GENERATIVE CHARACTERISTICS AS ANTECEDENTS OF ...

(Fry, Barrett, Seiling, & Whitney, 2002; Prowley, Fry, Barrett, & Bright, 2004; Srivastva &
Cooperrider, 1990). However, testimony is not research. It isn’t surprising that Appreciative
Inquiry has its critics. AI has been characterized as failing to provide linkages to other theory
and practice (Golembiewski, 2001), as being based more on speculation and enthusiasm than
empirical research (Head, 1997), and as having limited and only specific applicability (Bushe
& Coetzer, 1995).
The following sections of this paper discuss theories and constructs used to frame the
research question, describe the research design, methodology, data collection, and analysis;
present the findings as pre-intervention and post-intervention comparisons, and discuss those
findings and their implications for both future research and practice.
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT
This section discusses the constructs upon which this study is based. This research
accepts that organizations are the result of ongoing social construction and attempts to inform
our understanding of how individual and shared generative characteristics influence
employee engagement in work performance and self-development.
Engagement
The fundamental interest in this study is to inform our understanding of the individual
and relational generative characteristics which are, or could be, antecedents to the ways in
which work group members engage themselves in the performance of their work and their
continued development. This is a somewhat different perspective than those of role
engagement, task engagement, or organizational commitment. Rather, the interest here is in
why group members decide to bring their real and whole ‘self’ to work and dedicate their
attention and energy to achieving higher levels of performance and to the development of
6