Sometimes I think if everyone in the organization knew how to ask the right questions my role would be unnecessary. Even if they did have that skill (or courage?) the answers would still have to be pursued- by them or the person/people they ask. This is complicated and looks as if there will be a role for me (and other management consultants) for quite some time.
What is guiding this pattern of unanswered questions?
- Status Quo
- Accountability
- Decision Making
- Committees
- Hierarchy
- Naivety/Ignorance
Status Quo
Usually requires a “Why?” question first. “Because that is the way we have always done it” is a non-permissible loop. Change is tweaking, adapting or eliminating (replacing with a new version, unfortunately) the status quo. So the why answer needs to be pursued in order to open up the floor for the add on questions.
Taking a magnifying glass to status quo reveals the other categories on our list:
Accountability
Human nature maybe?… “that is the way we have always done things” tends to lead to some buck passing, vagueness and uncertainty. As soon as there are two versions, or more, of status quo, accountability begins to be effected. Think of status quo as the organizational, functional, team and individual informal process, structure and culture. That gives three to the third combinations of status quo. It takes a clear formal process for accountability to overcome that equation.
Decision Making
Without accountability decision making is difficult. If you are not held responsible then you can delay, avoid or pass down decisions. Change very much relies on decision making. Decisions within the change process can be tough because there is less to measure against. Change often feels like complete risk with no clear path.
As change practitioners I think it is our responsibility to ask the right questions to increase clarity, reduce risk and keep the process moving forward. Our value add is that we can help to mold structure, process and culture into something more effective and efficient with the change process as the learning platform.
Committees
Speaking of learning. There are a lot of things that make committees a ridiculous exercise (multiple people making a single decision, the time it takes to get through “gates”, the cost of the added meetings, the ability to play the minority role and use the committee to stop any process, program or project, and many more). One thing they are valuable for though is learning. They are a platform for interaction, collaboration and debate. They are fantastic for learning.
In fact if the committee really is to simply hash things out, preferably cross functionally, and not as the vehicle for decision making then I cut the committee structure some slack.
Hierarchy
This is the area where the answer to the “why” question can be status quo at the individual level. “That is how, fill-in-the-blank-leader-name, always does it”. Any chance that could be part of the reason the organization is trying to change?
My own follow up questions in this area often reveals a leadership structure of founder or CEO clones. Saying that is the way THIS leader does things is often the same as saying that is the way the top person does it. This is not necessarily a bad thing, clear paths that lend themselves to clear orders (storming the castle stuff) might work here. Then the questions are few and just for clarity.
If the organization is pretending to be matrixed or moving toward that- something like a squished pyramid of reporting- then there are many more questions. With many more questions comes the pursuit of the answers. Since this is at the individual and organizational level at the same time (culture modeled after top leader, but individuals representing the decision making) there may just ALWAYS be a role for change/management consultants. The connection, confidentiality and risk in asking to get to these answers does not fit well into an internal role.
Naivety/Ignorance
Sometimes rather than knowing that certain questions will never be answered the problem is not thinking to ask the questions. Some of the questions a practitioner would ask need definitive answers. In the change process are you going to allow any exceptions or customization in any area? If you (and the change process) need that to be a no answer then some question asking might be in order.
The “Ignorance” tag is added to this category because some of those situations are painfully clear to me instantly. Without that yes, no or grey this change will have a level of failure- potentially complete failure. Add up all the versions of the questions that have to be answered because of change and there is certainly a role for an external-question-asker.
