Tag: Consulting Skills

Moving Past Persistent Resistance

Posted on by Beverly Crowell

Years ago, I was partnering with our organization’s IT team to outfit a new computer lab. There were a lot of details to work out. I was approaching the project with the learner in mind. My IT counterpart was focused on minimizing the cables that would be crisscrossing the room. Unfortunately, my want for the learner was not lining up with his want for the scope of work needed to get the lab ready.

After a few conversations that seemed to go nowhere, I remember looking at my colleague and asking, “Is it that you can’t do it or that you don’t want to do?” He looked at me stunned and admitted, “I don’t want to.”

It was a real breakthrough moment in our work together. The resistance I was feeling was laid bare and we finally were able to work together to get the lab built. In the end, it looked a bit different for both of us, but it worked and worked well.

At the time, I didn’t realize that we were in the middle of a foundational part of consulting. We were contracting and admittedly not very well. We were stuck and I knew we were stuck because neither of us were willing to move away from what “I want” with little consideration for what the other person might want as well.

Thankfully, we did eventually move past our persistent resistance. The lesson learned however is that it didn’t happen by accident. I had to walk directly into the resistance and be prepared for what might happen. I’m not so sure I did it perfectly, but it was effective. Once I acknowledged the resistance, we were able to have productive and collaborative conversations so we could get the job done.

From that point forward our conversations changed. We started listening and stopped trying to have “my way be the only way.” It was not easy to do. I was the customer and I consistently had to battle the feeling that he should “just be doing what I want.” As I look back now, I realize that I wanted a pair of hands to do my bidding. It’s funny really, I’m no IT expert, but I certainly tried to play one. At the same time, he was doing very little to understand what I needed to do and why. There was little effort to understand the problem I was trying to solve. After all, he was the expert with all the answers, right?

The experience highlights the greatest challenge most of us face as internal consultants. And, make no mistake, you are consulting any time you must influence another person where you have no direct control. I had none with my IT counterpart and he had none with me. We were giving no thought to influencing the other. Instead, we were on the “do it my way” train. It’s a wonder the computer lab was ever finished.

Our relationship only started working when we started looking at it as a relationship. We shifted away from listing our demands to a conversation about what we both wanted from our work together and what we were willing to give the other to help make it successful. There was negotiation, but we became clearer in not only what we were trying to accomplish together but how we were going to do it. And I’m not just talking about the technical stuff. We also talked about the way we would communicate with each other, how best to respect the other person’s ideas and even how we would disagree moving forward.

It was never a match made in heaven, but we made it work. Chances are, you must make it work everyday at work too. When you do, ask if you’ve taken the time to contract with each other on the “what and how” of your collaboration? If you don’t know, there’s work to do. Ask the question, “So, what do you want from me?” and be prepared to share what you want from them too. Be simple, be direct and above all else, be real. You won’t always get what you want. Life is like that. But you will get further, faster when you both know how to show up for the other.

Business Partnering: The Secret to Influence in the Workplace

Posted on by Steven Lozada
What is Business Partnering?
To understand business partnering we’ll start by identifying who are Business Partners. This may help you determine whether you are one or should become one.
Here’s a start:
Business Partners are practitioners of critical business functions like HR, Finance, IT, Legal, Project Management, and others. They’re internal consultants. These professionals act as a bridge, linking their critical functions to other business units, clients, managers, and even C-suite executives.
 
Business partners seek to operate in partnership with other stakeholders to effectively address the real and current concerns of the business. Their purpose is to create a space of shared ownership for generating positive results.
These are professionals who have the potential to greatly improve the power of integration within the organization…when given the space and opportunity to do so, of course.
 
They maximize the effective and efficient deployment of their skills and expertise within a shared understanding of business priorities.
 
If this describes you, then continue reading because you’re about to uncover some keys to unlock some doors that lead to greater influence in the workplace.

What Business Partnering (done well) Requires

Business Partnering requires the consistent application of TECHNICAL EXPERTISE and TRUSTING RELATIONSHIPS.
 
Please read those two virtues again. Refuse to ignore them at all costs. I learned about their powerful combination at a Flawless Consulting workshop. They’re simple but mighty.
Here’s why:
If you want to become a valued partner, then the sole use of your technical expertise and experience will be insufficient. You may give excellent advice and even create stunning slide decks that can mesmerize executives. But if they don’t have a trusting relationship with you, then your power to generate desirable change is a mere illusion…a dandelion in a windstorm.
To avoid this miserable situation, you must multiply your technical expertise with an unrelenting persistence to build trust.
 
