zum Archiv
verwandte Artikel
Download
MCD 2009 - 4th International
Conference on Management Consulting in Vienna, 11-13 June
2009
The Changing Paradigm of Consulting - Adjusting to the
Fast-Paced World
Othmar Sutrich, Dipl. Kfm., MBA (Insead, France)
Sutrich Organisationsberatung, Owner, with offices in
Munich and Vienna
sutrich@t-online.de
Martin Hillebrand
Königswieser & Network
Komplementäre Beratung und systemische Entwicklung
martin.hillebrand@koenigswieser.net
Complementary Consulting: The Only Real Option
for Managers
Abstract
This article examines the topic of
complementary consulting, a very contemporary but only
recently coined branch of consulting that combines the
expertise of two well-paired forms of consulting, namely
traditional business (expert) consulting and systemic
process consulting. After setting the scene, we go on to
describe some of the key issues currently affecting
management and consulting (and, indeed, the world at
large). Drawing on these issues, we present a set of
hypotheses regarding their influence on consulting
practices. Two case studies then provide a clear and
practical illustration of how we put our ideas to work in
real-life complementary consulting situations. Finally,
we connect the ideas presented with two leitmotifs
(compensation and attitude) that could serve to advance
current consulting practice and provide our outlook on
managerial decision-making in the future.
Setting the Scene for Integration: Let’s Regard
Complementary Consulting and Decision-Making as Two Sides
of the Same Coin
The theme of the MCD 2009 conference – “The Changing
Paradigm of Consulting – Adjusting to the Fast-Paced
World” – is a challenging and pivotal starting point for
reflecting on our intervention work as consultants. In
this article, we seek to examine what lies behind this
challenge, and in doing so base our arguments on the
keywords “integration” and the perhaps less ambitious
“complementarity” (Sutrich, 2003; Hillebrand, 2006). In
the globalised, complex and faster changing (and thus
more volatile and hazardous) organisational world,
integration becomes increasingly necessary, yet is also
increasingly difficult to achieve (Lawrence/Lorsch,
1969). This becomes particularly apparent when managers
and consultants put specific emphasis on high quality
decision-making processes. With globalisation quite
literally almost forcing us to give way to a deeper
awareness of ambiguity and uncertainty, we are convinced
that now is the time to frame a sense of a new kind of a
“risk management” in organisations – one that is much
broader and more integrated than was previously the case.
Complementary consulting is the helpful lens used by
consultants to professionally reflect on their work and
improve their contributions to the agility and resilience
of organisations. When it comes to the possible
interventions that make the difference and thus
characterize complementary consulting, Table 1
(Königswieser et al., 2006) sums up our train of thought.
Table 1: Interventions in different forms of consulting
Complementary consulting is a service used by
organisations to help them improve their operational
(immediate) and strategic (sustainable) performance.
We can also look at this from the other side of the coin,
i.e. the client’s perspective. In their capacity to
absorb uncertainty, decisions are the basic matter that
makes organisations go ‘round’ (Luhmann, 2000). Making
fast and sustainable decisions is a primary task of
managers and entrepreneurs, or as Tichy and Bennis (2007)
so aptly note: “Judgment is the core, the nucleus of
leadership. With good judgment little else matters.
Without good judgment nothing else matters.” We are
convinced that decision-making is the key element in the
craft of management, especially given the paramount
impact decisions have on an organisation’s short-term
performance and sustainability. Indeed, we embrace
Sennett’s (2008) definition of craftsmanship as the
“enduring, basic human desire to do a job well for its
own sake” and his conclusion that “craft is as vital to
the healthy functioning of modern societies as it was to
the medieval guilds.” When decision-making processes work
well, organisational matters also advance in a
constructive and best possible manner. Otherwise,
seemingly convincing concepts and worthwhile aspirations
are doomed to falter and will remain just that – the
unrealized concepts and aspirations of managers and
consultants alike.
The very same integration quality can be observed on the
part of managers in good decision-making processes
(Sutrich/Opp, 2007, p. 78). It’s all about the “not only
… but also” – doing one thing, but not refraining from
doing the other as well.
Table 2: Integration / Complementarity in Managerial
Decision-Making Processes (short version)
Complementary consulting and decision-making are two
sides of the same coin. It might not be necessary to
regard them this way, but doing so is certainly helpful.
Why? Both go together in bundling forces to cope with the
ever more demanding task of managing integration. Some
consultants quite happily refer to it as “complementary
consulting”, while managers often imply that they are
tacitly talking about good risk management and economic
decision-making. Both views ultimately seek the same: Not
an “either/or”, but the integration of “what and how”,
“task and people” and “content and process” for the
benefit and sustained development of the organisation
(see Senge et al., 2008).
