2.5 Assess the impact of the consultant’s own role and skills in project delivery

Overall Leadership of a Consultant

We’ve already learnt how consultants can be found in nearly every sector and firm. They are hired by banks, insurance, law firms, retail businesses, government organisations, into procurement divisions, and auditing tasks, to name a few popular industries and roles for consultants. They do everything from evaluating management efficiency through to protecting computer systems from hackers. Some pitch themselves as problem-solvers, subject matter experts, generalists, strategists and technical specialists. To remind ourselves, two popular definitions of ‘consultant’ can be found below:

Engaged in the business of giving expert advice to people working in a professional or technical field (Cambridge Online Dictionary)

The provision to businesses of objective advice and assistance relating to the strategy, structure, management and operations of an organisation in pursuit of its long-term purposes and objectives. Such assistance may include the identification of options with recommendations; the provision of additional resources; and/or the implementation of solutions. (Iconsulting.com)

Both of these definitions share an underpinning rationale for bringing in a consultant: that is to provide the client company or team with leadership in their specified sphere of expertise. Consultants who do not project themselves as leaders will become lost within most business environments.

We will now take you through a highly popular leadership model advocated by business professor Stephen Covey in his famous book: The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People (Covey: 1989).

1. Be Proactive: Achieve extraordinary results by consistently executing R &

I (resourcefulness and initiative) to break through barriers. 2. Begin with the end in mind: Develop an outcome-oriented mindset in every activity they engage in—projects, meetings, presentations, contributions, etc. 3. Put first things first: Eliminate energy and time-wasting tendencies by focusing and executing on the team’s wildly important goals with a weekly planning schedule. 4. Think win-win: Lead teams that are motivated to perform superbly through a shared expectation and accountability process. Step from independence to interdependence. Identify mutual reward and mutual interest for both parties. 5. Seek first to understand. Then to be understood. Create an atmosphere of helpful give-and-take by taking the time to fully understand issues and give candid and accurate feedback. 6. Synergise: The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Principlecentred leadership that “catalyses, unifies and unleashes the greatest powers within people (Covey: 1989).” 7. Sharpen the saw. Preserving and enhancing the self and your colleagues.

Renew and replenish the four dimensions of our nature: physical, spiritual, mental and social/emotional.

Covey and his followers have routinely used the following Venn Diagram to exhibit the core principles of his research and how the various interrelated dimensions can be said to overlap and feed into each other:

Figure 1: Covey’s Habits model:

Source: https://notonlyluck.com/2013/02/07/habits-as-a-competitiveadvantage-for-startups/

Some leadership thinkers rely heavily on Covey’s approach and argue that those who optimise each habit dimension can provide consultants and smaller companies with “competitive advantage” over their rivals (Melonakos: 2013). Nevertheless, because consultants tend to be paid incrementally and focused within a silo of business expertise, perhaps the most popular challenge that they face is in relation to communications in terms of a) getting others to understand their instructions b) demonstrating client value

Consultants and Communications

A fun way to underline the difficulty of team and organisational communications is to conduct a version of the telephone game. Organise for a team member to receive a simple set of instructions via the telephone. Then, without writing them down, convey these instructions to the next colleague, and so on, along a chain of individuals. The end-result is often very much at odds with those original orders.

Book author and communications expert, Naomi Karten writes: “A common misconception is that communication gaps are caused by too little communication. Some are, certainly. Often, however, the problem is the reverse: too much communication. Often, too, the problem isn’t simply the quantity of communication but the kind: Gaps are frequently caused by misdirected, one-way, poorly timed, or badly worded communications (Karten: 2013).” In a world of rapid, and possibly much more public communications, poor written communications can wreak a lot of damage upon workplace relationships and the overall process of team and organisational communications. Brianna Davis, an author for the popular Lee Hopkins communications sector blog, describes a sensible remedy: “Taking a minute to review your work can save you tons of apologizing time later” (88). Nevertheless, this is easier said than done. A layer of peer reviews upon important communications is advised.

Figure 2: Brianna Davis’s top tips to avoid communications mistakes:

Failure to review: don’t let spellcheck and autocorrect do all the work, computers still aren’t quite up to the task of editing messages and memos the way that people are.

Too many words: The sheer volume of communication hitting us means that time can’t be spent … reading anything that is too long. … If you just need an approval on a request, send the simple request.

Appropriate-ness – You may be really mad about a setback, but the words you use to express your anger can be remembered long after the setback is corrected. Act, react, and speak appropriately, or forever be remembered as “that guy who goes crazy.”

Failure to praise – If someone is doing something right, let them know. This can boost the self-esteem and productivity of whoever is hearing it, and

also ensure that the thing you like is done the way you like it time after time.

Criticism –If someone is doing something incorrectly, it is important to [carefully] highlight it as soon as possible to ensure it is done correctly in future.

Say what you mean, mean what you say – Being taken at your word is still [very] important. The only difference is that instead of a handshake, there are now emails and much more to prove what you said.

