Category: Consulting & Freelancing

If you and your client decide to terminate the project because it was satisfactorily completed, or for a technical reason, or because of a sudden interruption, then be sure to terminate it in a way that maintains a respectful relationship. Consider these guidelines.

Produce a Final Project Report

Both you and your client should complete a final project report. It might describe the outcomes of the Project Evaluation, and your decisions as a result. The report might reference your Project Plan.

Conduct a Final Meeting

You both should arrange a final meeting, in which you discuss the results of the Project Evaluation, including to acknowledge – and celebrate – the project’s accomplishments. Be prepared to share each of your own versions of “goodbye.” That is very important.

Complete a Formal Letter of Closure

You should follow up the meeting with a formal correspondence that affirms your mutual agreement that the project is formally over. In that correspondence, you should mention the date that you both agreed as the official end date, if it is not the ending date on the signed contract.

Organize Your Administrative Files

You should attend to administrative matters to close the project, for example, final invoices and closing the file for that client.

Arrange to Stop All Meetings About the Project?

You might consider stopping any further meetings about the project itself. That might seem a bit arbitrary, but it can actually be a very healthy practice, to avoid project creep and to avoid an ongoing, unhealthy dependency between you and your client. If your client wants to continue meeting with you about the project, then consider cycling back to the Contracting Phase to start a new project.

—

Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD — Authenticity Consulting, LLC. This article was adapted from one of the many downloadable handouts in the Consultants Development Institute’s online series Collaborative Consulting Training.

Welcome to this 3-part article on managing resistance in consulting projects. This Part 1 describes resistance and how to recognize it. Part 2 will describe how to deal with resistance from your client. Part 3 will describe how to deal with your own resistance as a consultant.

What is Resistance? What Causes it?

An important skill for you to have as an organizational consultant is to effectively recognize and address resistance from clients. This is true whether you are an external or internal consultant. Resistance in a consulting project is when your client (a person or a group in the organization) reacts against recommendations from you or against changes in the organization that seem threatening to them.

Resistance is quite common in consulting projects that focus on changing a significant part or process in the organization. After all, the way your client’s organization has been operating in the past is because one or more people felt strongly that their organization should be operating that way (even though that way they were operating may have caused their problems and is actually what needs to be changed). Thus, any perceived change in their organization can be threatening to them.

Direct and Indirect Resistance

The resistance can be direct or indirect. Direct resistance is your client’s authentic (direct, honest and open) expression about the perceived threat and why they are not going to follow the recommendations or support the change. Indirect resistance is when your client does not authentically admit their concern and, instead, does not cooperate with you. Usually, resistance is indirect and, therefore, can be difficult for you and your client to effectively address.

How to Recognize Another Individual’s Indirect Resistance

Peter Block, in his book Flawless Consulting, provides elegant advice about how to deal with resistance. The first step is to recognize the resistance. Indirect resistance, in consulting projects, can be occurring when:

• Your client does not return your calls.
• Your client continues to question the same piece of advice, even after you have repeated your answer several times.
• Your client tells you that they will have to think about your advice, then takes a few weeks to think about it, and still does not come to a conclusion.
• Your client postpones meetings with you.
• Your client suddenly calls you on the phone to say, “Everything’s fine now. You do not need to come back. We’ll send you your check. Goodbye.”

If you do not see resistance, look again. Resistance is useful because it tells you that your client perceives that something must change soon or is already changing. If there is no resistance at any time during your project, it might be that the project is not really addressing the root cause of issues in your client’s organization — or it may be that your own resistance is blinding you to the reality in your consulting project.

What are some other forms of resistance from clients? Are you experiencing any with your clients now? What are you doing about it?

In Part 2, we will describe how to deal with resistance from your client. In Part 3, we will describe how to deal with your own resistance as a consultant.

—————————

For more resources, see the Library topics Consulting and Organizational Development.

Information in this post was adapted from the book Field Guide to Consulting and Organizational Development by Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD. For training on consulting skills, see the Consultants Development Institute.

—

Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD – Authenticity Consulting, LLC – 800-971-2250 Read my blogs: Boards, Consulting and OD, and Strategic Planning .

