Organizations have achieved competitive advantages through the development of knowledge, skills and abilities of their Professionals, Executives and Managers located in leadership positions and roles. And this is true not only for Companies but also for Universities and Research Centers.
Said Leadership positions are sufficient to consolidate their position under conditions of Transitional change, but the needs in a context of TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE (which goes much further than the simple transitional change to which we have been accustomed) requires new Competencies.
Transformational Changes in the context require in turn new “organizational arrangements” and these new organizational arrangements only have to be able to be IMPLEMENTED through people with expertise in Behavioral Sciences. Usually Professionals, Executives and Managers do not receive this knowledge - and the corresponding practicum - in their learning processes both outside and within companies and, therefore, achieve “satisfactory” results. That is, they satisfy certain Goals, but they do not reach Maximize them.
The Objective of this Conference is to share the competencies that are necessary to act as Agents of Change that enable them to promote, stimulate, encourage, prepare the conditions and implement Change within Organizations with the purpose of Maximizing the achievement of the Objectives both Individual and Organizational.
- Contents / Topics:
In the Conference yesterday we have reviewed different contents and in order to keep them in mind we have to detail below a summary of them:
- Familiarization with the conceptual frameworks of Organizational Behavior and Organizational Development (more than 30 notable experts).
We have seen that it is impossible to "enter" a company and not have a conceptual model or organizational theory that is considered the "most efficient". In fact, there is no single model to be applied in all organizations, nor within a single industrial sector, nor belonging to a single phase of organization development. But as we have seen yesterday, it can be too costly for the consultant - not to mention for the Client himself - for the consultant to enter blindly.
Today there are more than 20 conceptual frameworks of organizational theories whose notable experts have spent most of their time, energy and money to find empirical evidence regarding their working hypotheses. The consultant who decides to ignore them may not enter the company "blind" but we can be sure that he has to enter "one-eyed".
- Get acquainted with more than 30 "Best Practices"
Here we have emphasized the orientation that many consultants have to "offer" a particular "Best Practice" with which they are familiar, above the real and true needs of the Clients. In the last 30 years, some 40 “Best Practices” have coexisted, so that the following question arises (that every Client should ask the Consultant): What is the reason why the consultant has chosen only one of them and has also discarded more than 30 other practices that have proven effective on many other occasions?
- Define the most efficient Organizational Arrangement
It is striking that the consultants do not have their own “more efficient” organizational arrangement, taking into account the experiences they have had through their different interventions. It is impossible to send a rocket to the moon as well as make a good birthday cake for one of our children, if we do not have an "ideal model" to achieve. The phrase from Alice in Wonderland fits perfectly to consultants who do not have a better model of organizational efficiency based on their experiences: "Every road is good when you do not know where you should go." The most unfortunate thing is that at the end of the process the consultant may have been rewarded in terms of fees, but the Client may not have received what her company required to sustain it and make it grow over time.
- Identify the key variables towards achieving Maximize Results within the Company
The selection of variables is usually carried out by the consultant taking into account “his professional origin”. A Public Accountant must surely be interested in investigating what happens in the company based on different financial indicators: gross profit margin, acid test, etc. while an engineer has to explore the production and operational processes, and a third person with a diploma in computer technology can define the problem of the company in terms of hardware and software. Various authors (including Rensis Likert) and The Organization Development Institute International spend enough time to explore which are the main "independent" variables that impact the dependent variables, also taking into account which are the intervening ones.
- Re-definition of the important role of Leadership
There is no doubt that every organization bears the seal of its Leader (s). The career development process of its executive and managerial body and the dedication of energy beyond those initially devoted to their selection processes, also makes it essential to dedicate energy to the "selection processes". We must remember a phrase that I mention frequently: “Companies that do not devote energy to the personnel selection process have to live with selection processes that are possibly developed by personnel from the same company and that can lead to serious difficulties. and dysfunctional consequences to the organization itself ”.
- Specify "WHAT to change" and know / recognize HOW to do it.