CAUTION: Without the power of relationship and relatedness, your technical expertise may become a disposable commodity.
Trust is likely the missing secret ingredient in many previous failed attempts at strategic partnership because without trust there is no influence.

Some necessary skills

What follows are some skills that you can incorporate to keep from becoming a commodity. Imagine the benefits of leaping measurably closer to being a trusted business partner when you develop consulting, communication, and negotiation skills.

Consulting skills

At the heart of consulting is the ability to have conversations that matter most. It’s about creating meaningful connections with others while moving the business forward in the face of mounting complexities.
This is contrary to the common misconception that consultants impose an elevated business acumen, impressive credentials, and vast experience to give credibility to their own opinions, above anyone else.
Consulting is not something you do to and for someone, it’s a service you offer to do with someone.

Communication Skills

The adaptive ability to speak clearly about ideas, issues, and opportunities. If you’re going to generate agreements and coordinate actions with others, then being specific, descriptive, and measurable about what you want is essential.
 
For example, when requesting a report from someone, avoid saying: “Hey, I know you’re busy, but it would be great to have that report when you get a chance.” This is too vague to make an agreement. Instead, be specific, descriptive, and measurable by saying: “Hey, I know you’re busy, but can you get me the finalized report tomorrow by 4:00 pm?” This is a minor detail, but a major difference.
 
Speaking with precision is critical to communication, but deep listening is the often neglected part of communication skills building.
 
If you want to be more influential, then listening beyond the words into the spaces of silence, and listening without judgment, is necessary. You can achieve this by not jumping to conclusions and into advice-giving. Just listen with compassionate curiosity. This non-superficial type of listening will position you to discover what’s going unsaid, and explore what’s possible.

Negotiation Skills

The ability to create a social contract with people by offering them a psychologically safe space to explore risks, share control, and commit to shared action. This opposes the common view of negotiation. Negotiation does not have to be an adversarial exchange where two parties struggle with one another until they ultimately agree to “split the difference.”
There’s a better way.
Instead of preparing for battle, prepare to explore what you and your “client” want from one another in order to achieve success. As risks and concerns emerge during those discussions, give your support to one another, and model the behavior you want to promote in your partnership. You can do this all while seeking mutual benefit. This is how to be successful in being useful and valuable.

Why Business Partnering Matters Today

The role of HR, Finance, IT, Legal, Project Management, and other internal consultants has changed. These functions used to be about managing employees, managing resources, and providing compliance services. Today, it’s about building relationships with clients, navigating challenges, and creating value with them. 
 
Business Partnering is about leveraging your ability to:
  • Develop trusted connections with authenticity by putting your experience into words.
  • Handle resistance with compassion and diligence.
  • Be willing to sit with ambiguity for longer than many feel comfortable with.
  • Slow down to truly “sense” the situation without a need for a fast resolution of issues.
Your business and professional influence will grow as you increase the effective use of business partnering on a consistent basis.

You Don’t Need An Expert. You Need a PARTNER.

Posted on by admin

When facing change, you don’t need an expert. You need partnership.

Your company probably looks at change with a mix of excitement and fear. And while you may want certain parts of your organization to change, it is scary to take on the actual responsibility of making it happen. It is much safer and easier to delegate the actual transformation to someone else. This typically is where consultants come into the picture. And why not? Experts are constantly touted as the only ones knowledgeable and powerful enough to lead.

But there is a catch.

Relinquishing responsibility to an expert breeds an unhealthy dependency. When problems inevitably come up again you won’t know how to confront them yourself.

There is also a problem for the consultant. If you’re the consultant, this tendency also makes your job harder. Removing the client from the problem-solving process makes it more likely the changes you recommend will be resisted.

So what is the way forward?

The Promise of Partnership

The answer is opting for partnership instead of relying on experts.

Experts merely seek to solve the problem. But partners bring change in a way that makes you take ownership not only for the solution but for the problem itself.

Partners effectively and compassionately dissolve unhealthy reliance on the expert. The result is that clients gain sufficient expertise to diagnose and solve future problems on their own.

But how does this partnership consulting work?

How to Make Pearls

A partner’s first task is to confront you with the true nature of your problems. Often you already know this, but you either don’t realize it, or you find it so hard to deal with that you struggle to admit it without provocation. This confrontation is often uncomfortable. But new wisdom cannot be formed without it.

