Unveiling the Mystery of the
External/Internal Consultant Relationship
Sarah Gevirtz
Culminating Paper
May 21, 1999
OD Program, Sonoma State University
© 1999, Sarah Gevirtz
This article is dedicated to my Mother, who
spent many hours
caring for my daughter, Emma, during my graduate studies;
and to Emma, who is a daily source of wisdom for me about the human spirit.
| Ms. Gevirtz's approach to organizations has evolved from her practical background in alternative health care management and her theoretical education in organizational theory and cross-cultural studies. She earned a Bachelor's degree in Physical Education: Physical Therapy, from San Francisco State University and received a Master's degree in Psychology - Organization Development, from Sonoma State University (SSU). |
Relationship building is a rigorous practice of the heart and soul. To many of us, relationship building is a mystery, and yet, it is a practice that invites exploration. The relationship between external and internal consultants is one that is inherently complex and potentially vibrant. The issue of how to make this relationship work well continues to be alive and well in the field of Organization Development.
My interest in this topic emerged from two personal experiences as an external consultant during my graduate studies in Organization Development (OD) at SSU. Several weeks into the contracting phase of one of the projects, my cohorts and I learned about an internal OD consultant. When we talked with the internal, we discovered that she also had not been aware of our presence in the organization, and had strong concerns about what we might be doing. As a result, a lot of explaining and trust building had to happen midstream, all of which could have been avoided had we made contact with the internal OD consultant initially. One year later, a colleague and I conducted a training meeting at a public organization and found ourselves trying to convince the client (who we contracted with) to contact the internals, to no avail. Here, too, many hours of reflection and discussion were eventually needed to clarify our intentions as consultants with the client.
I believe that the dynamics of external-internal consultant relationships may be worth exploring. A better understanding of potential issues and possible best practices could guide effective contracting and collaboration among internals, externals, and their clients.
This paper focuses on issues surrounding entry and contracting in an organization from the perspective of both the internal and external consultants. From the interview material, I identify elements that hinder or enhance collaborative relations. I then discuss four key questions and implications about internal-external collaboration, followed by a list of conclusions and best practices.
Data Collection Methodology
To find out what internal and external OD consultants are doing or not doing to create collaborative relationships with one another, I decided to speak with eight OD consultants. I interviewed five senior consultants, three externals and two internals, working in large and small organizations in both public and private sectors. I also had informal conversations with two senior internal consultants working in the public sector and one senior external consultant who works in the private and public sectors. All of the consultants (four women and four men) were between 40 and 60 years old, and all had 10 or more years of consulting experience. Each interview and informal discussion lasted approximately one hour. To insure confidentiality, the respondents were told that any names of people or companies would be disguised in the subsequent article. My research design was limited given the small number of respondents interviewed and that no clients were interviewed.
I asked the respondents to tell some stories about their work with an external or an internal consultant in order for me to get a big-picture understanding of each consultant's experience. I encouraged the respondents to speak openly and include as many of the scenes and specifics of their experiences as they could. In order for me to understand the respondents' thoughts and feelings about the experiences I asked, "What do you think the possible causes were for what worked well and not?" and "Were there any learnings you gleaned from that experience about yourself or about working with the other?" I then looked for a few representative stories and remarks to report in this paper that would highlight some of the issues that arise when external and internal consultants enter into a working relationship.
Consulting Experiences
What follows are four stories that illustrate different issues that can arise in internal/external relationships. This first one addresses the issue of external consultants beginning to work in an organization without the knowledge of the internal consultant.
"What we witness, we are changed by.
When we are witnessed, we cannot go back." (Arrien, 1999)
Several weeks into the contracting phase of a student consulting project in which I was engaged with two other students, our client told us, "There's another project happening with the administrative people in our group that our internal Human Resource (HR) person is working on. I think you should talk to her because she'd be a resource for understanding our company culture." We were very surprised to learn about a concurrent project in the group and about an internal person doing similar OD work. We became concerned about the viability of the project because we assumed we would be treading on the boundaries of her job, and she wouldn't want us there (Pappas, Youngquist, and Gevirtz, 1999, p. 4).
