(A) What did you think of the approach Peter Block takes to engagement? Is it feasible in an organization? Why or why not?
I have found Block's strategies for engagement include:
- Balance between presentation and participation
- Full disclosure and the public expression of doubt
- Real choice on the table
- New conversations
- A physical structure of the room that supports community
All of these can be feasible within an organization. These are the types of strategies that one can employ with clients, and is a matter of really making a concerted effort to apply them.
(B) Block takes the position that traditional methods of implementation (project plans, directives from on top, and reward systems) are some of the least effective ways to implement a change in an organization. What are the implications if this is true?
According to Peter Block, "when consultants and managers apply centrally created vision, standards, rewards, skills, and measures as primary tools to maintain control and make the world predicable, they interfere with the implementation efforts." I find that Block believes and conveys that certain tools are not necessarily indicative of their intent.
I believe there should be flexibility to let individuality among the staff and new ideas to be incorporated into a project.
(C) Many organizations are not willing to spend money so quickly in a new venture because managers may argue that many of the issues will work themselves out in time. Its easy to call them growing pains. Is this a valid argument? What argument would you make to counter this?
(D) Is there a time when one could use an internal/external consultant combination to solve a problem?
(E) What makes objectivity a character trait as opposed to being situational or issue specific?
(F) One can argue that strict obedience stifles the thinking process and people become almost robotic. What are your thoughts?
Source:
Block, P. (2002). Flawless Consulting. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York.