why consultant recommendations ... adizes agosto 2005

8/7/2019 Why Consultant Recommendations ... Adizes Agosto 2005

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/why-consultant-recommendations-adizes-agosto-2005 1/9

Why Consultant Recommendations Don't Work By Dr. Ichak Adizes

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 thepractice but whether the counsel actually addressed the organizational problemscompanies sought to solve was moot because in most cases, the recommendations werenever implemented.

It's anyone's guess as to how many well-intentioned consulting manifestos foundpermanent residence in corporate storage rooms, but an enterprising consultant couldhave become rich just on the printing revenues.

Why did so many bright people invest so much time, effort and money on so manyproposals that were never put into operation? In my opinion, there are several reasons.

The Language Barrier

However well-crafted and impressively packaged, most recommendations wererendered ineffectual because of a language barrier. They were written in English alright,but they weren't written in a language common to the various business units or

functions they were intended to help.

The composition of consulting firms is a contributing factor here. They are typicallymade 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 processoriented — trained as organizational psychologists or in human behavior and groupdynamics — are functionally or subsystem focused, and not well versed in content. As aresult, their consulting recommendations tend to be similarly specialized, lacking acommon business language element critical to successful implementation and problemresolution.

What is missing in these efforts is a multidisciplinary perspective, one that enables

senior management to lead sustainable change without causing destructive conflict. Thisapproach typically requires expertise in not one or two but several disciplines, and may

involve a variety of professionals knowledgeable about business and what it takes to



lead change successfully. This group might include psychologists, economists andattorneys, as well as MBAs and former business executives. Competence in content andprocess, as well as sharing a common language or methodology for leading sustainablechange without causing destructive conflict is necessary.

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 providedirection without confusion, the army's combined strength cannot be fully utilized. So

too without a common language recognized by all the organizational components, acompany is unable to sustain any change strategy. Like an organization with multiplecomputers on different operating platforms that cannot communicate with one another,a company must find software that allows all the different operating systems to talkamong themselves. This allows the company to take advantage of its indigenouscompetitive advantage and its totality becomes much stronger as result.

An individual cannot change an organization; it takes an organization to change an

organization. Some companies employ coaches, but sending a coach into anorganization to interview a few people and write a report that advises an individual — even the CEO — accomplishes little save for some personal growth. It takes a

multidisciplinary team working together to provide the critical holistic component toachieve meaningful organizational change. A holistic treatment of organizationalproblems requires a diagnosis of the entire enterprise.

The Wrong Prescription

Most companies do not have a clear picture of their problem. If they did, it's likely theywould have found a solution without outside help.

Every organization has a lifecycle and at each stage of that lifecycle, it experiencesproblems that are normal. It may also experience problems that are abnormal or even

pathological. The consultant must determine which problems to solve and which toignore, within the context of a workable plan of action.

A physician does not prescribe the same medicine for a child and an adult. A businessprescription — the plan of action — is contingent upon where the organizational patientis 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 factorswithin 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 onproblem manifestations, not causes.

Consultants commonly prescribe medicine without regard for an organization's lifecyclepositioning. The right medicine for a mature organization can be life-threatening for an

infant company. For example, clear cut strategies, planning in detail exactly what to doand how to do it may be appropriate for an organization in or near its Prime. But for a



start up, that practice could be dangerous because an Infant organization knows only itsintentions and dreams. A certain amount of planning is necessary but not the level of planning certainty that an established company, one that thoroughly knows its market,

can employ. An Infant organization has to be very flexible, able to change directionquickly as it explores what works and doesn't work. By necessity, its planning must be abit ambiguous.

Another example is when consultants try to discourage or dismantle dictatorialleadership because they believe it is harmful to an organization. While that may be truefor a company already in Prime or beyond, it is not true for a startup; in fact, autocraticleadership in an Infant organization is functional and necessary because the founder hasto protect his creation. It is natural — not abnormal — for the founder to be opinionatedand protective of his child.

The consulting prescription of uniting sales and marketing might work for a youngcompany 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 istrained in strategic planning, he is almost certainly going to tell a company they mustdefine their goals and strategy before doing anything else. And the advice is likely to becompletely wrong because the company cannot clearly define its goals and strategy if itsstructure is convoluted. Consultants tend to work within a sequence that says strategydrives 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 intoemployee 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 nowout 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 lastwas Dr. Goldberg, whose specialty was side effects .



Organizational Inertia

Organizations are like motorboats. Tell me the relative strength of the various enginesand I'll tell you which direction the boat is going to take. Regardless of what happens onthe 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 powerstructures that reject the changes. Their preference is no change.

One of the first things a consultant must do is to relax “the engines,” make themchangeable, 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 thestrategy but rather with the power structure that enables the strategy.

Most consultants work sequentially. They define the strategy then recommend thestructure that ostensibly will deliver the strategy. That rarely goes anywhere. WEbelieve 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 linearapproach with strategy coming first and driving structure. At the base of one side of thetriangle is Strategy; at the other is Structure. Beginning on the strategy side, themission 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 isnot the final chart; merely a first draft. It induces the power structure to accommodatethe mission. These discussion and conclusions are usually acceptable to participants

because as yet, no change has been recommended. It is like anesthesia prior tosurgery.

