New Horizons in Adult Education

Strengths, opportunities,
& Human Resource Development
aspirations, and results: An 29(1), 5-19
emerging approach to
organization development

Jill Zarestky1
Catherine S. Cole2

Abstract
Organization development (OD) interventions have typically relied on the strengths, weaknesses, opportuni-
ties, and threats (SWOT) framework for strategic planning. The strengths, opportunities, aspirations, and re-
sults (SOAR) framework is a relatively new innovation in OD that may serve as a viable alternative to
SWOT for those who wish to apply an appreciative inquiry approach. This paper presents the results of a
scoping study in which the limited but varied literature support for SOAR is reviewed. An extensive search
uncovered 27 publications pertaining to SOAR, which were then analyzed chronologically and thematically.
Although findings include an overwhelmingly positive appraisal of SOAR, many gaps were uncovered in the
literature and research regarding empirical support for the framework.
Keywords: SOAR, organization development, strategic planning, appreciative inquiry
Focused on organizational improvement, HRD professionals emphasize positive change and “making things
better” (Swanson & Holton, 2009, p. 17). It therefore stands to reason that our strategies and approaches as
HRD researchers, scholars, and practitioners should reflect our optimistic and forward-thinking priorities. As
one means to do so, appreciative inquiry (AI) and the strengths, opportunities, aspirations, and results
(SOAR) framework may be valuable tools in the HRD professional’s repertoire. Yet even with this discipline
-wide emphasis on the positive, organization development interventions have typically relied on the
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) framework as a strategic planning tool (McLean,
2006), which necessarily incorporates negative perspectives with its weakness and threats components. The
SOAR framework is a relatively new innovation in organization development (OD) specifically developed as
an alternative to SWOT for those who wish to apply an AI approach to OD (Stavros & Hinrichs, 2009).
SOAR and SWOT share an analysis of strengths and opportunities but differ in the remaining two compo-
nents, aspirations and results versus weaknesses and threats. While some argue SWOT encourages a balanced
assessment, others maintain SWOT has the potential to focus participants on correcting deficits, not building
on strengths (Braveman et al., 2011) and may facilitate an overemphasis on the negative aspects, weaknesses

1
Colorado State University
Corresponding Author: Jill Zarestky, Colorado State University, School of Education, 1588 Campus Delivery Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-
1588
Author Email: jill.zarestky@colostate.edu

Copyright © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., A Wiley Company

6 New Horizons in Adult Education & Human Resource Development, 29(1)
and threats, and subsequently hamper organizational momentum (Stavros & Hinrichs, 2009). In contrast,
SOAR encourages a focus on aspirations and results, pushing the OD process toward hopeful possibilities and
concrete outcomes (Stavros & Hinrichs, 2009). As Swanson and Holton (2009) affirmed, humans create or-
ganizations: they “can soar or crumble” (p. 10). As one aspect of success, an organization and its stakeholders
need to maintain positive outlooks; HRD professionals may use tools, such as the SOAR framework, to culti-
vate organizational optimism.
The purpose of this paper is to present the SOAR framework and explore its value for HRD research and prac-
tice, with an emphasis on comparison to its closest relative, SWOT. We share the findings of a scoping study
conducted to investigate SOAR as an alternative to SWOT, with a focus on SOAR as an AI-based strategic
planning approach that builds on positive mindsets. We conclude with a discussion of the SOAR framework,
its applications, and recommendations for its use in HRD contexts.
Significance and Background
SWOT is currently a dominant framework in OD (Bright & Miller, 2013; McLean, 2006) but, as previously
introduced, SWOT’s own weakness is its emphasis on negative and competitive aspects of strategic planning.
A revised model may be appropriate for organizations that emphasize inclusivity and contributions from di-
verse stakeholders or that struggle with morale. SOAR is the emerging OD framework designed to address that
need (Stavros & Hinrichs, 2009). As a relatively new OD tool, the academic and scholarly literature pertain-
ing to SOAR lacks depth and cohesion. The present study is the first comprehensive effort to explore existing
literature and evaluate the value of SOAR to future research and practice in HRD and OD.
In the next sections, we present the background to the study. We begin with our personal experiences with
SOAR, the impetus for this study, as useful concrete examples of SOAR in differing contexts. We then dis-
cuss the functions of HRD typically associated with change and the theoretical foundations of SOAR and its
connections to OD, strategic planning, and AI.
Authors’ Experiences with SOAR
As HRD scholars and practitioners, both authors of this paper previously had separate and positive experiences
with implementing strengths-based strategic planning. By way of personal background, we each give a brief
account of our personal experiences. Zarestky was tasked with planning one 90-minute session of a three-day
professional development event for university faculty where participants would analyze the relative merits of
different course formats (traditional in-person, online, and hybrid/flipped). In the planning phase, a colleague
from psychology suggested the SOAR framework as an alternative to SWOT for the purpose of keeping the
conversation constructive and optimistic. During and after using the SOAR framework in the session, Za-
restky noted attendees’ attitudes were almost exclusively upbeat and the session had generated positive energy
that sustained participants for the rest of the day. In the summary evaluations from the three-day event, partic-
ipants’ feedback rated the SOAR framework as a conference highlight and indicated they planned to use
SOAR with both faculty and students at their home institutions. They appreciated its emphasis on positivity
and understood its value for problem-solving and overcoming preconceived notions (e.g. applying the frame-
work to a context in which one feels burdened, limited, or unenthusiastic).
As a volunteer for a local nonprofit organization, Cole was asked to complete an organizational culture survey
with staff and selected members of the board of directors. The nonprofit had successfully traversed a few chal-
lenging years and, at the time of the request, had a committed and passionate board, a stable staff, and a new
CEO. In order to move forward in excellence, leadership committed to developing a five-year strategic plan.
Having been exposed to AI in her doctoral studies, Cole was familiar with the proposed benefits of a strengths-
based framework. This survey was conducted as preparatory work for the upcoming five-year strategic plan-
ning process to fulfill an internal step of the strategic planning process within a nonprofit organization. Cole
conducted 14 hours of interviews with nine full-time staff and five directors in which she engaged them in
conversations about their organizational culture. Questions derived from AI and the SOAR framework guided
participants to articulate desired qualities of a corporate culture during the semi-structured interviews.
Conducted during a time of significant change within the organization, employees and board members identi-
fied “pie in the sky” aspirations that led to overall organizational enthusiasm. These aggressive goals included
7 New Horizons in Adult Education & Human Resource Development, 29(1)
eliminating poverty, academic and financial illiteracy, and “pay day” lenders in the surrounding counties. Ta-
ble 1 depicts some examples of aspirations and corresponding results derived from Cole’s experience.
Just like Zarestlky, Cole noted attendees’ attitudes were almost exclusively optimistic and each interview was
filled with positive energy. Results from the process included a strengths-based strategic plan and measurable
outcomes. Note that many of the results presented in Table 1 are measurable and could immediately be used to
assess the organization’s success.
Table 1
Example Aspirations and Potential Results