We found out, by speaking with other consultants, that it is a common occurrence for OD projects to be impeded by managers' ignorance of the roles of internal and external consultants. In the case of the student project, my fellow students and I believed the internal should have been involved in the contracting process. Bev Scott, an OD consultant and writer, states that "...senior management often does not seem to understand or grasp the value of the ties the internal OD consulting group has with the existing organization in the successful implementation of a major change effort and the value of involving the internal function actively in the project. This oversight often means that the internal OD group is totally left out of the contracting process and may be without any connection to the project, much less viewed as a partner..." (Scott, 1998, p. 2).
We met with the internal to explore what had happened, how each of us felt about not knowing of the other's existence, what we all wanted, needed, and whether we all felt we could work together in a productive relationship. We were all very honest and willing to share our feelings and thoughts. We found she could help us understand the organization's culture, and she needed us since she was busy doing other projects. After our initial meeting with the internal, we decided to move forward.
I interviewed the internal after the project was over, and she shared that she had felt uncomfortable by our presence, initially. She told me she had said to our mutual client, "This is the work I do...why are you bringing students in to do it? This is what I am getting paid for."
While our client knew that the internal did the same kind of work as we were doing, the internal never identified it as "OD work." She had not painted as clear a picture of what she did for her client, in the same way that we had. She also wondered why she had not been aware of the need for such a project. She questioned whether her client or our team valued her input because she was brought in so late in the process. Also, she sensed that we perceived her as an obstacle rather than an ally. She thought we did not value her skills as an internal or her knowledge of the organization and as a result, she thought we were arrogant. She shared later that she understood the reason our team did not contact her was due to our lack of experience and naivete, not arrogance. She shared, "I was concerned that your team might make a fundamental mistake that would cost the organization and potentially end up creating more work for me."
However, once the internal felt more acceptance from us, she became our ally. Once she became our ally, we all felt open to partnering. She shared later that as a result of partnering with us, she became aware of her own strengths as a consultant and the value she brought to the organization. Our decision to move forward with the project was reinforced by our reading of Scott, who goes on to say, "When there is an openness to partnering or when asked by management to partner and recognize the internal's strengths, solid strategizing and successful change implementation can occur, blending outside objectivity and expertise with inside knowledge and attention to the human organization" (1998, p. 2).
This second personal story is about a client who did not want to include the internal consultants on a project he had hired external consultants to do.
"Every truth we do not speak to directly,
takes an average of 10 hours to clean up." (Arrien, 1999)
My second experience occurred during my second year of OD studies. My student partner and I got hired as externals to design and administer an eight-hour facilitation training meeting with a public safety organization. The organization is part of city administration, which has two OD internal consultants. I asked our client if he was going to inform the internals of the training meeting. He said that he did not need to contact them, that they were busy with other projects, that 90% of the training meetings he organizes involves outside consultants, that he had a budget to do this training meeting, and that this is how he was going to conduct the training meeting. While I knew from past experience that it was better to contact the internal, I reluctantly accepted his stanceñall the while wishing I could convince him otherwise.
We had three options: to walk away from the project, to ignore the client's wishes and go straight to the internals, or to talk again with the client about how to conduct the contracting process. We wanted to facilitate this training meeting so much that we did not want to walk away. Also, we felt a sense of loyalty to our client and did not think it was appropriate to go to the internals without our client's support. The only viable option for us was talking again with him. We asked a lot of questions such as, "Is this an opportunity to look at possible issues between you and the internals?" and "What would happen if you did tell them that you were hiring us to do the training?" and "The internals are going to feel mistrustful of you and us...what will the implications be of their not knowing?" We encountered his persistent reasoning and resistance. We decided not to push it and to continue the preparation for the training meeting.
