeds but actually preparing the ground for some kind of long-term mission prospect. In particular where churches are against undertaking some kind of audit; the thought being that we've done this before and now we've gotto do it again so people have to be in astate in order to be ready to take it onwhatever it is that you discover. So I

Woman D

Man C

93

Well I don't want to hold you up longer but just want to thank you for your feedback and thoughts which have been really helpful

wonder if it's a good tool in a really specific way just to change mindsets or clear them up a little.

To what extent can AI talk about change and continuity? In missiology there is always a continuity and often changes started long before in the previous era while we actually begin to see it later.Whereas the old era continues well into the next. So it's not that kind of change that we physically see and the danger is that people think suddenly something is going to change whereas thereality is that continuity enters into the change. So I think this is more in line with a philosophy and a mindset. SoI think it would be useful in terms of committee meetings and the way that theyconduct their business. So it's not so much about what they decide in the end but the way they conduct their business and that will undoubtedly make a change.

I am working towards having a group of five churches with two ministers and what we're trying to do in each of the churches is to ask what the mission focuses and Ministry focuses so that we don't just become maintenance driven. And I'd wish I'd known about AI before because it provides a really good framework to set all this in and should encourage the churches to continue working like that even in a vacancy. This especially if only one minister comes and not two together. In deciding where to put the Minister and what they are doing this would help the churches.

What I like about AI is the word

94

"appreciate" and the fact of working on the positive and good things that are worth building on rather than seeing this as a program that is complete in itself. It's that approach of developingthe achievements that are good in the programs that we have spoken about such as LMMR and Synod meetings and reviews and processes that we are engaged in. It's not to replace those processes but to make them more helpful.

One more situation has come to mind is where as groups of ministers would get together and go around in a circle and everyone would tell you how wonderful they are and how wonderful they churchesare and what a wonderful job they were doing in them. It was a competition. I have been in a situation-a church in America-whether more people smile that you the more you wondered if they actually liked you at all [general laughter]. So I'm trying to see how you'd use AI in that kind of situation. How do we turn things around in terms ofopenness and honesty? Not looking for ananswer but just as a thought.

Transcription of Wessex Group Interview 24th November 2010.

Question posed Responses from Group. Comments.First of all I would like to express my thanks in allowing me to present the information on AI and your willingness to answer a few questions.

When we startedout I asked youwhat previous experience you had with changemanagement and evaluation.

Questionnaires

Community consultation

"Faithworks" audit

Woman A

Man A

Woman C

95

APPENDIX 8

How do you think the average person in the pew views the concept of change?

That is an important aspect to remember because many people see the church as a place of stability.

I have tried presenting AI without bias but had to admit having a bias otherwise I wouldn't be doing this. Howdo you see AI when compared to some of the other approaches thatyou might be aware of or might have usedin the past?

Change and decay in all-around I see [laughter]

Many see it as something that is imposedupon them. Some people just don't like the idea of any change at all.

It's unwelcome

The church is a place to get away from it all.

I think there are others who want changebecause they are unhappy with the current situation or aspects of the current situation or feel that somethingcould be done better.

There's almost a washing of hands as if someone else is going to come in and tell us what change we need to do in order to get all these youngsters and young mums into the church. There is an attitude that we can't work out the change ourselves someone else needs to come with the magic package for us.

I think I may have used some bits of it but not in such a sequential way; often talked to people about what had worked well in the past and where they'd like to go but not having a diagram and putting myself on a diagram and saying "we need to ask that in order to go on to this" it's been a bit more instinctive really.

I like the affirming nature of this idea. Often when you ask questions and you dig for thoughts and feelings you can get a lot of negatives. There are certain people who come intent on getting their negative across. With this

Woman A

Woman B

Man A

Woman B

Man B

Woman C

Woman C

Woman A

Woman B

96

Having had a look at the presentation which admittedly was only a short exposure to AI,what do you think some of the limitationsor disadvantages of AI might be?

Any others thatyou can think of?

Do you mean to bring their memories from say 40 years back to make itrelevant now?

approach I feel you can handle it better.

There is the need to have some kind of blueprint. I have never been able to seehow you can fit someone into the organisation and structures that [indistinctwords] Whereas I think with this having the word "mystery" things could get muddled but I think it in my head like that but otherwise it looks quite pragmatic.