Organizational Aspirations Result

Provide resources for better lives to:
Children Every child is kindergarten ready
Every child learns to read
Truancy rates are eliminated
100% high school of students graduate
Every child in pre-K through second grade is exposed to
Montessori learning
Every child has a child savings account
Adults Every resident who needs it knows about the Financial
Fitness Center
Every resident is financially literate
Families Every resident has the education needed for a good job
Poverty rates are eliminated
Every resident have access to health care
Communities Each community can identify their own challenges
Every resident knows how the organization helps their
community and can connect the organization to a person-
al story
Pays for all administrative costs Every penny goes to programs and/or partner agencies
through a $10 million endowment.
Funding sources for the most needy. "Repeat callers" are eliminated because root causes of
their needs are resolved
Run or support a job-skills training Partner with or found a job-skills training center in the
center. next five years
Win and effectively implement large Submit at least one proposal to a funding agency every
-scale grants. year; be successfully funded within five years
Eliminate all "pay day" lenders in They are gone!
the area.

SOAR Foundations
In this section, we briefly address some of the foundational ideas and perspectives that pertain to SOAR. We
begin with OD as the setting or context in which SOAR is frequently couched. We then address AI, the philo-
sophical perspective underlying SOAR. We conclude with an overview of the SWOT framework as the popu-
lar predecessor to which SOAR is most often compared because they share the strengths and opportunities
components.
8 New Horizons in Adult Education & Human Resource Development, 29(1)
Organization development. OD is the function of HRD typically facilitating change in organizations or other
contexts, with an emphasis on holistic perspectives. McLean (2006) defines OD as process or activities for the
purpose of developing “enhanced knowledge, expertise, productivity, satisfaction, income, interpersonal rela-
tionships, and other desired outcomes,” with goals including “personal or group/team gain” and applied to ben-
efit “an organization, community, nation, region, or, ultimately, the whole of humanity” (p. 9). In terms of stra-
tegic organizational planning, OD practitioners strive to create effective long-term change (McLean, 2006). As
such, SOAR’s use of aspirations and results aligns well with OD’s emphasis on measurable outcomes. OD
practitioners are increasingly applying an AI perspective to their work (Saretsky, 2013).
Appreciative inquiry. AI is the philosophy foundational to SOAR in both research and practice (Stavros,
Cole, & Hitchcock, 2014). Early AI studies (e.g. Cooperrider, 1986; Cooperrider & Srivasta, 1987) highlighted
the value of inclusivity and collaboration to meet organizational goals. AI practitioners operate from the prem-
ise that one should begin any process by first identifying what is right in an organization (Cooperrider, Whit-
ney, & Stavros, 2008). Cooperrider and Whitney (1999) define AI as “the cooperative search for the best in
people, their organizations, and the world around them” (p. 5). As part of this search for the best, AI practi-
tioners advocate for asking questions that emphasize participants’ positivity, optimism, and the strengths.
When such assets are applied to any change agenda, “changes never thought possible are suddenly and demo-
cratically mobilized” (Cooperrider & Whitney, 1999, p. 5).
Glenn, Saretsky, and Stetson (2014) describe AI as being used for a wide variety of activities and projects in-
cluding “strategic planning, professional development, conflict resolution, program review, accreditation self-
study, instructional designs, team development, and celebrating diversity” (p. 4). Across the literature base, AI
is consistently the foundation for the SOAR framework when used in strategic planning. Both AI and SOAR
align well with work on related topics, including positive psychology (e.g. Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi,
2000), positive emotions (e.g. Fredrickson, 2003), and positive organizational scholarship (Cooperrider &
Sekerka, 2003). Connections among positive frameworks in varying disciplines may help to explain the per-
ceived value and impact of AI and SOAR. However, an AI approach contrasts traditional change interventions
such as SWOT; AI has been critiqued in the scholarly literature for its lack of a comprehensive perspective
(Grant & Humphries, 2006), which is out of alignment with the holistic systems view of OD. Therefore, re-
searchers and practitioners who choose to apply AI may wish to carefully consider other means to address the
breadth of issues associated with quality OD interventions.
SWOT. SWOT is the approach to strategic planning considered the standard for the last 60 years (McLean,
2006; Hill & Westbrook, 1997) and is the foundation from which SOAR was derived (Stavros & Hinrichs,
2009). SWOT is a tool that assesses the current state of the organization and generally attempts to balance the
positive (strengths and opportunities) with the negative (weaknesses and threats). As a result of this balance,
SWOT is valuable as a comprehensive tool, in alignment with the holistic concerns of OD and is generally
used to understand and plan for the organization’s current or pending competition. Advocates of SOAR argue
SWOT lacks longer-term vision and accounting for the human factors and may therefore inhibit creativity and
innovation or be a negative emotional experience for participants (Stavros, 2013). Some scholars (e.g.,
Braveman et al., 2011; Stavros, Cooperrider, & Kelley, 2003) have classified SWOT as a deficit-based frame-
work because of the weaknesses and threats components. Certainly though, the successfulness or values orien-
tation of any intervention relies upon the skills of the facilitator, the purpose or goals of the exercise, and the
ways in which the results of the analyses are subsequently used by the organization.
While the SOAR framework matches SWOT by addressing strengths and opportunities, SOAR incorporates an
AI perspective by focusing on aspirations and results. Advocates of SOAR argue it drives “organizational en-
ergy to be intensely positive” (Stavros, 2013, p. 11) and extends beyond the current state of the organization to
build on its strengths to create “the most desirable future” (Stavros et al., 2014, p. 76).
A comparison of the foundational and conceptual differences between SOAR and SWOT is presented in Table
2. These differences include the replacement of the SWOT steps weaknesses and threats by the appreciative
intent SOAR aspects aspirations and results (Stavros & Hinrichs, 2009). Although leadership may determine
long-term objectives in either framework, the aspiration and results steps of SOAR engage stakeholders in tac-
tical plans to achieve the desired future. In general, the SOAR framework is meant to keep participants, em-
ployees, and other stakeholders focused on the positive and the achievable through a far-sighted and democrat-
ic process. In contrast, the SWOT framework emphasizes competition and bases strategic planning and organi-
zation development on the weakness and threats components.
9 New Horizons in Adult Education & Human Resource Development, 29(1)