One of the main reasons why the expected results are sometimes not achieved as a result of the different consultancy interventions is because many times it is not clearly specified what is going to be changed and how it has to be carried out the change; that is, the methodology to follow.
Finally, another point that is not always given sufficient importance is related to the need to clearly define within the consulting proposal the scope of the work and in particular within said scope, it must be clearly specified what the processes and procedures in that are being subject to change.
- How consultants are "trained"
Some of the consulting interventions are eventually carried out by a single person, but it is more frequent that the interventions - especially those that involve many units and work groups in the company - are carried out by a team of professionals in their capacity as advisers. And within this team there are consultants with different degrees of expertise (junior, senior, project leader, among others).
Just as many companies have problems developing their leaders, the entities that provide advisory services also have similar problems related to the career development of their consultants and particularly regarding their training.
Nowadays, before completing their university studies, professionals who pursue the objective of acting as consultants in change and organizational development, question what they should do to start in the profession. And this is one of the main problems since the "education" of the consultants seems to be linked to the "knowledge" obtained through a Diploma issued by a prestigious University. But education is not enough for the consultant to have the “training” that a consultancy job requires where change processes involve people, groups, relationships between people, relationships between groups, relationships within groups, between other aspects.
In short, a low “previous” exposure regarding experiences and practices as a change agent does not place the “self-defined consultant” in the best position to carry out their work.
Not long ago, Dr. Terry Armstrong (“Organizations and Change”; August 2004 - Newsletter of The Organization Development Institute), stated that many of his graduate students asked him about “What did they have to do to get started in the profession of Organizational Development ”. In recent years the corporate and organizational world has been quite convulsed, within which "the Consultant" was an actor with a presence, regardless of whether he was a "main actor" or a "supporting actor".
We are going to highlight below some “signs” that should be taken seriously into account by those interested in the consulting profession in change and organizational development.
1. Many consultants in Organizational Development who have had training in the United States of North America wonder "how is it possible to help organizations improve their actions in Latin American countries". During my presentation at the World Congress held by The Organization Development Institute in Dublin in July 1999, one of the most interesting questions that arose and was asked me is related to the Profession of Consultant or the Profession of Organizational Development in the different Latin American countries.
2. There is a significant degree of “curiosity” within the different cultures in Latin America on the part of its professionals in relation to the Profession of Organizational Development. In the last three years, several people have visited our website and show interest in many of the articles, cases and experiences included there that are related to improvement processes within business corporations in particular and also in relation to the world. organizational.
3. We receive more and more frequently in our Institute some calls from professionals who tell us that they are interested in “learning about certain books that they should read” in the areas of Organizational Development and Change. In general, many of them occupy managerial and executive positions in companies and there are also cases of professionals who have "chosen" a "Best Practice" in particular and wish to broaden their perspective regarding the exercise of their consulting profession.
4. In different Workshops, Seminars, Congresses and Conferences of Change and Organizational Development, some questions arise in this order: What IS what they should do (in their capacity as professionals graduated from very good Universities) to practice the profession of Consultant? One of the most frequently asked questions has to do with What should and can be done to get a Client?
5. We are more frequently consulted by different executives, managers and professionals regarding the importance of "Behavioral Sciences" and what use can be made of them to improve "their" organizations.
However, and in fairness, we must state that it is extremely unfortunate that many of these consultations are made by these managers and professionals "after" they have "felt hurt in their relationship with their own company." The Organization Development Institute International, Latin America has published a Career Development book for managers and executives - having as authors Dr. Donald W. Cole and Eric Gaynor Butterfield - which has been based on the monumental original work of the first of them whose conclusions they were poured into a book published in English and entitled "Professional Suicide or Organizational Murder".It is a practice of our institution that this book is used with directors and executives who are interested in the development of their respective careers in companies and the evidence shows that - in general - the suggestions made by Cole and Gaynor are only considered “after ”That the directors / executives have separated from the organization.
