Module 1 – Case ACTION RESEARCH AND ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Consulting and Partnership Skills

S E C T I O N T W O

American Management Association / www.amanet.org

C o p y r i g h t 2 0 1 3 . A M A C O M .

A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . M a y n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d i n a n y f o r m w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n f r o m t h e p u b l i s h e r , e x c e p t f a i r u s e s p e r m i t t e d u n d e r U . S . o r a p p l i c a b l e c o p y r i g h t l a w .

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 502103 ; OD Network.; Handbook for Strategic HR : Best Practices in Organization Development From the OD Network Account: s3642728.main.ehost

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

27

Introduction Matt Minahan, David Jamieson, and Judy Vogel

VOICES FROM THE FIELD

For me, important models were joint union/manage- ment approaches and Schein’s Process Consultation. Seeing the people process at work. Seeing that HR was not about transactions and simple services. Rath- er understanding the large context and the systems view were most useful. . . . In my highly matrixed organization, everyone has multiple interests. Getting clear about each person’s role and leadership is a chal- lenge. It is key to make a “clean” deal from the begin- ning. As a project proceeds, we need to stop and re- contract around unexpected developments. Th e old HR mentality of service is not a contract.

—Chuck Mallue

We knew we needed to transform ourselves to be- come internal consultants vs. transactional day-to- day service providers. Our mantra was “we will be- come the best consulting group.” Th e key was the support of leadership.

—Sue Eklund

What would I do diff erently? Talk to as many people as possible before engagement. Engage the organiza- tion at multiple levels gaining multiple perspectives.

—Judith Gail

TOPICS COVERED IN THIS SECTION

• How to successfully complete the steps in- volved in a consulting process.

• How to consult on group and interpersonal process issues.

• How to develop the client-consultant rela- tionship and manage the many aspects of the relationship.

• How to act in the role of internal or exter- nal consultant.

• How to develop and maintain partnerships with leadership, staff , and an internal or ex- ternal OD consultant.

WHY CONSULTING AND PARTNERSHIP SKILLS

Th e role of the HR Business Partner is chal- lenging and interesting with often confl icting accountabilities and allegiances to staff , man- agement, clients, corporate headquarters, HR leadership, and consultants. As the role has shifted from personnel administration to busi- ness adviser, it has also become more complex, with multiple demands from multiple entry points in the system. Further, it has come to include the new role of consulting and part- nering with the organization’s leadership and other service providers.

While there are courses and mentors to help one learn how to manage a consulting project and the skills needed to create an eff ec- tive consulting partnership with managers and senior leadership, one thing is certain: the stakes can be very high and the risks can be signifi cant. Th e role is complex.

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

28 Section Two: Consulting and Partnership Skills

Th ere are several challenges on the road to eff ectiveness, and an important one is that the presenting problem is not always the actual problem. Further, clients are not always sure what they want, and the way to success is not always clear. For these reasons, establishing a consulting partnership relationship and con- tracting for the right work can be challenging and critical to results.

THE CHAPTERS IN THIS SECTION

Th is section includes articles from the OD Practitioner that help explain the steps in the consulting process, some of the challenges of being an internal consultant, and some of the strategies to develop in partnering with leaders and internal or external consultants. After an overview of a key OD process, Starting at the Beginning: Action Research, there are sections on the following subjects:

• Facilitation and the Consulting Process • Th e Core Skills Needed in Consulting on

Process Issues • Th e Client-Consultant Relationship • Th e Consultant as Person • Partnerships Among the HR Business Part-

ner, Leadership, Staff , and an Internal or External OD Consultant

Starting at the Beginning: Action Research

Among the highest priorities in the earliest days of scientifi c and psychological research was fi nding ways to keep the observer from infl uencing or contaminating the observed; the goal was to prevent any infl uence from the scientist on the subject of the research that could change the phenomenon under study. Rigid rules for observing events and behavior dispassionately were the norm through the early 20th century, until the Heisenberg Un- certainty Principle determined that atoms change their behavior when studied carefully. At just about the same time, Fritz Roethlis-

berger and his research team at the GE Haw- thorne Electric plant in upstate New York dis- covered the same thing happened with humans. When people believe they are being studied or observed, their behavior changes—just like the atom. Th is came to be known as the Haw- thorne Eff ect.

During his research of schools and social systems in the 1930s and 1940s, Kurt Lewin confi rmed the phenomena and decided to make it the cornerstone of his Action Research methodology, the core methodology of most OD consulting processes.

Action Research is the process by which managers and employees in an organization are engaged in the self-study of the organiza- tion to achieve desired changes. Data is col- lected and then fed back to the involved mem- bers of the system for analysis, action is determined and taken, data regarding the im- pact of the action is collected and fed back to the system; the cycle continues as more action is taken; and so on. Lewin describes Action Research as “comparative research on the con- ditions and eff ects of various forms of social action and research leading to social action” (1948, pp. 202-203) using “a spiral of steps, each of which is composed of a circle of plan- ning, action, and fact-fi nding about the result of the action” (1958, p. 201).

Here is the spiral that is at the heart of Lewin’s Action Research model. When con- fronted with a problem or opportunity, the organization retains a consultant or establishes an internal team (or, ideally, both). It tasks them to collect data about and, preferably by, the system itself. Th e problem could be about the ways of doing business in the organization, of communicating, of deciding an issue, and of working together, or the organizational cli- mate, or the organizational culture—whatever is under study. Th e collected data is analyzed for patterns and themes and presented back to the organizational system. Th e data presents the system with information about itself which readies the system for change. Th e system re- acts to the data, refl ects on the data, and de- cides on a course of action, which is then im-

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Introduction 29

plemented. Th en data is collected about how well the course of action addressed the issue and about the new state of the system. Similar to the fi rst round, this data is analyzed for pat- terns and themes, and presented back to the organizational system. As in the fi rst round, the system reacts to this new data and decides on additional actions, which may trigger an- other round of data collection. Once the sys- tem reaches the desired future state, the Ac- tion Research cycle can end.

Th e values that underlie Lewin’s Action Research methodology are similar to those of Brazilian philosopher and educator Paulo Freire, who proposed teaching and interven- tion methods that fully engaged those who were the “subjects.” Freire strongly opposed traditional models of teaching and communi- ty involvement in which the teacher or wise person stands in front of the group and tells them what to do and how to think, making the participants passive recipients or receiving objects of this externally imposed knowledge. He also had a strong aversion to dividing the student and teacher roles, preferring a deep reciprocity. Replace the education references with consulting references in the following Freire quotation and you get a clear sense of the values upon which Action Research are built: “Education [Consulting] must begin with the solution of the teacher-student [con- sultant-client] contradiction, by reconciling the poles of the contradiction so that both are simultaneously students [clients] and teachers [consultants]” (Freire, 1970, p.72).

Facilitation and the Consulting Process

While Action Research as the core technology is a huge asset bequeathed by Kurt Lewin, it is not enough. It does not describe how consult- ing projects begin, get designed, get executed, get evaluated, or end. Flawless Consulting (Block, 2011) is probably the best known handbook for consultants, but it focuses heavily on the front end of projects, with less attention paid to the overall project cycle. For more depth on

all aspects of consultation processes, refer to Rothwell, Stavros, and Sullivan, Practicing Or- ganization Development and Change (2009) and Jones and Brazzel, Th e NTL Handbook of Organization Development and Change (2006). Both have numerous chapters organized around the consultation process.

For a high-level overview of the stages of the consulting process based upon Lewin’s Ac- tion Research Model, Facilitation 101 by Matt Minahan, Judy Vogel, Lee Butler, and Heather Butler Taylor (2007) is a good start. It also contains brief synopses of tools and tech- niques useful in the consulting process, such as the Bridges’ Transition Model, the Satir Per- turbation Model, Schutz’s FIRO-B group de- velopment model, the Drexler-Sibbett Team Performance Model, the RASCI tool for ac- countability charting, and a Use of Self-Per- sonal assessment.

Lurey and Griff en (2002) provide a good integration of project management and social psychology approaches to the stages of a con- sulting project in Action Research: Th e An- chor of OD Practice.

Marv Weisbord (1973) wrote in Th e Or- ganization Development Contract: “Clients in a bind don’t get much fun out of their work. Th ey long for something simpler, better suited to their strengths, more consistent with their values. Above all, most clients long for out- comes. Th ey want permanent change for the better, with no backsliding.” In a preview of what Chris Argyris would later fl esh out into double loop learning, Weisbord identifi es three levels of outcomes clients might achieve from an OD project:

1. Reducing the immediate crisis (e.g., chang- ing structures, policies, procedures, sys- tems, programs, relationships for the better);

2. Learning something about their own cop- ing styles—how they deal with organiza- tional dilemmas and how they might do it better;

3. Learning a process for continually becom- ing aware and making choices about what- ever issue presents itself.

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Handbook for Strategic HR30

Connie Freeman (1995) in Seven Deadly Sins of OD Consulting: Pitfalls to Avoid in the Consulting Practice outlines some of the mistakes that consultants, new and old, make and advises them to avoid the following: “fl ight to nowhere,” one size fi ts all, the con- sultant as surrogate leader, dealing with symp- toms rather than causes, and several other ap- proaches. Embedded in the ways to avoid these pitfalls are skills for data collection, anal- ysis, and presentation; meeting design and fa- cilitation; idea generation, option develop- ment, and decision making.

The Core Skills Needed in Consulting on Process Issues

So far, the focus has been on the consulting pro- cess. In a diff erent order, those same words have a very diff erent meaning: consulting on process issues, or process consulting. In the consulting role, an HR Business Partner can add value by observing and intervening on process issues in a group. Most groups are competent on the tech- nical issues of their work, but, unless trained in the behavioral sciences, they may be blind to their own process issues and ineff ective pat- terns. Th ese require an outsider’s perspective and a specialist’s training in process observation and intervention.

Some of the best thinking in the fi eld on process consulting has been done by Edgar Schein (Process Consultation, 1969; Process Con- sultation Revisited, 1999). In his 2002 Notes Toward a Better Understanding of Process: An Essay, Schein defi nes process as “not the what, but the how. It is not the fi nal decision made by a group or individual, but the way in which that decision was reached. It is not the formal structure of the organization, but the actual behaviors that occur within that struc- ture, what sociologists might call the ‘informal organization.’” He goes on to describe the “es- sence of process,” as

• the sequence of events, • the interactions among components, • the invisible forces at play,

• those things that lead toward an interven- tion, and

• evolving and changing as they are scaled up from the intra-personal to inter-personal to group to whole system

Th e job of the process consultant is to look for those invisible forces at play and skillfully to call them to the attention of the group. In her classic essay, Th e Consultant as Process Lead- er, Jane Moosbruker (1989) notes that groups invariably fi nd it hard to look at their own pro- cess issues. “After a few process observations, the group would return to the content, often without knowing that that had happened. Try- ing to keep the focus on process, my agenda, not theirs, was often exhausting.” Well over two decades old now, Moosbruker’s chapter has a still-excellent list of interventions for the pro- cess leader. She also has a comprehensive list of things not to do as a process facilitator.

The Client-Consultant Relationship

Th e client-consultant relationship is both in- teresting and complex. Since each situation is diff erent, the consultant could be working on their 20th or 200th RACI chart or SWOT diagram, but the dynamics and group process issues are completely unique to the setting, people, and personalities of those gathered around the table.

Th e client-consultant relationship is com- plex in several ways. Regardless of the problem described, clients present some combination of author, director, and main character in the saga, but they often see themselves as bit play- ers. Clients are also the owners of the problem and are both central in the framing of the problem and in recognizing the factors in the solution. It is a challenge to create the kind of relationship with the client that enables ex- ploring this complexity. Th e consultant needs to build enough trust and self-disclosure to help the client endure the level of feedback and self-refl ection needed to see their own roles in the problem.

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Introduction 31

Consultants hope to be Th e Trusted Advi- sor (Maister, Green, & Galford, 2000) with clients who

seek out your views and advice . . . accept and act on at least some of your recom- mendations, involve you in more com- plex, strategic issues, share more infor- mation that helps you help them, protect you when you need it, even from those in their own organization, Involve you early on when their issues begin to form, rather than later in the process, trust your instincts. (pp. 3-4)

Meanwhile, clients are looking for con- sultants who seem to understand them eff ort- lessly; are consistent and truthful; always help them see things from fresh perspectives, but do not force things on them; do not panic; help clients think and clarify logic and emo- tions; criticize and correct gently and lovingly, but do not pull their punches; act like a real person rather than someone in a role; can be relied upon to support them and have their interests at heart; and remember everything they have ever said with or without notes. (Maister, et al, 2000, pp. 4-5)

As can be seen, the client-consultant rela- tionship is more than just a goods-for-service exchange. Th ere are often intense and personal feelings, in both directions. Both parties have personal and interpersonal needs that are at play. But it is still a money-for-time commercial exchange, which means the consultant must be deeply aware of her or his own personal needs, wants, and fears, and must be sure that satisfy- ing their own personal needs does not over- shadow the client’s primary needs to get work done effi ciently and eff ectively.

In Working with the Client-Consultant Relationship: Why Every Step Is an ‘Inter- vention, Naomi Raab (2004) says,

Consulting is an anxiety producing pro- fession. Faced with what can seem like an overwhelming problem in the client organization, plus our own need to per-

form and succeed, it’s no wonder con- sultants use the bravado of the expert and salesman as a defense against feel- ings of not really knowing what to do and perhaps even feeling a fraud.

She goes on to outline the key client-con- sultant issues in the various stages of the con- sulting project, and some of the pitfalls for the consultant to avoid to prevent colluding with the client.

A mutual dependency is built into the re- lationship as well. Th e client depends upon the consultant for knowledge and outside per- spective, while the consultant depends upon the client for grounding in the system, honest guidance, and direction about the problem and its causes, curiosity about their own con- tribution to the problem, and willingness to make tough decisions and change their own behavior.

Obviously, there is ample room for de- pendency, and even co-dependency, in this most complex relationship. In a worst-case scenario, the client and consultant become de- pendent on each other, to their own detri- ment. Th ey have diffi culty in “letting go” be- cause they have convinced themselves that they need each other to be successful and ful- fi lled. Th e mutuality of this relationship is very powerful and it can become very seduc- tive, which requires some strong boundaries and ongoing self-awareness and refl ection, es- pecially on the part of the consultant.

Another danger of poorly defi ned bound- aries centers on the ownership of the interven- tion. It is sometimes tempting for consultants to be so enmeshed in the system and to be- come so dependent on being needed that they can overstep their bounds and mistakenly take on ownership of the project. Th is is especially possible for the HR Business Partner or inter- nal trainers who are expected to bring and de- liver technical content as expert consultants. Once framed in that role, it is quite easy to be expected to ensure a particular outcome or re- sult. Harold Mack (1974) writes about this in Who Owns the OD Eff ort.

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Handbook for Strategic HR32

How do you deal with a partner/client who is giving up or does not accept the power inherent in assuming responsibility for them- selves and for the consequences of their own actions or inactions? Arthur Freedman (1974) off ers a framework for diff erentiating among the roles of client and consultant in Unravel- ing the “Who’s Responsible?” Riddle.

The Consultant as Person

With all of these complicated situational and relational dynamics, what is a consultant to do? First, follow the Rules of Th umb for Change Agents from Herb Shepard (1985). Th ere are not many OD consultants who can say they have mastered these wise and funny rules, but most agree that the eff ort to learn and practice them is well worth it. Th ese are still foundational to many of the OD courses taught in schools around the world today. Re- membering and following them will be enor- mously helpful in keeping OD consultants focused on what is important for themselves and the work.

Th e last chapters in this section give a glimpse into the inner doubts and questions and turmoil that is often going on inside of the OD consultant. Geoff Bellman (2004) re- veals, in If I Knew Th en . . ., some of the truths about his own shortcomings and anxi- eties. He wonders aloud about how to bring a better life perspective to his work and clients, how to help himself and his clients in their as- pirations and desperation, and how to help make organizations more fi t places to live in, among other important questions to ponder.

How does a HR Business Partner inte- grate HR and internal OD consulting? Care- fully. In Who’s the Client Here: On Becom- ing an OD Consultant, Robert Goldberg (1991) describes how his background in HR was a detriment to his work in OD. “Little did I know in my romanticized vision of becom- ing a change agent that the very factors that helped me succeed in human resources would be the major obstacles in my career in organi- zational development.”

Partnerships Between the HR Business Partner, Leadership, Staff, and Other Service Providers

Most OD projects today involve an active partnership between the HR and OD spe- cialists, the HR business partner and the or- ganization leadership, or the HR Business Partner/internal consultant and an external consultant, or a consulting team. In addition to all of the skills needed to manage the cli- ent-consultant relationship, there is a unique relationship involved in these kinds of con- sulting partnerships. Each diff erent function —HR, OD, internals, externals—has its own set of lenses through which to see the organi- zation and perspective on the work. Each has its own set of skills to bring to the project. Each has its own set of beliefs and values which need to be understood, acknowledged, and harmonized. In short, partnering with someone is important if these practitioners are to meet the challenge of doing the work. Th is section describes these challenges of partnership.

In An Inner Blueprint for Successful Partnership Development: Putting a Rela- tionship to Work (2004), Peter Norlin and Judy Vogel write about partnership in general and “learning to work eff ectively with other colleagues or helping our customers develop their capacity to collaborate successfully.” Th ey defi ne partnership as “a successful rela- tionship in service of a specifi c task,” and write that “when people chose to be partners, they are also choosing to put their relationship to work.” Th e premise of their writing is that “be- coming conscious, disciplined, and intention- al is a complicated assignment when human beings are involved.” Th ey also include a mod- el that describes phases of a consulting project and tracks those parts which are above the line, or “visible” to the other partner, and those which are below the line, or “invisible” to the other. Th ey explore the skills and inten- tion needed to make the important matters visible so that the partnership will thrive and be productive.

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Introduction 33

Finally, Refl ections on a Cross-Cultural Partnership in Multicultural Organization Development Eff orts (2010) by Maria Ramos and Mark Chesler is a fi rst person account of their work together in a multicultural inter- vention. Th ey write about how they deliber- ately use their diff erences in age, gender, and color as evocative interventions.

FOR ADDITIONAL LEARNING

In addition to the Peter Block and Edgar Schein resources listed in the reference section, you may fi nd the following helpful for understand- ing and developing consulting and partner- ship strategies and practices.

• Brown, J., Isaacs, D., Vogt, E., & Margu- lies, N. (2002). Strategic questioning: En- gaging people’s best thinking. Th e Systems Th inker, 13 (9), 2002, pp. 2–6.

When people frame their strategic explora- tion as questions rather than as concerns or problems, a conversation begins where ev- eryone can learn something together. Th e authors describe how to construct ques- tions that engage people’s best thinking.

• Schaff er, R. (2002). High impact consulting: How clients and consultants can leverage rap- id results into long-term gains. San Francis- co, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Schaff er describes how senior managers un- wittingly collude with their consultants to perpetuate the great waste inherent in “the fi ve fatal fl aws of conventional consulting.” Drawing upon his own consulting work, Schaff er identifi es the key elements of an eff ective project design, particularly that project objectives are defi ned in terms of client results rather than just consultant deliverables.

• Schein, E. H. (2009). Th e corporate culture survival guide (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Schein presents methods for analyzing the current state and changing corporate culture.

• Schein, E. H. (2009). Helping: How to off er, give, and receive help. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Schein analyzes the social and psychologi- cal dynamics common to all types of help- ing relationships, explains why help is often not helpful, and shows what any would- be helpers must do to ensure that their as- sistance is both welcomed and genuinely useful.

• Schein, E .H. (2010). Organizational cul- ture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Schein defi nes and describes the compo- nents of organizational culture, leadership’s role in fostering culture, and processes for indentifying and changing those aspects of culture that are incongruent with the orga- nization’s vision and goals.

• Desmond, B. (2011). Eff ective group de- velopment: A paradoxical approach for ac- tion learning facilitators. OD Practitioner, 43(1), 30–34.

Desmond outlines how a facilitator may fos- ter the conditions necessary for co-creating a healthy and enriching group development process through each of the three phases of a relational model of group development.

• Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G., & Smith, B. (1994). Th e fi fth discipline fi eld book: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.

For more on the core skills of facilitation see:

• Justice, T., & Jamieson, D. (2012). Th e fa- cilitator’s fi eldbook (3rd ed). New York: AMACOM

• Schwartz, R. (2002). Th e skilled facilitator: A comprehensive resource for consultants, fa- cilitators, managers, trainers, and coaches. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

• Wilkinson, M. (2004). Th e secrets of facili- tation: Th e S.M.A.R.T. guide to getting re- sults with groups. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Handbook for Strategic HR34

References

Block, P. (2011). Flawless consulting: A guide to get- ting your expertise used (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiff er. Cassidy, D. (2009). Beyond uncertainty: Heisenberg, quantum physics, and the bomb. New York, NY: Bel- levue Literary Press. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. Lewin, K. (1946, November). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34–36.

Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social confl icts. New York, NY: Harper Row.

Lewin, K. (1958). Group decision and social change. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Maister, D., Green, C., & Galford, R. (2000). Th e trusted advisor. New York, NY: Touchstone

Schein, E. (1969). Process consultation: its role in organization development. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley.

Schein, E. (1998). Process consultation revisited: building the helping relationship. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Organization Development Series.

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

C H A P T E R 3 1

35

C H A P T E R 3

Facilitation 101 The Basics to Get You on Your Feet

Matt Minahan, Judy Vogel, Leon E. Butler, and Heather Butler Taylor

OK, I’ve got the agenda with me. . . good. . . . Now, get the tape . . . masking or blue tape? What kind of walls do they have at that hotel? Can I even use tape there? My notes! I need to have my in- terview notes for the data feedback.

. . . And, is this my new box of Mr. Sketch markers, or the old one. . . wish I’d thrown it away after the last time!

. . . and I need the pieces for the icebreaker puzzle we’re doing. . . . Do I have the index cards? And, the dot vote! I forgot to pack the colored dots! What’s the client’s boss’s name again?

ANYONE WHO HAS EVER facilitated a meeting has probably had a morning like this. Among us, we’ve had about a thousand! And, as indispensable as all of those things seem in that moment, the truly indispensable tools for facili- tation can’t be seen or touched. Th ey are the theories and concepts that underlie our work, a few of which we’ll review in this article.

So, if facilitation isn’t just bringing the markers and tape, pretty drawing on chart paper, and good Powerpoint presentations, what is it?

We’re defi ning facilitation as “Th e use of your self, grounded in a conceptual frame and theories rooted in the behavioral sciences, en- abling groups to be eff ective and productive.”

Facilitation occurs in the context of orga- nization development, which we’re defi ning as, “A body of knowledge and practice that en- hances organizational performance and indi- vidual development, viewing the organization as a system or systems that exists within a larg- er system, each of which has its own attributes and degrees of alignment. OD interventions in these systems are inclusive methodologies and approaches to strategic planning, organi- zation design, leadership development, change management, performance management, coach- ing, diversity, and work life balance” (Minahan, 2007).

So, while the facilitation event begins with the morning frenzy, the facilitation work—and our preparation for it—has been underway for some time, as we’ve been studying and building a theory base to support our in the moment work as facilitators.

Project Model

Th e fi rst thing to know, and to know that you know, is a consulting project framework. We recommend a seven phase model (Figure 3.1) because it is a hybrid, combining a solid ground- ing in Action Research theory, OD process, and general problem solving.

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Handbook for Strategic HR36

Phase 1: Enter—Getting Started

Th e purpose of this phase of the project is to understand the client’s presenting problem or business need, communicate your understand- ing to the client, and establish rapport.

Th eory frame and resources: Th e Action Re- search Cycle is indispensable in our work, and Arthur Freidman’s chapter on it in Th e NTL Handbook on Organization Development and Change is a good place to start.

Phase 2: Contract

Th e purpose of this phase is to defi ne a suc- cessful outcome, agree on the scope of work, establish good communication, build com- mitment on both sides. . . in short, construct the psychological contract for success.

Th eory frame and resources: Peter Block’s Flawless Consulting chapters on Entry and Con- tracting and Who Is the Client would probably be helpful in the Contract phase.

Phase 3: Discover

Th e purpose of this phase is to collect data upon which you can make your own preliminary judgments about the organization. It also helps you verify the client’s perception and descrip- tion of the issue and gives you data about how accurately she or he has described it to you.

Th eory frame and resources: You’ll want to have access to a good research methods text—and there are many good ones out there! On the quan- titative side, you’ll need to know basic survey de- sign, data collection, and analysis; on the quali- tative side, you’ll need to know about interview protocol development, interviewing techniques, solid note taking, and qualitative data analysis. Research Methods in Organizational Behavior

by Eugene Stone provides a strong, yet easy to un- derstand, perspective, especially on surveys and statistical measures. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods by Michael Quinn Patton is excellent in discussing qualitative designs, data collection, analysis, and interpretation.

Phase 4: Decide

Th e purpose of this phase is to jointly con- struct—among you, the client, and the project team—an agreed upon picture of what is, and a joint commitment to what to do about it. Th is demonstrates the client group’s owner- ship of the project.

Th eory frame and resources: Patton’s Quali- tative Evaluation and Research Methods cited has an excellent section on qualitative data pre- sentation, and for statistical information, a breakthrough book is Th e Visual Display of Quantitative Information by Edward Tufte.

Phase 5: Implement

Th e purpose of this phase is to move the sys- tem toward the desired outcome. Th ey may take this action without you, or use your help.

Th eory frame and resources: Th is work in- volves visioning, brainstorming, problem solving, and project management, and Carter McNa- mara’s Field Guide to Consulting and Organiza- tional Development is an excellent resource.

Phase 6: Evaluate

Th e purpose of this phase is to evaluate the results of the project against its original goals.

Th eory frame and resources: Th ere is a whole body of knowledge and writing on evaluation, but for OD facilitation, we recommend Chapter 11, Evaluating and Institutionalizing Organi-

FIGURE 3.1

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Facilitation 101 37

zation Development Interventions, in Worley and Cummins’ Organization Development and Change (8th edition).

Phase 7: Re-Contract, Closure, Exit

Th e purpose of this phase is to build on your existing knowledge of the organization, lever- age the contacts and relationships you’ve built during the fi rst 6 phases of the project, and develop additional follow on projects that ad- dress important organizational issues.

Th eory frame and resources: Th is is an area that is typically underexplored in our fi eld, but Ann Van Eron and Warner Burke have done a nice job in Chapter 12, called Separation, in Practicing Organization Development: A Guide for Consultants by Rothwell, Sullivan, and McLean.

Useful Theories and Models for Facilitation

Now, what do you need to know to do the work of these stages? It helps to have a few theories, models and tools handy to cover the major elements of the work.

Four Levels of Intervention

Stay focused on the fact that the work you’re facilitating is occurring at a minimum of four levels: the intrapersonal within each individu- al, the interpersonal among at least two peo- ple, the group, and the organization. Diff erent tools work better, depending upon the level of your intervention, and it is important to be aware of the level on which you are working and intervening.

Change Models

A well-known and well-used model for indi- vidual change is William Bridges’ (1993) three stage Transition Model (Figure 3.2). Th e End- ing is where we begin, as we accept, let go, and mourn losses; the Neutral Zone is where we experience confusion and insecurity, as depict- ed by the trapeze artist between swings, but

FIGURE 3.2 Bridges Transition Model

Adapted from Managing Transitions, Bridges, W., Addison-Wesley, 1991

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Handbook for Strategic HR38

also creativity, as new possibilities emerge; and the New Beginning is where we experience re- newed energy, purpose, direction, and a new identity.

Another favorite can be used at the indi- vidual, group, and organizational levels. It’s by well-known family systems expert, Dr. Virginia Satir (1991), and it describes what happens to people when there is perturbation, such as that which comes from change (Figure 3.3).

Group Model

You’ll need to have a model that helps you un- derstand what’s going on in any group that you’re facilitating. One of the simplest, and best, is Will Schutz’s FIRO-B model (Figure 3.4), in which groups go through three pre- dictable stages. Th e fi rst stage is inclusion, ad- dressing the question of who is in and who is out of this group. Th e second stage is control, addressing the question of who has infl uence, or who is up and who is down in this group. Th e third stage is aff ection or openness, or who is close and who is far. Groups cycle through these three stages over the life of the group, and every time the group convenes.