Table 2
Key Comparisons and Differences Between the SWOT and SOAR Frameworks

SWOT SOAR
Weaknesses and Threats Aspirations and Results
Analysis Oriented Action Oriented
Competition focus Possibility focus
Incremental improvement Innovation and breakthroughs
Top down Engagement of all levels
Focus on Analysis → Planning Focus on planning → Implementation
Energy depleting – There are so many weak- Energy creating – We are good and can be-
Attention to Gaps Attention to Results

Adapted from Thin Book of SOAR: Building Strengths Based Strategy, by J. M. Stavros and G. Hinrichs, 2009,
p.12. Copyright 2009 by Thin Book Publishing.

Methodology
In exploring SOAR as a useful alternative to SWOT for HRD practitioners, we conducted a scoping study to
identify existing literature on SOAR, analyze its origins and usage, and to assess the current state of SOAR
research and literature. According to Grant and Booth (2009), a scoping study is generally a preliminary as-
sessment of the potential size and scope of available research. Scoping studies “involve the synthesis and
analysis of a wide range” of literature (Davis, Drey, & Gould, 2009, p. 1386). SOAR is a relatively recent in-
novation and has yet to be explored fully in academic research; there is little information available on SOAR
in scholarly, peer-reviewed journals. Therefore, a scoping study is an appropriate choice of methodology be-
cause it is inclusive of all types of publications. In the present case, it was necessary to assess the full breadth
of publications pertaining to SOAR to gain a complete picture of its theoretical foundations and applicability
to practice.
Research Question
The research question for a scoping study should produce a wide range of references and facilitate the identifi-
cation of all research, regardless of study methodology (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). For the present investiga-
tion, we valued practitioner reports as well as scholarly works. Therefore, our research question for the scoping
study was necessarily broad and general: What information exists regarding the SOAR framework?
Search Strategy
To identify as much information as possible, consistent with the scoping study methodology, we conducted an
electronic search using EBSCOhost and all of the 122 databases available from our university library system.
Searches were restricted to English language publications. Using Boolean connections, we searched the key
terms “strengths,” “opportunities,” “aspirations,” and “results” and initially identified 26 publications for ab-
stract review.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

In reviewing selected abstracts, we established broad inclusion criteria. For inclusion in the review, publica-
tions had to: (a) be written or translated into English and (b) pertain specifically to the SOAR framework, not
10 New Horizons in Adult Education & Human Resource Development, 29(1)
just mention all components of the acronym. We excluded from consideration unrefereed conference proceed-
ings, master’s theses, and Internet-only information, including blog posts and webpages from consulting firms.
There were no inclusion criteria based upon publication date.
In addition to the electronic search, we also conducted a limited hand search of bibliographies from publica-
tions already identified. This search produced three additional items, one book and two book chapters, to in-
clude in our full-text reviews. Both researchers then independently evaluated each of the 29 potential publica-
tions, resource abstracts, and books; differences of opinion were resolved through discussion. After closer ex-
amination of the abstracts and books, two additional publications were excluded. One was an unrefereed con-
ference proceeding, and the other was excluded because it ultimately did not pertain to the SOAR framework.
Both researchers approved the inclusion of all 27 full-text publications presented in this article, which included
trade and practitioner publications (11), doctoral dissertations (8), scholarly and peer-reviewed articles (4),
book chapters (2), one book, and one newspaper article. Figure 1 presents the distribution of each type of pub-
lication as a percentage of the total number.

Figure 1. The different types of included publications as percentages of the total number.