If you haven't got someone who has facilitated the first meeting to be there at the second meeting it could disintegrate back into .... the old sameold same old discussions. I do think youneed a facilitator that knows where they're going to actually move it on.

I would say you need someone or some people who are enthusiastic for this "way" otherwise it could be sidetracked.

They could be dismissal by some because it would be seen as simply a new idea that is therefore suspect [general laughter]. It's the latest fad some peoplemight feel.

Another problem could be if their memories take them too far back so that they get stuck in the past-it needs at all times to be brought back into the present and that requires some discipline and an overview of where the process is going to...

... Yes

It's almost like facilitating a group therapy session isn't it [general laughter]... Because very often in group therapy you try to get people to move

Woman C

Woman B

Woman A

Woman B

Woman C

Man A

Woman A

Man B

97

Based on your knowledge of your congregations do you think they would takethis approach on board?

It is one of the reasons [_____, to address your concerns] that we start the process in pairs or triads. This isvery differently so in the discovery aspect. And then you go from there to doubling them up so you stillwork in fairly small groups. This is important in order to give people space toarticulate their feelings.

Finally who do you think it is, or which

away from where they are stuck in the past and to think positively about the future.

If it is sold in the right way.

I can actually see it in the smaller rather than larger contexts ... It couldbe due to some of the examples that you've given us.

I think it would be really good in smallgroups to enable them to bring out the positive. It can help the group to be more effective.

To use it you would almost certainly have to experience it as we have today. So in my feeling training is a necessityrather than an option.

Probably an experience of it in ... Perhaps in a way we have today.

Man A

Man A

Woman A

Woman C

98

groups, would require training in AI in order for itto be used within your local church?

Do you mean [_____] formal training or merely an experience of it?

One of the waysthat can happenis perhaps withthe eldership to undertake anappreciative exercise by asking a pertinent question of them to work through. Because if you are wanting theprocess to workin the church that where you would use the elders to help facilitate the smaller groups.

I thought perhaps in our church it wouldbe the elders, the leadership team, and the home group leaders. And then perhapssome of the organisation leaders. That'sthe way it would work in our setup.

What would have happened if instead of you saying to us here is the theory and here's the info on the slides if we'd come in and you'd said "okay in your pairs can you talk about something that's gone well" so that we actually walked through the whole process and then afterwards you said this is the theory, this is what we've been looking at?....

.... I'm not sure if that would work butit just seemed to me a way of learning by doing. It would be a case of being immersed in it.

I'm thinking particularly of one of the churches I'm responsible to where the people are not particularly literate andif I went in and started doing somethingthey would talk about it and they would work through it and I think stick with it but if I had to give them written pages to explain something it would cause concern and the response might be

Woman C

Woman B

Woman A

99

Thank you.

Thank you that is valuable because part ofmy aim is to determine how to put togethera pack that will be useful for the local churches. That approach would make it far more interactive.

Well thank you.I appreciate your time and your effort andyou input. I hope it's been useful, encouraging?

"ooh can't do that".

I think that's why I would've answered "no I don't think you need to be trainedfor it" but obviously if you are a facilitator you do. But for the group orcongregation just go straight into it because I think in some of what we do wehave glimpses of it so it's not all completely new. And again if I'd come today and we had just gone into it I'm not sure I would have liked it [general laughter] but that's because we have different learning styles.

The format that you did for today was right but it might not be right for other groups or in other settings. But in those cases coming in and getting them to do it and then explain why they did that might make far more sense afterwards.

100

Transcription of Southern Synod Group Interview 25th November 2010.

Question posed

Responses from Group. My comments.

When you mention changed to the average member of thecongregation,what is theirfeeling or reaction?

Having had admittedly a brief exposure to AI today how does what younow know about it

They approve in principle but not necessarily in their heart.

As long as you don’t change what I hold particularly dear.

Yes, if you can change us as we were! [General laughter]

I don't respond as a group but I do as one-to-one.

Change is decay [general laughter] I don't like people mucking about with the

service [laughter - someone shouts amen] Don't change us into something we don't

want to be. I think some people see change as a

necessary evil. I think they do recognise the need for change but find it hard.

I think a lot of them like the traditions of the church.

Can you wait until I'm dead and not before? [General laughter]

Change is seen to be something we do when we're declining. We don't change when we

First of all I would like to express my thanks in allowing me to present the information on AI and your willingness to answer a few questions.