Years ago, I remember going out on sales calls with one of the partners in our consulting firm, Marv Weisbord. We would most often be asked in to help a leadership team that was struggling. So, we’d be sitting with a group of managers listening to them talk about their difficult issues. I’d find myself jumping ahead and beginning to think of possible solutions……..team building, coaching, a visioning conference, a process improvement project, etc. I knew that they would stop talking at any point, turn to us, and ask what we would recommend. They probably suspected that we already had our proposed solution in our hip pocket. Meanwhile, Marv would continue to ask more questions and probe deeper. Finally, they would stop talking and ask us for our recommendations.

Marv would then calmly stand up, walk up to a flipchart, and create an approach to help solve their problem. It was always both original and brilliant. And the clients knew it. I once asked Marv how he knew what to create with so much pressure on him. His response was to say that he trusted himself to create an approach in the moment based on their struggles. It’s almost as though he was just letting his arm, hand, and magic marker go wherever they chose to go. I know that’s an exaggeration but, basically, he trusted himself.

I learned so much from these experiences. I learned how difficult it is to sit there and listen……truly listen…. when you know damn well that you have to be “on” in a few moments. Your mind automatically fills up with potential solutions and you stop listening. Your anxiety takes over. Getting up to a flipchart while not knowing for sure what you are going to create is just plain difficult. Yet, ironically, it is probably the most critical skill in consulting.

Unfortunately, that skill has become a dying art. Most consulting firms are now “expert” oriented. They have an approach or a product to sell whether it is team building, coaching, process improvement, strategic planning, or restructuring. They already have their prescribed solution when they walk in the door. A solution in search of a problem. They pretend to listen and then get up and fit their solution into the situation, regardless of whether or not it’s a good fit. Thus, my cynicism.

Welcome to this six-part series on the foundations of consulting. If you have not been following along with us, then we encourage you to read parts 1-4, referenced from the bottom of this article. Part 1 establishes the basis for the series by using Peter Block’s definition of a consultant as someone who is trying to change another person, process or organization, but who has no direct control over what they are trying to change. (We highly recommend his book “Flawless Consulting.”) This article describes the many commonalities between external and internal consultants.

What Is an External Consultant?

An external consultant is someone considered not to be an official, ongoing member of the organization. The relationship of the consultant to the organization is determined usually by a project’s contract or Letter of Agreement. He or she is paid on the basis of a particular project having certain desired results and deliverables from the consultant. Payroll taxes are not withheld from the person’s paycheck – the person pays their own payroll taxes.

What Is an Internal Consultant?

An internal consultant is someone considered to be an official, often ongoing member of the organization. The relationship of the consultant to the organization is determined usually by a job description and various personnel policies. He or she is paid on the basis on their ongoing role in the organization. Payroll taxes are withheld from the person’s paychecks.

Differences Between Internal and External Consultants

The extent of differences between both types of consultants depends on the type of consulting provided by the consultants and how the consultants choose to work. For example, technical consultants are often perceived as having highly focused and credible skills that are seldom questioned. They often use similar skills and tools to get the job done. The results of their services are often quickly determined. Thus, members of an organization might perceive little difference between this type of internal and external consultant.

In contrast, consultants focused on organizational and managerial development usually have to establish their credibility over time. Their skills are sometimes highly questioned – members of the organization might even be skeptical of the need for any change in the organization. Results of the consultant’s work can take months or years to realize. Consequently, members of an organization might perceive huge differences between these types of consultants.

Official, legal and administrative differences are often easy to distinguish. However, for several reasons, the differences are disappearing between consultants guiding organizations through change. Internal and external consultants are learning similar kinds of best practices and approaches for change. Both types of consultants often focus on highly facilitative approaches to working with clients. Both types of consultants, if they are committed professionals, adopt similar overall goals and working assumptions as consultants.

Traditionally, internal consultants are considered to be members of an organization whose primary job is to assist other people working in other areas of the organization. Often these internal consultants are in large organizations and from training and development or human resource departments. The typical small business usually does not have the extensive range of resources that warrants having an internal consultant.

Traditionally, an internal leader would not be considered an internal consultant. However, that perception is changing. With recent emphasis on the importance of using a highly facilitative and collaborative leadership style when guiding change, leaders are beginning to operate more like internal consultants for change then ever before. Consequently, some would consider leaders in the organization to sometimes play the role of internal consultants.

See the following table for a concise comparison between external and internal consultants.
—

Look for the articles in this series, including:

1. What Do Consultants Do?
2. How Do Consultants Work?
3. Most Important Goals and Working Assumptions of Consultants
4. Major Types of Consultants
5. Internal and External Consultants
6. Good Reasons – and Poor Reasons – to Hire Consultants

—————————

For more resources, see the Library topics Consulting and Organizational Development.