The focus then shifts back to strategy, working in more detail, followed by a move backto structure for more details. This continuous shifting back and forth is much likeclimbing 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 beimplemented. Note that the consultant does not develop the strategy, the mission orthe 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 todeal effectively with the issues, and create a safe environment to prevent the discussionfrom becoming destructive. The consulting methodology provides both the tools and theprocess; the client provides the content. Our experience is that this methodology forleading change works in any industry in any environment.

Avoiding Upheavals

Many consultants avoid this process because it is time consuming for the client and thusmore difficult to sell. Others are afraid or are unsure as to how to transform the powerstructure through a participative process. It is often just too much political risk for themto deal with. But the consultant must be willing to deal with power structure withoutgetting 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 majorupheaval every 5 or 10 years.

IBM is an example of a company that failed to make incremental changes, insteadopting for a major upheaval, which was a disaster. The recent uniting of Sears andKmart is another example of companies employing sudden upheaval instead of making

continuous changes over time. The marriage may well destroy both companies.



Typically, upheavals involve firing a lot of people, much like an organizationalliposuction. The alternative would be regular exercise, keeping trim, making smalladjustments in diet and habits; something most organizations fail to do. Instead, like

couch potatoes, they sit on their organizational butts and wait until they have lost somuch money they must do something, so they slash jobs, wreaking mayhem on moraleand further endangering the organization's health. At that point, radical surgery may

save the organization, but it won't make it healthy again.

Dell is an example of a company that successfully makes small but regular incrementalchanges.

Continuous small changes in process and structure on a continual basis are far betterand more productive. The interdependency between structure and process/strategy isexpressed by achieving systematic changes in an organization. This cannot be achievedwithin a singularly-disciplined process. It must be conducted in a sequential, systemicway, bringing strategy and structure together using continuous change.

The methodology employed should be transferred to the client so they can continue thecontinuous change process without the consultant necessarily being involved on anongoing basis. Its one thing to give a company useful advice, but if the originalrecommendations become obsolete, forcing the consultant to keep returning withadditional advice, the company is unlikely to sustain any gains. I believe the technology— the management leadership tools — must be transferred to the client, who mustlearn 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'scontinued dependency on the consultant.

The consulting industry is undergoing significant changes. A medical analogy might bethe patient who goes to his doctor with a problem. The doctor, with many years of training, diagnosis the illness and prescribes a treatment which the patient follows but

does not have to understand. This relationship represents empowerment of the medicalprofession and disempowerment of the patient. That is now changing, due to patient'srights, better patient edu cation and the like. Nevertheless, the established protocol that

the doctor is superior by nature of his knowledge and the patient is inferior has beenmaintained. Consulting should be transformed into methodologies that are therapeutic.Consider psychotherapists. They do not tell patients what to do but rather theyeliminate barriers or blockages to enable patients to do what they realize they should.

The same is true of homeopathic medicine; it removes blockages to the flow of energyso the body can take care of itself. Consultants will have to learn to act in the sameway.

When a consultant — no matter how bright or renowned — listens to a client's problems

and prescribes a treatment, the answers belong to the consultant, not the client. Theclient merely has the option of following the advice or not.

I believe a consulting methodology should be the reverse of that and I have spent thepast thirty years preaching and practicing that theory. The consultant asks thequestions, yes, but the client must articulate the answers. Like a psychotherapist whodoes 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 findtheir own roadmap. Any initial consultant recommendations should be in the form of atrial balloon. In this way, clients learn how to use the tools provided by the consultingmethodology. And in this way, the final solution to the problem is their own.



The Coaching Myth

Management coaching simulates the psychotherapist process by asking questions, but isnot holistic or multidisciplinary. The questions coaches ask are by and large of apsychological nature, and the focus is on the individual being coached. This assumes

wrongly that changing the individual will change the organization. What should be

addressed, however, is the business of the organization: What makes the organizationoperate successfully in a changing environment so that the individual will fit within theorganization. Organizational climates cannot be altered by changing individuals; butchanging the organizational climate allows the behavior of individuals to change.

Coaching may ask questions for the client to answer — a psychological treatment — butit treats the individual rather than the organization. It employs psychological toolsversus tools of a business and organizational nature. I've seen many coaches actuallymiss the problem because of their focus on psychodynamics and individual needs.

Training consultants typically coach individuals on how to be a better leader, inspire

better teamwork or change management style. But these changes do not affect changesin the markets, product lines or strategies. On the other hand, companies hireconsultants to uncover new markets, change their product line or realign strategy butfail to change the culture of the organization as well. Either process must consider theother. Changing a company's orientation must also include changing the culture, andvice versa. This requires teaching people how to change together.

What makes an individual operate better is not necessarily what makes an organizationoperate 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 knowwhat the solution is, who can rock it? What power pieces must be involved in order toimplement the solution?