Team Model

Th e Drexler-Sibbet Team Performance Model (Figure 3.5) is the best researched, best docu-

mented, and best supported team model. It’s a seven stage model that outlines the issues that teams must confront, and how they get resolved.

It’s also helpful to have a solid grasp of the diff erences between groups and teams, espe- cially as you prepare to facilitate either or both. Th e central diff erence is that the mem- bers of teams are inherently highly interdepen- dent, and the members of groups are less inter- dependent. Groups can often function quite well without some, many, or even most of their members because roles are often not well diff erentiated. Teams, on the other hand, of- ten have diff erentiated roles, and the members are dependent upon each other to get things done, which greatly increases the risk—and the potential rewards!—from working with teams. Some of the other diff erences are de- scribed in Figure 3.6.

Diversity Models

An important, and too often avoided dimen- sion of group life, is the diversity of its mem- bers and the facilitator. Diversity includes many attributes, characteristics and identity group memberships, such as the following: gender, sexual orientation, physical ability, race, age, language, nationality, ethnicity, class, etc. Th ese dimensions add both potential com- plexity and richness to the group’s work and, if ignored, reduce the group’s eff ectiveness by

FIGURE 3.3 Satir Perturbation Model

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Facilitation 101 39

FIGURE 3.4 The FIRO-B Six Cell Model Behaviors

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Handbook for Strategic HR40

creating tensions in the communications and reducing access to its members’ resources.

Given this potential value to the group, why is it that such discussion is left unex- plored? One reason is that facilitators are often uncomfortable and unable to explore diversity because they lack the awareness, the skills, the models or the vocabulary to guide such learn- ing conversations in the group. Th e eff ective- ness with which we are able to recognize, name and discuss diff erence, work diversity issues, and use diversity models in our facilitation is directly linked to the powerful outcomes of the work we do. When worked eff ectively, dif- ferences in the room can be the substance of profound learning for all present.

Th ere are several models that highlight various elements of diversity, including Quad- rant Th eory, Dimensions of Diversity, Path to Competence, and Dominant/ Subordinated Group Dynamics.

Group Dynamics

Th is topic is so large that there are several aca- demic journals dedicated to it, but there are a

few things for the facilitator to keep in mind. Wilfried Bion’s work with shell-shocked sol- diers revealed that there are often three “basic assumption” groups at play, and often simulta- neously, behaving as if their purpose was: a) to fi ght with each other, or to fl ee; b) to rebel against the group leader; and c) to collude to anoint a new leader whom the group will ulti- mately remove (Rioch, 1970). Th ese are often taken as signs of dysfunction in workplace groups, but they are normal and natural, espe- cially when the group is lacking a clear pur- pose or connection to its work. When your groups start to exhibit these basic assumption group behaviors, it’s a sign that it’s time to re- visit the group’s goal, its operating procedures, and its communication patterns.

Accountability Charting

One last tool to have handy is an account- ability, or RASCI chart, which identifi es who is responsible for what in a project or implementation plan. RASCI is an acronym, standing for “Responsible, Approves, Sup- ports, Consulted, Informed.” Th e Responsi-

FIGURE 3.5 Drexler-Sibbet Team Performance Model

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Facilitatio n 101

4 1

FIGURE 3.6 Differences Between Team and Group Functions

A m

erican M anagem

ent A ssociation / w

w w

.am anet.org

EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Handbook for Strategic HR42

ble person owns the problem or project. Th e Approval person signs off and must approve the work before it can take eff ect. Th e Sup- portive person(s) can provide resources. Th e Consulted person(s) has information or ca- pacity necessary to complete the work. Th e Informed person(s) must be notifi ed of re- sults, but need not be consulted. Using this tool with a group can greatly clarify their roles and support eff ective work on their task. For example, if the task were to publish the organization’s newsletter, you might see a RASCI chart such as Figure 3.7.

Use of Self

In the end, your success as a facilitator is going to be based on you, and how well you use your self to connect with others, model desired be- haviors, and infl uence people to change. Th at’s really what our job is all about when you think about it. We establish emotional connections with people, and hopefully create an environ- ment in which others feel comfortable connect- ing emotionally with each other. We have some beliefs about, and hopefully we model, how people should be treated in the workplace— that they should be given a voice in their own futures, listened to with care and grace, and re- spected for the diff erences in their backgrounds

and perspectives. We bring theory and knowl- edge to the work, which hopefully participants fi nd relevant and useful. Ideally, the whole package of “us” is interesting and appealing, and invites participants to consider new ways to see their worlds, change their behaviors, and ac- complish important goals.

We’ve developed an assessment for the use of self (Figure 3.8) which identifi es eight variables which determine who we are, and how we use our “self ” in facilitation. Ask your- self, to what extent. . .

• Are my boundaries easy or diffi cult to pen- etrate, and what should they be, given the situation and the work that I’m doing?

• Am I free and open with self disclosure, or reluctant and closed and how should I be, given the situation and the work that I’m doing?

• Is my intervention style active and en- gaged, or passive and restrained, and what should it be, given the situation and the work that I’m doing?

• Am I confi dent and self assured, or self- doubting, and how should I be, given the situation and the work that I’m doing?

• Am I highly skilled and competent, or not well skilled in the context of the work that I’m doing?

FIGURE 3.7 RASCI Chart

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Facilitation 101 43

• Am I comfortable or uncomfortable with confl ict, and how well does that serve me, given the situation and the work that I’m doing?

• Is my self-awareness high and growing, or low and stagnant, and is there anything I need to do about that? Are my group mem- berships helping or hindering my ability to manage the group dynamics in the work I’m doing?

• Am I emotionally available and empathic, or emotionally distant and unavailable, and how should I be, given the situation and the work that I’m doing?

Th ere are a thousand other questions re- lated to facilitation, such as what to say and when and to whom when facilitating group work, and what to write on chart paper, and what to put on slides, and when to intervene, and when to call time, and when to question the process, and when to confront the leader, and when to say “yes” and when to say “no.” Th ere’s no one-best answer or solution to any of them. Th e best way to learn how to inter-

vene in a group is to get lots of practice, espe- cially working in partnership with a well-sea- soned facilitator.

Th ere is a huge risk—maybe even a bit of arrogance!—involved in saying that this is the body of knowledge needed for good fa- cilitation. And, there are dozens of essential theories that we love and use every day, but could not include here, among them Th e JoHari Window, the Ladder of Inference, Exchange Th eory, a good communications model, Diffi cult Conversations, the Requi- site Organization, an integrative world view model such as Ken Wilber’s, a good confl ict resolution model, a power model, and graph- ic facilitation techniques. Knowing a broad range of theories gives us more options in making facilitation decisions, and we’ve tried to present the handful that we think are at the core of good facilitation.

For as hectic and crazy-making as facilita- tion mornings are, handling them well is just a small fraction of what makes as good as facili- tators. Th e morning frenzy represents just the sizzle of our fi eld. . . hot, frenetic, endorphin-

FIGURE 3.8 Self as Instrument of Change: A Self Assessment

Self Disclosure

free, open Confl ict

comfortable

Confi dence self assured

Empathy

emotionally available

Boundaries

diffi cult to penetrate

Competence

not skilled

Intervention Style

passive, restrained Self Awareness

low, stagnent Self Disclosure

reluctant, closed

Confl ict

uncomfortable

Confi dence self doubting

Empathy

emotionally unavailable

Boundaries

easy to penetrate

Competence

highly skilled

Intervention Style

active, engaged

Self Awareness

high, growing

© Matt Minahan, 2007

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Handbook for Strategic HR44

releasing, but not very sustaining or satisfying; it is quite far from the real work that we do in facilitation. In fact, you’ve been collecting the truly important items for your facilitation work all of your life—a few theories, a few models, a few handy techniques, and life-long learning about yourself and your impact on others. In the end, what makes us successful at facilitation is a good strong theory base, being curious about ourselves and the world, having the patience to practice, and to practice some more, bringing our best “self ” to the work, the client, and the team, always with the goal of making a contribution to a better world.

References

Adams, M., Blumenfeld, W., Castaneda, R., Hack- man, H., Peters, M., & Zuniga, X. (Eds.), (2000). Readings for diversity and social justice: an anthology on racism, antisemitism, sexism, heterosexism, able- ism, and classism. New York, NY: Routledge. Bridges, W. (1991). Managing transitions: Making the most of change. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books. Cheung-Judge, M. (2001). Th e self as an instrument —a cornerstone for the future of OD. Th e OD Practitioner. 33 (3), 33–39. Cox, T. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations: theory, research & practice. San Francisco, CA: Berrett- Koehler Publishers. Cross, E., & White, M. (Eds.) (1996) Th e diversity factor: capturing the competitive advantage of a changing workforce. Chicago, IL: Irwin professional Publishing. Cummins, T., & Worley, C. (2005). Organization development and change. 8th Edition. Mason, OH: South-Western/Th ompson. Curran, K., Seashore, C., & Welp, M. (1995). Use of self as an instrument of change. As presented at the OD Network Annual Conference, November 17, 1995, Seattle, WA. Retrieved from http://www .equalvoice. com/use_of_self.pdf. Drexler, A., Sibbet, D., & Forrester, R. (1988). Th e team performance model. In W. B. Reddy & K. Jamieson (Eds.) Teambuilding: blueprints for pro- ductivity and satisfaction (pp. 45-61). Alexandria, VA: NTL Institute for the Applied Behavioral Sci- ences; San Diego, CA: University Associates.

Doyle, M., & Strauss, D. (1982). How to make meetings work. New York, NY: Penguin-Putnam. Freedman, A. M. (2006). Action research: Origins and applications for ODC practitioners. Th e NTL handbook of organization development and change. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiff er.

Knowles, M. (1970). Th e modern practice of adult education: from pedagogy to androgogy. Association Press Konrad, A., Prasad, P., & Pringle, J. (Eds.), (2006). Handbook of workplace diversity. Th ousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper.

McClelland, D. C. (1975) Power: the inner experi- ence. New York, NY: Halstead.

McClelland, D.C., Atkinson, J.W., Clark, R.A., & Lowell, E.L. (1953) Th e achievement motive. Prince- ton: Van Nostrand McNamara, C. (2007) Field guide to consulting and organization development. Minneapolis, MN: Authenticity Consulting.

Minahan, M. (2005). “From groups to teams.” Prac- ticing OD. http://www.odnetwork.org/publications/ practicing/ practicing_od_backissues/article. php? article_id=811.

Minahan, M. (2005). “Using groups to manage change programs.” Practicing OD. http://www.od network.org/publications/practicing/practicing_od_ backissues/article.php?article_id=728.

Minahan, M. (2007) “What Is OD?” http://od network.org/aboutod/index.php.

Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and re- search methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Plummer, D. (Ed.). (2003) Handbook of diversity management: beyond awareness to competency based learning. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Riosch, M. J. (1970). Th e work of Wilfred Bion on groups. Journal for the Study Interpersonal Processes, 1(33), 56–66.

Rothwell, W., Sullivan, R., & McLean, G. (1995) Practicing OD: a guide for consultants. San Francis- co, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiff er.

Satir, V., et. al. (1991). Th e Satir model: family ther- apy and beyond. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behav- ior Books.

Schutz, W. C. (1958). FIRO: A three-dimensional theory of interpersonal behavior. New York, NY: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston.

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Facilitation 101 45

Speck, M. (1996, Spring). Best practice in profes- sional development for sustained educational change. ERS Spectrum, 33–41.

Stone, E. (1978). Research methods in organizational behavior. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear Publishing. Tolbert, M., & Hannafi n, J. (2006) Use of self in OD consulting: what matters is presence. Th e NTL handbook of organization development and change. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiff er.

Tufte, E. (2001). Th e visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press

Wells, M., & Pringle, V. B. (2004). Use of self- supervision model: Relational, ethical, and cultural issues. APPIC Newsletter Online. Retrieved from http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwcou/wordandpdfEtc/ UseofSelfSupv.pdf.

Wilber, K. (1996). A brief history of everything. Bos- ton, MA: Shambhala.

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

C H A P T E R 3 1

46

C H A P T E R 4

Action Research The Anchor of OD Practice

Jeremy S. Lurey and Matt Griffi n

A Tale of the Oversized File Cabinet

While working in his home offi ce on a sunny Friday afternoon, Frank heard the doorbell ring. He went to answer the door, and as he opened it, he noticed Tom the carpenter standing out- side next to a very large fi le cabinet.

Before Frank could even say hello, Tom eagerly greeted him with a fi rm handshake and said, “Hi Tom. I was so excited to get your call about the fi le cabinet last week that I started immediately. I designed a custom-made over- sized cabinet to meet all of your current and future business needs. You’re going to love it!”

With a perplexed look on his face, Frank responded, “Tom, I’m not sure what you were thinking, but my message was very clear. I asked you to come over today so we could have an initial discussion about the fi le cabinet and review my specifi c requirements. I thought we could start with the overall design of the cabinet and then determine if you were the right person for the job based on budget and time constraints.”

“Yes, but I have known you for a long time Frank, and can tell you have a bright fu- ture as an OD consultant. I didn’t want you to have to worry about a thing. You have enough to worry about starting your own business, that I thought I would just take some initia- tive,” Tom enthusiastically explained as he ges-

tured to his master creation—a 20-foot high, 30-foot long, 10-drawer monstrosity with a dark maple fi nish. “Besides, this cabinet is per- fect for you. You will have enough space in this cabinet for years of growth. You will never need another fi le cabinet!”

At that point, Frank was very frustrated and could feel his face burning. “Tom,” he re- plied, “Th is simply isn’t what I asked for, and you would have understood that if you only waited to talk with me fi rst. “Keep in mind that organizations are complex systems, and using a mechanical approach to ‘fi x’ a ‘broken’ part rarely creates eff ective change.” I’m only planning to be in my home offi ce for a year or two before I move into more permanent work- space with a few of my colleagues. I just need a small cabinet to hold a few important fi les as I get started. I’m sorry, but I can’t accept the cabinet. It won’t even fi t in the house! I am very disappointed Tom, and think you should leave.” As the door closed behind him, Frank noticed the complete bewilderment on Tom’s face.

An OD Consulting Challenge

While this is a fi ctitious story, and an extreme exaggeration at that, it is not inconceivable that a carpenter would be so eager to please the client that initiative would be taken with- out fully understanding the scope of work.

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Action Research 47

Neither is it inconceivable that a skilled crafts- man would be so confi dent in his abilities that he would jump right into the project without having more direction from the client. In fact, it even seems logical for a carpenter to take such actions after reaching a clear agreement with the client—especially if the busy client may be preoccupied with higher priority activities.

Although this story chronicles the tale of a carpenter and his client, the story speaks of an all too common event in consulting, espe- cially organization consulting, as well. How often do we hear these stories:

• Clients who express a clear problem to a consultant, and then the consultant designs and implements his/her own solution re- gardless of whether or not it meets the true client need

• A consultant brings a solution to the client before the problem is understood or even discussed

• Situations where clients are completely dis- satisfi ed with the performance of their con- sultants and the results they deliver simply because of a communication gap—one where the consultant implements a solu- tion without fi rst presenting it to the client for approval or at least discussing the pos- sible implications in advance

What these examples indicate is that the quality and success of the project depends upon both the client and the consultant fully understanding the complexity of the issue. To illustrate this understanding, it can be helpful to think in terms of multiple levels of awareness. Th e client experiencing pain can represent the fi rst level of awareness, and the initial client diagnosis the second level. Action taken on ei- ther of these two levels is not likely to truly address the issue. Action research is about reaching deeper levels of awareness, and there- by increasing the likelihood of addressing the issue in an eff ective way.

As the story suggests, it is critical for a car- penter, or an OD consultant, to develop and maintain a close working relationship with his

or her client. Without this collaborative ar- rangement, the consultant will likely deliver an inadequate or inappropriate solution that does not meet the client’s needs. In so doing, the consultant runs a great risk of alienating him or herself from the client, and more im- portantly causing potential harm or suff ering to the client.

Th e story is also useful in illustrating a critical diff erence between the work of a car- penter and the work of an OD consultant. Th e “results” that a carpenter produces are tangible and cannot easily be undone. A fi le cabinet made from the wrong wood or with incorrect dimensions is diffi cult to fi x without starting over from scratch, whereas a consulting proj- ect can sometimes be modifi ed, even radically, as new information comes to the surface. Con- sulting projects, especially those found within the OD world, tend to be complex, subjec- tively perceived, and fl uid. Th is makes it easy —if anything in OD is truly easy—to misun- derstand or miscommunicate the nature of the project. At the same time, it also makes it eas- ier to adapt your approach once you do gain a proper understanding of both the situation and the client’s expectations.

The Value of Action Research

Although the origin of action research remains cloudy, and to some extent can be seen as an off shoot of the scientifi c method, Kurt Lewin is typically credited with bringing this meth- odology to the mainstream and to organiza- tions specifi cally. It was the belief of Lewin and his contemporaries that in order to under- stand and change social conditions, those in- volved in creating those conditions must be involved in the process. Th us, one of the main themes of action research is enactment of so- cial change. For this reason, action research is at the core of the OD practice. As an approach to organization consulting, it prescribes a posi- tive and collaborative working relationship between consultant and client and therefore provides the basic foundation for the organiza- tion change process.

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Handbook for Strategic HR48

Using the action research process enables the consultant to better understand the system in which he/she is involved, and therefore mitigates the risk of following in Tom the Car- penter’s footsteps. At the same time, an action research approach helps the clients to be more conscious of their environment and the condi- tions in which they live. With this heightened awareness, the consultant and client are then able to work together to realize the goals of the change process by uncovering deeper levels of awareness and understanding.

Because of the importance of client par- ticipation, this work method requires the con- sultant to accept more of a “facilitator” than “expert” role. It should be noted, however, that this is not an either/or choice. In addi- tion, the choice need not be applied to the en- tire course of the change process. Th e consul- tant can act more as an expert in analyzing the data during one phase of the project while still being a facilitator in helping the client create the action plan during another phase. While there is often a delicate balance between the changing responsibilities of being an expert and facilitator, the process remains largely the same. Th e consultant creates an environment in which the client is always aware of what is happening when following an action research approach.

In this manner, the client actively partici- pates in not only designing each step of the change process but also performing many of the required actions. One of the main reasons for this participative role is that change is usu- ally easier to accept when those aff ected by the change are involved in understanding and driving the change process. Th is point is at the heart of action research, and therefore the cli- ent, in most cases, is involved in every aspect of the project, including:

• Establishing change priorities • Collecting and interpreting data • Analyzing and disseminating the results • Creating action plans based on the results • Implementing the action plans • Evaluating the results

To help both the consultant and client maintain focus during the course of the change process, the action research approach consists of a standard phased methodology. Th e seven phases of action research are summarized below.

1. Entry—beginning to develop the client/ consultant relationship and validating the fi t between both parties

2. Contracting—determining whether or not to proceed with the consulting relationship and negotiating any fi nal conditions of the engagement “contract”

3. Data Gathering and Diagnosis—collecting the necessary data and analyzing it

4. Feedback—presenting the fi ndings, analy- sis, and any preliminary recommendations to the client organization

5. Planning Change—identifying specifi c courses of action that address the client situ- ation and developing an action plan for implementation

6. Intervention—applying specifi c solution sets to the client organization

7. Evaluation—assessing project results and determining future courses of action, rang- ing from project closure to new contract development activities

Action Research in Action

To illustrate the value of action research to the practice of OD, the following section describes a real-life case example of how the action re- search approach can be used. Th is account de- tails specifi c actions taken by both the client and consultant during each of the seven phases of a nine-month consulting engagement. Th e pri- mary client group in this example was an IT organization within a regional insurance agency, and the initial presenting issue was a lack of col- laboration and teaming across the organization.

Entry

After being presented with a viable business lead, the consultant arranged for an initial phone conversation with the client sponsor. While this fi rst component of the action research ap-

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Action Research 49

proach only lasted approximately forty-fi ve minutes, the consultant successfully gained some clarity on the presenting problems and primary concerns of the client. To summarize, the client suggested that there was a lack of collaboration and teaming across the organiza- tion. She also expressed a desire to have the consultant further assess the situation and rec- ommend specifi c strategies for improving this unproductive work culture.

In conjunction with the consultant learn- ing about the client situation, the client sponsor also took advantage of the opportunity to ques- tion the consultant about his professional back- ground and relevant work experiences. Ques- tions like “Can you give me an example of when you worked on a similar project?” and “What would your fi rst step be in this situation?” helped her understand what value the consul- tant would bring to the organization. Th e client also gained a tremendous sense of confi dence in the consultant’s abilities due to his strong re- sponses. As with any relationship, this is a criti- cal step in building a positive working relation- ship early on in the Entry phase of the project.

While this short conference ended on a very positive note, it took approximately six weeks for the two individuals to speak again. Th e delay occurred for two primary reasons: fi rst, a change in client priorities due to com- peting projects and second, the consultant’s on- going commitment to another client. While this may create some tension between client and consultant in some engagements, it is actu- ally quite common within an action research framework. Both parties must be ready to move to the next stage of the relationship before any work can proceed, and in this case, the two quickly confi rmed their interest in pursuing the relationship further when they did reconnect.

Contracting

Th e Contracting phase of action research can begin as soon as the client and consultant agree to work together. In this case, it began as soon as the two reconnected and discussed the ac- tual scope of the project.

During a face-to-face meeting with the cli- ent, the consultant asked some probing ques- tions to better understand the client’s expecta- tions. She repeated some of the same key phrases he heard before, namely “to help the group work better as a team” and “to help create a team identity”. At this point, the consultant began clarifying the primary target audience and proposing some potential activities to get the project started. Th us, the foundation of the engagement contract included the following:

• Project objective—design and implement customized management training and de- velopment programs that improve manage- ment skills and foster stronger team leaders

• Current scope—management training and development for the seven members of the management team only

• Potential future scope—broader training programs for nonmanagers as well as orga- nization realignment or business process redesign initiatives

• Project approach—phased approach in- cluding high-level activities, such as assess- ment, feedback, and intervention, over a specifi c timeline and with key project mile- stones and deliverables; requires active par- ticipation and involvement from key mem- bers of the client organization, including the client sponsor, each of the seven man- agers, and many of the employees during the data gathering and evaluation phases specifi cally

After this information was clearly docu- mented, the consultant presented it to the cli- ent for review and approval. With a shared understanding of the project confi rmed, the client then signed off on the contract. Th e im- portance of this action cannot be emphasized enough if you plan to follow an action research approach.

Data Gathering and Diagnosis

Having defi ned the scope of the project dur- ing Contracting, the consultant and client

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Handbook for Strategic HR50

sponsor were now prepared to begin gathering data. In true action research form, both parties played an active role in completing this task. Th e client sponsor provided key organization data to the consultant to help him understand the environment, and then the consultant ini- tiated more targeted data gathering activities.

Many members of the client organization participated in the process. All of the managers completed two diff erent personality invento- ries, including the Myers-Briggs Type Indica- tor, and participated in a 360-degree feedback process. Th ey also participated in one-on-one interviews with the consultant so he could learn more about their personal strengths, areas for improvements, and their beliefs about the work condition. In addition, many of the employees participated in focus group sessions to share their feelings about the organization and complete a leadership eff ectiveness survey.

After completing these activities, the con- sultant assumed more of an “expert” role dur- ing the diagnosis part of this phase. Th ere were two primary reasons for this decision: fi rst, the client sponsor and her direct reports were all extremely busy with other project commit- ments, and second, the consultant had more experience with performing such analysis, and especially with using the diagnostic tools.

Feedback

When the diagnosis was complete, the consul- tant actively engaged the client, and the entire management team, in the feedback process. For the change to be successful, it is vital to share these fi ndings with the client and guide them in determining the next steps, as op- posed to deciding for them. Th ey must direct the process if they are ever going to accept the change.

Th us, the consultant presented a summa- ry report of the fi ndings as well as his conclu- sions and recommendations for moving for- ward. In general, the fi ndings did support the original contention that there was a lack of collaboration and team identity within the organization. More specifi cally, employees in- dicated that there was very little teamwork

within or between units and that there was no reason to develop stronger team relations since the individual projects were so diverse in scope. One person actually stated, “I have no team . . . [Th is organization] is a series of fi efdoms.”

Once presented with these fi ndings, all of the managers contributed to an open dialogue about the information and possible strategies to address the situation. For the most part, the managers reacted positively, voicing their agreement with the results as if they were al- most expected. Some managers, however, did react a bit more defensively and questioned whether or not specifi c fi ndings were truly in- dicative of their units or if they were more a generalization of the rest of the organization.

For example, one manager felt that she did seek input from her employees and includ- ed them in the decision-making process. Th e summary results for the entire organization, however, did not suggest that employees felt they were able to contribute in such a manner. Instead, they expressed a concern that they had very limited knowledge of the long-term vision for the organization and were some- what unclear of how their individual projects supported the future direction of the group. In the end, each of the managers agreed on the next steps of the engagement and suggested several potential activities that would address the specifi c areas for improvement discussed in the meeting.

In parallel to this work, the consultant also shared the results of the personal assess- ments with each of the managers during indi- vidual feedback sessions. Th e individual results, similar to the team fi ndings, suggested that the majority of the managers did not openly com- municate about the organization’s future di- rection or inspire commitment to a shared vision, that they did not inform employees of how their work contributed to the organiza- tion’s goals. Th e results also indicated that the managers were very weak in the areas of per- formance evaluation and performance man- agement, that they did not encourage perfor- mance discussions with their employees or provide any regular feedback regarding work

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Action Research 51

performance. Again, the collaborative relation- ship between client and consultant becomes critical if the individual managers were going to take any responsibility in addressing these concerns or promoting their own personal development.

Planning Change

Th e goal of the Planning Change phase is to create an action plan that will guide the next phase of the process, intervention. For this reason, planning change is not about imple- menting the solutions being discussed. In- stead, it is an opportunity to explore the po- tential solutions further and determine exactly how the intervention will proceed.

In this case, the management team identi- fi ed two levels of intervention: one focused on the management team and the other focused on the individuals within that team. Th e team- based intervention was a management train- ing program that involved a comprehensive curriculum of courses to address their specifi c developmental needs. Th e key aspects of plan- ning this type of change, then, were to defi ne the curriculum and coordinate all of the logis- tics for delivering the training, including preparing instructor and participant training materials, scheduling the training sessions, and ultimately facilitating the training.

Th e second intervention was aimed more directly at the individual managers and was in- tended to support the team training experience. Towards this end, the consultant co-developed personal action plans that focused on one or two critical leadership skills with each manager. While these plans varied from individual to individual, many focused on addressing the concerns with performance evaluation and per- formance management and all specifi ed certain developmental activities, target completion dates, as well as any resources that may be required to achieve the developmental goal.

Intervention

Th e Intervention phase is where the plan is executed and the solution is actually imple- mented within the client organization. Un-

like the Diagnosis phase where the consul- tant often accepts responsibility as the expert, this is one time in the engagement where the consultant can take more of a “facilitator” role. It is the consultant’s goal to support the client’s development, but the client must be accountable. Th e client organization is what must change, and only actual members of this organization (i.e., the client) can be “ex- perts” of this environment.

During the intervention, the consultant facilitated several sessions to encourage the learning process. Topics ranged from recogniz- ing great leadership to understanding how to become a more eff ective leader and were in- tended to help each of the managers improve in the key areas agreed to during the feedback process. As the consultant presented strategies for:

• Being a positive role model for others • Being a coach and mentor to those you

manage • Providing the right mix of tools and resourc-

es to enable the team to achieve its goals the managers actively discussed how to apply these strategies to their organization.

Beyond the management team training, the consultant also continued to work with the indi- vidual managers on their personal development plans. Similar to the roles during training, the consultant merely supported the managers’ ac- tions, but the managers were responsible for tak- ing the action. To understand the importance of this balanced relationship, consider those man- agers who did not actively pursue their plans— they did not require dedicated support from the consultant. Th is proves the point that both par- ties play a critical role in the process, otherwise the arrangement will not work.

Evaluation

In an informal manner, evaluation occurred during every phase of work during this en- gagement. For example, the consultant and client co-evaluated the results of the Contract- ing phase before moving on to Data Gathering

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Handbook for Strategic HR52

and Diagnosis. Does the contract clearly de- fi ne the scope of the project? If so, are there shared expectations between both parties as to how best to perform the work? If simple ques- tions such as these are not adequately answered, then the individual parties must reconsider whether or not they are ready to move forward.

