CONSULTING AND CHANGE

4
Change is the raison d’être of management consulting. If diverse consulting
assignments have any common characteristic, it is that they assist in planning
and implementing change in client organizations. In Chapter 1, organizational
change was mentioned as one of the fundamental and generic purposes of
consulting. Organizational change, however, is full of difficulties and pitfalls.
In managing change, consultants and clients tend to repeat the same mistakes.
Often the very behaviour of those who strive to make changes generates
resistance to change and brings the whole process to a standstill. The need for
change is recognized, yet there is no change. To avoid this, every management
consultant needs to be aware of the complex relationships involved in the
change process, and must know how to approach various change situations and
help people to cope with change.
This chapter is particularly important for understanding the nature and
methods of consulting and of the consultant–client relationship. Throughout
the chapter the consultant’s point of view and intervention methods will be
emphasized. However, they will be reviewed in the wider context of changes
occurring in society, in organizations and in individuals, and related to the
managers’ roles in initiating and managing organizational change. The chapter
provides some notions of the theory of organizational change, and also
practical guidelines for planning and implementing changes.

4.1 Understanding the nature of change

The concept of change implies that there is a perceptible difference in a
situation, a person, a work team, an organization or a relationship, between two
successive points in time. How does this difference occur, what are its causes,
and what does it mean to a manager or a consultant? To answer these and
similar questions, we will first look at the various levels and areas of change,
and at the relations between them.

85
Management consulting

Environmental change
There is nothing new about change: it has always been a feature of the very
existence and history of the human race. Without change there is no life, and
human efforts to obtain better living conditions imply coping with change.
There is a new phenomenon, however: the unprecedented depth, complexity
and pace of technological, social and other changes occurring at present.
Today’s organizations operate in an environment that is continually changing.
The ability to adapt to changes in the environment has become a fundamental
condition of success and survival in business.
It is not the purpose of this chapter to analyse current development trends
or predict future changes in the business and social environment. Other
publications are available that attempt to do this from various angles. They
show that today the processes of change concern all aspects of human and
social life, both nationally and internationally.
In a particular business or other organization, the practical question is what
to regard as its external environment. This question is increasingly difficult to
answer. Often managers are totally perplexed when they realize that their
organization can be affected by forces – economic, social or political – which
they would previously never have considered when making business
decisions. Competition can come from sectors and countries that in the past
were never thought of as potential competitors. New sources of finance and
new ways of mobilizing resources for business development and restructuring
have required profound changes in corporate financial strategies. New
information and communication technologies have permitted many new ways
of doing business and running complex organizations that were unthinkable
with old technologies. Environmental considerations, increased mobility of
people and changing social values have created new constraints and new
opportunities for decision–makers responsible for running business firms.
This is where management consultants can step in to render an invaluable
service to their clients. Making clients aware of the complexity and dynamics
of environmental changes and of new opportunities provided by them, and
helping them to react to these changes promptly and effectively, is currently
the most important and forward-looking area of management consulting.

Organizational change
Organizations are continually forced to adapt to the environment within
which they exist and operate, and to react to new environmental changes,
constraints, requirements and opportunities. But more than that, businesses
and other organizations also generate changes in their external environ-
ment, for example by developing and marketing new products and services
that capture a significant part of the market, launching and publicizing
products that will change consumer taste, or pioneering new technologies
that become dominant and change the shape of whole industrial and service

86
 Consulting and change

sectors. Thus they modify the business environment, both nationally and
internationally.
Change can affect any aspect of an organization. It may involve products and
services, technologies, systems, relationships, organizational culture, manage-
ment techniques and style, strategies pursued, competencies, performances, or
any other feature of a business. It can also involve the basic set-up of the
organization, including the nature and level of business, legal arrangements,
ownership, sources of finance, international operations and impact, diversi-
fication, and mergers and alliances with new partners.

Change in people
The human dimension of organizational change is a fundamental one. For it is the
behaviour of the people in the organization – its managerial and technical staff,
and other workers – that ultimately determines what organizational changes can
be made and what real benefits will be drawn from them. Business firms and other
organizations are human systems above all. People must understand, and be willing
and able to implement, changes that at first glance may appear purely techno-
logical or structural, and an exclusive province of higher management, but which
will affect the working conditions, interests and satisfaction of many other people.
In coping with organizational change, people have to change, too: they must
acquire new knowledge, absorb information, tackle new tasks, upgrade their
skills, give up what they would prefer to preserve and, very often, modify their
work habits, values and attitudes to the way of doing things in the organization.
It is important to recognize that this requirement relates to everyone in an
organization, starting with the most senior manager. Those who want their
subordinates and colleagues to change must be prepared to assess and change
their own behaviour, work methods and attitudes. This is a golden rule of
organizational change.
But how do people change? What internal processes bring about behavioural
change? Many attempts have been made to describe the change process by
means of models, but none of these descriptions has been fully satisfactory.
Different people change in different ways, and every person has particular
features that influence his or her willingness and ability to change. The
influence of the culture in which a person has grown up and lived is paramount,
as will be explained in Chapter 5.
A useful concept of change in people was developed by Kurt Lewin.1 It is a
three-stage sequential model, whose stages are referred to as “unfreezing”,
“changing” and “refreezing”.
Unfreezing postulates a somewhat unsettling situation as it is assumed that
a certain amount of anxiety or dissatisfaction is called for – there must be a need
to search for new information if learning is to take place. Conditions that
enhance the unfreezing process usually include a more than normal amount of
tension leading to a noticeable need for change – for example, an absence of
sources of information; removal of usual contacts and accustomed routines; and

87
Management consulting

a lowering of self-esteem among people. In some instances, these preconditions

for change are present before the consultant arrives on the scene. In other
instances, the need for change is not perceived and has to be explained if
unfreezing is to occur – for example, by making it clear what will happen if the
organization or the person does not change.
Changing, or moving towards change, is the central stage of the model, in
which both management and employees start practising new relationships,
methods and behaviours. The subprocesses of changing involve two elements:
– identification, where the people concerned test out the proposed change,
following the external motives presented to them (e.g. by management or a
consultant);
– internalization, where individuals translate the general objectives and princi-
ples of change into specific personal goals and rules; this process may be quite
difficult, usually requiring a considerable effort by the person concerned, and
a great deal of patience, creativity and imagination on the part of the consult-
ant in assisting the change, to convert the external (general) motives to internal
(specific and personal) motives for accepting the change proposed.
Refreezing occurs when the person concerned verifies change through
experience. The subprocesses involved require a conducive and supportive
environment (e.g. approval by responsible management) and are usually accom-
panied by a heightening of self-esteem as a result of a sense of achievement
derived from accomplishing a task. During the initial phases of the refreezing
stage it is recommended that the required behaviour should be continuously
reinforced by means of rewards, praise, and so on, to encourage and accelerate
the learning process. In the later phases, intermittent or spaced reinforcement will
help to prevent extinction of the newly acquired behavioural patterns. Eventually
the new behaviour and attitudes are either internalized, or rejected and abandoned.
Change in a particular person takes place at several levels: at the knowledge
level (information about change, understanding its rationale), the attitudes level
(accepting the need for change and a particular measure of change both rationally
and emotionally) and the behavioural level (acting in support of effective
implementation of change). Figure 4.1 shows four levels of change: (1) in
knowledge, (2) in attitude, (3) in individual behaviour, and (4) in organizational
or group behaviour. The relative levels of difficulty and time relationship are also
indicated in the diagram. This, however, does not imply that change must always
start at the lowest level and proceed to higher levels (see box 4.1).
Change in individuals within an organization is also directly affected by
changes in the external environment. This environment is not something that
“starts behind the factory gate”, but permeates the organization. People “bring
the environment with them” and it stays with them when they come to work.
Thus, changes occurring in the environment of an organization may facilitate
or hamper change in people working within the organization. A frequent
problem is that of individuals who are simultaneously exposed to so much
change and stress, at work and in their social and family life, that they are not

