Until one is committed, there is hesitancy, the chance to draw back, always ineffectiveness.  Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation) there is one elementary truth, the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then Providence moves too.

All sorts of things occur to help one that would never otherwise have occurred.  A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one’s favour all manner of unforeseen incidents and meetings and material assistance, which no man could have dreamed would have come his way.

I have learned a deep respect for one of Goethe’s couplets:

Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.
Boldness has genius, power and magic in it.

W.H.Murray, The Scottish Himalayan Expedition (1951)

 
This passage is a quotation from William Murray’s book, The Scottish Himalayan Expedition (1951).  It is pinned to the notice board in my office, and it catches my eye on a regular basis — sometimes a daily basis.  I know it off-by-heart, and I hold its sentiments in mind, often unspoken, because in certain moods and at certain times of really needing self-leadership, I can hardly bear to say its words, such is the power they still have to inspire and encourage me.

I am intrigued by the deal it offers — that my energy, my commitment and my caring are attractive, contagious and powerful enough to influence others and bring closer my potential and my dream.

Me and Providence : Providence and Me — it’s an intoxicating thought!

I do know, however, that my energy, commitment and caring certainly have the power to motivate me, if only I will take William Murray’s advice and begin it

I believe that boldness has genius, power and magic in it, and I am also intrigued by this belief.  The creativity and achievement that I experience when in flow is familiar to me.  I know that it is attractive, because I am similarly attracted to follow those whose genius and power I perceive.  It’s the magic that I find really beguiling.

I know perfectly well that magical thinking is irrational and escapist, and probably a displacement activity, but it is also wonderfully intuitive and visionary and absolutely essential for those of us, who, like me, are more motivated by the potential of the future than the reality of the present.  Without magical thinking I may not give myself permission to be bold — to seize the day — and that would be a great pity, because so often it works very well.

The discussion reflected on the Prime Minister’s statement last week that “State Multiculturalism has failed…” because we, in the UK, have ”…failed to provide a vision of society to which they want to belong.”

The “they” in question referred to Muslim organisations in receipt of public funds, which, said the Prime Minister, do little to tackle extremism.

“We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways, which run counter to our values.”

A genuinely liberal country “believes in certain values and actively promotes them“, Mr Cameron said.  “Freedom of speech, freedom of worship, democracy, the rule of law, equal rights, regardless of race, sex or sexuality.

“It says to its citizens: This is what defines us as a society. To belong here is to believe in these things.”

He said that under the “doctrine of state multiculturalism”, different cultures have been encouraged to live separate lives, and he argued that the UK needs a stronger national identity.

The Moral Maze called witnesses to put their points of view for and against the UK experience of state multiculturalism, and much of the ensuing polemic centred on the simultaneously conflicting aspects of fairness.  The panel had difficulty with the ethical paradox of equality — fairness for all — and equity — fairness for each — being of equal validity at the same time.

The human right to self-determination — autonomy — is another ethical principle, but it was in the area of cultural values that the Moral Maze panel also didn’t connect the simultaneously conflicting need for autonomy — individuation — and homonomy — sameness.

I understand that ethical principles are statements of absolute value and universal worth.  I believe in the list of classical ethical principles and their application in the therapeutic boundaries of transactional analysis (McGrath, 1994), and I believe that they apply equally well to coaching.  In addition to those I’ve mentioned — equality, equity and autonomy — they include:

• Nonmaleficence — do no harm
• Beneficence — do good
• Fidelity — keep promises
• Veracity — tell the truth.

Ethics are not the same as values or mores.  What I value may be different to what you value.  One organisation’s core values may be different to those of another.  Similarly, morality is a social construct that is peculiar to its culture and its acceptance by any family, community, organisation or society.  Drinking alcohol in Islamic countries, sex before marriage, homosexuality, a woman’s right to choose, euthanasia, tax avoidance, world poverty and a response to climate change are all examples of moral issues, distinct from ethical principles.  Morality is the application of ethics, and it is within a moral context that ethics can only be applied.

This semantic difference is important.  When my Muslim coachee says, “Insha’Allah” — “God willing” — at the end of every statement of intent, it doesn’t necessarily mean that he is discounting his autonomy — his ability to make decisions and take actions.  Rather, it means that he may be holding that autonomy in a frame of moral reference that cannot conceive of his own free will without it being granted by a higher power.

