[Ailist] Deficit and Constructionist Approaches

[Roger Davies]

Hi Brian,

>From my experience managing industrial facilities this is my take on the
subject. There are three more or less parallel continua (continuums? - sorry
didn't study Latin)

There are is a continuum of organization ranging from purely mechanical
processes to complex living systems.
There is a continuum of problems ranging from convergent (a limited number
of fixed solutions) to divergent (an unlimited number of possible outcomes
each of which brings change).
There is a continuum of problem solving methods ranging from deficit based
approaches to constructionist approaches.

For some reason in many discourses we seem to have the need to see things as
'either - or' situations when in fact all things exist simultaneously to one
degree or another. It is perfectly appropriate to use a reductionist methods
when seeking to improve a mechanical system. However there will often be
some element of innovation required and control is the enemy of innovation.
It is highly inappropriate to use a reductionist approach to improving
employee morale or attendance. In fact it is well proven that people do not
respond positively to control and control is the logical outcome of a
reductionist approach.

It's not a case of + and - as neither approach could be defined as + or -. 

I'm not sure that I agree with the statement that as humans 'we are more
willing to take risks to avoid losing what we’ve got than we are to gain
something more'. This may be true in a survivalist context but I suspect
less so when we already feel secure and successful. Those two contexts in
themselves may actually be extremes of a further continuum to consider.

The very rational side of change management, as any practical person would
tell you, is to use the right tool for the job.  If there is a skill that I
have found sadly lacking (or probably hidden) in many supposed leaders of
change that is it. Though there is no one magic bullet they rely on
expertise in a very narrow range of methods thereby creating at least as
many problems as they solve.

Real energy is achieved when people are allowed to do the job you hired them
for in the way they find most effective. All you have to do is manage the
gaps to ensure that what they are doing provides what their customers
require. Most of the time you don't have to do anything because they are
just as smart as you and have already talked to their customer. Now you can
focus on growing your business rather than fixing all those problems you
thought you had but you actually created in order for you to feel 'in
charge'. After all you have to have a change to manage so something must
need fixing right? 

Roger

-----Original Message-----
From: ailist-bounces at lists.business.utah.edu
[mailto:ailist-bounces at lists.business.utah.edu] On Behalf Of Brian Guest
Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 4:29 AM
To: ailist at lists.business.utah.edu
Subject: [Ailist] Deficit and Constructionist Approaches

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).
 


      
_______________________________________________
The Appreciative Inquiry Discussion List is hosted by the David Eccles
School of Business at the University of Utah. Jack Brittain is the list
administrator. For subscription information, go to:
http://mailman.business.utah.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/ailist