A week before the training meeting, we gave the materials to our client to hand out to the training participants. Our client was so pleased and proud of our work that he decided to show it to the HR Manager. One day before the scheduled training, our client received calls from one of the internals and the HR Manager. They were angry, and they wanted to know why they had not been asked to do the training or even told about it. Our client gave them the same reasons he had given us, and then extended an invitation to them to attend the training. Not surprisingly, they did not show up.
After the training meeting was over, my partner and I met with the client. We asked him, "What would it have taken to get you to reconsider talking to the internal consultants before the training meeting?" The client responded, "If you had threatened to walk out." At the time, we were not willing to walk out for fear of losing the opportunity to do the training meeting. In retrospect, we should have taken the chance because it was in the best interest of the organization.
Still feeling uncomfortable three weeks after the training meeting, my partner and I invited the two internals and the HR Manager to lunch. Our intention for the meeting was to come to some mutual understanding of what happened, why it happened, to speak to our own actions and decisions, express our apologies, and move on. They accepted our invitation graciously. At the meeting they shared some of their frustrations and fears, including how they had felt devalued by our client. One of the internals wanted to know why we were asked to do the work they are supposed to do in the organization. She asked, similarly to the internal in the first story, "Why did the client bring in outside consultants to do what is my job? What I am getting paid for, anyway?" Another asked why we had not come knocking on their doors regardless of the client's wishes. There was an awareness, for the internals, that there were some issues that needed to be reviewed with the client.
My partner and I spoke only about our own actions and intentions and not to those of the client. We explained the sequence of events, how we had been feeling along the way about not including them, and we expressed our apologies for our part in how it had turned out. It was clear that, had the internals been contacted from the beginning, we could have avoided the 10 hours or so that were spent talking about the situation between ourselves, reflecting on it, and finally meeting with the two internals and HR manager.
They thanked us for coming forward and inviting them to reflect on what had happened. We all were reminded that day about the importance of communication and the power of telling the truth.
This third story tells of a new internal consultant who must build trust with the existing HR staff. The respondent likened his experience to that of an external consultant who develops relationships with the internal consultant upon entering an organization.
"Ethics of consulting are practical. We get better results
when everybody is on the team." (Joe, senior external consultant)
Joe took a job as an internal consultant in a large high-tech company that was experiencing rapid growth in the 1980s in the Silicon Valley. Joe was the first OD person to apply for and get an internal position there since the company required a Ph.D. for the position. The internal HR people could not apply for the position because they had BA and MA degrees. In addition to Joe, there was an HR generalist assigned to a number of internal organizations to perform a range of HR functions, to strategize and address organizational issues.
The HR people felt that the most interesting work was the strategy work rather than the duties within HR. They wondered to what extent Joe might take over their duties. It became clear to Joe that he was perceived as a threat. As a response, Joe reached out to the internals and explained that he viewed his position as a resource, that he did not want to have a relationship with their existing clients without their invitation or an invitation from the executive level, and that he would support the HR people's ability to consult.
A strongly held ethic of Joe's is that he does not work as a single consultant when another consultant is already in place. "If you can pair up with the internal, you are more effective than if it becomes a competition," he says. He explained that to "pair-up" with someone who has different skills brings different issues forward, including competency-based issues and different kinds of opportunitiesñall of which must be put "out on the table." As a result of these "out on the table" discussions with the internals, Joe was able to "shadow consult," which helped the internals become more effective.
Joe could be effective in places that the internals were not, and he paired or partnered with the internals when they could jointly consult with the client. All of this contributed to a level of expertise that the internal did not previously have, which led to the client becoming eager to have the internals present. This arrangement allowed Joe to support the internals' ability to consult. This view is supported by one senior external consultant who said, "My job is to teach people in the system how to do what I do so that they will not need me in the future."
This fourth story demonstrates how two internals who worked in separate divisions of an organization chose to collaborate instead of being adversarial.