The implication of this difference for the Moral Maze discussion is that the issue is not about the rights and wrongs of why “State Multiculturalism has failed.” It is rather that we, as a society have ”…failed to provide a vision of society to which they want to belong.”

The questions that I wanted the Moral Maze to engage with were, “What is it about our need for sameness that makes the individuation of other cultures intolerable?

“Why is it that we are not content with pluralism — a diversity of cultural values — but seek integration?”

Integration ought to be the best of both.  Often, however, it is a compromise that leads to over-adaptation.

“I am I, and you are you.  If I am I because you are you, then I am not I, and you are not you.”

The challenge is to go beyond integration to leverage cultural unity out of diversity.  Perhaps we need another Moral Maze to discuss how to work towards the best of both plus?

_________

Reference

McGrath, G., Ethics, Boundaries and Contracts: Applying Moral Principles, TAJ, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp 6-14, Jan. 1994.

• Universal approach — suitable for small and large group interventions
• Promotes positive thinking, motivation and collaboration
• Creates common ownership of current issues and future potential
• Maximises the learning of the whole system

Although Appreciative Inquiry is universal in its approach, it is often used as a large group intervention method to enable many people — ten, fifty, hundreds, more — to gather together for the purpose of planning strategic change and exploring its implications.  By promoting participation and collaboration, AI hopes to achieve more sustainable change throughout the whole system.  Its primary purpose is to promote the sense of common ownership of current issues and future potential, and an acceptance of individual responsibility for its achievement.

AI is currently being used as a mediation and conflict resolution tool, and for community development at metropolitan and local levels.  Increasingly, AI is being used to facilitate community planning partnerships, the contribution of faith and ethnic groups to neighbourhood renewal, and the achievement of integrated cross-sectoral multi-agency delivery of public services.  Corporate organisations are also using AI to address internal communication and leadership issues, customer care and individual and group effectiveness and morale.

Healthy Scotland Convention Appreciative Inquiry

Why use AI?

• In every society, organisation or group something works
• Focus on what already works
• Consider how to make that happen more often, better and with greater impact
• Where you want to be is based on the best of where you have already been

The traditional approach to change is to identify and diagnose problems in structures and systems, and to find solutions.  The focus is on what is wrong with each aspect of the system.

AI only engages with what works — what is going so well that there is enough motivation to make it even better, happen more frequently or have greater impact.  The focus is totally positive on the whole system — everyone who affects and is affected by the issues under discussion.

The output of an AI process is a series of statements that describe where the organisation wants to be, based on the best of where its people have already been.

Because these statements are grounded in real experience of recent history, participants leave with a sense of

• Affirmation that they have already been successful
• Confidence in their ability to repeat and improve on their past success
• Commitment to work towards future change because of their personal experience of successful transition and the benefits of change in the past.

Healthy Scotland Convention Appreciative Inquiry

How does AI work?

• Discover
• Dream
• Design
• Deliver

This is the AI version of the familiar four-stage participation model of most large group interventions.

Discover the best of what is. This is the communication process — telling our stories, an audit of the collective experience of what has worked well.  Participants often consider their parallel perspectives of the same issues — how they simultaneously appreciate issues from personal, professional, organisational and even wider societal points of view.

Dream the best that can be. This is the consultation process in which participants are asked to envisage their ideal — what ‘better’ would look like.

Design the best that should be. This is a collaborative process — usually a wider dialogue in which participants add to the growing, collective sense of how to realise their dream.  Typically, they will analyse future options, rank priority issues and consider the structures and systems that would enable or limit implementation.

Deliver the best that can be done. This is the final co-creation process, in which participants achieve a practical consensus of what they can and will do to work towards their dream.  It is likely that some aspects of the issues under discussion will remain unresolved, awaiting the motivation and confidence to take them forward at another time.

There is no proprietary brand or prescription for AI, as such — only an approach that is capable of adaptation to each context and group of participants.  Issues cannot be prescribed.  They are owned and progressed by the participants.  What is essential, however, is to design an Inquiry that asks the right questions of the right people.

Healthy Scotland Convention Appreciative Inquiry

Further information on AI

In the UK:

http://www.aipractitioner.com

http://www.appreciative-inquiry.co.uk

In the US:

http://appreciativeinquiry.case.edu/

The original theories on AI:

Annis Hammond, S.: Thin Book of Appreciative Inquiry, 2^nd Edition, 1998, pub. Thin Book Publishing Co.

