Of Atlas, Munchausen and the pursuit of relevance at the workplace

“I create problems, and then I solve them. That is my style!”, declared the department head smugly.

I heard this statement a long time ago. At that time, I didn’t take it too seriously as I thought that it was the peculiarity of one rather ‘strange’ individual. After having spent a couple of decades in business organizations, I have come to realize that this was not an isolated incident. It prompted me to think more deeply about the underlying factors and led me to the all-important topic of 'relevance in business organizations' and the various ways in which we try to achieve and maintain/enhance relevance. 

Relevance is the central theme in organizational life. Relevance comes from ‘value addition’. What is valuable and how much it should be valued is always defined by the customer. The term 'customer' includes internal customers also. The most pragmatic definition of a ‘value added activity’ that I have come across is that ‘it is an activity that the customer is willing to pay for adequately’.  Of course, the payment (especially in the case of internal customers) need not be a direct payment.  

 When we talk about value addition, it includes the ‘perceived’ value addition in addition to the ‘real’ value addition. Again, when we look at the perceived value addition, there are multiple aspects like ‘what one thinks his/her value addition is’, ‘what others think one’s value addition is’, ‘what one thinks others think to be his/her value addition’ etc. This indeed can degenerate into a ‘mind game’ and that is where characters like Atlas and Munchausen come in. 

Munchausen Syndrome is named after Baron Munchausen, who became famous for telling exaggerated tales about his exploits in the past. Munchausen syndrome refers to a mental disorder in which someone tries to get attention and sympathy by falsifying, inducing, or exaggerating an illness. This is very different from ‘hypochondria’ because a person with hypochondria really believes that he/she has a serious illness, which is not true in the case of the Munchausen Syndrome. 

Closer to our topic is the so called ‘Munchausen by proxy’, in which a caregiver exaggerates, fabricates, or induces illness in another person in order to get praise for then helping the victim. In the workplace context, this takes the form of employees creating or inventing organizational problems and then solving them, all in the hope that it would make them more important in the eyes of the leaders and coworkers. This pattern of behavior, called Munchausen at Work (MAW) does waste time and resources though it might be quite hard to detect. 

In business organizations, MAW is also employed as ‘survival tactics’ or even as ‘IR tactics'. Ultimately, this is a deliberate attempt to maintain/enhance their relevance in the organization. I have seen people trying to keep their job/highlight the importance of the job by creating problems/letting preventable problems occur and then solving them. In its milder form, MAW manifests as a tendency to 'overcomplicate' things, in an attempt to demonstrate one's expertise or to create a need that would require one's expertise. Obviously, they have no appetite for the simplicity on the other side of complexity. 

Of course, no one will admit that they are doing this. Skilled operators at MAW (the sort who survive in organizations) will cover their tracks well. Therefore, studying/diagnosing this and/or addressing this becomes difficult. This puts people who proactively prevent problems from occurring at a 'double disadvantage' as their efforts (and the value they have added) are not visible. The solution to MAW could be in terms of building trust, skills and psychological safety so that such behavior is not required in the first place.

Let’s look at the Atlas Complex now. The name Atlas Complex comes from the Greek myth of Atlas, who is supposed ‘to carry the weight of the world on his shoulders’. Similarly, a person with Atlas Complex tend to think that he is carrying the weight of 'his world' on his shoulders, and it will collapse unless he continues to do so. This can happen in the case of personal life ('personal world'), work life ('work world') or both. 

At the workplace, the Atlas Complex comes from the pursuit of relevance at work. A person who has the Atlas Complex tends to think that he/she is very critical to the team/organization and that if he/she is not around everything will fall apart. This leads to the person working very hard and unwilling to let others take the responsibility. This goes much beyond ‘busy-ness’ (acting busy to gain importance).  Sometimes, this does work, and the person is able to generate/maintain a sense of importance. However, sometimes it just makes him/her an object of scorn or even ridicule, even when he/she has been putting in a super-human effort at the expense of his/her health and personal life. In such cases, Atlas Complex can also lead to 'silent depression'.