88
 Consulting and change

Figure 4.1 Time span and level of difficulty involved for various levels of
change

(high)
ORGANIZATIONAL OR GROUP BEHAVIOUR (4)

INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOUR (3)

Difficulty
involved
ATTITUDES (2)

KNOWLEDGE (1)
(low)
(short) (long)
Time involved

Source: R. Hersey and K. H. Blanchard: Management of organizational behavior (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall,
1972), p. 100.

Box 4.1 Which change comes first?

The relationship between the various change levels shown in figure 4.1 is an open
issue. Some behavioural scientists suggest that the best results will be obtained
if the sequence of changing knowledge – attitudes – individual behaviour – group
behaviour is fully respected. Others, for either conceptual or practical reasons, do
not subscribe to this sequence. Fonviella points out that “trying to change
behaviour by changing values and attitudes is unnecessarily indirect ... while
attitudes influence behaviour, behaviour influences attitudes”.1 Following a study
of several organizational change programmes, Beer, Eisenstat and Spector
observe that “most change programmes do not work because they are guided by
a theory of change that is fundamentally flawed... The theory that changes in
attitudes lead to changes in individual behaviour, and that changes in individual
behaviour, repeated by many people, result in organizational change ... puts the
change process exactly backward”.2 They conclude that the most effective way
to change behaviour is to put people into a new organizational context, which
imposes new roles, responsibilities and relationships on them.

1 W. Fonviella: “Behaviour vs. attitude: Which comes first in organizational change?”,

in Management Review (New York, American Management Association), Aug. 1984, p. 14.
2 M. Beer, R. A. Eisenstat and B. Spector: “Why change programmes don’t produce
change”, in Harvard Business Review (Boston, MA), Nov.–Dec. 1990, p. 159.

able to cope and so break down. On the other hand, many environmental
changes, such as an increased penetration of new information and commun-
ication technologies into all areas of human life, greatly facilitate the changes
that have to be made within particular organizations.

89
Management consulting

Resistance to change
People are remarkably adaptable, can cope with change and generally accept
it as a natural fact of life. Why, then, is change in people so often the bottle-
neck of organizational change? Why is “change” such a frightening word for
many people?
People resist and try to avoid changes that will leave them worse off in terms
of job content, conditions of work, workload, income, relationships, personal
power-base, lifestyle and the like. This is understandable. But a great deal of
resistance may be met even if the proposed change is neutral, or beneficial to
the persons concerned. While there are many reasons for this, psychological and
other, the reasons listed in box 4.2 appear to be the most common.
Some of these causes of resistance to change stem from human nature.
However, often they are reinforced by life experience, e.g. by negative con-
sequences of past changes. People who have experienced a great deal of
unnecessary and frustrating change, such as frequent but useless reorganizations
or hectic changes in marketing strategies, or who have been adversely affected
by changes presented to them as beneficial, tend to become suspicious about any
further changes. This is very important. Causes of trouble are often sought in
inherent resistance to change, although they lie elsewhere – for example, in wrong
choice of new technology, in failure to explain why change is necessary or in poor
coordination of various change interventions. In such cases, resistance to change
is only a symptom and the real problem is change management, which is hectic,
messy and insensitive to people’s concerns and feelings.2
There are differences in the character of individuals so far as attitude to change
and the ability to cope with change are concerned. In section 4.3 we shall see that
some people are natural allies of managers and consultants in preparing and
introducing changes in organizations. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, those
who are in greatest need of change often resist it more than anybody else, and
require special attention and support. These may be individuals (both workers and
managers), groups, organizations, or even whole communities.

Change is not an end in itself

Organizational change is not an end in itself. It is only a means of adjusting to
new conditions and sustaining or increasing competitiveness, performance and
effectiveness. If an organization can achieve its objectives without disturbing the
established product and service lines, practices and relationships, there may be
no need for major changes, at least in the short term. Certain changes can be very
costly (e.g. if a successful product is phased out and replaced by a new product
at the wrong moment). Some managers suffer from chronic “reorganization
disease”: they feel that to be seen as dynamic, they must periodically reorganize
their enterprise or department. Consultants sometimes lack the courage to tell the
client that the best solution is to leave things as they are, especially if the work is
being done for a client who is obviously eager to make some spectacular changes.

90
 Consulting and change

Box 4.2 Reasons for resistance to change

Lack of conviction that change is needed. If people are not properly informed
and the purpose of change is not explained to them, they are likely to view the
present situation as satisfactory and an effort to change as useless and
upsetting.
Dislike of imposed change. In general, people do not like to be treated as
passive objects. They resent changes that are imposed on them and about
which they cannot express any views.
Dislike of surprises. People do not want to be kept in the dark about any
change that is being prepared; organizational changes tend to be resented if they
come as a surprise.
Fear of the unknown. Basically, people do not like to live in uncertainty and may
prefer an imperfect present to an unknown and uncertain future.
Reluctance to deal with unpopular issues. Managers and other people often
try to avoid unpleasant reality and unpopular actions, even if they realize that
they will not be able to avoid them for ever.
Fear of inadequacy and failure. Many people worry about their ability to adjust
to change, and maintain and improve their performance in a new work situation.
Some of them may feel insecure, and doubt their ability to make a special effort
to learn new skills and attain new performance levels.
Disturbed practices, habits and relations. Following organizational change,
well-established and fully mastered practices and work habits may become
obsolete, and familiar relationships may be altered or totally destroyed. This can
lead to considerable frustration and unhappiness.
Lack of respect for and trust in the person promoting change. People are
suspicious about change proposed by a manager whom they do not trust and
respect, or by an external person whose competence and motives are not known
or understood.

In a world where technological, social and other changes are occurring at an

unprecedented pace and frequency, people and organizations are in need not
only of change, but also of relative stability and continuity. Striking the right
balance between change and stability, and helping the client to maintain this
balance throughout the organization, is one of the vital tasks of the consultant.3

4.2 How organizations approach change

Unplanned or planned change?
It is common knowledge that in every organization a great deal of evolutionary,
natural change occurs. A typical example is the ageing of equipment and people,
which has both problematic aspects (e.g. the need to repair and replace
equipment, or to replace managers who have lost their dynamism and drive),

91
Management consulting

Box 4.3 What is addressed in planning change?