Srivastva, S. & Cooperrider, D.L.: Appreciative Management & Leadership, Revised Edition, 1999, 1893435-05-9

This book applies the perspective of Appreciative Inquiry to organisational management and potential for creativity, innovation, and collaboration.

Whitney, D., Cooperrider, D.L, Trosten-Bloom, A. & Kaplin, B.S.: Encyclopedia of Positive Questions, Volume One — Using Appreciative Inquiry To Bring Out The Best In Your Organization, 2001, 1893435-33-4.

The book is a compendium of generic interview questions, central to the “Discovery” phase of the Appreciative Inquiry process, seeking to discover who and what the organisation is, at its best.

Cooperrider, D.L., Whitney, D. & Stavros, J: Appreciative Inquiry: The Handbook (w/CD) — The First in a Series of AI Workbooks for Leaders of Change, 2003, 1893435-17-2.

A handbook which combines theory with practice, aimed at consultants, trainers, and leaders of organisational change.  Accompanying CD has tools and activities to facilitate group teaching and dissemination.

More recent applications:

Lewis, S., Passmore, J., & Cantore, S.: Appreciative Inquiry for Change Management, 2008, Kogan Page, London, ISBN 978 0 7494 5071 7.

© Alastair Wyllie

Wyllie and Reid Corporate Communications

2000, updated 2010.

Based on the work of David Cooperider, 1999, and Bliss Browne, 2000

Prof. Robert Hurley

The Decision to Trust

Harvard Business Review, September 2006.

Research shows that trust (and the ability to create it) is the No. 1 leadership competency.  It is a rising tide, which lifts all boats. Clients who trust you buy more, stay longer, recommend you to others, and give you the benefit of the doubt if something goes wrong.  Service Level Agreements are not the same as working in partnership with suppliers you trust.  Trust is also the major factor in team effectiveness, creativity and readiness to accept change.

The International Team Trust Indicator

The International Team Trust Indicator (ITTI) is a 50-item online questionnaire that takes about 30 minutes to complete, and identifies the behaviours and attitudes team members want from their colleagues in order to trust them.  The trust wants across 10 criteria are then compared with respondents’ assessments of the behaviours and attitudes they actually get, thereby establishing a trust gap that is the focus of the feedback and intervention.

Individual results for wants and gets are then pooled to provide an overall report on the levels of trust for the team as a whole.  The report contains a range of graphical analysis options that enable the team leader and the members of the team to identify the nature of any trust gap deficits.

Who is (and isn’t) the ITTI designed for?

The ITTI is designed for teams that have experience of working together for at least enough time to build up a perception of the extent they need and want to trust each other in order to function effectively together.  There needs to be interdependence among team members, and skills within the team need to be seen as complementary.  The ITTI will not be effective with loose groups of people who have no need to achieve common goals together, or whose structure is mostly competitive.

The ITTI is particularly suited to remote or virtual teams where the need for swift trust is even more important in promoting team cohesion and identity, in managing appropriate confrontation and conflict, and in increasing productivity.

The ITTI is also particularly suited to multicultural teams — comprised of both ethnic and professional cultural differences — since it is likely to surface implicit underlying cultural values and assumptions that present in performance and behavioural issues within teams.

However, the ITTI is wholly applicable for any single location monocultural team that has no remote, virtual, international or multicultural dimensions.

The benefits for the team (leader) of using the ITTI

The ITTI can:

• Show where the team is succeeding in meeting each other’s trust requirements
• Build trust simply by putting the issue forward objectively as a ‘solvable’ challenge
• Kick start a longer-term coaching process
• Explore cultural differences in trust requirements between ‘groups’ within the team or between separate teams — ie by splitting the data: HQ team, branch office team, marketing team, operational team, British team, American team, etc.
• Put team productivity at the centre of the initiative, not individual fault-finding and blame
• Uncover difficult-to-identify barriers which have been holding back the team
• Get to the heart of a dysfunctional team’s misperceptions about each other.