Unlike MAW, Atlas Complex is quite visible to the coworkers and leaders and hence easier to diagnose. However, it might not be so easy to remedy, especially in those cases where the pattern of behavior has become deep-rooted. Addictions are hard to cure! Again, unlike that in the case of MAW, people with Atlas complex might indeed be adding significant value to the organization and to coworkers. Afterall, if someone takes extra responsibility and consistently delivers on the same, it can indeed make life easier for people around him/her.

Here, the solution could be in terms of helping the person (in a non-threatening manner) to recognize his/her pattern of behavior and its consequences and to enable him/her to gradually switch over to a more appropriate pattern of behavior. Coaching can be very helpful in this context. Of course, the most important thing in such a situation is to enable the person to feel that he/she can add sufficient value (and hence maintain relevance in the organization) without having to resort to Atlas-like behavior.  

It is interesting to note that the Atlas Complex and Munchausen at Work (MAW) have similarities with what Scott Peck refers to as the two fundamental types of 'disorders of responsibility' – ‘neuroticism’ and ‘character disorder’. People with neuroticism tend to assume too much responsibility (like people with Atlas complex) and people with character disorder tends to assume too less responsibility/look after only their self-interest (like people with MAW) in any given situation. 

Atlas Complex and MAW are dysfunctional ways to seek relevance in organizations. There are indeed functional ways to pursue relevance, like enhancing one's capability, understanding of the organization, alignment to team/organization goals and hence enhancing one's contribution (value addition). However, these dysfunctional ways are quite common. It is possible that certain organizational contexts and leadership styles increase the probability of these dysfunctional ways occurring/becoming entrenched in the organization. 

Atlas Complex and MAW are by no means the only psychological disorders found at the workplace. Workplace pathologies are quite widespread both at the individual level and at the group/organization level. It can even be argued that many groups are held together by Convenient Collective Delusions. Maybe, part of these problems come from the fact that workplaces are still not the ‘natural habitats’ for most humans!

Any comments/thoughts?

Do the CEOs get the CHROs they deserve?

“CEOs get the CHROs they deserve!”, said the Senior HR leader when he was highly frustrated. This was my seventh ‘encounter’ with this gentleman (See 'Passion for work and anasakti ‘, 'Appropriate metaphors for organizational commitment ‘ ,‘To name or not to name, that is the question’ , ‘A Mathematical approach to HR’, ‘OD Quest’ and ‘Of leaders and smiling depression’  for the outcomes of my previous interactions with him). Similar to what happened in the previous occasions, this comment prompted me to think deeply about the topic.

Yes, a CEO can try to get the  type of CHRO he/she wants by 'shaping' the behavior of the current CHRO, bringing in a new CHRO etc. The degree of success of this attempt will vary based on the context and the people involved. Of course, if a CEO is looking for a difficult to find set of capabilities in the CHRO and/or if the organization context is not suitable for attracting and retaining the type of CHRO the CEO is looking for, things can get complicated. The CEO-CHRO interaction is a human interaction and hence personality related factors, connect related factors and fit related factors (including that of the unstated definitions of 'what good looks like') come into play. Sometimes, the perceived lack of alignment is just a matter of perception. For example, the CEO might think that the CHRO doesn't understand the business context and the CHRO might think that the CEO is too shortsighted! It can work the other way also. The CEO and the CHRO can form a 'mutual admiration society' and ignore problems that adversely affect organization effectiveness! 

There is no doubt on the importance of the CEO-CHRO relationship, for them and for the rest of the organization. The CEO and the CHRO need to work very closely with each other on a lot of important and/or sensitive matters, and hence an effective relationship between them based on mutual respect and trust is critical. Lack of alignment between the CEO and CHRO, apart from creating a lot of frustration for both of them, can slow down decision-making, lead to suboptimal decisions, reduce response speed on critical issues and also lead to lack of commitment and passive resistance. It can also give the impression to the rest of the organization that the leadership team is like a 'house divided against itself'. 

