📜 Post with us on Reddit
📝 Create a new article
🏭 Create a company page
🇬🇧 - in English
🇫🇷 - en Français (FR)
🇵🇹 - em Português (PT)
🇩🇪 - in Deutsch (DE)
🇯🇵 - 日本語で (JA)
Sponsored articles

You can edit almost every page by Creating an account. Otherwise, see the FAQ.

SOAR Profile

From EverybodyWiki Bios & Wiki



Overview[edit]

SOAR (Strengths, Opportunities, Aspirations, Results) is a framework for strategic thinking, planning, and leading that embraces a whole systems approach to strategy via dialogue, solution seeking, and results-oriented tasks.[1][2] SOAR is an evidence-based framework for strategic thinking, planning and leading that may have a positive impact on team performance through generative conversations among team members to increase team collaboration.[3][4] The SOAR framework as a strategic approach is shown in Figure 1. Conceptual and empirical literature on SOAR is shown in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1 Conceptual Literature on SOAR

Citation Description
Cooperrider & Whitney (1999)[5] This seminal book presents a defintion of AI and describes AI's philosophy.
Stavros, Cooperrider, & Kelley (2003)[6] This conceptual paper presents SOAR as a new franework for strategic planning.
Stavros, Cooperrider, & Kelley (2007)[7] Described SOAR as a new approach to strategic planning.
Bushe (2007)[8] This conceptual paper defined generative conversations.
Stavros & Hinrichs (2009)[1] This seminal book describes SOAR and methods for using SOAR in practice.
Stavros & Saint (2010)[9] This book chapter in the book Practicing Organization Development describes SOAR and its potential for OD.
Stavros & Wooten (2012)[10] This book chapter from Th Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship describes SOAR as a strengths-based strategy.
Cameron & Spreitzer (2012a)[11] This book chapter describes positive psychology and positive approaches to OD.
Stavros & Cole (2013)[2] This review paper describes SOAR and its history.
Stavros (2013)[12] This conceptual paper describes the generative nature of SOAR and presents the new SOAR Profile.
Bushe & Marshak (2014)[13] This conceptual book chapter describes dialogic OD and its linkage to generative conversations.
Stavros, Cole, & Hitchcock (2014)[14] This review paper describes SOAR and its growing application in empirical research.
Stavros & Torres (2018)[15] This book describes generative conversations and the value of dialogue to strategy and collaboration.

Table 2 Empirical Literature on SOAR

Citation Description
Sprangel (2009)[16] This quantitative dissertation study investigated SOAR as a predictor of supplier performance in 71 chemical services program managers via an original 16-item self-report questionnaire developed by Sprangel.
Malone (2010)[17] This qualitative dissertation study explored SOAR as a framework for building strategic capacity in small group setting from 39 interviews.
Sprangel, Stavors, & Cole (2011)[18] This paper presented the results of the Srangel (2009) dissertation in a peer reviewed journal.
Glovis (2012)[19] This quantitative dissertation study investigated SOAR as a mediator of the relationship between flow and project success in  122 SAP professionals via an original 16-item self-report questionnaire developed by Sprangel (2009).
Cole & Stavros (2013)[2] This empirical study describes the development of the SOAR profile.
Cole & Stavros (2014)[20] This empirial study describes the psychometric properties of the SOAR profile.
Glovis, Cole, & Stavros (2014)[21] This paper presented the results of the Glovis (2012) dissertation in a peer reviewed journal.
Cox (2014)[22] This empirical study of 308 professionals with team experience found SOAR (as measured by the SOAR Profile) mediated the relationship between emotional intelligence and team-based collaboration.
Hitchcock (2014)[23] This mixed methods dissertation study explored SOAR as a framework for building organizational collective motivation from 16 interviews of US Army leaders.
Cole, Cox, & Stavros (2016)[3] This paper presented the results of the Cox (2014) dissertation in a peer reviewed journal.
Devries (2016)[24] This mixed methods dissertation study found SOAR (as measured by the SOAR Profile) mediated the relationship between strategic human resource practices and affective commitment in a sample of 188 non-enlisted civilian knowledge workers employed at the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development, and Engineering Center (TARDEC).
Khan, Cole, & Stavros (2016)[25] This empirical study investigated AI as a predictor of SOAR (as measured by the SOAR Profile) in a sample of more than 300 students and professional who completed the SOAR profile.
Kuehn (2016)[26] This quantitative dissertation study found SOAR (as measured by the SOAR Profile) moderates the relationship between analytics and strategic decision making in 83 senior leader who have responsibility for strategic decisions.
Lange (2016)[27] This mixed-methods dissertation study found SOAR (as measured by the SOAR Profile) mediates the relationship between relationship marketing and student loyalty in 174 undergraduate students.
Schnellbacher (2017)[28] This quantitative dissertation study found SOAR (as measured by the SOAR Profile) moderates the relationship between new product development best practices and new product development success in 174 new product development practitioners from diverse industries.
Storey (2017)[29] This quantitative dissertation study found SOAR (as measured by the SOAR Profile) was positive correlated with confirmation of an organization's bring your own device policy in 103 professionals who use their own smartphone for work.
Cole, Cox, & Stavros (2018)[4] This paper presented the results of the Cox (2014) dissertation in a peer reviewed journal with a focus on implications for entrepreneurial teams.