The Trust Criteria

In the ITTI questionnaire each of the 10 Trust Criteria is investigated using 5 sub-aspects:

Competence

Trust based on a perception that team members are competent, and so will not let me down:

• Clear and realistic goals
• Can meet high standards
• Can meet the challenge of the group role
• Reputation for success
• Specialist qualifications and experience

Compatibility

Trust based on background, values, approaches, interests and objectives held in common:

• Shared common purpose and priorities
• Common goals stronger than personal agendas
• Aligned approach
• Shared communication code
• Similar education or background

Goodwill

Trust based on the belief that other team members are concerned about my overall welfare:

• Focus on my welfare
• Support me
• Recognise me
• Not opportunistic
• Empathises with my issues

Integrity

Trust based on the fact that other team members keep their promises, are team oriented and behave towards me in accordance with our moral code:

• Keeps promises
• Perceived as fair
• Can manage tough conversations
• Team loyalty under pressure
• Genuinely team focused

Predictability

Trust based on the observation that the behaviour of team members is consistent over time and in different contexts:

• Exposes the ‘why’ to understand the ‘what’
• Reliable
• Consistent over time and contexts
• Disciplined
• Normative

Wellbeing

Trust arising from the feeling that I have nothing to fear from the other members of the group:

• Can speak up
• No betrayal
• Tolerant of divergent opinion
• Not dominating
• Non-judgmental with mistakes

Inclusion

Trust based on the observation that other group members actively include me in their social and work activities:

• Social and work inclusion
• Consult before key decisions
• Share credit for success
• Welcome my views
• Not cliquey

Openness with information

Trust based on the fact that other team members share information important to the team proactively and clearly:

• Transparent information exchange
• Available for consultation
• Transparent motives
• Generous with information
• Handles sensitive information without breaking confidentiality

Accessibility

Trust based on the fact that other team members share their true feelings, and I can relate to them on a personal level:

• Emotionally transparent
• Emotionally investing
• Clear about what they care about
• Expressing feelings, not just thoughts
• Investing in personal as well as professional relations

Reciprocity

Trust based on the observation that other team members are trusting and co-operative towards me:

• No favourites
• Perception of interdependence
• Relies on me and shows vulnerability
• Proactive trust in others
• No checking up.

For further information

For further information on the International Team Trust Indicator, contact:

Alastair Wyllie

Wyllie and Reid Corporate Communications

Mob:            +44 07778 436328

alastair.wyllie@wyllieandreid.com

Alastair Wyllie is accredited by WorldWork to administer the ITTI.

Building a team of people from different cultural backgrounds presents a variety of challenges.
So, too, is the requirement for effective performance and appropriate professional behaviours in an international context equally challenging. The requirement to participate in multicultural workgroups in international settings is increasing, and requires assessment and support for the development of appropriate competencies.

Most international managers and professionals are hired for their technical expertise and experience, rather than their ability to relate, communicate, engage, motivate and work effectively with colleagues and customers from other cultures. Yet, without such behavioural competencies, managers and professionals are unlikely to be effective in transferring their technical knowledge and skills in an unfamiliar international or multicultural context.

The International Profiler

The International Profiler is a leading-edge development tool for managers and professionals who work in international and multicultural environments.

The International Profiler raises awareness of potential areas for development at individual and team levels, suggests remedial actions, and offers coaching support to work towards behavioural change and more effective collaboration.

How does it work?

The International Profiler is an online questionnaire and feedback process, currently available in English, French, German, Italian, Polish and Chinese. Over 6,000 managers and professionals from over 100 different nationalities have responded to the questionnaire to date.

The online questionnaire takes about 45 minutes to complete, and automatically generates a scored report for the consultant, trained and accredited to administer the International Profiler, deliver its feedback and provide coaching support. Answers to the questions indicate the energy, emphasis and attention an individual brings to 22 different attitude, knowledge and skill dimensions, grouped into 10 key competencies for international and multicultural leadership, managerial and professional skills transfer.

A standard 4-page report provides the individual’s scores against the normed scores of all International Profile respondents to date, together with an overview of the dimensions, a summary of the individual’s profile, and suggested development themes. A 32-page interpretive report additionally provides textual and pictorial descriptions of each dimension, detailed summaries of high and low scores, and a cultural competency action planner. Separate group profiles and reports can also be generated to indicate overall team strengths and areas for development.

Feedback by the accredited consultant is usually given by telephone, and involves an in-depth discussion of the individual’s report in relation to the opportunities and challenges of his or her present or future international or multicultural role and responsibilities. The purpose is to identify three or four dimensions which would benefit from better, greater and more frequent energy, emphasis and attention. The feedback enables the subsequent production of a personal development plan.

