Author: Maya Mehta

Define What You Mean: Reframing the “Clear Vision” Problem

Posted on by Maya Mehta

When tasked with implementing change in your organization, you may have found yourself in this position: The goal of change has been shared, presented, and discussed repeatedly. Yet you keep hearing the claim, “We need a clear vision of what we are moving toward.” 

This is another classic consulting situation, and it presents itself as a problem of definition. For instance, how do you define the difference between change and transformation? 

How do you define leadership, empowerment, the new economy, or the role of a middle manager? 

What is the new role of human resources? 

But for all the clamor about wanting definitions, many times, what is truly murky is the question, not so much the answers. This is an indicator that you need to reframe the issue at hand in order to get to the root. Let’s look at some thoughts on how to reframe the “clear vision” problem. 

If You Acted On This Definition

Taking the “clear vision” complaint at face value, you would spend a lot of time trying to define what is new in terms that people will understand. You would write it down. You would produce manuals and short brochures written in “lay terms” to describe that which is essentially a change in consciousness. Then, the ultimate attempt at creating a definition is the competency model: a comprehensive listing of the skills needed to be fully proficient at a job or role. Have you ever seen one that any human being could achieve?

Reframing The “Clear Vision” Problem

To reframe the clear vision problem, you need to see that the request for definition is often not a problem of clarity but an expression of disagreement. 

It is fine to make one attempt at definition. But most of the time, we have already done that, and yet the question persists. In this case, the thing to focus on is the request for us to define the term. If a definition is necessary, then what if you let those who ask the questions struggle with the answer for themselves?

What if the request for a clear vision has to do with roles? For years middle managers have wanted to know what their new role is. Well, after all this time, if they can’t figure it out, maybe there is no new role. The principle here is that you (as the questioner) have to translate language into your own setting and into your own experience. Sure, others can help a little, but they cannot do it for you. 

 

Learning Clarity Through Ambiguity

Dennis Bakke, head of AES, a very enlightened company that produces electrical power around the world, likes ambiguity in language. He says that if people are unclear about what something means, it forces them into a conversation about it, and that conversation leads to learning. 

Hearing a definition from another leads to memorization, not learning. The only definition that endures is the one that I myself have created. 

If people are unclear about what something means, it forces them into a conversation about it, and that conversation leads to learning.

Lastly, in this situation, it is important to realize that the wish for a clear vision is another form of the wish for safety. It is the desire to know where you are going before you go there. It is a desire for measurable, controlled outcomes. Ultimately, it is a longing for safety that does not truly exist. 

In the end, defining terms is an academic diversion from the more fundamental human questions involving risk, purpose, courage, and adventure. But here is the thing: real safety comes from the experience of discovery, acting in the face of your fears–not waiting to act until your fears have disappeared. It is not until you try something that you will realize that you will survive it.

So To Act In This New Frame For Clear Vision:

  1. Realize that persistent requests for definition are not a lack of clear vision but an expression of disagreement.
  2. Invite the person asking for the definition to struggle with it for themselves. This leads to conversations in which they will truly learn rather than memorize.
  3. Understand that the desire for a clear definition is masking a desire for safety. But real safety is found in acting in the face of our fears.

[Adapted from Peter Block, ‘Twelve Questions to the Most Frequently Asked Answers,’ The Flawless Consulting Fieldbook and Companion: A Guide to Understanding Your Expertise, 2001, pp. 401-402] 

Refine your skills, and define what you mean. Start Flawless Consulting today.

The Deadwood Dilemma: Reframing the “Low Performer” Problem

Posted on by Maya Mehta

There are few things that incite feelings of injustice at work as the perception of “freeloaders”…low performers, reaping benefit from other people’s work. There is at least one team member who is not pulling their own weight.

This is an accountability issue.

And we’ve found that early in every discussion about accountability and institutional reform, what follows is someone who will ask what they should do with the “deadwood.”

How do you handle low performers under this new world order?

In situations like these, the consultant’s task is to reframe the question to reveal the underlying issues rather than just deal with the surface-level…what we call the “presenting problem.”

