[Ailist] Deficit and Constructionist Approaches

[Jane Magruder Watkins]

Dear Bruce, Brian and AI Colleagues: 

I can't resist chiming in on a discussion about dichotomy! I think about it
a lot in the context of learning how to think in wholes or (w)holistically.
If we take "Social Construction" seriously we will notice that whether a
thing is positive or negative has to do with how an individual "interprets"
it -- based on that person's cultural norms, what  parents taught us, or
one's own personal experience, etc. So what does that mean for our practice
in human systems?

Practically, the way I work with clients is to point out that all the
answers to the "Wish" question (#4 in most AI interview portals) will show
you exactly what needs attention in a system. 

I think the questions we ask truly are "fateful," and lead the conversation
in parts or wholes. I've shared this story before, but just in case, here it
is again:

Ralph (my husband & partner) was working with a Woman's Shelter where abused
women could go for sanctuary. Over time he noticed that the women in the
shelter tended to behave as "hopeless, helpless." In a discussion with the
Director of the shelter, he asked her if the women usually acted hopeless
and helpless. She said that most did. Ralph asked to see the "intake" form
that welcomed the women when they arrived at the Shelter. He read it and the
Director noticed his frown. 

"What?," she asked.

Ralph responded: "If you gave me this form and I didn't feel hopeless and
helpless when I arrived, I would feel that way after filling it out"

She instantly understood what he was saying. "What should we be asking?"

Ralph suggested something like this: "Leaving an abusive situation is one of
the most difficult things in the world to do! Tell me a story about how you
found the courage to leave?"

The moral of that story for me is always, "IN WHAT DIRECTION DO WE WANT OUR
CLIENTS TO LOOK?" If we realize that whatever the situation, that is the
situation. The meaning of good/bad, want/don't want is our social
construction and we will all have different nuances if not outright
different opinions about any situation. And here's the "kicker!" We'll each
have a different opinion depending on when we are asked and what we do
between the 1st time you ask and the 2nd time you ask me the same question.
I've come to believe that the reliability of "feedback" in human systems is
about a "nano" second. 

So where does that take me? To the realization that we are NOT about helping
clients figure out a situation and create a "solution." Rather, our work is
to help our clients figure out how to continually ask and explore together a
way forward for that time and place, knowing that in a day or an hour or a
minute later, the situation will be different and they will need to be
flexible enough and innovative enough to embrace the notion of continuous
change and constant innovation. 

Here are a couple of paragraph's that Jackie Stavros and I wrote for the AI
Chapter in the new edition of "Practicing OD" (JosseyBassWiley) due out
soon, that perhaps enlarges a bit on how we see the practice of AI as quite
different from traditional "problem solving" approaches: 

"No matter how AI is defined, it is deliberate in its life-giving search. It
uses interview guides carefully constructed by the clients (with the
guidance of the AI practitioner) to discover the positive core of what gives
life to a system. The 4-D Process for applying AI in human systems is, like
the classical OD process, based on Kurt Lewin’s Action Research model. The
major difference is in the perspective (appreciative) and in the role of the
OD practitioner. Rather than the practitioner conducting interviews to
identify problems and deficits in an organization, AI involves the whole
system in interviews between members and stakeholders of the organization.
The interviews focus on best experiences and are story-based. Instead of
“analysis” of the information by the OD consultant, AI encourages
story-sharing and dialogue to learn about the best of the past in order to
understand what the people in the organization want more of; and, to use
that as a basis for imagining the most preferred future for their
organization. When the whole organization aligns with a positive image of
the future based on discoveries from the story-telling, dialogue and images
of the future, multiple projects are designed, agreed upon, and implemented
to create that future. 

While classical OD processes generally are understood to be linear – from
identifying the problem to planning how to rectify it – AI is cyclical in
nature. AI moves from story to image of the future to planning how to create
the future with the clear understanding that all “plans” are momentary
solutions.  Plans are made relevant and successful by keeping all options
open and assuring that dialogue and “dreaming” is a continuous process."

Don't know if this adds to the conversation, but as usual Bruce always
inspires me to share! Which leads me to tell you who read this that next
March (date to be decided soon) we (Ntl, ODN, AU/Ntl, Lewin Institute and
Case Western School of Org. Behavior --all institutions NTL related with OD
focuses) will be inviting you to a conference about "Is there a New OD" or
perhaps "What is the new OD?" -- inspired particularly by some of Bob
Marshak's writing plus others in our field. Hope you'll join us so we can
have these discussions face-to-face! 

Blessings on you all. I appreciate you and this venue! Jane
  

Jane Magruder Watkins & Ralph Kelly
Appreciative Inquiry Unlimited
An Organization Development Center for Teaching, Consulting and Mentoring
 
Office & Home
233A Woodmere Drive
Williamsburg, VA 23185
(757) 259-9942
 
MarshHaven Retreat Center
P.O. Box 541
1702 Wheat Patch Road
Belhaven, NC 27810
(252) 964-3072 
 
www.appreciativeinquiryunlimited.com
 
Appreciative Inquiry: Change at the Speed of Imagination by Jane Magruder
Watkins & Bernard Mohr can be ordered from Amazon.com or JosseyBassWiley
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: ailist-bounces at lists.business.utah.edu
[mailto:ailist-bounces at lists.business.utah.edu] On Behalf Of Bruce Elkin
Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 2:58 PM
To: brianjguest at yahoo.com; ailist at lists.business.utah.edu
Subject: Re: [Ailist] Deficit and Constructionist Approaches

Extract from ³The Irrational Side of Change Management² by Carolyn Aiken and
Scott Keller, McKinsey Quarterly April 2009:
>  
> It takes a story with both + and ­ to create real energy.
>  
> The ³deficit based² approach‹which identifies the problem, analyzes what¹s
> 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 what¹s wrong invokes blame and creates fatigue and resistance, doing
little
> to engage people¹s passion and experience.
>  
> This has led to the rise of the ³constructionist based² 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 we¹ve 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 ³what¹s wrong here?² (poorly performing
> businesses, silo-driven behavior, and so forth) head-on, as well as
³imagining
> what might be² (number one or two in every business, openness, and
> accountability).
>  

Great post., Brian,
It pinpoints what I think is a flaw in AI ‹ the reluctance to look clearly
into reality, in order to avoid negatives. But you don¹t have to judge
reality, you can just describe it as it is ‹ accurately and objectively.

Then the gap between envisioned results and current reality sets up a useful
creative tension that both energizes and guides (contains) actions.

This is the basis of the creating process ‹ the ACT of creating ‹ that has
served creators so well over the millennia. The ³both/and² structure of
creating is powerful enough to embrace and transcend the aspects of current
reality that we mistakenly call ³problems² -- and  to use them as the raw
material for creating what matters.

Great stuff. Thanks for posting this.

Cheers!
Bruce
*********************************************************************
BRUCE ELKIN: Helping You Create What Matters Most‹
                             With Whatever Life Throws At You!
 20+ Years   -   Clients on 6 Continents   -   Author of 3 Books &
   The Forthcoming Staying Up In Down Times E-Book
   
     ³Tell me, what will you do
                with your one wild and precious life?²
                                                    - Mary Oliver
Fr.ee e-Newsletter at:
      http://www.bruceelkin.com/newsletter.html
Phone: 250.388.7210   Web: http://www.BruceElkin.com
Blog: http://createwhatmattersmost.blogspot.com
*******************************************************************





_______________________________________________
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