Data Extraction and Analysis

Both authors agreed on data to extract. We applied a matrix method procedure generally associated with sys-
tematic literature reviews (Garrard, 2004). The extracted data from each publication included author(s), year
of publication, discipline, type of publication, methodology if applicable, the study or article’s use of SOAR
and context, the participant or employee group, findings or results as related to SOAR, and implications for
future research or practice. After one researcher completed data extraction, the other verified the information.
In this way, data were validated. Table 3 presents a brief overview of publications included in the present
study, organized in chronological order beginning with the earliest publications, and including the author(s),
year of publication, discipline, type of publication, methodology if applicable, and a brief description of the
publication’s use of SOAR.
Table 3
Chronological Summary of Included Publications
11 New Horizons in Adult Education & Human Resource Development, 29(1)
Table 3 Continued

Author(s) Year Discipline Type of Pub- Methodology Use or presentation of SOAR

lication (if applicable)
Stavros, 2003 Business Trade/ N/A An alternative to the traditional
Cooperrider, & Practitioner deficit-based planning processes
Kelley
McKenna, 2007 Strategic Plan- Trade/ N/A Applied as one component of a 5-
Daykin, Mohr, ning/OD Practitioner D process (Definition, Discovery,
& Silbert Dream, Design, and Destiny).
Strengths and opportunities are
used with discover; Aspirations
and results are used with dream
Stavros & Hin- 2007 Business Trade/ N/A An effective and flexible strate-
richs Practitioner gic framework that releases an
organization's energy, creativity,
and engagement
Stavros, 2007 Business Book Chap- N/A Presented as a new approach to
Cooperrider, & ter strategic planning
Kelley
Sprangel 2009 Business Ad- Dissertation Quantitative Improved trust and performance
ministration of suppliers to decrease customer
costs, improve supplier revenues,
and reduce harmful environmen-
tal impacts
Stavros & Hin- 2009 Business Book N/A Discussed in the context of build-
richs ing a strengths-based strategic
plan
Gauthier & Ste- 2010 Business Newspaper N/A Described as a technique result-
phenson ing in a strategic plan focused on
the possible and motivation
Hinrichs 2010 Business Trade/ N/A Engaged more of the stakehold-
Practitioner ers in collaboration, shared un-
derstanding, and commitment to
action
Malone 2010 Business Ad- Dissertation Qualitative A method to build strategic ca-
ministration pacity
Braveman, 2011 Hospital Ad- Trade/ N/A An AI strategic planning model
Baize, ministration Practitioner for comprehensive visioning and
Malacara, Mor- planning purposes
ris, Munoz,
Scheetz, &
Wring
Sprangel, Stav- 2011 Training & De- Scholarly Quantitative Improved trust and performance
ros, & Cole velopment of suppliers to decrease customer
costs, improve supplier revenues,
and reduce harmful environmen-
tal impacts
Newman 2011 Organizational Dissertation Mixed Meth- Coaching with individuals and
Development ods teams showed positive results
Cooperrider & 2012 Organization Book Chap- N/A A framework for innovation-
Godwin Development ter inspired positive organization
development
Crusoe 2012 Higher Educa- Trade/ N/A A process to create a model for
tion Practitioner future actions and team develop-
ment
Glovis 2012 Business Ad- Dissertation Mixed Meth- Influential on project
ministration ods success, motivation, and flow
12 New Horizons in Adult Education & Human Resource Development, 29(1)
Stavros 2013 Business Trade/ N/A Supported a culture of strategic
Practitioner learning and leadership by build-
ing appreciative intelligence
Stavros & Cole 2013 Strategic plan- Trade/ N/A Evolution from the fields of strat-
ning/OD Practitioner egy, organization development
and change, and AI to positive
organizational scholarship
Swafford 2013 Education and Dissertation Qualitative One component of a professional
Psychology development seminar
Cox 2014 Business Ad- Dissertation Quantitative Evaluated the relationships be-
ministration tween emotional intelligence,
SOAR, and collaboration
Glenn, 2014 Higher Educa- Trade/ N/A Craft a vision for the preferred
Saretsky, & tion Practitioner future, build teams, and monitor

Clovis, Cole, & 2014 Organization Scholarly Quantitative Helped to explain the positive
Stavros Development effect of other variables on pro-
ject success
Hitchcock 2014 Business Ad- Dissertation Mixed Meth- Contributed to creating the Or-
ministration ods ganizational Collective Motiva-
tion (OCM) Framework, which
pertains to organizational trans-
formation and elements such as
efficacy, cohesion, identification
with the organization, goal com-

Khavarian- 2014 Tourism Scholarly Qualitative Provide a plan for sustainable

Garmsir & Zare tourism development
Peaslee 2014 Higher Educa- Trade/ N/A Develop an AI culture

Stavros, Cole, 2014 Business Trade/ N/A Build trust and strategic capacity
& Hitchcock Practitioner in executive coaching and organi-
zational collective motivation
Casey 2015 Library Admin- Scholarly Qualitative One of three approaches used to

After extracting the data, we analyzed it in two ways. First, we analyzed the publications chronologically to
assess the development of SOAR over time, focusing on the evolution and dissemination of the framework and
its applications. We then conducted a thematic content analysis of the extracted data using the constant com-
parative method (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) informed by Creswell’s (2009) process. We manually unitized identi-
fied data from included publications (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Using the method of constant comparison, we
then sorted the unitized data into like groups from which we identified categories and subsequently organized
those categories into themes (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Three themes emerged from the thematic analysis pro-
cess as findings and are discussed in the next sections.
Findings
In this section, we present findings from the analysis of data extracted from the included publications. We
begin by sharing a chronological analysis of the literature. We then present findings from the content analysis
organized around three themes that emerged around the use and value of the SOAR framework.
Chronological Analysis Findings
Although Stavros et al. (2014) reported SOAR was created in 1999, the earliest publication related to the
SOAR framework identified was published in 2003 and appeared in the publication AI Practitioner. “AI Prac-
titioner is the international journal focusing on positive relational approaches to change such as Appreciative
Inquiry” (AI Practitioner, 2015, “What is AI Practitioner?”, para. 1) and functions as a strategy-focused re-
source for OD practitioners. The publication included a detailed description, definition, and discussion of
SOAR as a change agent used in strategic planning and was presented as an alternative to the SWOT frame-
13 New Horizons in Adult Education & Human Resource Development, 29(1)
work (Stavros, Cooperrider, & Kelley, 2003). In particular, Stavros et al. (2003) introduced SOAR as a shift
in thinking. This shift included moving toward an appreciative-based approach to planning, taking into ac-
count values. While the reference list for the article included previous AI publications, no prior publications
on SOAR were listed, implying that 2003 marks the first public introduction of SOAR into the collective prac-
titioner toolkit. Figure 2 depicts the progression in number of publications related to SOAR since 2003, which
has been on the rise in recent years.