At The Organization development Institute International we have enough evidence that professionals and executives are more likely to seek “help” when experiencing pain, although it makes a lot of sense to ask for help to make things go even better, when one is still operating. successfully. Something similar happens with consultants in the development of their own careers; They do not seem to recognize when it is that they must “retrain” and open up to incorporate all the competencies that are required of change agents.
6. Consultants generally do not take on the task of “training” others. All consulting work on a Client implies the imperative need to work shoulder to shoulder with a Project Leader on the part of the company. The identification of the appropriate person for this task, the accompaniment of the same, the training as an agent of change that the same consultant must provide, are usually not considered by the consultant herself as tasks that she is in charge of. It seems that some consultants - who express themselves and verbalize themselves as "participatory" consultants - prefer to "relate" to a project leader on the part of the Client who operates under the hierarchical pyramid form!We have noticed some interesting initiatives in recent times within different companies in Latin American cultures where executives in charge of the Human Resources area consult us more and more regarding their interest in "training regarding techniques, tools and methodologies" of Change and Development. Organizational.
7. Starting in the last decade of the last century, companies in their efforts to improve their level of competitiveness have channeled energy, resources, money and time to revitalize the previous internal areas known as "Organization and Methods", "Re-engineering", "Customer Services" in its desire to produce organizational changes. And in this effort they have found that people who had training in what was known as Organization and Methods "were no longer within the organization." Again, the training necessary to implement the change processes did not "exist" within the organization.
8. We found that trainers, facilitators and trainers specialized in different areas such as Motivation, Leadership, NLP, Emotional Intelligence, Sales, among others, have been requiring us "material related to" organizational change. This is good news… but not so good for Clients. It is shown that the services that these very good professionals were providing until then had to do more “with continuing to do things in the same way” despite the fact that “they had new knowledge (not put into practice) in Motivation, Leadership, NLP, Emotional Intelligence, Sales.
9. It is becoming more frequent to hear from different independent professionals (who define themselves as consultants) that “they have more and more problems getting Clients” and “that consulting work has greatly diminished”. In fact, if we review the points above, it is possible that one of the suggestions that consultants should follow is to turn their consulting work into a Profession.
Dr. Donald W. Cole has been working for more than 40 years in the "Profession of Organizational Development" and in The Organization Development Institute International, Latin America we have been doing it strongly in the last 5 years, being aware that Consultants require a " kit ”much more complete than that provided by a professional Diploma. The competencies required to exercise the Profession of change and organizational development are totally necessary to be able to accompany in the transformational changes that they require to carry out.
We are not going to dare in a few pages to find a resolution to so many questions, but we are going to make the best attempt to explore ways to answer them or, even better, to be able to re-formulate the questions so that we can see the phenomenon from a new and broader perspective.
We are going to try to remember some suggestions and considerations that we made some time ago regarding "Professionalize the practice of Consultant in change and organizational development". We are going to detail them one by one.
One of the premises linked to the profession of Consultant is based on the fact that not always the own and internal vision of each one - both at an individual, group or organizational level - can help us to solve the situations that we confront.
All people usually talk about change and also about "resistance to change" but it is rarely spoken in terms of "our own resistance to change" or "that people resist change when they do not know in advance the possible consequences of change in question".
The ignorance of the Consultants regarding the state of the science of Organizational Theories. In a work published on www.Gestiópolis.com, reference is made to some 60 notable authors who make real contributions to understanding the behavior of organizations. A field work (Eric Gaynor Butterfield: “Congreso de Desarrollo Organizacional”, Buenos Aires - 1997) shows that the majority of internal professionals in companies and consultants are unaware of the vast majority of these conceptual frameworks and their consequent possible applications.
The familiarity of most Consultants with “some point practice” regarding how to introduce improvements in the business and corporate world. Here also the reader can go to the work published in www.Gestiópolis.com "Organizational Development: An effort to integrate WHAT is what we should do with HOW we should do it" where more than 60 "Best Practices" that different practitioners had made use of during his interventions in companies. The consultants' familiarity with only some of these "Best Practices" - and consequently the ignorance of the total universe - makes an effective practice of the Consultant profession vulnerable.