The basic rationale of our argument is very simple:
Complementarity connects leadership and managerial
decision-making with consulting. Complementarity is
equally indispensable for both crafts. Discussing the
pros and cons of complementary consulting per se is
really like flogging a dead horse. Whatever label is
used, there is really only one relevant benchmark to be
met: Do the consultants deliver the right kind of
complementary consulting (in terms of depth, scope and
time span) to best support and develop the individual and
organisational decision-making capabilities required to
achieve performance? Consequently, we will also
demonstrate how complementary consulting supports
managers in their primary tasks and helps improve the
quality and speed of organisational decision-making
capabilities.
In aspiring towards integration – achieved via better
decision-making supported by complementary consulting –
five key issues and their links to each other need to be
addressed: complexity, organisational awareness, the
current crisis, handling risks and responsibility.
1.
Five Key issues
1.1 Managing complexity: problem or
solution?
There can be no ignoring the increasing complexity in the
modern business world. Indeed, we would not have had to
write this article if managers and organisational
decision-makers were not confronted with new problems and
challenges that (confound existing know-how and) result
in increasingly demanding decision processes (with
globalisation just one of the more frequently mentioned
of a number of relevant, irreversible drivers of
complexity). But what exactly is complexity and, on a
more practical note, how can we manage it? Baecker (1998)
suggests two ways of approaching this issue: we can try
to describe complexity either as a problem whose solution
can be found in specific forms of management, or as the
solution to a problem that is yet to be found. The latter
might sound unconventional, but also has more promise, as
complexity provides access to the “jewels of ambivalence”
(Barz/Looss, 2008), which – according to Baecker (1998)
is what life is made of. It is also the basis for good
decisions, as we continually balance the innovations we
consider necessary with the traditions we consider worth
keeping. This dilemma allows us to observe and “juggle”
the situation until the balance swings in favour of one
or the other, either being seen positive result (Baecker,
2008). Other common or even reflexive responses to
complexity include (see Königswieser/Heintel, 1998):
a) Limited acceptance, e.g. through simplification,
prejudices, unidimensionality;
b) Forms of reduction, e.g. reverting to norms and
hierarchies;
c) Self-steering principles in groups.
Limited acceptance or reduction of complexity are both
clearly survival options for managers and consultants
alike, despite their lack of contribution to intelligent
and lasting organisational development.
1.2. Organisational awareness – a strong answer
to weak signals.
In their remarkable book Managing the Unexpected, Weick
and Sutcliffe (2001) point out that ensuring sustained
high performance in an increasingly complex age requires
an ability to successfully manage the unexpected threats
which could spiral out of control. They use the example
of “high reliability organisations” (HRO) to illustrate
that a “collective state of mindfulness” is needed to
handle such situations, identifying five principles that
may prove helpful not only during a crisis, but also when
one emerges: 1) preoccupation with failure, 2) reluctance
to simplify labels, 3) acute sensitivity to business
operations, 4) strong commitment to resilience, and 5)
deference to expertise – recently underpinned by Richard
Sennet’s (2008) plea for “craftsmanlike” attitudes.
Organisations with this kind of collective attitude
constantly seek to update their interpretation of the
task at hand and identify the most plausible explanation
for the situation to ensure possible remedies will be
found. The main difference between HRO’s and other
organisations is that the latter normally react weakly to
or tend to ignore weak signals, while mindful
organisations are alert to the importance of weak signals
and react strongly.
1.3 The current crisis – a strong signal, major
threat and great opportunity.
The current economic crisis is a strong signal, a major
threat and a great opportunity for better understanding
and managing complexity. Indeed, we believe it can be
seen – and used – as a symptom of a further increase in
complexity. In Chinese, the words for “crisis” and
“opportunity” are closely related; they are both made up
of two characters, one of which they share. Crises want
to be moulded, as two recent quotes illustrate. “You
never want to let a serious crisis to go to waste,” White
House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told journalists just
after the election, while economist Tyler Cowan announced
on his marginal revolution blog that “recovery is about
entrepreneurship”.
As far as “sustained organisational development” is
concerned, the challenges raised by the current crisis
ought to be taken seriously. They have the potential to
help us develop a better understanding of complexity. We
need to use this understanding to advance more
sustainable decision-making and consulting, instead of
resorting to the – admittedly easier and all too familiar
– mainstream reflex option of seeking “quick-fix”
solutions and aborting collective learning by blaming
easy-to-find scapegoats. If you were asked to put a
figure on it, how many organisations do you think embrace
high-pressure situations as an opportunity to take
learning to a new level? As many as 10%, or less than 3%?
1.4 Handling both the threat and the opportunity
in risk.
There are always two sides to risk: the threat and the
opportunity. Indeed, one specific problem in the current
crisis (in addition to the lack of a prior systemic view)
is the way risk is handled. Fortunately, life is also
always a risk. Bennett (1976, 2004, p. 29, 32) is a real
treasure trove of information when it comes to
understanding hazard and risk: He maintains that risk
bestows meaning and depth to experience, is omnipresent
and permeates everything that exists. Without risk, life
would not be able to develop.