Who is it for?

The International Profiler is aimed at managers and professionals who need and want to develop adaptive skills for working in an international or multicultural environment.

Typical candidates include:

• Managers involved in expatriation or mobilisation
• Local managers with international roles
• Managers leading international teams
• Managers integrating operations across national boundaries

• Managers operating in multicultural workplaces
• International project managers
• Professionals with international business careers
• Specialists on international committees

Business Applications

The International Profiler enables:

• Better selection of candidates for international or multicultural appointments
• Reduction of inappropriate appointments
• Valid measurement of intercultural competencies for preparation and evaluation of training of individuals and teams
• Identification of intercultural development needs of individuals or teams at any particular point in time
• Acceleration of business-critical relationship development

What are the benefits?

The International Profiler offers individuals and organisations the structured development of behavioural competencies for personal and team success in an international or multicultural environment.

The International Profiler helps individuals:

• Adapt to a specific new international role
• Build an international career
• Work more effectively with colleagues in a multicultural team
• Build productive relationships with new colleagues or partners in unfamiliar cultural contexts

The International Profiler helps organisations:

• Reduce the personal and organisational trauma of inappropriate appointments
• Avoid miscommunication and mistrust in critical multicultural business relationships
• Audit experience and capabilities for multicultural working
• Provide individual development plans and team training solutions that are specifically adapted to an international or multicultural business environment

For further information

For further information on the International Profiler, contact:

Alastair Wyllie, Wyllie and Reid Corporate Communications
Tel: +44 (0)141 339 3841 Mob: +44 07778 436328 alastair.wyllie@wyllieandreid.com
Alastair Wyllie is accredited by WorldWork to administer the International Profiler.

The term Frame of Reference is used (Schiff et al., 1975) in Transactional Analysis (TA) to describe what is understood and held in mind as the basis for related communication, interaction and relationship.  The sum of our experiences, beliefs and expectations determines what we see and how we see it — and, of course, what we fail to see and, consequently, discount.  It is where we are coming from.

I work as a management consultant, coaching and facilitating organisational and leadership development and change.  I use the concept of five separate yet interacting frames of reference (Napper, 2009) to understand more about my practice — where I’m coming from in the work I do with my client — and, more importantly, to help me understand more about where my client may be coming from in what he (or she) seems to want from me.  As we communicate and interact, so, too, our frames of reference continue to form, reform and crystalise as the scope for intervention and change is articulated, defined and accepted by both client and consultant.  Yet, I retain ownership of what is and remains the consultant’s mindset, distinct from the client’s mindset, which may be also distinct from the contract for intervention and change that both of us eventually agree between us.

I — The Consultant

The consultant’s mindset — how he (or she) understands his identity and practice as a consultant — already exists before the consultant meets the client.  It is this frame of reference that the consultant uses to make sense of what the client needs and wants in relation to what the consultant can offer.  The consultant has first person ownership of, proximity to and responsibility for his own frame of reference.

I have used readily identifiably different consultancy styles (Block, 1998; Schein, 1999) to illustrate and polarise the range of what a consultant might have to offer.  Of course, it takes two, so the client also has to be in the market to buy any particular consultancy style, and the fit between wants and offers will then extend to the relationship between client and consultant, and have considerable impact on the scope of the intervention and change.

The corporate doctor

is contracted because of the consultant’s specialist expertise that the client does not have as an in-house resource.  The client’s expectation is that such an expert will investigate and recognise the presenting symptoms, accurately diagnose what is wrong or lacking, and then prescribe remedial treatment, which may then be implemented under the consultant’s direct supervision.  The treatment may require a repeat prescription some time later to boost or correct the previous diagnosis.  The purpose of the corporate doctor is to repair and cure what is ineffective.

The spare pair-of-hands

is contracted because of the consultant’s efficiency in implementing the client’s own remedial treatment, again due a lack of in-house resource.  Not so much an expert, more of a mechanic. Success entirely depends on the client’s accurate diagnosis, which may be compromised if the client is part of the system that is responsible for the presenting issues.  The purpose of the spare pair of hands is to support and assist the client.