I interviewed Robert, a senior internal consultant, who got hired to work in a large banking institution that was experiencing rapid growth during the 1980s. The organization had two divisions that were physically separated. The parent company (PC) was based in Northern California and the data processing center (DPC) was located in Southern California. Each of the locations had one internal OD consultant. When one company is physically separated into two, the internal consultants sometimes act as externals to other divisions. Since Robert's and Steve's responsibilities were in separate divisions of the company, their relationship was similar to that of internal and external consultants. Robert was assigned to consult to middle and upper level management at DPC. The other internal consultant, Steve, was assigned to consult to the president at PC.
The general manager at DPC who was dynamic and aggressive annoyed and irritated the president of PC by informing him how DPC was more successful than PC. In response, the president sent Steve to DPC to find out what made DPC so successful. When the general manager of DPC found out that Steve was coming into his organization, he felt threatened. The general manager asked Robert to observe Steve closely and to report everything back to him.
When the two internals met for the first time, they discovered that both of their clients felt threatened by each other's actions and had asked the consultants to protect their interests. Instead of being secretive and adversarial, the consultants decided to develop a healthy and collaborative relationship. For example, in order to understand the success of DPC, Robert and Steve decided to interview the staff at DPC and then summarize the data together. Working together, they were able to identify factors that contributed to DPC's success and the factors that inhibited DPC's success. Together, they shared the summary with the president and the general manager.
As a result, the president realized that there was no threat to PC by the general manager telling the president how to run PC. The general manager realized there was no threat to DPC by having Steve within DPC. The consultants modeled a healthy collaboration to their clients by turning around what could have been an uncomfortable and unpleasant situation, and creating a mutually respectful and supportive one.
Elements That Hinder and Enhance Collaborative Relationships
As I reviewed these stories and the interview notes, I identified those elements that hindered or enhanced collaborative relationships.
Hindering Factors
One of the most consistent responses from respondents was that an external who accepts a consulting assignment without involving the internal sets up a situation that is a hindrance to the consulting process. When this occurs, the internal may feel threatened by the external, which may lead to the internal perceiving the external as arrogant.
A second hindrance that several respondents reported, which can polarize the consultants is when the internal has concerns that the external might make a fundamental mistake that would not benefit the organization. If this is the case, the internal will not support the external's work and may sabotage it.
A third hindering factor, according to some of the respondents, for discord between an internal and external is the belief that externals earn large salariesñlarger than internals earn.
And lastly, when circumstances combine to create competition, all respondents agreed, the possibilities for collaboration are weakened.
Enhancing Factors
Respondents agreed that it is good when the external accepts a consulting assignment with an explicit agreement to involve the internal; only in this way can the external and internal possibly support each other's success. One external suggested that it is important to "create an ally with the internal." When each finds his or her own complementary role within the project and talk openly about expectations, fears, and hopes with the other, the consulting project is enhanced by the relationship. One internal said, "By working together, (internals and externals) can leverage the system more effectively."
Most importantly, the consultants agreed, contracting for mutual understanding is crucial to the success of the collaborative process. These agreements must include clear intentions, role clarification, responsibilities of each, objectives, identifying the people in the system that need to be present for each stage in the process, and creating a venue for surfacing difficult issues (Eisen, 1998). For example, one internal said, "I bring in externals to create leverage in the system or to reenergize the system in a way that I do not." This internal is clear about the role he wants the external to play.
Basic Questions and Implications For Internal-External Collaboration
While reflecting on the data, four guiding questions emerged about collaborative relationships between internal and external consultants and between consultants and their clients.
1. How do ethics and role modeling play a part in the collaborative process?
When consultants practice OD within organizations, they have the opportunity to model to the rest of the organization the personal and interpersonal values and ethics by which the field of OD is guided (see "Ethics Statement for OD" in Rothwell, 1994, p. 565). This is a great responsibility that consultants haveñto act in the highest professional standard. When approaching any client engagement, a consultant might reflect on the following questions:
Under what conditions will I walk away from an engagement?
How are my actions serving or not serving the organization?
Who gives me permission to be the best consultant I know how to be?
