This interpretive study investigates one of the most established positive methodologies in organizational change, Appreciative inquiry, and its ability to address employee concerns. Interviews with 41 organizational development practitioners, with more than 600 cumulative years of experience across public, private, and nonprofit sectors, demonstrate Appreciative inquiry, practiced with fidelity to its principles, rarely suppressed so-called negative discourse, previously conceptualized as the shadow. The study reimagines shadow as dialectic tensions that occur when employees in change processes showed resistance to positive discourse. Practitioners encountered three patterned dialectics: the voice shadow holds the tension between free expression and limited expression; the leadership shadow pertains to opposing needs regarding hierarchical-collaborative decision making; and the temporal shadow names tensions between short-term and long-term change. These tensions are navigated through a repertoire of communicative practices and the central principles that constitute them, including counternarratives, variations of reframing, shuttle facilitation, and transparency. This repertoire extends a communicative theoretical framework of response choices when encountering negative discourse in Ai and other positive organizational change practice.
AliI.ShaikhG. M.ChannaM. A.BrohiM. A.KhuwajaS. (2020). To what extent can appreciative inquiry be a substitute/alternative or perhaps complementary to problem-centric approaches? A paradox. International Journal of Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity, 11(3), 3485–3496. ISSN: 2005-4289 IJDRBC.
2.
BargeJ. K.LeeM.MadduxK.NabringR.TownsendB. (2008). Managing dualities in planned change initiatives. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36(4), 364–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909880802129996
3.
BargeJ. K.OliverC. (2003). Working with appreciation in managerial practice. Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 124–142. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2003.8925244
4.
BaxterL. (1988). A dialectical perspective on communication strategies in relationship development. In DuckS. (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 257–273). Wiley.
5.
BaxterL. A. (2011). Voicing relationships: A dialogic perspective. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
6.
BusheG. R. (2013). Generative process, generative outcome: The transformational potential of appreciative inquiry. In CooperiderD.ZandeeD. P.GodwinL. N. (Eds.), Organizational generativity: The appreciative inquiry summit and a scholarship of transformation (4, pp. 89–113). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/s1475-9152(2013)0000004003
GebhardA.AllenW. S.PinoF. (2023). Antiracism in appreciative inquiry: Generative tensions and collective reflexivity. Action Research, 22(4), 345–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/14767503231210418
14.
GrayB. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. Jossey-Bass.
15.
JiengH.ShenH. (2023). Toward a relational theory of employee engagement: Understanding authenticity, transparency, and employee behaviors. International Journal of Business Communication, 60(3), 948–975. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488420954236
16.
JohansenT. S. (2016). Countering the “natural” organizational self on social media. In FrandsenS.KuhnT.LundholtM. W. (Eds.), Counter-narratives and organization (pp. 72–90). Routledge.
LeavyP. L. (2007). The practice of feminist oral history and focus group interviews. In Nagy Hesse-BiberS.LeavyP. L. (Eds.), Feminist research practices: A primer (pp. 149–186). Sage.
19.
LiljaJ. (2024). Facilitating organizations to dance with the complex “logic of life”: Spinning with paradoxes in regenerative appreciative inquiry summits. The Learning Organization, 31(3), 299–316. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-01-2023-0006
20.
LundholtM.MaagaardC.PiekutA. (2018). Counternarratives. In HeathR. L.JohansenW. (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of strategic communication (pp. 1–11). John Wiley & Sons Incorporated. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119010722.iesc0201
21.
Lutgen-SandvikP. (2017). Positive organizational communication scholarship. In ScottC. R.LewisL. (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of organizational communication. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118955567
22.
MaierC. T. (2018). Light and shadows: Appreciative inquiry, communication ethics literacy, and the opioid epidemic. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 19(1), 62–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/17459435.2018.1529699
23.
McNameeS. (2013). The difference of dialogue: Toward a relational ethic. In LiegeoisA.BurggraeveR.RiemslaghM.CorveleynJ. (Eds.), “After you!:” Dialogical ethics and the pastoral counselling process (pp. 3–13). Leuven University Press.
24.
MitraR.FykeJ. (2017). Purpose driven consultancies’ negotiation of organizational tensions. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 45(2), 140–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2017.1288290
25.
PanayiotouA.PutnamL. L.KassinisG. (2019). Generating tensions: A multilevel, process analysis of organizational change. Strategic Organization, 17(1), 8–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127017734446
26.
SahayS.GoldthwaiteC. (2024). Participatory practices during organizational change: Rethinking participation and resistance. Management Communication Quarterly, 38(2), 279–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/08933189231187883
27.
SaldanhaF. P.PozzebonM.MailhotC.Le PuilD. (2023). Counter-narratives mobilized by deprived communities through theatre interventions: Deconstructing and reframing master narratives. Management Communication Quarterly, 37(3), 478–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/08933189221121345
TracyS. (2004). Dialectic, contradiction, or double bind? Analyzing and theorizing employee reactions to organizational tension. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32(2), 119–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/0090988042000210025
WielandS. M. B. (2020). Constituting resilience at work: Maintaining dialectics and cultivating dignity throughout a worksite closure. Management Communication Quarterly, 34(4), 463–494. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318920949314
32.
WooD. J.PasekwitzE. A. (2020). Initiating a cross-sector interorganizational collaboration: Lessons from a failed attempt at following appreciative inquiry practice. Communication Monographs, 49(2), 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2020.1837914
33.
ZandeeD.CooperriderD. (2008). Appreciable worlds, inspired inquiry. In ReasonP.BradburyH. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of action research (2nd ed., pp. 190–198). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848607934