Figure 2. The number of SOAR-related publications by year.

As might be expected from an innovator, Stavros was not only the first author on the first identified publica-
tion but she also dominated the SOAR-related publications in general and was listed as an author on nine out
of 27 (33%) of publications included in the present study. In addition, Stavros served on the committee for
four out of eight (50%) of the included doctoral dissertations. Second author on the 2003 publication, Cooper-
rider was first or coauthor on three of 27 publications. Although he is represented less often as an author in the
SOAR literature, his AI work was cited multiple times as the foundation upon which SOAR was built.
Proceeding chronologically, three more publications appeared in 2007. These included trade and practitioner
publications and a book chapter. Again, these publications gave detailed introductions to SOAR as a new way
and strengths-based framework to strategically plan and were practitioner focused (McKenna, Daykin, Mohr,
& Silbert, 2007; Stavros et al., 2007; Stavros, & Hinrichs, 2007).
The first research study identified in the literature was a dissertation completed in 2009. It was the first time in
the included literature that SOAR was the subject of an empirical study. Sprangel (2009) studied trust, perfor-
mance of suppliers, and the impact of an environmental management system. Six out of eight (75%) identified
dissertations were related to business contexts and five out of eight (63%) dissertations identified were com-
pleted at Lawrence Technological University in the College of Management. The remaining three SOAR-
related dissertations came from individually-represented institutions. In addition to business, other disciplines
represented in the SOAR literature were Educational Research and Educational Psychology.
Eleven out of 27 (41%) publications appeared in AI Practitioner, the business-related publication for practi-
tioners mentioned previously. Although these publications reported positive results from SOAR and advocat-
ed for its use in OD, they generally lacked supporting detail, including empirical research findings.
14 New Horizons in Adult Education & Human Resource Development, 29(1)
Only four of the publications related to SOAR were published in scholarly, peer-reviewed journals. Of those
four, two applied qualitative methodologies and two applied quantitative. The first of the scholarly articles was
published in 2011 (Sprangel, Stavros, & Cole, 2011), a quantitative study within the training and development
specialization. Results from the use of the SOAR framework with supply managers and customers included
decreased customer costs, improved revenues, and a reduction in harmful environmental impacts. Additional-
ly, the SOAR framework helped build trust and collaboration among participants. Glovis, Cole, and Stavros
(2014a) conducted the other quantitative study by using mediation analysis to explain the effects of variables
on project success. The two qualitative scholarly articles were not in the discipline of business. Khavarian-
Garmsir and Zare (2014) completed a qualitative study investigating sustainable tourism development and Ca-
sey (2015) applied the SOAR framework within library administration to create a new strategic plan for an es-
tablished library system.
Thematic Analysis Findings
In this section, we present findings related to the use and value of the SOAR framework organized around the
three themes that emerged from the previously described thematic analysis: it is (a) value-driven, (b) strengths-
focused, and (c) perceived as an effective tool.
Value-driven. From the first identified publication, advocates of SOAR called for a change in strategic think-
ing away from a single-minded emphasis on “new ways of performing the daily operations of the organiza-
tion” towards including “stakeholders’ values and shared vision” (Stavros et al., 2003, p. 1-2). Creating an
open, value-driven strategic planning opportunity has allowed groups to imagine “bold, new futures” (Glen et
al., 2014, p. 4).
In the literature, the perception of the SOAR framework is that it recognizes employees’ desire to make a real
difference. They want to “to engage their minds, hearts, and spirits” (Stavros & Hinrichs, 2009, p. 5). For ex-
ample, Crusoe (2012) reported that the SOAR framework used within a nursing school helped nursing faculty
identify their bold dream: helping “students learn how to make a difference as nurses in and for the world” (p.
31). As Stavros and Hinrichs (2009) argued, “the SOAR process connects the dots between those individual
values and organizational efforts” (p. 4).
SOAR not only allows participants to build on their personal values, it is also perceived to promote the inclu-
sion of all stakeholders. Unlike SWOT, which is generally top-down, SOAR incorporates a comprehensive
approach (Stavros et al., 2014), encompassing of employees at all levels. Stavros and Hinrichs (2007) suggest-
ed the ability to energize and reach employees regardless of rank or position may better help organizations to
attain their strategic goals. In addition, Stavros (2013) highlighted the ease of incorporating the input of exter-
nal stakeholders, including customers, suppliers, and even the communities with which the organization inter-
acts, when using the SOAR framework. Involving a wide range of people in the strategic planning effort may
promote buy-in and aide success (Stavros et al., 2003).
Strengths-focused. Without exception, all included publications noted the appeal of a strengths-based ap-
proach. According to Rath (2007), people have greater potential for growth when they invest energy into
building on strengths instead of trying to correct deficiencies. The SOAR framework approaches strategic
planning from the perspective of the organization’s strengths and facilitates growth from those strengths
(Stavros et al., 2003).
Focusing on strengths captures organizational energies. Hinrichs (2010) reported that participants valued the
strengths step and corresponding conversation as the most impactful and energizing part of the SOAR process.
This energy enables the organization and the strategic planning process to focus on the future success of the
organization (Stavros & Hinrichs, 2007). Energy also is critical to support achieving longer-term goals and
objectives (Stavros, 2013).
As opposed to a medical or deficit-based model of trying to diagnose what is wrong, SOAR facilitates the
identification of what is right. Once the organization has identified what they are doing well, it makes sense to
invest precious resources, such as time and money, into building on these strengths. This helps organizations
to “learn and grow from strengths and success” (Glenn et al., 2014, p. 4).
Effective. Once the organization has connected employee and stakeholder values to the mission and achieved
a shift in thinking toward the organization’s strengths, SOAR’s final step is to ensure results are accomplished.
15 New Horizons in Adult Education & Human Resource Development, 29(1)
The “R” in SOAR, which now stands for results, has evolved from related terms: recognize, resources, and
rewards (Stavros, 2013). Stavros (2013) acknowledged results continue to require that resources and rewards
are built into the strategic system. That is, to get results, an organization must have resources and rewards for
employees in place and consistent with strategic goals and objectives.
Stavros and Hinrichs (2009) postulated organizations face uncertainties now more than ever. Particularly for
global organizations, employees have 24-hour workdays and 7-day workweeks. The authors recommended
SOAR to ensure employees have the information they need and are aligned to organizational values in a way
that promotes success even under the most challenging global circumstances. The outcome of SOAR is
clearly aligned action for all stakeholders through widespread understanding of the benefits of collective ef-
forts (Stavros & Hinrichs, 2009).
Focusing on results is encouraging to all stakeholders (Stavros, 2013). Stavros and Hinrichs (2009) found
results are met more quickly when stakeholders are connected, as in the SOAR framework, and the subse-
quent increased energy propels employees forward to deal with challenges and potential barriers. This whole
-system focus and alignment may contribute to the perception that SOAR is more effective than traditional