Consultants who ignore these considerations may find themselves agreeing to untenable conditions or modeling behavior that is harmful to the client organization. This thought is supported by Eisen, Steele, and Cherbeneau in the book, Practicing Organization Development (Rothwell, 1994, p. 503), where they write, "...honest self-reflection and self-scrutiny will help OD consultants to pay attention to, and take responsibility for, the impact of their personal and professional values, ethics, and behavior on clients, colleagues, and the OD field."
2. What is the significance of the process of entry and contracting into a consulting
relationship with a client?
The relationship that the consultant and client create during entry and contracting sets the tone for the rest of the project. It is during this time that patterns of communication begin to take form. As Jill Janov says, "So goes the contracting, so goes the project." (Janov, 1999) Keeping this in mind, the consultant must be aware of how he or she chooses to communicate with the client and the long-term implications of every decision made with the client.
Internal and external consultants have many responsibilities to the client during entry and contracting. One responsibility is to educate the client about the effective use of the external's and internal's expertise and time. With this knowledge, the organization can be better served. The consultant also has the responsibility to have a conversation with the client about how the consultant and the client will work together. The consultant and client might ask each other, "What are the implicit rules between us and will they work?"
Finally, the consultant has the responsibility to find out what other activities are happening in the organization that are engaging issues of change. Once a conversation has addressed these issues, the client and consultant can make an informed choice to move forward or not. If the client is unwilling to bring in the internal, for example, does the external consultant give himself or herself permission to speak up, move on, or walk away?
3. What are the implications for the consultant's practice and strategy in viewing
the organization as a whole system as it relates to the external/internal consultant
relationship?
One aspect of viewing the organization as a whole system is reviewing who the key stakeholders are and who may be left out of the picture. Intentionally excluding the internal consultant may be leaving out wisdom that can be tied to the success of the project. It is the consultant's responsibility to educate the client about the implications of viewing the organization as a whole system, and the importance of raising pertinent questions to the client about the client system. One senior external consultant explained, "I cannot put together the best strategy if I do not or cannot ask the questions." It is then the consultant's responsibility to take the knowledge learned from asking the questions and actively engage it.
Some clients are naive with regards to who in the system (i.e., the internal consultant) should be involved in a change effort and at what point they should be brought in. The consultant can help shift the client's limited thinking to a whole system understanding of the organization by simply asking the client, "Who will be affected by this decision?" Other pertinent questions would include: "What value might bringing the internals into the process have for the system?" and "How is what you have asked me to do work with other change efforts?" Once all of these answers are determined, consultants can decide if and then how they will be able to work within the system.
Verna Allee in her article, "Elegant Solutions for Mastering Complexity," discusses how consultants are challenged to work with the intricacies of systems thinking (Allee, 1997). She points out, "Systems thinking provides a problem-solving perspective that examines the inter-dependencies and relationships of the whole....We all have inherent knowledge of how systems work. The challenge is to first tap that knowledge, then deepen knowledge into wisdom and respect for our powerful capacity to create systems that serve us. Without mastering systems thinking we cannot make the choices we must for creating a sustainable future." When consultants are able to articulate, to the client, their own understanding of what is happening in the organization the client can begin to see how his or her decisions affect the entire system.
4. What is the importance of being willing to ask the hard questions of the client and of oneself?
It takes courage for the consultant to ask hard questions of the client. By asking the difficult questions, the consultant encourages the client to reflect on the implications of what the client is about to do within the organization. In doing this, the relationship between the consultant and the client may be strengthened. As one external consultant shared about her work with the client, "...This work is not about strengthening your position but about strengthening the client."
Clients who are creative and intuitive people may also be delayed processors (Arrien, 1999). Many times clients are quick to make decisions without thinking about the repercussions of those decisions. The consultant can better serve the client by asking, "What are the implications if we involve the internal consultant?"