Information in this post was adapted from the book Field Guide to Consulting and Organizational Development by Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD. For training on consulting skills, see the Consultants Development Institute. For more resources, see the Free Management Library’s topic All About Consulting .

—

Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD – Authenticity Consulting, LLC – 800-971-2250 Read my blogs: Boards, Consulting and OD, and Strategic Planning .

Part 1 of this series is What Do Consultants Do?, which defines a consultant (as Peter Block puts it) as someone who is trying to change another person, process or organization, but who has no direct control over what they are trying to change. That post also listed numerous roles that a consultant might play during a project, e.g., coach, facilitator, trainer, advisor — and many others.

In addition to the various roles in consulting, there are various approaches to consulting, as described in this post. This post describes two very different approaches to consulting: a systematic, planned approach versus an organic approach.

Consultants might even do the same approach differently, for example, some consultants might involve the client in the consulting process much more than others. However, research suggests that, for more complex projects, the more you collaborate with your client in carrying out the particular approach to consulting, the more successful you all will be in accomplishing the preferred results in the project. That collaboration requires strong people skills — that’s the topic of another series of blogs 🙂

Systematic and Planned Approach

Many consultants use a systematic, or planned, approach. They tend to include the following phases, or some variation of them – perhaps with different names for each phase. A planned approach is much more cyclical in nature, than this numbered list.

Contracting Phase

The first phase is the contract phase, where the consultant and client explore the client’s problem (or exciting goal) and how it might be addressed. They learn more about each other, and decide whether to work together or not. This phase includes completion of a formal agreement to proceed with the project.

Discovery Phase (Diagnosis Phase)

In the discovery phase, the consultant and client clarify the problem, using various approaches to get more information. They try to separate the symptoms of the problem from its real causes. They analyze the information they’ve gathered, and come to conclusions about what actions should be taken. They share their findings with other key personnel in the organization.

Action Planning Phase

The action planning phase is where the consultant and client, and ideally more employees in the organization, firm up their action plans for addressing the problem, with specific goals to be achieved, who will achieve them, and by when. It’s very important that the actions be relevant and realistic.

Implementation Phase (Change Management Phase)

The implementation phase is where the action plans are implemented. The priority in this phase is to sustain momentum in the implementation – hopefully, generating a great deal of learning. Continual evaluations ensure the implementation is on the right track to solving the problem.

Project Evaluation Phase

The evaluation phase measures whether the problem has been solved. Other aspects of the project are also evaluated, including the quality of the collaborative relationship and the learning in the project.

Project Termination Phase

All projects should end with a Termination phase, in which the consultant and client decide what to do with the results of the evaluation. They might cycle back to an earlier phase, continue the current project, or terminate the project.

Organic Approach to Consulting

Some consultants use a rather organic approach. They get a strong sense of what they think the client’s problem is, and determine what they’ll do for now to solve it. The way they work with clients seems to naturally unfold during the project. Advantages of this approach are several.

1. This can work very well for small projects or for cultures that don’t prefer structured approaches to problem solving or achieving goals.
2. It can also seem to produce quick successes in a project, when the consultant very quickly suggests what the problem or goal is and how to address it.
3. It can result in lower project costs because the consultant is continuously making rather quick decisions and suggestions.

The organic approach also has some disadvantages.

1. The consultant might not have taken the time to do the discovery needed to find the real causes of the client’s problem, rather than reacting to its symptoms.
2. Without a systematic discovery, many of us consultants tend to see only those problems that can be fixed with our favorite tools. For example, if we’re coaches, then we see primarily the need for coaching. If we’re advisors, then we see primarily the need to give advice.
3. The consultant’s estimate of the time to complete the project, might vary widely, thus, costing far less, or for more, than the client expected.
4. It can also be very difficult to involve clients in a way that they fully understand because the consultant is continually intuiting the situation — it can be very difficult to explain the results of one’s intuition 🙂

This post is not claiming that any one approach to consulting is always best. The best approach to use depends on the nature and needs of the client, more than the preferred approach or technical expertise of the consultant. A good consultant might have a variety of approaches and roles to use, and knows when to call in other expertise when needed.

What approach to you use?

—

Look for the articles in this series, including:

1. What Do Consultants Do?
2. How Do Consultants Work?
3. Most Important Goals and Working Assumptions of Consultants
4. Major Types of Consultants
5. Internal and External Consultants
6. Good Reasons – and Poor Reasons – to Hire Consultants

—————————

For more resources, see the Library topics Consulting and Organizational Development.