In the years immediately after the catastrophes in 1986
(Chernobyl, Challenger and Schweizerhalle), much was
written about the “right” way to handle risk. Aside from
increased criticism of technology and the rise of
environmental organisations, these catastrophes were
precursors for what the sociologist Beck (1986) referred
to as the “risk society”, i.e. a society characterised by
simultaneous development of wealth and risk.
As so often before, the recent boom years have clearly
led us to again forget, suppress or at least
underestimate the dangers associated with risk. Indeed,
the current crisis reveals not only the unidimensionality
of the understanding of risk prevalent in organisations
in recent years but also that conventional risk
management is dangerously restricted to financial risk
(Stulz, 2009). Yet surely now more than ever is the time
to re-embrace Bennet’s (ibid, p. 34) idea that the really
interesting and important thing about the way risk works
lies in understanding how to draw benefit from it for our
own lives.
1.5 Responsibility means taking risks to advance
organisational sustainability.
Luhmann (1998) makes a useful distinction between risk
and danger: attributing possible adverse events to a
decision constitutes a risk, while attributing them to a
chance external source constitutes a danger. This
distinction also opens the door for other social
problem-solving mechanisms. Danger, e.g. external
enemies, leads to solidarity. The situation would be
quite different if it were defined as a risk of the
decision, which leads to a social split between
decision-makers (e.g. bank executives, investment
bankers, politicians) and those affected (e.g. voters) –
as demonstrated by the call on the website of a European
NPO criticising globalisation in March 2009 under the
motto “We won’t pay for your crisis/debts!” Or, at least
in part, by Bennett’s realisation that we live in a
dramatic universe full of risks, where every decision is
important, no matter who makes it – a notion that for
some reason is constantly rejected (ibid, p. 45). Given
the prevailing dynamics of the current crisis, we see a
real need for organisations to (seek the empowerment to)
face and embrace their respective responsibility.
2. Seven Hypotheses
So what does this mean for the advancement of
organisations and the future of consulting? The insights
gained from the five key issues above lead us to the
following seven hypotheses.
H 1: Complexity, the inevitable hazards that come
with it, the increased uncertainty and risk they cause
and the speed of change all raise the demand for a new
form of decision-making and consulting.
This new form of decision-making and
consulting involves focusing on those processes that lead
to the best possible decision-making support. The
conventional approach of starting with the “hard” issues
and following them up by addressing the “soft” processes
in the system is simply too slow. (Similarly, there is no
longer enough time for an approach that begins with
strategy development and then goes on to work on the
structures and culture). A holistic, lasting approach to
organisational development needs to embrace both, i.e. it
has to be based on an “as well as” not an “either/or” and
be exactly what it claims to be – holistic.
H 2: Managers find complementary consulting plausible
and easy to accept.
They are used to incorporating business issues
and process-related aspects into decision-making
processes as a matter of course and without questioning
why they do so. Thus, the “only real option for managers”
we allude to is intended to convey three observations:
1. Firstly, the “as well as” choice is the only
reasonable option for managers, because business content
and expertise are naturally linked to the processes that
surround them. All managers and experts have to try to
bring their expertise into – emotionally relevant –
contact with other people.
2. Secondly, managers often (unconsciously) exhibit a
personal and/or professional preference/bias for one or
the other (i.e. traditional business consulting or
systemic process consulting).
3. Thirdly, a focus purely on either business content or
systemic processes only invokes a discussion among
short-sighted consultants seeking to defend their own
turf. But selling a solution based on either “hard” or
“soft” factors is a waste of time, because the “as well
as” option is elegant, cost-effective, time saving and
sustainable, and that is the paramount issue.
H 3: Complementarity connects the energy in
complementary consulting with the energy created by good
managerial decision-making processes and thus creates
lasting growth in the behavioural repertoire at all
stages of the cooperative process.
Expanding the playing field demands greater
professionalism and an investment into developing a new
room to manoeuvre. Consultants who embrace
complementarity allow themselves to be guided by the
systemic loop (Fig. 1). In line with the basic model
behind the systemic loop, this requires an expansion of
the behavioural repertoire at all four points. Key
additions will occur in the “Gathering
information/diagnosis” phase. If business issues are
included in the diagnosis, the result will naturally be
different (as will the “how” element of the accompanying
diagnosis) and will reflect any need for compensation
(see section 4.1). Similarly, the “Building hypotheses”
and “Planning interventions” phases will also change. The
actual gains are not simply additive in nature, they also
provoke a qualitative leap.
Fig. 1: The systemic loop
An identical logic applies to the managerial
decision-making process. Managers usually (silently) draw
orientation from (mostly tacit) risk analyses. What they
want is an elegant, soundless, dynamic and “emotionally
cost-effective” decision process that is understood,
supported and co-driven by the consultants.