Again, there is no doubt on whether the HR function (and the CHRO as the head of HR) should be business-oriented/business-aligned. HR exists to support the business and hence it should be aligned to the business needs/goals/strategy. ‘HR for HR’ (‘I want to do some HR interventions and I will get the business leaders to agree’) is definitely not a good idea. The problem occurs when we look at how exactly should HR demonstrate this 'business-orientation'.

There are multiple possibilities here - each with its own advantages and disadvantages. For example, the CHRO can agree to whatever the CEO says on people related issues ('after all, we get paid to support the business'). The CHRO can take this approach to the next level by trying to ‘guess’ what the CEO will be comfortable with and advocating that ('the CEO is our primary internal customer and we should be anticipating customer needs'). The CHRO can also avoid surfacing issues (or suggesting solutions) that he/she thinks the CEO will not be comfortable with ('business leaders are already stretched to the limits fighting for the survival of the company, how can we risk annoying them at this point ?').

This approach might help in reducing the number/intensity of possible arguments/conflicts between the CHRO and the CEO and the associated investment of time and emotional energy, leading to faster decision-making and smoother relationships. In this case, the CEO might ‘like’ the CHRO and will be more likely to support the CHRO in the roll out of basic HR processes and less likely to come down heavily on the CHRO when the CHRO/HR team makes a mistake. Hence, conflicts are avoided - making life easier for both the parties involved. However, this can also lead to sub-optimal decisions (see 'Training the victim' for an example).

The other option is to develop and articulate an independent point of view – based on the HR philosophy of the organization, HR functional expertise and an assessment of the context/situation.

Yes, this point of view might turn out to be different from what the CEO has in mind/is comfortable with and hence this can create conflicts and lengthy discussions/arguments and possibly delays in decision-making. The CEO might feel that ‘HR does not understand the problems that the business is facing’, ‘HR is becoming a pain in the neck’ or that ‘HR is being too idealistic’. This might lead to a situation where the CEO becomes very demanding – questioning the rationale behind each of the initiatives that HR comes up with. Therefore, this option can make life more difficult for both the parties involved. However, if the conflict can be managed constructively, this option can lead to superior decisions and also to the development of mutual respect and trust. Of course, there is no guarantee that this can be achieved in all the situations.

It is also possible that the CEO was more open than what the CHRO had guessed. Maybe, the CEO wanted the CHRO to make an independent recommendation. Again, it is possible that the CHRO’s ‘independent assessment’ of the business needs/constraints was totally off the mark, making his/her point of view completely unrealistic. Maybe, the context is such that the conflict of opinion can’t be resolved successfully quickly enough for the matter at hand. Thus, there are many possibilities here.

It can be said that if we take a long-term perspective, if both the parties are competent and open and if the conflict can be managed constructively and quickly enough, the second option will give better results. But that is too many ‘ifs’ (3 in the last sentence!). It can also be argued that the two options mentioned above are just two extremes and that reality lies somewhere in between. For example, a particular CHRO might adopt option 1 in the case of some issues and option 2 in the case of other issues – depending on the context/nature of the issues. After all, ‘picking and choosing one’s battles’ is supposed to be a key requirement for survival in the corporate world!

An important factor here is the credibility of the CHRO/nature of the relationship between the CHRO and the business leaders including the CEO. It is possible that the CHRO hasn't paid sufficient attention to positioning of the HR function appropriately, managing/shaping expectations, building capability and consistently meeting commitments/delivering value, enhancing the levels of mutual respect and trust etc. This can lead to serious problems because effectively managing the relationships with the business leaders can be the most significant enabler for demonstrating and sustaining the 'business-orientation' we have been talking about.

In this discussion about 'business-orientation' we should not forget the other customers of HR- like the employees and line managers. There is an increasing tendency on the part of HR to give less emphasis to the ‘employee champion’ role because of the increasing importance given to the ‘strategic business partner role’. This can easily lead to situations where there is not enough focus on ‘employee engagement’ (other than the cosmetic efforts/peripheral initiatives – see 'Employee engagement and the story of the Sky maiden’ for details). Of course, there are 'special-cause variations' in the focus (or lack of it) on employee engagement. For example, in response to the 'great resignation', currently there is a lot of focus (talk?) on employee engagement. 

As it is widely known, employee engagement is a good predictor/lead indicator of business results. Thus, if this 'business-orientation' (and being the 'strategic business partner') is achieved at the expense of 'employee' engagement, the result might be 'strategic (long-term) harm' to the business. This is not to say that when the business is under financial stress, the CHRO should ignore the boundary conditions set by the same. The point is just that the focus on employee engagement shouldn't be lost though the actual manifestations of this focus can be different under different circumstances (see 'Of employee engagement and the survivor syndrome' for details).  

It is also interesting to model this situation using the concepts of 'static' and 'dynamic' equilibrium (A chair has static equilibrium. A bicycle in motion has dynamic equilibrium. In a state of static equilibrium there is balance, but no change or movement that exists in the case of dynamic equilibrium). A 'live and let live' kind of arrangement between HR and business leaders (that avoids conflict) is similar to 'static equilibrium'. But, a scenario in which HR and business leaders openly and clearly state their independent opinions, followed by constructive debate/conflict leading to decisions that both the parties are comfortable with is similar to 'dynamic equilibrium'. This does not mean that the parties can't be passionate about their points of view/express 'strong' opinions. The requirement is just that they should not get too much attached to their opinions.

In general, dynamic equilibrium provides richer possibilities. However, establishing dynamic equilibrium might not be required or even feasible in all the cases. It requires more time, effort and skill (as the equilibrium needs to be constantly reestablished) . It is also more risky (you are more likely to have a fall from a bicycle as compared to that from a chair - especially when you are learning to ride - which can be compared to the 'establishing the relationship' phase that we discussed earlier!).

A key enabler for this dynamic equilibrium is for the CHRO to work with the business leaders to crystallize the HR Philosophy/the basic tenets of people management in the organization (see ‘Towards a philosophy of HR’ for details). This will also enable HR to come with quick and effective responses to various issues/situations – based on the people management philosophy of the organization, HR functional expertise and an assessment of the context/situation.  This is not to say that the people management philosophy is cast in stone. The people management philosophy can be revisited as the organization and its environment evolves. Also, if there are extraordinary situations, extraordinary responses are required!

So, do the CEOs get the CHROs they deserve? ‘Probably, to a large extent’ – is the best answer that I can come up with at this point. After all, the CEOs hire and fire the CHROs and are their direct managers (with the associated powers of 'carrot and stick'). Also, the CEOs want the CHROs to be aligned to them. This doesn’t mean that the CHROs can’t influence the CEOs. A lot of CHROs manage to do this. Yes, this requires competence, deep business-understanding, courage to speak truth to power, and clarity on values. The CHROs won't be earning their salary if they don't put forward their professional opinion. If CEOs want someone who will just execute whatever they ask without discussion, such a person can be hired at a much lower salary than what CHROs are paid. Also, the CHROs are not trees - CHROs can move (to another organization with a different CEO)! If all these are true, why do the CEOs get the CHROs they deserve to large extent?

One possible factor here is the hierarchical nature of many of the organizations. In hierarchical organizations, if the CHRO disagrees with the CEO, it can very easily get misinterpreted as 'lack business-understanding', ‘lack of competence’ or as ‘lack of trust in the judgment of the leader’. The relatively 'fuzzy' nature of the HR domain (that makes it difficult to prove or disprove things conclusively) also contributes to this. Yes, the CHROs also realize that there are no perfect CEOs/ organizations that would exactly match their preferences and hence learn to adjust (to varying degrees).  

