Nov. 20 Discussion

Book: Hammond, Sue Annis. The Thin Book of Appreciative Inquiry. 2005

Preliminaries: Nine very congenial people attended this initial discussion, most of which were librarians. Varying degrees of management and leadership experience, were represented, and included those who had held elected and appointed political positions. The participants had time to chat over snacks before beginning the formal discussion. The discussion began with introductions, and a brief discussion of future books. While Laura Stone led this first discussion, other members agreed to facilitate future discussions.

Book Discussion: The group members began by summarizing the book. Everyone agreed that the book focused on the positive and offered a hopeful perspective – “optimism over pessimism.” One participant said she liked the idea of carrying something forward from the past, so that a plan or eventual activity has roots. The idea of building from past successes appealed to the discussion participants. The members also agreed that this focus was helpful on an individual basis when problem solving or planning an activity, and appreciated the importance of valuing differences.

Although the group appreciated this positive approach, they weren’t as sure that it would necessarily lead to a more successful planning approach. One participant talked about a corporate situation where people had tried very hard to do the right thing, to lead in a positive way, and to be responsive to all stakeholders, but ultimately failed because of factors beyond their control. The process didn’t necessarily address situations where the group may not know what they need to know. Nor did it provide a map or process for next steps. One participant said the book provided some good ideas for strategies, even if we weren’t sure it would lead to answers.

Something to Think About: In her list of assumptions, Annis says, “If we carry parts of the past forward, they should be what is best about the past.” How do we necessarily know what is best? How do we decide what has worked? Some “bests” may have been good for one group of people (for example, walk-in patrons) but not so good for everyone else (non-library users).