The Presenting Problem: Deadwood

A member of the team is underperforming and dragging the whole team’s performance down. The rest of the team is frustrated that this low performer is benefitting without contributing their fair share.

If You Acted On This Definition

If you focus on dealing with “deadwood” then you’ll look at the issue as a performance management issue. You might:

  • Proceed by developing competency models to create objective measures to evaluate the lowest performers
  • Move to make performance improvement targets more clear and self-evident
  • Talk about offering exit packages to aid in “clearing the deadwood.

Reframing the “Low Performers” Problem

There is an embedded irony in channeling your focus on fixing the low performers or underachievers.

Why? Because if you’re successful in converting a low performer into a top performer, then another member of the team will have to become the lowest performer.

Oops. The end result is a self-perpetuating cycle.

You see, “deadwood” is really not the problem.

So what’s the real “Low Performers” problem?

When you focus on fixing the low performers, you merely shift attention away from the team’s performance.

Sure, individual team members need help at times. But the reality is that if the team was performing well and working well together, then it could easily afford to bring along some “freeloaders.”

The truth is that the problem-person, the low performer, the “deadwood,” is likely to be the victim of projection.

Scapegoating may make us feel better, but goats are rarely the real issue.

“Et Tu, Brute?”

You may be told that the low performers need to get “on board.” That’s an interesting judgment. Why do they think they’re “on board?”

Who is to say the people having you deal with the “deadwood” are not also in that category themselves?

Low Performers reflect the Team

In family therapy, the child who gets all of the negative attention is called the “identified patient.” And that “patient” carries the symptoms of what is really a family problem.

So, when you reframe the “deadwood” dilemma as other than an individual performance management issue you’re able to see that whatever issues are prevalent in the low performers indicate issues in the team as a whole entity. And addressing the dysfunctions in the team will serve to raise the bar for individuals within it.

[Adapted from Peter Block, ‘Twelve Questions to the Most Frequently Asked Answers,’ The Flawless Consulting Fieldbook and Companion: A Guide to Understanding Your Expertise, 2001, pp. 396-397]

The Inmates Run the Prison: Reframing “The Bad Boss” Problem

Posted on by Maya Mehta

Whether in the workplace, politics, or sports, the barrier to success is often defined as a “bad boss” behavior problem. In fact, the “Bad Boss” problem can manifest in almost any environment you find yourself in. But is this ubiquitous gripe the heart of the issue? Perhaps not.

What the “Boss” complaint reveals is that the most common consulting problems deal with the human system. No matter how technical the assignment, issues are often thought of as “presenting problems”…what seems obvious, the “low hanging fruit.”

Beware: this may be a trap.

When there are no good answers, the problem is likely with the question.

In other words, the root problem is often with the way the problem is defined or the way the question is framed. This is where the client gets stuck and where you might get stuck as well.

Once a better question is asked, it can reshape their entire understanding of the issue and open a path to an alternate future.

So how can this classic problem be reframed? Here are some thoughts on how to deal with the human system rather than just the presenting problem.

The Presenting Problem: The Boss is Bad

The team feels helpless and distressed and identifies the problem as a tyrannical boss. The boss is too controlling, plays favorites, doesn’t communicate enough, controls too much–you name it. This issue is known to surface at every level of an organization–even executives complain of being controlled by others.

If You Acted On This Definition

By focussing on the problem as described above, you might be inclined to find the boss a coach (or gently suggest they take advantage of employee assistance program benefit and speak to a therapist), submit them to the rigors of a 360-degree assessment, and pray that the boss changes their bad habits.

Reframing The “Bad Boss” Problem

As long as the presenting problem is narrowly framed around dealing with the boss, then the team unit essentially has no agency and is rendered useless in creating better working relationships.

But remember: the inmates run the prison. The deeper problem is that the members of the team do not support each other.

Human beings can’t change other human beings, but they can work together to co-create an environment where individual choices are respected and where the impact of their decisions on the team is taken into account.

If members of a team support each other in public, they can handle any boss.