The “Source Territory” (see Fig. 2) is where managers and
organisations lay the groundwork for what they want to
achieve. This could include, for example, “facing
reality”: letting people know in a mindful, open, honest
and brave manner that you, as a responsible manager, are
ready to get fully involved and act on the outcome of a
decision – no matter who made it or what perspective it
comes from – which is the best starting point and driving
force for the next phases in a successful decision
process.
Fig. 2: Decision process map
Unfortunately, you have to deliberately work your way
through all five phases of the process, and thus “close
the loop” (Opp/Schulda, 2008) to produce more real
options and better decisions. If (and only if) this
becomes a professional habit, it will enhance the sense
of responsibility and create sustainably better
managerial and organisational decision-making
capabilities.
H 4: The system diagnosis – and diagnosis of the need
for compensation – is an ongoing process in which both
managers and consultants alike (consciously ) oscillate
between the two poles of expertise.
Balancing the poles of expertise is just as
important in managerial decision-making processes (which
the consultants have hopefully understood and support) as
it is in consulting diagnosis processes. Managers
(clients), however, appreciate the benefit of quicker and
better decision-making processes that follow a sound
diagnosis, i.e. those that lead to faster and more
lasting implementation of proposals, simply because the
interplay between “what” the organisation does and “how”
it does it encourages far quicker acceptance in the
organisation (or “connectivity”, as systems theorists
would say).
Fig. 3: Oscillating between Traditional Business
Consulting and Systemic Process Consulting
H 5: We need to calculate more quickly, decide more
slowly and not confuse the two.
Decision-making starts where calculating and downloading
risk assessment models stops. If there were no
incalculable risks, no decisions would have to be made.
Consulting and decision-making both involve recursive –
largely subconscious and uncommunicated – observing,
negotiating, sharing and processing of perceived and
diffuse risks. In correct systems theory terms, these
risks always refer simultaneously to the different
dimensions of meaning described by Luhmann (1984) as
“fact, social and temporal”. If this management of
perceived and diffuse risks is adequately integrative,
the process will progress quickly and produce quality
results. However, if the recursive, oscillating “as well
as” approach can no longer be kept in balance,
decision-making and consulting processes will get
damaged, blocked or even aborted.
Fig. 4: The Pentaeder Model of the Decision-Making-Space
in Organisations
Our two primary tasks as consultants are to be
immediately helpful and to render sustained value-added.
This we accomplish best by contributing to the enriching
and enlarging of the sheer volume and qualitative
richness of the decision-making-space imaginable in an
organisation. Individual managers and the organisation as
a whole can ultimately only make responsible choices and
influence a future they can imagine – the more often and
the sooner they do so the better.
H 6: It helps to link complementary consulting
concepts not just with decision-making but also with
organisational learning, leading to sustained
change.
Learning and, in particular, organisational learning, are
very important to consultants interested in
complementarity – particularly in light of H 1.
Organisational learning speeds up when complexity and
risks are both addressed in as businesslike and conscious
a manner as possible. We like to draw here on the words
of de Geus (2007), who refers to decision-making as a
“social process” and describes non-routine decisions as
the most “distressing” and “vital”: “Decision making
consists of trying to find, as a group – in a social and
language-based process – new solutions for new
situations. These solutions should give the group of
decision makers a sufficient amount of confidence to dare
to implement them. Decision making is a learning
process.” This can be achieved pragmatically by reserving
time and space for lessons learned, starting perhaps with
“Feedback” (see Fig. 2).
H 7: Consulting is increasingly tasked with
establishing a cooperative process that uses every
possible integration opportunity – no matter how small –
to ultimately support the long-term survival of an
organisation.
Consulting is sometimes tacitly and
incorrectly seen as a one-sided service designed to
minimize the client’s risk. Consulting too often sells
rather unsecure security. Yet bold decisions would help
render more security, self-confidence and responsibility
(see key issue 5). As Einstein once said: “In the middle
of difficulty lies opportunity“. We believe that the
middle of all difficulties, opportunities and solutions
lies in oscillating between the seemingly incompatible.
Consulting that meets the demands of modern
organisational reality has to encompass a mindful,
balanced regard for both sides of risk. Such forms of
consulting – and the yet to be invented new
organisational structures(!) – will be identifiable by
their characteristic, mindful and integrative approach to
managing risk – closing our recursive loop and bringing
us neatly back to H 1.
3. Complementary Consulting in Practice
We will now provide two examples of complementary
consulting projects in practice. In doing so, we have
consciously chosen smaller-scale change processes to
ensure our case studies give a clear (simplified)
impression of the approach we seek to advance. These
examples turn our key issues and hypotheses into concrete
actions. We chose these particular case studies because
they clearly illustrate two of the key elements in what
we do and the theory behind our work – compensation and
attitude – which we will discuss in section four.
