[Ailist] Deficit and Constructionist Approaches

[Brian Guest]

Perhaps some list members would like to comment on, or add their own experience or reflections to, the following argument on balancing the two approaches? 
Thank you,
Brian Guest
 
 
Extract from “The Irrational Side of Change Management” by Carolyn Aiken and Scott Keller, McKinsey Quarterly April 2009:
 
It takes a story with both + and – to create real energy. 
 
The “deficit based” approach—which identifies the problem, analyzes what’s wrong and how to fix it, plans, and then takes action—has become the model predominantly taught in business schools and is presumably the default change model in most organizations. Research has shown, however, that a story focused on what’s wrong invokes blame and creates fatigue and resistance, doing little to engage people’s passion and experience.
 
This has led to the rise of the “constructionist based” approach to change, where the change process is based on discovery (discovering the best of what is), dreaming (imagining what might be), designing (talking about what should be), and destiny (creating what will be). The problem with this approach is that an overemphasis on the positive can lead to watered down aspirations and impact.
 
The reason is that, as humans, we are more willing to take risks to avoid losing what we’ve got than we are to gain something more. Some anxiety is useful when it comes to spurring behavioral change. We believe the field of change management has drawn an artificial divide between deficit-based and constructionist-based approaches and stories.
 
While it is impossible to prescribe generally how the divide should be split between positive and negative messages (as it will be specific to the context of any given change program), we strongly advise managers not to swing the pendulum too far in one direction or another. Consider Jack Welch, former CEO at GE, who took questions of “what’s wrong here?” (poorly performing businesses, silo-driven behavior, and so forth) head-on, as well as “imagining what might be” (number one or two in every business, openness, and accountability).