Maximizing the Consultant's Role

Balancing Organizational Action and Reflection is the Key
Mark L. Vincent, Ph.D., CSP with Mark A. Dare, Aurora Rogers and Sharon L. Williams of Design Group International™
This article provided by the Engstrom Institute

The work of Design Group International™ places us at intersections where business, non profits and ministry organizations meet. Whether our work is with boards or executive leaders, we are frequently privileged to assist organizations of all types as they work their way through organizational change. Managing change provides opportunity for organizations to build toward greater success. Not every organization is able to perceive and act upon these opportunities, however. Consultants frequently discover that their advice is not heeded, or worse, that what they offered was not what the organization needed.

Natural stress exists when managing organizational change. Adding to the stress through consultative mishaps are especially unwelcome! Matching the best consultative service to the organization's need is a key step in the client's continued success. Drawing from our extensive experience, my colleagues and I offer this key insight in matching the organization with the best type of consultative help. Our observation is diagrammed on the next page.

Each organization has its own character in how it manages key decisions such as leadership succession or adjusting its strategic approach. A key marker of this character is whether the organization tends to stop and consider (reflect) before acting, or whether it acts first then takes time to reflect on the result. The character of an individual can match the character of an organization in this respect. When an individual or organization is committed to both action and reflection, it does not really matter which comes first. Instead, what gets done first is a matter of style.

We have learned that an important consulting skill is to quickly and accurately identify the organization's style and match it in order to increase the effectiveness of the consultant's assistance to the organization.

We have also learned the importance of quick and accurate identification of the organization's need of guidance or intervention in order to guide the application of an appropriate level of service.

An executive leadership team can be balanced between people of both styles who appreciate the contributions of people who start from the opposite place. A shared commitment avoids both closed-mindedness and inaction, regardless of where one starts. This helps the organization to strike a similar balance between action and reflection.

Healthy organizations manage organizational change without much assistance. When they draw on consultative help it is as a matter of guidance. The organization asks the consultant to be an advisor or an auditor of the change process. Unhealthy organizations, however, need consultative intervention because the balance between action and reflection is lost. Either the action phase has become mere reaction with reflection absent, or the organizations continues to call for data without taking action. Imbalance that requires intervention on the action side is what we call Shut-Rut (closed-mindedness accompanied by repeating the same course of ineffective action). Imbalance that requires intervention on the Reflection side becomes Paralysis by Analysis.

Here are some additional reflections growing from this insight:

• When the individual or organization is committed to both action and reflection, the need for consultative assistance is minimized. Such an organization is far more likely to understand the fragility of organizational change and to have a strategy in place. In such a case, the consultant's usefulness is as a guide, or perhaps to help with a specific task requested by the organization which is capably managing its own affairs.
• When there is not a commitment to hold action and reflection together, action or reflection become compartmentalized and no longer inform each other. Further, the preferred mode—whether action or reflection—becomes calcified. That is, action or reflection become a means to enforce what the individual or organization already thinks or does, however flawed everyone acknowledges it to be.
• The diagram is expressed along an arc rather than as a continuum to show how easily the person or organization can switch from action to reflection when there is a healthy balance, and how similar the dysfunctions of Shut-Rut and Paralysis by Analysis look when action or reflection stand alone.
• When imbalance exists, the individual or organization drops into a zone which calls for consultative intervention. Without intervention, change initiatives are led by the most politically astute and powerful within the organization, not necessarily the people most skilled to manage change. This virtually assures a short tenure for new leaders along with organizational malaise.

Recognizing Shut-Rut

Usually, more than one of these responses are present in the dysfunctional change scenario:

• Tell me, but don't tell me. Continuing leaders ask what they should do but are quick to say why it cannot be done.
• Thought resistance. Organizational leaders complain that the consultant is making them think.
• Enforcers. Regardless of hard data that indicates needed change, and regardless of whether that data is provided by an employee, a task force, the consultant, or even the Chair of the Board, decision makers turn to organizational power brokers for verification, or for a signal that the power brokers are not opposed.
• More of the same. Solutions put forward by continuing leaders are only variations of what is already being done. Sometimes this combines with blaming clients, constituents or employees for their stupidity.
• Scapegoats. Previous messengers of change, usually former, newer and younger leaders are noticeably absent, and are the ones blamed for continuing problems.
• Crisis cries. The organization has a history of considering new possibilities only when it is in crisis and when survival is believed to be threatened. Once a sense of normalcy returns, a desire to return to previous patterns of behavior emerges.

The Example of Not Enough Space:One client needed more space for meetings of its constituency. Fortunately, a modular wall could be taken down instead of renovating the entire space. The client had faced this scenario many times but failed to make the extra room. Each time the organization balked, numbers began to decline and the board would determine expansion was no longer necessary, failing to draw any connection between declining attendance and the lack of space. The client was again facing numbers that stretched the current facility configuration. The board met and determined that when constituency meetings averaged more than 110 persons for more than three months, the modular wall would come down. When this actually happened, an influential board member made an impassioned speech to the board about keeping the room the way it was because she saw at least five open seats at the last meeting. The board resolved not toexpand the space yet again. Attendance went into decline … .

Recognizing Paralysis by Analysis

Again, more than one of these is usually present.

• Deadlined deadlines. Agendas are ignored or absent. Key leaders ask questions in order to delay any declaration of opinion. Urgent matters are urgently tabled.
• Keeping down with the Joneses. "Who else is doing this?" becomes a more frequently asked question than "How will these ideas help us enact our vision?" In a healthy organization "Who else … ." is a matter of due diligence and information gathering. In a dysfunctional organization this question is driven by fear.
• Open admission. Leaders openly admit they know the organization is stuck. They may even openly admit they have studied the problem, shot the messenger and shelved the findings.
• Double-checking. In this case, double-checking is not about checks and balances, but growing redundant and duplicative structures.
• Crisis cries. The organization has a history of acting only when in crisis and survival is believed to be threatened. Once a sense of normalcy returns, pressure is exerted to return to the old pattern of critiquing the new option to death.

The Example of the Delayed Application:One client asked for a sophisticated federal form to be completed in order to update its incorporation. The form was given to the Board Chair for some needed information and a signature so the form could be sent. In his review of the form, the chair commissioned a fellow board member to fill out a fresh copy. The previous effort completed by the consultant was thrown away after copying over some of the information. When the form was finally submitted, it was late enough that new and tighter federal rules applied, requiring yet a new form to be filled out and delaying the incorporation changes by more than a year.

In Summary: When organizations and leaders are faced with change, they default to a position of Action or Reflection. When a balance of Action and Reflection are in place, organizational health can be maintained. When Action and Reflection are separated, the organization or individual can be trapped in the dysfunctions of Shut-Rut or Paralysis by Analysis. Consultation in a balanced scenario is best offered as guidance. Consultation in a dysfunctional scenario is best offered as intervention, if it is welcomed at all. Skilled consultants can recognize the default position of the organization or individual, can diagnose whether health or dysfunction is present and can choose appropriate helping strategies to bring desired change.