Information in this post was adapted from the book Field Guide to Consulting and Organizational Development by Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD. For training on consulting skills, see the Consultants Development Institute. For more resources, see the Free Management Library’s topic All About Consulting .

—

Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD – Authenticity Consulting, LLC – 763-971-8890 Read my blogs: Boards, Consulting and OD, and Strategic Planning .

Peter Block, in his seminal book, Flawless Consulting, explains that a “consultant” is someone who is trying to change another person, process or organization, but who has no direct control over what they are trying to change. Usually, that change is intended to improve performance – the effective and efficient achievement of goals.

One of the greatest frustrations of consulting is the desire to change your client’s organization, but not having direct influence to accomplish that change. Experienced consultants have learned to work with – and even appreciate – the indirect nature of effective consulting.

You might argue that a leader acting as an internal change agent is not an internal consultant because he or she does have at least some direct control over staff members. However, there is not nearly the extent of direct control that you might assume – especially during long, but successful journeys for change.

The highly collaborative and facilitative internal consultant or leader does not always exercise direct control and often is quite successful in guiding change. Thus, a successful leader during change is acting much more like Block’s definition of consultant than you might realize.

It might be useful to consider the many perceptions that people have of consultants and the many roles that consultants might play in a project. Consultants often act as:

• Advisor — giving expert advice to solve a problem or achieve a goal.
• Coach – helping individuals clarify and achieve goals and also learn.
• Collaborator/partner – working with people to benefit from the relationship.
• Educator/trainer – helping others develop new knowledge, skills and insights.
• Expert – providing content expertise in certain areas.
• Facilitator – helping a group to decide what it wants to accomplish and then helping the group to achieve those desired results.
• Problem solver – clarifying problems, using various styles and approaches to “solve” them.
• Researcher – collecting, organizing and analyzing information.
• Facilitator – guiding groups or individuals through learning experiences.

Other roles might include analyst, synthesizer, impartial observer, critic, friend and mentor. These are mostly positive roles. Of course, some people have strong negative impressions of consultants, as well. They might view consultants as outsiders, charlatans or even as nerds.
—

Look for the articles in this series, including:

1. What Do Consultants Do?
2. How Do Consultants Work?
3. Most Important Goals and Working Assumptions of Consultants
4. Major Types of Consultants
5. Internal and External Consultants
6. Good Reasons – and Poor Reasons – to Hire Consultants

—————————

For more resources, see the Library topics Consulting and Organizational Development.

Information in this post was adapted from the book Field Guide to Consulting and Organizational Development by Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD. For training on consulting skills, see the Consultants Development Institute. For more resources, see the Free Management Library’s topic All About Consulting .

—

Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD – Authenticity Consulting, LLC – 800-971-2250 Read my blogs: Boards, Consulting and OD, and Strategic Planning .

Welcome to this six-part series on the foundations of consulting. If you have not been following along with us, then we encourage you to read parts 1-5, referenced from the bottom of this article. Part 1 establishes the basis for the series by using Peter Block’s definition of a consultant as someone who is trying to change another person, process or organization, but who has no direct control over what they are trying to change. (We highly recommend his book “Flawless Consulting.”) This article describes good reasons and poor reasons to hire consultants.

Good Reasons to Hire External Consultants

1. The organization has limited or no expertise in the area of need, for example, to develop a new product or program for customers and clients.
2. The time of need is short-term, for example, less than a year, so it may not be worth hiring a full-time, permanent staff member.
3. The organization’s previous attempts to meet its own needs were not successful, for example, the organization developed a Strategic Plan that was never implemented.
4. Organization members continue to disagree about how to meet the need and, thus, bring in a consultant to provide expertise or facilitation skills to come to consensus.
5. Leaders want an objective perspective from someone without strong biases about the organization’s past and current issues.
6. A consultant can do the work that no one else wants to do, for example, historical data entry. (Some would argue that this is not really a consulting project.)
7. A funder or other key stakeholder demands that a consultant be brought in to help further develop the organization.

Poor Reasons to Hire External Consultants

The following reasons are likely open to disagreement – some people would argue that some or all of the following are good reasons to hire a consultant.

