In this post, I want to talk about a couple of consultancy projects I worked on several years ago.
My strongest memory of these projects is not the actual content of what we were trying to do in the client organization, but the almost unbearable conflicts that arose between the members of the consultancy team, and especially between the two principals. We were each talking to different stakeholders within the enterprise, and as a consequence of this we took aggressively different positions on what was important, leading to some extremely uncomfortable meetings. Reflecting on this afterwards, I realized that the two principals were (probably unconsciously) acting out some of the conflicts in the client organization - in other words, the team had become as it were a microcosm of the organization. In such a situation, if the team can manage to resolve its own internal conflicts, this may be a valid step towards dealing with the conflicts in the enterprise as a whole.
This means that I now pay a lot of attention to the intervention process, and to the people engaged in these interventions, and ask how these affect the course of the intervention itself.
I greatly admire Jerry Weinberg and have enjoyed his writings on consultancy, but I would rank Peter Block's book on Flawless Consulting even higher. For Block, one of the most important things for the consultant is to be authentic. An authentic consultant is one who doesn't just think "I'm finding this narrative really boring, why is the client putting so much effort into not saying anything?" but actually says something rather than suffer in silence.
By the way, I think this is also what good therapists do.
Originally posted in the Enterprises *as* Systems - Enterprise Systems Theory group on Linked-In. Following a discussion on Methodological Syncretism, Tom Graves had challenged me to put up some of my own experiences rather than merely question those of other people.
In the subsequent comments, Sally Bean interpreted this example in terms of Checkland's distinction between Hard Systems Thinking and Soft Systems Thinking, prompting Geoff Elliot to challenge Checkland's account of this distinction. Tom Graves quoted Dave Snowden's maxim "every diagnostic is an intervention, every intervention is a diagnostic", mentioned the use of the unconscious in Jerry Weinberg's work, and invoked spiritual and magical thinking.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Edge of Chaos?
@Rondon (via @DavidGurteen @tetradian ) points to some ‘weak signals’ that "complex adaptive systems thinking may well be about to assert itself as the new paradigm" [Edge of Chaos - The Ecology of Knowledge].
Ron cites a number of recent examples of fragmentary political action that have evaded the control of the traditional forces of law-and-order. However, different stakeholders will have different ways of making sense of these example.
From a law-and-order perspective, there is a great deal of activity that remains under the control of the traditional forces of law-and-order, and these examples might be regarded merely as isolated failures. The forces of law-and-order will undoubtedly wish to improve their ability to anticipate and manage future incidents more effectively, and will therefore be looking closely at these examples. From this perspective, it would not be surprising to discover some useful patterns in these examples.
Meanwhile, the forces of radical change in society may be looking at these as hopeful signs of future transformation in our sociopolitical systems. From this perspective, the objective would be to identify tactics that were robust, not only against current police procedure but against any future police procedure.
Ron's new paradigm might be based on a belief that there is a fundamental asymmetry that is shifting power away from the traditional forces of law and order, which no amount of police innovation could ever catch up with. But while there are undoubtedly some asymmetries in the modern world that create new demands and challenges for the forces of law and order, history suggests that traditional order is a lot more robust than student activists might wish.
Ron cites a number of recent examples of fragmentary political action that have evaded the control of the traditional forces of law-and-order. However, different stakeholders will have different ways of making sense of these example.
From a law-and-order perspective, there is a great deal of activity that remains under the control of the traditional forces of law-and-order, and these examples might be regarded merely as isolated failures. The forces of law-and-order will undoubtedly wish to improve their ability to anticipate and manage future incidents more effectively, and will therefore be looking closely at these examples. From this perspective, it would not be surprising to discover some useful patterns in these examples.
Meanwhile, the forces of radical change in society may be looking at these as hopeful signs of future transformation in our sociopolitical systems. From this perspective, the objective would be to identify tactics that were robust, not only against current police procedure but against any future police procedure.
Ron's new paradigm might be based on a belief that there is a fundamental asymmetry that is shifting power away from the traditional forces of law and order, which no amount of police innovation could ever catch up with. But while there are undoubtedly some asymmetries in the modern world that create new demands and challenges for the forces of law and order, history suggests that traditional order is a lot more robust than student activists might wish.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Adapt or Die
Notice anything strange about the following stories?
Universities in Wales told to 'adapt or die' (BBC News 3rd December 2010)
UK: Scotland 'Adapt or die' warning to companies (BBC News 4 October 1999)
Net industry told to adapt or die (BBC News 23 October, 2002)
Computers upset the workplace (BBC News 17 September, 2002)
In these cases, the "adapt or die" meme comes from an outside agent that is trying to impose or sell some kind of change, rather than emerging from the organization's own sense of its future identity and viability.
Universities in Wales told to 'adapt or die' (BBC News 3rd December 2010)
Education Minister Leighton Andrews has told universities and further education colleges in Wales there will be fewer of them by 2013. Those that survive will be those that respond best to the government's agenda, which makes future funding dependent on a willingness to "progress swiftly to merger and reconfiguration".(By the way, that doesn't sound like adaptation so much as shotgun wedding.)
UK: Scotland 'Adapt or die' warning to companies (BBC News 4 October 1999)
Independent research, commissioned by a leading internet company, suggests small and medium sized (SMEs) firms are failing to invest in new technologies and could be losing their competitive advantage.
Net industry told to adapt or die (BBC News 23 October, 2002)
Britain's broadband industry must start co-operating or face going bust.
Computers upset the workplace (BBC News 17 September, 2002)
In the long run technology does not cost jobs, it moves them around. Humans simply have to adapt or die, to retrain in a way that the pre-computer generations never had to.
In these cases, the "adapt or die" meme comes from an outside agent that is trying to impose or sell some kind of change, rather than emerging from the organization's own sense of its future identity and viability.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)