Origins of SOAR

Growing out of the theory and practice of SWOT analysis, positive psychology, and Appreciative Inquiry (AI), the SOAR framework can be used at the individual, team, and organizational level to help with strategic thinking, planning, and leading via SOAR-based generative conversations.[1][9][15] When people embrace SOAR, they focus on positive deviance (i.e., moving toward positive energy and away from negative energy) and possibility thinking through dialogue comprised of generative conversations identifying strengths, strategic opportunities, shared aspirations, and measurable and meaningful results.[30][31][7][15]

SOAR has origins in traditional, diagnostic-based approaches to organization development (OD) such as SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats). For example, the traditional SWOT analysis is an example of a diagnostic OD approach that is a precursor to SOAR. SWOT analysis has become the standard for strategic assessment, first used in the mid-1960s.[32] SWOT analysis allows for assessment of organizational internal and external environments. SWOT analysis begins with an analysis of overall team and organizational level strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. SWOT analysis commonly focuses more on weaknesses and perceived threats which may create a negative point of view. Dr. Jacqueline M. Stavros developed SOAR in response to the negative energy generated by an in-depth analysis of weaknesses and threats.[7]

SOAR also has origins in contemporary, dialogue-based approaches to OD that focus on dialogue and generative conversations, such as AI,[13] and it has origins in positive approaches to OD, such as positive psychology, that involve the best of people.[11] Instead of using SWOT to diagnosis a team or organization, the SOAR framework can be used to begin a strategic inquiry using an appreciative intent. In a team setting, the SOAR framework leverages the strengths and opportunities in generative conversations among team members in order to identify common aspirations and desired results.[4] Table 3 presents a comparison between SWOT and SOAR.

Table 3 Comparison between SWOT and SOAR

SWOT Analysis SOAR Analysis
Analysis Oriented Action Oriented
Weakness and Threat Focused Strengths and Opportunity Focused
Competition Focus – “just be better” Possibility Focused – “be the best”
Incremental Improvement Innovation and Breakthrough
Top Down Engagement of All Levels
Focus on Analysis – (Planning) Focus on Planning – (Implementation)
Energy Depleting Energy Creating
Attention to Gaps Attention to Results

Appreciative Inquiry (AI) is the Operating System of SOAR

SOAR has its origins in AI and shares AI’s philosophy and underlying values, in addition to sharing AI’s methods of inquiry (i.e., generative conversations). AI was developed by David Cooperrider and his colleges at Case Western University in the late 1980s to help OD practitioners examine what works in an organization instead of what does not work. “Appreciative Inquiry is the cooperative search for the best in people, their organizations, and the world around them . . . AI involves the art and practice of asking questions that strengthen a system's capacity to heighten positive potential.[5] AI’s philosophy of positive psychology in that AI…aims to uncover and bring forth existing strengths, hopes, and dreams: to identify and amplify the positive core of the organization.  In so doing, it transforms people and organizations.  With Appreciative Inquiry, the focus of attention is on positive potential -- the best or what has been, what is, and what might be.  It is a process of positive change.[33]

