It is a case study.you have to go through it to know the question.
and it should be answered in steps
introduction'
background
alternatives'
proposed solution
recommendations
case study application
THE INTERNAL CONSULTANT’S VIEW
I am an agent of change. I am also a member of this organization. I was hired for my OD skills, but also for the fact that I was seen as a “cultural fit.” Sometimes I struggle between my dual roles of “team member” and “free radical.” After all, it is my job to disrupt the status quo around here, helping leaders to find ways to make the organization more effective.
I have the great advantage of knowing and understanding how my organization works—its processes, policies, norms, and areas of resis- tance. I can usually anticipate how difficult a given change will be for members of the orga- nization, and where the resistance will come from. Because I believe in the mission of my organization, I am able to cope with the inevi- table challenges of the change process. Still, I am frequently a magnet for resistance and a receptacle of institutional anxiety. While I understand how people can be frustrated and frightened by change, it can still be difficult for me to bear the disruption I help to create.
To keep myself sharp and healthy, I breathe, run, meditate, and read. I take every learning opportunity that comes my way, and work diligently to create and maintain a network of colleagues who can support me through the rough patches. I find that my best support comes not from friends, but from peo- ple who know and understand the hard work of planned change.
As an internal consultant, I have exposure to many of the same people over time— executives, managers, and employees get to knowwhoIamandwhatIdo.Igettoknow who they are and what they do. I have the opportunity to leverage my executive relation- ships from project to project; over time the executives here have come to understand my work and trust my skills as a consultant. This work and trust my skills as a consultant. This understanding and trust saves us time and energy each time we work together. Of course, I realize that if I fail one of my execu- tive clients, my life in this organization could become less pleasant. That can stress me out when I’m working on a messy or unpopular project. After all, my performance review is affected by client feedback, and my compen- sation is tied to people’s perceptions of my performance. This can make it difficult to press forward with risky interventions. I am proud of my reputation around here—proud of the fact that I have built solid relationships at the executive level, that managers respect my work, and that employees value having me in the organization. Still, I am ever aware that I must walk the fine line between “respected insider” and “paid agitator.”
Sometimes I’m lonely—often I’m the only OD person working in an organization; some- times there are two or more of us, but we’re always spread so thin that connecting is diffi- cult and truly supporting one another is virtually impossible. I may work with other staff people—HR for instance—but they don’t always understand my role and can’t really relate to my challenges. Sometimes they can be resentful of my relationship with the client, which makes me feel alienated. I enjoy my client groups, but I must be careful not to over-identify with them; the greatest value I bring to my clients is a clean “outsider” per- spective. I can’t do hard change efforts with them if I’m worried about them liking me. Being a lone ranger can be thrilling, but being an outsider can get tiring.
Occasionally I bring in an external consul- tant to work on a specific project or problem in my organization. This can be both challenging and rewarding for me. It is time-consuming to bring an outsider up to speed on my organiza- tion’s business, processes, and politics. I seek external consultants who will fit in our culture, while helping us see our issues more clearly and realistically. I enjoy the process of partner- ing with people who have exposure to other organizations, who possess different skills and strengths from mine, and who understand the inherent discomfort of the change process. Still, this can be risky, because my reputation will be affected by this person’s work and the
I bring to my clients is a clean “outsider” per- spective. I can’t do hard change efforts with them if I’m worried about them liking me. Being a lone ranger can be thrilling, but being an outsider can get tiring.
Occasionally I bring in an external consul- tant to work on a specific project or problem in my organization. This can be both challenging and rewarding for me. It is time-consuming to bring an outsider up to speed on my organiza- tion’s business, processes, and politics. I seek external consultants who will fit in our culture, while helping us see our issues more clearly and realistically. I enjoy the process of partner- ing with people who have exposure to other organizations, who possess different skills and strengths from mine, and who understand the inherent discomfort of the change process. Still, this can be risky, because my reputation will be affected by this person’s work and the outcomes we are able to achieve. When it works best, my partnership with the external consultant leads to improved effectiveness for my organization, while affording me a valued learning opportu- nity and professional support.