The facilitator

is contracted because the client wants to participate in the process of reflecting on what happens and why, its significance, the options for change and the motivation, resources and plan to make the change happen.  The client is then better able to understand and address issues and how they might present in the future.  Neither an expert, nor a mechanic, the facilitator or process consultant is a mirror, in whose reflection the client and his system and its issues are continually faced by the client and his system as the only means of adequately addressing those issues.  The purpose of the facilitator is to enable the client to reflect, understand, adapt and mitigate his practice, and ultimately to prevent future ineffectiveness and maintain future good practice.

I use TA diagrams to illustrate the differences in relationship and scope that might apply to each of these consultancy styles, although, if I share TA concepts with my client, I talk about mindsets and shoulds, needs and wants in preference to ego-states and Parent, Adult and Child. I find this language is more accessible.

I might say that TA envisages that each of us has an innate awareness of our needs that is wholly appropriate to the here and now:

As we grow up, however, our needs are influenced by the guidance of those — parents, teachers, community and faith leaders, bosses, etc. — whose control and concern for our wellbeing contributes a sense of what we should do.  We then have a choice.  We can ignore what others think we should do, and do what we want to do, regardless of whether it meets our needs; or we can adapt our needs to the influence of others in many ways from willing compliance, through grudging compliance to outright rebellion.

In this way, TA envisages that an adult fully functions when he has at his disposal three mindsets — a wholly appropriate sense of what is needed in the here and now that is able to take account of what others and his environment find acceptable, at the same time as an awareness of his own personal feelings, ambitions and desires:

In TA, the term symbiosis is used (Schiff et al., 1975), firstly in a totally healthy way, to describe a child’s reliance on his parents to provide control and concern for his wellbeing and to identify all but his most basic needs.  Symbiosis becomes less healthy, however, when two individuals behave and relate to each other as though neither of them is able to function fully.  Instead, between them they constitute only one fully functioning adult.

It is interesting to apply the concepts of symbiosis and full functionality to the three distinct consultancy styles because it gives me a clear indication of what both consultant and client have in mind for their relationship, and how scoping will be undertaken and by whom.

In a Corporate Doctor — Corporate Patient relationship the client doesn’t know what he needs to do now or what his options are.  He wants to contract an expert consultant who will know exactly what to do.  In response to the consultant’s advocacy — Let me tell you what you need to do — the client can only adapt, either by being totally willing to do exactly what the consultant advises, or by responding with grudging compliance or rebellion.  Rebellion is unlikely, however, because of the expert-power of the consultant, and the (often implicit) contract that the consultant is being paid to be right and to be accountable for his effectiveness. The Corporate Doctor — Corporate Patient symbiosis looks like this:

In a Spare Pair of Hands — Issue Owner relationship the client, as the owner of the presenting issue, has already considered the options, and knows exactly what needs to be done.  It’s just that he doesn’t have the time or manpower or other resource that would allow him to get on with it himself.  That’s what he wants the consultant to do.  In response to the client’s advocacy — Let me tell you what I need you to do — the consultant can only adapt, willingly, grudgingly or with resistance.  Strong resistance is unlikely, however, because the client can easily buy in another consultant who is willing to get on with it, and then all possibilities of a fully functioning relationship with the client will be lost.  The Spare Pair of Hands — Issue Owner symbiosis looks like this:

In the Facilitator — Collaborator relationship the client is often not sure of what his options are or what action to take, and consequently he may find it difficult to set rigid timescales, budgets, outcomes and indicators.  He is clear, however, that he wants a consultant to take him through that process.  In response to the consultant’s inquiry — Tell me how you see it — he can use his full functionality to reflect on and understand more about what is happening, how significant it is, the options for change and their relative chances of acceptance, achievement and success.  The process of support and challenge by the consultant throughout the intervention continuously scopes and re-scopes what is relevant.  The full functionality of the Facilitator — Collaborator relationship looks like this:

YOU — The Client

The client’s mindset also already exists before the client meets the consultant.  In fact, it is the client’s frame of reference that is usually entirely responsible for the invitation to the consultant to attend an initial meeting in the first place, at which the client is expected to know what he wants from the consultant, regardless of what the consultant can offer or what the client can actually get.

Where the client is coming from depends on how he understands the presenting issues and their significance, given the internal capacity and capability of his system, the involvement and values of its stakeholders, the prevailing internal culture and the external operating environment.  The consultant owns no part of the client’s frame of reference.