Some typical questions addressed in planning change and choosing strategies of

organizational change are:
● What changes are occurring in the environment? What will be their
implications for our organization?
● What changes should we foresee in order to achieve our development
objectives, improve our performance, increase our share of the market, etc.?
● What undesirable changes will occur in the organization if we do not take
timely steps to prevent them?
● What sort of and how much change are we able to manage?
● What sort of and how much change will our people be able to absorb and
support? How should we help them to cope with change?
● Should we implement change in stages?
● What will be the relations between various changes that we intend to make?
How will they be coordinated?
● Where and how should the change process be initiated?
● How should we manage change? Do we need a consultant? What would be
this consultant’s role?
● What should be our time horizon and timetable for implementing change?

and positive aspects (technical and managerial competence acquired by years

of experience). While most of these changes cannot be kept under full control,
it is possible to take preventive measures for avoiding and/or mitigating the
negative consequences of evolutionary change.
A great deal of unplanned change is not of an evolutionary nature, but is a
fast reaction to a new situation. A manufacturing firm may be compelled by
competition to cut its prices, or a strike may force an organization to increase
wages. Such changes are adaptive or reactive. The organization has not planned
the change and, quite often, has not foreseen its necessity until very late. The
organization makes the change to avoid a crisis, or in order not to lose an
unexpected new opportunity that has just emerged.
It is a sign of poor management if the only changes that occur in an organi-
zation are inevitable and unplanned changes. Where this happens, it is a
demonstration of reluctance or inability to look ahead and prepare the
organization to react to future opportunities and constraints. While planning
cannot completely eliminate the need for unplanned changes, it helps the
organization to prepare itself for changes that can be anticipated, and minimizes
the number of situations where hasty (and costly) changes have to be made in
an atmosphere of panic.
More than that, the planning of change enables the organization to be
proactive and “create the future”, e.g. to shape its environment and its own
profile and outperform competition by creating new products and services,

92
 Consulting and change

influencing consumer taste and demand, restructuring the key organizational

processes before competition does so, and pushing for changes in the
regulatory environment.
The last question in box 4.3 is crucial. Both organizations and individuals
can absorb only a limited amount of change over a certain period of time, and
this absorptive capacity is different in different countries, organizations and
individuals. Conversely, delaying urgent changes can lead to crises and hopeless
situations. The pacing of change is therefore one of the main skills needed in
planning and implementing change.

Imposed or participative change?

In business practice, a great deal of change is decided and imposed on the
organization by management. After all, by acting in this way management
assumes its basic responsibility. However, change imposed from a position of
authority may cause unhappiness and resentment, in particular if the people
affected by such changes believe that they should have been consulted, or at
least informed well in advance and in a proper way.
If change is initiated from a position of power and imposed upon people, it
could be inherently volatile; it could disappear with removal of the power
source, or in the absence of appropriate punishments and sanctions. Yet we
cannot say that every imposed change is bad. There are emergency situations
where discussion is impossible and delaying a decision would be detrimental.
There are regulatory and administrative measures that will affect many people,
but that are of minor importance and do not justify long discussion and
consultation. Imposed change is considered to be more effective when dealing
with dependent rather than independent people. In general, the attitude to
imposed change is very much influenced by culture, education, access to
information, and the existence of alternatives.
A manager should think twice before deciding to impose a change. He or she
should do it only if firmly convinced that there is no alternative – if, for
example, he or she has been unable to gain the support of the group, yet feels
that change is inevitable. Still the manager should always take the trouble to
explain the reasons for choosing to impose a change.
People in different national and organizational cultures do not feel the same
way about change that is presented to them as an accomplished fact, and
imposed on them without prior discussion or consultation. However, the trend
towards participative change is ever more pronounced in most parts of the
world. People want to know what changes are being prepared, and to be able to
influence changes that concern them. Managers and administrators are
increasingly aware of this fundamental demand and react to it by adopting a
more participative approach to change.
A participative change process may be slower and more time-consuming and
costly than imposed change, but it is considered to be long lasting. It helps to
prevent resistance and generates commitment to change. In addition,

93
Management consulting

participative change helps management to draw on people’s experience and

creativity, which is difficult to do if change is imposed.
There are different levels and forms of participation in the change process,
depending on the nature and complexity of the change itself, on the maturity,
coherence and motivation of the group, and on the relationship between manage-
ment and employees (see box 4.4). At the first level, the manager or the consultant
informs the staff concerned about the need for change and explains the specific
measures that are being prepared. At the second level, consultation and discussion
about change take place in the course of the change process – in identifying the
need for change, proposing the specific changes to be made and checking whether
people would react negatively to the measures proposed. Suggestions and
criticism are solicited and management may reconsider its plan for change on the
basis of these. At the third level, management seeks the active involvement of the
staff in planning and implementing change by inviting them to participate in
defining what to change and how to do it, and in putting the agreed changes into
effect. This is normally done through workshops, task forces, special committees
and projects, staff meetings and other methods reviewed in section 4.5.
In many situations change requires negotiation. This takes place when two
or more individuals or groups discuss together the changes to be made and the
benefits and costs to the parties involved. This may lead to a compromise that
neither party considers to be an ideal solution by its own standards. However,
the probability of support by those concerned, and hence the probability of
implementing the agreement reached, will be much higher.
There are changes that require negotiation between management and the
representatives of employees, who may be trade union or other representatives.
Issues requiring nogotiation may be determined by law, through collective
bargaining, or by any other joint agreement, formal or informal. Managers and
consultants should be particularly alert to the desirability of a dialogue with
employees’ representatives, not only in cases explicitly stipulated by laws or
formal agreements, but also in preparing any changes that may affect the interests
of people in the organization and where employee support may be essential.
Frequent and sincere dialogue with employees and their representatives is
the best means for preventing organized large-scale resistance to change,
expressed through strikes and similar forms of protest against decisions taken
or planned by management. Clearly, resistance to change is not the only reason
for strikes. It is, however, a frequent reason, and it can often be traced back to
management’s failure to consult and inform people, explain why change cannot
be avoided, seek alternative solutions, and implement change in ways that
minimize hardship to the people concerned.
Finally, in thinking of participative approaches, the perspective is often limited
to employee participation, direct or through their representatives. This perspective
may prove to be narrow and may miss important inputs. It is useful to think of a
wider circle of “stakeholders”, i.e. organizations and people having various stakes
in the organization in question. Customers are important stakeholders, and
learning from them in preparing important changes is essential. Other

94
 Consulting and change

Box 4.4 Ten overlapping management styles, from no participation to

complete participation

(1) None: There is no participation or involvement. People express surprise if the

“boss” asks them a problem-solving question. People are paid to “work”, not
“think”. Managers “send down” decisions.
(2) Persuasive autocracy: There is some recognition that an effort to “sell” the
project or the solution has been considered and will be incorporated “if there
is time and money”.
(3) Consultative: Responsible managers ask people many questions and seek
to obtain as many ideas as possible, but establishing criteria, weightings and
details are left entirely to managers.
(4) Reactive control: The organizations involve others in measuring, comparing
and assessing the performance of a satisfactory system. Citizen groups,
regulatory boards, peer review, and so on, are means whereby participation
is obtained. Policy formulation matters arise only occasionally.
(5) Bargaining: More adversarial or at least structured formal involvement is
built into normal operations.
(6) Anticipatory control: The organization consciously scans the horizon to
become aware of possible future occurrences. Groups are allowed to report
intelligence that could indicate developments. They can also develop
alternatives for responding and “controlling” the future.
(7) Joint determination: Although decisions are usually joint, there is a relatively
continuous interchange of ideas among those charged with the responsi-
bilities for operating a system and those working in it. Management operates
this way because it thinks it is desirable, and workers have no assurance of
its continuation. Most other stakeholders may not be included in the
participatory effort.
(8) Supportive collaboration: Efforts are likely to be more formalized, with some
decision responsibilities spelled out (for example, advisory group, citizens’
commissions).
(9) Permanent work groups: Employees and managers meet regularly (usually
during working hours) and seek to solve all types of problems that emerge in
any area of concern.
(10) Complete self-determination: A joint worker/management board of
directors or several joint groups share key decision-making responsibility
(budgets, new products, acquisition and divestiture, personnel policies and
practices, and so on).