The best thing to me about being an internal consultant is knowing that I am contributing to the mission of my organization with every client I work with, every day.
THE EXTERNAL CONSULTANT’S VIEW
I am an agent of change. I work for many different organizations of varying sizes with different missions and goals. I spend most of my time help- ing managers, HR people, and internal consultants initiate and manage change—both planned and unplanned. I enjoy the variety in my work and the learning that comes from seeing the way change happens in different organizations and contexts.
But it is hard being an “outsider.” I must work quickly to understand each new organization I work with. As an outsider it can be frustrating to navi- gate the inner workings of the organization—its politics, pecking order, and culture—and to root out what’s important and what’s not. In my role, I’m not around while the unglamorous, time- consuming, and important work of nurturing a change along is being done. So, although I experi- ence the risk and excitement of some part of the change, I do not always get to experience the whole change process from start to finish. I rarely get to see the project bear fruit and the organiza- tion become more effective as a result of the work I’ve done. Sometimes the process feels incom- plete, and I almost always wonder how much I’ve actually helped.
Being an external consultant is both reward- ing and risky work. On the one hand, I am seen as an expert. I am appreciated for my assistance, applauded for my knowledge, and liked for my interpersonal skills. I have the benefit of many revenue sources, so I’m never overly dependent on one client. I am often rewarded handsomely for my time and effort, although most people mis- take “daily fee” as actual income and forget about self-employment taxes and the health benefits I have to pay myself. The other truth is that I am always at risk—economic crises, budget cuts, personnel changes, executive shake ups, organi- zational politics, and the occasional hostile HR person are but a few of the land mines an external consultant faces. For the most part, I feel pleased and rewarded for my work as a consultant. But I always know that my situation is dependent on my client’s situation, and I can never afford to get too comfortable.
When I’m hired by an executive or manager, sometimes the HR person or internal consultant may be resistant, feeling threatened by my pres- ence. When this happens, I have to find ways to address their concern, partner with them, and still do the important work of organizational change. Sometimes just creating space for the conversa- tion by using simple probes—“You seem very con- cerned about this situation” or “You must feel pretty unsupported right now”—help me uncover their discomfort so we can move forward. Some- times these relationships are difficult throughout the engagement. It’s the downside of being brought in as an “expert.”
I am asked by clients to perform a wide variety of tasks ranging from content expert to process expert to personal coach. Regardless of the request, however, I am frequently aware of an unspoken need on the part of the client— manager, HR person, or internal consultant to have me support his or her project, position, or person. When the request is to support a project, it is usually clear. When the request is to support a position, it is less clear but typically surfaces during the course of our work together. However, when the request is to support the individual per- sonally, the request is almost never overt. This is where my self-as-instrument work serves me best, helping me to understand the unspoken— the question behind the question. While my goal is always to help my client organizations become more effective, I never forget that change can happen many different ways and at multiple levels of the system. It is my work to be aware of opportunities to intervene, and to have the skill and courage to do so as an outsider. ability. Rather than being upset by conflict, ambiguity, and stress, they thrive on it. Indi- viduals with marginal orientations are more likely than others to develop integrative decisions that bring together and reconcile viewpoints among opposing organizational groups and are more likely to remain neutral in controversial situations. Thus, research suggests that the marginal role can have positive effects when it is filled by a person with a marginal orientation. Such a person can be more objective and better able to perform successfully in linking, integrative, or conflict-laden roles.20
A study of both external and internal OD practitioners showed that external profes- sionals were more comfortable with the marginal role than were internal professionals. Internal consultants with more years of experience were more marginally oriented than were those with less experience.21 These findings, combined with other research on mar- ginal roles, suggest the importance of maintaining the OD practitioner’s marginality, with its flexibility, independence, and boundary-spanning characteristics.