In practice, “At AI's heart is the appreciative interview. The uniqueness and power of an AI interview stems from its fundamentally affirmative focus”.[5]

AI and the five primary principles are the underlying theory of the SOAR framework: the constructionist principle, simultaneity principle, poetic principle, anticipatory principle, and positive principle. Recent empirical research by Cole, Stavros, and Cox (2016)[3] supports AI as the operating system of SOAR. Specifically, a structural equation modeling analysis of AI-based items on the SOAR Profile from over 350 participants found AI predicted SOAR. 

Stavros and Cole (2013) summarized the role of each of the five core principles of AI as applied to SOAR. The constructionist principle is the understanding and acceptance of social constructionist stance. “This stance presumes that real-world beliefs are created through social relationships and conversations that shape how the world is viewed, how people should behave, and ultimately what is accepted as reality”.[2] The SOAR framework helps participants to develop a strategy based upon strategic thinking within appreciative intent. Simultaneity principle combines inquiry and change into a simultaneous action. In essence, the process of inquiry becomes an intervention, where questions asked drive discovery and dialogue. Poetic principle uses the energy generated in dialogue to focus on different aspects of a team or organization. Dialogue is used to enhance the values of an organization’s work and spirit. The poetic principle encourages conversations about different perspectives in organizational life. Anticipatory principle allows participants to anticipate future moments and how current actions and decisions can impact these moments. SOAR provides an opportunity for participants to question an organization’s current activities and decisions. This is often done through a reflection of strengths and opportunities identified through dialogue. Positive principle describes the relationship between positive questions and positive actions. Thus, positive principle begins a systemic process of widespread inquiry and long-lasting impact of positive actions in all aspects of an organization.

           SOAR and generative conversations. When used by practitioners and scholars, the SOAR framework integrates whole system thinking, strengths-based perspectives, and generative conversations among team and organizational members to shape a preferred future based on strengths, opportunities, aspirations, and results.[9] Generative conversations refer to people engaging in an interactive dialogue to create new ideas and strategies for shaping a preferred future.[8] Stavros and Torres (2018) note strategic change can occur from even a single generative conversation. “SOAR supports an intentional shift of conversations from weaknesses to strengths, and problems to possibilities. Consequently, this approach seeks to identify, hone and build on the organization’s strengths as the foundation for strategic growth”.[12] Table 2.9 presents examples of SOAR-based generative questions designed to help strategic thinking, planning, and leading become focused on individual, team, and organizational strengths, opportunities, aspirations, and desired results to build a positive future.[1][12][6][10] Generative conversations are important for this study because team members need to have a strategic dialogue about teamwork based on the feedback from the 360 assessment.

Table 4 Example of SOAR-Based Generative Questions                                                  

STRENGTHS: What can we build on?
  What are we most proud of?  How does that reflect our greatest strengths?
  What makes us unique?  What can we be best at in the world?
  How do we use our strengths to get results?
OPPORTUNITIES: What are our stakeholders asking for?
  How can we best meet the needs of our stakeholders, including customers?
  Who are possible new customers?
  How can we distinctly differentiate ourselves from competitors?
  What are possible new markets, products, services, or processes?
  What new skills do we need to move forward?
ASPIRATIONS: What do we care deeply about?
  Who are we, who should we become, and where should we go in the future?
  What strategic initiatives (i.e. projects, programs, and processes) would support our aspirations?
RESULTS: How do we know we are succeeding?
  What meaningful measures indicate that we are on track to achieving our goals?
  What resources are needed to implement our most vital projects?
  What are the best rewards to support those who achieve our goals?

Note.  Examples from Thin Book of SOAR, by Stavros and Hinrichs (2009), pp. 16-17. 