In addition, the consultant also per- formed a more formal review of the project. Th e consultant developed a standard protocol for measuring the success of each activity and then interviewed each of the managers to gather their thoughts and perceptions. Based on these responses, the consultant synthesized the data and presented it back to the client for review. Th e consultant also presented some ba- sic recommendations for prioritizing future activities based on not only the achievement of previous goals but also the development of a more capable management team. Future scope activities may include developing a training strategy for non-managers or creating a more formal communications plan to share infor- mation more regularly across the organization. In essence, this evaluation, then, actually serves to start another iteration of the consulting process, one that begins with more advanced client problems now that the original concerns have been addressed.

Conclusions on an Iterative Process

As the “Tale of the Oversized File Cabinet” al- luded, the process an OD consultant follows can be very similar to the process that a master carpenter goes through before taking hammer in hand. First, there are customer desires to be considered, then measurements to be taken, plans to be drafted and revised, and fi nally wood to be studied and prepared before any true action is ever taken. Th e consultant who is an “expert” in a particular technique is like the carpenter who can make beautiful and elaborate fi le cabinets. Both can provide value

to the client, but what happens when the cli- ent thinks he or she needs a customized fi le cabinet (or can be convinced that a custom- ized fi le cabinet would solve his or problems) when what is really needed is a standard desk?

Th is issue gets to the core of both action research and OD. Action research and OD are about understanding the real issues and iden- tifying what really needs to be changed. Ac- tion research and OD are about providing so- lutions that address the contributing factors of a problem, not simply providing a solution to the presenting problem, which may or may not be at the core.

Keep in mind that organizations are com- plex systems, and using a mechanical approach to “fi x” a “broken” part rarely creates eff ective change. In this context, organizations can be thought of as a web of interacting forces, inter- acting individually and as a whole to produce certain outcomes. Th us, eff ective change en- tails exploring these forces and their inter- actions. Within a single action research cycle (Entry to Evaluation), multiple levels of aware- ness can and will probably be uncovered. However, it is not uncommon that there are levels of awareness that will only be uncovered in subsequent cycles, as the client’s self-aware- ness increases and the ability to self-refl ect and change develops. Th us, action research is most helpful as an iterative process, not as an event.

Action research can be a rather diffi cult and frustrating process to understand and use eff ectively. “Yes, I know about action research, but what do I do?” can be a common question for new practitioners. Understanding the pro- cess of and assumptions behind action research can make the diff erence between being a prac- titioner of OD and being someone who sim- ply uses typical OD interventions without using the other parts of the process that make up OD. Or, to put it another way, it is like the diff erence between being a carpenter and being someone who knows how to swing a hammer.

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

C H A P T E R 3 1

53

C H A P T E R 5

The Organization Development Contract

Marvin Weisbord

IN OD CONSULTING, the contract is cen- tral to success or failure. Most other kinds of contracts—employment, service, research, etc.— focus heavily on content, that is, the nature of the work to be performed, the schedule, and the money to change hands. Generally, these issues are negotiated through a proposal, which one party writes and the other accepts or rejects.

Th e consulting contract most people are familiar with takes two forms:

1. You hire me to study the problem and tell you what to do.

2. You hire me to solve the problem for you.

I call these “expert” consulting contracts. In either case, the quality of the advice and/or the solution is the focus and the consultant is a central fi gure. In OD consulting, the clients are central. Th ey hire me to consult while they are working, helping them to achieve a better diagnosis of what is happening and what steps they might take to improve things. Th is is a form of collaboration which, if successful, helps clients also to achieve better working relationships with others, for example their peers, bosses, and subordinates.

In OD contracting, more so than in other kinds, the process by which content issues are pinned down is critical. Unless this negotia- tion is a model of the consultant’s values and

problem-solving behavior, the contract, when it is tested, probably will not stand up. More about testing later. What do I mean by con- tract? I mean an explicit exchange of expecta- tions, part dialogue and part written document, that clarifi es for the consultant and client three critical areas:

1. What each expects to get from the relation- ship.

2. How much time each will invest, when, and at what cost.

3. Th e ground rules under which the parties will operate.

What Each Expects

Clients expect change for the better in a situa- tion that is making their lives hard. Such situ- ations usually have three main features:

1. Organizational issues, i.e. people leaving; excessive absenteeism; too high costs; too little budget; unmanageable environmental demands; pressure from above; confl ict among individuals or work groups.

2. People problems, i.e., one or more signifi - cant relationships are singled out as partic- ular sore spots.

3. Personal dilemma, i.e., whether this job, or this career, is what I really want.

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Handbook for Strategic HR54

Th e third component always grows in magnitude in direct proportion to the fi rst two. Clients in a bind do not get much fun out of their work. Th ey long for something simpler, better suited to their strengths, and more consistent with their values. Above all, most clients long for outcomes. Th ey want permanent “change” for the better, with no backsliding. I, on the other hand, see new out- comes as evidence the client is learning a bet- ter way of coping. From my point of view the process for gathering information, becoming aware of deeper meanings, and making choices is my most important product.

While clients identify diffi cult situations they want to work on, I keep in mind three levels of improvement they might achieve:

1. Reducing the immediate crisis, e.g., chang- ing structures, policies, procedures, systems, programs, relationships for the better.

2. Learning something about their own cop- ing styles—how they deals with organiza- tional dilemmas and how they might do it better.

3. Learning a process for continually becom- ing aware and making choices about what- ever issue presents itself.

From my point of view, the existing prob- lem is a vehicle for learning more about how to manage organizational life better. I have no preferences for the kinds of problems clients have. From my point of view, one issue will do as well as another. However, clients rarely ask my direct help in cutting costs, reducing absenteeism, raising morale, or improving ser- vices. Instead, identifying me mainly with the “people” issue, they nearly always look for guidance in taking swift, painless, self-evi- dently correct actions toward others who con- tribute to their misery.

I always ask prospective clients to name what outcomes they hope to achieve by work- ing with me. Here are some typical replies:

• Want others to understand our goals better.

• Better communications, fewer misunder- standings.

• Getting people to shape up or ship out. • Better meetings—more excitement, more

decisions made, higher commitment.

Notice that each of these statements is somewhat abstract, self-evidently “good,” and hard to measure. I am reluctant to settle for generalities as adequate statements of a client’s expectations. Instead, I push hard on outcomes. What would you see happening that would tell you communications are improving? How will you know when goals are clearer, or morale has gone up? What will people do? Will you be able to watch them do it?

When I push at this level, I get more real- istic statements:

• Pete will come to me with his gripes directly instead of going to Fred.

• Deadlines will be taken seriously and met more often.

• In meetings, decisions will be made, actions agreed upon, and names and dates put on them.

• I will understand how to set up the unit and will have agreement on whatever way I decide.

• We will have a new procedure for handling customer complaints.

• I will make a decision whether to keep or fi re so-and-so.

Th ese statements are good short-run indi- cators of change. Th ey are realistic expecta- tions. Are changes like these worth the invest- ment of time and money? Is there enough in it for the clients to go ahead? It is important that they be clear they are choosing to do whatever we do together because it is worth it (rather than because it is this year’s panacea or some- body else tried it and liked it). What does each client want personally out of this? Easier life? What does that mean? Etc.

I expect some things too. Clients know I work mainly for money and want to be paid on time. However, I try also to indicate some

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

The Organization Development Contract 55

of my secondary motives for working with them. For example, I crave variety. I like learning about and using my skills in various “content” areas—manufacturing and service industries, medicine, law enforcement, pub- lic education. I like to try new technologies, to break new theoretical ground, to write and publish my experiences. Th e chance to do something new raises my incentive with any client. So does a client’s ready acceptance of some responsibility for the crisis. If clients are well motivated to work on their problems, so am I—and I tell them so. In doing this, I am trying to say that each of us has a right to some personal benefi ts from our relationship, apart from any benefi ts the organization may derive.

Structuring the Relationship: Time and Money

OD, like much of life, is carried forward by a sequence of meetings among people. Th e cen- tral decision in any contract discussion is which people should sit in what room for how long and for what purpose. At some point it is essential to name those people, pick dates, and set a budget. Th e client has a right to know how much time I will invest in interviewing, or survey sampling, or whatever, and how long our meetings will require. If I need time in between to organize data, I estimate how much. Often the initial contract is diagnostic, to be completed at a face-to-face meeting where the data will be examined, a common diagnosis arrived at, and next steps decided upon.

Always, I work to clarify the costs, time, and money of each next step. Generally, this information will be written down. In addi- tion, there are some things I will and will not do, money aside. I know what these things are and only mention them if the client does on the premise that there is no point in solving a problem I do not have. For instance, I turn down opportunities to work weekends. I will work morning, noon, and night on any sched- uled day if necessary. On weekends, my con- tract is with my family.

I also have a strong value that when you work on your organization indicates how important you consider it. People get them- selves into crises during the week. If they do not have time to get out during the week, they are never going to get out by working week- ends. Th at makes me the wrong consultant for them. (Incidentally, I have never lost a client because of this policy.)

Ground Rules

Ground rules speak to the process of our rela- tionship. Sometimes I write them down, sometimes not. In any case, I try to get an understanding that includes these explicit agreements:

1. I will supply methods, techniques, theory, etc., to help you understand and work bet- ter on your problems. You supply energy, commitment, and share responsibility for success. I do not study your problems and recommend expert solutions.

2. Part of my job is to raise sticky issues and push you on them. You have a right to say no to anything you do not want to deal with. If you feel free to say no, I will feel free to push.

3. Tell me if I do something puzzling or irri- tating and give me permission to tell you the same.

4. I have no special preferences for how you deal with others. Part of my job is to make you aware of what you do and what possi- ble consequences your actions have for me and for the people around you. My job is also to preserve and encourage your free- dom of choice about what, if anything, you should do.

5. My client is the whole organization. Th at means I intend not to be seen as an advo- cate for anybody’s pet ideas, especially ones requiring your special expertise. However, I do advocate a certain process for problem-solving, and recognize that some people oppose my process. I accept that risk.

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Handbook for Strategic HR56

6. Any information I collect and present will be anonymous. I will never attach names to anything people tell me. However, in cer- tain situations (e.g., team building), I don’t want confi dential information. Th is means anything you are unwilling for other team members to know, even anonymously.

7. All data belongs to the people who supply it. I will never give or show it to anyone without their permission.

8. Either of us can terminate on 24 hours notice, regardless of contract length, so long as we agree in a face-to-face meeting.

9. We evaluate all events together and make decisions about what to do next.

Contracting, like the seasons, is repetitive and continually renewable. If I have a long term contract (e.g., 4 days a month for a year) I also have a separate contract for each meet- ing, which I present on a chart pad and discuss at the outset. If I have a contract with bosses to help them build their teams, I need to extend it to each team before we go to work. If I suc- ceed with a team, and some members want to work with their teams, I need to negotiate a new deal with the new people. Once, having worked with a team, I found the boss wanting to confront his boss. He wanted the whole team to do it with him, with me as consultant. I pointed out that that would require a tempo- rary contract among me, him, and his boss. He set up a dinner meeting the night before the confrontation, and his boss and I made a one-day contract which stood up very well on the next morning.

In short, I’m never fi nished contracting. Each client meeting requires that I reexamine the contract. Does it cover everybody I’m working with? Is it clear what we are doing now? And why?

The Making of a Contract

Moreover, contracting—while it deals ostensi- bly with content issues—has a process side that is crucial to its success. Consider, in some

detail, where and how an OD contract is made. Such contracts usually begin with a phone call or letter. Somebody has heard about what I did somewhere else. Th ey won- der whether I can do it for (or with or to) them. If I receive a letter, I respond with a phone call to the writer. If clients call fi rst, I return their calls at a time when I can spend 10 minutes or more discussing what they want and whether or not it makes sense to meet. Th is initial contact is crucial to any contract. Each of us is trying over the phone to decide whether we like one another well enough to proceed. I try not to prejudge the conversa- tion. I want a face-to-face meeting if there’s a chance of getting a solid contract.

Here are some questions running through my mind:

1. How open are callers with me? Me with them?

2. Is the caller window shopping, calling several consultants to fi nd the “best deal” (whatever that means)? Does this person really want me? Perhaps—as is sometimes the case—potential clients don’t know what they want. If that is so, I can consult with them on the phone, helping them clarify what they seek.

3. To which problem am I the solution? How do they name the issue?

4. What do they see as the solution? A work- shop? A meeting? A series of meetings? Magic?

5. Is this person’s mind made up? Has he or she done a self-diagnosis and prescribed something which I’m to administer?

6. Is there a budget? Is it adequate to the expectations? Will it be worth my while to invest in a face-to-face meeting? I don’t talk price on the phone, but do test whether a budget exists or could be got together. If the answer is no, I decide not to pursue it further.

7. Assume a budget, and willingness on the client’s part and mine to go forward. We need a meeting. Should anybody else be

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

The Organization Development Contract 57

there? Who? Is the caller in a position to enter into a contract? If not, who is? A boss? Can that person make the meeting? Is there another consultant I want to involve? If so, I ask whether I can bring an associate.

I end the phone call by clarifying that each of us intends to explore further whether there is a fi t between the kinds of things my potential client needs help on and the skills and experience I have. I am investing up to a day at no fee. (If there are travel expenses involved, I test whether the client will cover those.) At the end of that day, each of us will know whether to go further.

First Meeting

I arrive, greet my prospective client(s) and introduce myself and perhaps an associate. We have coff ee and exchange pleasantries. Each of us is deciding, silently, privately, perhaps unconsciously, how much we like the other. We look for cues. We give cues. Early on, we get down to Business.

Th e content issues might include:

1. Our backgrounds: My potential clients need to know enough about me to feel I can help before they will put out major problems.

2. Issues bothering client system: Are they symptomatic of other things, which are not being discussed. I always ask for examples in terms of observable behavior. “Communica- tions” or “decision-making” are not issues you can see, feel, or pin down. Who needs to talk to whom? Why? What do they do now? What do people do when they disagree? What patterns of behavior do the people present see in the organization?

3. What changes would the people I am talk- ing to like to see? What things would they observe happening that would tell them they are getting desired outcomes? Th is step in naming outcomes is important in

reducing the level of fantasy around OD and what I can do.

4. What fi rst event would be appropriate to moving the system in the desired direction? Nearly always, this event should be diagnos- tic. It should be an activity that will heighten the awareness of the people involved about how the issues they raise are seen by others in the system, such as colleagues, subordi- nates, customers, students, and peers. If the system is ready, the budget exists, my read- ing of the client’s willingness to proceed is good, and I am optimistic, I may propose workshop activity based on interviews. Sometimes I propose that the workshop start with interviews of each person as a fi rst step in agenda building (okay if no more than 10 or 12 attend). Sometimes, it makes more sense to consult to a work group within the framework of their regular weekly or monthly meetings. Sometimes, a survey questionnaire provides a database for a diag- nostic meeting. Whatever the event, we need a schedule, a place to meet, and a divi- sion of labor for organizing materials, send- ing out the agenda, and completing other preparations. Sometimes these things can be decided in the fi rst meeting. Sometimes I agree to write a formal proposal and proceed from there. Always I try to close on the next step—what I will do, what the client will do, and by what date.

Th e above considerations focus mainly on content. However, there are several process issues surrounding this meeting which I am continually working on too:

1. First among these is, “Do I like this per- son?” If not a spark of fondness, or warmth, or empathy, then what am I feeling? Annoyance? Frustration? Wariness? Can I fi nd something to like, respect, or admire about the other person? Until I do and until others fi nd in me what they need, I think our work on issues, possible next steps, logistics, etc., is largely fi ctional. It is

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Handbook for Strategic HR58

a way of using the task at hand to help us get greater clarity about our relationship. Any time I am uncertain about a relation- ship I believe my contract is in jeopardy, no matter what fi ne words are spoken or writ- ten on paper. Each time the relationship question is resolved, a little spark jumps. I watch for it.

2. Th e client’s depth of commitment is an issue for me. Does this person really want to change things? Does this person accept responsibility—at least a little bit—for the way things are? If somebody says, “I want you to change them,” I say, “Okay, but how open are you to changing?” Does the client pull back, hem and haw? Or does the client smile and admit the possibility? How open is this person to understanding how what he or she does aff ects other people? I value organizations improving themselves by learning together to do things better with each other. I try to test how my client feels about that.

3. Part of client commitment is resources. Clients fi nd money to do things they want to do. If money seems to be an insur- mountable problem, I look to some other process issue—anxiety about failure, a boss who’s negative about OD, fear of opening up “destructive issues,” etc. Helping the cli- ent get in touch with these possibilities, if I can, is valuable for both of us, whether I work with this person again or not. How do I do it? By asking such questions as: What is the risk? What’s the worst thing that could happen? How much exposure can you stand? I also ask what good things might happen, and whether the possible outcomes are worth the price.

In some ways, OD is like playing the market. Every intervention is a calculated risk. Th ere are no guarantees. Clients will have problems no matter what they do. So will I. Th e question I continually confront is: Which problems would you rather have? Th e ones you have now? Or the ones you will have if you try to solve the ones you have now? Once in a

while, potential clients decide they would rather live with what they have. I support this insight. It is better that both of us know it sooner rather than later.

More often this process leads to greater clarity and commitment on both our parts to make successful. I want to fi nd out what is real, what the environment will support, what is possible in this relationship, and then learn how to live with the situation. Of course I want to sell my services. I want to try new interventions. More than that, I want to be successful. I am learning to spot conditions under which I fail. An unclear contract ranks high on the list.

I resist entering untenable contracts, for I know deep down that they are like airplanes without fuel. No matter how beautiful they look, they will not fl y. Th e fuel for an OD contract is (1) client commitment, (2) a good relationship between us, and (3) a clear struc- ture to that relationship, symbolized by our ability to agree on what services I will perform, when, and at what costs in time and money.

Structuring the Relationship

Item 3 brings us to the specifi c fi rst activity. It has several criteria:

1. It is responsive to the client’s perceived problem. Clients must see it as helping them gain greater clarity, insight, and con- trol over whatever issues are bugging them. It is not based on my need to use any par- ticular trick in my bag.

2. It names the people who will come together, when, for how long, and why. “Why” is generally the client’s to answer. If a written statement is needed, I may help shape the language. If others balk, it’s up to the client to tell others what we are doing and why. I will tell them what I see as my contract with them. It is never my job to tell people why they are there.

3. It involves some form of diagnosis. Th at means some systematic information is col- lected that will heighten the clients’ aware-

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

The Organization Development Contract 59

ness and enlarge their freedom of choice. Sometimes this information fi ts a concep- tual scheme, which I make explicit. (Author’s note: In those days, I often used the “Six- Box Model” to good eff ect.) Always, I seek to collect data in such a way that the people who supply the information recognize it as critical to their lives together when I collate it and hand it back. Th e more interpreting or categorizing I do in advance, the less likely this is to happen. I ensure confi denti- ality and anonymity. Interpretation, I try to make clear, will result when people who supplied the information meet face to face to assign meaning to it. I try always to specify how much time people must give, what kinds of questions I will ask, and what will become of the answers. Th is structuring reduces anxiety and sets up rea- sonable expectations.

4. I establish that part of the contract is mutual feedback. I expect clients to con- front me openly on my behavior when it doesn’t make sense, to question anything I do, and to point out to me words or behav- ior that violate their sense of what’s appro- priate. In return, I expect to be open with them. It is around this clause, I think, that all contracts are tested sooner or later. In a workshop the test may come in the form of protest that the activities are irrelevant to the agenda and a waste of time. In a one- to-one relationship the test may be some- thing I did or said that really irritated the client. It takes some risk to let me know. In opening the issue, the client is checking to see whether I’m as good at handling deeds as I am at manipulating words.

I defi ne testing the contract as an emo- tion-provoking exchange between me and the client in some risky situation. As a result our relationship will become more “real,” more truly experimental, more like the action research model that I advocate as an appropri- ate way to live. I do not expect the burden to rest entirely on the client. I test, too, whenever the time seems right, usually around some-

thing the client is doing which aff ects our relationship.

Once, I noticed a client would continually express disappointment in others and told him I was worried that one day—if not already—he was going to feel the same way about me. He owned up to the possibility and assured me I would be the fi rst to know, which, when the time came, I was. Th e confrontation deepened our relationship and strengthened the contract. It might have ended it, too.

I welcome ending a contract explicitly by having it tested and found wanting. Better a clean death than lingering agony. It is time to test (and maybe end) a contract when:

• Th e client keeps putting things off . • Agreements are made and forgotten (by

either side). • Th e consultant appears to have a higher

emotional stake in the outcomes than the client does.

• Th e consultant asks for events, or activities, which intensify the feeling of crisis and pressure without much prospect for even- tual relief.

• Clients look to the consultant to do things which they should be doing, such as arrang- ing meetings, sending out agendas, carry- ing messages, and getting other people to do what they want them to do.

• Th e client is doing better and really doesn’t need outside help.

For me, a crisp, clean ending remains desirable, but sometimes elusive. Going over 14 major contracts during the last four years, I fi nd that nine ended with no “unfi nished business,” three ended because the boss lacked commitment to continue, and two because organizational changes left a leadership vac- uum and me uncertain who the client was. Where the boss lacked commitment, the intended follow-up meetings never took place, and I let things alone, feeling, I sup- pose, relatively little commitment myself. In the cases of organizational changes, it became plain the interim leadership lacked either

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Handbook for Strategic HR60

incentive or authority to keep up the con- tract, and I had other fi sh to fry.

It seems to me contracts have a natural life. Organizations eventually outgrow or tire of or cease needing a particular consultant, and vice versa. It’s better for me and my client that we recognize explicitly when it’s time to part.

Postscript 2011

I wrote the foregoing nearly forty years ago after a decade as a manager who used consul- tants and four years of consulting on my own. Th e world has since become a top spinning faster and the systems I work with infi nitely more diverse. I was writing during the early years of a gender revolution. Th e original piece called everybody “he” despite my having men and women clients. Larry Porter, then ODP editor, and I could not fi gure out what to do. I disliked calling everybody “he or she.” Worse still was the jarring distraction of “s/he,” a lit- erary contortion that had a mercifully short half life. By the mid-1970s we learned to use plural nouns, referring to “people,” “clients” and “they” unless a specifi c person was intended. I re-edited the piece to refl ect that usage.

I am struck while rereading this decades later by a few features. One is its problem focus. Today people think more in systems terms—interactions among multiple forces. Many also tend to accentuate the positive,

contracting to build on strengths rather than fi x what is broken. Back then, many of us used crisis and confl ict as the basis for OD and emphasized improving relationships as the linchpin. Team building and training were major tools. Yet, as I learned even then work- ing with Paul Lawrence in medical schools, many “personality” problems could be traced to structural issues—confl ict over goals, dead- lines, division of labor, policy, and procedure. Give people more control of their own work and watch relationships improve.

Nonetheless, the central issues of OD contracting—task and process—remain pretty much the same. It is still a relationship busi- ness. In 40 years I never got a contract by responding to an RFP (Request for Proposal) unless I already knew the people. After a while, I learned to tell prospective clients shopping for the “best” (intervention, consultant, what- ever) to talk to others fi rst and come back to me if they could not fi nd someone they liked. OD practice is a boutique aff air. Th e product is you. Nobody else can do what you do. Th e best book on this subject is my erstwhile part- ner Peter Block’s Flawless Consulting. If you want to learn more about OD’s antecedents, its cousins, aunts, and derivatives, check out the 25th Anniversary edition of Productive Workplaces (Jossey-Bass, 2012). In it, I describe what I did and what I learned during 50 years of helping clients jockey their unstable hybrids of economics, technology, and people.

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

C H A P T E R 3 1

61

C H A P T E R 6

The Seven Deadly Sins of OD Consulting

Pitfalls to Avoid in the Consulting Practice Connie A. Freeman

I DON’T KNOW WHY the subject of sin appeals to me, but I always seem to notice articles written about it. Last year I read an article in the Harvard Business Review by Andrall Pearson, former president of PepsiCo, entitled “Corporate Redemption and the Seven Deadly Sins” (1992). Pearson’s thoughts about how to change American organizations to be globally competitive made an impression on me. Pearson believes that “many change programs fail because they do not address the root cause of the problem (in corporate Amer- ica): Th e negative, risk averse, bureaucratic work environments that fl ourished in the decades of easy growth but that now under- mine the company’s competitive performance” (Pearson, 1992, p. 66). He talked about man- agement reinventing the “soft side of their organizations . . . the values and goals toward which people strive, the ways people approach their jobs, the pace of the work in the organi- zation, how people work together” (Ibid., p. 66). Th is is precisely where I believe OD can make a contribution.

Several months ago as a colleague and I were writing an article about the relationship between TQM and OD in managing change, I ran across another piece on sin written by Booz Allen & Hamilton (1991) that outlined the seven deadly sins of total quality manage-

ment. As I read this booklet, I remember thinking about what sins apply to the consult- ing profession. I’d like to share with you some of my consulting experiences—successful and sometimes not so successful—in the context of the seven deadly sins of OD consulting (see Figure 6.1).

1. Change Without Direction—The Flight to Nowhere

One of the challenges I have frequently faced is working with clients who want things to be diff erent—to change—but have, at best, only a vague idea where they want to go. What is the desired state? One of the most important aspects of the consulting process is to work with the client to determine the desired out- comes—the purpose of the change eff ort. Otherwise, you truly are on a fl ight to nowhere, and you may even end up in a worse place than you started. Furthermore, change eff orts should begin with a clearly defi ned business problem.

Recently, the Medical Director and the Administrative Director of a 200-person labo- ratory department met with me and said, “We want to make some changes in the lab. We know there are some opportunities to improve things but we don’t know what they are and

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Handbook for Strategic HR62

we don’t know where to begin.” After some discussion about past history and recent lead- ership changes, we agreed that the fi rst step was to determine the desired outcomes. We engaged in some visioning and scenario build- ing activities to help us focus on the future and tie into the hospital’s strategic goals. We then examined the present state to see where we were as compared with where we wanted to be. Only then did we have a sense of how to proceed in managing the change process because now we had some specifi c “targets.”

Another example relates to a fi nancial institution where, as a member of the Board of Directors, I facilitated a strategic planning process to help us determine what our key objectives—short term and long range— should be based on our assessment of the future and our members’ needs. Since so many of our objectives were interdependent (i.e.,

share drafts, ATMS, new computer system), it was critical that we identify our desired state before action planning could begin.

2. One Size Fits All

Organization development is not the same thing as training or management develop- ment. Most training programs are designed to appeal to a mass audience and the program, once designed, is virtually the same for every- one. OD requires developing a relationship with the client and partnering with the client rather than working for them or doing some- thing to them.

As an example, I’ve conducted team building events with numerous departments over the past few years, from the entire staff of a nursing unit to an information systems department to the management team of a sur- gery department. On each project, I’ve relied on a broad team-building framework based on a Goals-Roles-Procedures-Relationships model (Plovnick, Fry & Burke, 1982), but the process intervention was very diff erent. In the surgery department, we spent several two- hour sessions doing some preliminary work before the group members accepted that we needed a greater block of time if we were going to accomplish our goals. Based on their rec- ommendation, we spent two days off site working on team issues, primarily role clarifi - cation and communication issues. Th is was signifi cant in that one operating room had to be closed down, additional staffi ng and over- time had to be arranged, and all needed the approval and cooperation of the surgeons, the Operations Vice President, and the entire department.

Team building with one nursing unit began with sessions with the charge nurses and supervisors, and then involved the entire 60-person staff . Th e process was facilitated in two groups because in a 24-hour-a-day, 365-days-a-year hospital setting, there are no after work or days off times. You have to be creative in applying interventions in OD. In the past, some people have argued that OD

FIGURE 6.1 The Seven Deadly Sins of OD Consulting

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

The Seven Deadly Sins of OD Consulting 63

doesn’t work in healthcare, but many others have found ways to apply OD to support change eff orts in hospitals (Johnson & Boss, 1992).

Diff erent situations, organizations, de- sired outcomes, and so on, require diff erent approaches to OD. You may rely on the same theory, model, or specifi c intervention but need to tailor the process to the situation. Adopting a “one-size-fi ts-all” orientation to change eff orts may facilitate the consultant’s role but it may not adequately meet the cli- ents’ needs.

