To what extent can appreciative inquiry be a substitute/alternative or perhaps complementary to problem-centric approaches? A paradox

Abstract

While striving to answer the main research question, to what extent can appreciative inquiry be a substitute/alternative or perhaps complementary to a problem-centric approach? We find that AI has a difficult time figuring out what it is. The debate isn’t settled yet as some authors truly want to emphasize the positive and deny the negative. On the other side, we have authors who say AI  is not denying the problem, breakdowns, and failures in the organization (Messerschmidt, 2008) yet avoiding it from taking into consideration for eliminating them. Contrary to this, the AR approach is just solving those problems avoiding amplifying positive aspects. Boyd and Bright (2007) discuss the situational factors where either of them can be effective. They say that in problematic conditions AR works effectively and AI is effective for upgrading the standard in the condition when the organization facing no problem. But these authors could not mention that why an organization cannot use both even at the time of the problem?

While answering the question concerning whether or not both approaches are a paradox, we uncover that if not fully yet almost all the disadvantages of AI are the Advantages of AR and vice versa. Because of this main reason, the simple solution consistent with Grant’s work, we suggest the simple solution is to integrate both concepts of AI and AR. According to our suggestion, the organization needs to use both simultaneously for bringing transformational change effectively and efficiently.