The best analogy for this is how pearls are made. Two things are required to form these valuable prizes: sand and oysters. Sand gets into the oyster and rubs it the wrong way. The oyster reacts by trying to get rid of the irritant. But in the process, something beautiful and precious is formed.

Don’t get the impression that this is easy. Bringing any kind of meaningful change to an organization requires a high investment of emotional, intellectual, spiritual, and physical rigor. The culture and habits sustained in an organization are often ferociously rooted and feel “right” from the inside. And so the only way to shock the oyster out of its comfort is to throw a little sand in its shell.

Partnering consultants must first, therefore, bring the sober truth about the organization’s dysfunctions.

This is a painful process. But the reward is invaluable for the organization.

The Perils of Partnership

Just like making pearls, partnership is difficult to practice. First of all, it is hard to convince clients that they are getting their money’s worth. They often have a rigid expectation that they are bringing in an expert who will simply fix things and move on. On the other hand, it can be just as hard to convince consultants their task is anything but fixing things themselves. The secret here is to accept that as a partner you have to sacrifice that latent desire to take full credit for creating the solution. That’s not sexy, but it is ultimately better for both parties.

Another common pitfall is what is known as professional codependence. Just as clients can become dependent on the expert, the professional can become codependent on the client.

Professional codependence when the professional–consciously or not–begins to create client needs in order to prove their own worth and make ends meet.

One way that this manifests is when, rather than identifying opportunities for growth, consultants begin to see client needs as deficiencies. This is more than a labeling problem. This often leads to anticipating problems that don’t exist. Such a dynamic all but guarantees dependency because it presumes that the client lacks what they need to get rid of the deficiency. And even more than this, it then positions the expert as the only one who can determine whether the solution has been effective.

So how can you pursue partnership without the pitfalls?

Acting in Partnership

Developing partnership while avoiding dependencies on both sides is challenging. Let’s explore this challenge through the lens of parenting. To raise responsible adults, parents experience the tension, on the one hand, between protecting their children by sheltering them and telling them what to do…while on the on the other hand allowing their children to have self-discovery and learn on their own. Choosing partnership will often feel the same for the consultant.

It is essential to guard yourself against your client’s codependency even if this seems unloving at first. If not, you run the risk of getting lost in your expert role and short-circuiting the client’s growth and freedom.

Become Your Own Expert

Perhaps more than ever, society constantly reinforces the notion that experts are the only ones who can be trusted to solve your problems. But blindly signing over authority and action to experts only stunts your growth. You can’t learn how to think for yourself when you constantly rely on others to tell you what to think.

This doesn’t mean you will never need assistance. What it means is that you need to do the work to become your own expert even while you seek expertise from others. This is the promise of partnership.

Fix Those People: Reframing the “Behavior Modification” Problem

Posted on by admin

Behavior modification (or behavior change) is a classic human predicament that is reflected in the question: How do I get those people to change their behavior?

You might be a parent dealing with a toddler. Or a government official looking for compliance with a new policy. Or a business consultant trying to implement change in an organization. Whatever the relationship and mission, you will have wondered how exactly to get other people to act in the way you want. Let’s call these behavior modification schemes. Sometimes they are manipulative. But most often they are grounded in a good desire for the behavior you feel is in the group’s best interest.

In the workplace, this problem often takes forms such as:

  • How do you get them to adopt the new mission, the new business, or institutional reality?
  • How do you give them the skills they need for the new world?

Most likely, such questions are being asked by top management with regards to local groups and how they operate on the ground. But given that such behavior modification is notoriously difficult, how can the issue be reframed to create a better possibility?

If You Acted on This Definition

If the goal is taken as behavior modification, then it makes sense to start the modification by communicating and offering training in a big way. You would spend time defining the desirable behaviors, then design or purchase programs to meet those competencies. You would then train managers to conduct the programs and get the top leaders to endorse them. The end result, you should hope, would be the new behaviors being acted out across the organization. Problem solved. Right? Well…maybe not.

Reframing “Behavior Modification”

The thing is that “those people” are very unlikely to be the real problem. To add injury to the insult, wide-scale training will cost a lot and redirect resources away from the real problem. Plus, focusing on people’s deficiencies only reinforces them.

Change is more likely to happen when we capitalize on, and bring to bear people’s capacities, and gifts, and strengths.