3. The Consultant as Surrogate Leader

Th ere are times when a client truly lacks lead- ership abilities, and the desire to have the con- sultant “take charge” is quite appealing. In these instances, the consultant can be very vul- nerable and may or may not be able to aff ect desired results. In 1991, a large service depart- ment was experiencing serious employee rela- tions problems as evidenced in the organiza- tion’s annual employee opinion survey. I was asked to support that department in improv- ing the work environment and was told that my assistance was welcomed by the leaders in that division. I met with the Vice President and the department director, both of whom were very cooperative and interested in work- ing with me. Unfortunately, as we began, I soon discovered that the department head had minimal management skills and was little more than a fi gurehead with little direct involvement or infl uence. In addition, the Vice President was “a very nice gentleman” but had not demonstrated leadership. To make matters worse, the supervisors were also con- siderably weak and ineff ective leaders. In essence, these individuals were the basis for most of the problems, and there I was trying to facilitate changes at the source of the diffi - culties. While there was considerable aware- ness among the group about changes they needed to make, the problem-solving and action planning sessions were diffi cult and fol-

low through was questionable. It was not until the Vice President retired and another indi- vidual assumed this position that the desired changes began to occur. Th e new Vice Presi- dent provided the necessary leadership and guidance to direct the change eff ort. With training, team building, and employee partici- pation in problem-solving and decision-mak- ing, the work climate improved dramatically in one year. In 1992, employee opinion survey results were considerably improved, and fol- low-up focus groups supported the positive changes. Ultimately, consulting is only as eff ective as the clients with whom you work. We can’t work alone and sometimes the client doesn’t have the skills to make necessary changes.

4. Symptoms vs. Causes

Sometimes it may appear that “everything that can go wrong ... has.” Th is is when data collec- tion and analysis processes are so important to help determine what are the primary issues and concerns and where can the most gains be realized. Some issues may appear trivial and/ or are merely symptoms of deeper concerns. A medical records department had been experi- encing major problems over the past several years. Absenteeism and turnover were high, chart completion time was growing longer and longer, physician satisfaction was declin- ing, and employee relations were poor. At fi rst glance, the department head and supervisor believed that the problems stemmed from employees with “poor attitudes, low skills, etc.” and that changes in salaries, job descrip- tions, and work requirements were needed “to attract the right kind of employees.” Based on initial data gathering and analysis, however, it appeared that the primary cause of these related problems was work practices that did not eff ectively and effi ciently support the tasks. Th e processes that were in place to complete the tasks were inappropriate, redundant, time wasting, and served to frustrate the most dedi- cated and capable of employees. By refocusing on the work processes and roles rather than

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Handbook for Strategic HR64

people’s attitudes, and by involving staff in process improvement activities, signifi cant gains were made.

5. Only Looking Up

When moving forward, if you only look up, you are more likely to stumble and fall. One of the surest ways for OD consultants to “stum- ble” is to involve only the management and executive level in the change process or to “take their word” that they know what is needed for the department. While manage- ment may be the primary client contact, con- sulting frequently involves entire departments, divisions, or organizations. To aff ect long- term sustainable change, people from all levels within the work unit must be involved not only in the behavioral changes, but in the planning, design, and implementation of change. Participation, empowerment, and “buy-in” are all terms that represent the diff er- ence between long-term success and failure.

I remember once proposing that a task force of employees and fi rst-line supervisors be established to analyze preliminary fl ow diagrams of work processes and recommend changes. Several people were surprised at the suggestion to involve staff in such a decision- making process—historically all decisions con- cerning how work was completed was made at the manager level without employee input even though employees had attempted on numerous occasions to point out redundancies, weak- nesses, and suggest improvements. By encour- aging management to appreciate the impor- tance of employee participation in not only designing but also accepting more appropriate work processes, desired outcomes were more quickly and easily achieved and sustained.

6. Change as a Separate Activity

Change programs are not “magic bullets” and managing change is not a separate activity. Rather, it is a leadership and management style that enables organizations to be successful in

dynamic environments. In healthcare in the United States, for example, the comprehensive reform that is taking place “will favor manag- ers who can manage resources, particularly human resources, in a rapidly changing envi- ronment” (O’Donnell, 1993, p. 68). OD consulting can be viewed as an organizational job aid. Schein’s (1988) description of process consultation refers to collaborative client- consultant relationships, in which consultants function as facilitators and help clients learn to improve their internal problem-solving pro- cesses. Consultants should work with, not for, clients to help them learn how to be successful in dynamic environments. We work in part- nership not just to solve problems, make deci- sions, or manage team diffi culties, but to learn useful problem-solving and decision-making processes and to acquire skills to support team development, and so on. My aim is to move toward the client relying less and less on the consultant over time until the client feels inde- pendent. Th is is not always easy or welcomed because sometimes clients want consultants to “fi x it” or “change it” or “take care of it” and then call them when the work is done. Th e challenge in these instances lies in the ability to help the client see that s/he is an integral player and that the consulting expertise is only as worthwhile as the client enables it to be.

Harvard Business Review published an article in 1990 entitled “Why Change Pro- grams Don’t Produce Change” (Beer, Eisen- stat, & Spector). Several of the authors’ state- ments have stayed with me, such as their assertion that “an approach to change based on task alignment. .. is the most eff ective way to achieve enduring change” (p. 159). Th e basic message is that successful change eff orts focus on the work itself and not abstractions like “participation” or “culture.” Another premise is that “individual behavior is power- fully shaped by the organizational roles that people play. Th e most eff ective way to change behavior, therefore, is to put people into a new organizational context, which imposes new roles, responsibilities, and relationships on them”

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

The Seven Deadly Sins of OD Consulting 65

(Ibid., p. 159). In other words, OD eff orts may best be focused on changing the environ- ment in which people work rather than the people themselves.

7. Focus on Self

Finally, have you ever taken your well-reasoned, planned approach to a particular meeting and tossed it aside? If you haven’t, you may want to ask yourself if you may be missing something in the process because you’ve planned too carefully and completely. I’ve experienced con- sultants who are so wedded to a particular technique and so thorough in their prepara- tion that they often miss what’s happening right before them. Perhaps the worst of all sins for consultants is to be too focused on what we do—on the self—that we do not see what is taking place in the present. A college professor of mine once told me to let the research ques- tion guide the methodology rather than forc- ing a methodology on a research question. Th at’s good advice that I’ve carried into my approach to consulting. Consultants should not force favorite or familiar interventions onto the problems but rather from an analysis of the situation and desired outcomes, apply appropriate change management techniques. Having said this, I believe a thorough knowl- edge of theories, models, and process interven- tions is absolutely necessary, and utilizing vari- ous assessment instruments and diagnostic tools is appropriate. What is less appropriate is when we limit our range of knowledge and rely on the same strategy and approach in every consulting situation. Flexibility, adapt-

ability, and creativity are among a consultant’s most useful characteristics.

Conclusion

Obviously, my OD consulting experience has been primarily from an internal perspective. I believe, however, that my philosophy and approach is applicable in an external consult- ing environment as well. Th ese seven sins are equally deadly in both consulting situa- tions, and are pitfalls I try to avoid. Moving into an external consulting role, I’m certain there are many new “lessons” that await me. Hopefully my experiences thus far have pre- pared me.

References

Beer, M., Eisenstat, E., & Spector, B. (1990, Nov.- Dec). Why change programs don’t produce change. Harvard Business Review, 158–166. Johnson, J. A., & Boss, R. W. (1992). Organization development interventions in health services: Look- ing back and moving forward. Organization Devel- opment Journal, 10(1), 73–78. O’Donnell, K. P. (1993, June 20). Th e last word. Hospitals & Health Networks, 68. Pearson, A. (1992, May-June). Corporate redemp- tion and the seven deadly sins. Harvard Business Review, 65–75. Plovnick, M. S., Fry, R. S., & Burke, W. W. (1982). Organization development: Exercises, cases, and read- ings. Boston, MA: Little, Brown. Schein, E. H. (1988). Process consultation, Volume I: Its role in organization development (2nd ed.). Read- ing, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

C H A P T E R 3 1

66

C H A P T E R 7

Notes Towards a Better Understanding of Process

An Essay Edgar H. Schein

MANY YEARS AGO I learned about “pro- cess” from my long hours in Training Groups at Bethel, Maine, workshops. In my consult- ing, I felt myself focusing on process issues in groups and, in the meantime, I had learned a great deal about interpersonal dynamics, lead- ing to several coauthored books on these “pro- cesses.” In my later work on Career Dynamics, I studied the socialization “process” intensely and, most recently, the studies of Organiza- tional Culture have again led to a focus not on structure or typologies of culture, but on cul- tural dynamics and “process.”

In spite of this persistent focus on “pro- cess,” when a layperson asks me what I mean by “process” I am still tongue tied and inartic- ulate. I suspect that many of my colleagues in the OD fi eld feel the same way. Process is obvious, and we have all learned to deal with it, but it is remarkably hard to defi ne and focus on in such a way that the layman really understands not only what it is but also why it is so very important. In this essay I want to take a stab at clarifying this mysterious yet ubiquitous concept.

Th e easy answer, of course, is that process is not the what but the how. It is not the fi nal decision made by a group or individual, but the way in which that decision was reached. It is not the formal structure of an organization,

but the actual behaviors that occur within that structure, what sociologists might call the “informal organization.” Having said that, I am not satisfi ed that I have given the reader an answer that helps very much. If one wants to study how an organization made a decision or how the informal organization really works, we still do not know what to look for or why it is so important to understand.

What Is the “Essence” of Process?

Sequences of Events

One essence of process is that it is series of events that occur over some period of time. Th e “What” can be observed at a single point in time; the “How” requires observation or his- torical reconstruction over a period of time. One of the subtle and diffi cult issues in devel- oping a “theory” or “model” of processes is to decide over what period of time to observe or how far back in history to go to get a sense of what really happened and why. Th is is the problem of unraveling immediate causes from ultimate causes. In each consultation we engage in we must make some decisions about how far back to go in trying to explain something or how long to observe something before we

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Notes Toward a Better Understanding of Process 67

think we understand it. As far as I know, we do not clear criteria that would guide us in mak- ing this decision have in the OD fi eld.

A good example of this kind of longitudi- nal process analysis is Forrester’s concept of Systems Dynamics as propounded by Senge (1990), Sterman (2000) and others from MIT’s Systems Dynamics Group. In a power- ful exercise called Th e Beer Game, participants learn that a series of seemingly logical deci- sions of how much beer to order in terms of customer demand, can lead over time into a glut of unsalable beer unless each store learns what the sequential interactions actually do. One can show participants how their seem- ingly logical decisions did not take into account an understanding of others’ reactions that pro- duce ultimately dysfunctional results.

But one can further this process analysis by asking why participants come into the game with certain cognitive biases in the fi rst place as Sterman and his team are doing to examine how managers think. In principle, then, one could study childhood education processes, occupa- tional socialization processes, as well as the im- mediate systems dynamics that occur in the game.

Similarly one of the most powerful things I learned in the T-groups was how norms that were quite strong after say four to six hours of meeting could not be explained unless one care- fully reconstructed the events that occurred in the fi rst hour or two. Lets say that we observe after a couple of days that the group has a very strong leader whose suggestions are treated vir- tually as orders. No one speaks up in opposition even though members after the meeting will say that they disagreed. How did this state of aff air arise? How did the norm form that “we do not challenge our leader”? If we have learned from the above discussion that “process” is about dynamic sequences we can probably recall or reconstruct what may have happened. I have seen such sequences frequently in groups and they go somewhat as follows:

Person A early in the life of the group asserts her- self by making several suggestions of what the group should do.

Person B disagrees. Person C reaffi rms what A has suggested. Person D supports C and A Person A (being a good consensus tester) says:

Ok, does anyone disagree? No one says anything Person A says: Ok this is what we will do then

Somewhat later, Person A again makes a sug- gestion

Person E has some doubts Person C thinks A’s suggestion is a good idea Person A says, “what do some of the rest of

you think” Person F voices some doubts Person A answers them Person D supports A’s suggestion No one else says anything Person A says: Its agreed then, lets go ahead

At this point the observer of this group process would be able to formulate a couple of hypotheses about what is going on. One hypothesis would be that a coalition is form- ing between A, C and D. To check this, the observer needs to wait for more examples of what happens when A makes a suggestion. Another hypothesis would be that a norm is gradually building that A is the “leader” and her ideas should be supported. She has vocal support and the rest of the group is silent, so B and F might legitimately conclude that the group has accepted A as the leader and they might as well accept it too. So the next time A makes a suggestion, B and F remain silent even if they disagree.

To test this hypothesis the observer needs to fi nd more examples and watch what hap- pens. Note that the inferences here are based not on projections or speculations of what is going on intra-psychically but on observed patterns of behavior that occur over time and that repeat themselves. Note, however, that if it were important to decipher why this group ended up with one leader, one might also have to go back farther in time and determine what some of the characteristics were of the mem- bers of the group, how the group was chosen,

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Handbook for Strategic HR68

and potentially other historical factors that would only surface later.

Interactions Among Components

A second defi ning characteristic or “essence” of process is that it focuses us on interactions between components of a system, whether those be components within the head, or inter- actions among the members of a group, or inter-organizational interaction. As the above example illustrated, to explain the fi nal state of leadership in this group one had to observe how the actual interactions occurred and what their consequences appeared to be. Process almost always deals with systemic characteris- tics because the events that occur over time occur within a context, never in isolation.

Process analysis thus automatically requires us to think systemically, both in terms of the many components that act at one moment in time and in terms of the temporal sequences that make up a temporal system. In the group example above, one system is the group, but another system is a given individual’s pattern of behavior over a given period of time. Pro- cess analysis requires us to be able to see both of these systems.

Invisible Forces

A third characteristic of process, not necessar- ily an “essence” however, is that it is often invisible. In the Beer Game and in many other simulations designed to acquaint people with human processes the actual moves people make are deliberately made public and what people are thinking about those moves are also made public. In real life both the moves and the reasons for them may be hard or even impossible to observe. In the T-group example above, I tried to show what was explicit and observable, and also to speculate about the implied hidden meaning of those observables. Th e implicit responses could only be inferred and tested by watching how new behavior evolved.

It is this characteristic of process, its invis- ibility that creates a need for “process consul-

tants” because the participants in the process may not be able to decipher what is happening (Schein, 1999). One way of defi ning the role of the consultant is that his or her function is to “uncover,” to make visible things that are initially repressed, suppressed, or just out of awareness. Once things are visible, the client is in a position to act on the insight, or to work with the consultant to consider new options. Th is situation leads directly to the fourth characteristic.

Process Observation Is an

Intervention

A fourth characteristic of process that leads directly to one of the central assumptions of Process Consultation (Schein, 1999) is that if one is going to observe it rather than histori- cally reconstruct it, one cannot make the observation without infl uencing the system. In other words, the presence of the observer is itself a process intervention and must be taken into account. Th e consultant is one of the interacting parts of the system and is therefore responsible for considering his or her own role in that system.

Th e same logic applies if the historical reconstruction is made with interviews or questionnaires. Doing the investigation, gath- ering the data, is a process that infl uences per- ceptions, feelings, and thoughts and therefore becomes an intervention in its own right. In principle the only kind of reconstruction that would not be subject to this principle would be working only with formal records.

Th e implications of this last point are enormous. It means that all of the models of consultation that diff erentiate “data gather- ing” and “diagnosis” from “intervention” are either ignoring their impact during the alleged “data gathering” stage or are denying their own role in the system. We should learn from the work of psychiatrists who work with Intra-Individual Processes, that the interac- tion with the patient which inevitably pro- duces “transference” and “counter-transfer- ence” feelings is the set of components in the

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Notes Toward a Better Understanding of Process 69

situation that is richest in potential for creat- ing therapeutic change. In the same way, the process consultant working in a group or with a larger system can produce the best results for the client by noting how his or her own interaction with the client system is both diagnostically and therapeutically cen- tral. Diagnosis and intervention are one and the same process especially when we are deal- ing with human systems.

If we take this point of view seriously, we must develop criteria for judging the impact of our own moment to moment behavior. We cannot imagine ourselves to be “just gathering some initial data” when we ask our client a question in the fi rst fi ve minutes of our meet- ing. We have to imagine ourselves from the beginning as an intervener, and decide how every thing we say or do can be geared to being helpful. We have to realize that from the moment of our fi rst contact with the client we are building a relationship which includes building in the mind of the client an image of who we are, what we do, how we do it, and so on. In this sense we are creating process as well as observing it.

Processes Change with Human

System Level

A fi fth and fi nal characteristic of process is that its nature changes as it is scaled up from intra- individual to inter-personal, group, and inter- group process. Intra-psychic processes have traditionally been the domain of psychologists and psychiatrists. Th ey are the experts on these processes and we have more than enough the- ories of how things work inside the head and in our conscious and unconscious. My experi- ence as I moved into Training Groups was that these practitioners, trained as they were in individual counseling and therapy, were re- markably blind to what I observed in the group context. Th e exceptions to this general- ization were, of course, the family and group therapists.

Group processes add new dimensions for two reasons. First, in a group there are

actor/audience eff ects. Second, groups often exist in the fi rst place to solve particular problems and measure their own “health” by their degree of problem solving success or task accomplishment. By actor/audience eff ects I mean that the interpersonal pro- cesses that occur among a few members of the group are observed and judged by other members, and, therefore infl uence the behav- ior of these other members even though they may not have spoken at all.

Because the process fi eld is diff erent and more complex in groups, the interventions that consultants make when dealing with two or more people have to take into account these more complex force-fi elds. Even if we think we understand fairly well what goes on in the head of each individual, based on our projections of our own psychic experience, we cannot infer without a fair amount of observation and interaction what may actu- ally be going on between two or more other people. Th e family therapist Edwin Friedman (1985) points out very cogently that the only relationship we can change is the one be- tween others and ourselves. Trying to change the relationship between others presumes insight into a force fi eld that is probably im- possible to defi ne clearly enough to know how to alter it.

Groups that have specifi c tasks can typi- cally be observed at two levels of process-how they go about accomplishing their tasks and how they go about building and maintaining their group. Most groups exist within larger social systems so one can also observe how the group maintains its relationship to its environ- mental contexts.

Inter-group processes add still more dimensions of process—the dynamics of inter- group cooperation and competition, the pro- cesses that accompany winning and losing, the dynamics of gaining and maintaining power in a complex organizational fi eld, and so on. Finally, on can observe at each of these levels the growth of cultural assumptions, the evolu- tion of culture, and the dynamics of culture change (Schein, 1992, 1999).

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Handbook for Strategic HR70

Summary

Process is about interacting forces acting over time. Process is about the “dynamics” of human aff airs. Process is about forces acting out of awareness and under the surface of things. Process is your own moment to moment behavior and the consequences of that behavior. When all is said and done, pro- cess is life in that life is forever a movement forward among the many forces that are always acting within us and among us. Pro- cess happens. Th e choice for us as consultants or just plain human beings is whether or not to become more aware of processes at all lev- els and begin to own the consequences of our own processes.

References

Friedman, E. H. (1985). Generation to generation. New York, NY: Guildford Press, 1985. Schein, E.H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Schein, E.H. (1999). Process consultation revisited: Building the helping relationship. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley-Longman. Schein, E.H. (1999). Th e corporate culture survival guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Senge, P. (1990). Th e fi fth discipline. New York, NY: Doubleday Currency. Sterman, J. (2000). Business dynamics systems Th ink- ing and modeling for a complex world. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

C H A P T E R 3 1

71

C H A P T E R 8

The Consultant as Process Leader

Jane Moosbruker

IN MY MORE THAN 15 years as an OD consultant, I often served as a process consul- tant to small groups attempting to accomplish one or more tasks. Th is role has always been problematic for me. Team Building, data col- lection and feedback, facilitating change eff orts, third part consultation to confl ict situ- ations, even helping to improve intergroup relations have always seemed clearer, and there- fore easier.

What I actually do as process consultant to a task team has changed over the years. It has moved in the direction of being more con- crete, more direct, and more action oriented. I think of this as “working the process.” My behavior contrasts, however, with the model I believe I was taught and the only model I have ever actually read about (Schein, 1969, 1987), which I will refer to as “traditional process consultation.”

For the purposes of this article, “traditional process consultation” is defi ned as helping a small task group to learn enough about process so its members can manage an eff ective group process by themselves and will no longer need a consultant. Th is is accomplished by being a facilitator, not an expert, that is, you do not tell them what to do; even suggestions are rare. Instead you ask them to share their own obser- vations about the group’s process, adding your observations sometimes, depending on the

importance of what they may be missing and on their readiness to hear it.

An example of a helpful initial interven- tion in traditional process consultation: “Let’s go back over the meeting and see if we can reconstruct what we did the last couple of hours” (Schein, 1987). Schein does add, “Pro- vided there is time to do it.” Th at is just the point. In my experience working with organi- zational groups, there is not time to do it for many diff erent reasons. Most often the group’s primary focus is on task accomplishments, not on learning about process. Th e initiating client may want the group to learn, but is focused on success at the task. Th e consultant’s role is per- ceived by most group members as helping them do it right the fi rst time, not learning how to do it themselves. Th ey often have enough money to keep you around to help with the process. Most important, they are under great pressure to produce.

Nor do content oriented groups take to process naturally. Unless their background was in the behavioral sciences, the groups I have worked with have invariably found it very dif- fi cult to look at their own process. After a few process observations, the group would return to the content, often without knowing that that had happened. Trying to keep the focus in process, my agenda, not theirs, was often exhausting.

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Handbook for Strategic HR72

Further, I think that the traditional model of process consultation to a task group is basi- cally a clinical model. By that I mean, in part, that it is the old doctor-patient model, but with the emphasis on diagnosis rather than on giving expert advice. It has a particularly psy- chiatric fl avor in that the major goal is to avoid dependency of a sick patient (group) on a healthy but busy doctor (consultant). Th ere is also an expectation that the client will be defensive, not listening to or denying “correct” observation by the consultant.

I believe another role has already emerged and requires articulation. I would call it “pro- cess leader” to capture the notion that it is an action-oriented role, where the person is “working the process” more than consulting to the process. I am also aware of some dangers inherent in playing this role, and will address them after more defi nition.

Th e traditional process consultation role to a small task team may have a place with the stable management team, which believes it has time to learn about group process in order to build itself into a fully productive team. As we move away from this kind of stability in orga- nizations I think OD practitioners will be increasingly pressured into taking more active roles.

My conversations with colleagues while preparing to write about these ideas support the notion that many of us are already operat- ing as “process leaders” for our clients. How- ever, I think the need exists to articulate explicitly this perhaps not-so-new role.

Forces Infl uencing the Development of a Process Leader Role

Th e need for someone to “work the process” comes in part from increasing demands on organizations due to rapidly changing condi- tions in their external environments. Th ese changes include global factors, such as escalat- ing international competition, the small-world phenomenon that causes crises occurring on the other side of the world to be refl ected

locally, rapidly changing fi nancial markets, and the increasing awareness of our interde- pendency in keeping our planet alive and well. Th ey also encompass the changes caused by governmental regulation and deregulation, takeovers and mergers, and rapid technologi- cal advances in some industries. Organizations are also being impacted internally by social factors such as worker participation, multicul- tural work forces, and increasingly demanding customers.

All of these factors combine to make life in today’s industrial and business organiza- tions far more hectic than it was even a decade ago. It is no surprise that in our books, movies, and even TV stories, business leaders are replacing doctors and scientists. It is as if this is where the battles are being fought today— inside the walls, not out on the fi eld.

Th e response to these conditions includes a general speeding up of the work process, aided and abetted by computers. Task forces with short life cycles are often created to meet the needs of rapid changing business situa- tions. Many of the groups which meet are temporary systems; therefore, they are groups that do not believe they have the time to learn about group process. However, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Today whole organizations are designed based on an awareness of these conditions.

Th e emphasis is on communication and innovation: authority is ambiguous, with mul- tiple matrices that may not close until the CEO level. While these complex but loosely organized structures require an understanding of group and organizational processes, they generally believe they need someone to pro- vide it for them, not to teach it to them.

Another factor infl uencing the role of process consultant is the maturation of OD as a fi eld. Success of the general model has resulted in many companies hiring internal OD consultants. Th ey are expected to help, but not necessarily to defi ne the kind of help they will provide. Th eir status is often equal or less than the groups to which they are consult- ing. Th e internal consultant is frequently

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

The Consultant as Process Leader 73

under pressure to help the group do it right, not to teach them to do it themselves.

Interventions Appropriate for a Process Leader

Th e following list of potential interventions are encompassed by the notion of “working the process,” or moving the group along toward suc- cessful task work by impacting the structure or the process they use to accomplish the task. It is not meant to be all inclusive, just descriptive:

1. Coach the group leader before and after meetings. In particular, help in planning the agenda, suggesting needed agenda items, ordering the items, and determining what process to use and how much time will be needed for each. Help determine what decisions the group needs to make and what decisions the leader can make.

2. Ask the group members if they would like minutes, if none are being kept. In the event that they would like minutes but no one will volunteer to keep them, you volunteer. If the minutes prove useful ask at a later meeting that members take turns at writing them.

3. “Scribe” on newsprint during a group dis- cussion in the event that no group member off ers to play this role. Keeping track of the main points is helpful to the content of the discussion. You can use the easel to focus the discussion by asking people to check to be sure you are capturing their ideas. You can also invite others to perform this role, building additional skills for them.

4. Reinforce and call attention to positive processes.

5. Suggest all commit to beginning and end- ing on time.

6. Suggest the group discuss its operating pro- cedures if these are posing a problem for some members, e.g., how the agenda is set, how the decisions are made.

7. Ask questions of quiet members (that you know they can answer).

8. Point out when members are not hearing or understanding each other. Help improve

communication, perhaps by coaching indi- vidual members.

9. Facilitate confl ict in a task-focused way; e.g., (a) when two people are engaged in a debate, decrease the polarization by ask- ing others to state their views, (b) point out pseudo-agreements and violent agree- ments, (c) off er to meet outside the group with the parties involved if the issue ap- pears to be interpersonal/personality related or pertaining to matters other than the task at hand.

10. Help keep the group on track. (Th is is a potential trap. If it is ALL the group wants you to do, you do not have a variable contract.)

11. Give “expert” opinion on organizational matters or general people issues, where theory might be useful.

12. Help the group design a process for ac- complishing one of its tasks.

13. Collect data for the group on an aspect of its functioning, either from group mem- bers or from people outside the group, and report it back anonymously.

14. Suggest a “go around” for each person to give their opinion on an issue, either to help build the group or because the issue is very important, or both.

15. Ask that the decision-making process in use be articulated.

16. Suggest that the group brainstorm (when appropriate) and describe the process and when you would use it.

17. Ask questions for clarifi cation. 18. Summarize the content (if you can) or bet-

ter, ask for a summary if one seems needed.

Interventions You Do Not Make as a Process Leader

In general, time-consuming interventions which are not task focused are eliminated from the role of the process leader, but might have been a part of a traditional process consultation role.

1. Ask the group members to refl ect on the process and share their observations.

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Handbook for Strategic HR74

2. Ask two or more people to work an inter- personal issue in the group.

3. Give feedback to an individual in the group during a meeting time (with the possible exception of the leader).

4. Ask group members to give each other feedback.

5. Ask people to fi ll out questionnaires about the group process.

6. Appoint process observers from the group members.

7. Make observations about interpersonal interactions, especially by naming names.

8. Encourage group members to touch each other.

Th e process leaders role calls for more active interventions focused on getting the task accomplished. Th ere is some teaching in- volved, but it is primarily through modeling helpful behavior. Interpersonal process is only focused on when it is obviously interfering with the task.

Circumstances Infl uencing the Role Model Utilized

Th ere is obviously overlap in the two models I have identifi ed: traditional process consultant and process leader are not pure cases. Which role is most appropriate is infl uenced by the purpose and nature of the group, and the posi- tion of the “consultant.”

Th e role of a process leader is closer to a member role than is a traditional process con- sultant. In fact, it is possible to act as process leader when you are a member of the group. My thinking for this chapter came from the roles I play in the diff erent groups to which I devote my time, some for money and some for love. Th ese include a computer company, a professional membership organization, and a community conservation commission. What I do as a paid consultant and as a volunteer member to help the process along in these dif- ferent groups is not as varied as I would have believed several years ago.

