Organizational Consulting Frameworks and Skills 1

Organizational Consulting Frameworks and Skills

Hannah Elise Jones

Pepperdine University
Organizational Consulting Frameworks and Skills 2

To assess the application of the consulting frameworks suggested by Peter Block and Ed Schein,

a reflection on a recent client partnership will be used. The client, a global biotech and pharmaceutical

company, entered into an agreement with the consultancy in June of 2016 and the project concluded in

February of 2017. The project was sponsored by the VP of HR in the client organization and had two

main areas of focus: 1) close gaps in employee experience across demographic groups, and 2) amplify

innovation across the organization. The consultancy contracted a team of two consultants, one analyst and

an executive sponsor, the President of the consultancy.

This project began with a contracting meetings between key leaders in both groups. Peter Block,

dedicates a significant portion of his book, Flawless Consulting, to the contracting process. In this

process, Block recommends discussing the needs and wants of both the client and the consultant in order

to establish clear mutual expectations that contribute to the success of a project. Often, clients can be clear

about the project and the outputs, but less clear about how they would like the project to occur, and what

constraints might exist. Conversations about constraints are essential to setting up expectations from the

beginning and allow the consultant to bring their own needs into the conversation. One of the most

critical skills in flawless consulting, Block says, is to put directly into words what you, the consultant,

want from the client to make a project successful (2011, pg. 77).

Ed Schein echoes this emphasis on expectations in his book Process Consultation Revisited

(1999), but does so in a less structured way than Block. Schein focuses on the importance of having a

psychological contract between the client and the consultant that allows for flexibility as the project

evolves. While the concept of expectations is of central importance, his philosophy of process

consultation is against formalizing consulting arrangements because neither the client nor the consultant

can predict the reality that they will face (Schein, 1999, pg. 237). Instead, he advocates for contracts to

focus primarily on the time and resources needed, allowing for the maximum flexibility within those

constraints.

At the end of the contracting process Block recommends testing for client control and

commitment. In asking about client commitment and comfort with control, consultants are not looking to
Organizational Consulting Frameworks and Skills 3

withdraw from the project, but rather to understand what they are up against from the beginning (Block,

2011, pg. 84). Schein recommends a similar vetting approach through an exploratory meeting where the

central problem can be discussed more in depth, potential can be assessed and both the client and

consultant can get a sense for what it will be like working together. This meeting helps to define the

relationship that will exist between the client and the consultant, and allows both parties a chance to better

understand what the project will look and feel like. While these meetings can be challenging, and

intimidating for both parties given the open nature of the conversation, Schein emphasizes their

importance as a way to minimize challenges later on. In fact, in projects that are not successful, the

mistakes that occurred on the part of the consultant almost always occurred at the very beginning of the

relationship (Schein, 1999, pg. 226).

In the example project, all the details of the contracting process between the consultancy and the

biotech company are not known, but the outputs suggest that expectations and ground rules were not

clearly set. The most significant element of this process that impacted the project was the explicit

commitment that the project would require No New Meetings. In addition to the tangible deliverables,

and the explicit investment by the client in time and resources, the promise of No New Meetings was

written in the signed statement of work. When the contract was shared with the consultants responsible

for delivering the work there was an immediate concern about how the project would proceed with this

constraint. The President of the consultancy, the only member of the project team involved in the

contracting, said that this stipulation was very important to the client and had to be accommodated. This

exchange made it clear that the agreement did not include a balance of the client team and consultant team

needs, nor had it allowed for much flexibility in how the groups would work together.

After the contracting is completed the consulting project moves into the assessment or discovery

phase, where the consultant learns more about the client, the presenting problem is refined, and

recommendations for action are formulated. In this phase, Block emphasizes the importance of avoiding

the tendency to be prescriptive, preferring instead a process of discovery and dialogue more thanan act

of diagnosis and prescription (2011, pg. 162). This distinction is an important one, because prescriptive
Organizational Consulting Frameworks and Skills 4

assessment tends to emphasize technical solutions as opposed to more complex and adaptive human

solutions, which are often needed to combat client problems. The contrast between technical and

management problems played a significant role in the biotech consulting project, where the preference on

the side of the client was clearly for a technical fix. The clients VP of HR, had information that indicated

a more intentional implementation of an existing leadership program would facilitate the behavior change

the project was seeking to create. She instructed the consulting team to explore the program and identify

ways in which it could further the goals of the project. Through discovery interviews, the consulting team

learned that the program was not being used effectively in the organization, and was in some cases,

completely disregarded. The VP of HRs direct reports were not being honest about the tool or its

relevance to their teams, instead they some just ignored it. This learning indicated to the consulting team

that the true challenge facing the clients HR team was not related to the what, or the tools they were

using, but rather how they were working together as a team. This was very different from the original

presenting problem that had been identified by the client.

Had a more process-oriented model been used from the beginning the consultancy might have

been able to detect the root cause earlier and been able to intervene more effectively to spark real change.