SOAR Measures and The SOAR Profile. Several qualitative and quantitative empirical studies have investigated SOAR (see Table 2.8). Qualitative studies have explored the SOAR framework by interviewing participants about the characteristics of SOAR and the SOAR element.[14][17]. For example, Malone (2010) explored SOAR as a framework for building strategic capacity in a small group setting from 39 interviews. Hitchcock (2014) explored SOAR as a framework for building organizational collective motivation from 16 interviews of US Army leaders. The studies by Malone and Hitchcock inform this study in terms of SOAR’s positive effect on building strategic capacity in small groups, and SOAR’s positive impact on building shared motivation among a small group of people.

           Quantitative studies have investigated SOAR as a predictor variable by measuring SOAR with Sprangel’s (2009) 16-item self-report questionnaire.[19][21][16][18] For example, Sprangel et al. (2011) published results of Sprangel (2009) dissertation research which found SOAR predicted supplier performance in 71 chemical services program managers. Glovis et al. (2014) published results of Glovis (2012) dissertation research which found SOAR mediated the relationship between flow and project success in 122 SAP professionals. These studies inform this study by demonstrating SOAR can have a positive impact on performance by facilitating the development of collaborative relationships through shared dialogue,[18] and by demonstrating project success can be explained by SOAR as a strengths-based framework.[21]

Recently, SOAR has been assessed in individuals and teams using a rapid assessment instrument called the SOAR Profile.[2][20] The SOAR Profile assesses strategic thinking, planning, and leading from a SOAR-based perspective. The SOAR Profile is an assessment instrument designed to help individuals learn about their strategic importance in order to improve self, team, and organizational performance.[2] The profile is designed to measure an individual’s natural capacity for SOAR-based strategic thinking. The SOAR Profile instrument is comprised of one-word descriptors of strategic thinking, planning, capacity, and leading alignment with SOAR framework. This profile is a relatively new instrument developed by Cole and Stavros (2013, 2014) based on 10 years of research using the SOAR framework. Similar to a 360 instrument in terms of self-report assessment, the SOAR Profile has participants conduct a self-assessment along a 10-point Likert-scale rating.

Several quantitative studies have investigated SOAR as measured by the SOAR Profile.[4][3][22][24][25][26][27][28][29]  For example, Cole et al. (2016) and Cole et al. (2018) published results of Cox (2014) dissertation research study of 308 professionals with team experience in which SOAR (as measured by the SOAR Profile) was found to mediate the relationship between emotional intelligence and team-based collaboration. Devries (2016) dissertation found SOAR (as measured by the SOAR Profile) mediated the relationship between strategic human resource practices and affective commitment in a sample of 188 non-enlisted civilian knowledge workers employed at the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development, and Engineering Center (TARDEC). Khan et al. (2016) used the SOAR Profile to test AI as a predictor of SOAR in a sample of more than 300 students and professionals. Kuehn (2016) dissertation found SOAR (as measured by the SOAR Profile) moderates the relationship between analytics and strategic decision making in 83 senior leader who have responsibility for strategic decisions. Lange (2016) dissertation study found SOAR (as measured by the SOAR Profile) mediates the relationship between relationship marketing and student loyalty in 174 undergraduate students. Schnellbacher (2017) dissertation study found SOAR (as measured by the SOAR Profile) moderates the relationship between new product development best practices and new product development success in 174 new product development practitioners from diverse industries. Finally, Storey (2017) dissertation study found SOAR (as measured by the SOAR Profile) was positively correlated with confirmation of an organization's bring your own device policy in 103 professionals who use their own smartphone for work. Collectively, these studies inform this study by demonstrating the applicability of the SOAR Profile to measuring SOAR in teams and team-based settings,[3][4][22] and by demonstrating the effectiveness of the SOAR framework in facilitating strengths-based shared dialogue to increase affective commitment and loyalty [24][27] successful project outcome,[28] and decision-making.[26][29]