Source: G. Nadler and S. Hibino: Breakthrough thinking: The seven principles of creative problem solving
(Rocklin, CA, Prima Publishing, 1994), pp. 283–284.

stakeholders include people and authorities in the local community, suppliers of

equipment, systems and raw materials, banks and other providers of financial
services, and so on. Not only can they provide useful advice, but they are likely
to make contributions reflecting the nature and importance of their stakes.

95
Management consulting

Managing the change process

Change requires leadership, and it is natural that this should be provided by the
managers who are principally responsible for running the organization. This
leadership is necessary even if an important role in the change process is
assigned to a consultant and if the approach taken is highly participative. If
senior management shows no interest and the handling of particular changes is
relegated to lower management or a functional department, this signals to the
organization that management has other priorities and does not care much about
the changes that are being prepared.
It is, of course, understandable that management must deal both with
restructuring, reorganization, launching new products, mergers with other
companies and similar major change measures and processes, and with the
routine everyday activities of the organization. There may be competition for
scarce resources: some key people may be wanted both for preparing a major
change and for running current business. A consultant can be used to facilitate
the manager’s task, but not to manage change on the manager’s behalf.
This being said, management has to determine the specific change measures
requiring its leadership, and decide on the intensity and style of its direct
involvement. The complexity of the changes that are being prepared, and their
importance to the organization’s future, are key criteria. In a large organization,
senior managers cannot be personally involved in all changes, but there are certain
changes which they must manage personally, or for which they must find a
suitable way, explicit or symbolic, of providing and demonstrating support.
Reinforcing messages from the leaders are a key stimulus in a change effort.
The style of leadership should be consistent with the organizational culture,
the approach to change that has been chosen, the urgency of the changes to be
made and the sophistication of the people involved. Thus, a directive style of
leadership will be appropriate for situations of urgency and a relatively unsophis-
ticated and inexperienced audience. In contrast, a low-profile delegating style can
be used if responsibility can be given to followers who understand the framework
within which the changes need to be planned and put into effect.4

The role of innovators and change agents

A change effort requires a successful start. Making a correct decision about what
to change and assigning responsibilities are not enough. There must be people
who have critical and innovative minds, enjoy experimenting, can visualize the
future, believe that change is possible, and influence others, not by talking about
change, but by demonstrating what can be achieved. These innovators, prime
movers, champions or intrapreneurs, as they are sometimes called, may be in
managerial jobs, but equally may be design engineers, marketing specialists,
project coordinators, experienced workers, supervisors, and others.
Organizations that are keen to change must encourage innovation, experi-
ments and entrepreneurship. To management this means not only tolerating

96
 Consulting and change

departures from routine and tradition, and accepting that this entails some risk,
but deliberately employing innovators, giving them some freedom of action,
observing their work, and referring to their example in showing what the
organization is able to achieve.
Innovative and entrepreneurial individuals and teams often play a prominent
role in successful organizational change. They are the organization’s principal
change agents, and it is often in their units that change will start. Some of them
will become managers of new units responsible for new product lines or
services, coordinators of change projects, or trainers and internal consultants
helping other individuals and groups to make the necessary changes.
There are two basic types of change agent: those whose interest is and remains
predominantly technical, and who may produce excellent technical ideas without
being able to convert them into business opportunities; and those who are mainly
entrepreneurs and leaders, and can help to generate and implement changes that
require the active involvement of many people, individually or in groups.
A strategy for organizational change may rely entirely on internal capabilities
and on managerial and specialist staff members who can play the role of change
agents. An alternative is to bring in a change agent from outside as a consultant.
This is an important managerial decision affecting the whole approach to the
change process. The consultant will not only be contributing technical compe-
tence and an alternative viewpoint, but, as we know, will be influencing, by his
or her presence and by action taken (or not taken), the behaviour of those
concerned in change. The consultant may well influence the behaviour of the very
person who has invited him or her. The main factors to consider are:
● the consultant’s profile (knowledge, experience and personality: he or she must
be acceptable to and respected by people who are being helped to change);
● the mode of consulting to choose in order to assist change (as discussed in
Chapter 3, there are various modes; the question is, which mode is likely to
generate the desired effects in a particular human system).

Organizational culture supportive of change

It is easier to keep pace with environmental change and generate effective
changes from within if change has a prominent place in the organizational
culture and if it is not handled as something exceptional, requiring a special
campaign and special arrangements in every single case.
High-technology companies in electronics and other fields now operate in an
atmosphere of constant change, and people understand that this is a salient
characteristic of the sector with which they have to live. The required pace of
change in many other fields is not as high. Every organization should define what
is the necessary and optimum pace of change in its sector, and try to adopt it as a
common value shared by management and staff. This helps to balance change and
stability, minimize hectic unplanned changes and avoid change for its own sake.
People should know what preoccupies management and where they should
focus efforts to improve individual and group performance, in order to avoid

97
Management consulting

dispersion of resources and help the company where it most needs help.
However, every interesting idea should be examined, even if it is not in an area
defined as a priority.
To value change and meet the requirements of an organization where the pace
of change is high, people must know that it pays to have a positive attitude to change
and constantly to look for changes from which the organization can benefit.
Innovation and creativity can be stimulated by financial rewards, public recog-
nition, promotions, making the job content more interesting, offering training and
self-development opportunities, and so on. Conversely, people must be able to see
that it does not pay to be conservative and resist innovation and change.
The values, attitudes and collectively held norms that make up organ-
izational culture (see Chapter 5) develop over a number of years and, once
established, they are not easy to change. But it is not impossible to influence and
eventually to change them. Therefore if organizational culture constitutes the
main obstacle to change, or if it does not stimulate change in an environment
that is rapidly changing, managers’ and consultants’ efforts may need to focus
on organizational culture first of all.

4.3 Gaining support for change

One of the principal messages of this chapter is that effective change needs the
support of the people involved. This can be a very complex matter. Managers
and consultants may feel uncertain about their ability to mobilize support for
the change envisaged. If errors are made by management, any existing support
may be lost and give way to resistance; to redress the situation may then be a
delicate task.
Inviting people to participate actively in a change effort at all its stages is
generally a useful method for gaining support and reducing resistance. It helps
to create an atmosphere in which people feel they are the “owners” of a change
proposal: the idea comes neither from the top, nor from an external person, but
from within the group. If things go wrong, the group does not seek a culprit
from outside, but takes responsibility, examines the causes and willingly helps
in redefining the proposals.

