| | By Malcolm Sleath
Some consultants seem
to be more popular than
others, sometimes
leading to the charge
that they consider
recognition to be more
important than
effectiveness. Malcolm
Sleath from 12 Boxes
suggests that it might
be a sign that they are
doing something right.
Question: A
colleague and I have
been working on similar
projects, but in
different departments.
Last week the client ran
a session in which teams
from each department
reported back on
progress. My team
achieved great outcomes,
and their presentations
were very businesslike.
But when my colleague’s
team reported back, I
lost count of the number
of favourable name
checks he received. My
boss was clearly
impressed by this, even
though you could argue
my team’s output was
more impressive. Am I
wrong for thinking that
my boss was being
shallow?
Answer: If your
boss is interested in
convincing the client | |
|
| | that your firm is a
valuable resource for
improving the
performance of their
people, it’s not hard to
understand why your
colleague’s apparent
popularity seemed
important. Presumably
the client would have
considered the
presentations an
indicator of how
effectively you and your
colleague have been
working with their
people, and your boss
saw the name checks as a
sign of acceptance.
Of course, name
checks do not
necessarily mean that
your colleague is more
popular than you. It
could simply be that his
department was more
‘people oriented’ than
yours, and therefore
more inclined to send
out signals of
inclusiveness. But it
would be unrealistic to
write these signals off
as superficial.
People seem to be
more open to change if
they think the
facilitator likes them.
Fortunately for
facilitators this does
not mean we have to
immediately warm to | |
| |
| | bring with them a
different perspective.
But in order to get that
perspective accepted,
they first have to go
out of their way to show
they understand the way
people see the current
situation, even if that
view is part of the
problem.
Having observed
presentations similar to
the one you described,
and felt the odd pang of
jealousy myself when
others seem to have
achieved a higher level
of acceptance, I
concluded that the
people who get the name
checks simply work
harder to make sure the
target group accepts
them. They send a stream
of messages that say, “I
know what you’re going
through”. Except that
they never use those
words any more than they
say, “I see what you
mean”.
Instead, through
practice, they have
acquired the knack of
putting into words what
their target individual
or group is thinking and
feeling. A cynical view
is that they are
currying favour instead
of getting on with the | |
|
| | job. But the technique
is really an effective
part of their
professional armoury.
When a group goes out
of their way to give
name checks, it often
means that they
appreciated the trouble
someone has taken to see
things from their point
of view, and they want
to give that effort some
public recognition.
So, if it is that
simple, why don’t people
do it more? My theory is
that many consultants
are too concerned to
defend their own
proposition to allow
other people full rein
to express ideas that
might appear to
challenge it. Their own
insecurity leads them to
see any sign of
discomfort as
undermining the success
of their project. As a
result, they end up by
telling people they
shouldn’t feel like they
do, instead of sending a
much more effective
message that says, “You
can feel like that, and
still come through with
great results”. | |
|
Previous Page 