Here’s what team support looks like: if one member confronts the boss in a meeting, the others have to affirm their support verbally–no staying silent or giving support after the conversation has ended. This reframes the problem by acknowledging the innate freedom of the team, and accepting the power to act is in their hands.

bad boss cannot succeed against a supportive team
Public Team Support

If the boss isn’t bossing well, then the team isn’t teaming well.

To act within a frame of ownership [powerful agency] the team has to:

  1. Overcome its sense of caution as employees. This is choosing to act within the freedom that the team possesses to frame a better social contract for the good of the unit as a whole, including the boss.
  2. Meet independently. You must decide what is required to get the work done. Consider these questions: What alternate future does the team desire to build? What commitments is the team willing to make to bring this into reality?
  3. Bring it up to the boss with the whole team present. This is essential to creating a supportive team structure. Be sure that everyone is at the table to avoid a perception that “not everyone is on board,” giving way for the possibility of blame to start all over again.

This may feel like mutiny and knowledge workers may hesitate at this idea. So help them get over it. The payoff is that creating a supportive team will go a long way to dealing with the underlying issues that perpetuate the “Bad Boss” scenario.

[Adapted from Peter Block, ‘Twelve Questions to the Most Frequently Asked Answers,’ The Flawless Consulting Fieldbook and Companion: A Guide to Understanding Your Expertise, 2001, pp. 393-394]

Why Now is the Best Time for HR Leaders to Forget the Seat and Get a Table

Posted on by Maya Mehta

How to build INFLUENTIAL HR TEAMS that create collaborative relationships as respected strategic partners.  

If you’re convinced that building collaborative HR teams is critical for the success of your organization, if you’ve shifted to a self-serve model of HR services, if you’ve adapted the center of excellence as on organizational design, and you want to hear how other organizations are using Flawless Consulting as a strategic lever, then this webinar is for you.

Creating collaborative HR teams requires intentionality.

Helping organizational leaders move away from viewing HR as transactional operators, and instead, treating them as consultants and strategic partners requires a proven, conversational system. Let’s explore this possibility together.

During this webinar you’ll:

  • Gain insight into the implementable ideas working well for three senior HR leaders who are building the capabilities of their HR teams to be more influential and consistently collaborative
  • Understand the unique challenges HR departments face in today’s evolving workplace and how to overcome them with less trial and error
  • Elevate the value of your HR expertise for navigating the current workplace transformation that, if ignored, will leave many without a seat at the table after the proverbial music stops playing

Panelists

Kim Blue, Global Head of People Experience Partners at Zoom

Andrea M. Benavides, Senior Director, People Operations at Fabric.Inc

Wally Kuhns, Vice President, Human Resources at Dexcom

The Three Consulting Roles: How to Stop Fixing and Start Collaborating

Posted on by Maya Mehta

As a Human Resources (HR) or Support Services professional, you have expertise that is critical for the survival and growth of your organization. You have expertise, and you can offer it by playing anyone of three consulting roles at work.

Unfortunately, you may often find yourself being underutilized, overworked with transactional tasks, and being told to “fix” things and people. Is this true for you?

Do You Find Yourself Frustrated When…

  • Your leaders come to you at the last minute and tell you to implement something?
  • You aren’t involved early enough in the process to influence decisions and share your ideas?
  • Most of your day is spent putting out “fires” and expending energy on non-strategic issues?
  • You have so much more expertise to offer the organization, but they don’t appreciate it or even ask you for it?
  • You are asked to “handle” tough conversations, “problem” people, and fix them?

This is probably not the way you want to be treated. Instead, you want to have your expertise utilized, and be treated as a trusted advisor.

The issue is that others, including managers and clients, don’t know how to best utilize your expertise, so they default to the quickest option: tell you what to do.

But There Is Good News

You may be able to dislodge others from a default way of treating you at work. You can adjust your own approach by leveraging the three consulting roles to have your expertise better utilized.

But before you do, be aware that you may have unintentionally trained your leaders to treat you the way they do.

Here’s what I mean.