Of course, all this will not work if a CEO is not committed to making changes along withhis people, or if he first makes a decision with outside consultants, then attempts toimpose the “solution” onto the company. All change planning and implementationshould be made with the people involved, and that requires a confident CEO who is notafraid to hear from or even learn from people lower in the organizational ladder. Itrequires 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 andsolution to outside consultants ostensibly to save time, only to end up with adisempowered management team. The CEO must participate in actively leading thechange.

Who Sits at the Table?

In my experience, the solution generally resides somewhere within the organization. Itmay be the employees on the line, such as salespeople or other workers close to what is

happening on a daily basis, but the info rmation never flows back to the people who canmake a decision to do something about it.

Sometimes, the people who make the decision have the authority but not the power toimplement 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 theproblems 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 thesolutions 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 andinfluence. 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 tablemight have to be altered, and others brought in. Whoever has the authority to say “yesand 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 consultantsmiss. 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 hardquestions 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 makeit 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 protecttheir self-interests.

The divergent groups must be brought together and made to jointly begin analyzing theproblem, come to a conclusion as to what the problem is, why it is necessary to reach asolution, 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 thesolution because the knowledge, power and authority have been united. If for somereason the knowledge does not already reside within the company, which is rare, theknowledge must be imported using outside consultants. However, I have only seen thatoccur twice in thirty years! The solution is almost always resident within theorganization. However, the art is in helping the company uncover, examine, discuss andimplement 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 thepeople who decide do not have the support of the people needed for implementation.

An analogy might be a husband and wife who cannot communicate. They go to apsychotherapist and pay a lot of money for someone else to do what the unhappycouple cannot do by themselves at home; create a safe environment in which tocommunicate. In an organization, the necessary people must be assembled and given amethodology that allows them not only to feel safe but also provides a road map and

tools so they can actually solve the problem themselves. I would repeat that it is vital tohave the people with the authority to solve the problem in the room. Organizations



typically allocate problems by responsibility, but that's wrong. Problems should beallocated by authority, not responsibility.

Write Down the Problems

Resistance to change exists in almost every organization. If a silo mentality exists, itmust be removed through self-diagnosis of where the organization is in its corporatelifecycle, and whether its problems are normal, abnormal or fatal. A good way to do thisis to have everyone in the room write down the most pressing problems within thecompany. This should be done anonymously so people can be candid. No one should bementioned by name and the problems should be expressed in language that indicates

they are controllable by people in the room, who must include those with ultimateauthority for the company. This might include several layers of the organizationalstructure, perhaps twenty or thirty people. The problems should also be expressedappropriately: Not “It's raining outside” but rather “We don't have an umbrella.” Not

“Interest rates are unpredictable” but rather “We don't have a strategy to respond tounpredictable interest rates”.

I have conducted many sessions like these. After everyone has written down theirproblems and before they are discussed, I ask, “How many of these problems existedlast year? Two years ago? Three?” Typically people will say “Most of them.” Well, if aproblem has existed for the last three years, it's not hard to get agreement that chancesare, the same problem will still be around in another three years. When I ask how manyproblems 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, theiradmission that no one, not even their CEO, can solve their problems indicates that if theproblems could have been solved, they probably would have been solved by now. Butthat 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 havecontinued. But it manifests what is wrong with Western civilization's management education. We assign responsibilities to individuals even though as individuals, they cannotcontend 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 problemsthey should solve together and which problems should be put on the backburner untilthe 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 organizationcan free up resources and jointly work on the priority problems. People begin to seethat 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.

An important aspect of this problem analysis is determining where the organization is onits corporate lifecycle, which in turn determines which problems are normal and whichare abnormal, leading to a better alignment of priorities. Because no one is mentionedby name when the problems are written down, no one is on the hot seat and people are

free to open up. They learn to accept that “we” have a problem, not “he” or “they” havea problem. The questions can then relate to what “we” should do, which makes a hugedifference in the room's climate. People can join hands to solve problems versuspointing fingers at one another.



All of this is predicated on first correcting the organizational structure. People quicklyrecognize the linkage: They have a climate issue, which is causing a structural issue,which is causing an information flow problem, which is causing a strategic problem,

which is creating functional problems that are causing the company to lose marketshare. There is a sequence to the problems and after counseling hundreds of

companies, I believe the sequence is universal. Once organizations realize how theirstructure is causing their problems, it legitimizes the rationale that they have to firstdeal with the structure, not just the problems. Unless the structure is repaired, nothingmuch will change. The approach must be interactive regarding strategy and structure.

When consultants write reports regarding what an organizational structure should beand try to change it over a weekend, failure is unavoidable. When people return to workon Monday morning, the new organization is announced and immediately there is

enormous resistance. It can take years to make the new strategy work because of theresistance and implementation difficulties. Balancing changes in structure and strategyin a sequential manner is much more likely to succeed and become ingrained in the

organizational culture. We see this approach increasingly embraced worldwide by

businesses and governments alike.

Consultants can play a meaningful role in helping organizations improve. They oftenbring the best seeds for planting. Unfortunately, the seeds are often planted in frozenland. 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 theseeds can grow. Some seeds are indigenous to the organization; it already knows howand where to plant them. When it doesn't, it's time to call in a consultant who can workthe land and plant seeds that will bear fruit.

why consultant recommendations ... adizes agosto 2005

Documents