Scheins task process model would have been useful in this case, as it clearly delineates content, process

and structure. In the case of this example project, the real challenge was in the reoccurring task processes

the HR group was engaged in, and how it perpetuated ineffective processes. When seeking to understand

reoccurring task processes Schein suggests five key components the consultant needs to understand about

the client: 1) Mission/Primary Task, 2) Specific Goals and Strategies, 3) Means Used to Accomplish

Goals, 4) Measuring and Monitoring Systems and 5) Systems for Fixing Problems and Getting Back on

Course (1999). These processes all develop over time, and as an organization ages and grows they can

become more stable and be institutionalized in the system. It is essential to note that whether or not the

consultant can intervene constructively in the task structure depends on the degree to which the group

itself is conscious of the structure and needs to change it (Schein, 1999, pg. 170). In the case of the HR

team at the biotech company, there was not a shared awareness of these processes, or an alignment on
Organizational Consulting Frameworks and Skills 5

needs to change them. In many cases the structure was embedded into the bureaucracy of the organization

such that individuals were not fully aware of it, and in other cases individuals were aware of the task

structure and its limitations but were choosing to circumvent it in some way rather than confront the

issues. All of these challenges became clear to the consulting team, and much of the project was spent

struggling how to balance the newly apparent task structure issues, with the main deliverables of the

project, which were more technical and prescriptive in nature.

These reoccurring task processes fueled inefficiency in the HR teams process, which were drawn

out and constraining to creativity, innovation, and honest expression. According to Schein, it is the

process dimensions that are most likely to be fruitful for observation, analysis and intervention (1999,

pg. 194). While this statement is intuitively true, the complexities of consulting projects complicate

Scheins delineation between content, process and task. The consulting team in the example was aware of

the need to change task process, but knew that it was inaccessible because of the rigid task structure in

place in the organization. Within the constraints of the project, the consulting team did their best to help

the HR team confront their own structuresbut more problematic [was] whether or not to get

involved in structure and culture change (Schein, 1999, pg. 171). Schein emphasizes the challenge of

changing task structure change by saying, Culture is embedded in structure hence one cannot change

structure without threatening accepted cultural assumptions (1999, pg. 171). This perspective supports

his assertion that interventions at the task process level are most effective because they could be less

closely tied to deeply held cultural beliefs. However, many examples, including the one outlined here,

while not contradicting Scheins point of view, do not delineate the components of group work so clearly

as Schein suggests in his model, leaving the choice of where and how to intervene a consistent challenge

in any consulting engagement.

Through experiences like the consulting engagement described here, I have begun developing my

own point of view on consulting frameworks and methods. Personally, I find components of both Block

and Scheins approaches compelling and useful, but neither entirely encompasses my present consulting

experience. I appreciate Blocks ability to delineate and describe key steps in the engagement, and value
Organizational Consulting Frameworks and Skills 6

the manner in which he breaks down a project from first contact to final meeting. As was described in the

example of the engagement with the biotech company, I have experienced consulting projects that

struggled to make an impact in the client environment because key steps in the process were overlooked

or mismanaged, particularly early on in contracting. For this reason Blocks comprehensive and simple

approach to engaging with clients is a welcome guide to building a strong client-consultant agreement.

I see Schein taking a theoretically similar approach to Block, but providing less structure and

simplicity to the framework. The component of Scheins approach that resonates with me the most is his

concluding thought, which has been mentioned here, of creating a psychological contract with the client.

Like Block he makes it clear that successful process consultation requires a willingness and ability on

both sides to clearly express needs and concerns, but he takes the approach further and emphasizes that

the contract must allow for flexibility and openness in the relationship as the work progresses. I am

curious about how Schein is able to create this level of trust with the client initially, as one of the greatest

challenges I have experienced in my consulting is the ability to build credibility and trust with clients

quickly. In Process Consultation Revisited, Schein emphasizes the exploratory meetings as a key

component of assessing the relationship in the contracting phase, but does not go into details on how to

build the psychological contract he emphasizes. I understand how powerful and difficult an agreement

this can be, so I am curious to learn more about how to create it.

In light of these observations and reflections, there are key skills I can focus on building to make

myself a more skilled and effective consultant in line with the work that both Schein and Block describe.

First, I have an opportunity to improve my comfort and capacity in providing effective feedback. This

will help me become better at sharing my observations on process dynamics in systems I am working in.

Currently, I feel I have the observational and analytical skills to generate insights about process, but I am

not always effective in my delivery of that feedback which lessens the impact I can have. Improving in

giving professional feedback will require that I develop the ability to process my thoughts in the moment,

and a greater level of comfort with sharing potentially challenging information with individuals I do not

have a strong personal relationship with.

Organizational Consulting Frameworks and Skills 7

Another skill I believe I can improve to impact my consulting skills is around inquiry. There are

times when my observational and an analytical abilities lead me to a conclusion that might not be fully

informed or accurate. It is important in consulting engagements that I check in with others, seeking to

understand their perceptions and experiences, so that I am generating holistic and accurate

recommendations. This will require me to slow down, and make intentional efforts to ask more non-

leading questions of others, while being mindful that my questions are also a form of intervention in

themselves. I believe that an improved ability to both inquire and provide effective feedback will help me

develop the skills to become a well-rounded and impactful process consultant that is able to address both

technical and management challenges.

Organizational Consulting Frameworks and Skills 8

Reference List

Block, P. (2011). Flawless consulting: a guide to getting your expertise used. San Francisco, CA:
Pfeiffer.

Schein, E. H. (1999). Process consultation revisited: building the helping relationship. Reading,
MA: Addison Wesley.