Of course, there are other factors. Let's look at one of them. I spent the first five years of my career in HR in HR consulting. One of the things that amazed me was how easy it was to into walk into any organization, do a diagnosis and find many areas where there was potential for significant improvement. Why would the CHROs (who were much more experienced than me) fail to identify and act on those areas? Initially, I thought that this was mainly because of the ‘fresh eyes’, specialized diagnostic tools and 'learning from other contexts' that the external consultant brings in. Now, I am convinced that that there is much more to this.

Many of the organizations are not optimized for effectiveness. Organizations tend to gravitate towards a way of working that is most comfortable for the people who run it – even if it takes away from the effectiveness and efficiency. Of course, the leaders would like to believe (and make others believe) that what they are doing is the best way of functioning. Perpetuating this ‘convenient collective delusion’ (or at least not disturbing it) is often one of the unstated expectations the leaders have from the CHROs. This works even better if the CHRO is someone with impressive credentials – with best of the qualifications and prior experience in reputed MNCs and with a reputation for having done transformational work in those organizations. If such a person is the CHRO and he/she is not doing any transformation in the current organization, then the organization must be perfect – without any need to change!!!!

Of course, there is a positive side to 'CEOs getting the CHROs they deserve'. Progressive CEOs get (hire/retain/develop) progressive CHROs. There are indeed a lot of CEOs who push their CHROs to focus on  building an effective organization that is a great place to work, and also support the CHROs in this endeavor. These CEOs also set an example by role modeling the right behaviors. Again, we have no reason to believe that there are more 'good' CHROs in the industry than 'good' CEOs! 

We must also remember that there is a larger organization ecosystem that both the CEO and the CHRO are part of and it has expectations and/or influence on the CEO, CHRO and the CEO-CHRO relationship. Also, the strength and tone of the relationship that the CHRO has with the other CXOs in the company might have an indirect influence on the CEO-CHRO relationship. In MNCs and in companies that are part of a business group, the CHRO is likely to have an additional reporting manager (apart from the CEO) and this also influences the CEO-CHRO relationship/power balance! Yes, the strength of this influence will depend on the strength/nature of this additional reporting and the personalities involved. Therefore, the power that the CEO has over the CHRO (and on the decisions related to the CHRO role) will not be an absolute one! Also, CEOs are often people who have spent many years in organizations and hence learned to live with some degree of 'imperfections' in organization life. Hence, they might not have the compulsion to get exactly the kind of CHRO they want!

Any comments/ideas?

Of change, progress and a kaizen story

Let’s start with a kaizen story, that I heard a long time ago. A particular organization had rolled out kaizen (continuous improvement). An incentive scheme was also launched to reward the employees who make any such improvement in any part of work. So, one person successfully claimed a ‘kaizen’ for putting some flowerpots in the work area and thereby ‘improving the work environment’.  After sometime, another person successfully claimed a kaizen for removing those flowerpots and thereby ‘improving the flow of people and materials in the work area’. So, we were back to square one though it counted as two kaizens (making the organization appear ‘continuously improving’) and both the employees received their incentive payout!

While the above story might come across as a caricature (and not a portrait) of what actually happens in business organizations, it has more than a grain of truth. The biggest source of waste in many business organizations, that so deftly escapes even lean six sigma and productivity improvement efforts, is that results from frequent changes in direction and the tendency to equate ‘change’ with ‘progress’. Yes, rapid changes in direction, including fast U-turns, helps in creating some sort of illusion (or even a convenient collective delusion of) progress and of taking 'decisive action'. The point here is not that one shouldn’t change the direction when it is required or that one shouldn’t correct one’s mistakes. It is just that one should have some accountability for one’s decisions and the organization and human costs associated with them.

This works well in Human Resource Management (HR) also. One of the great ‘advantages’ of being in HR is that one can get credit for both hiring and firing the same person, that too in rapid succession. Similarly, we can get credit for adding a reporting layer to ‘integrate’ and also for removing that layer to ‘increase efficiency’. Yes, this leads to the HF² model of HR, where HR is reduced to Hire (sourcing), Feed (payroll) and Fire (exit). Of course, one can have other (more ‘fashionable’) functions in HR. But they are more of ‘show horses’ than ‘plough horses’!

