Category: Consulting & Freelancing

A colleague called me last week, reporting that she had actually spoke face-to-face with one of the gurus in our field of Organization Development. In her extreme excitement, she could hardly speak slowly enough for me to actually understand her.

Several months ago, I got a brochure announcing an upcoming conference in my field. As usual, I scanned the list of speakers to notice if my personal gurus would be there. This time, it finally dawned on me that I’d like to hear some new voices, rather than the same cadre of strongly adored leaders in my field. Still, I looked for the list of the same gurus.

I’ve noticed over the years that many of my gurus are starting to sound the same. They proclaim the same very broad, seemingly obvious generalizations, many of which could be said by a newbie in our field — but not nearly with the same credibility. So it’s not what’s being said — it’s who’s saying it that seems to be most important.

While we assert the need to think out of the box, to hear different perspectives, are we listening too much to our gurus?

At what point does someone become a guru? At what point does a guru cease being a guru?

What do you think?

—————————

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

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

Every now and then I gift myself with the luxury of time available for reflection, and I “mine” my own learning of what existed? What made that effort a successful change process? Why did that one and that one work well? First of all, my experience is that organizational development work is a very fragile enterprise.

• People run out of energy
• Key executives change positions
• Consultants burn out from their constant marginality
• Timing is everything: Marv Weisbord talks about “harvesting” as a stage of readiness.
• LUCK often plays a large role.

Patterns in The Process

So in this fragile endeavor, there are patterns, which I have experienced, which are repeatable and above all very cyclical. And they are all combinations of action and learning. See the model, “Definition and Implementation of Organizational Change.”

To work with a client you have to develop an inquiry relationship, together you have to be able to diagnose the situation and look at alternatives. All of this work comes down to the consulting relationship and our ability to build a mutual and collective capacity to do inquiry: into individual, group and organizational conditions requiring the focus and the attention of the work. This joint inquiry results in a vision, a sense of what the leadership feels it needs to do.

Learning It By Doing It

The vision is the trigger of the Design and Start Up phase. When leaders start to public their vision they discover the implications of the change and as they discuss these, there are additional values that get clarified and the vision has to clearly define the intent of the effort.

As the leadership group starts to involve others, the focus shifts to: Evolving the Intervention Strategy. I always talk about this as “the trip planned” and “the trip taken”- there are always differences between what I expect and how we need to capitalize in the moment to shift an understanding of what might be needed to support the change. When we are clear about this we move forward with the design into Implementation, we execute the process, we do it and we learn and adjust the change and only then does the momentum change from cycling backwards in feedback loops, to moving forward and looking downstream.

Adjustments Along The Way

As I experience this I have learned that through each of these phases we see ourselves and others and the problem before us in different ways as we move through the change process. It is the inquiry relationship that is the foundation of the work that follows. Who has done serious inquiry and not come out changed? Through this we learn to see things we had not previously appreciated and we realize that much of what we thought we knew was based on assumptions, which I now see. There is no going back from that. If done well, it provides the courage to begin design and start up of a needed constructive effort, which involves influencing others in system change.

What do you think?

—————————

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

————————————————————————————–

Jim Smith has over 40 years of organization development experience in a wide range of organizations. He can be reached at  ChangeAgents@gmail.com

OD vs. Training – Or Is It?

I’ve watched over the years as various fields and professions form firm interpretations of others. For example, many Organization Development practitioners almost look down on training as scoped to working only with individuals and not the broader context of organizations as does OD (by the way, we OD’rs prefer that you capitalize the name of our field 🙂

Yet when asked for definitions of OD, they seem loathe to scope the role of OD at all. If definitions of OD are offered, they usually assert that OD is based on changing systems, especially through use of systems principles. They’ll even assert that OD can include training, as well as many other “interventions,” such as coaching and facilitating.

Coaching vs. Consulting – Or Is It?

Similarly, many coaches see consulting as being limited to giving advice. When asked for definitions of coaching, they assert that coaching is always being other-directed and based primarily on questioning. They might add, “So coaching is not consulting. It’s coming from people, rather than at them.”

Do We Tend to Glamorize Our Own Work?

Yet trainers are some of the most systems-based people I know – those skills aren’t limited to OD. Effective trainers in a group setting can transform a group of people. So, if the trainer is especially effective, is the trainer now an OD practitioner? Also, OD can include training, but does that mean the practitioner is no longer doing OD when he/she is merely “training”?