Drawing attention to the need for change

There are numerous methods of drawing the attention of individuals and groups
to the need for a change (see section 3.6, where various methods of influencing
the client system are discussed). However, two proven methods are of particular
interest to consultants.
The most effective manner of arousing immediate attention is by making
people anxious. In special cases the induction of a state of extreme anxiety is
undeniably effective – for example, a building will be cleared very promptly if
it is reported that a bomb has been placed in it. However, the continued use of

98
 Consulting and change

the heightened anxiety approach tends to be self-defeating. Recipients

eventually ignore the threats, especially if the alleged events do not occur.
Nevertheless, the induction of a low level of anxiety is an effective attention-
arousing device which can be sustained over a long period. A particularly
successful combination is to use an anxiety state to draw attention to specific
needs (i.e. the unfreezing process described in section 4.1) and to follow up by
providing a solution that meets those needs.
The second method is called the two-step information process. The under-
lying idea is that change is effectively introduced and accepted as a result of a
multiplier effect in the flow of information.
Research findings suggest that the people most likely to experiment and to
be influenced by new approaches possess certain characteristics. These
individuals, called “isolates”, are inclined to be highly technically oriented; to
read widely on their chosen subjects; to attend meetings and conferences
frequently; and to travel in order to investigate new schemes. They may be
considered by their group to be something akin to “cranks”, and are not likely
to influence other members of their workgroup directly.
Nevertheless, the activities of these technically oriented isolates are observed
by a second type of person who possesses characteristics similar to those of
isolates but who generally has less time available to experiment and test new
methods in any depth, usually owing to widespread interests in other fields. This
second type of person, identified as an “opinion-leader”, has considerable influ-
ence over the group, and even beyond it. In addition to acknowledged technical
expertise, this type of person usually has considerable civic and social standing.
Typically, in the adoption of new procedures, the new scheme is first
investigated, along with other possible choices, by the isolate and is eventually
chosen over other alternatives because of its technical superiority. The opinion-
leader then adopts the new idea once he or she is convinced that the isolate has
firmly decided on this new approach. Subsequently an “epidemic” phase erupts
as the followers of the opinion-leader also adopt the new approach. Therefore,
when introducing change a strong case can usually be made for emphasizing the
highly technical aspects of the new approach in order to attract and convince
both the isolates and the opinion-leaders who, under normal circumstances,
should assist in influencing and convincing the other members of the group.

Getting support for specific proposals

Once the audience’s attention has been aroused, and interest created in seeking
change, then comes the time to develop a desire for the change proposal. In
presenting information to support the selection of a given proposal in preference
to alternative schemes, it is often useful to mention some negative aspects of the
proposed scheme in addition to the more beneficial ones. Similarly, the positive
and negative aspects of existing or alternative schemes should also be presented.
This technique of explaining all aspects of the case under review is referred to as
an “inoculation” effect; it weakens any objections likely to arise at a later date.

99
Management consulting

An effective manner of presenting information in support of proposal B,

which is intended to displace proposal A, is to employ the following sequence:
(1) present a complete listing of all the positive and beneficial aspects of
proposal B;
(2) mention the obvious drawbacks associated with proposal B;
(3) describe a comprehensive listing of the deficiencies of proposal A;
(4) indicate the most pertinent positive features of proposal A.
The manager or the consultant should then draw conclusions as to why
proposal B should be chosen by listing the benefits to be accrued (i.e. service
provided), the effectiveness of the new proposal (i.e. technical and economic
superiority) and, if applicable, instances where such a proposal has already been
successfully employed.

Personality composition of the audience

Maintaining control of a gathering or crowd of people is difficult at the best of
times. When dealing with individuals or small groups, there are sometimes
opportunities to use group members as enhancers of the change process.
Individuals who are poised, confident and have a certain amount of self-esteem
are often able to influence others who lack these characteristics. In turn,
individuals with relatively high self-esteem appear to be more influenced by
information containing optimistic rather than pessimistic or negative conno-
tations. The consultant should enlist support for the change process from people
with high self-esteem by drawing attention to likely optimistic results. These
people are then in a position to support the consultant’s proposals to the group.

The informal communication network

Communications on a highly topical issue appear to produce a greater and more
rapid change in attitude in an audience when the information is “accidentally
overheard”, or leaked through informal communication networks than when
delivered through formal channels. Rumours, which flourish in the absence of
formal communications, are usually confined to informal channels (“the
grapevine”) and can often be countered by appropriate use of the same network.
Even a fundamental piece of information, such as a statement that the future of
a particular programme or unit is highly uncertain, may affect people’s attitudes
more if spread informally than if officially issued by management. Occasionally,
both formal and informal channels should be combined to reinforce the message.

Handling objections to change

An essential skill for managing and assisting change is the ability to handle
objections. Broadly speaking, objectors can be classified as “sharpeners” or

100
 Consulting and change

“levellers”. Sharpeners include those people who ask specific, detailed

questions concerning the change process. They tend to be genuine objectors
who want to be convinced that the change proposal is justified, and are respon-
sive to logical argument. Levellers are those who generalize and broaden the
issue under review. They are usually difficult to convince as they are often more
interested in the form of their objections than in the content.
Objections and resistance to change can be expressed in many different
ways. Non-verbal messages, such as gestures, facial expressions, or repeated
attempts to avoid discussing the issue with the manager or the consultant, may
be significant and tell more than words. In general, whenever a manager or a
consultant senses that people object to the change proposed, he or she should
help those concerned to express their doubts or apprehensions. The objections
should be analysed: they may point to weaknesses of the proposed scheme,
show that not enough information was given to people affected by the change,
reflect an aversion to the manager’s or the consultant’s behaviour, or express
fear or resistance that will need to be dealt with.
When the consultant has to handle specific objections, it is more useful to repeat
the objection, put it in writing if appropriate, break it down into component parts,
and treat each component as a separate entity rather than attempt to deal with the
problem as a whole. It is recommended to commence with the items on which
agreement is most likely to be reached and move later to the items causing most
disagreement. The consultant should frequently take the opportunity to recapitulate,
and to refer to parts of the original objection on which agreement has already been
reached, before continuing with new points. Should a total impasse be reached on
an issue, it may be helpful to reword the disagreement in objective terms, since the
objector may have used highly emotional words originally.
If a point is reached when the consultant does not have the appropriate
information to hand, this should be readily admitted and the objector advised
that the information will be obtained and transmitted to him or her at a later date.
The consultant should not fail to do this.

4.4 Managing conflict

When objections to change become a matter of intergroup conflict, different
problems requiring special treatment may arise. This may happen if a group is
to give up its activity or work method to adopt one practised by another group.
If a group sees itself as threatened, there will be a closing of the ranks and more
cohesive action, and the group will become more tolerant of authoritative rule
by its chosen leaders. Hostility to other groups is likely to arise, especially if the
situation is perceived as a “win–lose” encounter. Communication will become
distorted and difficult, as each group will be prepared to admit only the positive
aspects of its own argument and the negative aspects of the “enemy’s”.
Basic strategies to reduce intergroup conflict (box 4.5) include the establish-
ment of goals upon which both groups can agree in order to restore genuine

101
Management consulting

Box 4.5 How to manage conflict

In planning and implementing change, interpersonal or intergroup conflict may

develop for a number of reasons:
● poor communication;

● disagreement on objectives and results to be pursued;

● disagreement on intervention methods used;

● differences over the pace of change;

● resistance to change;

● fear of losing influence and power;

● competition for resources;

● non-respect of commitments;

● refusal to cooperate;

● personality and culture clashes;

● poor performance and inefficiency.