From the previous point, some questions arise and among them we can formulate the following: If a consultant is specialized in one or two "Best Practices" and they are used at the time of carrying out the consulting intervention, how is it possible to expect organizational improvement if this intervention In particular, the consultant does not take into account the "Best Practices" already implemented previously or the option of countless other "Best Practices" that have not yet been implemented? We have made reference to the “3 T” on several occasions and we still do not notice that the Consultants have incorporated a clear distinction between them in the development of their profession, especially in the development of their own consulting intervention.
The changes within the tradition are less than the transitional changes and the latter do not bear any kind of relationship with the transformational changes. And in order to deal with transformational changes, it is essential to know - and of course then be in a position to effectively apply - the state of Behavioral Sciences.
It is extremely unfortunate that a large number of prestigious Universities have not reached the level of Universities in other countries with respect to theories, practices, research and values / ethics related to the Behavioral Sciences. The question we ask ourselves here is the following: How can professionals, executives and managers interested in change processes not visualize difficulties and problems if they do not have the arsenal of knowledge that is linked to the “behavior of people "? At the end of the day, when a consultant "chooses" a particular best practice such as "Total Quality", "Re-engineering", CRM or SCM, does he have to implement it "without people"? Or perhaps the affected organizational participants are not people, the Clients are not people, the suppliers are not people,and the implementers of many of these technologies, software and methodologies… are also people! We do not yet have self-generated, self-managed or self-implemented implementation methodologies.
Now we must begin to observe ourselves, as professionals and as consultants. A huge majority - practically more than 97% - of the consultants are University Graduate professionals who have graduated in various fields. Many of them are engineers in their different specialties, others are public accountants and administration graduates, there are also computer specialists, and occasionally we also meet other professionals with various specializations.
These people who have self-defined or the companies have done it for them - especially when they are employed in "large" Consulting firms in terms of their institutional dispersion, number of Clients and billing and number of employed personnel - actually do a job. within companies “that could have been done by professionals from the same organization and who find their pay at the end of each month as part of the payroll. So the consultant distinction is NOT clear in any way. If someone wants to shed more light on this perspective, they should not fail to take into account the work of Edgar Schein (“Organization Development: Process Consultation”; Addison & Wesley - 1968) where he refers to three main forms that the work of consulting: the "purchase" method, the "doctor-patient" method,and process consulting. Eric Gaynor suggests ("Ways to do consulting work": Michigan State University - 1975) refers to three particular and additional distinctions that occur within the corporate and business world within Latin American cultures.
Under these new perspectives (Edgar Schein and Eric Gaynor) a specialist in implementing an ERP under JD Edwards or SAP or who eventually participates in an intervention to implement a CRM or SCM is not necessarily a consultant, since that same job could have It was carried out through a direct hiring of the professional (self-defined as a consultant or defined by the consulting firm in which he is employed) and his difference with the "others" would not have even been noticed since he would have been paid the same day in So are the other organizational members, usually at the end of the month.
The hiring of "a consultant" or "a consulting firm" in this sense does not differ to a greater extent than the contracting of other services, such as Security, Transportation and Surveillance.
The very frequent failures of traditional consulting interventions are largely due to the conjunction of many of the factors mentioned above. But there is an additional factor that is related to the “prevailing organizational arrangement” within the corporate, organizational and business world in Latin America.
There is no doubt that the consultant's intervention is not carried out in a vacuum but is rather subject to direct action within an organization. And this is where we should stop for a while. Field work where the different prevailing organizational typologies are consulted receive “limited” responses - to say the least - regarding consultants.
