Look at the list of words in Figure 4 . Why is it that so many consultants sell their services using words from the left-hand column while so many clients believe that the words on the right are more indicative of the outcome? Wherever you go, whatever industry, the role of the consultant is generally under attack. People moan about doctors, householders complain about builders and directors moan that yet another consultant has left them with a mundane solution. Clearly the consultancy industry might have a few rogues and the odd bad apple but the huge growth in consultancy spend over recent years seems to run counter to the view that consultants do not add value to the client and consumer.
One of the reasons is because so many consultants do not pay sufficient attention to the nature of the system they are working with. They act on the evidence of a single event and give little consideration to the deeper issues that underpin the system. Consultancy projects are often designed on the premise that the issues revolve around a simple, predictable component. In reality, it is the tip of a problem that involves a complex, dynamic and integrated system. As Senge (1990) suggests:
Business and human endeavours are systems . . . they are bound by invisible fabrics or interrelated actions, which often take years to fully play out their effects on each other. Since we are part of that lacework ourselves it is doubly hard to see the whole pattern of change. Instead we tend to focus on snapshots of isolated parts of the system and wonder why problems never seem to get solved.
For example, the incident the police most dread is a family dispute. In this situation they are being asked to dive into a situation that is volatile, emotional and unpredictable. There is often no ‘solution’ since the issue is possibly about a perceived rather than actual problem. As such, no matter what action they might take they are likely to end up in the firing line, often being abused by both parties. They are effectively being asked to intervene in a system where they have little or no control over the process or outcome.
As a consultant asked to help resolve a problem within an organization, you are often in a similar position. You will be asked to unravel problems to which people are emotionally attached and will defend against outside interference. Even more difficult is the fact that you will rarely have to resolve an issue that involves just one person.
In all cases the effective consultant will focus less on the issues (tasks, content or facts) than on trying to understand the relationship between them. For example, the only way a marriage guidance counsellor will be able to help resolve a problem is by understanding the nature of the relationship between the husband and wife. Just understanding each of them in isolation will only produce a rubber band solution, where the old problems bounce back after a few days. In the same way that 2+2 is vastly different from 2¥2, the relationship is as much a part of the system as the component parts. In other words, the whole of the system is more than the sum of its parts. Unless you are able to see this then any project will be flawed from the outset.
You must see (and help others see) the big picture. The view that an individual, team or organization can be improved by focusing just on one part in isolation is seriously outmoded. Senge (1990) makes this point when he suggests that:
From a very early age we are taught to break apart problems, to fragment the world. This apparently makes complex tasks and subject more manageable, but we pay a hidden, enormous price. We can no longer see the consequences of our actions; we lose our intrinsic sense of connection to a larger whole. When we then try to ‘see the big picture’, we try to reassemble the fragments in our minds to list and organize the pieces.
Once this dissection has taken place it can be difficult to resolve the problem. Actions are taken on the separatist’s principle with the result that a short-term fix might be delivered but with a bigger long-term problem planted. Generalization is dangerous because the exception can generally be found, but I suggest that the consultant’s failure to take account of the total system will lead to one of the following scenarios:
 |
Action/Abort Systems that are made up of people do not react passively to an outsider. They will fight back with all the energy they can muster. The result is that the change makes things worse. The reason is that it is difficult for a stranger to fix a problem because they do not have sensitivity to the context and situation. The reality is that it is impossible to make a change in one area without some impact being felt elsewhere. The end result is that the consultant has to close down the project or call in other people to help untangle the mess. The interesting thing is that in many cases consultants will make a good living on the back of projects that previous people have failed to resolve. |
|
Better/Bluff Things often get better before they get worse. Like the car mechanic who changes the spark plugs when your car is running rough, you might get a short-term improvement in performance but in reality, unless he resolves the fact that the clogged-up spark plugs are caused by excessive oil being burnt, then the issue has not been resolved. The real problem is that the piston rings are worn and no amount of short-term fixes will produce a long-term improvement. |
|
Cure/Chaos In this case the cure is worse than the original problem. A doctor may happily prescribe Valium for a depressed patient. But unless the doctor tries to understand the root cause of the depression, he or she is leading the individual down a rocky road to possible long-term addiction. An insidious cycle of shared dependency can be generated with this approach. As the system falls into chaos because of an inappropriate cure, so managers look to the consultant to help them resolve yet another problem. Dependency is created between the consultant, client and consumer, with each believing that the real cure is just around the corner, if only they can have just one more fix of the latest consultancy bauble. |
|
Deliver/Delay Clearly, when a change causes a problem for the system you can take immediate action to resolve the issue. The difficulty comes when a time delay creeps into the reaction and problems are caused downstream. You might make a change on the assumption that it has been effective. The problem is that you might not be around to see the impact of your actions. In 99 per cent of projects the consultant is not around after six months to understand the impact of the change. |
|
Easy/Embarrassment: If you are asked to help resolve a problem, the temptation can be to use the tried and tested techniques on the basis that what worked before will work again. You are like the man with a hammer who believes that all problems can be fixed with a nail. The danger is that after trying for the fifth time to push ‘a square peg into a round hole’, you might have to accept (with some embarrassment) that the easy, quick-fix solution might not be the most appropriate. Just because one system looks like another, it doesn’t mean that solutions can be easily replicated. |
|
Faster/Fails The pressure valve on a cooking pot or the governor on a steam engine are examples of the way that things are set to operate at their optimum level. In the same way, any system will have an optimum level at which they will operate and any effort to push this over the limit will be frustrating for you and damaging for the system. This can be seen in the way that people try to resolve difficult issues. Rather than stepping back from a situation to consider what deep structural issues are causing the problem, the tendency is to work harder, do more research or involve more people. In many cases, it might be that the slower or smaller action would actually deliver the desired outcome. Rather than trying to overcome resistance and force a change through, it might be easier to understand what limiting factors are causing the resistance and try to eliminate them by more subtle means. You can spend an hour arguing with your daughter about the need to keep her bedroom tidy, but it might be simpler to suggest that the tidiness of her bedroom will be directly linked to her pocket money. |
Although each template tells a different story, they have a common theme that has a serious implication for any consultant. They suggest that when embarking on an engagement, you need to ensure that the situation is understood from the whole perspective and not in isolation.
When undertaking any change engagement, you must pay careful attention to the systemic nature of the organisation being changed. The systematic nature of the engagement can either fuel the drive towards a successful engagement or leave a problem legacy for the future – a problem that you, a colleague or client might be forced to resolve.
(c) Mick Cope