Many leaders, in the spirit of customer satisfaction, often operate with the mentality that “the customer is always right.” In this frame, they utilize you for “fixing” things and implementing their ideas in order to resolve problems.

Leaders then create conditions where you end up agreeing to do what clients tell you to do, even when it’s not the best thing for them or the organization. And if you attempt to push back or disagree with your clients, they get upset and even escalate a complaint to your boss.

There is a better way

You have the power and opportunity to change the conversations you are having with clients and the leaders in your organization. You can start by discussing the topic of how to best utilize your expertise by intentionally establishing the role you’ll play in the engagement.

We have found that HR and Support Service professionals can fall into three consulting roles.

The 3 Consulting Roles

The Three Consulting Roles

  1. Expert Role – They count on you to fix things with your expertise, and they don’t want you to be involved in the diagnosis or solution. “Make it go away” is their mantra.
  2. Pair of Hands Role – They come to you with their solution, and they want you to implement it. “Don’t ask questions, just get it done for me.” You end up being an “order taker” and implementing suboptimal solutions. Sometimes these solutions can cause harm to people and the organization.
  3. Collaborative Role – You share the responsibility and accountability with the leaders to diagnose and develop solutions. Your expertise is equally utilized along with their expertise.

Learn More

If you want to know which of the three consulting roles you and/or your teams are playing at work, then we invite you to take our free Role Orientation Quiz.

Much of the growth of consulting has been riding the wave of the technology explosion combined with the trend toward downsizing. Most large organizations have found it more profitable to shrink and merge and outsource jobs. This creates the challenge of having fewer people doing more work, and the consulting industry has been the beneficiary of this movement.

The demand for consulting services has also grown because of the interest in quality improvement, better customer service, and changing cultures toward more engaged workplaces. All of these goals are worthy, but what I want to explore is how the commercialization of our services ended up subverting their intent.

Reengineering is a good example of an area of practice that had power and relevance. Its intent was inarguable but something shifted when the idea became commercialized and popular. Reengineering became the rage and consulting firms began to make promises that were unsustainable. After a good run, the work fell of its own weight.

The reengineering craze reached a point where whatever change we had in mind was called reengineering. Every department thought it was reengineering itself. The energy was more about becoming modern than becoming better. Reengineering became synonymous with restructuring and was sold by the large accounting and consulting firms with promises of a 30 to 50 percent return on the investment.

The dark side of reengineering, which threatened the whole profession, is that the promises made to sell the work either were never fulfilled or could finally be achieved only by eliminating jobs on a wide scale. The goal of restructuring the work process for the sake of the customer was more often than not unrealized. In fact, many of the users of reengineering began to reverse their efforts because they found the concept unworkable.

Reengineering,  like the more current desire to be lean and agile,  is a good example of two larger consulting complexities: how consultants take advantage of what is in vogue and how we pursue covert purposes.

When an idea is fashionable it becomes, almost by definition, a cosmetic solution. When we offer a service primarily because clients want it, we have chosen commerce over care. If we were strictly a business you might say, What’s the problem? The customer is always right. We only gave them what they asked for. Being also a service function, though, means that something more is due to the client.

Jeff Evans is a Vice President at Designed Learning and oversees delivery, product quality, and managing our team of international consultants. He’s been partnering with Designed Learning for over 25 years. He’s delivered training in more than ten countries to a diverse set of organizations and participants, including engineers, managers, manufacturing executives, healthcare professionals, human resources and IT.

Tips for Getting Real on What’s Really Happening at Work

Posted on by Maya Mehta

In the past month, life for most of us has changed. Plans have been disrupted and work looks very different. We may be working from home—or we may not be working at all, furloughed or laid-off from our organizations. There is uncertainty and uncertainty fuels anxiety.

In organizations around the world, leaders and managers are responsible for helping to minimize this anxiety with their workforce. It’s a global issue and certainly an issue of global proportions. After all, how do I as a leader in an organization help provide clarity, when I am living in these unparalleled and uncertain times as well?