They are unaware of the vast majority of the "Best Theories" and also of the "Best Practices" as mentioned in points C. and D. above, the "limited" Best Practices in which they specialize do not last very long., and those conceptual frameworks "known or heard" during the studies leading to their Diplomas in very good Universities, does not always help them to identify the variables or main dimensions of each theoretical or conceptual framework of more than 50 notable experts in organizational behavior and less even the basic hypotheses corresponding to the different organizational arrangements.If the graduate doctors ignored the development of the Science of Medicine and the contributions of the most notable experts, their "interventions" in patients could be assimilated to what happens to many organizations when consultants or consulting firms enter.
I. Let us now spend some time to analyze and eventually be able to describe the organization that must be subject to analysis by the consultant, and how it is framed within some organizational typology or taxonomy.
Most of the managers, executives, professionals and consultants linked to the corporate and business world refer to a company placing it within a particular category. The various field works (Eric Gaynor Butterfield: "Organizational Development Congress"; Trelew - 1997) show mixed results. The perception of managers is that their company has adopted a form that moves away from the vertical hierarchical model, while a large number of staff perceive that it is a pyramidal organization with a highly bureaucratic orientation (although they do not really know exactly the two dimensions that are implicit within the Theory of Bureaucracy developed by Max Weber - 1947).But let's move on with the assumption that "you are correct in defining your own organization."
Organizations within more developed countries have accepted for many years that pyramidal and bureaucratic organization has many dysfunctional consequences (see Alvin Gouldner; Philip Selznick; James March & Herbert Simon in "Organizations"; Wiley and Sons - 1958) that undermine both against their existence and with their growth, and they put into practice new organizational arrangements. The works of James D. Thompson - (1967); Tom Burns (1961); Tom Burns and Stalker (1967); Paul Lawrence & Jay Lorsch (1968) practically dealt a fatal blow to the pyramid organization and also to the bureaucratic one, and the practical attempts were illuminated by the enormous contribution of Robert Blake & Jane Mouton (1959) in developing a new organizational arrangement conceived as the "Matrix organization".
But this new organizational arrangement - with characteristics superior to the prevailing ones - in turn deals a severe blow to the company's own organizational participants; none of them has to report to a single superior again and it is not an easy task to report to two at work when that goes even against the biblical passage (of one God). And this is where the dilemma of organizational transformation - please bear in mind that we are talking about organizational transformation and not organizational transition - moves to the individual transformation that is indispensable.
But people don't transform very quickly; even minor changes such as some abilities, skills and knowledge can take many years (a University Diploma takes about 16 years). Thus, the consultants who must deal with people as organizational members, as Clients, as suppliers, as bankers, as shareholders, among others, must necessarily have the skills required to connect with individuals and human beings, and they are known like Behavioral Sciences… of which most of them know - unfortunately - very little.
J. In multiple interventions within Latin American communities we have not had much evidence of post-matrix organizational arrangements. Readers, at this point, surely have to wonder what the prevailing organizational arrangement is since many of them do not "perceive" that it is operating under the pyramid or bureaucratic scheme, thinking and suggesting that a model is ALREADY being on the way to " higher". This is where our suggestion to these readers is that they try to observe to what extent a type of “nepotic organization” may still exist and prevail where consanguinity and social ties are privileged. It goes without saying that a nepotic-type organization is even “prior” to the pyramidal or bureaucratic organization since it dates back several centuries.
This perspective of “organizational inefficiency” is even made effective by a practice that has prevailed since “financial globalization”; The motto that reads "you think globally and act locally" is well known, which makes it very clear that the organizational strategy, vision and mission is designed from the outside and it is up to the local organization to adjust to extremely specific and limited procedures and practices.
K. The question that arises at this point has also been frequently asked by many consultants as to whether it is possible to implement what is known within the discipline and Profession of Organizational Development. No one has given a better answer to this question than the one I have heard from the president of our Institute, Dr. Donald W. Cole, in his capacity as President of The Organization Development Institute today and its Founder in 1968. The answer is initiated as a consequence of a question to the same person who asked it:When did the Industrial Revolution take place in your country? The fact is that only after 60 years of the Industrial Revolution in the United States of America the first Management book is published that has to do with how to manage an organization and a very prestigious University - Harvard University - is required to give your students something more than content since otherwise they would not be useful to the organizational and business world, with which the famous “case method” was born.
