Conducting Consultations

• read the narration column first
• then do the exercises

Reading list

You do not need to consult all these books. If you can find one in your local library, concentrate on that author.

• Richard. H. Buskirk, Handbook of managerial tactics, 1976
• Theodore Caplow, How to run any organization. Manual of practical sociology, Hinsdale, Holt, Rinehart and Winston 1976
• Morgan W. McCall, Jr., Michael M. Lombardo, Ann M. Morrison, The lessons of experience. How successful executives develop on the job, New York, London The Free Press 1988
• Tom Peters, Liberation management. Necessary disorganization for the nanosecond nineties, London Macmillan 1992
• Michael Armstrong, How to be an even better manager, London Kogan Page 1999

narration

7. 1 Why focus on consultation?

With ‘consultation’ we mean the process of drawing more people into decision making and the execution of projects.

Business, government administration, military command and industry are put final responsibility on the shoulders of the highest functionaries. The general director, the minister, the commander-in-chief and the top manager remain ultimately responsible for all decisions taken. Therefore, contrary to what one might think, in spite of the democratic tendencies of today, factual authority remains with the few and with the few at the top.

Yet there has been an important shift, not regarding the principle of authority itself, but regarding the manner in which this authority is exercised. In the secular fields especially three aspects of this shift demand our attention:

1. From a procedure of taking decisions based on the opinion of top functionaries alone, there is a shift to a procedure of taking decisions based on a wide spectrum of opinion.
2. From the concept of authority as a personal relationship between superior and subject there is a shift to the concept of authority as leadership in a team.
3. From a stress on brute power as the foundation of cooperation there is a shift to mutual confidence as the basis for cooperation and obedience.

It is not within the possibilities of this course to exhaust all the aspects of ‘team dynamics’ as applied to management in various fields. It seems more practical to discuss here the most obvious implication of the shift in decision-making: the need of wider consultation.

Since such consultation will normally take place by the means of meetings, conferences and workshops, we will focus on the prerequisites of successful consultation through these means. The recommendations may be formulated as four conditions.

Exercise 1.

Make a list of meetings you have attended in which consultation was at least one major aim.

1.1 What role did you play in these meetings?

1.2 Do you feel that the meetings achieved their purpose? Why, or why not?

First condition: if you conduct a meeting, be clear about it precise purpose

Meetings cannot be a success if the participants are ignorant or doubtful as to their precise role and task. The main condition to ensure success lies therefore in the effective communication of this purpose to all concerned.

Before this the chairman himself should be absolutely clear about the purpose. Otherwise the proceedings of the meeting will constantly be held up by the wrong type of intervention. The participants will disagree with the chairman on matters of procedure. Everyone will be dissatisfied with the results of the meeting, as consciously or unconsciously something else had been visualised. What types of meeting then should be carefully distinguished?

Study

(a) There is the self-discovery or study meeting. The purpose of this meeting is the mutual exchange of thought with the simple objective of fostering growth in knowledge, experience or judgement. Examples may be are the meetings of professors engaged in the same type of teaching, or of doctors dealing with various aspects of medical science.

Such meetings have as their main purpose the stimulation of the individual who hears reports by other members of the group and shares in them. Meetings of this nature should not be conceived of as having to lead to definite conclusions. Their chief purpose is educative. The main tool at hand is the free exchange of knowledge and this should at all costs be encouraged.

These meetings need not follow a very fixed schedule and may be allowed to drift into side-issues, as long as the general aim of self-discovery and study is achieved.

Briefing

More directly demanding team responsibility and real consultation is the socalled ‘informative meeting’. The purpose of such a meeting is to provide a platform for the person in charge to reveal decisions that have been taken and to clarify all elements of the proposed policies.

It should be noted, therefore, that the decision has already been taken. For whatever reason, the matter is closed. Yet there remains the need of involving the team, of explaining to them why the decision has taken this form and of clarifying any details in its execution that may have remained obscure.

In this type of meeting the only contribution asked for from the participants is attention and willingness. This must be made clear from the way in which the matter is introduced, otherwise the meeting might lead to friction and frustration.

The necessity of such informative meetings is often overlooked. One should consider, however, that the team of cooperators will need more than a mere notification of a new project for the project to succeed. They will need to be involved emotionally by seeing the whole perspective of the decision. Opportunities should be given for participants to ask questions, or raise objections. This can forestall any misgivings that might arise later by gaps in the presentation of the project.

Solving a problem

Consultation in the real sense of the word will take place in the ‘problem solving meeting’. The objective of this kind of meeting is to get suggestions for the solution of a given problem. The participants are requested to give their recommendations, or pronounce their judgement on proposed alternatives.

In this kind of meeting it must be made clear from the start that such open contributions are sought and it should also be indicated in what manner the competent authority will make use of them. The person in charge may, for instance, say from the outset: “I will have to take my own decision about this matter. Anyway, I would like to have your frank opinions. Please don’t feel shy to speak your mind on this issue. But, remember, the responsibility of making the decision will be mine, after hearing your opinion and also taking other points into consideration.”