Th e contracting is diff erent, however. As a paid consultant, my initial contract is with the group’s task leader. Over time the contract needs to be broadened to include all of the group members for maximum eff ectiveness of the role. As a member of the group I contract with the whole group about contributions I might make based on my unique background.

Dangers of Taking a Process Leader Role

Process leader is potentially a very powerful role. You are likely to be held accountable, in part, for the group’s success or lack thereof. You may be taking responsibility for some- thing you ultimately cannot deliver, because it requires a collaborative eff ort on the group’s part. No matter how clearly you spell it out,

TABLE 8.1 Two Models

Traditional Process Consulting Process Leadership

Group Group

• Self-Study or T-Group • Task Group • Long term or stable • Short term and/or changing membership • Line organization • Task force

Consultant Consultant

• Clinical orientation • Business orientation • External • Consultant or member • Teacher or trainer • Peer of group members • Distant from group members • Contract with group members as well as

leader• Contract primarily with group leader

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

The Consultant as Process Leader 75

the result might be a perception that YOU fail.

“Leader” is a long-term job, while consul- tants work themselves out of a job. Your psy- chological contract with the group is diff erent from the traditional process consultation, in that you are much more a part of the group. Th e group may be dependent on you to a greater extent or for longer than you may wish. Your commitment to the group may also be very strong. You may feel a psychological ownership for the process, if not the task. Th ese are in fact the dangers of leadership.

An advantage to the process leader role is that it is less ambiguous than process facilita- tor or observer. You will get feedback on how you are doing, letting you know whether you are providing what the client wants, as opposed to providing what you think they need.

Conclusion

It may be that what I am really talking about is a new old role of process leadership. Remem- ber Bales’ research on task team which showed that eff ective problem solving groups involved not one, but two leaders, one for the task and one who was called a “socio-emotional leader?” Th e process leader role I am describing corre- sponds to this second leader.

It also may be that for many of you I have created a “straw person” because you never shared my model of traditional process con- sultation. In that case, perhaps I have provided a little historical perspective.

I believe that many of us in the fi eld today are in fact doing most of the things I have described as part of a process consultant role. I believe that this role has evolved, and will con- tinue to evolve, in the direction of more and more active leadership. I am really writing for those who, like me, have been caught with an older model which doesn’t often or no longer works very well. For several years now I have been doing things which do work when I am trying to help a small task group, and it has been very useful for me to articulate the diff er- ences and make the changes explicit.

References

Bales, R.F. (1958). Task roles and social roles in problem-solving groups. In E. Maccoby, T.M. Newcomb, & E. L. Hartley (Eds.) Readings in social psychology (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, Winston. Mintzberg, H. (1979). Th e structuring of organiza- tions. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Schein, E.H. (1969, 1987, 1988). Process consulta- tion. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

C H A P T E R 3 1

76

C H A P T E R 9

Working with the Client-Consultant Relationship

Why Every Step Is an “Intervention” Naomi Raab

THE WORK OF AN OD consultant is often presented as a series of planned stages: entry, contracting, data gathering and diagnosis, feedback, intervention and evaluation (French, W.L. & Bell, C.H.) with discrete tasks all directed outward, at the problem. Often, I have observed, there is an assumption that the client knows what the problem is and that the consultant, “collaboratively” with the client, will address these problems and fi x them. However my experience of working with cli- ents is not like that at all; largely I think, because of three things

• I work in the here and now, i.e., I work with what ever is going on, (I don’t just direct my attention to the content of a problem being outlined by the client, nor do I confi ne myself to the client’s defi nition of the problem)

• I work with the client consultant relation- ship itself – with the dynamics of our rela- tionship, with what’s going on between us

• I don’t work in a linear sequence of discrete steps which imply for example that con- tracting happens in the beginning, that both client and consultant are clear on what the problem is, that interventions happen after data gathering and diagnosis, etc.

It seems to me that sometimes OD con- sultants can hide behind the rhetoric of planned change and action research when indeed their modus operandi is closer to that of the sales- man. Why might they do this?

Consulting is an anxiety producing pro- fession. Faced with what can seem like an overwhelming problem in the client organiza- tion, plus our own need to perform and suc- ceed, it’s no wonder consultants use the bra- vado of the expert and salesman as a defense against feelings of not really knowing what to do and perhaps even feeling a fraud. Consul- tants get caught in the sales dynamic because they are anxious, because they don’t trust their own instincts, because they fear losing the cli- ent, because they have little self insight and are frightened, embarrassed, or even unaware of their own feelings, because they want to be seen as rational and in control. Th ey want to be the “Masters of Knowing.” In trying to avoid these feelings at all costs, consultants can easily fall into the trap of Looking Good— their sales pitch is smooth and reassuring, yes, they’ve encountered this situation before and yes they know just what to do to fi x it.

When the situation described above hap- pens, they are at risk of colluding with client solutions to avoid a myriad of uncomfortable

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Working with the Client-Consultant Relationship 77

or diffi cult feelings on the part of both them- selves and the client. Th e consequence may be that the real, or underlying, client problems are rarely confronted and worked through. To explain more, and to perhaps begin to out-line an alternative way of working, I’d like to go through the traditional consulting steps and challenge what often happens in the name of those steps.

Entry

Whilst entry in the pure OD sense is about entering the client system, I think that for many consultants it’s about getting a foot in the door and selling. At the entry stage, the client tells you something about the problem, and is trying to work out whether you are the right consultant. Consultants want to look good at this stage and inspire confi dence. Even though this stage often occurs over the phone, consultants, through their best paraphrasing skills, can try to convey a sense that they have a good handle on the problem. Clients, often anxious themselves, need reassurance and often venture a few interview type questions seeking to ascertain the consultant’s credibil- ity, experience and credentials. Th is plays right into a collusive dynamic where the anxiety of both is alleviated: the consultant gives a confi - dent, “I can handle it” answer (and hopefully scores the job) and the client, relieved, gets a savior.

Th is, however, is an opportunity lost. Every contact with the client should be an opportunity to gather data, make a diagnosis on the run, and start to work. How is the cli- ent sounding on the phone? Do they sound distracted, anxious, smug? Do they sound as though they have no part in the problem? How do they talk about the problem—is their description clinical, detached, is it all over the place, panicked? How committed are they— are they prepared to make a time to talk in person about the problems they are facing?

As a consultant, you can start to work with any of this data. You can intervene, make observations on what you’re hearing. You can

talk about how hearing about the problem and talking with them makes you feel. You can also start to feedback your impressions of the situ- ation or their part in it. You can raise issues that you sense have a bearing on the problem but have not been raised so far in the discus- sion—perhaps asking about players and rela- tionships not yet mentioned, for example ask- ing about the relationship the client has with her boss or her colleagues, etc. Take a risk and follow your hunches. Finally, you can try and get a sense of whether you want to and can work with this client. If you do, then you ask for a face-to-face meeting. What you’re really doing is contracting for some more space in which to explore the problem.

Contracting

Contracting for me is always about getting a big enough space in which to work. I need to get my own sense of what the problem really is. However, in the way I often see contracting described, it is actually about putting forward a fairly detailed, well documented proposal of activities and interventions and getting the cli- ent to sign on the dotted line.

Contracting in this sense is about scoping a project and making sure the client will go along with you, it’s a security blanket for con- sultants, and it holds warm a fantasy that you and the client agree, that you have client sup- port, that they’ll keep paying and hopefully not resist. Th e term contracting has a kind of legal feel to it in the spelling out of obligations and responsibilities… and like that other con- tracted relationship, marriage, a hope of safety and ever after.

But you can’t contract for love. And you can’t contract for what you have no idea will happen. Th is is why contracting can only be about space to work, and a commitment to stay with it when things get diffi cult. And even then, you’ll need to re-contract, for contract- ing and re-contracting happens at every stage of the consultancy—it never stops.

An important step to make sure you take in contracting is intervening. Yet how can you

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Handbook for Strategic HR78

be up to “intervention” when you haven’t even completed data gathering, diagnosis, feedback and planning for change?! Well, you actually have a heap of data already in the way the organization contacted you, the way you were able to access entry, and your experience of the client so far. So often, and I would dare to ven- ture, every time, those things that went really wrong with a consultancy later down the track were occurring right there at the start. Th ose fi rst couple of interactions with a client and their organization off er a wealth of data: the way you experience the client may well be the way others experience him/her. Clues for understanding the client’s contribution to the problem lie right there under your nose, or under your skin . . . is the client getting to you with her sense of self-importance and “busy- ness”? Does the client seem so overly in charge and impressive that you feel intimidated and are asking yourself hey, why did he ask me in if he’s got it all under control? Ignore this data at your peril. Th is is where feedback, an inter- vention in itself, comes in.

Start to work with the client then and there, off ering feedback and some interpreta- tions. “I’m struck by how busy and speedy you seem, and how tightly you’ve narrowed down the problem . . . it’s like you just want this fi xed so you can go onto more important things.” Tell the client what working with you will be like, and work with the response: “Look, work- ing with me will be like this, I will be straight with you and share my reactions to what’s going on and how I feel we’re working . . . starting to work on this problem may well open up other issues and we may go slower not faster, things may well get worse for a while, not better.”

If contracting is about getting clear on how you will work, the best way for the client to see this and understand it is in the here and now of your working with them on the spot. If you and the client can get through this, it will build your resilience to feedback and strengthen your relationship. Later on down the track when you’re really working with resistance—you’ll need it. In other words, you’ll need a strong collaborative relationship that can withstand some straight talking. If

the client doesn’t buy it, well, you’ve saved yourself problems later on. Sometimes I build in a rest break or thinking time. Even if the client wants to commit, I say, “Let’s wait a few days to give us time to think about it.” Stag- gering the entry/contracting process can be useful in gaining commitment, in negotiating the relationship and in beginning to work with the resistance that will always be there.

Data Gathering and Diagnosis

Data gathering and diagnosis is seen as a dis- crete phase often using particular tools and generating specifi c products or outcomes. Often however they are little more than a pre- sales warm up, generating predictable training “solutions.” Also, there may be an over reli- ance on impressive tools and instrumentation (which cost more and require time to score and analyze) when a more low-tech anthropo- logical approach may yield excellent results.

Data gathering and diagnosis are not neu- tral, scientifi c activities. Th ey can in fact be more powerful intervention strategies than anything in your consultant’s toolbox. Instead of just “interviewing” organization members, work with them as well. Address issues as they arise. Keep contracting, telling them how you work, and that you will share your thoughts with them along the way. It is in this phase of the consulting process that working transpar- ently and collaboratively really has impact. Talk with people about what is emerging from your exploration of the issues, give and get feedback on what you are experiencing. Don’t just leech information from them, put yourself on the line and give something. After all, your assessment, your opinion is your value added— that’s why you’re the consultant! Encourage them to talk with their colleagues, off er time to talk with you again or involve others in resolution of confl icts or issues with your assis- tance. Get the managers involved, feeding back to them constantly.

Feeding back does not mean being the messenger or doing others’ work for them. It means working with the manager/client on issues emerging, coaching and supporting them

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Working with the Client-Consultant Relationship 79

to confront and work through emerging issues. It means creating spaces in the middle of the consultancy when diff erent parties are brought together to address enduring and sometimes previously undiscussed problems. In this sense then, the “data gathering and diagnosis” phase is when the heat gets turned up and problems are surfaced and experienced more acutely. Th is is the part where things get worse, not better, as Pandora’s Box reveals its terrors. Th is is also why the more confronting you’ve been earlier on in really being straight with the cli- ent and building the relationship pays off . For when it comes to feeding back your analysis, there should be no surprises—you’ve been talking and working with them on this all along.

Feedback

Th is stage is sometimes run as a show and tell “presentation” to the client where consultants can demonstrate the astuteness of their skills and the accuracy of their instrumentation. Consultants often get nervous at this stage, a kind of stage fright that is understandable if you are in performance mode, up front, “pre- senting” rather than grounded in your own sense of self. Working as a consultant you need to have a sense of personal authority (Gould, 1993) in that your feelings, needs and thoughts can be acknowledged and brought to the con- sulting encounter. Th is means that the consul- tant feels entitled to have and bring to the work his or her own feelings. Th is is linked to the notion of “bringing who you are to what you do” (Bellman, 1990). A consultant is not just a cardboard cut out playing a role but is able to bring who she is and all that she is into that role. In this sense you are not “performing” —you are being you and saying it as you see it.

Consultants get nervous about resistance or worry that their results are not spectacular enough because they confi rm what everybody knew anyway. Yet feedback should never solely be delivered in one “presentation”—it should have been happening all along the way, there should be no surprises, only continuous re- contracting and further interventions.

If your investigations have shown that, for example, the staff is weak in areas of per- formance evaluation and management, then ask where does that come from? Work with the senior managers in feedback meetings around their own skills and relationships with their own bosses and staff . If the data shows a lack of openness and willingness to confront confl ict, work with that in the meeting itself and their neutral or lukewarm response to the feedback. Th e purpose of feedback meetings should always be to bring the responsibility right back to where it belongs. Th is needs to be done in a strong and supportive way, not as a blaming exercise. Generating some real work in these meetings and addressing some diffi - cult issues in the here and now can be very energizing and releasing for a management group.

Feedback should be about managers fac- ing their dragons and actually working with them; it should generate a dynamic of empow- erment not an “audience” response of applause and approval for the consultant’s “results.” Th e feedback meetings need to be focused very close to home and not quickly directed out- ward towards a package of solutions up the consultant’s sleeve. Working with resistance is a critical task of the feedback meeting.

Intervention

Th is phase is usually written about as the out- come of a planned change process and is rep- resented as “the solution” which is to be imple- mented. Often it represents the consultant’s “product,” (e.g., a training package) and in fact has often been pre-empted or presold. Th at is it has been “contracted” at the start of the consultancy—that’s why it’s the result of a “planned” change.

However the most powerful change can come from an awareness of dysfunction in existing relationships and an enhanced ca- pacity to take up one’s responsibilities more strongly. Sometimes the most radical change comes not from replacing something with some new process or people, but rather from stand- ing still and working with what’s right under the

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Handbook for Strategic HR80

client’s nose. By this I mean working with what’s there currently: the confl icts, the not to be discussed issues, the game playing. Powerful change occurs as a result of enhanced under- standing and insight into the nature of group and organizational level dynamics.

Having an understanding of the uncon- scious dynamics that are played out in organiza- tions is an important aspect of the consultant’s repertoire. A psychodynamic approach frees people up to explore the less rational aspects of organizational life in a way which acknowledges the hard to talk about tensions in organizations, for example around power, dependence, shame, authority, sex, gender, aggression, love, envy, competition and scapegoating.

It means that you can work with clients on, for example, how this group seems to work like a family with an absent father and aban- doned children, or like a group of martyred women competing with each other for most victimized status, etc. For me working as a consultant with organizations it is just not that useful to see organizations, only as rational, goal driven, and problem solving entities and then to berate them for not being more so. I have found that using an approach which acknowledges the other, less visible, but argu- ably more powerful unconscious forces in organizations is both more forgiving, provid- ing diff erent options and is more reparative.

By incorporating this approach in an understanding of how organizations work I am not only addressing the pathological in organizations. Nor am I using the approach to look only at individuals, for indeed this approach enhances our understanding of orga- nizations at the group, intergroup and organi- zation- as-a-whole levels, providing a deeper understanding of many features of organiza- tions, even those that appear straight forward and ordinary. In fact that can be its biggest strength—helping us understand why ordi- nary things surprise us when they work, or frustrate us when they clearly should work, because everyone agreed they would, but in fact, they didn’t.

Instead what I often see consultants doing is pitching too many “interventions” at the

rational, individual skill level, i.e.,”It’s because you don’t have the skills/knowledge on perfor- mance management that we have this prob- lem, and so we will teach you.” New products, like training, 360-degree feedback inventories, job analysis, etc. are easier to identify and talk about as interventions than the current dynamics, processes and relationships.

Finally, I want to say that the main inter- vention can in fact be you, the consultant, and the way you work in the client consultant rela- tionship. Th e Client Consultant Relationship is the place where working in role and emo- tions come to the fore. It is often in the rela- tionship between the client and consultant that the same problems and dynamics plagu- ing the client get played out in the relationship between them (Bain, 1976; Czander, 1993). Th is is no coincidence; the client represents part of the problem. Th is is not to say that training and other “product” solutions cannot make a valuable contribution to the change eff ort but rather that their success is depen- dent on a less tangible process of change that is to do with the existing nature of relationships and organizational dynamics themselves.

Evaluation

Whilst on the one hand it makes sense to have an evaluation phase at the close of a consul- tancy, how often is it characterized by a fi nal show and tell in which consultants can show they’ve addressed the problem and which also provides an excellent opportunity to sell? Just who is the evaluation in the service of? Some- times, an evaluation is used as a closing off and termination device, with a good dash of public relations thrown in.

Informally, evaluation should have been going on all along, especially if the consultant has been using an action research frame to the work. It should become evident, through the collaboration between client and consultant, when enough is enough, when suffi cient prog- ress has been made. I off er that a staggered entry and contracting process is useful in the beginning of the consultancy, just like a stag- gered ending. A series of fi nal interventions

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Working with the Client-Consultant Relationship 81

emerge naturally as successes can be acknowl- edged and celebrated. Where things aren’t going well, there can be a re-contracting pro- cess, or a built in time out or trial period.

Like all relationships, there are many ways to leave and make an ending or a new start. Transfer of learning is not a separate phase when working in this way. Client learning has been occurring all along, with the evaluation phase really representing collaborative refl ection on the work you’ve been doing together. Transfer is thus embedded in the client system that is better equipped to deal with problems in the future.

Conclusion

Organizational consulting is a complex and dynamic process. Trying to understand what’s really going on can be a challenge, however having the courage to work with it is an even greater one. Too often we as consultants don’t trust our own instincts or are too fearful of losing the client. Other times, we are afraid to address the emotional aspects of the work and relationship, fearing we won’t be seen as ratio- nal, objective and credible. (Beeby, M. et al., 1998) Yet these dynamics are integral to our understanding of what is going on in the consultancy and we ignore them at our peril (Stapley, D.F., 1996; Hirschhorn, L., 1990). We forget that we are in fact ourselves the best consulting instrument and that in bringing ourselves fully to the client consultant rela- tionship, we are in the true service of the cli- ent. Th e Client Consultant Relationship pro- vides an excellent vehicle for understanding what’s going on in the consultancy, but it’s often the last place we want to look.

Th is way of working means two things. It creates a client-consultant relationship which is intense and intimate, one in which both cli- ent and consultant see each other, and experi- ence each other fully as whole people. But it also means that the consultant’s role may mean at times that you have the courage to tell the emperor he has no clothes. Working strongly and fearlessly in role, with personal authority,

is how you add value and avoid the kind of dereliction of duty seen most starkly in the recent sagas of corporate collapses (Enron, HIH) in which consultants’ absolute collusion meant they “yielded to their clients in virtually every instance of controversy and . . . failed to re- spond with appropriate diligence and resolve” (Ellas 2003).

Working as an organizational consultant is a very diff erent prospect than working as a salesman. Th e diff erence is, you are working in the client’s best interests in a way in which you too, as a consultant, can work with integrity, authority and meaning. You are working in a way in which every step is an intervention.

References

Bain, A. (1976). Presenting problems in social con- sultancy: Th ree case histories concerning the selec- tion of managers. Human Relations, 29 (7), 643– 657 Beeby, M. L. (1999). Consulting to a ‘hurt’ or ‘up- set’ organization. Leadership & Organization Devel- opment Journal, 20 (2), 61–68. Bellman, G. (1990). Th e consultant’s calling: Bring- ing who you are to what you do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Czander, W.M. (1993). Th e psychodynamics of work and organizations: Th eory and application. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Ellas, D. (2003, Jan. 14). Th e Age. French, W.L., & Bell, C.H. 1990. Organization de- velopment, behavioural science interventions for orga- nization improvement. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall International. Gould, L. (1993). Contemporary perspectives on personal and organizational authority: Th e self in a system of work relationships. In L. Hirschhorn & C. K. Barnett, (Eds), Th e Psychodynamics of organiza- tions. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Hirschhorn L. (1990). Th e workplace within: Psycho- dynamics of organisational life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Stapley, L.F. (1996). Th e personalility of the organisation —A psycho-dynamic explanation of culture and change. London, UK: Free Association Books.

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

C H A P T E R 3 1

82

C H A P T E R 1 0

Who Owns the OD Effort? Harold Mack

AT A RECENT “Consultation Skills” semi- nar, the following question was posed to the forty conferee-consultants at the opening meeting: “What are your personal objectives for this seminar?” Th e group was divided into ten subgroups of four each to discuss the ques- tion and then post their lists of objectives. On six of the ten lists, concern was expressed in one way or another about “getting the client to own OD,” “transferring OD ownership,” “passing the baton to the client,” or related statements. Th e large number of groups con- cerned about the “ownership issue” indicates that it is a real issue and a very serious one and warrants a considerable amount of attention by consultants.

Realistically, the eff ort can only be owned by the client. Th e major thrust of this paper will be to provide a framework whereby the consultant can look at the overall consultation eff ort and to point out some of the pitfalls where the ownership becomes confused. In addition, guidelines will be off ered, that when followed will minimize the chances of owner- ship becoming confused. Finally, since I believe this to be an especially important problem for internal consultants, I will focus on the issue from that point of view.

What Is Ownership?

Th e word ownership as it applies to OD eff orts indicates who’s in charge, who has control, who makes the decisions, and who has the

ultimate responsibility for success or failure of the eff ort. Th is description can only fi t the cli- ent. Th e consultant works with the client in the client organization on client problems and has a high personal investment in and com- mitment to the eff ort. But ownership, as de- scribed and defi ned here, can only belong to the client.

A Model for Clarifying Ownership

One way of exploring the ownership issue and understanding how it gets confused would be to step back and look at the overall client- consultant relationship. Most client-consul- tant relationships follow a standard model or series of steps that provide a sequence and establish a discipline. In exploring the owner- ship issue, I would like to use the fi ve-step OD model that consists of Entry, Diagnosis, Action, Evaluation, and Termination. Each step in the model will be described and exam- ined from the point of view of ownership, pointing out danger signals and critical times when it is very easy for ownership to move from the client to the consultant or at least to move into an area of confusion.

Entry

One of the points at which ownership is prob- ably more of an issue for the internal consul- tant than the external consultant is Entry— because of the way the initial contact is made.

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Who Owns the OD Effort? 83

External consultants are generally sought after, that is, the client has a problem and is actively pursuing the help of a consultant. Th e internal consultant, on the other hand, is often in tran- sition, moving from a trainer role to a consul- tant role, and is seen by the organization as a trainer or instructor and as a provider of pro- grams. In addition, internal consultants, when attempting to establish or plant themself as a consultant, must solicit business and pursue clients. Th e point is a fi ne one but one that begins to establish the consultant’s role in the eyes of the client. If clients pursue consultants, they acknowledge that they need and want help to work on their problems. If clients are pursued by consultants, they perceive the con- sultant as someone who has something to sell or “lay” on them. Th is Entry item of “pursuer” vs. “pursuee” very early in the life of the rela- tionship begins to establish a norm regarding ownership.

Th e internal consultant’s role and status is strengthened when the client initiates the con- tact. And ownership may never become an issue if both client and consultant accept and understand why and how they came together.

An important phase of the Entry step is developing and agreeing on a contract that will set the stage and establish some guidelines for the work ahead. Th e contract should broadly defi ne what the consultant is going to do, when it is going to be done, how, where, and so on. Th e contract, in addition, should state what the client’s obligations are, the goals, the time frame, how the client is going to work with the consultant, and so on. It’s also important that both parties consider the relationship to be vol- untary and temporary. Th is understanding tells both parties that they are there because they want to be and that the relationship will termi- nate when the problem is solved or when some other reason arises. Th is temporary/voluntary idea tends to fi x in clients’ minds that they have contracted for some outside help to work on their problems, even though the consultant is actually internal.

Consultants should continue to remind themselves that they are not the manager, their

role is to help the manager see the situation more clearly, discover alternative solutions, and fi nd and use appropriate resources. Con- sultants are not the owner of the eff ort, they are a helper to the owner, and care must be taken by consultants that they are not—in this initial relationship setting—stage trapped into a telling role.

Th e Entry stage off ers many opportunities for the ownership issue to become confused, but if care is taken by consultants when negoti- ating the contract and establishing their role, chances for confusion will be minimized. It will also help internal consultants to try to see them- selves as outside consultants and to operate from that stance whenever possible, especially in this early stage of the relationship.

Diagnosis

Once the Entry and contract issues have been settled, most OD eff orts move to data collec- tion. Th is can be as simple as the Entry inter- view between client and consultant or may take the form of interview feedback, survey feedback, observation and feedback, confron- tation meeting, or a problem census. Alterna- tives should be discussed with the client, ex- plaining why and under what conditions various methods of collecting data are employed. Th e consultant, after client’s input, should be in a position to suggest to the client what method he thinks would be most appropriate. Final selection however should be a joint one.

Th is process of mutually examining and selecting of work methods will continue to establish roles and help keep the OD eff ort’s ownership where it belongs. Th e ideal rela- tionship between client and consultant is one in which there is a high amount of joint explo- ration and joint decision-making. Mutuality is probably the best single word to relationship.

However, consultants should periodically make judgments as to the quality of the mutu- ality. It’s important that consultants be more than a mirror. If they stay in the role of only refl ecting client’s opinions and wishes, they may be out looking for a new client. At diff er-

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Handbook for Strategic HR84

ent times, consultants will have to be educator, listener, advisor, and evaluator and this is proper as long as consultants know what role they are in.

Action

Th e Action step of our OD model has two major parts: fi rst, the planning stage; second, the action or intervention. In terms of owner- ship, this particular part of the process pres- ents another temptation for consultants to step out of role, cross a boundary, and begin to own the eff ort. Th ey may assume that once the data has been collected and the diagnosis made it is time for them to step in and do their thing. After all, are not they the intervention- ist? Yes they are, but if they use this opportu- nity to display their knowledge by calling the action shots, they may unconsciously begin to absorb ownership of the eff ort.

Th is is the time when consultants earn money by helping the client set meaningful change goals that are based on the data. Once goals are set, consultants continue to earn money by off ering and evaluating alternative courses of action. Consultants do not tell cli- ents what to do—consultants present a range of actions, all of which address the problems uncovered. Clients, with knowledge of the organization and with the consultant’s help, decides on a course of action. Th is mutual goal setting and action planning tends to place the ownership in proper perspective.

Th ere are often other opportunities for consultants to indicate to clients that clients are responsible for the eff ort. One example would be when the action plan calls for off -site meetings and special arrangements have to be made for rooms, meals, transportation, and so on. Th ese duties should be the responsibility of clients or someone in the organization. Here again, in operating like an external con- sultant, the internal consultant helps keep the confusion out of ownership.

Another opportunity for reinforcing the client ownership idea may present itself when a block of time has to be selected for meetings

or sessions. Whenever possible, OD action meetings should be conducted during regular working hours—this establishes OD activity as a legitimate part of every manager’s job, not as something “extra.” Getting managers in- volved during regular hours, and using their resources to work on their problems, helps maintain their ownership of the OD activity.

Evaluation

If consultants have been successful in main- taining their role as helper and not doer, the evaluation responsibility will be seen as that of the client system. Again, consultants should be ready to off er alternatives that will assist in evaluation. (Th e latter will be easier to accom- plish if evaluation plans were made at the beginning of the eff ort.)

Th e evaluation stage of the eff ort is proba- bly the last place to expect confusion of owner- ship. Th e focus of the eff ort is to solve problems and/or bring about changes, and the client is in the best position to determine the extent and value of the solutions and/or changes.

Termination

Similar to the Evaluation step, ownership should not be an issue this late in the process if both consultant and client have continued to clarify roles as the relationship moved ahead. Th e key words that the contract is built on are “temporary” and “voluntary” and if both par- ties have been able to buy into this and main- tain this kind of relationship, ownership should not be an issue.

By agreeing to these clauses, each party rec- ognizes and accepts the freedom to terminate at a specifi ed time or when either of the parties wants out. To repeat, this provision tends to establish the fact that the client has “hired” a resource to help solve problems and when this is the case, ownership is never in doubt.

Summary

Ownership is more of an issue for the internal consultant than it is for the outside consultant.