Similarly, an effective consultant can have a big bag of tools, just like an effective coach. A consultant can use questioning (“coaching”?) and advice (“consulting”?), depending on the needs of the client and the context of the project at the time.

I’m not claiming we always have the wrong definitions of these fields. I think the ongoing exploration of each field is to advantage of ourselves and our clients.

However, I am suggesting that we be as fair when describing other fields as when describing our own.

What do you think?

—————————

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

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

Marv Weisbord’s Model – Two Critical Paths to Change

Marv Weisbord’s model “Two Critical Paths for Improving Organizations” suggests, that when it comes to improving our organizations, the first question is, “Who is going to be involved? The second question is, “What is it they are to go about improving?”

The answer to the first question is on the one hand, “experts,” and on the other hand, “everyone.” The response to the second question is on the one hand, “isolated problems,” and on the other hand, “whole systems.”

Historically We Used “Experts” to Guide Change

As he points out, historically we have thrown “experts” at isolated problems. We have brought in outside consultants to provide recommendations and prescriptions about the problems that plague us. Experts have advised us how to improve productivity and how to improve communications.

This is dealing with problems as “technocratic challenges.” We believe that these decisions and solutions are made visible to us by expertise. Functional specialists determine what needs to be done, by other people who have to implement.

We need to be astute in locating and gaining this expertise, setting the conditions where they can analyze the problems, and making sure people do what they are told to do to solve the problem. This is the way we tend to go after our problems and we have a lot of them.

Historical Approaches Weren’t Integrated

During the late 1960’s and 1970’s, the Quality Circle movement took root and managers tried to get everybody to address these isolated problems. The problems still were not integrated into a meaningful perspective, because most managers had many demands and problems, and no real sense of how all their efforts tied together.

Without thinking systemically, most people were trying to do the best they could within their areas of influence. The idea was to mobilize everybody’s focus and energy to try to improve. This got reduced into trivia; people spent hours discussing the quality and color of hand towels in the rest rooms.

The movement was abandoned after awhile and lost credibility, although more than a few local improvements were made although the quality movement has contributed immensely in statistical process analysis and many other tools.

Advent of a Whole Systems Perspective

At the same time, a few reflective scholarly consulting practitioners were experimenting with ways to improve whole systems. (Starting with the work of Emery and Trist and others in the socio-technical approach to organization development, consultants were being influenced by the “systems view” espoused by Bertalanffy, C.W. Churchman, Kenneth Boulding and Katz and Kahn to name a few.)

Systems’ thinking was taking hold in the academic and consulting community — today it is a well-grounded perspective. Everyone in organizations talks about systems, and new hires into organizations can go on at length about the theories and concepts. The problem has been getting this knowledge used in highly functional organizations.

The early specialists were not just interested in elegant industrial designs. They were aware that organization effectiveness is a function of technical and social systems integration, and that true performance was the joint optimization of both variables in the design of work. Thirty years of research and collective wisdom has produced the insight that performance change can only be achieved when everyone is involved in improving the whole system.

So What’s Next for Guiding Change?

The trick is how to make that happen.

• How do we get everyone involved in improving whole systems?
• How does change happen without a “hand off” or a “roll out”?
• How do leaders make it happen in “real time” not just talk about it, but do it in the process of learning how to do it.

These questions have been central in Organization Development for the last few years and certainly will be thought about for a long time to come.

What do you think?

—————————

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

———————————————————–
Jim Smith has over 40 years of organization development experience in a wide range of organizations.

We live in traditional organizations that are functional and vertically managed. The design is similar to creating and operating a “marching organization.” Work is aligned by function and managed vertically up and down the line. When errors happen, they are pushed up to the next level of command. A control structure reinforces the hierarchy of power. The traditional structure has worked historically when the environment around the organization was less complex and certainly more stable than today.

Today our organizations are flat and horizontal. Work is being organized by process as much as function, it is managed by multi-functional teams, which are quicker in producing customer driven results. Are you seeing these?

I guess we all need to get quicker, better and faster but it seems like we are taking a long time to get there. The problems we face, or the opportunities I might add, is the change in culture that is necessary in most significant organizational change efforts.