The principal methods of resolving interpersonal conflict were summarized by

Gordon Lippitt in the following terms:
Withdrawal: retreating from an actual or potential conflict situation.
Smoothing: emphasizing areas of agreement and de-emphasizing areas of
difference.
Compromising: searching for solutions that bring some degree of satisfaction
to the conflicting parties.
Forcing: exerting one’s viewpoint at the potential expense of another – often
open competition and win–lose situation.
Confrontation: addressing a disagreement directly and in a problem-solving
mode – the affected parties work through their disagreement.
As a rule, it is advisable to depersonalize conflict by ensuring that the
disputants do not sit in judgement over each other, and to focus the conflict on
the basic issue by concentrating disagreement on factual grounds. Withdrawal
avoids the issue, but the solution may be only provisional; it may be used as a
temporary strategy to buy time or allow the parties to cool off. Forcing uses
authority and power and can cause considerable resentment; it may be necessary
in extreme cases where agreement obviously cannot be reached amicably.
Smoothing may not address the real issue, but permits the change process to
continue at least in areas of agreement. Compromising helps to avoid conflict, but
tends to yield less than optimum results. Confrontation is generally regarded as
most effective, owing to its problem-solving approach involving an objective
examination of available alternatives and a search for an agreement on the best
alternative. Finally, adopting an attitude of one side winning and the other side
losing is like pouring gasoline on the fire of conflict.

Source: Gordon Lippitt: Organizational renewal (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, 1982),
pp. 151–155.

102
 Consulting and change

intergroup communication. It may be useful to identify a common “enemy” – thus

setting a superordinate goal. Emphasis should be placed on common needs and
goals of different groups. If possible, a reward system which encourages effective
communication should be introduced. Groups should take part in numerous
activities likely to increase empathy and mutual understanding.

4.5 Structural arrangements and interventions for

assisting change
Since the manager bears the main responsibility for managing change in his or
her organization or unit, he or she may decide to take charge of a specific change
effort personally, involving direct collaborators and other staff members as
necessary. In many cases, no special structural arrangements are made, and the
manager and the staff work out and implement change proposals while
simultaneously handling their other duties.
In the practical life of organizations, however, the use of special structural
arrangements and intervention techniques for handling change may be
required for certain specific reasons:

(1) The regular organizational structure may be fully oriented towards current
business and could not cope with any additional tasks, for technical reasons
or owing to a high workload.
(2) Rigidity, conservatism and resistance to change may be strongly rooted in
the existing structure, and it would be unrealistic to expect the structure to
generate or manage any substantive change.
(3) In certain cases it is desirable to introduce change in steps, or to test it on a
limited scale before making a final decision.
(4) In many cases, management has to look for a suitable formula that is easy
to understand and will involve a number of individuals and/or groups in a
change effort (possibly including staff from different organizational units),
clearly establish a case for change, reveal objections and risks, develop and
compare alternative solutions, and mobilize support for the solution that will
be chosen.

There is a wide range of structural arrangements and intervention techniques

for managing and facilitating the change efforts of individuals, groups and
whole organizations. This section will review some commonly used
arrangements and techniques which can be applied for various purposes and at
various stages of the change process.
Many of the techniques for assisting change are derived from behavioural
science, and focus on changes in attitudes, values, and individual or group
behaviour. However, in recent decades we have witnessed a shift in the
technology of planned change. This technology has moved from an emphasis
on team-building, intergroup relations and the like to an emphasis on diagnostic

103
Management consulting

and action-planning processes for coping with the total organization and its
environment, designing methods for organizational diagnosis, and implementing
comprehensive programmes for business restructuring and transformation (see
also Chapter 22). Essentially, there has been a growing understanding of the fact
that a one-sided approach, as fostered by some behavioural scientists in the past,
has limitations and should give way to a comprehensive view of the organization,
embracing all organizational factors and subsystems as well as their interaction
with the environment.5
The experience of companies that have successfully completed challenging
change programmes demonstrates the desirability of combining “soft” tech-
niques for stimulating and assisting change (based essentially on a behavioural
science approach and aiming to improve people’s attitudes to change and enlist
their active participation) with “hard” techniques (aimed at ensuring effective
problem identification, needs assessment, sequencing, coordination, resource
allocation, quality control, follow-up, and other measures, without which
even the best-intended and fully participative change effort can turn into total
confusion).
The current panoply of approaches, methods and techniques for assisting
organizational change is impressive. Many consultants have specific variants
or packages of the “classical” change management and performance
improvement approaches and techniques: some of these variants are not
described in the literature and are available only to clients as proprietary
techniques. In other cases, the technique used is a common one, but is presented
under a different name. If a consultant proposes to use a specific and not very
well-known technique, the client may wish to ask what is unique in the
proposed technique and how it relates to the basic and commonly known
techniques. In fact, the consultant should take the initiative and give such an
explanation when proposing the method to the client.
This chapter is confined to a short review of selected and fairly well-known
techniques. For more detailed study, the reader may wish to refer to specialized
sources on change management, project management, organizational
development, process consulting, or organizational behaviour and psychology.
Change management approaches and techniques are also discussed in other
parts of this book, especially in Chapters 3, 8, 9, 10, 20 and 22.

Structural arrangements
Structural arrangements are used to provide a suitable (often temporary) organ-
izational setting for a particular change project or effort, and for use of other
change management methods.

Special projects and assignments. This is a very popular form. A person

or unit within the existing structure is given an additional special task as a
temporary assignment. He or she may be given some additional resources for
this purpose if existing resources within the current structure are insufficient.

104
 Consulting and change

For mobilizing extra resources and taking decisions that are beyond his or her
authority, the project manager or coordinator would, of course, turn to the
general manager. This is, in fact, a transitional arrangement between a normal
and a special structure.

Temporary groups. Task forces, working parties and other similar tempo-
rary groups are frequently used, either at one stage of the change process (e.g.
to establish the need for change, gather new ideas, determine priorities or
develop alternatives), or for planning and coordinating the whole process. The
group should pursue a clearly defined purpose.
Selecting the members of a temporary group is an extremely important step.
They should be people who can and want to do something about the problem
that is the focus of the change. Often they will come from different organ-
izational units, in particular if change efforts focus on processes that cut across
boundaries between units. The group should not be too large and its members
must have time to participate in group work. Task forces often fail because they
are composed of extremely busy people who give priority to running current
business before thinking about future change. They also fail if they are
dominated by individuals who use their formal authority to impose their views
on the group.
Thanks to modern telecommunication technologies, task forces and other
temporary groups can also work effectively in geographically dispersed and
multinational organizations. Expensive and exhausting travel can be replaced
by email, teleconferencing and other distance communication, reserving face-
to-face meetings for situations where it is absolutely necessary.
The group should also have a defined life. One possibility is to use the
“sunset calendar” – that is, at a predetermined point the group will cease to exist
unless there is a management decision to continue it. This may reduce the
possibility of the group slowly disintegrating as more and more members absent
themselves from meetings.
The group may use a convener. This could be the consultant or somebody
designated by management, after discussion with the consultant. The convener
is not necessarily the chairperson of the group, but is the person who gets it
moving initially. The group may decide that it does not want a regular
chairperson and might rotate the role.
As far as possible, the expected output of the group should be specified. It
should bear a direct relationship to the problem and be amenable to review.