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Who Owns the OD Effort? 85

Th is is because most internal consultants are also trainers and are seen by the organization as people who organize and conduct seminars that teach people to do certain things, e.g., moti- vate, delegate, etc. Th is trainer role tends to establish certain expectations in the eyes of the client. Th e internal consultant probably will see OD as an extension of training rather than a specifi c eff ort focused on the organization. To combat this, the consultant very early in the process may have to spend some time educating the client as to what OD is all about. Th is is time well spent and should not be overlooked in favor of “getting started” on OD.

Some writers have suggested that a con- sultant’s objective in an OD eff ort is to work himself or herself out of a job. Th is makes a lot of sense in as much as OD eff orts are often described as change or renewal eff orts. Part of consultants’ task is to help the client under- stand and accept this challenge. Th ey can help

do this by regulating the amount of their time and the degree of their eff ort in the change process.

Consultants should be heavily involved in the early stages of the eff ort, (diagnosis) but, as the process moves forward (interven- tion), consultants may become less involved while the client becomes more involved. When this pattern is established and can be followed, it provides an easy avenue to evalu- ation and termination as well as establishing in clients’ minds that Change or renewal (own- ership) is their responsibility.

One fi nal comment: consultants have the primary responsibility for defi ning ownership and for communicating to the client their role as a consultant. In addition, they have the responsibility for helping the client defi ne the client’s role. When this is done and accepted by both, ownership should never become an issue.

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

C H A P T E R 3 1

86

C H A P T E R 11

Unraveling the “Who’s Responsible?” Riddle

Arthur M. Freedman

AS AN INTERNAL and external consultant to a fairly diverse range of decision-making cli- ent groups, I have time and again encountered the situation in which the members of the cli- ent system depotentiate themselves. Th at is, they give up or do not accept the power inher- ent in assuming responsibility for themselves (and for the consequences of their own actions or inactions.

A classic story I heard—which may or may not be true—illustrates depotentiation and its consequences: A new PR person at an (unnamed) electronic component manufac- turing subsidiary of an international corpora- tion decided that he would like to quote the President of the parent organization in the $5.00 ad the subsidiary plant placed in the local high school yearbook. He had the author- ity but didn’t want to assume the responsibility for departing from a PR “tradition”—the same out-of-fashion ad had been used for the past 12 years. So he wrote up a proposal and sent it to his boss, the Personnel Manager, for approval. He had the authority but, like his subordinate, did not want responsibility. He passed the proposal up to his boss, the Plant Manager, who referred the proposal to the District Manager, who referred it to the Regional Director, who passed it on and on and on until it found its way to the desk of the Presi- dent of the parent organization, who read it, approved it, and passed it back down the line

to the PR person. Th e consequences of this sequence were that an estimated $32,000 of executive time was spent on the $5.00 ad and, by the time someone had approved it, the deadline for including it in the yearbook had passed.

Too often, decision-makers neglect to focus on these questions:

1. What authority do I have with regard to this particular decision?

2. What are my responsibilities and obliga- tions regarding this issue?

3. Do I need to check with anyone else before I initiate any action?

What follows is a description of one way I have found to expedite decision-makers’ awareness of these kinds of questions and to facilitate their using their time to achieve opti- mal personal satisfaction and organizational advantage.

1. I ask the client group of decision-makers to list all of the issues that they confront in their daily operations. (Many of these turn out to be issues about which the decision- makers tend to debate, among themselves, whether or not they have the responsibility and/or the authority to act on. Such debates generally absorb so much of their on-the- job time that they wind up avoiding any

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Unraveling the “Who’s Responsible?” Riddle 87

defi nitive decision, passing the buck up to their boss instead).

2. I then ask the decision-making group mem- bers to categorize each of the listed items under one of three headings: (a) Policies; (b) Action Plans; and (c) Implementation Activities. Depending on where the partic- ular decision-making group is located within their own organizational hierarchy, one list is usually very long, one very short, and the third somewhere in between.

3. Th en, taking each of the three lists in order, I ask the group of decision-makers to deter- mine where each listed issue fi ts accord- ing to the “Decision Matrix” shown in Fig- ure 11.1. I ask the group of decision-makers to place a particular listed issue only after they have achieved a consensus decision as to where it goes, as conditions within the organization currently exist.

4. After looking over and analyzing the results of their work (a sort of organizational tea- leaf reading process), I raise the question as to whether this picture of their decision- making is satisfactory to them. Th at is, do the decision-making group members believe

that decisions are made by the people who should be making them? Are they being made the way they should be made.

5. a. If the answer to one or both of these questions is “no,” I invite the group to move into a problem-solving phase with the explicit intention of: (1) developing some clear and explicit statements as to how things should be (objectives); (2) ana- lyzing the current situation so as to identify the obstacles preventing achievement of the desired objectives; and (3) developing a strategic plan of action to remove or reduce the potency of the identifi ed obstacles (restraining forces).

b. If the answer to these questions is “yes,” this process is terminated, with the major accomplishment being that the group mem- bers generally have acquired a clear and explicit understanding as to just who is responsible for what with regard to making decisions on diff erent types of issues. Th is results in an enormous reduction of un- productive debating and a corresponding reduction in unnecessary and inappropri- ate buck passing.

List A:

Policies

List B:

Actions

Plans

List C:

Implementation

Activities

Locus of Decision Making Authority

1. Decision made by (my/our) superiors on a

unilateral basis.

2. Decision made by (my/our) superiors;

(my/our) reactions to the decision are

(solicited/listened to).

3. Decision made by (my/our) superiors after

(I/we) have had an opportunity/are requested

to provide input.

4. (I/we) make recommendations to superiors (if

we choose/at their request), which are then

either approved, modified, or rejected.

5. (I/we) have delegated authority to make

decisions, subject to the superior’s approval

or endorsement.

6. (I/we) have delegated, irrevocable authority

to make decisions

FIGURE 11.1

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

C H A P T E R 3 1

88

C H A P T E R 1 2

Rules of Thumb for Change Agents

Herbert Allen Shepard

THE FOLLOWING APHORISMS are not so much bits of advice (although they are stated that way) as things to think about when you are being a change agent, a consultant, an organization or community development practitioner—or when you are just being your- self trying to bring about something that involves other people.

Rule I: Stay Alive

Th is rule counsels against self-sacrifi ce on behalf of a cause that you do not wish to be your last.

Two exceptionally talented doctoral stu- dents came to the conclusion that the routines they had to go through to get their degrees were absurd and decided they would be untrue to themselves to conform to an absurd system. Th at sort of reasoning is almost always self- destructive. Besides, their noble gesture in quitting would be unlikely to have any impact whatever on the system they were taking a stand against.

Th is is not to say that one should never take a stand, or a survival risk. But such risks should be taken as part of a purposeful strat- egy of change and appropriately timed and targeted. When they are taken under such cir- cumstances, one is very much alive.

But Rule I is much more than a survival rule. Th e rule means that you should let your

whole being be involved in the undertaking. Since most of us have never been in touch with our whole being. It means a lot of putting together of parts that have been divided, of using internal communications channels that have been closed or were never opened.

Staying alive means loving yourself. Self- disparagement leads to the suppression of poten- tials, to a win-lose formulation of the world, and to wasting life in defensive maneuvering.

Staying alive means staying in touch with your purpose. It means using your skills, your emotions, your labels and positions, rather than being used by them. It means not being trapped in other people’s games. It means turning yourself on and off , rather than being dependent on the situation. It means choosing with a view to the consequences as well as the impulse. It means going with the fl ow even while swimming against it. It means living in several worlds without being swallowed up in any. It means seeing dilemmas as opportuni- ties for creativity. It means greeting absurdity with laughter while trying to unscramble it. It means capturing the moment in the light of the future. It means seeing the environment through the eyes of your purpose.

Rule II: Start Where the System Is

Th is is such ancient wisdom that one might expect its meaning had been fully explored

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Rules of Thumb for Change Agents 89

and apprehended. Yet in practice the rule— and the system—are often violated.

Th e rule implies that one should begin by diagnosing the system. But systems do not nec- essarily like being diagnosed. Even the term “diagnosis” may be off ensive. And the system may be even less ready for someone who calls himself or herself a “change agent”: it is easy for the practitioner to forget that the use of jargon that prevents laypeople from understanding the professional mysteries is a hostile act.

Starting where the system is can be called the Empathy Rule. To communicate eff ec- tively, to obtain a basis for building sound strategy, the change agent needs to under- stand how the client sees himself and his situ- ation, and needs to understand the culture of the system. Establishing the required rapport does not mean that the change agent who wants to work in a traditional industrial set- ting should refrain from growing a beard. It does mean that, if he has a beard, the beard is likely to determine where the client is when they fi rst meet, and the client’s curiosity needs to be dealt with. Similarly, the rule does not mean that a female change agent in a male organization should try to act like one of the boys, or that a young change agent should try to act like a senior executive. One thing it does mean is that sometimes where the client is, is wondering where the change agent is.

Rarely is the client in anyone place at any one time. Th at is, s/he may be ready to pur- sue any of several paths. Th e task is to walk together on the most promising path. Even unwitting or accidental violations of the empa- thy rule can destroy the situation. I lost a cli- ent through two violations in one morning. Th e client group spent a consulting day at my home. Th ey arrived early in the morning, before I had my empathy on. Th e senior mem- ber, seeing a picture of my son in the living- room said, “What do you do with boys with long hair?” I replied thoughtlessly, “I think he’s handsome that way”: the small chasm thus created between my client and I was widened and deepened later that morning when one of

the family tortoises walked through the butter dish.

Sometimes starting where the client is, which sounds both ethically and technically virtuous, can lead to some ethically puzzling situations. Robert Frost1 described a situation in which a consultant was so empathic with a king who was unfi t to rule that the king dis- covered his own unfi tness and had himself shot, whereupon the consultant became king.

Empathy permits the development of a mutual attachment between client and consul- tant. Th e resulting relationship may be one in which their creativities are joined, a mutual growth relationship. But it can also become one in which the client becomes dependent and is manipulated by the consultant. Th e ethical issues are not associated with starting where the system is, but with how one moves with it.

Rule III: Never Work Uphill

Th is is a comprehensive rule, and a number of other rules are corollaries or examples of it. It is an appeal for an organic rather than a mech- anistic approach to change, for a collaborative approach to change, for building strength and building on strength. It has a number of impli- cations that bear on the choices the change agent makes about how to use him/herself, and it says something about life.

Corollary 1: Don’t Build Hills

as You Go

Th is corollary cautions against working in a way that builds resistance to movement in the direction you have chosen as desirable. For example, a program which has a favorable eff ect on one portion of a population may have the opposite eff ect on other portions of the popu- lation. Perhaps the commonest error of this kind has been in the employment of T-group

1Robert Frost, “How Hard It Is To Keep From Being King When It’s in You and in Th e Situation.” In Th e Clearing, pp. 74–84. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Handbook for Strategic HR90

training in organizations: turning on the par- ticipants and turning off the people who didn’t attend, in one easy lesson.

Corollary 2: Work in the Most

Promising Arena

Th e physician-patient relationship is often re- garded as analogous to the consultant-client relationship. Th e results for system change of this analogy can be unfortunate. For example, the organization development consultant is likely to be greeted with delight by executives who see in his specialty the solution to a hope- less situation in an outlying plant. Some orga- nization development consultants have dis- appeared for years because of the irresistibility of such challenges. Others have whiled away their time trying to counteract the Peter Prin- ciple by shoring up incompetent managers.

Corollary 3: Build Resources

Don’t do anything alone that could be accom- plished more easily or more certainly by a team. Don Quixote is not the only change agent whose eff ectiveness was handicapped by ignoring this rule. Th e change agent’s task is a heroic one, but the need to be a hero does not facilitate team building. As a result, many change agents lose eff ectiveness by becoming spread too thin. Eff ectiveness can be enhanced by investing in the development of partners.

Corollary 4: Do Not Overorganize

Th e democratic ideology and theories of par- ticipative management that many change agents possess can sometimes interfere with common sense. A year or two ago I off ered a course to be taught by graduate students. Th e course was oversubscribed. It seemed that a database process for deciding whom to admit would be desirable, and that participation of the gradu- ate students in the decision would also be desirable. So I sought data from the candidates about themselves, and photocopied their re- sponses for the graduate students. Th en the

graduate students and I held a series of meet- ings. Th en the candidates were informed of the decision. In this way we wasted a great deal of time and everyone felt a little worse than if we had used an arbitrary decision rule

Corollary 5: Do Not Argue If

You Cannot Win

Win-lose strategies are to be avoided because they deepen confl ict instead of resolving it. But the change agent should build her/his support constituency as large and deep and strong as possible so that s/he can continue to risk.

Corollary 6: Play God a Little

If the change agent doesn’t make the critical value decisions, someone else will be happy to do so. Will a given situation contribute to your fulfi llment? Are you creating a better world for yourself and others, or are you keep- ing a system in operation that should be allowed to die? For example, the public educa- tion system is a mess. Does that mean that the change agent is morally obligated to try to improve it, destroy it, or develop a substitute for it? No, not even if he or she knows how. But the change agent does need a value per- spective for making choices like that.

Rule IV: Innovation Requires a Good Idea, Initiative, and a Few Friends

Little can be accomplished alone, and the eff ects of social and cultural forces on indi- vidual perception are so distorting that the change agent needs a partner, if only to main- tain perspective and purpose.

Th e quality of the partner is as important as the quality of the idea. Like the change agent, partners must be relatively autonomous people. Persons who are authority oriented— who need to rebel or need to submit—are not reliable partners: the rebels take the wrong risks and the good soldiers do not take any.

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Rules of Thumb for Change Agents 91

And rarely do they command the respect and trust from others that is needed if an innova- tion is to be supported.

Th e partners need not be numerous. For example, the engineering staff of a chemical company designed a new process plant using edge-of-the-art technology. Th e design departed radically from the experience of top manage- ment, and they were about to reject it. Th e engineering chief suggested that the design be reviewed by a distinguished engineering pro- fessor. Th e principal designers were in fact for- mer students of the professor. For this reason he accepted the assignment, charged the com- pany a large fee for reviewing the design (which he did not trouble to examine) and told the management that it was brilliantly conceived and executed. By this means the engineers not only implemented their innova- tions, but also grew in the esteem of their management.

A change agent experienced in the Wash- ington environment reports that he knows of only one case of successful interdepartmental collaboration in mutually designing, funding and managing a joint project. It was accom- plished through the collaboration of himself and three similarly-minded young men, one from each of four agencies. Th ey were friends, and met weekly for lunch. Th ey conceived the project, and planned strategies for implement- ing it. Each person undertook to interest and infl uence the relevant key people in their own agency. Th e four served one another as consul- tants and helpers in infl uencing opinion and bringing the decision-makers together.

An alternative statement of Rule IV is as follows: Find the people who are ready and able to work, introduce them to one another, and work with them. Perhaps because many change agents have been trained in the helping professions, perhaps because we have all been trained to think bureaucratically, concepts like organization position, representatives or need are likely to guide the change agent’s selection of those he or she works with.

A more powerful beginning can some- times be made by fi nding those persons in the

system whose values are .s0ngruent with those of the change agent, who possess vitality and imagination, who are willing to work over- time, and who are eager to learn. Such people are usually glad to have someone like the change agent join in getting something impor- tant accomplished, and a careful search is likely to turn up quite a few. In fact, there may be enough of them to accomplish general sys- tem change, if they can team up in appropriate ways.

In building such teamwork the change agent’s abilities will be fully challenged, as he joins them in establishing conditions for trust and creativity; dealing with their anxieties about being seen as subversive; enhancing their leadership, consulting, problem-solving, diagnosing and innovating skills; and develop- ing appropriate group norms and policies.

Rule V: Load Experiments for Success

Th is sounds like counsel to avoid risk taking. But the decision to experiment always entails risk. After that decision has been made, take all precautions. Th e rule also sounds scientifi - cally immoral. But whether an experiment produces the expected results depends upon the experimenter’s depth of insight into the conditions and processes involved. Of course, what is experimental is what is new to the sys- tem; it may or may not be new to the change agent.

Build an umbrella over the experiment. A chemical process plant which was to be shut down because of the ineffi ciency of its operations undertook a union-management cooperation project to improve effi ciency, which involved a modifi ed form of profi t shar- ing. Such plans were contrary to company policy, but the regional vice president was interested in the experiment, and successfully concealed it from his associates. Th e experi- ment was successful; the plant became profi t- able. But in this case, the umbrella turned out not to be big enough. Th e plant was shut down anyway.

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Handbook for Strategic HR92

Use the Hawthorne eff ect. Even poorly conceived experiments are often made to suc- ceed when the participants feel ownership. And conversely, one of the obstacles to the spread of useful innovations is that the groups to which they are off ered do not feel owner- ship of them.

For example, if the change agent hopes to use experience-based learning as part of his/ her strategy, the fi rst person to be invited should be those who consistently turn all their experiences into constructive learning. Simi- larly, in introducing team development pro- cesses into a system, begin with the best func- tioning team.

Maintain voluntarism. Th is is not easy to do in systems where invitations are under- stood to be commands, but nothing vital can be built on such motives as duty, obedience, security seeking or responsiveness to social pressure.

Rule VI: Light Many Fires

Not only does a large, monolithic develop- ment or change program have high visibility and other qualities of a good target, it also tends to prevent subsystems from feeling own- ership of, and consequent commitment to the program.

Th e meaning of this rule is more orderly than the random prescription—light many fi res —suggests. Any part of a system is the way it is partly because of the way the rest of the sys- tem is. To work towards change in one sub- system is to become one more determinant of its performance. Not only is the change agent working uphill, but as soon as he turns his back, other forces in the system will press the subsystem back towards its previous perfor- mance mode.

If many interdependent subsystems are catalyzed, and the change agent brings them together to facilitate one another’s eff orts, the entire system can begin to move.

Understanding patterns of interdepen- dency among subsystems can lead to a strategy of fi re-setting. For example, in public school

systems it requires collaboration among politi- cians, administrators, teachers, parents and students to bring about signifi cant innovation, and active opposition on the part of only one of these groups to prevent it. In parochial school systems, on the other hand, collabora- tion between the administration and the church can provide a powerful impetus for change in the other groups.

Rule VII: Keep an Optimistic Bias

Our society grinds along with much polariza- tion and cruelty, and even the helping profes- sions compose their world of grim problems to be “worked through”: the change agent is usually fl ooded with the destructive aspects of the situations he enters. People in most sys- tems are impressed by one another’s weak- nesses, and stereotype each other with such incompetencies as they can discover.

Th is rule does not advise ignoring de- structive forces. But its positive prescription is that the change agent be especially alert to the constructive forces which are often masked and suppressed in a problem-oriented, envious culture.

People have as great an innate capacity for joy as for resentment, but resentment causes them to overlook opportunities for joy. In a workshop for married couples, a husband and wife were discussing their sexual problem and how hard they were working to solve it. Th ey were not making much progress, since they didn’t realize that sex is not a problem, but an opportunity.

Individuals and groups locked in destruc- tive kinds of confl ict focus on their diff erences. Th e change agent’s job is to help them discover and build on their commonalities, so that they will have a foundation of respect and trust which will permit them to use their diff erences as a source of creativity. Th e unhappy partners focus on past hurts, and continue to destroy the present and future with them. Th e change agent’s job is to help them change the present so that they will have a new past on which to create a better future.

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Rules of Thumb for Change Agents 93

Rule VIII: Capture the Moment

A good sense of relevance and timing is often treated as though it were a “gift” or “intuition” rather than something that can be learned, something spontaneous rather than something planned. Th e opposite is nearer the truth. One is more likely to “capture the moment” when everything one has learned is readily available.

Some years ago my wife and I were having a very destructive fi ght. Our nine-year-old daughter decided to intervene. She put her arms around her mother and asked: “What does Daddy do that bugs you?” She was an attentive audience for the next few minutes while my wife told her, ending in tears. She then put her arms around me: “What does Mommy do that bugs you?” and listened atten- tively to my response, which also ended in tears. She then went to the record player and

put on a favorite love song (“If Ever I Should Leave You”) and left us alone to make up.

Th e elements of my daughter’s interven- tion had all been learned. Th ey were available to her, and she combined them in a way that could make the moment better.

Perhaps it’s our training in linear cause-and- eff ect thinking and the neglect of our capacities for imagery that makes us so often unable to see the multiple potential of the moment. Entering the situation “blank” is not the answer. One needs to have as many frameworks for seeing and strategies for acting available as possible. But it’s not enough to involve only one’s head in the situ- ation; one’s heart has to get involved too. Corne- lia Otis Skinner once said that the fi rst law of the stage is to love your audience. You can love your audience only if you love yourself. If you have relatively full access to your organized experi- ence, to yourself and to the situation, you will capture the moment more often.

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

C H A P T E R 3 1

94

C H A P T E R 1 3

If I Knew Then . . . An Essay Geoff Bellman

WHEN THE OD NETWORK began in 1964, I was beginning too, fresh out of gradu- ate school, newly married, and off to conquer the corporate world. I did not yet know that organization development would soon begin emerging as my life’s work. OD was to be an- other marriage for me beginning with chance meetings, followed by frequent dates, engage- ment, commitment, and a shared life journey. Th is article describes that journey from one scenic viewpoint; it looks back for direction forward, off ering nine points of wisdom.

I’m imagining that you, dear readers, are between 25 and 45 years old, and would love some affi rmation or guidance on your own journey. I’ve written what would have been use- ful to me then—had I been ready to read it— and hope it’s useful to you now. I’ve done good work, and could have done better work, had I held these nine points in my mind and heart.

Our Clients Are Not Crazy

Hear me talk about my clients twenty or thirty years ago: “What is wrong with her? . . . Is she crazy? . . . Let me tell you about the stupid thing she did last week . . . or . . . I told him what to do, then he goes out and screws it up! . . . or . . . Do you think they even care whether this place works or not?” I thought it was entirely about them, what an obvious mess they had made—and how lucky they were to have me.

Notice my distance from clients while ranting. Notice the “knowing better than” and the “it would never happen to me” implied in the criticism. All that is the opposite of what I now do—when I am doing my better work. Here’s what I try to do when working with a client organization that is in some distress:

• Move toward the client mentally, physically, emotionally. Show through action that I respect them. Lean toward them, listen to them, empathize with them . . . all that good interpersonal stuff that OD has taught us so well.

• Seek to understand their situation as they understand it—and show them to their sat- isfaction that I understand it. Be willing to get lost in their problems along the way.

• Th ey have reasons for the diffi culties they are caught in; they make their own sense of the diffi culties. Discover why and how it makes sense to them. Th is is their starting point.

• If they knew how to make better sense of their diffi culties, they would have done it. Start with that assumption; they occasion- ally disprove it, but start there.

• Deal with them as capable people presently caught up in a diffi cult problem. Recall how often this has happened to you. Re- member that your life is not as sensible and orderly as you often present it.

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

If I Knew Then . . . 95

All of the above results are a rollicking ride with someone else in control. No longer the distant, expert analyst: you become en- gaged and confused; you wonder whether you will ever escape, much less do any good. You feel like you’ve removed your protective con- sulting attire and are rolling naked in the mud with the client. And, you are getting paid for this! Whoopee! Now that’s exciting!

OD is “action research”; so get in on the action while you do the research. We’ve learned that our mere presence infl uences the system so let’s become more present. Much of my past distance from clients was not about eff ective consulting, it was about self-protection. With my high control needs, I was afraid to get close. I might lose myself; I would no longer know who I am or what I bring. If I were start- ing my consulting career over, I’d wade in sooner. I’d fi nd the “craziness” of my clients in myself and embrace it as the place to begin our work together.

A last point about these “crazy” clients: Many of them become friends; some are among my closest friends. I just made a quick list: I stay in touch with at least two dozen clients that I haven’t worked with for many years. What better way to forge a friendship than to wade in and work together? Now, instead of working, we have lunch, or talk, or camp, or walk together. And, of course, we reminisce about the work we did . . . the days we faced the dragon.

Embrace Organizations as They Are

Organizations don’t work. Well, at least not for very long or predictably. Th ey are always trying to work, and occasionally do. When I got into OD, I thought organizations could, should, and will work. Give a company the right values, direction, structure, systems, cul- ture, and this place will hummmmm! I worked at making them work. I applied myself to get- ting them designed, tooled, oiled, and . . . they regularly frustrated me. No sooner than people step into their new roles, they start changing

things! Th ey don’t do what “we” designed this place to do. Instead, they start taking down walls, digging tunnels, hanging wall paper, and getting tattoos—all before the paint is dry on what their design team, management, and I so carefully created. If it weren’t for those . . . people . . . organizations would work!

When it comes to organizations, our reach exceeds our grasp. We can imagine societies, communities, corporations, and agencies that fulfi ll our grand OD fantasies. But we cannot create them today. When I joined OD, I ex- pected to feel the organizational earth move under my feet in some seismic way in this life- time. Th at’s not going to happen.

OD work becomes more fulfi lling to us and useful to our clients when we embrace organizations as they are. We’ve got too much riding on this to only love organizations for what they might become. Th at’s like marrying someone you plan to change; it doesn’t work. Face and embrace organizations as they are. And how might that happen?

• Continue to be a student of organizations. Look at how complex they are. Dive into the complexity; appreciate the mystery; ex- pect unpredictability. Delight in them!

• Consider your own paradoxical, confl icted, exciting, contradictory, and occasionally weird life. Consider the twists and turns of your career. Look at your love life. Notice your fascination with it all. Th at’s a step to- ward doing the same with organizations. Quit asking them to make more sense than you do!

• Imagine 547 people living fascinating lives. . . . Now imagine those people attempting to join in a common purpose while also meeting their own individual needs. . . . Now imagine they are in fourteen cities across six countries. Of course, it’s very dif- fi cult to get anything done! Of course, it’s often worth trying! Of course, the organi- zational potential holds huge human potential!

• What if you saw yourself as an explorer of organizations, more like Columbus? Th ere

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Handbook for Strategic HR96

you are, crawling up the face of the organi- zational monolith, looking in the windows, trying to make sense of it, trying not to fall, trying to fi gure out what you are going to tell the Queen. Now that’s exciting work!

Th is is what keeps me looking into orga- nizations. Not so much my immediate contri- bution, but how my work might be contribut- ing to new forms of organizations. Yes, I hold evolutionary dreams while carrying few illu- sions about the diff erence I’m making. Th ree decades, centuries, or millennia from today, no one will notice my work. And . . . what else is there to do?

Searching, Not Finding

Th is work is most compelling to me when I am exploring, not when I am all-knowing. After all these years, I still experience delight (and a sense of privilege) seeing the innards of an organization—the guts, the juices, the odors, and the colors. I love looking even when I don’t understand . . . Especially when I don’t understand! Th e intrigue, the mystery, draws me. It’s not as much about solving organiza- tional puzzles as it is about encountering them. When I was newer to this work, my excite- ment was almost entirely about making a dif- ference. Th at has changed; I’ve become less of a problem-solving world-fi xer and more of life searching choice-provider.

If I’m expert at anything, it’s searching. Not fi nding, but searching. I am a jungle guide . . . get me a pith helmet! I accompany people into their organizational jungles. Th ey’ve been living on the edge of their jungle while I’ve been traveling the world, exploring many jun- gles. I know how to enter and get around; I can read the signs, sense the danger and the opportunity. Th e organizational jungle at- tracts me, still more unknown than known. People ask me to guide them as they enter their jungle and make their way through it to . . . treasure. Often it’s gold; sometimes it’s happiness. But there’s always treasures. Other- wise, it’s not worth the risk.

When an organization calls forth my cu- riosity, the work goes better. When I act expert (which sometimes I do), clients act respectful, sit back, listen, and try to do what I want. Th ey feed my ego; I go home, self-satisfi ed, infl ated, and unengaged. When I quash my curiosity, I die a little. When I step into the mysteries of the organizational jungle, I live.

Look for Life

What gives life to this place? Th at question pro- vides a great lens for seeing a person, a commu- nity, a department, or a society. My early OD questions focused on training, or planning, or people dynamics. Th ose questions told others what I stood for and gave me back what I want- ed. If I asked about their need for training, sure enough, they needed it. When I asked about problems people had working with each other, sure enough, they told me about their prob- lems. My questions highlighted what was im- portant to me, not necessarily to the client.