Summary. SOAR is a framework for strategic thinking, planning, and leading that embraces a whole systems approach to strategy via generative conversations, solution seeking, and results-oriented tasks.[1][2] SOAR can be assessed in individuals and teams using a rapid assessment instrument called the SOAR Profile.[2][20] The SOAR Profile assesses strategic thinking, planning, and leading from a SOAR-based perspective, and the SOAR framework may have a positive impact on teamwork and team performance via shared dialogue, strategic decision-making, team member loyalty, and team member effective commitment to the team.[3][4][24][27]

References[edit]



This article "SOAR" is from Wikipedia. The list of its authors can be seen in its historical and/or the page Edithistory:SOAR. Articles copied from Draft Namespace on Wikipedia could be seen on the Draft Namespace of Wikipedia and not main one.

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Stavros, J. M., & Hinrichs, G. (2009). Thinbook of SOAR: Creating strengths-based strategy. Bend, OR: Thin Book Publishers.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 Stavros, J. M., & Cole, M. L. (2013). SOARing towards positive transformation and change. The ABAC ODI Visions. Action. Outcome., 1(1), 10-34.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Cole, M. L., Cox, J. D., & Stavros, J. M. (2016). Building collaboration in teams through emotional intelligence: Mediation by SOAR. Journal of Management & Organization, , 1-21. doi:10.1017/jmo.2016.43
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 Cole, M. L., Cox, J. D., & Stavros, J. M. (2018). SOAR as a mediator of the relationship between emotional intelligence and collaboration among professionals working in teams: Implications for entrepreneurial teams. SAGE Open, 8(2), 2158244018779109. doi:10.1177/2158244018779109
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Cooperrider, D. L., & Whitney, D. D. (1999). Appreciative inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Communications, Inc.
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Stavros, J. M., Cooperrider, D. L., & Kelley, D. L. (2003). Strategic inquiry appreciative intent: Inspiration to SOAR, a new framework for strategic planning. AI Practitioner, November, 10-17.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 Stavros, J. M., Cooperrider, D. L., & Kelley, D. L. (2007). SOAR: A new approach to strategic planning. In P. Homan, T. Devane & S. Cady (Eds.), The change handbook: The definitive resource on today's best methods for engaging whole systems (pp. 375-380). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 Bushe, G. R. (2007). Appreciative inquiry is not about the positive. OD Practitioner, 39(4), 33-38.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 Stavros, J. M., & Saint, D. (2010). SOAR: Linking strategy and OD to sustainable performance. In W. Rothwell, J. Stavros, R. Sullivan & A. Sullivan (Eds.), Practicing organization development: A guide for leading change (3rd ed., pp. 377-394). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 Stavros, J. M., & Wooten, L. (2012). Positive strategy: Creating and sustaining strengths-based strategy that SOARs and performs. In K. S. Cameron, & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.), The oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 824-842). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 Cameron, K. S., & Spreitzer, G. M. (2012). Introduction: What is positive about positive organizational scholarship. In K. S. Cameron, & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.), The oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 1-14). New York: Bantam Books.
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 Stavros, J. M. (2013). The generative nature of SOAR: Applications, results and the new SOAR profile. AI Practitioner: International Journal of Appreciative Inquiry, 15(31), 7-30.
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 Bushe, G. R., & Marshak, R. J. (2014). Dialogic organization development. In B. B. Jones, & M. Brazzel (Eds.), The NTL handbook of organization development and change (2nd ed., pp. 193-211). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 Hitchcock, J. A. (2014). An exploration of organizational collective motivation and the influence of the SOAR framework to build organizational collective motivation (D.B.A.). Available from Dissertations & Theses @ Lawrence Technological University, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1658214608).
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 Stavros, J. M., & Torres, C. (2018). Conversations worth having: Using appreciative inquiry to fuel productive and meaningful engagement. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Kohler Publishers, Inc.
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 Sprangel, J. R. (2009). A study of the direct and mediational effects of the SOAR™ framework, trust, and environmental management systems on chemical management services supplier performance at haas TCM group (D.B.A.). Available from Business Premium Collection, Dissertations & Theses @ Lawrence Technological University, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (305053557).