3.1 Case Study 1: Complementary Consulting as a
Craft – Help in Times of Crisis
Setting: medium-size transportation and
logistics company with 4,400 employees based in Austria
with 129 international offices and sales of 990 million
euro in 2008.
It was a Saturday afternoon in March 2009, and two days
of hard work and commitment had just come to a positive
end. Despite the inevitable high tensions, the atmosphere
in the workshop had been light-hearted and effortless, we
had laughed and had fun, and the feedback had been
appreciative, touching and had given the participants
strength. The 16 managers from one of the German offices
and the two consultants/facilitators (one internal, one
external) who had supported them all left with the same
impression: these had been two helpful days, the time and
money had been well spent and, most importantly, the
workshop could not have come at a better moment. So what
had happened, and what did it have to do with
complementary consulting?
• The work was embedded in a 100% commitment to “what”,
“why” as well as “how”, to tasks as well as people and to
hard as well as soft factors (see H 1, 2, 3 and 4) from
the very first 10 minutes of the briefing session through
to the preparation of the workshop, the closing remarks
and the outlook for the months to come.
• Behind the work lay the - perhaps 75% tacit -
understanding and confidence that the facilitators would
deliver as much compensation as was necessary and
possible (see H 2, 3, 4). The General Manager’s primary
focus was on getting results and achieving targets. He
expected us not only to implicitly understand his
position and support his aspirations, but also to
challenge and enhance (complement) them. At the same
time, he expected us to stimulate and compensate him
socially, address cooperation and personal aspects and
intervene in ways he himself could never have attempted
(see H 6 and 7).
• We worked hand-in-hand on strategic and operational
questions, i.e. on strengthening customer value and
relationships, on improving these processes (having
intentionally ensured the “entire system was represented
in the room”), on practising giving feedback and brushing
up on the rules for doing so, thus enhancing the team
spirit and creating solidarity with the other members of
the organisation not present (see H 4, 6 and 7).
• We didn’t have a particular name for the workshop when
we started, and the participants wondered why. At the
very end, someone suggested calling it “Feine Klinge
2009”, which everyone agreed summed up what we were doing
beautifully (and translated means doing something
“intuitively right” or with “the right feeling”).
When we reflect on this case study, we have to admit to
feeling the sense of pride that stems every once in a
while from the craftsman’s satisfaction in having “done a
job as well as it can be done – for its own sake”
(Sennett, 2008). And as true craftsmen: every single word
we have said about complementing and compensating the GM
also rang true and was apparent in our relationships with
the other 15 managers in the room.
3.1 Case Study 2: The Need for Compensation in
Systemic Processes
Setting: medium-size company with around
1,500 employees. The HR department had a poor image, and
its internal “clients” were dissatisfied with the service
it provided. Something had to be done about the problem –
and quickly. The department had to convey what it did
well and needed help in finding a good way of doing so.
We suggested complementing our system diagnosis with a
two-day manager workshop to identify the initial measures
needed. During the workshop, it quickly became clear that
we would have to work simultaneously on three aspects –
strategy, structure and culture (see H 2). But we also
identified a key starting point: the company needed a
professional staff appraisal system (in itself, an
effective method of achieving visibility and creating an
impact). We provided our own expertise as “old hands” in
the HR sector (see H 3) and asked the following
questions: Which tool(s) would make necessary changes
most visible to the organisation? How do we make sure
that this initiative is a viable first step and a first
hint of long-term necessary change? Which instrument
would best demonstrate a profound change in “how“ these
changes are implemented? (see H 4 and 5)
The subsequent system diagnosis confirmed our
assumptions: in addition to professional issues like the
recruitment and letters of reference processes (where a
lack of experience was apparent and mistakes had been
made), a number of other “cultural” weaknesses (e.g.
unreliability and lack of service orientation) were
revealed. Of course, the department also clearly had its
strengths (e.g. its salary and pension systems) and a
very dedicated team (even if this might at first glance
seem contradictory to its reputation for unreliability).
The team was hit hard by the results. They were at a loss
about what to do, what actually needed to be changed or
how to establish the necessary processes. So regular
“Monday morning meetings” were introduced (and initially
used to discuss mistakes), and we helped them with the
issues and the processes involved (see H 3 and 4). Six
months later, the turnaround was complete. A subsequent
survey of 50 of the company’s managers confirmed that
significant changes had been made.
In simple (i.e. text book) terms, the advice on both
“what” constitutes a good staff appraisal system and
“how” to best use it were valuable inputs for the
organisation. The department also had to learn how to
change its own patterns of behaviour, initiate learning
processes and encourage reflection. Yet without the
initial input on what needed to be done, some people
might not have been with the organisation long enough to
actually reflect on how they might change their attitude.
