Formally discuss and reply to what they learned compared to what I learned in one paragraph.

theirs

Diagnosing the need for change is not always straightforward, which is why Weiss (2016) introduces an assessment model that helps leaders identify both what needs to change and where to intervene. The model looks at three types of change--developmental, transitional, and transformational--across three levels: organizational, group, and individual. It also emphasizes connecting presenting issues, such as strategy or structure, back to core domains like leadership, culture, and systems. This holistic view is helpful because it prevents leaders from jumping to conclusions or treating only surface-level symptoms. Instead, it provides a structured way to see how different parts of the organization are linked, ensuring that the change effort is both intentional and sustainable.

Once leaders have clarity on what needs to change, the next step is deciding how that change will take place. Appreciative Inquiry (AI) and Action Research (AR) are two approaches that take very different paths. AI is focused on strengths and possibilities: "What's working well, and how can we build on that?" It often follows the "4-D" cycle of Discover, Dream, Design, and Destiny, making it particularly effective when organizations want to inspire people and create a shared vision of the future (Weiss, 2016). On the other hand, AR is more of a data-driven, problem-solving approach. It involves iterative cycles of planning, acting, observing, and reflecting. This method works well when the change involves solving specific operational issues or introducing new systems (Coghlan & Brydon-Miller, 2014).

Both approaches have value in ethical change processes, but the best fit depends on the situation. If the goal is to strengthen culture or align values, AI is likely the stronger choice. If the organization needs to address efficiency or policy-related challenges, AR may be more effective. What they share is an emphasis on participation and collaboration, which helps ensure that change isn't just top-down, but something people feel involved in and committed to.

My anaylsis

The assessment model discussed in section 2.3 offers a structured approach for organizations to diagnose the necessity for change by analyzing the causes, issues, and areas for mitigation. The three primary categories of change identified by this model (transformational, transitional, and developmental) can be implemented at various levels, such as organizational, team-group, and individual (Weiss, 2016). The initial step in the process is to acknowledge the issues that are present, which can span from strategic and structural to technological, human, and ethical concerns. Additionally, these issues can impact areas such as performance, morale, efficiency, and effectiveness (Weiss, 2016). Subsequently, the model associates these concerns with critical organizational dimensions, including management, social environment, individuals, strategy, structure, and systems. In order to achieve change, each aspect designates specific intervention points, including the efficiency of leadership or the alignment of culture.

This model is valuable due to its multidirectional and integrative approach to diagnosing organizational requirements and identifying necessary modifications. Organizational change is rarely a simple, sequential process; in reality, it is frequently complex, iterative, and influenced by various internal and external variables. Through the implementation of this assessment model, organizations can conduct an in-depth assessment of opportunities and challenges, as well as determine the potential impact of interventions in areas such as leadership or culture on systems or strategy. Hence, a thorough understanding is essential for making informed, effective decisions regarding the necessary changes, which enables interventions to be targeted for optimal results in the organization's internal systems. It serves as a reminder to leaders that successful change is contingent upon navigating the dynamic interplay between various organizational dimensions and stakeholders, utilizing sound judgment to facilitate creative and productive transformation. Nevertheless, changes are essential, as they are a continuous step in maintaining competitiveness and adapting to the evolving demands of customers (Contributor, 2020).

Action Research and Appreciative Inquiry (AI) are both popular models for managing organizational change; however, their philosophies and methodologies are fundamentally incompatible. AI is a collaborative, strengths-based approach that is designed to identify and enhance the successful aspects of an organization, involving employees from the ground up to co-create solutions and envision potential outcomes (Dal Corso et al., 2021). On the other hand, Action Research is a problem-solving approach that employs a structured, cyclical process that involves diagnosing issues, planning, acting, and evaluating (Cronemyr & Huge-Brodin, 2024). This approach is frequently directed by consultants or upper management, but it also involves members as collaborators. Action Research is more analytical, focusing on the investigation and resolution of organizational concerns through iterative feedback and adjustment, whereas AI prioritizes opportunity and positivity. AI and Action Research both involve stakeholders, but they differ in their initial approach. Hence, AI aims to enhance extant strengths, whereas Action Research aims to resolve or enhance problematic areas.

Through the four D's (Discovery, Dream, Design, and Delivery), Appreciative Inquiry emphasizes the identification and enhancement of the best of what is (Dal Corso et al., 2021). Its collaborative, opportunity-oriented mindset encourages widespread participation, intending to motivate others by emphasizing their accomplishments and potential. AI is particularly effective in cultures that are prepared to promote innovation and inclusivity, as well as when there is ample time to engage with stakeholders in the development of brighter futures. On the other hand, Action Research is distinguished by its systematic, data-driven approach. Thus, it requires a series of explicit steps (nine steps) revolving around data. The method is particularly well-suited to environments in which distinct issues or situations demand swift, evidence-based interventions that involve both consultants and organizational members as partners in the understanding and implementation of change.

Appreciative Inquiry is most ethically effective when an organization aims to foster a positive, empowering culture and pursues transformative, long-term change that respects the perspectives of all stakeholders. It is an ideal choice for initiatives such as culture change, vision-casting, or post-crisis renewal, where collective input and morale are crucial, as its bottom-up ethos promotes sustainability, transparency, and participation. On the other hand, Action Research is most appropriate for ethical change processes that necessitate objective diagnosis, stakeholder involvement, and continuous feedback, such as restructuring, crisis management, or the resolution of specific operational issues (Cronemyr & Huge-Brodin, 2024). Its incremental methodology guarantees that all perspectives are considered during the consultation and data collection phases, which fosters precision in decision-making, particularly in situations where change may be disruptive or contentious.