Four criteria for evaluating organizational consultants

You will meet a consultant and to what extent the advice they give you is defective by the underlying theoretical models on which their advice is based. So argues Chris Argyris in his powerful and revealing book, “Flawed Advice and the Management Trap.” Argyris analyzes representative examples from more than 100 books and myriad articles published by the world’s most respected business gurus, and then uses his own theoretical model (theory of action) to evaluate the advice they give to readers. His The study includes the likes of Stephen Covey , John Kotter, Jon Katzenback, Peter Drucker and other experts in the business literature, and concludes that much of the advice these authors give is attractive and even compelling, but most of it is not actionable. In other words, even if a manager could fully implement the advice provided by these business luminaries, the resulting corrective actions would not lead to the kind of positive change and sustainable improvement that the authors claim.

Argyris concludes that, “Since thoughtful and well-intentioned advisers do not intentionally offer advice that is riddled with gaps and inconsistencies, there must be something about the frameworks on which they are based that makes them unaware of these issues, as well as that they are not aware of them.” they realize”. Here are four criteria that have been distilled from this groundbreaking book that managers can use to assess and judge the degree to which corrective actions proposed by external consulting firms or internal consultants will actually lead to long-term, sustainable, positive change in their organizations. .

• trustworthy: To what extent are corrective actions based on an underlying theoretical model of organizations, work groups, human interaction, and cognitive operations-preferences that is trustworthyFor example, does it describe and predict the actions, interactions, and overall performance of organizations, work groups, and the people in them?
• Valid: To what extent do the reasoning and assumptions underlying corrective actions valid in the sense that they have been reflected upon, made explicit, and subjected to public testing and scrutiny to deconstruct organizational defense mechanisms and establish the “organizational truth” of what is really going on in the situation? Validity helps to avoid the cycle of self-actualization and self-closure that creates and sustains ineffective and invisible cultural norms, organizational defense mechanisms, unspoken beliefs, and unreliable assumptions (as defined above) and are based on stereotypes and patterns of interaction between key personnel creating destructive conflict that frustrates and undermines high performance.
• actionable: To what extent corrective actions actionable in the sense that: a) they outline concrete and detailed behaviors that will produce the desired results, b) they can be designed so that people can learn and learn the concepts, behaviors and skills necessary to produce the desired results, and c) the implementation of corrective actions will not be frustrated and/or undermined (overtly-covertly, intentionally-unintentionally) by the organizational context and cultural norms within which they are embedded?
• Commitment: To what extent will the change associated with the corrective action process require external versus internal commitment to deliver, and is this message clear and unambiguous to all participants? External engagement means that participation in the corrective action process is part of a manager’s or staff member’s roles, responsibilities, and performance goals on which they will be evaluated. Internal commitment means that managers and staff members have adopted the knowledge, skills, models, and philosophy associated with the corrective action process as part of their personal value system. Do different populations in the organization require different levels of commitment, for example, senior managers and middle managers need to have internal commitment, while supervisors and staff members only need external commitment?

Of course, Argyris assumes that managers who hire consulting firms I really want advice that identifies the underlying causes of poor performance and leads to long-term, sustainable, positive change. But field experience in organizations shows that this is not always the case. Too often, consulting interventions are carried out without any intention of taking corrective action on identified problems or implementing changes. Rather, consulting firms and the interventions they carry out are often used to appease senior managers by appearing to take “action” to correct situations and/or as damage control of last resort in situations where conflict, toxicity and ineffective performance have come a long way. too long. Managers who use external consulting firms or internal consultants in the ways described above shouldn’t bother reading Argyris’s monumental book. goal managers who I really want Tips that lead to long-term, sustainable, positive change should read and digest the wisdom and insights in faulty advice before paying for another day of organizational consulting.

Bottom line: If a consulting firm or individual consultant cannot clearly articulate the underlying theoretical foundations on which their interventions and advice are based, and if their approach to working with organizations and the people within them does not meet the criteria listed above, then don’t wait for advice that will lead to long-term, sustainable, positive change in your organization.