It takes some 20 additional years to learn that the case method "is not enough" and "role playing" and another set of practical learning techniques arises, finally with the explosion of the matrix organization and its consequences on the organizational participants. light a new discipline based on Behavioral Sciences that is constituted in the Profession of Organizational Development. This has taken about 150 years and all of us who participate in The Organization Development Institute are still learning thanks to the fact that within our members we find not only practitioners,managers and consultants but also academics and researchers who help us question the different conceptual frameworks and best best practices on the fundamental pillar constituted by the "Behavioral Sciences".
But to so much news that appears as discouraging - and please do not go to ignore that the University Diplomas already have an expiration date that is of the order of 5 years with which they keep some kind of similarity with perishable foods - we are extremely fortunate since we can develop the Profession of Organizational Development or the Profession of Consultant or the Profession of Consultant in Organizational Development, as a consequence of what is the state of the Behavioral Sciences and how much of it can be applied to introduce improvements and changes in organizations.
And we have additional very good news for all those interested in making Consulting a profession. For more than 20 years, The Organization Development Institute has been working hard, deploying its greatest and best energies and resources to have the Competencies that are necessary for the exercise of the Profession of Consultant or Profession of Organizational Development. And even better news: these competencies have already been discriminated for each of the different phases of a consulting intervention.
If you, as a consultant or interested in the consulting profession, still want to stick with only your University Diploma, it is possible that you are among the people who have asked us the questions that we have mentioned in the first part of this material. If you are in a position to re-conceptualize your Profession (see proposals by Edgar Schein and Eric Gaynor as alterative models), consolidate in the knowledge and application of Behavioral Sciences, you perceive the need to train for transformational changes instead of transitional ones, develops and exercises the Competencies for the Profession of Organizational Development that we have mentioned above and finally takes into account an important suggestion of Dr. Terry Armstrong in the mentioned Newsletter where he emphasizes that the Consultant himself,The Organizational Development professional himself IS the intervention, so he has a world of important contributions ahead of him that will benefit you and definitely also the Clients. Many Customers have already been “hurt too much”.
- Models of Change - which the consultant may have in mind - before starting an organizational change and development intervention
A change model is nothing more nor less than a simple representation of main steps grouped into different categories that are related to a change process from its initial stage to the disengagement stage.
William Rothwell, Roland Sullivan and Gary Malean (“Practicing Organization Development: A Guide for Consultants”; Pfeiffer & Co., 1995) suggest the existence of three main models of change, with special emphasis on the steps included in the action research model. ”. The different models of change referred to by these authors rely mainly on a normative, prescriptive and re-educational approach where behavioral change is the consequence of a learning process. Let's explore each of them.
Critical Investigation
The Critical Inquiry model has its origins in Marxist practices where the underlying idea parallels the dialectical approach to organizational change.
The Critical Inquiry model assumes that every organization has a prevailing ideology that in some way is what provides a justification for the organization's way of operating and its very way of existing. Following some authors (D. Lang in: "Organizational Culture and Commitment"; Human Resource Development Quarterly, No. 3 - 1992), we could say that ideology is above culture since the latter is a manifestation of the prevailing ideology, thus giving life to the ideology.
The Critical Inquiry model includes within itself “a certain level of dissatisfaction” within the current system, a certain tension between what is happening and what should happen, one of the main functions of the model being to identify these discrepancies. Through Critical Research it is possible to dramatize the differences between the visions and perspectives of the different components of the top management of the company as well as the conflicting and confrontational relationships between different groups, business units and areas of the company. Exploring the conflict between current ideology and operational practices, Critical Research suggests the development of mechanisms of self-appreciation and analysis that enable subsequent organizational change and development.
