Chapter 1

Performance Consulting

In their desire to improve organizational performance, managers sometimes seek the help of consultants. They may not fully understand the capabilities and biases consultants bring to the assignment, however. The following story illustrates this point.

FIELD NOTES: SOLUTIONS A large conglomerate hired Mark to head its unit that manufactures and distributes extrusion metals (used to make window frames, louver blades, I-beams for construction, and storm doors). The main plant was in the Midwest, there was a second plant on the East Coast, and a new plant was scheduled to open in Singapore within six months. The Midwest plant had lost market share over the previous two years. Its on-time delivery record was poor, and turnover among its sales staff was high. The East Coast plant was just meeting its financial goals, and senior management told Mark they were concerned: customer complaints about product quality and missed deliveries were up. Mark decided to seek the help of a marketing consultant. The consultant recommended a new product image, a new logo, and a new marketing campaign. Mark agreed that a new marketing plan made sense, but he was uncomfortable with the plan because it could take the better part of a year to see results. To see if he could get faster results, Mark sought the advice of a sales consultant. This consultant recommended a sales contest, a new bonus structure, and incentives for achieving sales goals. At about the same time, a senior vice president at corporate headquarters suggested that Mark talk to a management consultant. The consultant suggested reorganizing the business unit around key customer groups, such as construction, institutional buyers, and resellers. Because Mark had been impressed by the successes of the quality assurance department at the company he used to work for, he decided to meet with a quality consultant as well. This consultant offered three significant suggestions: set up cross-functional teams; make each team responsible for a whole process, from receiving orders to delivering finished products; and implement statistical process control techniques for each process. Mark’s U.S. sales manager suggested they hire an organizational development consultant to work with the management team. The goals would be to come up with a new vision and mission for the unit and to improve communication within the team. The Midwest plant manager suggested they hire a training consultant to develop training for sales and production personnel. Mark received a memo stating that the corporation’s architectural firm had been hired to do strategic planning for the entire corporation. One of the anticipated outcomes of the strategic plan was a new model for the plants, since the architectural firm was known for agile designs based on manufacturing principles. A human resource consultant recommended studying causes of turnover, implementing a targeted selection program, and doing an employee morale survey. On his flight to the Singapore plant, Mark read about the successes of reengineering. He was particularly impressed by the use of sophisticated information systems designed to shorten cycle times. On his return flight, he read another article, this one about performance improvement consulting. It was then that Mark realized that all of the approaches he had been considering had merit. All of the consultants he had hired had started with a solution; however, none of them had begun with an analysis of what was actually causing the poor performance. Instead, they had all assumed that they had the answer.

Mark’s experience is not unique. Eager for solutions to their problems, organizations act on the recommendations of experts without first finding out what the problem is. Managers are slowly recognizing the need to take a more fact-based, grounded approach to improving performance however. Changes must leverage real strengths and deal with real weaknesses. This recognition on the part of management presents an opportunity for professionals in training, human resource development (HRD), and other related disciplines to demonstrate how their processes for diagnosing performance problems, selecting appropriate interventions, and measuring results can make a difference. At the same time, professionals in training, HRD, quality assurance, and organizational development (OD) want to shift their role to performance consulting, where they hope to join with management in applying processes designed to find the real barriers to performance. This new role is supported by the National Society for Performance and Instruction when it changed its name to the International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI) to reflect the new emphasis on improving performance rather than promoting training. In 2001, ISPI published its Human Performance Technology (HPT) standards that define the role and allow practitioners to assess their ability to meet the standards. It now offers a certification, the certified performance technologist (CPT) designation, to practitioners who can demonstrate that they have met the standards in their work. ISPI’s conferences, institutes, publications, and certification are aimed at developing a shared understanding of and appreciation for the skills and knowledge required to improve organizational and people performance.

EXPERIENCES FROM THE FIELD: IMPROVING PERFORMANCE

It has been my experience that organizations are fairly erratic about finding ways to improve organizational and people performance. In their search for the optimal size and structure, they buy, merge, and sell whole business units. They centralize functions, only to decentralize them later. They buy new technologies, products, and facilities. They distribute assets across unrelated products, only to consolidate around their name brands later. Organizations reengineer their processes, invest in training, and purchase ready-made programs to develop leadership and managerial skills. To reduce costs, they reduce the number of jobs by downsizing, outsourcing, and moving jobs to other countries. Many of these actions are done in parallel. Some are in conflict, however, and all are solutions in search of a problem.

To get a better understanding of the kinds of programs organizations take on to improve performance, think about the last two to three years in your work life:

• What has your organization done to reduce costs, improve profits, or become more competitive?
• How many times has it reorganized, bought other companies, or been bought by other companies?
• How many times has it centralized functions, only to decentralize them later?
• How many times has your position stayed the same while the people you report to or the department you are assigned to changed?
• How many times have you moved your office? What were the assumptions behind these moves?
• What were some of the initiatives your organization embraced to motivate people, satisfy customers, or be more competitive? Were any of those initiatives based on a serious examination of the company’s current state? If so, what evidence did the company use to see if the desired result was achieved? Who did the measuring?
• How successful was the company at implementing changes throughout the organization? Did those changes fulfill the promise of lower costs, higher profits, or competitive advantage? How do you know?
• What role did you play in any of these efforts? What will it take for you to play a more effective role in the future?

WHAT MAKES A PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT?

When I’m asked to explain performance consulting, I point out that performance consultants:

• Are experts in analysis and measurement and provide expert advice, yet also facilitate the client’s commitment to taking responsibility for supporting performance
• Play multiple roles
• Are not predisposed toward a particular solution and do not make recommendations until there are data to support them
• Facilitate conversations in ways that keep clients focused on what matters and develop meaningful information and insight
• Focus on outcomes and measured results

Moving Between Expert and Facilitator

I think of consulting as a continuum (see Figure 1.1). At one end is the expert whose job is to give advice. At the opposite end is the facilitator, whose job is to manage the group dynamics.

Figure 1.1. The Expert-Facilitator Continuum

Experts who are brought in as consultants usually possess education or credentials in a specific professional discipline. As experts, they make definitive statements and express opinions. At this end of the continuum, consulting consists of rendering an opinion and giving advice. The client’s attention is focused on the person expressing the opinion: the expert.

Training and HRD professionals think of consulting in terms of the opposite end of the continuum, however. To them, consulting is facilitating. Facilitators rarely give advice, offer opinions, or take a position on a subject; they are perceived as neutral. Their role is to facilitate other people’s discovery and commitment to change. So at this end of the continuum, consulting is the process of guiding people’s discovery and bringing them to consensus. The client’s attention is focused on what is happening within the group.

Effective performance consultants blend the attributes of an expert with those of a facilitator. They give advice about how to get and interpret the facts and improve organizational and people performance. At the same time, they...