He could also say: “Having studied all the aspects of this question, I find it difficult to make up my mind. I have decided to follow your advice in this matter. So, please, let me know what you think I should do.”

In both cases the participants will know where they stand and afterwards there will be no confusion on the purpose of the advice sought.

This approach will be, far more rewarding than the socalled ‘pseudo-democratic’ meeting in which the person in charge comes to the meeting with his/her mind already made up regarding a decision, but states that the matter is open for free discussion in order to give the decision a semblance of democratic support. When there is opposition to the previously fixed decision in the meeting, the person in charge will then have to do some manoeuvring to have his own view accepted by the assembly and this will not pass unnoticed.

Second condition: appoint a good chairperson

Personal communication needs a certain atmosphere. Not everyone can chair a meeting well. Some people have the right dispositions almost by nature. Others have to learn painfully through much experience. Unfortunately, far too little attention is given to the need of having a good chairperson for the success of discussions.

Rather than risk an enormous waste of time one should always try to arrange for the best person to chair the meeting. Efficiency demands this. Business has learned that it is profitable for all managers to follow courses on chairmanship and committee procedures.

The chair should realise that he/she has a different function in each of the three types of meetings outlined above.

• In the study meeting the chair’s duty is confined to giving opportunities for individuals to speak, summarizing general findings and encouraging the flow of thought. The chair is, as it were. merely the policeman directing the traffic of thought in an orderly manner. He/she need not worry too much about deviations. He/she need not aim at specific conclusions.
• In the informative meeting the chair’s position is quite different. He/she now has a very definite task: to make the participants both understand and emotionally accept whatever policy has been decided on. He/she is either the person in charge himself/herself or represents the person in charge. It will be the chair’s duty to expose the decision with its background and details. All questions will be put to the chair and it will be up to the chair to give an appropriate answer.
• In the problem solving meeting the chair’s task is again different. He/she has to attain a definite goal, but this goal cannot be obtained without the creative contribution of all participants. He/she will have to both steer the direction of the discussion and yet leave scope for complete freedom of expression.

It is in the problem solving meeting that the chair has to be in top form. The contribution that can be expected from the participants will be of two distinct kinds: they will express new ideas and they will express their judgement on various solutions. The chairman will have to see to it that the expression of new ideas is not stopped or hampered by premature judgements on the part of other participants.

To achieve this end more effectively, meetings are sometimes turned into ‘brainstorming sessions’ in which everyone is allowed to give free scope to his/her imagination. During the brain storm, criticism on any suggestion is forbidden. Any new idea, any fresh approach, however absurd at first sight, may be brought to the fore. When enough new ideas have been gathered the meeting may be converted into a ‘judging session’ to collect and sift the considered opinions of all participants on each and every one of the proposals.

The ‘brain storming session’ should be marked by a free procedure. The judging session, on the other hand, should proceed step by step, finishing the discussion on one alternative before another is taken up. It is up to the chairperson to involve everyone in the discussion. This will require a good deal of leadership.

Loquacious and repetitive speakers will have to be firmly held in hand. Others will need explicit invitations before they will express themselves. Some authors recommend that the element of competition be made use of to liven up the discussion. If one person has said that there are too much waste in computers & printers in the office, and another has said that much time is lost through inefficiency, the chairperson might focus attention on this contradiction, forcing both sides to specify more in detail what is meant by the waste and inefficiency mentioned.

The chairman should also be skilled in summing up the opinions expressed before a new point is taken up.

If contrary opinions have been expressed it is always necessary to mention both and to verify how many participants would adhere to either side. Omitting the summary at the end of each topic will necessarily lead to dissatisfaction on the part of the participants who expect something definite as the result of the discussion. The least result that can be obtained is a precise picture of the opinions offered.

Third condition: Reduce the restrictions arising from the factor of power to an absolute minimum.

Fear minimises the effectiveness of consultation.

Employees depend on their boss for promotion. Business management has discovered that this constitutes a severely limiting factor in the process of consultation. The factor of power looms large in the minds of all participants in the meeting.

Often the person in charge who calls the meeting together may not advert to this element. He or she may take it for granted that everyone will feel free to speak as everyone thinks best. In actual fact, however, employees will never forget that it is their employer and bread-giver who is asking the questions. If they fear or suspect that a certain opinion will displease him/her, they will carefully refrain from expressing it. The least frown on the face of the person in charge, an impatient gesture, a sharp remark, however insignificant in itself, will take on greater proportions in the mind of the employees. They will interpret it as a warning, as an indication that the danger point has been reached and that it is better to play safe.

Consultation in many other spheres of life takes place in situations that parallel the business model. The factor of power is acutely felt, at least by those who depend on the person in charge in some form or other. They are aware that their future fortunes depend to some extent on the good relationship they have with the one who is calling the shots. By itself there is nothing wrong in this situation. It is normal and it cannot be avoided. But for the sake of consultation it is a factor that has to be taken into consideration. The question for the person in charge is: “Will my people express their honest opinion to me? Will they dare to give their best advice? Or will they feel shy to speak openly about it in my presence?”

