You see it in the public service but also in many bodies that are similar or related to Government. The idea that one can never implement a major change or new idea without bringing in a consultant first to advise on the correct way to go.
I've never understood this.
Sure if you are a small organisation and you lack the resources or internal know-how to determine which way to jump on a particular matter, but for larger places... for instance why would you need a website consultant to advise on a particular matter when you already have an experienced website manager running a team of people?
Surely that manager has the skills to determine what we need to do and assess what resources are required to do it?
The answer is usually yes but in this hypothetical (and I'm being careful here to talk in hypotheticals!) what is happening is NOT that that Manager NEEDS the advice of the consultant, but that the manager NEEDS is a mechanism to share the blame around if the project in question fails."Well we ALL signed off on the consultant's report."
I personally have never sought a consultant to advise on a course of action, perhaps it's a failing of mine. I have generally sought counsel both internally and externally and then argued for the direction I have determined upon the weight of evidence and advice.
When you bring in a consultant to cover your arse, what you are really saying is A. the organisation I work for has a culture of blame and this is a necessary precaution against that, or B. I know what we want to do but I lack the leadership skills or confidence to make the recommendation on my own, maybe C. I'm in the wrong job and lack the expertise to do my role or the scope of my role has grown so much I am now managing things that are beyond my expertise. It might even be D. my organisation has the wrong attitude when it comes to risk and failure even though risk and failure is where you learn and can produce excellent results.
In any case it's not good.
But there's a different type of external advice that I do value. I value the role of an external, knowledgeable facilitator. When you have a planning day or brainstorming sessions with a talented facilitator you aren't abrogating your responsibilities, you are saying to the team of staff is "right we are all going to play a role in determining the next step" and the facilitator merely keeps the day on track and then you outsource the note-taking function afterwards to them, the responsibility stays with the team and the manager, but its shared and you haven't basically admitted that "yes even though we are supposed to be experts, we're bringing in ANOTHER expert to tell us what to do."
So facilitators, yes, consultation no - got it?
Basically a consultation heavy culture is a culture mired in mediocrity, it is a culture that does not value true leadership, lacks confidence in the expertise of its staff and has an attitude to risk that virtually guarantees that none are ever taken, culling out both the possible negatives but also the potential massive upsides.
A consultant culture is one that wastes both time and money. We work in a digital age, so many initiatives can be trialed on a live audience reviewed and rejected and new programs implemented that the need to alleviate risk falls victim to the speed with which we can have a go at things and move on.
The future belongs to small nimble organisations that are willing to have a go, while slow lumbering dinosaurs wait for a consultants report to be tabled at X or Y meeting before consider their next move.
No comments:
Post a Comment