From vertical to horizontal is an example of a vision that might be valued. The challenge is cultural and political, not technical.

But then we see an example of all the various law enforcement agencies involved in capturing the person who threatened the people of Times Square. The cooperation and collaboration of all of the people involved is an awesome reminder of what is possible in organizational learning and adaptive action. The integration of their information and decision making process transcended mere structure.

What do you think?

—————————

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

———————————————————–
Jim Smith has over 40 years of organization development experience in a wide range of organizations.

It’s common in change-management projects to have a vision for change. It’s very useful to have clients consider both a grand vision and a strategic vision. We do this in our consultant training services, and the consultants usually greatly appreciate that approach. Grand visions and strategic visions can be used in strategic planning, as well.

A grand vision is a very broad and long-range depiction of what the organization (and preferably its stakeholders) will be like, as a result of the project, for example, “We’re the most respected organization in our industry.”

A strategic vision is depiction of what the organization will be like soon after having finished the project for change, for example, “Our business units are closely aligned and our operations are more efficient, resulting in a 20% decrease in operating costs.”

Too often, only grand visions are used in projects for change and in strategic planning. While they initially are great for motivating people, they often don’t give clear focus and direction for people undertaking those activities. A strategic vision can provide that clear focus and direction, especially at a time when people seem increasingly cynical about projects for change and strategic planning.

In your next projects and plans, consider using grand visions and strategic visions.

What do you think?

—————————

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

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

Last week, I got a call from a consultant who lamented the “failure of all those management movements.” As usual in these conversations, the caller went on to explain how his particular idea was what leaders and managers really needed.

That type of lament seems increasingly common in literature about the need for “transforming organizations” and “transforming society.” I think the lament is simplistic and even reckless.

There have been many major movements and models in management, e.g., scientific management, management by objectives, quality circles, Total Quality Management, Business Process Re-Engineering, One-Minute Managing, Self-Managed Teams … the list goes on.

I assert that many of these movements and models became integrated with the others and that many of them built on each other — they didn’t “fail” any more than a recent addition to a house was a “failure” because more additions were needed, or any more than therapy sessions were a “failure” because the person needed more therapy later on.

I sometimes wonder if the hyperbole from consultants and writers is as dangerous as the situations those people are trying to improve.

What do you think?

—————————

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

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

I conducted a workshop two weeks ago in which a participant mentioned that some of the other participants in the room were not from “mature organizations.” He went on to explain that their organizations were still somewhat small.

I countered that it’s often an illusion to assess the maturity of an organization based on it size. I suggested that maturity depends more on the nature of activities in the organization — that a small or large organization can be immature if, for example, its internal practices are more reactive and crisis-driven than proactive and plan-driven.

I added, even that depends on the culture of the people in the organization. Some cultures don’t do planning in the typical “linear” approach that we so often talk about. Rather than establishing goals, objectives, responsibilities and deadlines, those cultures might do planning in more of an “organic,” unfolding and dynamic approach.

One of the most useful, recent perspectives on organizations is that of life cycles. The view is that, just like people, organizations must evolve through life cycles, for example, birth, growth and maturity. Life cycles apply to many systems, including products and teams. If a system does not successfully evolve to the next stage, it can stagnate or even decline.

I’ve sometimes wondered about the life-cycle theory — if an organization reaches “maturity,” then does it remain there forever, or does it regress to earlier stages whenever there’s a sudden crisis, for example, a major recession? Or, does that organization, by the fact that it’s mature, evolve through the recession in a mature way?

What do you think is a “mature” organization?

—————————

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

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

Peter Block, in his book, Flawless Consulting, suggests that certain goals and assumptions always be primary for consultants, that is, for individuals working to help people, but not having authority over those people. He suggests the following goals and assumptions.

Primary Working Goals of Consultants

1. Establish a collaborative relationship with your clients

As a consultant, you should work with your clients almost as if you are peers working in a team. This is in contrast to the consultant who always works as an “expert” to direct the client what to do and when. Working in a collaborative fashion with your clients helps ensure that recommendations are accurate, that clients follow the recommendations and that they adopt the changes needed to improve themselves and their organizations.

2. Solve problems so your clients can solve them later themselves

The approach to problem solving in the project should always involve your client’s learning about what is being done and why, so that later on your client might use similar approaches to solve similar problems after you are gone from the project. So it’s important to regularly identify learning during the project, and discussing that learning with your client.