The complexity of our times may prompt some to look for a complex answer to these challenges. However, the answer, in part, is fairly simple . . . just be real. In our Flawless Consulting workshops, we call it being authentic. Authenticity isn’t new, but how we leverage it in today’s challenging times may be the best new idea in what is a new time, in how we lead and manage in organizations.

In Peter Block’s book, The Empowered Manager: Positive Political Skills at Work, he outlines the four basic approaches we can take to be authentic in our interactions with others.

1. Say no when we mean no. Instead of hedging our position for fear of being disapproved of, we make it a point to let others know where we stand. Too many expectations are violated when we are reluctant to take a stand early on. If it’s something you can’t do, won’t do, or shouldn’t do, have the courage to say no and explain why.

2. Share as much information as possible. Let people know the organization’s plans, ideas, and changes as soon as possible. If there is something you can’t share, say so and explain why. In the absence of information, people will fill the void—and what they fill it with is often worse than the truth.

3. Use language that describes reality. Use language that describes the reality of what is happening, rather than hiding it behind corporate speak. Share it in a way that the message gets through. Tell people in unmistakable terms where you or the organization stand, and why you need to take the action you are taking.

4. Avoid repositioning for the sake of acceptance. No public relations in the rah-rah sense, no repositioning just for the sake of selling our story. People need to hear both sides of the story—our certainty and our doubt.

In times of uncertainty and change, people are likely to psychologically and even physically check out. For leaders and managers of organizations, there may be little room for critical players to check out, even for a little while. While the world works to get our global house in order, being authentic may be the most practical thing leaders and managers can do right now.

Beverly Crowell is an experienced facilitator, speaker, thought leader, and author specializing in the areas of business operations, organization, employee and human resources development.

In Defense of Being “Helpful”

Posted on by Maya Mehta

I want to write in defense of being helpful. And I want to distinguish it from rescue.

There have been times in working Flawless Consulting Workshops that I have heard being “helpful” disparaged a bit with a phrase like, “We don’t want to be helpful. We want to be useful.” Since we are in a “helping profession,” this has always rankled me just a bit.

The distinction I make is between helping and rescuing. Rescuing is part of what Stephen Karpman described as the “drama triangle” in the 1960s. It looks like this:

The emotional price for all involved in the triangle is anxiety, which is rarely helpful in any context. Since organizational development emerged to deal with the unintended consequences of industrialization, we as practitioners can get caught up in it.

If I view the client or “system” for which I am consulting as a persecutor, I run the risk of viewing some in the system as victims and want to rescue them. Sadly, this is a role I have taken on in the past when working internally for large systems. When I did, I was prone to lapse into cynical commentary like, “What’s the difference between [our company] and the Boy Scouts? The Boy Scouts have adult leadership.” That was neither endearing nor helpful. But I thought it was clever!

On an individual coaching basis, if I stay in the rescuer mode, I may not challenge the person with whom I’m working to deal with what they can choose to change. There is always something someone can do to improve their own circumstances. Reinforcing a feeling of powerlessness is not helpful.

Seeing situations as involving persecutors and victims reflects a mindset that leads to conversations that lack any sense of possibility. One way we can be helpful is to invite those with whom we work to see possibilities they either can’t or have chosen not to see on their own. It’s part of the “clear picture” we strive for in consulting flawlessly.

I have worked for—and with—bosses who are doing things that are ineffective, unproductive, and even damaging. I have yet to work for one that is intentionally doing that. This is where compassion comes into play. When I operate from the perspective that this person is doing the best job he knows how in this situation, I create a mindset for myself that lets me see more possibility to help the client self-discover more possibility for himself.

Early in my career, I worked with a colleague in Western Electric (then the manufacturing subsidiary of AT&T) who used the phrase, “God is in a helping relationship.” That stuck with me, and probably explains why I am troubled with phrases that disparage helping. The God I know wants us to learn and grow, and will not rescue us from our choices but rather help us learn from them. That’s the power behind the feedback statement model in Flawless Consulting that goes, “Chris, when you do ‘X,’ it has the following impact on your organization—and the result is ‘Y.’”’ To my frame of reference, that simple, direct statement is being helpful.

