WARNING: the reader is forewarned that while revealing to some degree, this article may confront endemic attitudes and be difficult to accept. This being said, like many other issues, not talking about them doesn’t make them miraculously go away. So we hope you can enjoy this minor brainstorm in spite of the disturbances it may bring. Triggering the right questions or a little introspection may sometimes be helpful.
I was once told that the percentage of success of personal therapies lies close to 18%, although I’ll admit I have never sought the truth of the matter (I do recall conversations with a former “significant other” specialized in this area of endeavor, and the gist of these conversations seemed to concur with the appallingly low success rate). Apparently, tribal witch doctors embarked on a similar mission to help an individual seem to achieve a success rate of… 18%… Certain prescription drug assisted therapies are far more successful for specific conditions, but as a whole, the above seems to hold water.
It would be easy to conclude that there may be a repetitive pattern in this accomplishment: therapy seeks to trigger or support change, and in this respect, the therapist’s work parallels the approach of the business or engineering consultant.
How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb? Only one, BUT… the light bulb REALLY, REALLY has to WANT to CHANGE!!! And with that relatively stale joke, we uncover one of the great secrets of reliability consultancy: your consultant(s) will not change anything, YOU will! Well, actually, you might! But ONLY if doggedly determined to achieve a continuous improvement loop and/or specific targeted goals.
It would be tempting to jump to the conclusion that the consulting firm therefore serves little or no purpose. Here, then, is another rule of consultancy: if you could, you would! The stern review of current activities, the guidelines to establish a road map for change, the assessment of best and quickest results to be obtained (also called low lying fruit), the benchmark for exemplary or best practices, the traps and pitfalls to avoid, the identification of the areas where MORE money should be spent (and conversely, areas where money can be saved because it is an ineffective or inefficient use of resources), all of those items pertain to the expertise of said consultant.
Many firms choose to sugar-coat everything. Here is another rule: if you HAVE to SUGAR COAT it, the organization likely has not attained the maturity that will allow it to break its previous bad habits!Some years back, one consulting firm’s VP put it succinctly when the author raised concerns in one project: “Doesn’t matter! We get out fat fee anyway, and may get to do it again at the same location in the future…” Perplexed? Dubious? I agree, because so was this wincing writer! We all need the money (the rent, the mortgage, the business expenses), but must we be so crass and uncaring about it? This being said, the blunt reality must be addressed, but doing so with good humor and a view to how best to promote change remains inherent to our mission.
A recent challenge to our consulting wisdom was issued abroad where management customarily relies on a consensus culture. The rule applies: if you could, you would! Therefore, if they had been able to promote needed changes, or had they been capable under the current hierarchy, organization, system and culture to deliver (product, improvement, KPI, other) on target, we would not have been involved.
And Consensus?
Too many cooks… Imagine if the purchase of a car were open to negotiation or discussion for each and every component of that car. The process would be laborious and tedious, and the end result would quite likely be a monstrosity.
Somewhere along the line, the “car” would surely become a “vehicle” and every possible function of that car within a family, business or industrial context would be considered by participants. The size and footprint of small cars is interesting and so is their energy efficiency, but that shovel on the payloader is “oh so very useful”… What do you mean by “the shovel is heavier than the car”. Never mind the hydraulics, we’ll just leave the shovel at ground level all the time. Or install hydraulic stabilizer legs on the car to stabilize it when we lift the shovel. This is the underlying cause to the “camel” joke: a horse designed by a committee. And perhaps this writer can raise a few smiles by latching on to one of the Hispanic definitions of camel: difficult, laborious, improbable to bring to term. Clearly not our target!
Consensus implies input from various parties, and discussion. Some people will lend tremendous ideas to the process and will definitely have an impact on the end result. Some participants around the table, or involved at arm’s length (teleconferencing, minutes of the meeting, email distribution) will lend a cursory opinion, and no more. And someone will have to choose a course of action and take a decision. Managing is not a democracy!
A brief parenthesis about democracies, since I mentioned cars earlier: one individual had several daughters and to cut short “consensus” issues on car color, each daughter in turn chose the color of the family car. That is how the poor man ended up in a lemon yellow car for a few years.
Back to our main topic:
Seeking consensus about change ignores some basic principles of human psychology. We tend to resist change. We tend to reject it if we can. There is strong criticism whenever change is proposed, and such may be brushed aside as an agent of resistance to change. Yet, change for the sake of change serves no purpose.
What do you seek to accomplish? As consultants, we have waltzed in so many places where metrics (KPI or otherwise) were weak, distorted or inexistent at the outset. Can we rely on bad data? Can we nail our targets down when the underpinning of information paints an inaccurate picture of what we want to change?
In fact, we can, but it also becomes part of the mission to get the numbers to truly reflect the reality of the situation. Often times, a client would like the current numbers to become the basis for payment. This is feasible, but rife with problems when the numbers have been manipulated.
To be continued…
© 2009 by François Gagnon
Thus, I can not positively affirm same behavior, but one could suppose same principles apply.