He was a friend --an acquaintance, actually --someone I knew only through social contacts. We were surprised to find ourselves opposite each other on an airplane from Charlotte to Boston. I’d already said I was a consultant, and he was so startled to learn that I had a career, that he told me how nice I looked in my business suit, "and with your cute little briefcase, too." (But that’s another column.)

So, what (exactly) does a consultant do? My friend’s question isn’t so easy to answer. Here’s some of what we do:

• A lot of listening and probing to get a full understanding of the client’s situation, concerns, problems, opportunities, etc. from his point of view. Questions like "What keeps you awake at night?"
• Reserving judgment, suppressing the natural instinct to think I can solve this problem in 3 notes…and instead trying to see through the client’s eyes.
• Tolerating the uneasiness of ambiguity, of multiple conflicting perceptions.
• Listening between the lines in order to hear the fundamental interests and goals behind the client’s request for a particular solution.
• Creatively generating a wide range of options – thinking "out of the box," beyond the self-imposed limits of "this is the way we do it."
• Objectively analyzing and evaluating the costs and benefits of each option, in order for best practices to rise to the top.
• Compellingly presenting the business case for recommended solutions; listening to and testing reactions and resistance; influencing and being influenced by the client’s responses; supporting the client’s informed decision.

The answer to my friend’s question would have taken more time than he was interested in giving. Even more difficult is describing what a lot of corporate "staff" functions are being asked to do in this networked, boundaryless, team-oriented world. In addition to practicing these skills themselves – difficult enough -- people are being required to lead others through the process: facilitating groups and teams as they struggle with complexity and ambiguity, and helping them reach consensus decisions in a reasonable period of time. Staff professionals are being asked to:

• Be a consultant – provide advice, counsel, suggestions and feedback; confront when necessary.
• Facilitate -- be a catalyst, get people together, help them get input from each other, solve problems, and make decisions.
• Negotiate – help groups resolve conflicting interests and agree on a solution.
• Collaborate – align your work efforts with those of many others to produce best results (remember the word synergy?)
• Influence –use your knowledge and expertise to impact decisions.
• Build consensus – get all the views on the table, find common ground, and help all the players work through issues until they can agree on a direction.
• Be a business partner – act as if you were responsible for the P&L of this business unit.
• Challenge – be the "loyal opposition" questioning why things are as they are, the courageous innocent pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes.

No matter what term you use, whether you’re inside or outside the organization, it’s a complicated role to play, and a difficult one to describe to others, not just to my friend on the plane. Professional consultants – the best ones, anyway – have always known that they have to wear all these hats. But professionals inside the corporation -- Human Resources, Finance, IT, Quality, and many other technical support folks – are having to learn a whole new way of relating to the rest of the organization, new processes for getting work done, in fact a whole new definition of their work.

Even though these shifts are ancient history in leading-edge organizations, staff functions in some organizations are still deer in the headlights – and the headlight is on a freight train speeding straight at them. Business unit managers complain of corporate bureaucracy, stonewalling, foot dragging, and countless other ways staff professionals make it harder to make a product or serve the customer, much less make a buck in the process. Since staff functions are cost centers supported by the profit centers, business unit managers are sometimes finding more responsive, cost-effective providers through outsourcing.

But it isn’t just staff professionals who need these skills. Effective leadership involves leading through influence, acting as a catalyst for change, aligning people with a corporate vision and direction, challenging the status quo, building consensus and commitment. Same skills, different hat.

So who needs this collection of skills? Just about everybody, because

• More decisions are being made by a group, rather than by individuals
• A growing focus on processes rather than functional units requires collaboration across organizational boundaries
• CEOs like Jack Welch at GE are insisting that the Berlin wall of organizational boundaries be disassembled

This debut issue of the AHA newsletter is about how some of our clients have learned to apply this set of skills with good results for their organizations.

Scenario:

1. Manager calls HR rep regarding a valued employee who has decided to leave because he has received an offer with another company with a substantial salary increase. Manager wants HR to meet or top this offer. This salary goes beyond the pay "band" for the position. Old response: we can’t do that – it would create an exception that we would then have to make for everyone. New response: Recognizing the value of this employee’s skills and the shortage of good skilled people, HR meets with Manager, asks questions to get a complete picture of the situation, and works with Manager to develop a creative solution to the problem, even if it creates an "exception."

2. Quality Engineer in a manufacturing plant sees opportunities for significant reduction in scrap by redesigning the workflow processes and instituting continuous improvement techniques. Making these changes would require some re-learning from operators and supervisor, a small investment in new equipment, and would disrupt production for several days. The QE has data to show the long term benefits, even though short term there are negatives. Old response: Engineer makes changes, amid grumbling and resistance from operators and supervisors, who soon revert to working around the system to return to old ways of working. New response: Engineer, operators, supervisors, and managers collaborate to collect and analyze data, prioritize, make decisions, and implement lasting improvements.

3. Insurance broker calls corporate underwriters regarding a difficult case, asking for certain rate structure changes in order to meet the needs of her new client. Old response: Underwriter examines the data and refuses the submission as not meeting company requirements. New response: Underwriter asks questions to fully understand the situation. Underwriter seeks input from other corporate staff and works with broker to develop an approach that accommodates this client’s needs and minimizes company risk.

4. Finance group sends out a directive informing business units of the way financial information must be submitted each month in order to complete monthly statements. Business units request certain breakouts in order to help them better analyze local issues and improve profitability. Old response: Finance refuses: "That’s not the way we do it." New response: Finance reps take time to ask questions and listen to concerns of business units. Finance also takes time to explain why the requested changes cannot be made, and negotiates with business units to find other ways to help them analyze local issues and improve profitability.

5. Company has emphasized a "team" approach throughout its operations. Everyone is encouraged to seek input from others before making decisions. Many meetings are held, and much discussion takes place, but decisions seem to get delayed or stuck in limbo. How do these groups achieve the goal of input and collaboration and still bring issues to closure in a reasonable time?

Back