Professional Documents
Culture Documents
For years, corporate management tended to accept at face value the advice they
received from consulting firms. Hefty fees no doubt played a role in legitimatizing the
practice but whether the counsel actually addressed the organizational problems
companies sought to solve was moot because in most cases, the recommendations were
never implemented.
Why did so many bright people invest so much time, effort and money on so many
proposals that were never put into operation? In my opinion, there are several reasons.
The composition of consulting firms is a contributing factor here. They are typically
made up of people who are smart and experienced, but whose specialization lies in an
individual area or function, such as IT, Finance or Mark eting. Those that are process
oriented — trained as organizational psychologists or in human behavior and group
dynamics — are functionally or subsystem focused, and not well versed in content. As a
result, their consulting recommendations tend to be similarly specialized, lacking a
common business language element critical to successful implementation and problem
resolution.
Just as the military units from various countries that make up a United Nations army
may have outstanding individual capabilities, without a common language to provide
direction without confusion, the army's combined strength cannot be fully utilized. So
too without a common language recognized by all the organizational components, a
company is unable to sustain any change strategy. Like an organization with multiple
computers on different operating platforms that cannot communicate with one another,
a company must find software that allows all the different operating systems to talk
among themselves. This allows the company to take advantage of its indigenous
competitive advantage and its totality becomes much stronger as result.
Most companies do not have a clear picture of their problem. If they did, it's likely they
would have found a solution without outside help.
Every organization has a lifecycle and at each stage of that lifecycle, it experiences
problems that are normal. It may also experience problems that are abnormal or even
pathological. The consultant must determine which problems to solve and which to
ignore, within the context of a workable plan of action.
A physician does not prescribe the same medicine for a child and an adult. A business
prescription — the plan of action — is contingent upon where the organizational patient
is on its lifecycle. The proper medicine works better and faster because it is appropriate.
Determining the proper medicine and dosage requires examining all the relevant factors
within an organization — personalities, management style, structure, processes,
finances, etc. — in order to identify the true causes of the illness, which may not
necessarily be where management says it hurts. Companies, by and large, focus on
problem manifestations, not causes.
The consulting prescription of uniting sales and marketing might work for a young
company but is a disaster for a company beyond Adolescence or approaching Prime.
The real danger in a single discipline approach to problem solving is the old saw that if
the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. So if a consultant is
trained in strategic planning, he is almost certainly going to tell a company they must
define their goals and strategy before doing anything else. And the advice is likely to be
completely wrong because the company cannot clearly define its goals and strategy if its
structure is convoluted. Consultants tend to work within a sequence that says strategy
drives structure. That's not so. It may sound correct and perhaps it should be that way,
but it is not reality. The reality is that structure causes strategy.
Companies that engage a consulting firm to restructure their organization often run into
employee problems, forcing them to call in another consultant to deal with the unions,
followed by still another consultant to deal with the financial restructuring that is now
out of alignment with the strategic advice they received from the original consultant.
I once saw a cartoon in the lobby of a medical building. It listed the names and
specialties of the various doctors: A cardiologist, dermatologist, urologist, etc. The last
was Dr. Goldberg, whose specialty was side effects .
Organizational Inertia
Organizations are like motorboats. Tell me the relative strength of the various engines
and I'll tell you which direction the boat is going to take. Regardless of what happens on
the deck, no matter how much someone topside screams “Change direction,” the engine
— or in the case of an organization, the power structure — determines which direction
the boat will take. Most strategic planning initiatives fall victim to entrenched power
structures that reject the changes. Their preference is no change.
One of the first things a consultant must do is to relax “the engines,” make them
changeable, more flexible. Once that's accomplished, a strategic plan can be developed
that determines which direction the boat should take. It's vital to begin not with the
strategy but rather with the power structure that enables the strategy.