Woman AMan AWoman BMan BMan CMan D

Man E

Woman C

Woman D

Woman E

Woman B

101

APPENDIX 9

compare with other methodsor approaches?

So from what you have beenexposed to interms of AI or known about it can you think of any possible disadvantagesof using AI in the local church?

Any suggestions?

think things are going well.

In some ways it's similar to Navigator in that it involves the church but Navigator tends to look at what is wrong in order toput it right. This process tends to look at the whole thing which is different.

I think the others might have involved people associated with the church but wouldn't necessarily involve those people to whom the church thought it had and mission.

This has a far more positive emphasis. It includes everyone and that is

important. It's more like Paradigms shift rather than

something you try and go back to somethingbefore... It's important about going back and forward.

Am I right in saying it has an emphasis onlistening rather than on preaching? In other words a bigger emphasis on listeningto people rather than telling them what wethink.

There is a sense of building on the positives ... So you start off with a feeling of success and so it's a bit less of trying to swim against the tide.

You start with the positives and so createa momentum that keeps moving forward.

It's an almost logical progression

Because it's new some might not follow what is being done.

It's only when you've done the session like we've just done that you would realise that we can actually make a contribution and so this is a fairly good tool.

It seems to me that one of the most difficult things is to get everybody that ought to be involved involved because theytends to be a self-selection in church. Sothere is a real need to try and widen thatinvolvement.

One of the most difficult things I've found was to know what Appreciative

Man B

Man D

Man A

Man B

Man D

Woman A

Man E

Man D

Woman CMan B

Woman A

Man C

Man B

Man A

102

One of the things that Ihave used in the past is the "Essence"by Rob Frost and in sessions haveused play dough to helppeople reflect and discuss. So for the kinaesthetic's in discovery we can ask them to model whathas been a good experience. So I take your commentson board and need to thinkvery carefully in putting this together thatI address theAVK.

We've spoken about AI generally butthe real crunch is how, knowing the people that you knowin your localcongregations

Inquiry was and then to try and explain itto others. In the title it's a bit confusing-what is this mean? In the work I'm doing with churches we talk about liaison, enabling, conversation, and now Ineed to bring in Appreciative Inquiry. It's the problem of a title that would attract three or four churches to come together and explore.

Yeah but this is more a technique though isn't it? So you do it in a way to suit the people you're going to.

Danger might be if you get the whole church there and you only communicate in one way such as using one method such as words say and not visual or kinaesthetic then you are actually without realising itcutting out chunks of those people and youwon't even know you haven't actually let them take part and therefore become rootedin it. I think the church needs to find out a lot more about the ways people take in information and understand it. Very often it's not the ways most of us do as we are hooked into a tradition of using words and listening to words. The younger generation more easily lectures into audio, visual and kinaesthetic.

There is a sense on that when you are wanting to facilitate discussion that if there is a task going on at the same time people are more open to talk for example if you're decorating the church it's a fantastic time to find out about the church while talking to someone who might be say painting the windows because there is no face-to-face contact; you are looking at something and you can talk to

Woman A

Man D

Man B

Woman B

Man B

103

, how would they take on board a process like appreciative inquiry?

So we would have to be very careful in terms of the interviewin the process in general. And again it's about the training of people and how to deal with those negatives.

people who feel less pressure because all eyes aren't on them. So that idea of actually doing something while people are talking actually opens them to saying things that they might not have otherwise said.

I think a number would want to start with the negatives rather than the positives and would even count some of the positivesas negatives for instance changes in worship there are different from the traditional would be seen as negative eventhough those changes of putting an appropriate... Or did I get that wrong? [General laughter]

I think it about the preparation before the open meeting possibly using the eldersor a group of people we could call facilitators and who briefed/trained to use the right process and the outcomes youwere trying to achieve and how you wanted to go about this. We mentioned earlier theimportance of laying out the furniture right as it has a tremendous influence on the reaction you are going to get.

Of course there is a danger in using a facilitator; if people think they are someone important they could end up sayingwhat they think the facilitator wants to hear.

Which is why I was saying that I don't think the facilitators get announced. If they were quietly briefed beforehand aboutstudying at particular tables so that others will then come and join them ratherthan an overt facilitation. But those people will have had a briefing beforehandas to what was going to happen and what itwas hoped the outcome would be.