When considering the professional challenges of asking hard questions and setting the tone for the project, the consultant also faces personal challenges. Those challenges include paying the bills and earning a fair salary, of course, but also being a competent consultant, and at the same time remaining a good person. Sometimes consultants make decisions that they know are not in the best interest of the client, but they move forward anyway because of money or power. One senior external shared, "Our job is to pay attention to and assess the moral playing field. It is hard to pass by an opportunity when there is a lot of money involved. However, there is no power in a situation where there is no integrity." Every consultant must determine under what conditions he or she will work with a client.
Summary of Best Practices For External-Internal Collaboration
What follows is a summary of best practices for external and internal collaboration gathered from the stories and conversations with the respondents.
It is important to acknowledge and appreciate the value both internal and external consultants bring to the project. By acknowledging the individual values, strengths and weaknesses of internal and external consultants, the combined effectiveness of an external and an internal with their mutual client increases. The external consultants' strengths, for example, are that they hold a fresh view, are aware of current models, can challenge the conventional organizational wisdom and certain taboos, and through these efforts, hopefully develops credibility. Yet external consultants do not know where the leverage points lie.
Internal consultants, on the other hand, have a working knowledge of an organization's culture, are aware of current models of change, know where the leverage points lie, and understand the technical aspects of a company, its personnel and history. Internal consultants have an understanding of what really "sticks" and have their pulse on the organization. Yet the internal consultant can be seen by those in the organization as having "...the same biases that impinge on them, thus [making them] slower to recognize that the internal consultant has something special to offer them" (Block, 1981, p. 106).
To create an effective collaboration, both the internal and external must market their skills and abilities to the client and to each other, identify and bring forward their biases, and determine how those biases may affect their work with each other and the organization.
Support each other (external and internal consultant) so that the client, the client system, and the consultants benefit. In order to create a collaborative relationship, the external and the internal consultant must explore together personal growth issues, the significance of the process of entry and contracting in a consulting relationship with a client, the implications of viewing the organization as a whole system as it relates to the external/internal consultant relationship, and the implications that a collaborative relationship between the external and internal consultant could have to the consultants' work with the client. If both consultants carry the premise that they will do what is best for the organization, then it is their duty as OD practitioners to fully reflect on the above issues individually and collectively with colleagues and clients.
It is a good idea to partner, when appropriate, with other consultants in the system. When internal and external consultants acknowledge their separate strengths and weaknesses, they can find common ground. Common ground, according to Weisbord, is when we "...seek to hear and appreciate differences, not reconcile them. We seek to validate polarities, not reduce the distance between them. We learn, innovate and act from a mutual base of discovered ideals, world views, and future goals" (Weisbord, 1992, p. 7). When the consultants find common ground, they can move forward into a mutually respectful relationship. When they are in a mutually respectful relationship, they model a behavior that is both valuable and ethical to each other and the organization.
Bibliography
1. Allee, Verna (Summer, 1997). Vision Action: "Elegant Solutions for Mastering Complexity". San Francisco, CA: Bay Area OD Network.
2. Arrien, A. (1993). The Four Fold Way: Walking the Paths of the Warrior, Teacher, Healer, and Visionary. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers.
3. Arrien, A. (2/24/99, 3/17/99, 3/24/99). The Four Fold Way Intermediate Training: Excerpts from lectures and conversations given in Sausalito, CA.
4. Block, P. (1991). Flawless Consulting. San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer & Company.
5. Eisen, Saul (1998). "Contracting For Mutual Expectations". SSU in Rohnert Park, CA.
6. Janov, Jill (2/2/99). The Forum For Public Benefit Learning: Excerpts from a lecture given in Atherton, CA.
7. Pappas, Youngquist, and Gevirtz (1999). "YPG: an Organization Development Case Study." SSU in Rohnert Park, CA.
8. Rothwell, W.J., Sullivan, R. & McLean, G.N. (1995). Practicing Organization Development: A Guide for Consultants. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
9. Scott, Bev (Spring, 1998). Vision Action: "Change Management". San Francisco, CA: Bay Area OD Network.
10. Weisbord, Marvin (1992). Discovering Common Ground. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
|
|