1. The organization wants a consultant to lend credibility to a decision that has already been made, for example, the Board of Directors has decided to reorganize the nonprofit, but the Chief Executive Officer disagrees – so the Board hires a consultant to lend expert credibility to their decision. Many consultants might consider this reason to hire a consultant unethical.
2. A supervisor does not want to directly address a problem of poor performance with one of the employees, so the supervisor hires a consultant to do the job that the employee should be doing. This is an irresponsible action on the part of the supervisor.
3. The organization does not want to pay benefits (vacation pay, holiday pay, pension, etc.) or go through the administrative processes to withhold payroll taxes (social security taxes, federal taxes, etc.) for a position — a position that seems consistent and long-term, e.g., longer than a year or more — so the organization hires a consultant. This reason for hiring a consultant is likely to be illegal and could result in the organization paying fines and penalties to the appropriate government agency. The organization should proactively contact the IRS to discuss this situation.

What do you think?

—

Look for the articles in this series, including:

1. What Do Consultants Do?
2. How Do Consultants Work?
3. Most Important Goals and Working Assumptions of Consultants
4. Major Types of Consultants
5. Internal and External Consultants
6. Good Reasons – and Poor Reasons – to Hire Consultants

—————————

For more resources, see the Library topics Consulting and Organizational Development.

Information in this post was adapted from the book Field Guide to Consulting and Organizational Development by Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD. For training on consulting skills, see the Consultants Development Institute. For more resources, see the Free Management Library’s topic All About Consulting .

—————————

For more resources, see the Library topics Consulting and Organizational Development.

—

Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD – Authenticity Consulting, LLC – 800-971-2250 Read my blogs: Boards, Consulting and OD, and Strategic Planning .

Recently a student asked me what the primary differences in skills were required between a consultant and a trainer. I thought about it and told her this story…..

When I was working in the OD firm, Block Petrella Weisbord, I was on the consulting side of the business with Tony Petrella and Marvin Weisbord. Peter Block ran the training side, which was entitled Designed Learning. He had created skill- building workshops based on his writing and trainers conducted them all over the world. It was quite a successful business.

I was once scheduled to facilitate some team building at Pepsi. My client and I had met and had set up a 2 day offsite. Unfortunately something came up and I called my client to see if we could re-schedule the session. When I asked him if we could push it back, he said, “John, if we push it back, we’ll never do it. Could you see if you can find another facilitator in your firm? I trust you to find a good consultant.”

So, I scrambled to find someone. All of our consultants were booked for those 2 days. The only person who was available was a trainer for Designed Learning. He was a skilled trainer and a good person and he quickly agreed to conduct the team building at Pepsi. I gave him all of the information about the team, their goals, the planned agenda, and issues to be aware of across the team.

I talked first with my client following the team building. He was excited and pleased about the session and felt that they had made progress. He was complimentary about the facilitation and thanked me for finding a strong replacement. And then I called my training friend to hear how it had gone. To this day, I’ve always remembered his words, “ John, don’t ever ask me to do that again. I was scared to death. Your world is so different than mine. I constantly had to decide when to intervene, when to offer my input, when to change the agenda. In my world, everything is orderly. I know exactly what’s going to be going on at 10:38am. I have a planned script and everyone is looking at me for structure and instructions. In your world, nothing is really planned. I had to make decisions on the fly, to think out loud, and I was always anxious about losing control or making a fool of myself.”

In that moment, it dawned on me some of the differences between training and consulting. He was a wonderful, skilled trainer but he was out of his element conducting team building. I would have been the same way if our roles were switched and I went in to teach his workshop. I would have struggled. Very few of us are equally balanced and have both sets of skills. I enjoy the anxiety of not knowing. He enjoys the predictability of knowing. My guess is that it was a good experience for him to get out of his comfort zone. He probably learned a lot. But I’m sure that he relished getting back up in front of a class once again……..in control, leader’s guide open in front of him, and in charge.

—

For more resources, see the Library’s topics:

• All About Consulting
• All About Training and Development

—

John Dupre is an organization development consultant who designs innovative ways to involve people in building more productive and satisfying workplaces. Read more about him at http://www.johndupreconsulting.com/

(This post was written by co-host, John Dupre.)

I was recently talking to a group of students in a master’s program in OD. They were interested in pursuing OD consulting, whether it be internal or external. The problem with offering advice is that there are so many definitions of OD now. The profession has become filled with niche players……executive coaching, team building, process improvement, change management, etc. The days of listening to clients talk about what they are struggling with and coming up with an original proposal are over. We now have expert solutions often in search of problems.