Being closed off - Having others fear communicating with you—or that communication with you is a pointless process—can hinder you far more than help you.

Source: Abridged version of Brianna Davis’s ‘Top Ten Business Communications Mistakes’

Using or avoiding certain types of body language is also critical in avoiding or defusing conflict. Body Language expert James Borg states that: “More communication is conveyed through the eyes than any other part of the body” (Borg: 2008). Borg points out that the lowering of eyes might be perceived as untrustworthiness or submissiveness. Conversely, over-zealous eye contact may appear aggressive or even convey sexual attraction, extremely inappropriate within a business environment. Unfocused and flitting eye contact - particularly repeated glances over the shoulder, to the wrists (where a watch may be), or towards a phone - explicitly suggests a lack of focus and attention to the person and conversation in motion. This is not a good message to convey if one is trying to engage, motivate or even pacify an aggressive or hostile person.

The seminal work of Dale Carnegie, How To Win Friends And Influence People, is literally an encyclopaedia of business protocols. The book has an enduring and pervasive relevance to most, if not all, business activity. One passage will serve entrepreneurs business managers very well indeed:

Why talk about what we want. That is childish. Absurd. Of course, you are interested in what you want. You are eternally interested in it. But no one else is. The rest of us are just like you: we are interested in what we want.

So the only way on earth to influence other people is to talk about what they want and show them how to get it. (Carnegie: 1936)

Case Study: Miscommunication of the highest order: The Charge of the Light Brigade:

In 1853, Russia invaded the Balkans. Soon after, following hyperbolic media coverage, Britain and France deployed forces into The Crimea in order to protect Turkey, with whom they held Treaty obligations. There were strong fears about access to important surrounding sea-routes. After a series of skirmishes with Russia, the British Army and her Allies were generally thought to have gained the upper hand during the Battle of Balaclava in 1854. That was until the illfated order for the Charge of the Light Brigade, commanded by the 7th Earl of Cardigan, straight into a phalanx of Russian artillery in Autumn, 1854. Out of 674 soldiers who loyally followed seemingly inexplicable orders to attack Russian gun positions, 247 perished or were wounded.

Cardigan was euphorically welcomed back into Britain as a war hero by crowds of enthusiasts and awarded an audience with Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli and Queen Victoria. But doubts soon began to surface in relation to the kamikaze nature of the Light Brigade’s operation. Moreover, suspicion also grew around the truth of Cardigan’s self-aggrandising claims. Harsh accounts from returning ground troops, and critical reflections from fellow senior officers, opposition Russian officers and war correspondents (William Russell and George Ryan), finally amalgamated into a new, rather inconvenient truth: The Charge of the Light Brigade had been one of Britain’s largest military leadership disasters of all time.

How could this have happened?

The interesting fusion of personal feuds, rivalries, and deficient decision-making, all prevalent in this military debacle, have caused gallons of ink and thousands of printer cartridges to be spent ever since. Military and business coaches alike have tried to make sense of these traumatic events that occurred in a location dubbed the “valley of death” by poet Alfred Lord Tennyson.

The Earl of Raglan was appointed overall commander of British armed forces, principally because he had served as military secretary to Duke of Wellington. Wellington was widely held to be a preeminent strategic military genius since his pivotal leadership at Waterloo in 1815. Although Raglan was a decent political operator in British circles, he had no practical experience of military leadership in the field. Four decades later, it was hoped that some of Wellington’s strategic military genius might have rubbed off on his successor.

The Cavalry Brigade at Balaclava was made up of a Light and Heavy Brigade commanded overall by Lord Lucan. And Earl Cardigan, who was in charge of the Light Brigade, was subordinate to Lord Lucan. However, by a twist of coincidence both men were brothers-in-law to one another. Cardigan believed that Lord Lucan mistreated his sister. He therefore barely spoke with Lucan. Instead he preferred to liaise directly and wherever possible with the conciliatory personality of the overall British commander, Lord Raglan.

Fully aware of bad blood between his commanders, yet keen keep the peace, Raglan implored both men to bury their differences and work together. Neither showed any prospect of being able to do so. On the 25th October, 1854, large numbers of Russian units began to threaten British supply lines down in the valley. On a hilltop alongside his staff officers, Raglan’s team looked down onto a ridge and spotted some Russian soldiers who began to remove British artillery guns from the scene. Believing that this incident disgraced the British Army’s good name, Raglan sent four orders via messengers downhill in quick succession to Lucan, stipulating that the Cavalry Brigades should stop the guns being taken away from the ridge and therefore attack the Russian positions. Raglan failed to appreciate the physical ground-view that Lucan and Cardigan, and also their troops, were experiencing.