Meetings. Meetings or workshops, which are used for many purposes, can
also be designed to bring about and manage change. The focus of the meeting,
as an intervention in support of change, is to enable various individuals to work
on the problem face to face. The form of the meeting must be consistent with
the organization’s culture: where autocratic management prevails and people
know that their views are not likely to be taken into account, a meeting to
discuss change will achieve very little.

105
Management consulting

It is important that the manager or consultant involved should establish the

appropriate climate. This may mean that the meeting has to be held on “neutral
ground”, so that none of the parties has any territorial advantage. The role that
the consultant will play during the meeting should be clarified as early as
possible. That role, essentially, is as facilitator and process observer. The
consultant has the advantage of being external, and his or her comments can
prevent the group from falling into the trap of complaining about current
difficulties without trying to come up with any practical suggestions for
improvement. It is also possible to hold meetings without the consultant. When
this is to be done, it is even more important that the relative roles and expec-
tations of all those attending should be made clear prior to the meeting.

Experiments. Experiments are used to test a change process or its results on

a limited scale, e.g. in one or two organizational units, or over a short time, say
several months. For example, flexible working hours or a new bonus scheme
may first be applied on an experimental basis in selected departments.
A true experiment involves pre- and post-test control. Two or more units or
groups are used, which have the same or very similar characteristics (this may
be difficult to achieve and prove scientifically). Data are collected about both
groups. A change is then made in one group (experimental group) but not in the
other (control group). Once the change has been made, further observations are
made and data collected. The data collected in both groups before and after the
change are compared. However, as the famous Hawthorne experiments
illustrated, it is possible in a field experiment that some other variable is
influencing performance.6

Pilot projects. A pilot project may be used to check on a limited scale

whether a new scheme – perhaps involving considerable and costly tech-
nological, organizational or social change – is feasible, and whether
adjustments will be necessary before the scheme is introduced on a larger scale.
A great deal of information can be drawn from a properly prepared and properly
monitored pilot project, and in this way the risks involved in an important new
scheme are minimized.
In drawing conclusions from the evaluation of pilot projects, certain
mistakes are commonly made. In order to demonstrate that the proposed change
is justified and feasible, both managers and consultants tend to pay special
attention to pilot projects (e.g. by assigning the best people to it, intensifying
guidance and control, or providing better maintenance services). The pilot
project is thus not executed under normal conditions, but under exceptionally
favourable ones. Furthermore, it is assumed that the conditions under which a
pilot project is undertaken can be replicated for a larger programme. Often this
is not possible, for a number of reasons. For example, the organization may be
unable to provide support services of the same quality to a large-scale activity.
Hence, assessment of a successful pilot project should include an unbiased
review of the conditions under which it succeeded.

106
 Consulting and change

New organizational units. New units may be established if management

has made up its mind to go ahead with a change measure (e.g. to develop and
start marketing a new service) and decides that adequate resources and
facilities must be fully assigned to it from the outset. As a rule, this would be
done if the need for change has been well documented, and the importance of
the change envisaged justifies an underutilization of resources which may well
occur when the unit is first established.
Christensen and Overdorf 7 emphasize that providing extra resources by
establishing or acquiring a new organization may be a powerful instrument for
coping with organizational inertia and resistance to change. It is often easier to
provide new resources than to change established processes and cultural
values. For example, to create new capabilites for accelerating and facilitating
change, a consultant might advise management to:
● create new organizational structures in which new processes can be
developed;
● establish an independent organization to develop the new processes and
values required to solve the new problem;
● acquire another organization whose processes and values closely match the
requirements of the new task.

Organization development (OD) techniques

Described below are some examples of techniques originally used by behavioural
scientists in organization development (OD) approaches and programmes.
As mentioned above, these techniques are now generally applied in combin-
ation with other techniques, or within comprehensive change management
programmes.

Team-building. This intervention is used frequently. Indeed, there are those

who contend that it has been overused and abused. In part, the tendency to use
this intervention is rooted in the early days of process consultation. Coming
from group dynamics, the T-group approach and the sensitivity movement, it is
based on an assumption that the fundamental factor in changing individual and
organizational behaviour is to get people working together in groups. While this
is important, it is by no means the only, or even the chief, type of intervention
that should be considered. As with any other intervention, it should be used
based on the diagnosed need.
While there are many variations, the team-building approach essentially focuses
on how the team functions, rather than on the content area of the team. Slowly and
carefully, the problem or task is introduced into the situation, after work on inter-
personal relationships has indicated that the climate is appropriate for moving on.
Team-building is not a one-off activity, although some consultants treat it
that way. In many organizations, there is a recurring need to engage in team-
building activities.

107
Management consulting

Confrontation. Within most organizations, there is generally competition for

limited resources. There may be times when an organization appears to have
access to unlimited resources, but these periods do not usually last long. External
influences impose limitations and restrictions. Ignoring internal competition for
resources merely forces various organizational members and units to devise ways
to defeat other elements of the organization. There is thus a need for some kind
of confrontation, where individuals must face each other and take action. It can
result either in compromise (win–win), or in a situation where one unit or
individual wins points at the expense of the other (win–lose). Confrontation is not
necessarily negative – it depends on how individuals deal with it.
Confrontation meetings normally employ a structured approach in which
selected staff are exposed to: (1) historical and conceptual ideas about change
and organizations; (2) preparation of a list of significant problem areas in their
own organization or unit; (3) classification of stated problems into categories;
(4) development of plans of action to remedy problems; (5) comparison of the
action proposals developed; and (6) planning for implementation.
There are cultures where confrontation is seen as negative, and where it is
considered impolite and countercultural to force an individual into decision-
making. This does not mean that decisions are not made, but they are not made
through confrontation. The level of economic development has little to do with
this aspect of cultural behaviour, which can be found in countries such as Japan
and Malaysia. The consultant must also determine whether there are some
situations in which confrontation is inadvisable or inappropriate.
When a decision needs to be made in a non-confronting culture, the consult-
ant can bring about the needed confrontation as an intervention. He or she must
do this very cautiously. One approach is to use a third party – that is, the confront-
ing groups or individuals in the organization do not meet face to face. Instead,
the consultant engages in what is sometimes called “shuttle diplomacy”. This can
work effectively as the entry phase of a confrontation intervention, with the plan
that the parties will actually meet at a later phase. In other situations, the entire
confrontation may be dealt with indirectly.