strategic planning within the related literature.
Engaging stakeholders in the aspiration stage of SOAR promotes needed innovations from “thought to fin-
ish” (Stavros & Hinrichs, 2007, p. 7). Each employee has a voice in what they want the organization to be-
come. Hinrichs (2007) reported that this process improved commitment, and commitment was the leading
indicator for future organizational success.
Consistent with our personal experiences implementing SOAR, our included publications overwhelmingly
reported positive results. For example, Hinrichs (2010) reported that, in her study of an equipment manufac-
turer, SOAR produced better results than previously used approaches, including more products, improved
creative thinking, and greater innovation. Within a school of nursing, Crusoe (2012) used SOAR to plan for
and measure results associated with course work, learning communities, and overall program evaluation. Us-
ing a mediation analysis, Glovis et al. (2014) found SOAR positively affected project management. Similarly,
Khavarian-Garmsir and Zare (2014) found current business pressures require “higher levels of innovation and
faster results” (p. 324) and argues that SOAR promotes innovation and therefore improved outcomes. All of
these results were credited, at least in part, to SOAR’s whole-system approach and focus on results.
Implications and Discussion
The limited existing literature has presented SOAR in an unwaveringly positive light, unsurprising consider-
ing the likely enthusiasm of early adopters. While that general enthusiasm should encourage HRD profes-
sionals to at least consider SOAR as an alternative to its predecessor SWOT, what remains missing from the
current body of knowledge, and therefore beyond the scope of this scoping study, is an assessment of
SOAR’s own weaknesses and a more objective direct comparison to SWOT. As such, the present study’s
findings are inherently biased in favor of SOAR.
Implications for future research and application varied widely among the publications in this study and we
present here but a few of the most common or impactful implications. A number of recommendations were
specific to context, demonstrating the broad applicability of SOAR. For example, in her study of university
library personnel, Casey (2015) recommends broadening the use of SOAR in university settings to engage
faculty and staff in strategic planning. Similarly, Khavarian-Garmsir and Zare (2014) envision SOAR as ap-
plicable to further research in sustainable tourism practices. As we found anecdotally through our personal
experiences, SOAR was an effective tool for Zarestky’s faculty development context and Cole’s non-profit
strategic planning process. This alignment of findings reinforces the applicability of SOAR to diverse and
varied contexts. Thus, we encourage scholars and practitioners to explore the framework in their own particu-
lar settings and situations.
Additional recommendations for research and practice pertaining to SOAR build upon established elements
of HRD and OD. Scholars publishing on SOAR recommended further exploration of the framework’s ap-
plicability to project management, effective leadership, positive organizational scholarship (POS) (Glovis et
al., 2014), organizational collective motivation (OCM) (Hitchcock, 2014), and strategic planning (McKenna
et al., 2007). Malone (2010) recommends investigating SOAR in connection to leadership development,
16 New Horizons in Adult Education & Human Resource Development, 29(1)
coaching, conflict resolution, and strategic planning. As one element of building strategic capacity, Malone
(2010) suggests organizations may wish to use SOAR with customers as an approach for continuous improve-
ment of business processes and procedures.
Further investigation is also needed regarding the transition of practitioners from diagnostic strategies like
SWOT to strengths-based frameworks and practices like SOAR (Sprangel et al., 2011). Some authors noted
the positive emotional states of study participants after engaging in SOAR exercises. In particular, Swafford
(2013) recommended a comparative investigation into the physical and emotional effects of participating in
both processes.
There are currently only four scholarly, peer-reviewed articles on the SOAR framework and clearly further
investigation is necessary. Stavros (2013) acknowledged that SOAR is, as yet, unexplored in other cultures
and regions. Most of the work to date has been conducted in North America. Applications of SOAR outside
this region, with the exception of Khavarian-Garmsir and Zare’s (2014) work, remains to be explored. There
is a major gap in the scholarly literature regarding evidence-based assessments of the framework and its ap-
plication in different cultures and context.
As a relatively new strategy, SOAR seems to be gaining momentum and yet the SWOT framework remains
dominant. As mentioned previously, Stavros, Cooperrider, and Kelley (2003) introduced SOAR as a shift in
thinking from a deficit-based to an appreciative-based planning approach. We hypothesize that what Stavros
calls a shift in thinking is actually more of a paradigm shift (Kuhn, 2012). Therefore, one reason SWOT may
still have a stronghold is that paradigm shifts simply take time (Kuhn, 2012). Kuhn, in his work The Struc-
ture of Scientific Revolutions (2012), discussed barriers to widespread adoption of new worldviews including
resistance to change. SWOT is the familiar, top-down tool and is quick and comfortable for managers. There
is always a barrier to entry when a tool requires managers or professionals of any kind to commit time and
energy to learning that tool. SOAR is a relatively new and untried tool and will naturally require some time to
prove its usefulness and allow managers to adapt. We also expect that the incorporation of varied stakeholder
views and the degree of control managers have over the OD process will likely be closely tied to corporate
culture and politics. Culture and politics are unavoidably influential with respect to organizations’ goal -
setting and strategic planning processes. Thus, additional investigation and theory building around the SOAR
framework is also necessary to fully explore its implications for OD and influence on organizational culture
and politics.
Recommendations and Conclusion
Continued exploration of SOAR through scholarly research will be crucial to the framework’s further dissem-
ination. While the literature uncovered as part of the present study is undoubtedly relevant, many open ques-
tions remain regarding the SOAR framework and its place in scholarship and practice. We have a number of
recommendations for future research topics, including SOAR’s efficacy in a variety of HRD contexts, both
short- and long-term. Based on SOAR as a positive experience for participants, one might investigate the
physical and emotional experiences of using SOAR. Moving forward with SOAR from a practitioner’s per-
spective, future applications of SOAR include its continued and increased use in OD, as an alternative frame-
work. We see it also being relevant in training and development contexts, including needs assessments.
SOAR’s incorporation of results also has potential applications for issues of accountability in the workplace.
Lastly, because it is framed in the literature as an alternative to SWOT, we recommend a direct empirical
comparison of the two frameworks.
While SOAR aligns with our personal preferences and professional styles and may represent a paradigm shift,
we find it unlikely SOAR will ever replace SWOT completely. There will always be organizations with top-
down management styles, short-term goal setting priorities, and highly competitive operations. For those or-
ganizations, SWOT is likely still the more appropriate tool. For organizations that operate in less competitive
environments or wish to foster a culture of inclusivity, as in many less traditional organizational structures,
SOAR may be the better choice. It remains an open question whether one must necessarily choose between
weaknesses and threats or aspirations and results. We believe continued evolution of these frameworks may
incorporate all options. Skilled facilitators will certainly have the experience and expertise to harness the best
of each, as needed.
17 New Horizons in Adult Education & Human Resource Development, 29(1)