But it would still probably be the more outgoing members of the congregation who might be more threatening to the introvertmembers.

This is where at the start the small groups would be useful because they

Woman B

Woman C

Woman F

Woman F

Man F

104

You will notice in thetwo-page article that I promised tosend you thatthere is an icebreaker atthe beginningto get peopletalking.

When you can get them to reflect on their experience asparents and what would good opportunitieswhere they managed to interact. Youalso need to look at what the focus of the parent toddler groupis: is it to allow for interaction or is it simply to allow parents

wouldn't be much chance to dominate although some might try! There is also something about introducing it in that people think "oh no not another vision workshop" but if you actually say we had avision workshop two or three years ago andthis is what we decided as a result, this is what we have done and then this [AI] istaking it forward from there. So I think there's an awful lot in how you prepare the ground ... Again you're building on your success that came from a vision workshop because congregations’ memories are very short and they think "oh dear we had those meetings before and nothing's happened since". Well actually an awful lot has happened since then that they don't necessarily associate with them [vision workshops].

Another area where this might be useful isfor instance I thought I knew the members of the congregation pretty well but we have a number of social events etc. But wehad a workshop where we were all put into couples and stuff and were encouraged to do silly things and I was amazed at what Ilearnt about my partner who I thought I knew pretty well. So actually that was a pretty good icebreaker.

It's good to get people used to talking for some of them that's a big step to carry on with.

In a strange because not many of our parishioners backward in coming forward with what they need to say [general laughter].I'm still finding it hard to see what we get if we keep it totally general... You know we get this great collection of things that people talk about and different points of view, so how do you distil that into the things that you actually move on from? But then again thatmight be the strength of empowering peopleto talk and seeing what comes out of it. .... It's when you start saying that within this framework that it will all happen. The thing that strikes me is that

Man E

Man C

Woman C

Man C

105

timeout to relax. Use that as the focus and then ask the congregation to explore sothat they cansee it from adifferent perspective. This is not about manipulation but encouraging people to seesomething from a different perspective.

The agreementof the issuesis done through a form of consensus andwhat you needto bearing inmind is that all the stepsneed to be collaborative. Ultimately you might have a small working groupwho detail

at the moment we have this thriving mothers and toddlers group which is deliberately for everyone so there are Jewish moms and Muslim moms and they [the church] are fighting for impact on it. Butwhere do we go next? I mean I'd quite liketo use that as a topic but whether you canstart with such a restricted thing ... Andthen you get all these people saying "oh we are not going to do anything for peoplewe couldn't ".... "Can't turn into pew fodder" is what they mean [sounds of agreement]

[General sounds of agreement] it seems to me that one of the possible

things here is that feeling that sometimeswe talk and talk and there seem to be so many initiatives coming from here there and everywhere that actually there is a kind of overload that will make people feel that this is just another and do I really want to get involved and is it really can do anything for us?

That's where the follow up is so importantbecause if people see it ... take part andthen see action is actually taken then they are willing to go on. But if it's oneof those situations where discussion happened but nothing ... There was no resolution of the situation and so there

Man F

Woman F

106

how that could be implemented but up to that stage itimperative that everyoneis involved and that out of today we might have say six themes. But given our constraints of personnel,time and so on what wouldyou reckon ofthe importantones? Allow that to be discussed openly so it's not a case of someone saying thingsand not beingdone that they want.

was only disappointment. But if you get too many things come out

then you've got to prioritise it so that you work on the priorities so that you cansay what you going to work on is this thenthat. Of course there are problems with people who won't agree with what is priority one ....

Yes but this is where leadership comes in to say a particular idea is prioritised asnumber six but your issues will be addressed.

I think we've got to be careful here. Everything is important it is deciding what is urgent ... Or urgent and importantand so assuring people that they are just as important. Then people do feel affirmed.

We did have a really good discussion whichwasn't quite started from your point of view [i.e. using AI] was when we divided up the church meeting to talk about what would be looking for in a new minister so everybody did have a chance at being

107

[heard]. We have our church meetings afterchurch on Sunday mornings and at the end of that we did get what was effectively consensus because there was consensus within the four groups that were discussing and also when people reported back you could see there was consensus between the groups. And I don't think thatpeople felt that once there was a pastorate profile they didn’t contribute to it. Which is managing expectations.

108