Feedback. Feeding back data on individual, group and organizational

performance can help to bring about change in individual or group behaviour.
It is very important to provide feedback. Research and experience tell us that
without feedback, data on behaviour and performance may be meaningless.
Particularly when an attitude survey is used, it is important that the participants
in the survey receive an analysis of the data that they have provided.
The process of feedback must be handled cautiously, because raw data are
frequently misunderstood. Also the analysis may prove critical or damaging to
some individuals, and in such a situation the results can be anticipated. Obviously,
those individuals will attempt to block any movement towards change.
On a positive note, feedback can be extremely helpful. Many people in an
organization do not receive sufficient feedback to enable them to assess their own
performance or the performance of the organization as a whole. The consultant

108
 Consulting and change

should plan carefully, so that there will not be an information overload. Care
should be taken with both the process and the content of the feedback.

Coaching and counselling. Commonly used interventions to assist change

are coaching and counselling (see also section 3.7). They are often used in
process consultation where an individual seeks help in improving his or her own
performance or interpersonal relationships. The basic method is for the
consultant to observe and review individual performance, listen to the client,
provide feedback on problems or behavioural patterns that hinder effectiveness
and inhibit change, and help the individual to gain self-confidence, acquire new
knowledge and skills and change behaviour as required by the changing nature
of the job and the organization.

Training and developing people

Training and development of managers and staff can be a powerful technique
for change.
● Management workshops, both external and in-house, can be used to sen-
sitize managers and staff to the need for change, to environmental trends and
opportunities, to various options available to their organization and to them
as individuals, or to performance and other standards already reached
elsewhere. Experience has shown that managers can learn a great deal at
workshops where other managers describe and discuss specific experiences
with organizational change.
● Training can help people to develop the skills and abilities to cope with
change effectively, such as diagnostic and problem-solving techniques,
planning, project management and evaluation techniques, or communication
and group-work skills.
● Tailor-made and paced training can assist the change process at its various
stages by providing missing technical information and skills, thus helping
managers and staff to proceed to the next step, and overcoming fear and
resistance caused by lack of knowledge or of self-confidence.
● Training of “internal” change agents increases the pool of those on whom
management can rely in planning and assisting programmes of organi-
zational change.

Training in support of organizational change can be provided by

professional trainers, external or in-house, by management and OD consultants,
or by the managers who are in charge of particular change programmes. The
participants themselves can make significant inputs, for example by defining
their needs in a participative mode, or engaging in action-learning programmes
as discussed below. Training can be both formal and informal. The key objective
is to facilitate the learning of concepts and skills that are necessary and directly
applicable to an ongoing change programme.

109
Management consulting

In the current context of rapid technological, social and other changes,

training and learning are more than useful change techniques: organizations
where learning does not enjoy a prominent place find it increasingly difficult to
keep track of significant trends in business and its environment, and to maintain
the necessary level of competence in their managers and staff.

Action learning. Action learning, pioneered by Reg Revans, is based on the

assumption that managers learn best by solving real problems either in their
own or in other organizations, and by exchanging relevant experience with
other managers. The problems tackled must be meaningful and important to the
organization concerned and should involve both technical and human aspects.
Emphasis is placed on implementation – that is, on the most difficult part of the
change process. Exchange of experience with other managers involved in action
learning is organized as a regular part of the programme. If necessary, the
participants also receive technical assistance – missing information is supplied
or expert advice is given on the approach taken. The ultimate objective is to
achieve changes both in individual skills and attitudes, and in organizational
practices and performance.

Learning organization. The “learning organization” concept (see section

18.6 for a detailed discussion) aims to link and integrate training and learning
with change processes that have a significant impact on company strategy and
performance. Emphasis is put on creating favourable conditions and incentives
for continuous individual learning and on innovation in training and self-
development. To turn individual learning efforts into “organizational learning”,
various techniques and approaches are used to share and disseminate the results
of individual learning, learn in teams, enhance managerial responsibility for
training and learning, combine the processes of learning with organizational
change processes and use learning to achieve a competitive advantage.

Organizational diagnosis and problem-solving techniques

There is a wide range of such techniques, known under a variety of names. Their
main advantage is that they help managers and consultants to apply a systematic
and methodical approach, making sure that important factors, relationships or
steps are not omitted and symptoms not mistaken for their causes. In a consulting
project, the diagnostic phase and the action-planning phase (see Chapters 8 and
9) can also serve as an intervention for making people aware of the need to change,
involving them in identifying and analysing problems and opportunities, and
developing proposals that meet the organization’s needs and objectives.

Campaign-type, action-oriented change programmes

A campaign-type, action-oriented programme is a major organized and planned
change effort over a defined period of time to tackle a significant practical

110
 Consulting and change

problem, mobilizing fairly large teams and often requiring considerable

resources. The intervention has to last long enough for bottom-line results to
become visible or striking. Feedback on results achieved has to be provided
with a view to maintaining interest in the programme and adjusting the
approach as appropriate. Also, missing information, skills, equipment and
materials have to be made available as necessary. Examples of problems tackled
include total business performance, corporate strategy, labour productivity,
product and service quality, energy consumption, waste, and accident
prevention. As a rule, a great deal is at stake in such programmes and demands
on programme management and methodology are high. Several techniques for
implementing such programmes are described in Chapter 22 on consulting in
company transformation.

Choosing among intervention techniques

Only rarely will one particular technique or approach be appropriate at all stages
of a change process. In many situations, managers and consultants have to use
a variety of interventions, simultaneously or successively.
A competent consultant will be flexible in choosing intervention and
change-assisting techniques, combining several interventions as appropriate
and switching to a new technique if the originally chosen technique appears to
be ineffective. In some instances, it may even be more effective not to choose
a technique at an early stage of the process.8 Choosing a wrong technique at the
outset of the change process can rapidly create a great deal of disenchantment
and miss the target; obstinately continuing to use the technique although it is
obviously causing more harm than good is a trap to be avoided.
Two criteria are more important than any other in choosing an intervention
technique or structural arrangement:

(1) It should ideally be compatible with the organizational culture; if it is not,

great care should be taken to explain why the technique had to be chosen and
how it will be used; the technique may need to be adapted during its use.
(2) The consultant and the managers responsible for the change programme
should feel comfortable with the technique and be able to use it effectively.

It is knowledge and practice of skills in choosing an appropriate approach

and employing it in a life situation that set the consultant apart from the
theoretician. The techniques may be acquired in part by studying research
findings and publications, but, above all, they will be mastered and fine-tuned
by experience.

1 An American social psychologist, whose main writings on change date from the 1940s and
1950s. See, e.g., K. Lewin: Field theory in social science (New York, Harper, 1951).
2 See also R. Kegan and L. Laskow Lahey: “The real reason people won’t change”, in Harvard
Business Review, Oct. 2001, pp. 85–92.

111
Management consulting

3 See also S. Wetlaufer: “The business case against revolution: An interview with Nestlé’s Peter
Brabeck”, in Harvard Business Review, Feb. 2001, pp. 113–119.
4 See also the discussion of situational leadership in P. Hersey and K. Blanchard: Management
of organizational behavior (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, 1982), Ch. 7.
5 R. Beckhard and R. T. Harris: Organizational transition: Managing complex change
(Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley, 1977), p. 5.
6 The Hawthorne experiments were seminal studies carried out in the 1920s on the effects of
illumination and other working conditions on productivity.
7 See C. M. Christensen and M. Overdorf: “Meeting the challenge of disruptive change”, in
Harvard Business Review, March–April 2000, p. 67.
8 Beckhard and Harris, op. cit., p. 44.

112