In this article, we have explored the origins, usage, and applications of the SOAR framework and compared it
to its preexisting alternative, SWOT, by using a scoping study of the available literature on the topic. Our
analyses highlighted the lack of scholarly literature, despite SOAR’s growing popularity and positive reputa-
tion among practitioners. We also highlighted SOAR’s connection to and applicability for OD utilizing an AI
perspective. We view results of our study as the first step in a deeper conversation for HRD scholars, practi-
tioners, and researchers regarding the use and value of SOAR. By incorporating SOAR into HRD research,
theory, and practice, as supported by empirical studies, members of the discipline may be better positioned to
take full advantage of the SOAR framework’s advantages.
References
AI Practitioner. (2015, September 1). Appreciative Inquiry AI Practitioner Homepage. Retrieved from http://
www.aipractitioner.com
Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2007). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International
Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 18-32.
Braveman, B., Baize, C., Malacara, M., Morris, G., S., Munoz, L., Scheetz, J., & Wright, D. (2011). Strategic
visioning and planning: The MD Anderson Cancer Center Department of Rehabilitation Services ex-
perience. Administration & Management Special Interest Section Quarterly, 27(4), 1-4.
Bright, D. S., & Miller, M. T. (2013). Appreciative inquiry and positive organizational scholarship: A philos-
ophy of practice for turbulent times. In J. Vogelsang, M. Townsend, M. Minahan, D. Jamieson, J. Vo-
gel, A. Viets, C. Royal, & L. Valek (Eds.), Handbook for strategic HR: Best practices in organization
development from the OD network (pp. 320-344). New York, NY: Amacon.
Casey, A. M. (2015). Grassroots strategic planning: Involving library staff from the beginning. Journal of
Library Administration, 55(4), 329-340.
Cooperrider, D. L. (1986). Appreciative inquiry: Toward a methodology for understanding and enhancing
organizational intervention (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from University Microfilms Internation-
al. (UMI No. 8611485).
Cooperrider, D.L. & Sekerka, L. E. (2003). Elevation of inquiry into the appreciable world: Toward a theory
of positive organizational change. In K. Cameron, J. Dutton, & R. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organiza-
tional scholarship (pp. 225–240). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Cooperrider, D. L., & Srivastva, S. (1987). Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. In W. Pasmore, & R.
Woodman (Eds.), Research in organization change and development (pp. 129-169). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Cooperrider, D. L. & Whitney, D. (1999). Collaborating for change: Appreciative inquiry. San Francisco,
CA: Berrett-Koehlere Communications.
Cooperrider, D. L., Whitney, D. K., & Stavros, J. M. (2008). Appreciative inquiry handbook: For leaders of
change (2nd ed.). Brunswick, OH: Crown Custom Publishing, Inc.
Cox, J. D. (2014). An evaluation of the relationship among emotional intelligence, SOAR, and collaboration:
Implications for teams. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
(UMI No. 3624970).
Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed design. Los Angeles, CA: Sage
Publications.
Crusoe, K. (2012). Virtual SOARing in a School of Nursing: Creating Space for Emergent Design. AI Practi-
tioner, 14(1), 27-32.
Davis, K., Drey, N., & Gould, D. (2009). What are scoping studies? A review of the nursing literature. Inter-
national Journal of Nursing Studies, 46(10), 1386-1400.
18 New Horizons in Adult Education & Human Resource Development, 29(1)
Fredrickson, B. L. (2003). The value of positive emotions. American Scientist, 91(July-August), 330-335.
Garrard, J. (2004). Health sciences literature review made easy: The matrix method (2nd ed.). Boston, MA:
Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
Gauthier, P. & Stephenson, T. (2010, November 29). Employee engagement: It's all in your head. Ottawa
Business Journal, p. 20.
Glenn, L. A., Saretsky, K., & Stetson, N. E. (2014). The Long Term Impact of Appreciative Inquiry at Colleg-
es and Universities. AI Practitioner, 16(2), 1-8.
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 (Doctoral disser-
tation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI No. 3502336).
Glovis, M. J., Cole, M. L., & Stavros, J. M. (2014a). SOAR and motivation as mediators of the relationship
between flow and project success. Organization Development Journal, 32(3), 57-73.
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated meth-
odologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108.
Grant, S. & Humphries, M. (2006). Critical evaluation of appreciative inquiry: Bridging an apparent paradox.
Action Research, 4(4), 401-418.
Hinrichs, G. (2010). SOARing for Sustainability: Longitudinal Organizational Efforts Applying Appreciative
Inquiry. AI Practitioner, 12(3), 31-36.
Hill, T., & Westbrook, R. (1997). SWOT analysis: It’s time for a product recall. Long Range Planning, 30(1),
46-52.
Hitchcock, J. A. (2014). An Exploration of Organizational Collective Motivation and the Influence of the
SOAR Framework to Build Organizational Collective Motivation. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved
from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI No. 3682915)
Khavarian-Garmsir, A., & Zare, S. M. (2015). SOAR framework as a new model for the strategic planning of
sustainable tourism. Tourism Planning & Development, 12(3), 321-332.
Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Malone, P. R. (2010). An Appreciative Exploration of Strategic Capacity and the Impact of the SOAR Frame-
work in Building Strategic Capacity. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses. (UMI No. 3397581)
McKenna, C., Daykin, J., Mohr, B. J., & Silbert, T. (2007). Strategic Planning with Appreciative Inquiry: Un-
leashing the Positive Potential to SOAR. Retrieved from https://
maureenmckenna.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/ipi-article-on-soar-and-strategic-planning.pdf
McLean, G. N. (2006). Organization development: Principles, processes, performance. San Francisco, CA:
Berrett-Koehler.
Peaslee, J. (2014). Creating and sustaining an appreciative culture in a community college from 2006 to 2014.
AI Practitioner, 16(2), 78-84.
Rath, T. (2007). Strengthsfinder. New York, NY: Gallup Press.
Saretsky, K. L. (2013). Appreciative inquiry for strategic planning: An evaluative and exploratory case study
of two colleges (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. (ID
No. 1473918370).
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psy-
chologist, 55(1), 5-14.
19 New Horizons in Adult Education & Human Resource Development, 29(1)