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 Malone, P. R. (2010). An appreciative exploration of strategic capacity and the impact of the SOAR framework in building strategic capacity (D.B.A.). Available from Business Premium Collection, Dissertations & Theses @ Lawrence Technological University, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (305232291).
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 18.2 Sprangel, J. R., Stavros, J. M., & Cole, M. L. (2011). Creating sustainable relationships using the strengths, opportunities, aspirations and results framework, trust, and environmentalism: A research‐based case study. International Journal of Training and Development, 15(1), 39-57. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2419.2010.00367.x
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 Glovis, M. J. (2012). A mixed methods study in the expression of flow, SOAR, and motivation: Developing individual transcendence within the delivery of complex systems integration projects (D.B.A.). Available from Business Premium Collection, Dissertations & Theses @ Lawrence Technological University, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (963537116).
  20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 20.2 Cole, M. L., & Stavros, J. M. (2014). Psychometric properties of the SOAR profile  Second Annual Research Day: Lawrence Technological University, Southfield, MI
  21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 21.2 Glovis, M. J., Cole, M. L., & Stavros, J. M. (2014). SOAR and motivation as mediators of the relationship between flow and project success. Organization Development Journal, 32(3), 57-73.
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 22.2 Cox, J. D. (2014). An evaluation of the relationship among emotional intelligence, SOAR, and collaboration: Implications for teams (D.B.A.). Available from Business Premium Collection, Dissertations & Theses @ Lawrence Technological University, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1554685620).
  23. ↑ Hitchcock, J. A. (2014). An exploration of organizational collective motivation and the influence of the SOAR framework to build organizational collective motivation (D.B.A.). Available from Dissertations & Theses @ Lawrence Technological University, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1658214608).
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 24.2 24.3 Devries, V. L. (2016). A mixed methods study on the relationship among strategic human resource practices, SOAR, and affective commitment in the federal workplace (D.B.A.). Available from Dissertations & Theses @ Lawrence Technological University, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1784000159).
  25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 Khan, A., Cole, M. L., & Stavros, J. M. (2016). Appreciative inquiry: An operating system for SOAR Fourth Annual Research Day: Lawrence Technological University, Southfield, MI.
  26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 26.2 Kuehn, L. M. (2016). An exploration of the strategic decision making process and the influence of appreciative inquiry and SOAR on a senior leader's use of analytics (D.B.A.). Available from Dissertations & Theses @ Lawrence Technological University, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1862107940).
  27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 27.2 27.3 Lange, T. (2016). The role of relationship marketing and SOAR in university recruiting and retention (D.B.A.). Available from Dissertations & Theses @ Lawrence Technological University, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1771924675).
  28. ↑ 28.0 28.1 28.2 Schnellbacher, E. J. (2017). New product development: The role of best practices and SOAR in predicting new product success (D.B.A.). Available from Dissertations & Theses @ Lawrence Technological University, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1896955619).
  29. ↑ 29.0 29.1 29.2 Storey, G. S. (2017). An empirical analysis of bring-your-own-device (BYOD) policy adoption in organizations (D.B.A.). Available from Dissertations & Theses @ Lawrence Technological University, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1886088909).
  30. ↑ Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (2003). Foundations of positive organizational scholarship. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 3-13). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
  31. ↑ Cameron, K. S., & Spreitzer, G. M. (2012). Introduction: What is positive about positive organizational scholarship. In K. S. Cameron, & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.), The oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 1-14). New York: Bantam Books.
  32. ↑ Humphrey, A. S. (2005, December). History corner. SRI International Alumni Association, pp. 7-8.
  33. ↑ Whitney, D. D., & Trosten-Bloom, A. (2003). The power of appreciative inquiry: A practical guide to positive change. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Retrieved from "https://en.everybodywiki.com/index.php?title=SOAR&oldid=955283"
License CC BY-SA 3.0
Powered by MediaWiki
Powered by Semantic MediaWiki