Nonetheless, it’s critical to figure out what you care most deeply about in your work….. what gives you passion and what values you aren’t willing to violate. This can then serve as a compass to guide you through your career. I can still remember the exact moment I gained clarity for myself……

Years ago I was interviewing for a job in a large consulting firm in NYC. They put me through a long, exhaustive interviewing process before they finally offered me the job. I was excited about the offer. It paid quite well and I liked the consultants who I had met.

After they had offered me the position but before I had accepted, I was sitting in the Senior Partner’s office informally chatting. He wanted to get a sense of the type of work that I loved so he asked me to describe a project that I had enjoyed.

I thought about it and said, “ I love two types of projects. On one hand, I like projects that enable me to work with employees to figure out how to improve their business. For example, say I’m working with a team of people representing a bottling operation in a brewery, and the team has figured out how to redesign the bottling operation to reduce costs, simplify the process, and increase production. I love that type of project.”

“On the other hand, I love projects in which there are none of those types of breakthroughs. But, at the same time, several people come up to me, shake my hand and say, “ I just wanted to thank you. You have changed my life at work. You have pushed me to act with courage, you have helped me accept my own contribution to problems, and you have challenged me to take responsibility. I’ll never be the same.”

“ I also love that type of project.” And then I paused and said, “Actually, the projects that I love the most are those second types….. they are more personal and more sustaining.” The moment that I said this, I could see the Senior Partner kissing me off. Not in a cruel way. He just realized that it was not a good fit. So he said, “ I don’t think you should accept the offer, John. You are more interested in personal change, in having an impact on people. In many ways, you are more of a social activist. This is worthy, but it is not our intent. We focus on business results, your first type of project….. the project you did not choose.”

It hit me over the head. He was absolutely right. I had never really thought about it—the high salary and the glamour of the position had seduced me. I loved organizational change projects and had years of experience in leading them. But I was passionate about changing peoples’ lives at work. It’s what I cared most deeply about. They are both connected but are not the same thing. So, I turned down the offer and began to shift directions in my career.

—————————

For more resources, see the Library topics Consulting and Organizational Development.

—-

John Dupre is an organization development consultant who designs innovative ways to involve people in building more productive and satisfying workplaces. He can be reached at http://www.johndupreconsulting.com/.

(Guest post from Ron Leeman.)

I have also recently undertaken some “rough and ready” research into the different dynamics that impact the way change is practiced in the East to that of the West. I am looking at the dynamics from three perspectives:

1. From Western Consultants who have had experience of and have practised Change & Transformation in Asia.
2. From Asian Consultants who have had exposure to Western style Change & Transformation tools & techniques and who are actively practising in Asia.
3. An overall consolidated view from both of the above.

Feedback from my Change in Asia Group and many of my LinkedIn 1st Connections enabled me to compile the following 15 key dynamics:

1. Religion – central to beliefs and ways of doing things in Asia.
2. Pace of change – slower in Asia.
3. Reasons for resistance – different reasons in Asia than in the West.
4. Change awareness – understanding of the need for change is less prevalent in Asia.
5. Cycles – not as important as in the West.
6. Families – Asia is heavily focused on the family unit.
7. Indigenous knowledge – more focused on the output rather than the process in Asia.
8. Group focus – more focused on groups than individuals in Asia.
9. Cultural integrity – an understanding of the Asian way of life.
10. Inter-country obligations –less in Asia than in the West.
11. Consensus – a need to understand and engage at all levels in Asia.
12. Regulatory environment – not as strict as in the West.
13. Education – less creative learning in Asia than in the West.
14. Hierarchy – bosses in Asia find it harder to let go, to empower their staff.
15. Responsibility – Asian staff find it difficult to express their opinion until the boss has and then they all agree!

Following agreement of the 15 dynamics I asked respondents to rank their “Top 6” in order of importance and I then assigned scores to the “Top 6” i.e. 6 points for the No1 challenge down to 1 point for the No 6 challenge to ascertain importance.

Whilst the research is not in any way finished yet there are some clear differences to what Western consultants think to that of Asian consultants e.g.

• Change Awareness is a clear inhibiting factor as cited by Asian consultants but Western consultants don’t see this aspect as important (I have yet to get under the skin of this).
• Also there are some consistencies starting to emerge e.g. Change Awareness and Hierarchy are clear leaders followed by Responsibility, Cultural Integrity, Consensus and Education.

What do you think?

See these topics in the Free Management Library: