I have always thought of consultation as more of a separation between diagnosis and intervention. A consultant comes into an organization and "diagnoses" the company based on their observations and collection of data and then provides "advice" on how to improve the organization and the steps they can follow to reach their goals. Dr. Kurt Lewin as highlighted in our foundational readings saw the separation of diagnosis from the notion of intervention as a conceptual error and I completely agree. It’s like saying yeah, your doing this wrong and this right and here is the long list of things you need to do in order to improve your organization, good luck! That situation is a recipe for disaster. We don't describe to our children how to ride a bike based on personal knowledge and expertise, hand them the bike then say, off you go! We guide and mentor a child, pick them up if they fall, encourage and praise, give them continuous tips on how to improve until finally they are confident to ride off on their own. And though they may fall or stumble they have learned and are capable of getting right back on and trying again thanks to their training and guidance. This example is in line with the thinking of Dr. Lewin as he believed it impossible to make an adequate diagnosis without also intervening. I value his way of thinking that the consultant is not an expert on anything but how to be helpful and begins with total ignorance of what is going on in the organization. I hope to emulate this way of consulting in my future work. I believe it is vital for the consultant to become attuned to their own personal insights and their impact on the organization rather than focusing on the actual collection of data and diagnosis.
No comments:
Post a Comment