It is interesting to note some of the solutions worked out by business management. Scientific experiments have proved that the best results are obtained by a combination of
(a) the greatest possible freedom of expression;
and (b) a very clear explanation of imposed restrictions.

It was found that uncertainty constitutes the greatest obstacle to free expression. Few people are willing to commit themselves to opinions if they have not been told to what extent their freedom will be appreciated, or used against them.

Take the example of the staff of a highschool who want the opinion of their pupils on a reform of the existing lunchbreak routine. The pupils could be divided up into groups and asked to express their opinions in the presence of one teacher. Naturally there will be doubt in the minds of the pupils on the effect which their suggestions might have. And expectations may be created which cannot be met. This uncertainty will greatly diminish their contributions. The best results will be obtained if it is clearly stated : “1. Everyone . 2. It is the opinion of the staff that it should be done in common (restriction). 3. Apart from these two points, which it would be difficult for us to change, any suggestion on the form, contents, duration of morning prayers is welcome.”

With such a clear definition of the extent of free speech allowed and of imposed restrictions a fruitful discussion is sure to come about.

The person in charge should be aware of the factor of power in the course of the discussion. However, much she would like to do so, she will not be considered an ordinary partner in the discussion. Her word will sound very decisive. Her argument may stop counter-arguments by the mere fact of her position. Business studies suggest, therefore, that the person in charge refrain from expressing her views until enough scope has been given for a general free expression.

Some authors advocate that the person in authority should not chair the meeting herself and should not speak at all in the beginning. In certain circumstances this may be advisable. On the other hand, the team will feel happier if they see that the real leader herself/himself is taking an active part in the discussion. Much depends on the disposition of that prson: whether he/she takes care not to restrict the liberty of expression and whether he/she shows real anxiety to have the opinions of others, even though they may appear contrary to his/her own. The participants of the meetings will soon sense the real attitude of the person in charge and they will surely give their confidence if they see that cooperation and advice are honestly sought.

Exercise 2

When attending a meeting with colleagues and friends, analyse the process of consultation in depth:

2.1 What was the purpose of the meeting? Did the procedure do justice to this purpose?

2.2 How do you rate the performance of the chairperson?

2.3 Was there true freedom of expression? Had limits to the discussion been imposed?

2.4 What hidden ‘agendas’ did you suspect in certain participants of the meeting? Did you discern a real ‘team spirit’ at work?

2.5 Did you find the process a fruitful consultation? Could you improve on it if you were to be in charge?

Fourth condition: build up a real team spirit

Consultation through meetings will produce results if the participants in the meeting are willing to contribute to the common good. They will have to understand and value the process of ‘team work’.

Many people have to undergo some change before they reach the stage of truly appreciating this new form of cooperation. A good number go to a meeting with their individualistic priorities and purposes in mind, determined to get out of it what suits their own ends.

Research has analysed a great number of problem solving meetings at a high administrative level and has shown that the contributions of many participants were not determined by the need of the problem in hand, but by personal needs, such as:

• dependence on other persons;
• the need for maintianing or acquiring status in the eyes of others;
• the wish to come to the fore and assert themselves;
• an aggressive disposition;
• the need to air one’s feelings;
• disappointments about personal matters.

The amount of valuable time and energy lost by this lack of team spirit cannot be overestimated. Obviously there is a need of training people to come to a better understanding of the real purpose of common deliberations and of the need to subordinate their own individual problems to the common problem under discussion.

The way of arriving at a better team spirit is through guidance and direction. A good leader will soon discover the individualistic elements in the team and will prudently draw the attention of the persons concerned to their shortcomings.

Business studies have illustrated that it pays to analyse an imaginary sample discussion with the participants of a regular consultation, to show them how unwanted motivations may divert the group from real integration. Real successful teamwork cannot come about through one discussion anyhow. We will have to allow people to learn to appreciate it by seeing and ‘feeling’ its benefits.

There is nothing that attracts loyalty so much as a truly well integrated team. The inner discipline in the team will itself provide a code of action that will exclude too outspoken individualistic tendencies.

To promote team spirit it is worthwhile to encourage opportunities for informal contacts between the meetings and to encourage every activity that can be seen to strengthen the cooperation of the whole team.

The president of an educational institute may find it difficult to make her staff act as a team. Suppose that, in a common discussion, a new admissions policy has been worked out regarding foreign students. It may be that this point was raised by a few members of the staff only, but through general discussion it eventually became a decision of the whole staff. The president must then see to it that the whole staff executes the decision in ‘team spirit’. He may ask staff members, for instance, not to publicise to outsiders who was in favour of the new policy and who was against it. The staff should consider it a team decision.

It will be noted that such an attitude towards staff decisions will soon strengthen the team spirit among the members. At the next meeting they will be more involved and more anxious to come to a common understanding on other issues.

Solving

Research

Path

Strategy

Image

Face to Face

Consulting