Now, organizational life is my priority. Without life . . . well, you know. Life is where the energy is, energy vital to sustaining an or- ganization and renewing it. Don’t just inter- view: View! See where the life is—and it’s not primarily in the management. Look for life among those deeply committed out of belief, duty or necessity. Th eir fi nest expression of life does not come out in an interview; it comes out in their work. Watch them do it, talk with them about it. Don’t just be seduced by the powerful people at the “top.” Also join with the powerful people at the “bottom.”

Perception and Refl ection

Years ago, I thought I brought clients new skills, methods, tools, systems, and structures. Now, I bring perspective. I bring that other stuff too, but it’s not what my clients value most. Th e people I work with are pretty smart. When I help them see their world in a diff erent way, they often act on their new insight. Th ey rely primarily on abilities they already possess; they don’t learn everything new.

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

If I Knew Then . . . 97

How might my early consulting years have been diff erent if I’d focused more on helping clients step back and see, rather than step in and do. Th e contrast is clear: Earlier, I was more of- ten like a door-to-door sales person, pulling brushes and cosmetics from a bag, seeing what the client might like to buy. Today, I’m more like a tribal healer using incantations and medi- cines to help others see their world diff erently. Th e stark diff erence between those two roles conveys how I feel about my older and newer work. In reality, I’m probably a melding of the extremes . . . a door-to-door healer perhaps.

Refl ection entwines with perspective. If you want to see your world diff erently, you must make time to step back. Stepping- back time is hard to come by nowadays. Many of us work with clients demanding results in hours instead of days. Much of our OD technology was designed in less hurried times and does not fi t with today’s pace.

How do I help organizations value refl ec- tion enough that they will create time to do it? When will they study what they have been do- ing and learn from that? How will they deeply connect with each other? When will they ex- hale? My yesterdays did not prepare me for the pace of today and tomorrow. Refl ection is es- sential to organizations, and I’m not prepared to do it well. I’m hoping you will learn what I haven’t.

Progress, Not Perfection

Aspirations to live my life and work perfectly do not serve me. My research shows I invari- ably fail. For individuals and organizations, this life is about progress, not perfection. Th is world needs residents and consultants who will live in its imperfect reality while leaning toward positive possibilities. My early consult- ing years focused on getting it right according to OD, blaming myself and others for getting it wrong. Hidden beneath my insistence was a lack of acceptance of myself.

Now, show me progress! Good enough! When I help clients progress on their terms, they accomplish more than when I insist on OD

perfection. If they just understood their world the way I do, they would fi nd my ideas compel- ling. But that’s just the point: Th ey don’t. We bring them guidance, not law. For our work to continue, our clients must see movement for- ward that meets their standards. Insisting on the “right way” doesn’t work nearly as well as discov- ering “a way” forward together. We ask them to be fl exible, and so must we be fl exible. We ask them to risk, and so must we risk.

Know Yourself

Like you, I invested years learning about change, leadership, and organizations—all important to being an eff ective OD consultant. I piled up workshops, seminars, tools, and theories; I built my expertise in the fresh fads sweeping through OD. Much of my eff ort was rooted in anxiety: Somebody might discover I’m not really an OD consultant so I must learn to act like one! Th ough my learning was protective, I fi lled my OD tool- box with ideas useful to my work. My early learning apparently assumed that knowledge was out there and I needed to soak in it or inject and infl ate myself with it to become a consultant.

How do you choose among the tools? When do you design your own models? What shall I do now? Th ese are the questions that get past my shelves lined with books and the draw- ers full of articles. Th ese are questions of the designer, the artist, and the architect, who con- fi dently uses the resources available. Th ese ques- tions come closer to the self. For some reason, we fi nd it easier to deploy ourselves at work when we regularly consider questions like these:

Who am I? Where am I going? What’s important to me? How might I best contribute to this world? Where can I fi nd love and friendship? How can I make a diff erence? What work might I best do? What do I need to learn?

Common questions lurking behind our every action. As common as the questions are,

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Handbook for Strategic HR98

the answers are still emerging—at least for me and for you. If OD work is to be near the cen- ter of your life, it will be part of the answers to these questions. I make better consulting choices about what to do next in this design, or this moment, or with this method, when I attend to my prevailing life questions. My choices in how to do OD work are more in- formed by intuition than logic, and I am more artist than mechanic.

Love Yourself

In my early consulting years, I had no notion of how my diffi culties with myself interfered with my eff ectiveness as a consultant. I thought it was those S.O.B.s out there when, in fact, it was usually this S.O.B. in here! I saw the world through a lens clouded by low self-esteem. I be- lieved that my issues with my clients were all about them, what they should do to change. I used their struggles to elevate myself. I “knew” that in their situation, I would handle it better.

I didn’t know that my irritation with them had to do with unlit corners in myself. I did not want to know that their problems were my problems! Why am I lying awake at three in the morning in a torment about a client that irri- tates the hell out of me? Chances are my pattern of pain with a client is a pain with myself. Years have shown me that when I am shining some light into my dark corners, it leads to learning about and acceptance of myself. Self-acceptance leads to acceptance of others. I still struggle with this—and not just at work—but now I have quite a diff erent sense of what to do about it than I did 20–40 years ago.

Th is is not as easy as fi nding what’s wrong with me and fi xing it. I need to accept, forgive, embrace, and love myself for who I am now, not for who I might become eventually. Right now—warts and all! When I am able to do this, barriers between me and my clients melt. Th e practical implications of this:

• I am more at ease with myself, and there- fore am more at ease with clients, reducing unnecessary tension between us. I convey

my respect for them with seldom a hint of disdain.

• I am more interested in and attracted to clients. I lean toward their work and lives rather than pulling back in disgust at what they are doing.

• I ask wider and deeper questions; my in- quiry is less sharply problem-focused.

• I expect that the client has probably done the best they know how, even if it’s gotten them into a fi x. Th ey feel that acceptance as I work with them so they, in turn, work with me more readily.

• I share struggles from my own life that par- allel their own. I do not condemn them.

• I help them with a larger perspective; I help them see how they can live through this.

• I remind them of what they are doing well. I rely on their strengths to lift them up out of the mud, rather than focusing entirely on what is wrong with them.

• My questioning or criticism of their work is more readily accepted because they know that I care about them.

Reward Yourself

Th e commercial marketplace has just called to tell you: “We are full of wonderful rewards! Rewards you should receive! Rewards that will make you more of whatever-you-want than you are today! You should reach for those re- wards! Everybody should! Pass it on!”

Th e OD marketplace holds out its own rewards. Th ere’s the work others could give you . . . the recognition they could off er . . . the money you could make . . . the trip you could take. Everyone holding out a reward knows we human beings need rewards. And they are right.

In my early years, I sought my primary recognition from clients, increasing my depen- dence on them. I shaped myself to gain their approval; it often mattered more than eff ec- tiveness. A client saying sweet words can still charm me; I watch myself falling off my self- directed track to bask in client approval. Th is happens less often than years ago, but I’m still

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

If I Knew Then . . . 99

vulnerable . . . something to do with my child- hood, no doubt.

I’ve spent years leaping for gold rings held by others. Not that those rings are unimport- ant, but notice: Who designed the rings? Who holds the rings? And, who is leaping? Being dependent on others to decide all your rewards is not the likely path to fulfi llment. Th e challenges: Decide your own rewards, design your own gold rings, and reduce leap- ing for others’ rings. And how might you do that?

• Imagine what you might be contributing to the larger world and future generations. Do something about it and see how it feels. Find a small bit of world work that engages you and return to it regularly.

• Meet with people who share your aspira- tions, maybe even your work . . . maybe they are in the OD Network! See them, talk with them, email them, regularly. Talk with them about why you do your work, not just how you do it.

• Read books, magazines and websites of peo- ple who are on paths like yours. Always be in the middle of a related book because it will help maintain your excitement and the sense that what you are doing is rewarding.

• Notice what you fi nd rewarding in your work. Notice your patterns of satisfaction.

• Ask others to join you in your work—and your celebrations of what you have done. Get a license to brag about what you have done—and ask them to cheer you on.

• In small and large ways, celebrate often. • Read this article looking for ideas that

might lead to greater fulfi llment in your life. Convert one idea to action.

• Put your life aspiration on equal footing with some of your common work plans. In other words, get it on your calendar. Dignify your life purpose with plans and actions.

Close

Th roughout this article, I’ve felt the constraint of creating a short list of consulting wisdom. I focused on nine points, when actually there are 213 . . . or . . . is it 437? Living a life in- formed by purpose means wisdom will come to you from many sources and directions. Our wisdom is unlimited—when we pay attention. And it hovers over us like a guardian angel— when we pay attention. Th at’s the clue: paying attention to your wisdom, to what your wiser self is telling you . . . and . . . what is your wiser self telling you right now?

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

C H A P T E R 3 1

100

C H A P T E R 1 4

Who Is the Client Here? On Becoming an OD Consultant

Robert Goldberg

I CAME TO ORGANIZATION Development by way of human resource management and management training. In those areas, I was con- sidered a person with a lot to off er. From recruit- ment to compensation to performance manage- ment to leadership and communications skills training, I delivered services and programs rele- vant to most of the human resources issues that managers faced. I truly gave at the offi ce.

I shifted into OD for what I thought were good reasons. For one, I was discovering the major issues individuals faced were seldom resolved through programs impose from the outside. OD interventions seemed an excellent way to use the energy of the group to success- fully resolve its own issues. Also, I would often receive feedback that I was perceptive about organizational issues and a good listener, so I felt equipped to help people better understand their motivations and relationships at work.

Little did I know in my romanticized vision of becoming a change agent that the very factors which helped me succeed in human resources would be the major obstacles in my career in Organization Development. And I surely did not realize when I entered the fi eld that those stumbling blocks would pro- vide some of the most important lessons about myself in my adult life.

Th e seeds of my learning were planted during my earliest intervention, though at the time I was oblivious to it. I was assigned to help a division Vice President, a seasoned, crusty

fellow with twenty or more years of experience at the large company where I was recently employed as an internal OD/Management Development consultant.

Armed with technologies ranging from action research and team building to instru- mented learning and role clarifi cation interven- tions, I began the interview. I could not wait to help. Midway through, when I had dropped what I considered only a modest amount of OD lingo, he asked, “So, what can I do for you?”

Considering that I was there to ask him the same question, I was at a loss to respond. After I stammered that I was actually there to help him, he explained that he did not need any help, but “thanks for stopping by.”

I slinked away knowing only that I was through with OD and going back to manage- ment training. My “ah-ha” came after a few other episodes that strongly resembled this earlier experience—I was persuaded to not give just yet. I had to try to impress the client with my OD knowledge and skills, and had assumed that the client needed help before I found out what the situation really was. I came to realize that I was projecting; it was me that needed help. I needed an OD consultant.

So, I became one for myself. I began the long term assignment of observing myself inter- acting with others at work and at home, and I refl ected, read, experimented, and refl ected some more. I asked for tons of feedback from people I trusted; the more painful to hear, the better.

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

101Who Is the Client Here?

Two points kept coming back at me no matter how I tried to dodge them. First, I learned that my attempts to impress others were an indirect way of asking for recognition as a professional and as a person. Th is was how I masked feeling insecure.

Second, I learned I was trying to control my client-consultant relationships so I could be looked upon more as hero than as helper—an attempt to disguise my anxiety about being rejected and to hide my fear that I would not be invited back if I was not perceived as a “savior.”

I gradually began to recognize that when I pontifi cated or tried to impress others with my command of OD technologies, I must have been feeling insecure about something, and needed to examine what and why. I realized an important paradox of security: the more I attempted to portray a secure, impregnable facade to others, the less capable and secure I was perceived. Yet the more I permitted myself to be openly spontaneous and uncertain, with- out all the answers, the more I was perceived as someone who might be capable of helping.

As I began to understand how and why I responded to situations that made me uncom- fortable, I also began to see that I was not alone in building facades. While I worked out my control and security issues on clients’ time, clients were also acting out their own anxieties indirectly. In others, this was often manifested in expressions of invulnerability or haughti- ness; attempts to mask a fear of losing control or of helplessness. I realized that my clients and I had more in common than I had thought. Th is made even the “crustiest” of clients seem more human.

Recognizing this, I felt freer to listen more closely to clients’ and to my own reactions. I developed more confi dence to give feedback about what I was experiencing there and then, which often became a point of departure for a client to disclose his· or her own feelings.

Clients could sometimes see in our inter- actions elements of relationships that existed with people with whom they worked regularly, e.g., feeling cut off or criticized, feeling angry

or frustrated, being “deifi ed,” or some other emotional reaction. Th rough these interactions clients had the opportunity to practice being more direct about what they were experienc- ing. In turn, they could model these behaviors in other situations with other people. By feel- ing safer to disclose to others what they truly believed or how they felt, more opportunities for building trust could occur and fewer costly misunderstandings were possible. For instance, this could prove especially important when indirect expressions of anger (such as the ex- clusion of a key person at an important meet- ing) might have the potential to spiral into long term negative consequences for an entire organization.

I also learned that it takes time to develop a relationship to the point where honesty is not threatening. Rushing to candor is another way people express being afraid of not being in control.

As time went on and I felt more comfort- able with not “contracting” upfront with a cli- ent for a specifi c service, I realized I was able to stay focused on the client’s, and not on my concerns. And when I began to wean myself from the notion that I could control the way someone felt about me I became a little less anxious to make a good impression; now I promise less, hear more, and feel capable of helping clients reach beyond surface issues.

Now, when I “hear” myself trying to impress someone I usually recognize my con- trol/dependency issues are at work. Not that these issues are ever ultimately resolved, but dealing directly with the deeper issues often provides greater awareness and understanding for the client and for myself.

I am still working on letting go of my stubborn needs for control and on my ability to help clients become more aware through our direct contact. But I think I am pretty well recovered from the need to be the hero, or even the need for “OD technique.” Th ese days all I fi nd myself caring about is continuing to learn and helping others to learn, “simply” by being myself (which is a paradox in itself ).

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

C H A P T E R 3 1

102

C H A P T E R 1 5

An Inner Blueprint for Successful Partnership Development

Putting a Relationship to Work Peter F. Norlin and Judy Vogel

INTERESTING THINGS HAPPEN when two people attempt to work together for a common purpose. From earliest history, whether hunting for food, raising children, or living in a community, partnering has allowed new things to happen that would not have emerged if people were working separately. Many wis- dom traditions explore the generative force of collaboration; for example, the Tao Te Ching says that “fi rst, there is oneness. Th en the one begat two. Two begat three. And three begat the myriad things.” Commenting on this dynamic unfolding, Julia Measures says, “When you and I begin speaking . . . there is a ‘space’ between us. Th en as we’re together, suddenly something starts to move between us that doesn’t belong to you and doesn’t belong to me—the three. It can move in any direction; we can nudge it this way and that way. It’s life on the move, and we are totally participat- ing in it” (Measures, 2003). Th e “three,” that striking manifestation of “life on the move,” can be observed and experienced in a partner- ship relationship, and it refl ects the unpredict- able and exciting potential at hand.

As we have worked in the fi eld of organi- zation development, we’ve often found our- selves facing the professional challenges of learn- ing to work eff ectively with other colleagues or helping our customers develop their capacity

to collaborate successfully to accomplish their goals. In both of these situations, the reasons for “working with” are usually clear: something signifi cant needs to get done, and more than two hands are needed. In many cases, people simply pitch in informally, contribute their skills, and fi nish the job—and sometimes, in the process, learn something about how to work together.

In other situations, as people consider what tasks need to be accomplished and who might be best suited to accomplish them, they may decide to defi ne this working relationship explicitly and formally. Th ey begin to think of themselves as partners in an ongoing relation- ship, a collaboration that requires the creation of a special interpersonal connection, one that enables the full sharing of their resources in a challenging environment of customer expecta- tions and opportunities. Choosing to partner begins a rich and complex journey and one that sometimes fails.

So why do people undertake the challenge to create successful conditions for “working with”? In Turning to One Another, Margaret Wheatley identifi es and explores the deep human hunger to live and work in close con- nection with others (Wheatley, 2002). We share her interest and have gathered data from consultants and clients about their motivation

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

An Inner Blueprint for Successful Partnership Development 103

to work in partnership. People report the fol- lowing experiences and beliefs about the ben- efi ts of partnering

• It off ers greater potential for professional eff ectiveness, personal learning, and cre- ative synergy.

• It builds more credibility with customers through combined reputations and name recognition.

• It meets affi liation needs and counteracts professional loneliness.

• It provides a more comprehensive perspec- tive through the resources of diff erence (i.e., gender, race, experience, etc.).

• It provides an opportunity to model part- nership for customers.

• It’s simply more fun.

Th is article off ers our latest thinking about how to build and sustain a satisfying, success- ful partnership. We begin by outlining a model for partnership development, including some thoughts about how to “nudge” the prospec- tive partner in order to create a resilient and productive relationship. We off er a few typical pitfalls and breakdowns in this process, and suggest strategies and key skills that can help partners to avoid or resolve these troubles. We conclude by applying our model to some familiar pairings, including consulting part- nerships between internal and external, two internal, and two external colleagues.

Considering Partnership: Our Core Assumptions

We defi ne partnership as a successful relation- ship in service to a specifi c task—we believe that when people choose to be partners, they are also choosing to put their relationship to work. Th eir achievements will be the result of both their willingness to see their relationship as the key to their eff ectiveness and of their ability to use it as such. People are drawn to partner for diverse and often unexpressed reasons. While intuitive “chemistry” may provide a sound ini- tial impulse, we propose that building a suc-

cessful partnership is more predictable if con- scious, disciplined, and intentional strategies are used from the very beginning.

Becoming conscious, disciplined, and in- tentional is a complicated assignment when human relationships are involved. First, indi- vidual behavior is driven by personal mind- sets—beliefs and assumptions—that are, in turn, created by the ongoing, intricate inter- play between one’s own perception and experi- ence. We assume that people are often unaware of these inner connections, of the specifi c nature of their own “realities,” and of their own per- sonal behavioral styles. Th is means that con- sciously developing a relationship depends on their ability to use a critical building block of emotional intelligence: self-awareness (Gole- man, 1998; Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee, 2002).

We also assume that even if people have a high level of self-awareness, they may be un- willing, for many reasons, to discuss their per- sonal beliefs and the impact of their behavior openly with one another. Marshak and Katz, as they explore “covert processes,” suggest that people will typically express to others—and make overt—what they believe to be “accept- able, proper, reasonable and legitimate” (Mar- shak and Katz, 2001). Based on our observa- tions of both successful and troubled partner- ships, our last core assumption then is that partners face two key challenges. Th ey must accept the value of self-awareness and seek to expand it, and they must be willing to openly explore personal information with one another. If they are not, then personal positions and reactions will remain covert and undiscuss- able, leading inevitably to a disabled partner- ship that is unable to develop strategically, effi ciently, and creatively.

Putting a Relationship to Work: An Inner Blueprint for Partnership Development

Th e development of a successful partnership involves two sequential phases, the initiation of an Exploratory Phase and the emergence of

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Handbook for Strategic HR104

an explicit Partnership Phase. As shown in Fig- ure 15.1, we separate the steps in this unfold- ing process in another way as well. We have created a demarcation between inner, personal activity that is conducted privately by each partner, and behavior that is expressed directly as a consequence of this interior work. Th is boundary between inner and outer work is called the Line of Visibility, and it represents a point of decision for each partner, since once a person has identifi ed personal perceptions, hopes, wants, and concerns, this material is available to be explored and negotiated with the other. Like the JoHari Window, a con- struct for understanding what is known to self only and what is known to others, our Line of Visibility identifi es the moment when partners must make choices in the service of the rela- tionship and simultaneously in the service of the work that they engage in together.

In Stage 2 of our model, the behavior that one person presents to another person is the manifestation of both predetermined and environmental factors, and these will be inte- grated and expressed in both clear and subtle ways. Research over the last few decades, for instance, demonstrates that one’s genetic material plays a signifi cant role in shaping self- specifi c character and temperament; in addi- tion, experiences in one’s family-of-origin and in subsequent personal biography will also shape personality and behavior. Further, there is the infl uence from messages received as a member of diff erent identity groups, accord- ing to gender, race, age, social class, sexual ori- entation, and so on. And fi nally, since people live in a social and cultural context, mindsets and hence behavior will also be aff ected by experiences in school, religious settings, neigh- borhoods, and geographic cultures. Th us, when two individuals begin to know one another, they are each bringing to the conversation lay- ers of personal characteristics and experience, and some of this information will be visible to the other person, through both appearance and behavior.

However, in the case of potential partners, as people talk with one another about them-

selves (Stage 3), we propose that they will also begin to pay attention to three specifi c and deeply signifi cant qualities in the other per- son. Th ey will be infl uenced strongly by what they see or assume to be the status, motive, and competence of the “other” (Stage 4). Th ese factors are critical because they identify im- portant interpersonal concerns that play a powerful role in the development of working relationships.

As Stage 4 indicates, when people assess diff erences in status, for instance, the under- lying relationship issue is power and control. Th ey make comparisons with the “other,” based on assumptions about where they stand in terms of personal power and how any perceived diff erences in power might emerge during a relationship. Th e question they must answer is, “Will I have a suffi cient amount of infl uence and control in this working relationship?”

At the same time, a second concern relates to perceptions of the other person’s underlying motives both for considering a partnership and later for making the many decisions that they will face. Here, people are paying careful attention to behavioral cues that help them judge another’s integrity and authenticity, since the underlying relationship issue is trust- worthiness. In this case, the question to be answered is, “Will I be able to trust this person as we work together?”

Th e third concern, competence, is also of vital importance to potential partners because it relates to the actual work. Obviously, since the purpose of partnership is accomplishing tasks together, at the very least each person wants to be sure that the “other” has the skills and experience to do “the job.” For example, sometimes people with similar skill sets decide to join together to intensify the impact of their individual eff ort. In other situations, people become partners because putting sets of diff er- ent and complementary skills to work broad- ens the impact of their eff ort or creates a new synergy of quality or creativity. Regarding this third relationship issue, the concern is, “Will we be able to work together in a positive interdependence?”

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

An Inner Blueprint for Successful Partnership Development 105

F IG

U R

E 1

5 .1

A

n I n

n e r

B lu

e p

ri n

t fo

r P

a rt

n e rs

h ip

D e v e lo

p m

e n

t

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Handbook for Strategic HR106

Of these three important, underlying rela- tionship issues, trustworthiness presents an in teresting paradox. On the one hand, each potential partner requires a certain threshold of information, both assumed and observed, about the other’s apparent motives in order to experience enough trust to make an explicit agreement about partnership. On the other hand, trustworthiness is a phenomenon that requires active testing through real experience to be confi rmed. Tension thus emerges from the need to feel enough trust to risk living more fully into a relationship in which trust can be tested—to be confi rmed, shaken but renewed, or fi nally denied. Th is paradox recalls the old chicken or the egg question. In this case, both people need to act “as if ” suffi cient trust exists in order to create the conditions to test trust. Only through that cycle of risk can trust deepen to a level that supports a genuine partnership. And only if trust develops can the other two key relationship issues be handled successfully.

Several key points are important during this initial period of observation, assessment, and refl ection. First, we see this series of early steps as a developmental process. Th is means that potential partners will feel comfortable moving toward a more open conversation about an actual partnership when they have decided that they feel “good enough” with their as- sumptions about the other’s status, motive, and competence. Next steps in the Exploratory Phase are possible because the questions about the relationship concerns have been satisfactorily answered—for the moment. Nonetheless, these specifi c concerns will persist for both; as a working relationship develops, each partner will monitor new information that accumu- lates and integrate it with past assumptions. At stake is whether people will continue to pur- sue a partnership based on what they continue to learn about the “other.”

Th roughout this process of generating and testing hypotheses about another person, they are also generating several kinds of infor- mal feedback about themselves in relation to the “other.” Th e yardstick they are using is

ultimately their perceptions of their own sta- tus, motive, and competence as compared to the “other’s” (Stage 5). When people feel “good enough” about the other person’s behavior, it is also because they have decided that, in some satisfying way, there is a “good fi t” between their evaluation of themselves and their evalu- ation of the other person. Further, each person makes assumptions about how they them- selves are seen through the other person’s eyes. Th e question arises, “Will we be a good match?” If the answer is, “Hmmm, could be,” then the possibilities for an actual partnership to develop increase.

Finally, during this Exploratory Phase, there is a continual interplay between internal pro- cess and external conversation, which means that people must decide whether they will share their thoughts aloud across the Line of Visibility. As people grow more familiar with each other, whether in a single conversation or over months of initial relationship, they fi nd themselves building a database about the other person either by asking questions directly, or using informal cues, or both. Th e crucial issue, we’ve observed, is whether both people are able and willing to use this information in the service of the relationship. When two poten- tial partners consciously reach the point of making a decision about whether to comment openly about their personal thoughts and feel- ings about the other person and the possibility of relationship, then they have moved into the realm of process observation, a step (Stage 7) we refer to as “bystanding.”

As people stand on the edge of this choice, they are teetering on the brink of entering the Partnership Phase, because as they demonstrate the ability to talk about their interpersonal process, they are also demonstrating their will- ingness to do so. In other words, their relation- ship becomes a “discussable” topic (Stage 6). We believe this is the “moment of truth” for partnership development because it means that in addition to dealing openly with task issues, two people will be able to openly nego- tiate and resolve issues in their relationship— to talk about “us” (Stages 7 and 8). Obviously

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

An Inner Blueprint for Successful Partnership Development 107

this is not a one-time decision. To ensure that a partnership endures, both people must value “bystanding” and “discussability,” and over and over again, they must talk about the behavior that they observe in their working relationship in an ongoing process that hopefully deepens trust and supports successful collaboration.

Taking Practical Action: Some Conditions for Success

What, then, are the implications of this model? Formal partnerships rarely dissolve because of the technical incompetence of one or both indi- viduals. In our experience, partnerships typi- cally fail because partners don’t value or access their own self-awareness and because they ignore emotional issues in their working rela- tionship. Th ere are some telltale signs of part- nership disintegration. On a continuum of gradual personal disengagement, these include

• Open competition—an ominous sign, but we are most hopeful when partners are still competing with each other because this means they’re still engaged in the relation- ship

• Unresolved, continuing power struggles • Dysfunctional, triangular communication

—here a third person is used to absorb feel- ings that are judged to be undiscussable with the “other”

• Broken promises • Silence • Absence—the most damning indication

that a partnership is irreparably fractured

To avoid this depressing cycle, the most important fi rst step two potential partners can take is to initiate a conversation during the Exploratory Phase. Specifi cally, to begin their relationship in a solid way and to ensure its sustainability, both partners must have the appetite and the skill to recognize—and talk about—what they notice about each other’s status, motive, and competence, and how this awareness is likely to aff ect their working rela- tionship in the future.

Successful partnerships are thus based on a special blueprint of relationship require- ments. Beyond the Exploratory Phase and throughout a Partnership Phase, to maintain a successful partnership, individuals must also consciously monitor both competitive and collaborative impulses in themselves and in their relationship and then also consciously balance competitive and collaborative behav- iors. Achieving this balance is critical, because if people in partnership begin to compete with one another more than they collaborate, then the dynamics of winning will consume their working relationship. And unfortunately, if one or both partners concentrate on winning as they work with each other, with colleagues, and with customers, then both will ultimately lose the partnership. Th e answer? To make a key agreement: to mutually increase behavior that both partners experience as collaborative, and to mutually manage behavior that they experience as competitive.

We need to be clear here. Th e urge to compete, to win, is a useful, powerful force in most business situations; the desire to win seems to be a core component of human nature; and we don’t believe that we can elimi- nate it from human interaction. We also know that competition has some unintended conse- quences that can infl uence human emotions and behavior in unfortunate ways (Kohn, 1986). By defi nition, a partnership is created to capitalize on the synergies unleashed by “working with.” When people begin to com- pete with one another, the focus shifts from relationship performance to individual perfor- mance, and people are concerned about them- selves, not about their relationship. Th us, if people are not willing or able to control their competitive impulses and behaviors in the best interest of their working relationship, a part- nership may limp along, but it will never be truly successful or stable.