From lower down, in the valley, the order’s final recipient, Lucan, could only see another Russian gunnery position. Confused, but not pressing the messenger for

certain clarifications, Lucan passed the messages down to Cardigan, the Light Brigade commander in the valley. From his position, his team could not see the guns upon a ridge being removed by Russians. They just saw the Russian artillery guns pointing at them. They assumed, incorrectly, that the somewhat suicidal order, related to the visible gunnery positions inside the valley. Lucan was also reportedly irked that he had been criticised by Raglan’s team for being too cautious in the past.

Possibly too proud to ask his hated brother-in-law for clarification, and aware that he may look like a coward, Cardigan failed to vent his fears and ask for clarification. He prepared his men to attack a line of Russian guns, that, ultimately Lord Raglan could not see from the hills.

The messenger from Raglan to Lucan who carried the fourth order was one Captain Louis Nolan, staff officer to Lord Raglan. Nolan was a precocious young cavalry officer who had developed deep-seated frustration in Balaclava towards the conduct of aristocratic British commanding officers in Crimea. Safely on the hilltop working alongside his boss, and also guilty of not seeing any direct threat from Russian gunners upon the Light Brigade, Nolan galloped down to the ridge and curtly gave Raglan’s order to Lucan: attack the guns. When asked for clarification by Lucan, Nolan was reported to have brusquely waved his arms in the general direction of the Russians and said: “There are your enemy. There are your guns, my Lord.”

Lucan did not demur this time. He relayed the fourth and final order onto his brother-in-law, Cardigan. This time Cardigan did reply that, “I shall never be able to bring a man back”, before launching his regiments forward directly towards Russian gun positions without any further delay.

Private Thomas Dudley of the 17th Lancers wrote in his account of the scene: “When we received the order, not a man could seem to believe it ... Not a word or a whisper. On – on we went! Oh! If you could have seen the faces of that doomed 800 men at that moment; every man’s features fixed, his teeth clenched, and as rigid as death, still it was on – on!” Another described the attack as a “perfect madness”. Captain William Morgan, also of the 17th Lancers, wrote to his father the charge had been “gallant, brilliant (but, as all add, useless)”. He said the order arrived “as we must believe, by mistake”.

The main protagonists in this error-strewn operation, Raglan, Cardigan and the 3rd Earl of Lucan, all survived the infamous Charge. Lucan was subsequently promoted to Lieutenant General and then Field Marshal. Cardigan’s war hero status became slightly dented although Queen Victoria made him a Knight in the Order of Bath. He spoke irregularly on politics from his parliamentary seat in Westminster’s House of Lords.

All expressed concern at the poor communication of Raglan’s orders by his staff officer, Captain Nolan. But Nolan did not survive to defend his reputation falling with his comrades that very same afternoon.

Reflective Exercise:

In your private notebook. Imagine that you are brought in to manage a lorry freight logistics company and put in charge of scheduling. You have 250 trucks in your country to manage and the previous manager and their deputy have both resigned with immediate effect due to stress. The CEO has offered you a huge amount of remuneration to complete and finish the scheduling and to recover the firm’s deteriorating reputation. Aided by a new deputy and also an administrative assistant, you work 16 hours per day, six days per week, and get the roster and distribution network back up-and-running in a most competent way. But many internal employees at other sites can’t see the success; they just keep hearing the ‘scare stories’ when things go wrong. Also, the CEO and senior management team is based at the other location. Moreover, although the performance has massively improved, one truck failed to meet its schedule and was delivering theatre equipment to a theatre run by a high-profile celebrity who was due to host ‘Pop Idol’ from that location.

TASK: Devise a communication action plan to improve your internal and external profile for the distribution team.

Summary

The diversity of roles within the consulting space offer many opportunities for individuals to specialise in areas that appeal to them. Nevertheless, there are also risks, because companies will not retain external consultants who either do not show clear value to their business, or who cannot demonstrate sufficiently enhanced levels of specialist expertise that cannot be accessed from within the existing (internal) employee pool. As we stated at the beginning of this

module, consultants are often paid by the hour, or by the day, therefore they must be perceived to add value to their client business.

Further Reading:

Covey, S. (1989) The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. London: Simon & Schuster

Gill, R. (2006) Theory and Practice of Leadership. London: Sage

Adair, J. (1997) Effective Communication: The most important management tool of all. London: Pan Books

References:

Covey, S. (1989) The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. London: Simon & Schuster

Melonakos, J., (2013) Not only luck: Habits as a competitive advantage for startups. Accessed on 20/1/2020 at: https://notonlyluck.com/2013/02/07/habits-asa-competitive-advantage-for-startups/

Karten, N., (2013) Mind the Gap: Communication Gaps and How to Close Them. accessed and downloaded on 05/01/2020 at: http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=2122831 Davis, B., (2014) Top Ten Communications Mistakes – A Guide for Gen Y, accessed and downloaded on 05/01/2020 at:

http://www.leehopkins.net/2011/11/14/top-ten-business-communicationmistakesa-guide-for-gen-y/ Borg, J. (2008), Body Language, p.28, Harlow: Pearson Carnegie, D., (1936), How To Win Friends And Influence People, p.37, Chancellor Press