Rothwell, Sullivan and McLean (1995 - already cited) suggest the following steps to follow under the Critical Inquiry model:
Describe the prevailing ideology (How the organizational participants believe that the organization or group under analysis should be functioning)
Identify situations, events, or conditions that conflict with the current ideology (What is really happening within the company)
Identify those people or groups of people who are interested in developing progressive change (Who are the ones who want to challenge the ideology and / or those situations that can generate an impetus towards constant change)
Confront the different participants regarding the ideology regarding Conflictive Situations, Events or Conditions
Develop a new ideology or action steps to implement to correct inconsistencies and incongruities
Help the Client to establish a program of change over Time
Implement the Change
Ask the Client to monitor the change, identifying opportunities for continuous improvement.
Shewhart's PHCA cycle
The Total Quality (TC) thrusters have taken into account a shift model that was originally developed by Thomas Shewhart in 1924. This model, which goes by the Shewhart model name, takes its name from the names of each of the stages or cycles of the model. They are: Plan (P), Do (H), Control (C), and Act (A). Much of Edward Deming's work in the area of continuous improvement is strongly associated with this model. This model can be used conveniently in a process of change and organizational development or in part of it.
L. Schultz and B. Parker in “Visioning the Future” (Ed. Malean & DeVogel - 1988) share some of the questions for each of the four stages.
- To plan
- What should exist? What changes are necessary? What obstacles must be overcome? What are the results that we most need to achieve? Is there information available? What additional information do you need?
- Do
- Implement on a small scale so that you can get information to help find answers
- Control
- Take measurements and observe the consequences resulting from the changes made
- Act
- Confirm the information that we obtain what we originally had in the Plan? Are there other causes that are interfering? Are they justified in continuing to run and taking some risks in the change process made? Is it necessary and is it really worth continuing to take risks?
It is unfortunate that many consultants do not take into account this model of change that - within its simplicity - reduces risks in the implementation processes. Many of the big setbacks in technology implementations could have been eliminated or largely reduced by considering the phases of the Shewhart cycle.
Action Research
We could say that the Action Research model is the very core of consultancy interventions in matters of change and organizational development. Action Research can be conceived and also visualized as a process where a continuous series of events and actions are present. The model serves as a roadmap for the consultant as it is a simplified representation of a series of complex activities that are generally present in any organizational change effort. This model is especially useful for the consultant and the change agent as it allows them to quickly identify where they are and where they need to go.
It is a model that approaches the conception of the consulting process as a learning process where all participants - including the consultant - learn in and during the intervention. In this model, information is collected (on objectives, goals or needs) during the different stages of progress of the process where the system is seen as a living entity and in continuous action. This information is in turn fed back into the system, which can suggest changes in the selected variables mobilized and mobilized both in relation to the data and the original hypotheses, and finally the results of the actions are evaluated collecting even more information (free translation of the definition provided by W. French & C. Bell (“Organization Develoment:Behavioral sciencie interventions for organization improvement ”; Englewood Cliffs: NJ: Prentice-Hall - 1990).
Therefore Action Research is a circle in which different change activities are carried out next and as a consequence of the research, and the results of the activities are in turn fed for further research.
It is unfortunate that a large number of consultants and large consulting firms have not deployed this model within different Latin American cultures. Research and field work carried out by The OD Institute International, Latin America shows that very few of the consultants and agents of change - as well as the vast majority of large subsidiaries of important consulting companies in Latin America - know this model (Eric Gaynor: "Congress of Organizational Development", Buenos Aires - 1999). And even fewer are those who are in a position to apply it. Some hypotheses that we have worked on suggest that just as the consultants and change agents do not take this model into account,Customers may not be comfortable with this learning model, and neither may many of the top executives in large corporations.
This Action Research model is somehow incompatible with people's vanity. There is some evidence within Latin American organizations that suggests the vertical change model where it is assumed - and this includes all participants - that the authoritarian model of imposition seems to be the prevailing one (in the implementer) that is highly compatible with the orientation of acceptance (in the implementer) that they feel rather comfortable with their external “locus of control” profile.
