After 30+ Years of Consulting -- Here's What I've Learned!

?

After spending my early career in sales and sales management in the automotive and pharmaceutical industries, I went to work for a comparatively small - but rapidly growing - consulting firm as VP Sales & Marketing.? In working with hundreds of clients in the US and overseas I realized that client executives - more often than not - based their decisions about engaging with consulting firms largely on the credibility they sense with the consultants who will actually be delivering the advice and services contracted for.? After obtaining an MBA degree (and changing consulting firms) I made the decision to transition from selling consulting to delivery of consulting services/advice to client organizations.? Among the things I've learned over 30 years of on-site consulting with numerous clients across multiple industries and countries are these:

1. Many Organizations have “Psychoses” – I define an “organizational psychosis” as an element of business culture that is dysfunctional and may even be contrary to the organization’s intended environment. These dysfunctional behaviors or practices often appear as unspoken rules or procedures that are not stated as policy, but place those who do not observe and follow them at risk.? I have consulted in businesses that were so militaristic in the way they operate that many of their people were not willing to speak up or share their ideas.? It was also considered a serious breach if their people discussed an issue or idea with someone other than their immediate supervisor.? These were not “official” company policies of course and certainly did not serve the company well, but they are observable dysfunction.? Other psychoses I have witnessed are an unwillingness to make decisions or the inability to hold people accountable for their decisions and actions.

?2. "The Bad Often Drives Out the Good!" - From time to time I have seen managers or executives who were competent, capable and doing a good job but who were unexpectedly displaced by someone of lesser competence or experience. The displacement typically results in demotion, sidetracking, reassignment, or sometimes even a supposed "promotion" of the individual being displaced. An example of this phenomenon I witnessed occurred in one of the world's largest transportation companies. A middle manager took on the assignment to spearhead a quality management initiative. He was going about it in an organized and knowledgeable way, but was suddenly replaced by a man who knew much less about TQM principles and methods than the person he was replacing. My observation in this case was that the executive who made the decision to replace his quality leader was uncomfortable with his own lack of knowledge in the space and also with the pace of change that was beginning to occur.

In another example I experienced, the Chief Strategy Officer, who had spent weeks defining a range of viable competitive strategies, was displaced because the newly hired COO disagreed with recommended priorities.

Let's face it. Organization politics are a fact of life in most companies. But -- when arbitrary, undeserved "displacement" of good, credible people occurs, there are consequences - many unintended. Here is what I have observed to happen in the aftermath of the "bad driving out the good:"

• The organization loses credibility in the eyes those affected by the change - people know who is doing a good job and who isn't.
• The executive who made the displacement decision loses trust and respect
• Others in the organization who observe what seems to be an unfair/arbitrary decision begin to worry about their jobs or roles
• Performance in the affected area or function suffers. Loyalty to the displaced manager or to his/her efforts may linger

Two other outcomes may well follow:

The displaced manager who was competent and doing a good job in first place realizes that he/she would be more appreciated elsewhere. Very good people often find a better position in another organization. This may not happen immediately -- but it will happen eventually. The displaced Quality Manager in the above example soon found a better position. The organization lost a valuable resource.

The displacement decision fails as a solution and creates more problems than it solved. In the case of Chief Strategy Officer, most of his initial recommendations were later adopted, but not until he had left the organization. Strategy implementation was delayed.

3. How to Avoid Messing Up Important Decisions - In working with executive teams in strategy or strategic planning discussions, the crux of the matter always comes down to making decisions. It's interesting to observe how many distinct decisions must be made in order to change the course or direction of an organization - one decision precedes another and then another until ultimate conclusions and commitments are made. Executives struggle with decisions for a variety of reasons:

• Lack of data
• False assumptions
• Incorrect data
• Disagreement on facts
• Lack of agreement and alignment
• Fear of failure
• Opposition from others
• Intransigency
• Reluctance to decide
• Differing perceptions of risk

After years of watching executive teams struggle with such issues -- whether I was trying to coach them as individuals or facilitate their meetings -- I realized that two separate yet related concepts were frequently valuable in the process of helping them making better decisions.

1. Create Operational Definitions - My experience has been that people discussing an important issue often miscommunicate or talk over each other because they have differing definitions of the problems, issues or opportunities they are discussing. By helping them agree on what they are talking - or arguing - about, progress is more likely. Clarity can often be achieved by documenting statements in this manner: When we say this ---------, we mean this ----------. Example 1. When we say Unacceptable Performance, we mean 10% or more below last quarter's average. Example 2. When we say AI we mean ChatGPT.

1. Making “Criteria-Based” Decisions - Many executives pride themselves in their ability to make decisions.? After all, isn’t that what bosses are paid for – to decide?? It’s true that some organizations are too precipitous in making decisions while others are more reluctant.? But, of greater importance than speed of decision making is the quality, durability and effectiveness of the decisions made.? Decisions can be a coin—flip or a highly reasoned process.? Over time I have learned that a useful way to make important decisions is to add a step to the decision-making process – one that if done well - adds objectivity and confidence to the decision being made.? A question with which to examine the potential benefits of the impending decision is: ?“What do we want and expect the outcomes of this decision to be?”? Or alternatively, “What are our criteria for making this decision?”

I recently consulted with a financial advisory firm planning to launch a new service for analyzing stock options training for investors based on “Fibonacci Analysis” which will include a new book for educating investors.? There were many possible titles for the book and they were having trouble deciding.? I suggested first defining the “criteria” for choosing the title.? The four criteria agreed the book title would communicate were:

·???????? Convey basic (rather than advanced) concepts about Fibonacci analysis

·???????? Suggest reasons for interest by those who have never heard of Fibonacci

·???????? Suggest relationship and benefit to investing decisions

·???????? Link approach to managing or reducing risk

• The book title “Principles of Fibonacci - Risk Management for Investors – was then easily decided.