The Head of HR clearly understood the necessity of
addressing both issues simultaneously (see H 2) and,
while the ongoing diagnosis in the client system through
the Monday meetings and in the consulting system was
arduous, it ultimately produced the desired results (see
H4).
4. Leitmotifs in Complementary
Consulting
The two cases studies above illustrate the benefits of
complementary consulting. In essence, there are four
fundamental keywords behind this approach:
complementarity, compensation, integrative focus on
results and attitude. Given their relevance to our case
studies, we would now like to explain what “compensation”
and “attitude” means to us, and connect these two
concepts to the other side of the coin, managerial
decision-making.
4.1 Compensation – filling in the know-how gaps
in the client system
What do we actually mean by “compensation” in a
consulting context? Basically, compensation means filling
the gaps in know-how in the client system with knowledge
provided by external consultants. Of course, this is a
delicate matter, and we approach it with extreme care: we
carefully select the know-how required and introduce it
into the client system in the required doses, almost like
a jump-start to trigger the learning process. (see H 6:
It’s all about ensuring that the system is learning). Our
consultants embrace the complementary approach, have
extensive know-how (of various topics, fields, etc.), use
a variety of methods and are very different in terms of
personality. The main focus of the knowledge provided by
the consultants (i.e. whether the gaps need to be
compensated more from a traditional business consulting
or a systemic process consulting perspective) is
determined by a system diagnosis. Since we – ideally –
should have no a priori emotional preference for one or
the other, the client is in the enviable position – not
something to be taken for granted – of having access to a
combination of the “best of both worlds”. This diagnosis
– basically an internal and external assessment of the
organisation’s capabilities and deficits – serves to
ensure we offer just the right amount of support – not
too much and not too little – and neither dominate nor
ask for too much. This is a very sensitive phase in the
consulting process. Discussing areas where compensation
is needed (i.e. pointing out deficits and potential)
might be taken as an offense or interpreted as a
criticism of the organisation. But handled correctly, it
can form the basis for a credible, constructive and
appreciative form of mutual understanding.
Fig. 4: The dimensions of compensation
4.2 Compensation in practice
In both case studies complementarity and compensation
evolve explicitly and implicitly (see H 1, 2, 3 and 4).
In both cases the consultants increase complexity (key
issue 1) by raising issues the organisations are not
particularly aware of. At the same time, they reduce
complexity by compensating with know-how to increase
reliability and confidence in safety and stability of the
process. They enhance awareness of (see key issue 2) and
appreciation for process expertise.
4.3 Compensation and decision-making
Our second case study demonstrates the use of consulting
(of any kind) to initiate decisions and actions that have
been blocked and are overdue. Both cases demonstrate that
decisions are more readily accepted and implemented when
a balance of focus between the task at hand and the
people involved has been mutually agreed upon between the
consultants and the client.
Compensation is as important in complementary consulting
as it is in managerial decision-making. It offers support
for decision-making in organisations in a number of
different ways, including the following three examples:
1. Managers can be shown (both on a personal and a
role-based level) the most constructive way of
complementing each other through their different styles
of decision-making, i.e. the way they prefer to handle
decisions (Lanzenberger/Sutrich, 2008). They can be
helped to oscillate more smoothly between the “what, why
and how”, between work-related and people tasks,
analytical skills and intuition, etc.
2. The people in the many different kinds of teams that
build the bridges between individuals and organisations
can develop greater awareness of and willingness to
complement each other by providing different perspectives
on the actual decision to be made.
3. On the organisational level, consultants with a
systemic attitude can provide complementary know-how;
e.g. a big task (and on that is often not asked for!) is
linking operational short-term performance improvements
to strategy and the long-term fostering and development
of organisational capabilities (i.e. cross-functional and
cross-hierarchical decision-making capabilities.) Indeed,
one of the most demanding aspects of compensation in
times of crisis lies in establishing and maintaining the
link between survival and development – two seemingly
incompatible goals.
In short, the chances of encountering one single manager,
expert or consultant who is equally aware or capable of
handling all five phases of the decision-making process
are extremely rare. This is another reason why we
urgently need compensation and integration!
4.4 Attitude
To cope with the five key issues is as challenging to
organisations (our clients) as it is to the professional
identity of consultants. The most relevant and
sustainable response (responsibility) of consultants and
clients alike to complexity and escalating risks (key
issues 1, 2, 4 and 5) possibly lies in their basic
beliefs, values and attitudes. By not believing in
objectivity and respecting the context as relevant, we
undoubtedly increase ambiguity, ambivalence and
complexity, but we do so consciously in order to foster
better and faster decision-making processes. This creates
self-confidence and confidence in the systems that
surround us, thus inducing better and more integrated
risk management and ultimately reducing complexity.
Developing such attitudes is the linchpin of successful
consulting and lasting managerial success.
The attitude of an integrated consultant can best be
described in its differences to that of a “pure business
consultant” and a “pure systemic consultant”. It does not
simply combine the two, it adds a new dimension of
quality – a context-dependent oscillating between the
poles that opens up totally new perspectives.