IT — The System

Stuff happens.  Someone may be responsible, but undoubtedly someone will be accountable for how the system deals with what happens.  Stuff also happens that does not need to be dealt with, either because it’s not significant and can be lived with, or because it changes anyway over time.  What is of concern are those issues which are significant — that is, they make urgent or important demands on the organisation that cannot be tolerated — and which require the targeted deployment of resources for specific intervention.

Those who are accountable for dealing with presenting issues will, doubtless, have expended all readily available internal resources in an unsuccessful attempt to address such issues before they put together the business case for bringing in a consultant — all the more so if the consultant is external to the organisation.  That business case, even if it only exists in the client’s mind, is a robust defence of the need for further expenditure to achieve specific results within a given timescale and budget.

The scope for intervention and change then emerges from the client’s understanding of how issues explicitly present, their significance and impact on the organisation, the capacity for change within the system, and the willingness and ability to change, given the cost of reaction, and possible resistance, in terms of finance, labour, time, skills, attitudes and the prevailing culture.

It is with at least the basis of this understanding of his system that the client meets the consultant to explain his needs.  How the client has arrived at his understanding will determine his wants — whether he wants someone to make it better, wants someone to help him make it better or wants someone to help him understand what better would look like, and how he might work towards it.

Of course, the system has no frame of reference of its own.  It only exists in terms that are perceived by the client.

THEY — The Stakeholders

In his book, The Structure and Dynamics of Organizations and Groups (1963), Eric Berne compares and contrasts the public and private structures of organisations:

The public structure

of the organisation is what is available for all to see and experience — its buildings, governance structure, leadership, departmental functions, roles and responsibilities, policies and procedures, manufacturing capability, service delivery, etc. — all of which requires animation by individuals for its operation and survival.

The private structure

of the organisation exists only in the mind of each stakeholder — each individual who affects or is affected by the achievement of the organisation’s business.  It follows that there are as many private structures in an organisation as there are individuals who comprise the organisation, and each private structure is individual and distinct from each other.

Consequently, it is at the individual level that people make sense of the organisation, its internal and external boundaries, the functionality of its roles and responsibilities, the acceptance of its policies and procedures, its membership, its leadership and tolerance of authority, and the appropriateness and quality of its professional relationships that enable its operation to happen and keep happening.  This is the psychological contract that each individual has with the organisation, in addition to any formal contract of employment.

Each stakeholder, therefore, has his own frame of reference for his involvement and his values in the client’s system, and it is only the client’s perception of where each stakeholder is coming from that the client brings into the scope for intervention.

The client can have no empirical understanding of stakeholder values, apart from his own.  Therein mind-reading lies.  In any case, stakeholder values are dynamic and constantly change over time.  It can be supposed, however, that each stakeholder has the capacity to function fully — that is, that each stakeholder has the capacity to understand and hold in mind a wholly appropriate sense of what is needed in the here and now that is able to take account of what others and his environment find acceptable, at the same time as an awareness of his own personal feelings, ambitions and desires.

WE — The Scope of Our Contract

The contract between consultant and client needs to be jointly owned by both.  Otherwise, the client risks adapting to the expert advice of the consultant to the extent that traction may be difficult, acceptance reluctant and ownership merely lip-service to what the consultant advises should be done, but, based on results, the client clearly does not want to do.  Alternatively, the consultant risks diluting his function to support and challenge the client to the extent that it may become collusion.

There needs to be shared understanding of frames of reference — client needs and wants and consultant offers — that is acceptable to both.

Conclusion

Each of the five frames of reference discussed here offers a consultant a lens through which his own process and that of his client may be observed, better understood and more readily held in mind in determining the scope for intervention and change.

End

References

Berne, E. (1963) The Structure and Dynamics of Organizations and Groups. New York: Grove Press.

Block, P. (2^nd. ed. 1998) Flawless Consulting – A Guide to Getting Your Expertise Used.  New York: Pfeiffer.

Napper, R. (2009) The Relational Practitioner. Organisational TA Training Notes.

Schein, E.H. (1999) Process Consultation Revisited. New York: Addison-Wesley.

Schiff, J.L. et al. (1975) The Cathexis Reader: Transactional Analysis Treatment of Psychosis. New York: Harper & Row.

© Alastair Wyllie

Wyllie and Reid Corporate Communications

2010.