Emotional Demands The OD practitioner role is emotionally demanding. Research and practice support the importance of understanding emotions and their impact on the practitioner’s effectiveness.22 The research on “emotional intelligence” in organiza- tions suggests a set of abilities that can aid OD practitioners in conducting successful change efforts. Emotional intelligence refers to the ability to recognize and express emo- tions appropriately, to use emotions in thought and decisions, and to regulate emotion in one’s self and in others.23 It is, therefore, a different kind of intelligence from problem- solving ability, engineering aptitude, or the knowledge of concepts. In tandem with tra- ditional knowledge and skill, emotional intelligence affects and supplements rational thought; emotions help prioritize thinking by directing attention to important informa- tion not addressed in models and theories. In that sense, some researchers argue that emotional intelligence is as important as cognitive intelligence. 24 Reports from OD practitioners support the importance of emotional intelligence in practice. From the client’s perspective, OD practitioners must understand emotions well enough to relate to and help organization members address resistance, commitment, and ambiguity at each stage of planned change. Despite the predominant focus on rationality and efficiency, almost any change process must address important and difficult issues that raise emotions such as the fear of failure and of the unknown, rejection, anxiety, and anger.25 OD practitioners can provide psychological support, model appropriate emotional expression, reframe client perspectives, and provide resources. OD practi- tioners must also understand their own emotions. Ambiguity, unfamiliarity, or denial of emotions can lead to inaccurate and untimely interventions. For example, a practitioner who is uncomfortable with conflict may intervene to defuse an argument between two managers because of the discomfort he or she feels, not because the conflict is destruc- tive. In such a case, the practitioner is acting to address a personal need rather than intervening to improve the system’s effectiveness.
Evidence suggests that emotional intelligence increases with age and experience.26 Research also supports the conclusion that competence with emotions can be developed through personal growth processes such as sensitivity training, counseling, and therapy. It seems reasonable to suggest that professional OD practitioners dedicate themselves to a long-term regimen of development that includes acquiring both cognitive learning and emotional intelligence.
Use of Knowledge and Experience The professional OD role has been described in terms of a continuum ranging from client-centered (using the client’s knowledge and experience) to consultant-centered (using the consultant’s knowledge and experience)
Traditionally, OD consultants have worked at the client-centered end of the continuum. Organization development professionals, relying mainly on pro- cess consultation and team building (see Chapter 10), have been expected to remain neu- tral, refusing to offer expert advice on organizational problems. Rather than contracting to solve specific problems, the consultant has tended to work with organization members to identify problems and potential solutions, to help them study what they are doing now and consider alternative behaviors and solutions, and to help them discover whether, in fact, the consultant and they can learn to do things better. In doing that, the OD professional has generally listened and reflected upon members’ perceptions and ideas and helped clarify and interpret their communications and behaviors.
The recent proliferation of OD interventions in the structural, human resource management, and strategy areas has expanded that limited definition of the professional OD role to include the consultant-centered end of the continuum. In many of the newer approaches, the consultant may have to take on a modified role of expert, with the con- sent and collaboration of organization members. For example, managers trying to bring about a major structural redesign (see Chapter 12) may not have the appropriate knowl- edge and expertise to create and manage the change and need the help of an OD practi- tioner with experience in this area. The consultant’s role might be to present the basic concepts and ideas and then to work jointly with the managers to select an approach that might be useful to the organization and to decide how it might best be implemen- ted. In this situation, the OD professional recommends or prescribes particular changes d is active in planning how to implement them. This expertise, however, is always shared rather than imposed.
With the development of new and varied intervention approaches, the OD professional’s role needs to be seen as falling along the entire continuum from client-centered to consultant-centered. At times, the consultant will rely mainly on organization mem- bers’ knowledge and experiences to identify and solve problems. At other times, it will be more appropriate to take on the role of an expert, withdrawing from that role as managers gain more knowledge and experience.