Most consultants work sequentially. They define the strategy then recommend the
structure that ostensibly will deliver the strategy. That rarely goes anywhere. WE
believe strategy and structure must be changed in a more interactive or interchangeable
manner, much like an inverted V or triangle configuration that avoids the typical linear
approach with strategy coming first and driving structure. At the base of one side of the
triangle is Strategy; at the other is Structure. Beginning on the strategy side, the
mission and nature of the organization is discussed. Then moving to the structure side,
an organizational structure template that makes sense for the mission is created. This is
not the final chart; merely a first draft. It induces the power structure to accommodate
the mission. These discussion and conclusions are usually acceptable to participants
because as yet, no change has been recommended. It is like anesthesia prior to
surgery.
The focus then shifts back to strategy, working in more detail, followed by a move back
to structure for more details. This continuous shifting back and forth is much like
climbing a ladder, one step at time. Eventually, the two sides meet at the top. By then it
is clear that the structure has to change if the mission and strategy are to be
implemented. Note that the consultant does not develop the strategy, the mission or
the structure. The top management of the company does this by themselves. The
consultant's role is merely to lead the discussion, provide the tools for management to
deal effectively with the issues, and create a safe environment to prevent the discussion
from becoming destructive. The consulting methodology provides both the tools and the
process; the client provides the content. Our experience is that this methodology for
leading change works in any industry in any environment.
Avoiding Upheavals
Many consultants avoid this process because it is time consuming for the client and thus
more difficult to sell. Others are afraid or are unsure as to how to transform the power
structure through a participative process. It is often just too much political risk for them
to deal with. But the consultant must be willing to deal with power structure without
getting hurt or getting anyone hurt, continuously adjusting strategy and structure, fine-
tuning each repeatedly in small increments until they fit together. The beauty of this is
that the organization becomes accustomed to change, albeit small ones, versus a major
upheaval every 5 or 10 years.
Dell is an example of a company that successfully makes small but regular incremental
changes.
Continuous small changes in process and structure on a continual basis are far better
and more productive. The interdependency between structure and process/strategy is
expressed by achieving systematic changes in an organization. This cannot be achieved
within a singularly-disciplined process. It must be conducted in a sequential, systemic
way, bringing strategy and structure together using continuous change.
The methodology employed should be transferred to the client so they can continue the
continuous change process without the consultant necessarily being involved on an
ongoing basis. Its one thing to give a company useful advice, but if the original
recommendations become obsolete, forcing the consultant to keep returning with
additional advice, the company is unlikely to sustain any gains. I believe the technology
— the management leadership tools — must be transferred to the client, who must
learn to use tools so they can continuously apply them and adapt to the changing
environment once the consultant departs. That eliminates the need for the client's
continued dependency on the consultant.
I believe a consulting methodology should be the reverse of that and I have spent the
past thirty years preaching and practicing that theory. The consultant asks the
questions, yes, but the client must articulate the answers. Like a psychotherapist who
does not provide the answers but rather knows what questions to ask and in what
sequence to ask them, this process forces clients to come to their own “aha!” and find
their own roadmap. Any initial consultant recommendations should be in the form of a
trial balloon. In this way, clients learn how to use the tools provided by the consulting
methodology. And in this way, the final solution to the problem is their own.
The Coaching Myth
Coaching may ask questions for the client to answer — a psychological treatment — but
it treats the individual rather than the organization. It employs psychological tools
versus tools of a business and organizational nature. I've seen many coaches actually
miss the problem because of their focus on psychodynamics and individual needs.
What makes an individual operate better is not necessarily what makes an organization
operate better. People who row the boat do not rock the boat. When there is a problem
with the boat, the first questions to ask are: Who can rock this boat? Assuming we know
what the solution is, who can rock it? What power pieces must be involved in order to
implement the solution?
Of course, all this will not work if a CEO is not committed to making changes along with
his people, or if he first makes a decision with outside consultants, then attempts to
impose the “solution” onto the company. All change planning and implementation
should be made with the people involved, and that requires a confident CEO who is not
afraid to hear from or even learn from people lower in the organizational ladder. It
requires a CEO willing to invest the time — both personally and that of the appointed
team — to deal with the problems; a CEO who does not outsource problem-solving and
solution to outside consultants ostensibly to save time, only to end up with a
disempowered management team. The CEO must participate in actively leading the
change.
