Leadership training programs “deficit based” or “constructionist based” approach?

Hello Stephane, Thank you for your reply. It sounds interesting. Is that something you could share afterwards?

Hello Stephane, I will be looking forward to that one, since it is one of my fields of expertise. Can you keep me posted?

Hope to see the webinar on ProjectManagement.com soon

Hi Samuel, I fully agree that a balanced approach is the best way to move forward. Although my preference is the constructionist approach – also based on experience – I feel it is the perfect time to make the shift away from the artificial divide between deficit-based and constructionist-based approach. One should seek to combine the best of the two worlds. Recent research – in a pilot situation - showed that it brings more out of our (future) leaders. If you have any examples you could share from personal experience or literature I am very interested.

Of course, Frank.

Hello Vincent, Interesting point you bring to the table. I hear it this often, when discussing this topic with colleagues. I think this has mainly to do with the fact that the latter is often seen as the “soft” approach. But, indeed, the balancing the pro- and cons of both should get the best results. Slowly, but surely, I see a shift towards this in the Enterprise environment. The drive for sustainable change and ditto added value calls for a more fluid approach, or so it seems. Enterprises have been seen doing pilots with great results.