Search results

The emergence of strengths-based management may be the management innovation of our time. Nearly every organization has been introduced to its precepts – for example, the insight that a person or organization will excel only by amplifying strengths, never by simply fixing weaknesses. But in spite of impressive returns, organizations and managers have almost all stopped short of the breakthroughs that are possible. With micro tools largely in place, the future of strengths management is moving increasingly to the macro-management level, as witnessed in the rapid and far-reaching use of large group methods such as the Appreciative Inquiry Summit and its next generation design-thinking summit. Macro means whole and, by definition, unites many improbable opposites – for example, it embraces top down and bottom up simultaneously. It is a prime time source of organizational generativity. But the rules of macro-management are different than any other kind, most certainly micro-management. A decade of research and successful prototyping with single organizations, regions and cities, extended enterprises, industries, and UN-level world summits reveals five “X” factors – a specific set of mutually reinforcing elements of success and organizational generativity – and provides a clear set of guidelines for when and how you can deploy the “whole system in the room” design summit to bring out the best in system collaboration. By analyzing the performance and impacts of six case studies of the “whole system in the room” Appreciative Inquiry design summit, this chapter provides a bird’s eye view of the opportunities, challenges, and exciting new vistas opening up in this the collaborative age – a time when systemic action and macro-management skill are the primary leverage points for game-changing innovation, scalable solutions, and generative organizing. The chapter concludes with a call for more research into the stages of large group dynamics and advances a metaphor from the leadership literature – the spark, the flame, and the torch – to give imagery to the “positive contagion” and “the concentration effect of strengths” that happens during an Appreciative Inquiry Summit where 100s and sometimes 1000s come together interactively and collaboratively to design the future.

The International Ergonomics Association (IEA)'s definition of HF/E includes the following:Ergonomics (or human factors) is the scientific discipline concerned with the understanding of interactions among humans and other elements of a system, and the profession that applies theory, principles, data and methods to design in order to optimize human well-being and overall system performance … Organizational ergonomics is concerned with the optimization of sociotechnical systems, including their organizational structures, policies, and processes. (IEA Council, 2000)

This chapter explores the power of appreciative inquiry in moving beyond a one-time intervention technique to sustaining positive change by creating on-going “conversational convergence” around continuously evolving futures and directions for an organization. A conversational map was created from nine years of change data revealing the centrality of language in creating and sustaining change. Awareness of the corporate conversational streams and the intentional influencing of these streams helped sustain the positive change process over this extended period. This influence was applied at the individual level by developing a commitment for appreciative leadership principles and at the corporate level by incorporating appreciative design elements into the organization’s social architecture.

There is a growing demand in industry for engineering graduates who can think “sustainably.” However, there are many barriers to developing assessment that fosters sustainability learning in engineering classrooms. There is no consensus on the definition of sustainability and its key competencies and teaching resources are limited.

Staff are unclear about what to teach, how to teach, and how to assess learning. Assessment is an integral part of teaching and learning and should be planned from the earliest stages, but this is rarely done. Engineering relies heavily on traditional assessments such as tests and examinations, but these are known to encourage surface learning. Sustainability is complex, multidisciplinary, and needs context, which requires higher-order thinking characteristic of deep learning.

Current assessment types for sustainability include examinations, case study, concept maps, and project-based learning. However, more research is needed to develop best practice assessments. Recommendations for teaching approach are to use a rigorous approach to instructional design, use a systems approach, and use a teaching model that promotes deep learning, incorporates context, and promotes alignment of learning objectives and assessment. Community-oriented assessments are recommended that feature the interdisciplinarity and complexity of sustainability and promote higher-order thinking.

A neglected area of research in ODC is the turnaround of poorly performing firms such as those under bankruptcy protection. We researched 142 companies that attempted reorganization under bankruptcy protection between 1983 and 2003. Firms deployed one or more of four distinct strategies to turnaround: rationalizing existing resources, developing existing resources, generating new resources, and investing in future resources. Firms that generated new resources, and developed and rationalized existing resources, had the highest probability of emergence. Interestingly firms that sustained their turnaround post-emergence invested in future resources in addition to generating, developing, and rationalizing resources. Implications for ODC are discussed.

In 2004, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in Bangkok, Thailand, and UN-HABITAT collaborated on an eco-housing project in the Asian region (UNEP, 2010). The aim was to promote eco-housing as a key disaster preventive measure in the Asia-Pacific region. Eco-housing is an evolving concept that applies sustainability principles into the entire lifecycle of a housing project: from design, through construction and maintenance to the “end of life” activities. The concept applies environmentally friendly and sustainable approaches to the design, site assessment, material selection, energy management, water management, and waste management to the household and community level. The project addressed four key areas: (1) knowledge building, (2) educational initiative, (3) networking, and (4) implementation. The eco-housing project involved countries such as Australia, China, India, Indonesia, Thailand, and Sri Lanka. It was implemented in the 2004 tsunami-affected areas in Banda Aceh and Calang, Indonesia. As part of the tsunami recovery projects, an “eco-village” was established in Lagoswatta, located in the Kalutara district near Colombo in Sri Lanka. It was supported by Sarvodaya, one of the local NGOs. UNEP and UN-HABITAT initiated the eco-housing project in 2004 to build capacity and to increase awareness on this issue. A Regional Expert Group on eco-housing was established to provide technical input and train national architects on this concept. This study was focused on the eco-village project in disaster recovery from the Indian Ocean Tsunami in 2004. In particular, it focused on the case study in Sri Lanka: “The project has implemented passive cooling techniques, solar panels on houses, segregation of waste, composting of bio-degradable waste, recycling of inorganic waste, sub-terra system for recycling waste water, and roof top water harvesting. Site layout and landscaping has been done to minimize disturbances to site, provide shading and improve indoor ventilation” (UNEP, 2010).