Sometimes, the people who make the decision have the authority but not the power to
implement solutions. This can occur when barriers to implementation exist as a result of
people being afraid to make changes or if certain senior interests are threatened. This
causes organizational disintegration because those who know and understand the
problems do not have authority to rectify them and those with authority do not
necessarily have the power to enforce it. It is possible for an organization to know the
solutions but not be able to get them to the formalization or implementation stages.
To overcome this, the organization must been able to coalesce power, authority and
influence. The people who know what is going on must be included at the table, as well
as those who are necessary for implementation of the solution, assuming the solution
can be discerned. As information is unearthed, the composition of the group at the table
might have to be altered, and others brought in. Whoever has the authority to say “yes
and no” most certainly must be included. I do not mean the people who can say “yes or
no” but “yes AND no” to the solution. This is a critical distinction, one most consultants
miss. I find in many organizations, people have the right to say “no” but not to say
“yes”. It is essential that the people who can say “yes” are included at the table.
This coalescence will not take place, however, if the consultant fails to ask the hard
questions that determine who within the organization needs to be included. Some are
afraid to stipulate that the “yes” people attend. Too often, the group is composed of
people who know what should be done but do not have the power nor authority to make
it happen. They may have the power to undermine the solution without even knowing
what the solution is supposed to be. Typically, that's because they are trying to protect
their self-interests.
The divergent groups must be brought together and made to jointly begin analyzing the
problem, come to a conclusion as to what the problem is, why it is necessary to reach a
solution, and at the end of the day, to jointly conclude they should cooperate to get
things moving forward. In this way, the whole company moves ahead towards the
solution because the knowledge, power and authority have been united. If for some
reason the knowledge does not already reside within the company, which is rare, the
knowledge must be imported using outside consultants. However, I have only seen that
occur twice in thirty years! The solution is almost always resident within the
organization. However, the art is in helping the company uncover, examine, discuss and
implement the solution in an environment of mutual trust and respect.
Many consultants rely on what I call “the bypass system.” They enter an organization,
talk to the people who understand the problem, then write a report and submit it to the
people with the authority to decide. Unfortunately, this goes nowhere because the
people who decide do not have the support of the people needed for implementation.
I have conducted many sessions like these. After everyone has written down their
problems and before they are discussed, I ask, “How many of these problems existed
last year? Two years ago? Three?” Typically people will say “Most of them.” Well, if a
problem has existed for the last three years, it's not hard to get agreement that chances
are, the same problem will still be around in another three years. When I ask how many
problems can be solved by any single individual, including the CEO, people usually say
“none of them”. So even though I don't know what they have written down, their
admission that no one, not even their CEO, can solve their problems indicates that if the
problems could have been solved, they probably would have been solved by now. But
that hasn't happened. Typically, these are not simple problems and the phenomenon
that no one individual can solve the problems helps explains why the problems have
continued. But it manifests what is wrong with Western civilization's management edu
cation. We assign responsibilities to individuals even though as individuals, they cannot
contend with most major problems included in that responsibility.
Typically, each executive is chasing ten problems instead of ten managers chasing one
problem at a time. The first step in overcoming this issue is to decide which problems
they should solve together and which problems should be put on the backburner until
the problems on the front burner are solved. The first task is not deciding which
problems to solve but rather which problems not to solve. This way, the organization
can free up resources and jointly work on the priority problems. People begin to see
that they have been chasing too many problems and the reason they have been unable
to get the cooperation of others is that those people are busy chasing their own set of
problems. Everyone is running in place while stepping on others.
Consultants can play a meaningful role in helping organizations improve. They often
bring the best seeds for planting. Unfortunately, the seeds are often planted in frozen
land. Consultants should be more like farmers, first assessing the land to see whether it
can be productive and can be worked. They should plow the land and fertilize it so the
seeds can grow. Some seeds are indigenous to the organization; it already knows how
and where to plant them. When it doesn't, it's time to call in a consultant who can work
the land and plant seeds that will bear fruit.