LDpe has, while developing the toolbox and the toolbox-vocabulary, always had the highest of ambitions about its validity. Not only in the selection of OPQ, Dimensions, Shapes and Papi 3 for the formal measurement of behavioural preferences, but also in creating a good ‘face validity’ for the entire toolbox, i.e. does it feel reasonable and comprehensible and is the design reliable?

LDpe has, in defining ‘the structured language’ of the toolbox, had great attention for the validity of the concepts and models. In the detailed design of the toolbox, fixed relations are maintained between the constructs of the tool and the formal measurement.

Through the outside-in design approach (starting from leadership models towards the behavioural preferences) and by creating the detailed definition based on the components of the styles (its competences and preferences), the structured language of the tool is clearly kept in ‘the leadership domain’ while building accurate and verifiable bridges to the ‘domain of psychometrics’.

The toolbox relates to the most well accepted models (Blake & Mouton, Reddin and Hersey & Blanchard), used the world over and seen as generizable and transferrable models.

But, even if these models are well accepted, be aware of that scientist always have criticised this type of models. 1]
It is easy to get stuck in the fights between supporters of the different models and their criticasters. LDpe does not want to be part such fights but uses the accepted models as inspiration for defining the concepts an models and, in a clear and straight way, the 'words' of the toolbox vocabulary.

The vocabulary and the LD-processes are seen by LDpe as merely enablers for reflection and interaction. The
concepts and models and the 'words' of the vocabulary help the leader to reflect more deeply, but when accustomed to a more differentiated reflection and interaction, the simplicity of a strict definition or a certain concept should more or less vaporize in the mind of the user. However scientifically based theories are, it is in the interaction with others 'real life' happens, not in the simplified theories.
Once again, be aware of the fact that models are simplifications and that the parts of 'reality' that are not covered in the models may easily be overlooked.

1] For instance, the Situational Leadership model of Blanchard and Hersey, probably the most frequently used model, has often been criticised because of its ambiguity.