Despite the claims of consultants and their intimate organizational champions, large-scale training has had a poor record of changing organizations. There is an uncomfortable truth here. As the economic beneficiaries of the training movement, consultants are reluctant to be accountable for the fact that most large change efforts have led to little change.

Consultants often hold on to the belief that if they had more top management support things would have been different. But there is a false assumption beneath this belief.

The reality is that effective behavior modification throughout an organization is rarely dictated by a central mandate. It is much more likely to arise in response to circumstances on the ground.

Resist the “Fix” Mentality

This is why you must resist the “fix” mentality, where centralized control becomes the catch-all solution. Rather, local groups deciding what change and learning they need–with an emphasis on their underutilized capacities–is a faster and cheaper path to learning.

Here is the change in mentality you’ll need:

As a consultant, you are not in the behavior modification business, but in the community-organizing business: Bringing local groups together, engaging them in questions of purpose, allowing for local variation wherever possible. These practices create relational equity. And you can make the bet that this engagement effort will lead to a level of accountability that will make up for any “fixing” benefits that might accrue from the traditional strategy.

In summary, to act in this new frame:

  1. Focus NOT on people’s deficiencies, but on their gifts and strengths.
  2. Challenge the assumption that top management is what ultimately drives organizational behavior.
  3. Resist the urge to “fix” things centrally. Instead, let local groups decide what they need to learn to face their reality.

[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. 399-400]

Tom & Jerry: Reframing the “Conflict Resolution” Problem

Posted on by admin

Tom and Jerry don’t work well together. Sure, every workplace faces relational difficulties at times. But this has gone beyond cat and mouse games. Their increasingly public tension is dragging the whole team down and disrupting the atmosphere. They simply have to work it out or nothing is going to get done. Conflict resolution is another classic consulting situation in which the presenting problem likely needs reframing, or else it will continue to reoccur.

As we’ve discussed in earlier articles, the majority of generic consulting situations require looking for the underlying dysfunction in the human system as opposed to the surface issue. But in the case of interpersonal conflict, the problem is eminently “human.” So what are some of the ways this common situation can be reframed for new possibilities?

If You Acted On This Definition

Taking the issue at face value, you meet with Tom and Jerry separately to hear their viewpoints, then bring them into the same room and use some mediation process to help them come together. There is sharing of grievances, perhaps some negotiation and the hope is for the two parties to shake hands and start playing fair again.

Reframing “Conflict Resolution”

Conflict resolution is very valuable; that is not the question. The standard approach may well help in many instances. But there are just as many where the animosity seems insurmountable and nothing seems to be working. This is where we need a new frame.

The first way to reframe this issue is to be careful to test whether Tom and Jerry want to work it out. Too often the boss wants resolution, but the combatants do not.

The simple question is to ask whether each party wants to win or work it out.

If one or both are so entrenched that they just want the other to simply disappear, then don’t move ahead. Conflict resolution strategies depend on a certain level of good will. If it does not exist, then surgery may be required.

Secondly, don’t make the mistake of believing that all conflicts are resolvable. They are not, and you lose your credibility, especially in your own eyes, by taking on a task that never had a chance.

Sometimes confronting the players with the belief that you cannot help them raises the stakes and wakes them to the cost of their conflict.

The Third Man

Lastly, consider that what seems to be a problem between two is often a problem among three. The person who asks us to get involved is often a player too. Be open to the possibility of a dysfunctional triangle and try to understand the role of the sponsor of the mediation, who might be unknowingly keeping Tom and Jerry at odds. If this is the case, Tom and Jerry will feel it. Ask them what role your sponsor plays in their relationship and what impact that has.

In summary, to act within this frame:

  1. Test whether the combatants themselves desire conflict resolution.
  2. Challenge the assumption that the conflict is in fact resolvable.
  3. Understand the role of the sponsor of the mediation.

[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, p. 400]

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

Posted on by admin

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 for 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 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?

confused dog seemingly without a clear vision

What if the request for 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]

The Deadwood Dilemma: Reframing the “Low Performer” Problem

Posted on by admin

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.”
pointing finger at low performers
Reframe “low performers” as symptomatic of the team’s dysfunctions.

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 Three Consulting Roles: How to Stop Fixing and Start Collaborating

Posted on by Jeff Evans

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. You’ll receive your results and a short report about the roles, their advantages, and their disadvantages. You can then begin the process of choosing the role you really want to play. Click here to find out how.

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.