Later, in another part of AT&T, I encountered Robert Greenleaf’s work on servant leadership. The “servant” part of that phrase is sometimes misconstrued as connoting weakness or subservience. Greenleaf’s behavioral test of a servant leader is far more rigorous, “Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And, what is the effect on the least privileged in society? Will they benefit or at least not be further deprived?” This, in my view, could also be the test of a flawless consultant.

To do this, we must stay out of the “drama triangle.” How can we help vs. rescue? I think we can do this by presenting valid data and leaving the client free to decide, being open to the giftedness and possibility in each client and, as we teach in Flawless Consulting, letting go of our personal investment in the outcome.

Jeff has been affiliated with Designed Learning for more than 20 years.

Having held leadership positions in marketing, sales, organizational development, and HR, Jeff brings years of large-system experience in internal consulting to his work with Designed Learning. Jeff believes that when the human spirit thrives, organizations thrive as well.

When You Can’t Go Out, Go In

Posted on by Maya Mehta

Perhaps the earth has truly gone into “reset” mode due to the lockdown caused by the Coronavirus. Perhaps it is time for us to push the “pause” button and rethink how we have been living our professional and personal lives. Perhaps the “reset” mode and “pause” button are now compelling us to rethink the meaning and purpose of our relationships, both at home and at work.

While this lockdown is certainly a challenge, and most of the world has put strong restrictions on movement, there has been another not-so-tangible side to this lockdown. The slowdown on our physical movement is compelling us to look within ourselves. The long hours indoors and restrictions on going out has necessitated us going in. Going in and questioning ourselves; going in and becoming more aware of how we have been thinking; going in and asking ourselves, “Did this way of being get me where I wanted to be?”

The whole world is talking about the fact that at the end of this lockdown we shall wake up to a new world. What will this world look like? What will it ask of us? And what will we need to do to fit into this new order? Our home confinement is making us question the things we were running after, the quality of our relationships, and what we truly want from our lives.

The time has come for us to slow down and realign our lives so that we can flow smoothly in the future. We need to reconnect with our loved ones, friends, and professional associates as individuals with different human nuances—not just targets to be achieved or duties to be performed. We need to spend time getting to know each person and acknowledging the anxiety and vulnerability each one faces, including ourselves. We have to connect with ourselves so that we can connect with others.

How was our life as consultants before the virus compelled us to pause? What were we to pause for? What were we supposed to see? So many questions, so much confusion, and so much uncertainty. These questions and so many more get answered on their own when one understands and lives the philosophy of Flawless Consulting. It is the mantra for success in human relationships—a way of life applicable in both personal and professional life.

As consultants, we were constantly rushing to meet deadlines, grabbing the next order, pushing our way ahead, striving hard to impress the client with heavy content and verbose presentations, pushing our beliefs, trying to control people and decisions, and believing that others should do as we recommend because we know the best. Relationships were professional and impersonal and lasted only as long as they served the business purpose. Then suddenly, the “pause” button was pushed. Without realizing it, we are finding ourselves in a mode of self-questioning and self-enquiry. And we are asking ourselves: Were those deadlines realistic? Am I really the right person for that job? Do I really have all the answers? Does the client believe I have understood him/her? Can I push my solutions on to the client? Does the client really trust me?

With the last question, we take our awareness a notch further—a step deeper within ourselves: What do I need to do to make the client know he can trust me, feel I understand the real issue, and believe I will not let him down?

When we become aware of our own thoughts and feelings, and know with what kind of mindset we are entering a discussion—whether we want to be in control, just executing, or be a partner in a project—we become more secure within and know what we need to ask from the client to enable us to give our best to the task at hand. Awareness also makes us recognize resistance in a client so we don’t take it personally, and makes us acknowledge our own resistance, too.

The new world is going to be a slower paced world—a world with greater self-awareness, where relationships will have more depth and life will be more meaningful. Are we ready to align ourselves with this new world? It is quite amazing that Flawless Consulting has been sharing the value of this mindset for over four decades and its philosophy is even more relevant now than ever before.