“Leveling” Client - Consultant
This model was initially applied in the 70s of the last century in medium-sized corporations in Latin America by Eric Gaynor Butterfield and has been developed over the years and broadening its base of support.
Some basic hypotheses that promoted the emergence of this model - and the questioning of others - are:
- In general, the models are based on finding the existing deficiencies within an organizational system, predisposing consequences that eventually become dysfunctional for the organization itself. The models seen in the points above tend to leave the choice of choice in the hands of the consultant. the search for data and information (of the Client) The consulting firm or consultant seems to have passed the competence test through a Professional Diploma or through experiences that professionals - consultants have had in “other” organizations where they have participated in interventions Prejudices of the consultant are not debated, much less taken into account. Carl Gustav Jung "The aims of psychotherapy" in Modern man in search of a sould. San Diego, Ca:Hartcourt - 1931) has already warned us about the implicit vanity in the professional (in this case consultant) that although he wants to stay on the sidelines and be objective, it is one more variable (we have not found evidence of any consultant specialized in Total Quality that promotes CRM consulting services).
Edgar Schein's excellent and illuminating pioneering work (“Process Consultation: Its role in organization development”; Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 1969) in “process consulting” has represented a fundamental step in the discipline of OD in the 60s of the last century. Still, top leadership and management in today's businesses and organizations have come a long way and learned many times more than consultants can anticipate. The “joint diagnosis” has been a monumental step in change and organizational development, but the “Leveling” model according to Eric Gaynor Butterfield, allows us to go one step further.
Leveling usually takes place in a sequence that differs from that of the other models reviewed above. The consultant shares with the Client the different “Best Practices” in force, indicating their entry point in the organization, who would be the main stakeholders, the methodology to follow, the eventual expected consequences, the difficulties to overcome, and the possibilities of success. You can also share with the Client experiences of said Best Practices in other Clients, of the same branch or not. You can even refer the Client to another company where said practice was implemented to familiarize herself in detail with a previous experience.
The consultant also shares the “Best Theories” with the Client. The exercise usually adopted is to try to find the answers that would be given by James March and Herbert Simon ("Organizations", NY: Wiley and Sons - 1958), Arnold Tannenbaum ("Control in Organizations", McGraw Hill, 1968), Max Weber ("The theory of social and economic organization"; Free Press - 1947), Chester Barnard ("The functions of the executive"; Harvard University Press - 1938); Frederick Taylor (“Scientific Management”, Harper & Row - 1947), Paul Lawrence & Jay Lorsch (Organizations & Environment ”, Harvard - 1967), James D. Thompson (“ Organizations in Action ”; McGraw-Hill - 1967), Víctor Thompson ("Modern Organization"; New York, Knopf - 1967) or Carl Frost ("The Scanlon Plan"; MSU - 1975), in their capacity as consultants.
One of the surprising findings of Eric Gaynor - and therefore suggests considering the use of this model - is that business managers, and especially entrepreneurs, learn much faster than consultants believe and estimate. And more importantly, they are more willing to innovate and take risks when they have a lot of the knowledge that is in the head of the consultant.
Eric Gaynor recognizes that this model is of limited application in Latin America within subsidiaries of large corporations since they work under the concept of "You think globally - obviously at the Headquarters - and act locally." That is why usually the selection of the Best Practice to apply as well as the choice of the consulting firm is almost always entered outside the local scope.
But where this model has achieved surprising results is in national private companies and also with businessmen and entrepreneurs in particular, who in a short time find themselves with an arsenal of practical knowledge and conceptual frameworks that allow them to enhance their business development opportunities..
"Appreciative Inquiry"
The reader is suggested to go to the material of the 2-day Seminar developed by Lic. Abel Cortese and Eric Gaynor Butterfield in May 2002, Buenos Aires - Argentina, on "Models of Organizational Change"
Thank you very much for sharing.