Postscript : This post, especially the 'kaizen story' at the beginning of this post,  generated quite a bit of discussion on social media. It left me wondering why such an old story could connect so well. Now, I realize that it is because the story almost perfectly matches the definition of a 'myth'. A myth is a story that keeps on happening again and again in various forms, because it contains a deep truth (a deep truth about the nature of reality in organizations, in this case)!

Any comments/ideas?

Appropriate metaphors for organization progress

“We are on an upward spiral; while it does look like we are going around in circles most of the time, we are actually making progress”, said the business leader. “Well, the upward displacement is so small as compared to the total distance traveled and this does create a lot of inefficiency and human suffering”, replied the Organization Development Manager (see OD Managers as Court Jesters for an earlier interaction between the business leader and the OD Manager).

Metaphors are highly useful tools for thinking. Metaphors facilitate the understanding of one  domain (typically, an abstract one) by relating it to another more familiar domain (typically a more concrete one). They are so much a part of our lives and thinking that often we are not fully conscious of the metaphors we use. By examining the metaphors we use, we can a learn a lot about ourselves, about our values and assumptions!

So, let’s look at the appropriate metaphors for organization progress. The simplest is a linear one. Organization is supposed to move from point A to point B within a stipulated period of time. In a fast changing environment, a linear metaphor for progress might not be appropriate. That is when non-linear metaphors become more appropriate for organization progress. However, they can also be so easily misused to create an 'illusion' or even a 'convenient collective delusion' of progress.

This can be dangerous, as the apparent ‘progress’ allows the leaders to sweep the inefficiencies and the human costs created by the repeated changes in direction under the carpet. Sometimes, the degree of flux in the business environment is overestimated and it is used as an excuse for poor strategic planning and inefficiencies in the organization's response to changes in the environment. 

While a fast U-turn looks like a 'decisive' response, it is not necessarily the most efficient one. It is also the most significant source of (hidden) 'waste' in organizations and of human suffering (e.g. arising from a feeling of Sisyphus-like meaninglessness when one's work output gets discarded again and again and from the repeated cycles of hiring and firing that also create 'survivor syndrome'). 

Since the valuation or share price of the company is often more about speculation regarding future of the company than about current performance of the company, the investors or board also might not have too much of an incentive to intervene. Hence, this can go on for a long time!

One interesting variation of this is that of  ‘vision that is always in the future’. It works something like this. In 2020, a company sets up a 2025 Vision. Around 2023 or 2024 the same company replaces the 2025 vision with a 2030 Vision.  Once this 2030 vision is in place, the 2025 vision is discarded and no one is any longer bothered about seeing if the company achieves the 2025 vision (or about holding anyone accountable for the failure to do). Hence, 'future becomes a great place to hide' the lack of progress in working towards the Vision!

Any comments/ideas?

Magical and not so marginal!

Management Consultants are often seen as ‘magical outsiders’ who possess powers that the employees in the organization lack. I have often wondered why this happens!

Some of the reasons are very much rational. Consultants often have specialized  skill-sets that the employees don't have. Consultants also have better access to databases, industry benchmark information and to ‘best practices’. In some domains (e.g. Job Evaluation) consultants do bring in proprietary methodologies.

But there are other (not so rational) factors also. Many of the organizations are not optimized for effectiveness. Organizations tend to gravitate towards a way of working that is most comfortable for the people who run it – even if it takes away from the effectiveness and efficiency. This can make it very easy for an external consultant to walk into an organization, do a diagnosis and find many areas where there was potential for significant improvement. While the fresh eyes’, specialized diagnostic tools and 'learning from other contexts' that the external consultant brings in are indeed helpful in doing this, one key advantage the external consultants have over the employees is the very fact that the consultants are 'outsiders' - who have not been part of the system and hence the problems that it is trying to solve.