Nonetheless, some of the systemic conventions remain
valid. Differences are enriching and diversifying, and
holistic approaches centre both on working together with
the client and on balancing the attitudes between the
poles (e.g. reflecting and learning from feedback while
remaining spontaneous and intuitive, being affected und
getting involved yet maintaining distance and composure,
considering hard and soft factors, slowing things down
without reducing efficiency (Königswieser/Hillebrand,
2005).
No matter what form consulting takes or what tools are
used, we believe that this integrative attitude is
absolutely fundamental. It makes complexity (even in its
newest form) workable and risk addressable, yet also
allows both consultants and managers to remain empowered,
i.e. able to always embrace new options and be open to
doubts without doubting too much.
4.5 Last, but not least: The reality of
decision-making in organisations (or Mullah Nasruddin’s 3
lost keys).
Whenever we sit down and reflect on the
day-to-day-reality of decision-making in many
organizations, the story of Mullah Nasruddin’s lost key
never fails to come to mind:
Late one evening a group of people came upon Mullah
Nasruddin crawling around on his hands and knees under a
street light looking for something. “What are you looking
for?” they asked. “I’ve lost the key to my house,” he
replied. Eager to help, they all got down and began
searching. After some time had passed without any sign of
the key, one of the helpers asked where he had originally
lost it. “Over there in the dark under the bushes,”
answered Nasruddin. “So why are you looking for it under
the street lamp?” asked someone else. “Because there is
more light here,” replied the Mullah.
This offers us three keys to the long-term learning
process that is real decision-making in organisations
(not drifting) and teaches us not to look for solutions
in familiar, well lit up areas, but to focus on those
areas currently in the shade, where the broadening of our
horizons will lead us to “new solutions for new
situations” (de Geus, 2007).
• The first key can be found by broadening our level of
awareness, shifting from the current practice of limited
financial “risk management” (which clearly fails) and
shedding more light on areas which offer greater and more
integrated understanding of and improved dialogue on
risks. Hopefully we will learn from the irony of the
situation that – of all possible culprits – it is in fact
the proclaimed experts in financial and economic risk
management, the two sectors of the economy with the
strongest risk management – banking and insurance – who
are currently so brutally demonstrating the deceptive
security and downfall of this limited, albeit customary,
perspective.
• The second key lies in shifting our awareness away from
the opinions or judgments of individual men (and, albeit
more rarely, women), no matter how great their expertise
and ability or how powerful and convincing they might be,
to the organisational capabilities of decision-making
that need to be enhanced. This includes the pivotal
function of teams and networks. Relying too much on,
worshipping (and eventually condemning) great men and
would-be heroes keeps us from developing those badly
needed pragmatic tools and organisational capabilities.
And it goes further: we now know that this all too
limited perspective is also, more often than not,
harmful. Those numerous CEOs who relied on investment
bankers for their bonus schemes were (and still are) very
successful decision-makers in their own right – to the
detriment of their respective organisations, who in turn
enabled this through their organisational myopia and
incompetence. The investment bankers themselves made the
“right” decisions at a personal level (i.e. to earn as
much money as possible).
• The third key we have mentioned before: shifting and
broadening our awareness from the time of the formal
decision to the actual process of deciding. This helps us
greatly in understanding and learning about the business
of decision-making in organisations.
All three keys have one thing in common: to expand the
three cones of light (see key issue 2) and work with an
oscillating beam of light (see H 4). Therein also lies
our permanent role as consultants, a role we must seek to
strengthen in the long term. In doing so, we need to ask
ourselves and our clients even more distinct questions,
for as one anonymous author once said: “The type and
number of questions a man can ask limits his horizons.”
Closing Comments
Our two case studies clearly show that complementary
consulting works when it comes to addressing integration
and the five key issues. It works even better if the
consultants have a wide range of skills and use them
flexibly and spontaneously. Yet these skills are
pointless if the client is not aware of them. It takes
more than just rationale to raise this awareness – it
must be demonstrated in actions, through emotions and
with personal presence. That’s the primary way of drawing
more attention to our craft. This will hopefully help to
win the client’s confidence that “his/her” consultants /
facilitators / coaches really do help increase equally
quality and speed of the decision-making process
(capabilities).
References
Ahlemeyer, Heinrich W. / Köngiswieser, Roswita (1998):
Komplexität managen. Strategien, Konzepte und
Fallbeispiele. Frankfurt am Main: Gabler.
Baecker, Dirk (1998). Einfache Komplexität. In Ahlemeyer
/ Köngiswieser (1998), p. 21-50.
Baecker, Dirk (2008): Schneller rechnen, langsamer
entscheiden. In Sutrich / Endres (2008), p. 22-27.