We need to recognize that patterns are changing and we need to change, too. Not changing with the flow will only create resistance and make it painful for us. This sudden change of pace is making us rethink how we need to reset ourselves and our ways of thinking and operating. We need to build deeper connections with our associates, our families, and most importantly, ourselves.

“I think that when the dust settles, we will realize
how little we need, how very much we actually have,
and the true value of human connection.”

Perhaps the earth has truly gone into “reset” mode due to the lockdown caused by the Coronavirus. Perhaps it is time for us to push the “pause” button and rethink how we have been living our professional and personal lives. Perhaps the “reset” mode and “pause” button are now compelling us to rethink the meaning and purpose of our relationships, both at home and at work.

While this lockdown is certainly a challenge, and most of the world has put strong restrictions on movement, there has been another not-so-tangible side to this lockdown. The slowdown on our physical movement is compelling us to look within ourselves. The long hours indoors and restrictions on going out has necessitated us going in. Going in and questioning ourselves; going in and becoming more aware of how we have been thinking; going in and asking ourselves, “Did this way of being get me where I wanted to be?”

The whole world is talking about the fact that at the end of this lockdown we shall wake up to a new world. What will this world look like? What will it ask of us? And what will we need to do to fit into this new order? Our home confinement is making us question the things we were running after, the quality of our relationships, and what we truly want from our lives. The time has come for us to slow down and realign our lives so that we can flow smoothly in the future. We need to reconnect with our loved ones, friends, and professional associates as individuals with different human nuances—not just targets to be achieved or duties to be performed. We need to spend time getting to know each person and acknowledging the anxiety and vulnerability each one faces, including ourselves. We have to connect with ourselves so that we can connect with others.

How was our life as consultants before the virus compelled us to pause? What were we to pause for? What were we supposed to see? So many questions, so much confusion, and so much uncertainty. These questions and so many more get answered on their own when one understands and lives the philosophy of Flawless Consulting. It is the mantra for success in human relationships—a way of life applicable in both personal and professional life.

As consultants, we were constantly rushing to meet deadlines, grabbing the next order, pushing our way ahead, striving hard to impress the client with heavy content and verbose presentations, pushing our beliefs, trying to control people and decisions, and believing that others should do as we recommend because we know the best. Relationships were professional and impersonal and lasted only as long as they served the business purpose. Then suddenly, the “pause” button was pushed. Without realizing it, we are finding ourselves in a mode of self-questioning and self-enquiry. And we are asking ourselves: Were those deadlines realistic? Am I really the right person for that job? Do I really have all the answers? Does the client believe I have understood him/her? Can I push my solutions on to the client? Does the client really trust me?

With the last question, we take our awareness a notch further—a step deeper within ourselves: What do I need to do to make the client know he can trust me, feel I understand the real issue, and believe I will not let him down?

When we become aware of our own thoughts and feelings, and know with what kind of mindset we are entering a discussion—whether we want to be in control, just executing, or be a partner in a project—we become more secure within and know what we need to ask from the client to enable us to give our best to the task at hand. Awareness also makes us recognize resistance in a client so we don’t take it personally, and makes us acknowledge our own resistance, too.

The new world is going to be a slower paced world—a world with greater self-awareness, where relationships will have more depth and life will be more meaningful. Are we ready to align ourselves with this new world? It is quite amazing that Flawless Consulting has been sharing the value of this mindset for over four decades and its philosophy is even more relevant now than ever before.

We need to recognize that patterns are changing and we need to change, too. Not changing with the flow will only create resistance and make it painful for us. This sudden change of pace is making us rethink how we need to reset ourselves and our ways of thinking and operating. We need to build deeper connections with our associates, our families, and most importantly, ourselves.

“I think that when the dust settles, we will realize

how little we need, how very much we actually have,

and the true value of human connection.”

Simi Suri has been a consultant with Designed Learning since 2017. She has been an HR and business professional for over two decades, and has experience in both, corporate and entrepreneurial, worlds. She has been a corporate trainer, executive coach, instructional design consultant, communication specialist and behavioural scientist.