Can you imagine the following scenario: you go to the doctor to have an issue addressed…the doctor walks in the room, briefly introduces himself, looks quickly at your problem, then starts talking about all the techniques he’s ever learned in medical school…He gets more and more excited, opens a drawer and explains the design & purpose of each tool he has in his office. This would be really weird…not to mention downright scary, right?

However that’s exactly what you’ll find that many smart, well-meaning, but unseasoned consultants do (it’s a tell tale sign…an easy trap even for the experienced to fall into as). They’re so enamored and excited by the power of their techniques and tools they “dump” them on their client.

The result is inevitable – rather than appearing smart, trustworthy and credible (which is a noble goal!), they scare off the client who feels overwhelmed, confused by all the options and “didn’t sign up for this heavy approach.” Both sides have lost!

How could it have ended differently? Back to the doctor example…suppose the doctor sits down, gets to know you a bit (family, work, kids…), lets you talk in depth about your pain and symptoms, conducts a careful examination, shows you an x-Ray of the problem…then proposes the procedure he has in mind, why he thinks it will be effective and what it means to you (…length, impact, recovery time, etc). You’d feel completely different than the first example, right?

So what’s the lesson to be learned for “good consulting?” I’d like to propose the following sequence and “prioritization of connections” with your  client (which we’ll take step by step in subsequent posts):

1. Personal connection (people – heart): relationship, empathy, diagnostic (“who & where we are”)
2. Focus on the fundamentals (why – head): mindset, goal of goal, underlying principles (“what are we here to do”)
3. Process (what – eyes): approach, time-phased plan of attack (“how is it going to work”)
4. Tools (how – hands): what will use to get the process done – just the part they need to know (“working through it together”).

Beware, the telltale sign of inexperience is to take the above in reverse order. Have you seen it done, or done it yourself (I have!)?

We’ll work through these in future posts, but for now think of this approach in your next client engagement. I’m sure you’ll see the difference! Let me know how you put it into practice…

Picture: www.linkedin.com

In my last post (yes, it has been a while!) I discussed the soft and hard tissue of an organization and tried to show their complementarity and alignment (take a moment to re-read it since this post will assume understanding of the main points). In fact it goes far beyond that. Just like a body, the health and interaction of both is critical to the life, well-being and survival of an organization.

While it makes sense in theory, I’d like to suggest a few propositions and axioms that provoke your thinking and bring the “inter-connection” to life. Do you agree? Can you think of others?

• There’s a saying: “people join companies but leave managers.” Translation – people typically join for the hard tissue but will leave for the soft tissue.
• Building on the above: “hard tissue is evaluated/measured; soft tissue is felt.”
• As industries become more competitive the soft tissue often becomes the tie breaker or key differentiator…not only because “culture is king” but it actually drives and enables the hard tissue to flex, react, correct/recover, heal, develop…
• Soft tissue is sensitive and requires compatibility to stay healthy…if not, it can literally bring the hard tissue to its knees. While people in an organization can change their behavior, companies who place a high priority on soft tissue may find it necessary to separate from leaders and employees who are simply incompatible with the culture (or threaten it). While this is can be excruciatingly difficult and requires courage, “people change” is often the acid test of ones commitment to culture.
• Despite the rising valuation of soft tissue, it’s important to continually adjust the mix of hard tissue (ex. processes, strategy, incentives, people, goals…) to nurture and provide structure for the soft tissue to take root. Managing and adjusting the interactivity of both must become a key management priority (see conclusions below).

A key conclusion: because hard tissue is the traditional “bread and butter” of most management training & practice (tools, approaches, methods, processes…), many leaders find themselves unstructured, poorly equipped and ill at ease with managing soft tissue (often seen as a fuzzy science). While its value is on the rise, the competency and tools to intentionally nurture it is lagging.

If classic management teams spend 90% of their time today on hard tissue, there are progressive teams already shifting to 70/30 (hard/soft). Will it ever be 50/50? Where’s yours?

I submit the shift will continue with leading companies first intentionally nurturing the soft tissue, then advancing to managing both hard- & soft- tissue as a system and “organic whole.” In my view, those who succeed at this feat will have heavy odds in their favor of strong leadership positions in their respective industries.

If you frequently read about management- & strategy- fundamentals, you’re probably very familiar with certain common terminology – vision, mission, goals, strategy, objectives, processes…

On the other hand, if you’re into human dynamics & development, you’re probably more in tune with another set of terminology – values, culture, behaviors, competencies, skills, people…

While most would agree these two “families” are certainly not in opposition, I find that many become somewhat hamstrung when trying to relate them. Should they even be related?… are they apples and oranges (completely different)?….or maybe just apples of different color or flavor (somewhat the same, but expressed differently)?

I think the answer is “neither!”… and propose to use a different metaphor – the hard- and soft- tissue of the body.

The hard tissue is all the structural “stuff” (skeleton) we typically think of in the “strategy family,” while the soft tissue (nerves & organs) is all the “stuff ” we would typically put in the “human dynamics” family.

So, beyond the metaphor, how do these two “tissues” of an organization’s body line up? Let me propose a very simple framework:

Clearly, just as in our bodies, it’s not a question of either or, it must be BOTH AND. Neither can exist in isolation or in parallel worlds, their interconnection has to be understood and intentionally managed in order to ensure optimum health and high-performance.

As a teaser, my next post will deal with exactly the above point and answer the question: “so what”? I’ll explore some tangible interconnections, similarities and differences that will hopefully make it come to life in an impactful way.

In the meantime I’d love to hear from you…Does the metaphor make sense to you?…does it provide a useful lens to reconcile concepts and see the alignment between them?…have you already thought of “vital” interconnections applications?