Barz, Marina / Looss, Wolfgang (2008): Die verborgenen
Juwelen der Ambivalenz. In Sutrich / Endres (2008), p.
103-111.
Beck, Ulrich (1986/1992): Risk Society: Towards a New
Modernity. New Delhi: Sage.
Bennett, John G. (1976/2004): Risiko und Freiheit. Hasard
– Das Wagnis der Verwirklichung. Zürich: Chalice.
The 2009 Ernst & Young business risk report (in
collaboration with Oxford Analytica)
Frankfurter Allgemeine, Zeitung für Deutschland;
Wiesbaden: Gabler, 1977.
de Geus, Arie (2007): Decisions c’est apprendre. In:
Cahiers de SoL 7, SoL France, Paris
Gross, Peter (1994): Die Multioptionsgesellschaft.
Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Hillebrand, Martin / Hagenauer, Florian (2006):
Strategieentwicklung, ein Anfang. In Nino Tomaschek
(Hrsg.). Perspektiven systemischer Entwicklung und
Beratung von Organisationen. Heidelberg: Carl-Auer
Verlag.
Königswieser, Roswita / Heintel, Peter (1998): Teams als
Hyperexperten im Komplexitätsmanagement. In Ahlemeyer /
Köngiswieser (1998), p. 93-103.
Königswieser, Roswita; Exner, Alexander (2002).
Systemische Interventionen. Architekturen und Designs für
Berater und Veränderungsmanager. Stuttgart: Klett Cotta.
Königswieser, Roswita / Hillebrand, Martin (2005):
Systemic Consultancy in Organisations. Concepts – Tools –
Innovations. Heidelberg: Carl-Auer.
Königswieser, Roswita / Gebhard, Jürgen / Sonuc, Ebru /
Hillebrand, Martin (2006) Komplementärberatung. Das
Zusammenspiel von Fach- und Prozeß-Know-how. Stuttgart
Lanzenberger, Maximilian / Sutrich, Ulli (2008): Das
KAIROS-Entscheiderprofil. In Sutrich / Endres (2008), p.
113-123.
Lawrence, Paul R. / Lorsch, Jay W. (1969): Organization
and Environment: Managing Differentiation and
Integration. Homewood, IL: R.D. Irwin
Luhmann, Niklas (1984): Soziale Systeme. Frankfurt
Luhmann, Niklas (1998). Die Kontrolle von Intransparenz.
In Heinrich Ahlemeyer und Roswita Königswieser:
Komplexität managen. Frankfurt: FAZ GmbH.
Luhmann, Niklas (2000): Organisation und Entscheidung.
Wiesbaden
Opp, Bernd / Schulda, Gerd (2008): Close the loop – aus
Erfahrung wird Organisation klug! Seite 85-94 in: Sutrich
/ Endres (2008)
Scharmer, Otto C. / Käufer, Katrin (2008). Führung vor
der leeren Leinwand: ZOE
Senge, Peter, / Smith, Bryan / Kruschwitz, Nina / Laur,
Joe / Schley, Sara (2008): The Necessary Revolution: How
Individuals and Organizations Are Working Together to
Create a Sustainable World. New York: Doubleday.
Sennett, Richard (2008): The Craftsman. New Haven/London:
Yale University Press
Stulz René M. (2009): 6 Ways Companies Mismanage Risks.
p. 86-94, in: Harvard Business Review, March 2009.
Sutrich, Othmar (2003): Neuland für junge Berater am
Horizont? Oder: Wem und wozu nützt die Grenzziehung
zwischen Expertenberatung und Prozessberatung noch? In:
Profile 5, S. 53-65.
Sutrich, Othmar / Schindlbeck, Ulrike (2005): Es gibt
viel zu tun – wer packt mit an? Nachhaltige Beratung als
Verbindung von Fach- und Prozessexpertise im
Beratungsprozess. In: Fatzer, Gerhard (Hrsg.): Gute
Beratung von Organisationen. Bergisch Gladbach, S.
269-301.
Sutrich, Othmar (2006): Besser entscheiden in
Organisationen. In: Hernsteiner 3/2006, Seite 4-9
Sutrich, Othmar / Opp, Bernd (2007): Was ist anders in
einem „Entscheider-Coaching?, In: Profile 14, Seite 76-87
Sutrich, Othmar / Endres, Egon (Hg.) (2008): Entscheiden
oder Driften? Profile 16, Verlag EHP, Bergisch Gladbach
Taleb, Nassim N. (2008): Der schwarze Schwan. Die Macht
höchst unwahrscheinlicher Ereignisse. München: Carl-
Hanser Verlag.
Tichy, Noel M. / Bennis, Warren G. (2007): Judgment. How
Winning Leaders Make Great Calls. New York: Portfolio.
Weick, Karl, E. / Sutcliffe Kathleen, M. (2003): Das
Unerwartete Managen. Stuttgart: Klett Cotta.