Once partners recognize the need to oper- ate within this balance, they are free to use their collaboration as a strategy to win exter- nally, to dominate whatever external competi- tion they face together. Fortunately, one of the

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Handbook for Strategic HR108

eff ective and effi cient ways to achieve this dynamic balance is to design work structures that will increase collaboration and manage competition, since in systems dynamics, “struc- ture determines behavior.” Fortunately, too, such structural options come in a variety of shapes and sizes. For instance, people can adopt formal or informal agreements about the way they will work together, and these “rules of the road” can be tested and revised until partners feel comfortable. Based on shared values of mutual respect, these “rules” can eff ectively guide “diffi cult conversations” during the likely times of confl ict (Stone, Patton, and Heen, 1999). Other examples include regular meet- ings, explicit procedures for managing task requirements, agreements about budget allo- cations and professional fees, metrics for track- ing and measuring partnership performance and reports for documenting it, technology to enable communication, and the co-location of partner’s offi ces and work spaces. We believe that it is less important how people choose to create the correct balance between com- petition and collaboration than the fact that they recognize the need to create it and work to do so.

Managing Familiar Partnerships: The Impact of Context and Boundaries

Th e Blueprint for Partnership Development and its associated competencies provide a roadmap to guide the successful formation of any part- nership. For organization development profes- sionals there are some predictable opportuni- ties for partnership that arise in work contexts and that create interesting challenges for their collaboration. Th ree such possibilities arise for many consultants during their careers. Th ese are pairings of internal and external consul- tants, of two internals, and of two externals. Each pairing off ers the potential for valuable service to clients and satisfying collaboration with each other, and each challenges the part- ners in several important ways.

In the case of an internal and external con- sultant pair, an important added structural issue arises from the generic concerns regarding status that were described earlier. Since frequently an external consultant is hired to provide additional experience, wisdom and credibility, the chal- lenge to each partner is to clarify and monitor the resulting power balance in the relationship. It is common for each partner to collude, with or without awareness, in a process of assigning “guru” status to the external consultant. Several common versions of this projection include the “Invited Guest,” the “Magical Outsider,” and the “Detective” (Norlin & Vogel, 2002). It can be highly functional for partners to recognize diff erences in their expertise and utilize these eff ectively; however, it is important that the internal not abdicate power to or become overly dependent on the external. Th e corollary is that the external must be vigilant to avoid taking over, functioning rather as coach and shadow consultant when appropriate, and generally sup- porting the long term eff ectiveness and status of the internal who will, after all, remain as the on- going resource in the organization. In any con- tinuing collaboration, these issues need to be discussable and the resulting behaviors negoti- ated to the satisfaction of each and to the benefi t of clients.

For the external partner, a second and related consideration is to manage consciously and ethically the normal interest in generating more work; the potential pitfall is to increase the likelihood of continued engagement at the expense of the internal’s role. Inherent in this pairing is the diff erent structure of earnings, and we believe that the external consultant is primarily accountable for consciousness and self-management on this matter.

Unique to the partnership of two inter- nal consultants is the handling of the “sibling” relationship that arises from their shared “resi- dence” in the organization. Specifi cally, they are both imbedded in the cultural context in which competition for promotions, salary in- creases and bonuses, and reputation may be intense. Th ey need to handle the inevitable

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

An Inner Blueprint for Successful Partnership Development 109

anxiety of whether a project will succeed or fail and who gets credit or blame. Further, as two internals, they share the challenge to be simultaneously both insiders and conscious managers of the marginal role and boundaries required of OD practitioners; specifi cally, they need to each be aware of and to assist the other to maintain objectivity, courage and perspective regarding this balance—no small challenge!

When two externals become partners, the dynamics in their relationship are both similar and diff erent to those generated during inter- nal partnerships. In this fi nal pairing, the externals also need to handle “sibling rivalry” for approval of the client but from outside the margin of the organization. In addition, they must carefully monitor the allocation of their fee-based time in order to ensure that the cli- ent receives the most for their money.

Finally, whether internal or external, for OD consultants to fulfi ll the promise of their partnership, they need to develop a regular, high level practice of giving and receiving feedback, thus becoming professional buddies in the ongoing commitment to growth of skills and “use of self.” Th ese are the keys to long- term success. In this way, they will be able to fulfi ll the formal goals of their consulting en- gagements and also model partnership, an intervention in itself.

A Final Thought

In our work with partnership development, it is our experience that successful work partner- ships have something in common with other

intimate, collaborative performances like tra- peze artists, jazz groups, and committed love relationships. When they’re really good, they look easy. But this appearance belies the truth: partnering requires courage, superior interper- sonal skills, and ongoing commitment to explore deep levels of the self and the other. Th e process is fi lled with challenge, but a map such as our Inner Blueprint for Partnership Devel- opment can serve, we hope, as a useful guide. Th e payoff when a “working relationship” works is worth the eff ort.

References

Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intel- ligence. New York, NY: Bantam Books. Goleman, D., Boyatizis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership: Realizing the power of emotional intelligence. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing. Kohn, A. (1986). No contest: Th e case against compe- tition. Boston, MA: Houghton-Miffl in. Marshak, R.J., & Katz, J.H. (2001). Keys to un- locking covert process. OD Practitioner, 33 (2), 3–10. Measures, J. (2003). Th e healing relationship. Me- ridians, 10, (2/3), 8–16. Norlin, P., & Vogel, J. (2002). Making “house calls”: Whom do our clients expect to see when the doorbell rings? Practicing OD, 1 (1). Stone, D., Patton, B., & Heen, S. (1999). Diffi cult conversations: How to discuss what matters most. New York, NY: Penguin Books. Wheatley, M. (2002). Turning to one another: Sim- ple conversations to restore hope to the future. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

C H A P T E R 3 1

110

C H A P T E R 1 6

Refl ections on a Cross-Cultural Partnership in Multicultural Organizational

Development Efforts Maria C. Ramos and Mark A. Chesler

THERE IS CERTAIN NEATNESS to theo- ries and models that seek to explain human interaction and organizational behavior. Th e practice of organizational development (OD) and multicultural organizational development (MCOD) is, however, not very neat. We ad- dress these issues in the context of our long- term partnership as activist practitioners and generators of scholarship in OD and MCOD. In so doing we discuss: (1) the development and dynamics of our own cross-cultural part- nership, particularly our race, gender, and pro- fessional orientation as scholar-practitioners, (2) how we used our partnership as an inter- vention and clients’ reactions to it, and (3) the implications for cross-cultural partnerships in MCOD work in general. As we illustrate these issues in MCOD, we draw from three extended consultations with two corporations in diff erent industries and a major university.

Many organizations have engaged over the past two decades in large systems OD or MCOD change eff orts. While some of the challenges confronted in MCOD work are similar to those in the practice of OD, others are quite diff erent. Th e reality is that most organizations have diverse work forces, but

most do not behave as or aim at becoming truly multicultural or inclusive (Jackson & Hardiman, 1994; Miller & Katz, 2002). Moreover it might seem obvious that OD practitioners are committed to the eradication of social oppression, it is not so in practice. MCOD diff ers from more traditional forms of OD in several respects: (1) it focuses directly on issues of social identity and attendant oppression, (2) it assumes that organizational cultures and practices refl ect the dominance of White male elites, (3) it assumes that attitudi- nal change is a minor, albeit important, ele- ment in organizational change (Chesler, 1994). In addition, MCOD diff ers from most traditional diversity eff orts in its systems approach that goes beyond concerns with cli- mate, management training in cross-cultural relations, or policy-level innovations.

An essential element of all MCOD change eff orts is the development of staff that understands oppression and discrimination, organizational development and change, adult learning theory and practice, and their own attitudes and behavior toward themselves and others diff erent from themselves (Cross, 2000). A critical initiative in the selected MCOD sys-

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Refl ections on a Cross-Cultural Partnership in Multicultural Organization Development Efforts 111

tem change eff orts we worked with involved the development of internal MCOD change agents and consultants. Th e initiatives, diff er- ing by organization, included nurturing a core internal change team, developing inter-group dialogue facilitators, and grounding diversity champions in MCOD theory and practice. We demonstrated the power of cross-cultural collaboration, while simultaneously transfer- ring our knowledge and coaching internal practitioners in creating their own innovative interventions. Since the three organizations and interventions diff ered, the ways in which we played out our roles with one another and with these organizations diff ered as well: con- text matters!

The Nature and Power of Our Collaborative, Cross-Cultural Relationship in MCOD

Th e preferred consultant team in MCOD practice refl ects diverse social identity mem- berships, particularly race and gender, often sexual orientation, as well as others. Consult- ing in cross-cultural teams can establish credi- bility and build trust by refl ecting the social identities of diff erent organizational members and giving authentic voice to their experience. It also can demonstrate the hoped-for out- comes of MCOD interventions by modeling an eff ective cross-race, cross-gender collabora- tive working partnership. Th e partnership role demands a personal willingness to work on one’s own issues and dedicating oneself to con- tinued personal growth in diversity and social justice. It is based on an agreement to coura- geously work the social justice issues within the consultant partnership, in the work and with the clients. Th e common ground shared in the MCOD consulting partnership is mutual and sustained support for grappling with the on- going challenges confronted in doing the work.

Th e collaborative MCOD consulting part- nership that we established was initially based on our most apparent social identity diff erences of race and gender, our professional affi liation as scholar-practitioners, and our bond as social

justice activists. Our work together permits us to act on our values and deepens our personal friendship by witnessing each other’s good work and relying upon one another in some tough situations. Maria is a woman of Color and Mark is a White man. Maria is a second generation American born, Black woman of Cape Verdean descent. Cabo Verde is an Afri- can nation colonized by the Portuguese, hence the Latin name. Within the subordinate racial group of Blacks, she is a member of a minority ethnic-cultural group. Mark is an older White man of European-Jewish descent, second gen- eration American born. Within the dominant racial group of Whites, he is a member of a subordinate religious-cultural group. We often observed how people of our own racial group put us through “special tests” because of our minority ethnic-cultural identities. As one example, Maria was asked to explain her race and ethnicity to a group of African-American leaders who had French or English names so they could understand how she belonged in that affi nity group. In another situation, Mark was given at best a lukewarm reception into a predominantly White group because he had missed the fi rst day of a session because it fell on Yom Kippur. Th ese tests also led to our conversations about intraracial dynamics that furthered appreciation for and trust in one another.

Professionally, we both identify as scholar practitioners or practical theorists. Th e owner of a consultant fi rm, Maria is OD/MCOD practitioner who is also a scholar, teaching in universities regularly but secondarily. In con- trast, as a professor of sociology at University of Michigan, Mark is a scholar who practices OD/MCOD regularly but secondarily. We recognized and appreciated building syner- gistically from each other’s backgrounds and strengths with complimenting perspectives. Some examples of our collaboration include translating academic jargon into corporate lan- guage, using corporate cases to illustrate aca- demically derived concepts, bringing the reali- ties of external underrepresented constituencies to burst the corporate and academic privilege

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Handbook for Strategic HR112

bubbles, and challenging the one-up perspec- tives of leaders with action research results from their own organization’s membership.

Our collaboration has not been without struggles relative to the demands of our pri- mary work contexts (Wasserman & Kram, 2009). Mark has suggested to Maria that she write more, although it meant taking time from consulting and perhaps not meeting cli- ents’ and associates expectations and needs. Maria has asked Mark to consult more fre- quently, though doing so encroached on his time for teaching, writing, and research. Man- aging the tension between scholar and practi- tioner roles can be a diffi cult balancing act.

We share a common ground of social jus- tice activism. Separately each of us has been a community organizer to eliminate discrimina- tory practices, an initiator of social affi nity groups for personal growth, and a developer of emerging social justice change agents. We belong to common professional and personal support networks of colleagues and friends dedicated to eradicating social oppression. Our race and gender identities and the diff er- ence in our generations meant that the socio- political environments of our activism dif- fered. Mark’s activism was shaped by the civil rights, voter-rights, and desegregation era of his youth and his experience organizing advo- cacy groups for families of children with cancer. Th e U.S. and international Black lib- eration, student, women’s, and Pan African movements of her youth shaped Maria’s activ- ism. Mark channeled his activism into con- ducting action research and creating models useful to social justice change agents, includ- ing himself as he consulted. Maria channeled her activism into translating social justice change models and practices into change movements in organizations, writing about and for her consulting practice.

Early in our work relationship and con- tinually deepening over time, we developed a high degree of personal, as well as professional trust, aff ection, and respect for one another. Th is deep relationship was facilitated by Maria’s appreciation of Mark as a White male

colleague who could support her without being protective and who could join forces with her in response to inappropriately personalized racial or gender attacks. Mark appreciated Maria’s willingness to work with his embedded racism and sexism, his lack of corporate expe- rience and her support when working with people acting out their prejudice and pain inappropriately with him. As we let each other do our own thing around an agreed upon agenda we also debriefed in ways that took issues, but not ourselves, seriously. Sometimes when refl ecting on our presentations and interventions we found humor in each other’s perspective and whether we said or did what we intended. Our freedom to joke with one another in public and obvious enjoyment in working with one another positively aff ected organizational members’ level of trust and engagement.

Th e common ground and trust we devel- oped also provided the security to challenge each other’s style, interventions, and thinking. Th us, we have had an on going dialogue that has been a productive incubator for emerging models for practice and for encouraging greater client engagement and challenge. Our refl ections on this partnership have revealed that:

• Each of our social identities brought to the partnership and the workplace diff erent experiences, outlooks, and ways of relating to MCOD practice.

• Each of our professional standpoints brought some particular strengths and weaknesses. While in most contexts these standpoints are disrespected by the other, in our part- nership they fueled a higher order integra- tion of both scholarship and practice. As one organizational member commented, “Maria was more the therapist and Mark more the professor—a good team.”

• Both of us saw one another as scholars and knowledge generators (although perhaps dif- ferent types of scholars) and as practitio- ners or activists (although perhaps as diff er- ent types of practitioners).

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Refl ections on a Cross-Cultural Partnership in Multicultural Organization Development Efforts 113

We discuss some of these diff erences and commonalities in the following descriptions of the consultations.

The Scope of the Consultations and Client/Organizational Reactions

Th e multicultural organizational develop- ment change work in all three client organiza- tions was contracted with Ramos Associates as the primary consultant. Th e overriding goal of these system-wide MCOD eff orts was the creation of inclusive, supportive work environments for all members (Chesler, Lewis & Crowfoot, 2005; Cox, 1991; Jackson & Hardiman, 1994; Miller & Katz, 2002). Th is approach involved: a core organization-wide change team of top level executives, manag- ers, formal and informal leaders; an organiza- tionwide human resources leadership change team; and change teams for each line of a business (LOB) and/or departments. Our MCOD consultation to those charged with planning and implementing organizational change eff orts included (in diff erent degrees in diff erent consultations):

• Organizational assessments • Strategic planning toward an inclusive

environment • Alignment of MCOD mission, values and

performance expectations • Diversity training, development, and

coaching

We experienced many reactions to our partnership over the years and across client groups, particularly some frequent patterns of reactions to our cross-cultural pairing. While we shared power within the context of specifi c interventions, overall the primary power, for reasons of relevant expertise, experience, and primary contractor relationships, rested with Maria. For some participants, this was a very welcome and even inspiring experience. As two African American women noted, “Having Maria take the lead made me feel good. I iden-

tifi ed with you and was proud of you,” and “I saw Maria as a strong leader and Mark as sec- ond in command.” At times, the reality of a woman of Color as the primary power, and the role of a White man as secondary, was con- fusing or challenging to organizational mem- bers, especially to those steeped in traditional race/gender assumptions and stereotypes. As a White man said, “I struggled with the diff er- ences in their styles—Maria took up space and Mark stayed more quiet.” Th e power reversal was not confusing to us because we both had experience as leaders and subordinates in cross-race and cross-gender teams and coali- tions. In the planning and design sessions as well as in public presentations described here, we deliberately alternated leadership roles.

Th e particular interventions referenced in this article occurred in three very diff erent organizations. A brief description of each and the highlights of the corresponding interven- tion are provided.

A USA-based science and technology company operating in many countries was a long standing client. In response to an ever- increasing demand for tailored training and consultation from geographically disbursed businesses centers, Ramos Associates created a curriculum for internal MCOD consultants, with participants from all lines of business (LOB) and corporate functions, not just HR. Th ree phases of the program included use of self as an instrument of change, MCOD mod- els/theories, and organizational practice. Th e self-selected participant group in the MCOD consultant training was demographically and professionally diverse. All were change agents engaged in corporate-wide or LOB valuing people/diversity eff orts, including organiza- tional assessments, upward mobility planning, critical incident investigations and interven- tion, and internal or external constituency relationship building. Our work was to trans- fer our academic approach about social justice and develop their skills as multicultural orga- nizational consultants. Maria’s identity as a corporate-related woman of Color opened the doors to certain privileges, especially among

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Handbook for Strategic HR114

corporate leaders and members of underrepre- sented social identity groups. Mark’s identity as a White man opened some doors of privi- lege, yet in this corporate sector some doors seemed stuck at half-open, as his knowledge was seen as interesting but not necessarily to the point.

Th e fi nal stage of this MCOD internal consultant development program included one- on-one debriefi ng and advising sessions with each of the participants. We gave the internal consultants targeted feedback on what we saw as their strengths and areas for further devel- opment and off ered follow-up coaching upon request. In an event that highlighted the nature of our cross-cultural partnership, Mark received a call from a Black woman HR man- ger who sought his advice on handling a unique problem. A group of White men leaders had taken a gender-mixed group of employees out for a celebration dinner. Towards the end of the celebration, fueled by libations, one of them yelled “hog run,” followed by several of them dropping on their hands and knees to the fl oor and scrambling under the tables to look at the women’s legs, etc. Th e HR man- ager wanted to share her personal reactions and professional concerns with a trusted white man consultant. Mark checked in with Maria about the issues for this Black woman man- ager, subordinate to the leaders in question, that he might not have considered, and whether there were any precedents for dealing with this type of incident (No—it was a totally unique situation at the adult level). Also, given its bizarre nature he needed to share it with her.

We worked with a large, Tier 1, national, public university with multiple undergraduate and graduate programs to implement a new MCOD eff ort. Maria and Mark consulted to an internal change team of representative lead- ership from all departments on an ongoing basis to support the President’s MCOD ini- tiative. Th e demographically diverse internal change team included faculty, students, union and non-union managers, and professionals.

Organizational members and representatives responded in particular ways to Maria and Mark’s social and professional identities. Mark’s identity as university-related, White, man opened doors to certain privileges espe- cially among the faculty. Although there was a great interest in corporate best practices in MCOD, Maria’s “business approach” was seen at times less applicable.

Some particular race and gender dynam- ics during this work with the university high- light the way our own identities played out with organizational members. For instance, some White men faculty members were so intent on demonstrating their own expertise, and so threatened by our leadership, that their responses started to become a distraction to others.

We agreed that Mark would move close to them and try to neutralize their negative impact and suggest behavioral alternatives. In another circumstance, some African-American women administrators appeared to be unin- tentionally but constantly buff ering or miti- gating team members’ progress. We agreed that Maria would work closely with them, providing coaching in a more eff ective set of behaviors. Finally, we switched leadership roles in the execution of a critical preliminary step with the client organization. In meetings to discuss the assessment of campus climate it was clear that a few White women bypassed Maria and spoke primarily to Mark. Our debrief of the meetings identifi ed two under- lying factors in these interactions. Th e overt factor was the understandably high regard they had for Mark as a social scientist who had done this work on other campuses. Th e covert factor was racial privilege expressed by White women toward Black women as a pattern of treating them as invisible or competing with them regardless of the apparent status or expe- rience diff erential. Rather than confront it straightforwardly, on this occasion Maria asked Mark to take the lead in following up with this group on the development of a campus cli- mate survey. Maria’s goals were to avoid get-

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Refl ections on a Cross-Cultural Partnership in Multicultural Organization Development Efforts 115

ting caught up in this dynamic and to expedi- tiously execute the climate survey. All MCOD consultants have to choose which tests they take on and we knew the consultation would provide other opportunities to work these intragender racial dynamics.

We also worked with a USA based pharma company operating in many countries. In an eff ort to sustain corporate sponsored initia- tives, Ramos Associates created an inter-group dialogue facilitator development program for human resource professionals employed at many facilities. Th e development included four components: inter-group dialogue par- ticipation, theory and models of intergroup dialogue, individual assessment with personal and group coaching, and practice of inter- group dialogue co-facilitation in cross-cultural pairs (Huang-Nissen, 2005; Zuniga, Nagda, Chesler & Citron-Walker, 2007; Ramos & Mitchell, 2001).

Our agenda was to demonstrate how to work as collaborative cross-cultural facilita- tors, build a common ground of knowledge about intergroup dialogue, and coach indi- viduals and pairs of facilitators. Individuals’ reactions to us were based on their personal awareness and understanding of social identity and justice issues. Some People of Color and especially women of Color, bonded or at- tempted to bond deeply with Maria and dis- tanced from Mark. Some other women of Color openly challenged Maria’s power. Some White men sought racial validation from Maria; others evaded or avoided deep contact with Mark. Some White men bonded, or attempted to bond with Mark and distanced or hid from Maria. Some other White men saw Mark as a “race traitor” and as a danger to the hidden knowledge of White male power. Some People of Color tested Mark to see if he was a true ally. Clearly, both race and gender dynamics played a role all the time.

Generally Mark responded to overt chal- lenges by relaxing and letting them develop, seeing how others in the group reacted; some- times he was “triggered” and temporarily re-

treated. Usually he was able to refer to and use these incidents to illustrate general principles in race and gender interactions in later work with the group. When White men or women bonded with him, he tried to respond empath- ically by entering into deeper challenge and support, and by exposing enough of himself to make it safer for them as White people to make (and grow from) racial mistakes. He did not immediately respond to individual White people who avoided or distanced from him, but over time used these incidents as examples of broader racial and gender dynamics. And facing the caution or distance from People of Color Mark sought to do the work and show himself to them. Indeed, as one man of Color stated, “I appreciated Mark’s point of view as a White man.”

Maria generally responded to People of Color who bonded with her, especially women of Color, by developing supportive and chal- lenging relationships. When men or women of Color challenged her, she often used their actions as an opening for moving them to the edge of their comfort zone and into learning. When White men challenged her, she fi rst dealt with the surface issue, often turning it back onto them in an inquiring mode. She then engaged the covert message or concern that underlay their behavior or statements, ref- erencing conceptual models to help them understand the meaning of their behavior.

We always talked after these sessions about these interactions, and our responses to them, discussing whether we thought each of us had handled a specifi c situation eff ectively and planning how to surface and make use of the event in future work with individuals or the group. For instance, during one dialogue ses- sion, an internationally-based Latino man de- scribed to the group how he had been banned from school dances because of his dark skin color, while his light-skinned cousin had been allowed to enter. Th e reaction by a White woman who held an international HR busi- ness partner position was tears and shame, because she had lived in that country totally

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Handbook for Strategic HR116

unaware of the colorism that existed. With a quick look of acknowledgement towards each other, we each took our roles: Maria with sup- port and affi rmation to the Latino man, pro- viding the space for him to tell his story, Mark with support to the White woman as she struggled with her naiveté and acknowledged her shame, both of us facilitating others’ refl ec- tions to move the learning around the group.

The Cross-Cultural Collaborative Pair as an Intervention

We quite deliberately used our pairing as an evocative intervention in these collaborations. Our mere presence as a pair generated a rich mine of content and process relative to cross- race, gender, age, and professional identity issues, particularly relative to power and privi- lege. We were able to experiment with diff er- ent ways of unveiling these covert processes through our interactions, as the following examples suggest.

• Anticipating the challenge posed by our apparent reversal of race and gender pri- macy, we planned interventions to deliber- ately use such confusions or challenges as “learning moments”—to deepen conversa- tion concerning race and gender stereo- types about power.

• When our perspectives, related to our social identities, diff ered or were unclear, we sometimes explored them in front of clients—modeling how a cross-cultural partnership works through issues.

• We publicly used our own social identities, and clients’ reactions to them, as examples of broader patterns of power, privilege, and oppression in intragroup and intergroup relationships.

• We utilized our relative competencies in both scholarship and practice to avoid the clients’ easy trap of expecting (and seeing) most of the conceptual inputs being made by Mark and most of the practical conduct of experi- ential exercises being made by Maria.

• Above all, we operated as a pair, a team, and we were aware of participants’ poten- tial to demand race/gender loyalty or to diminish our power by separating us.

Lessons for Others and Ourselves

Based on our experience and conversations with organizational members and colleagues, we make the following recommendations to cross-cultural collaborative teams.

• Be open and authentic with each other, acknowledge mistakes, and continue your learning, and above all stay fresh and alive (Shepard’s “fi rst rule of thumb”) in the midst of challenge and contradiction (Braz- zel, 2007; Shepard, 1985).

• Trust, respect, and admire the diff erential expertise and experience of both partners and generate aff ection for their personages, because expertise and experience does not exist apart from other personal dynamics and characteristics of the partnership.

• Acknowledge and continue to inquire about the meaning (personal and professional) of diff erent social identities/ backgrounds and their impact on the partnership and on organizational members.

• Challenge organizational members to think and act beyond concerns for diversity itself and to focus on their own and others’ privi- lege and oppression, the existence of struc- tural inequality and oppression, and the ways in which the organization and society sustain and might alter these patterns.

• Be willing to model for others how to chal- lenge the stereotypes that only credentialed scholars working in the academy have theo- retical or conceptual knowledge and that only consultants with corporate experience have practical or activist knowledge and ability.

Finally, we encourage OD practitioners to work in cross-cultural, collaborative part- nerships refl ecting the diversity of the world and the workplace. MCOD requires such col-

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Refl ections on a Cross-Cultural Partnership in Multicultural Organization Development Efforts 117

laboration and challenges the numerical dom- inance of White people in the fi eld. Demon- strating multicultural theory and practice must be a core competency of our profession. MCOD work that involves acting on the commitment to social justice, acknowledging the things we have learned from and shared with one another, and enjoying our friendship and colleagueship, has valued benefi ts for our- selves and our clients.

We have been on the cutting (perhaps bleeding) edge of consultants working in inter- racial and inter-gender teams with organiza- tions on issues which have been called at vari- ous times, diversity, MCOD, multiculturalism, pluralism, inclusion, etc. We have seen the change eff orts morph over the years: the ex- pected changes in the work population have occurred; the globalization of industry has become reality; and some People of Color and women have expanded their life opportuni- ties. Even though the need for diversity is so inescapable that the business case seldom has to be made, much more change is required to lessen the level of structural inequality in major corporate or educational organizations and in the society at large.

References

Brazzel, M. (2007). Diversity and social justice practices for OD practitioners. +OD Practitioner, 39(3), 15–21. Chesler, M. (1994). OD is not the same as MCOD. In E. Cross, J. Katz, F. Miller, & E. Seashore (Eds.),

Th e promise of diversity (pp. 240-251). New York, NY: Irwin & NTL. Chesler, M., Lewis, A., & Crowfoot. J. (2005). Challenging racism in higher education: Promoting justice. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefi eld.

Cox, T. (1991). Th e multicultural organization. Th e Executive, 5(2), 34–47.

Cross, E. (2000). Managing diversity: Th e courage to lead. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Huang-Nissen, S. (2005). Dialogue groups: A practi- cal guide to facilitate diversity conversations. Los Al- tos, CA: Corner Elm Publications.

Jackson, B., & Hardiman, R. (1994). Multicultural organizational development. In E. Cross, J. Katz, F. Miller, & E. Seashore (Eds.), Th e promise of diversity (pp. 231-239). New York, NY: Irwin & NTL.

Miller, F., & Katz, J. (2002). Th e inclusion break- through: Unleashing the real power of diversity. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Berret-Koehler. Ramos, M., & Mitchell, C (2001). Dialogue throughout an organization. In D. Schoem, & S. Hurtado (Eds.), Intergroup dialogue: Deliberative democracy in school, college, community, and workplace (pp. 210–221). Ann Arbor, MI. Th e University of Michigan Press.

Shepard, H. (1985). Rules of thumb for change agents. OD Practitioner, 17(4), 93–98.

Wasserman, I., & Kram, K. (2009). Enacting the scholar practitioner role: An exploration of narra- tives. Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 45(1), 12–38.

Zúñiga, X., Nagda, B., Chesler, M., & Citron- Walker, A. (2006). Intergroup dialogue in higher ed- ucation: ASHE Higher Education Report. 32(2). New York, NY: Wiley Periodicals.

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 4/17/2021 9:52 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use