3. Ensure attention to developing the project and relationships

The quality of the relationship between you and your client is a reliable predictor of the quality of the outcome of the overall project. Your clients often judge a project, not so much by the outcomes from the project, but by the quality of the working relationship with you.

Primary Working Assumptions

1. Problem solving requires information that is as accurate as possible.

Information is more accurate if it reflects the full range of perspectives and opinions among clients in a project, so involve them as much as possible.

2. Effective decision-making requires free and open choice among participants.

Free and open choice is more likely to produce the full range of opinions necessary for good planning. It also is more likely to ensure that your clients adopt the changes necessary to bring about change.

3. Effective implementation requires the internal commitment of your clients.

If you give participants little choice about what to do, they will likely do what you direct, but only for as long as you are around – and they will not be vested in the outcomes. They may also blame you if it does not work. In contrast, if you involve them as much as possible in project planning and implementation, they are much more likely to implement the plans completely and learn at the same time.

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 .

—

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

There are strong feelings that consulting, facilitating, coaching and training are very different roles. I believe that a good consultant should be able to use any of the roles for different purposes. Here are some guidelines for what roles to use and when.

When You Might Resort to Facilitating

Collaborative organizational consulting is about working, as much as possible, in partnership with your clients to accomplish powerful, long-lasting change in your client’s organization. That usually requires a highly facilitative role in your consulting. Facilitating is helping a group of people to decide what results they want to achieve together, how they want to achieve them and then helping the group to achieve them. Styles range from directive to indirectly suggestive. The conditions that often exist in an organizational project and require the consultant to fill the facilitator role include:

1. When the project needs ongoing trust, commitment and participation of clients.
   Ongoing contributions usually do not come from clients during trainings or when receiving advice from experts. Instead, the buy-in of members comes from knowing that their beliefs and opinions are being solicited and valued. This can be especially important when a diverse group will be involved or impacted by the project. The essence of facilitation is to bring out those beliefs and opinions and to help members decide what they want to do and how they want to do it.
2. When working to address complex problems or major goals with clients.
   The most accurate understanding of priorities in an organization often comes from considering the perspectives of as many members as possible. The most relevant, realistic and flexible strategies to address those priorities are developed and implemented from the active participation of members. Facilitation is the most powerful role from which to cultivate that participation.

When You Might Resort to Coaching

You might choose to fill the coaching role when the following conditions exist.

1. An individual in the project seems stalled or troubled.
   Coaching can be a powerful means to guide and support an individual to clarify current challenges or priorities, identify suitable strategies to address the challenges and then to actually implement the strategies.
2. To maximize an individual’s learning from experience.
   Individuals learn differently. Coaching can be a powerful means to guide and support individuals to reflect on their experiences and then use that learning to improve effectiveness in life and work.

When You Might Resort to the Expert Advice Role

You might choose to fill the expert role when the following conditions exist.

1. The project needs general knowledge that would likely be the same in any context.
   There are certain types of general knowledge that would likely be the same, especially:

a) General frameworks from which to develop and/or operate systems, for example, performance management systems, financial systems or marketing systems.

b) Guidelines for conducting general practices, for example, planning, evaluation, organizational change, addressing ethical dilemmas, use of capacity building approaches or developing learning plans.

2. The project needs knowledge that is highly specialized and proceduralized. For example, installing computers, conducting market research, conforming to laws and regulations, designing and providing certain program services, financial processes and procedures, or use of specific tools for problem solving and decision making.

When You Might Resort to Training

Training is activities to help a learner or learners to develop or enhance knowledge, skills and attitudes to improve performance on current or future task or job. You might choose to fill the trainer role when the following conditions exist.

1. Expert knowledge needs to be conveyed in a concise and timely manner.
   There may be times in your project where members need to learn certain expert-based knowledge and need to do so in a highly focused and efficient manner. The knowledge might be any form of expert-based knowledge as listed in the above topic.
2. Knowledge needs to be conveyed to a group of people.
   Training is often most useful when a group of people need to learn expert-based knowledge. This can be quite common in projects, for example, when training project members about the nature of organizational change, the project’s change plans or methods of data collection.

What do you think?

—————————

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

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