Just having been part of the organization can become a liability as that can get the employees perceived as ‘part of the problem to be solved’ (even if they haven’t contributed to it). Sometimes, not disturbing the ‘convenient collective delusions’ in the organization becomes an unstated expectation for being an ‘insider’. ‘Remaining some sort of an outsider while being a full member of the organization’ is what can help internal consultants to  avoid this unfortunate situation. This is a tricky 'tightrope walk' and it might need somewhat unorthodox approaches (see ‘Organization Development Managers as Court Jesters’ for an example).

Another key factor here is that the external consultants can afford to sell/promise more ambitious possibilities (as compared to what the employees of the organization can) because what is at risk for the external consultant is an occasional success fee and not their jobs. Employees have more skin in the game. This can make the employees look ‘less ambitious’, ‘lacking in vision’, ‘change resistant’’ etc. Of course, this becomes a double whammy for the employees if they (and not the consultants) have to implement the over-ambitious plans that the consultants have sold.

Quite a bit of the consultant credibility falls into the ‘presumed credibility’ category which is based on the assumptions others hold about them (say, based on the consulting firm they work for and their educational qualifications). This can also lead to situations where consultants project expertise that they don’t really have.This is done by being deliberately vague, use of jargon, somber expressions, hiding behind proprietary tools and methodologies, making open-ended statements, doing name-dropping, using great-looking analysis and presentation templates, 'casual benchmarking'* etc. The risks arising from presumed credibility are more when one is working with a large consulting firm (as the consulting firms might deploy not so competent consultants especially if the client has negotiated hard on the consulting fee and/or the client is not too 'prestigious' for the consulting firm). Yes, this is also qualifies as magic - in the sense of 'creating an illusion' (of competence)!

Many of the consultants have also this great skill to see only the 'possibilities' during the proposal stage and to see only the 'limitations' after the assignment starts(till they start seeing possibilities that can lead to the next assignment). 

Of course, not all consultants do any of this. I have also come across consultants (e.g. some very senior OD consultants) who have refused to take up the consulting assignment and by doing so forced the client to rethink the way they are looking at the 'problem'. See ‘Truth and Beauty : Motivations and Elegance in HR’ for one such example. 

So there are both rational and not so rational aspects to the alchemy of the magic of external consultants! Now, let’s look at the 'marginality' dimension!

From a process consulting perspective, external consultants are supposed to remain marginal so that the clients can play the central role in solving their own problems. Of course, in content/expertise heavy consulting assignments the consultants have to play a more direct role. The problem happens when the clients ‘outsource’ all the thinking to the consultants and become dependent on the consultants for a long period of time.

Sometimes, the consultants become so central and influential that the business leaders will listen only to the consultants. Some consultants are very effective in creating some sort of 'learned helplessness' among the business leaders by making them believe that only the consultants would be able to convince the CEO. This situation becomes more unfortunate when the consultants (after establishing the dire need for consulting help at the diagnosis stage) gravitate towards telling the business leaders what they want to hear as the solution (typically something that minimizes the discomfort to the business leaders and places the most of the change requirement on the rest of the organization)! Yes, this can prove to be the royal road to influence and to more consulting assignments!

So, where does this leave us? There are right reasons (e.g. expertise, internal capability building, as an additional pair of hands etc.) and wrong reasons (e.g. to avoid blame, for the trophy value, based on unrealistic expectations on what a consultant can do etc) to hire external consultants. If one hires the right consultant for the right reason they can add a lot of value. Employees also can learn a lot from the consultants – especially in terms of enhancing their skills, establishing credibility and projecting their expertise. It is most important that the clients shouldn’t relinquish their central role in solving their own problems and they should remain in charge. If the clients look to the consultants for salvation and allow the consultants to dictate the consulting agenda (instead of the clients choosing when to bring in a consultant, which consultant to bring in and what should be the mandate given to the consultant), trouble can’t be too far behind!

Any comments/observations? 

*Note: 'Casual benchmarking' refers to the practice of doing comparisons across organizations (on select parameters of interest) without paying adequate attention to the underlying differences between the contexts. This can lead to misleading inferences.