Sprangel, J. R. (2009). A study of the direct and mediational effects of the SOAR(TM) framework, trust, and
environmental management systems on chemical management services supplier performance at haas
TCM group (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI No.
3369505).
Sprangel, J., Stavros, J., & Cole, M. (2011). Creating sustainable relationships using the strengths, opportuni-
ties, aspirations and results framework, trust, and environmentalism: A research-based case study. In-
ternational Journal of Training and Development, 15(1), 39-57.
Stavros, J. M. (2013). The Generative Nature of SOAR: Applications, Results and the New SOAR Profile. AI
Practitioner, 15(3), 7-30.
Stavros, J. M., & Cole, M. L. (2013). SOARing towards positive transformation and change. The ABAC ODI
Vision.Action.Outcome, 1(1), 10-34.
Stavros, J. M., Cole, M. L., & Hitchcock, J. (2014). A Research Review of SOAR. AI Practitioner, 16(3), 75-
80.
Stavros, J., Cooperrider, D., & Kelley, D. L. (2003). Strategic inquiry, appreciative intent: Inspiration to
SOAR. Retrieved August 1, 2015, from https://design.umn.edu/about/intranet/documents/
Strategic_Inquiry_Appreciative_Intent.pdf
Stavros, J. M., Cooperrider, D., & Kelley, 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 (2nd ed., pp. 375-380). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-
Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Stavros, J. M., & Hinrichs, G. (2007). SOARing to High and Engaging Performance: An Appreciative Ap-
proach to Strategy. AI Practitioner, 1(1), 1-9.
Stavros, J. M., & Hinrichs, G. (2009). Thin book of SOAR: Building strengths based strategy. Bend, OR:
Thin Book Publishing.
Swafford, S. W. (2013). Applied experiences of the SOAR framework by association management and foun-
dation executives (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI
No. 3568682).
Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F. (2009). Foundations of human resource development. San Francisco, CA:
Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.