EXTERNALCONSULTAWS INFLUENCESONAN‘ ‘9? 3 *AssIsIIich N-IZAT'ONALCHANG?TIT-7.7 greeiof: Ph 7 UNIVERSITY :: 5 If; MICHIGAN-"STATE s WtheiD FFECTIVENESSI‘I esi EJORGA E A; 333. -.| «‘4Z~A :n v.1 .flmel'L’GJAVEY: z '7? RA 3?: 3:" . ~ Michigan Stave i . University a llli!lllllllllzlllfllflmlllfllllflfllllfllfllfllfi ML '2 5. This is to certifg that the thesis entitled INFLUENCES ON AN EXTERNAL CONSULTANT'S EFFECTIVENESS IN ASSISTING ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE presented by Neil G. Davey has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. &mmmin Management Heme H MM, Major professor Date d ’1 ’Z‘ (Z 0-169 uv'xr‘ C“-.. : :~y\- vu‘ ems.-- -\ ABSTRACT INFLUENCES ON AN EXTERNAL CONSULTANT'S EFFECTIVENESS IN ASSISTING ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE By Neil G. Davey While organizations make considerable use of the assistance of external consultants in their efforts to effect necessary changes and improvements there is evidence that many of such collaborative efforts are less than com— pletely successful. There is, however, an almost complete absence of empirical evidence on which prescriptions for effective relationships can be based. It was the primary purpose of this study to select one aspect of organization— consultant associations and develop empirical evidence as a basis for prescribing at least some conditions for an effective helping style° It was hypothesized that the nature of the relation— ship which is developed between an organization and its retained consultant influences the effectiveness of the ensuing consulting assignment, and this study was developed in order to test this hypothesis. The hypothesis was Operationalized by developing differentiating descriptions both for assignment effectiveness, and for the nature of the organization—c effectiveness was perceptions of the :zher member who : rganization-cons considering the V 1‘2.“ consultmg ne ' “W‘ P“ figww " ‘ m} Hv.l\tv‘.n- ..::q-:,.:_ -.\,\,.: Vv‘wv _‘_3, :Vvu‘. n...“ “H— \V‘ .1 ‘ ~.. 3 -n :‘4‘ ‘ ‘~ “ms “~.\,_‘ \. " ~. "‘zny. .N k ‘H _v t a, ~-.: 2“““w‘ a“ ; EL an \. I‘. V‘n‘ ‘ 1‘ “Mt <»\\, k‘ e “”1 Hex, ‘M It. Neil Ga Davey the organization—consultant relationship. Assignment effectiveness was described in terms of the subjective perceptions of the organization's chief executive, or other member who sponsored a consulting assignment. The organization-consultant relationship was differentiated by considering the various conditions under which the need for consulting help, the organization's discussions and decisions concerning consultant selection, assignment objectives, scope, and conduct, were determined, and it was inferred that differences in these situations would lead to differences in the organization—consultant relationship. A research questionnaire was developed and mailed to a randomly selected sample of 1580 business organizations, and 120 departments and agencies of the federal govern— mente Completed responses were received from 133 of these organizations and were analyzed with respect to the pre— viously identified "relationship" and "effectiveness" variableso Although the quantity of empirical evidence so developed was inadequate to permit the unqualified con— firmation of the several underlying hypotheses, it was considered sufficient to support the tentative confirma- tion of many. From these were developed recommendations for the arrangements an organization should adopt in order that any consulting assignment in which it partici_ Dates will more likely be completely effective. e recomm‘ hes T weeding With ’ a .1 v. .9H w that some E) 2") .u y, -\ n” " TECLEDEA-J: ”ndwn‘r‘ u‘uau- u-..t \ be "‘ ~~ .61.. Neil G. Davey These recommendations are that in considering, or proceeding with, a consulting assignment an organization should: allow that some organizational changes may be necessary. regard the consultant as a collaborating equal who represents an expert resource. identify the particular needs for which external assistance might be sought. ensure subordinate managers participate in the dis— cussions and decision to engage a consultant, and that there is a concensus of agreement. provide for the participation of organization members in the selection of a particular consultant. identify its particular objectives and expectations and make these explicit to the consultant. not closely direct the consultant's work, nor unreasonably limit his access to people or information. Specify the duties to be undertaken by all participants and ensure these are understood. establish a specific point of contact and liaison within the organization with and through whom the consultant should work. select a consultant from two or three who have been invited for preliminary discussions prior to a final appointment being made. A second maj‘ :ypothesis that an extents and accep ‘=“= nality charac .~.v ~: ~ ~ . “"‘-v....v: ‘7‘: e 5 ”c - :"::~_~_ .. a “hit... - t"v~-.. “ v “ ~L..:c - :3 :n-: «cy_‘\-v~ 2V Neil G. Davey A second major purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that an organization‘s frequency of use of con- sultants and acceptance of their advice is related to a personality characteristic of the organization's chief executive. The chosen characteristic was the Dogmatism construct and measure developed by Rokeach in his work on individual belief systems. The same organizational addresses were requested to complete the short—form of the Dogmatism Scale which accompanied the consultant research questionnaire. From the responses, Dogmatism Scores were determined and shown to relate in a pre— dictable manner to an organization's frequency of use of consultants, the organization level at which the decision to engage a consultant was made, the criteria for consult— ant selection, and the incidence of imposed constraints and limitations. Finally, the study was able to develop and present some potentially valuable relationships between certain organization characteristics and the use and acceptance of consultant advice. INFLUENCES ON AN EXTERNAL CONSULTANT'S EFFECTIVENESS IN ASSISTING ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE By \9” 6 Neil GT Davey A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Management 1969 .,:: :‘.:..‘ nor."- ... -..;v_‘5._ Vu‘..\.c hr." —. a n a _ egn we n a.” ...... w... cc. *np‘" ... , .2733” “ V. ‘A‘. .. ,_. _.:_ - H- ”N“: " ‘~x:-_ « .«_ .. ‘;.«~ :w«,\ ~. L\ In» ‘1 A“; ‘_\‘\ _‘ ~ “u \. ~\ -.\ -. ~ .V‘ \u... \ N \ l¢\ \ ..: uh \ \\‘ q. « ‘ n.» t l .- (“,0sz }.5O”70 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS During the twenty months which have elapsed since the initial conception of this project there has been more than one occasion on which I doubted that it would ever be completed. That it is now complete is due in large measure to the assistance and consideration so freely and generously given by many assiciates. To Dr. Dalton McFarland and Dr. William Crissy who served as members of my dissertation committee, and particularly to Dr. Harold Wein who, as its Chairman, gave unstintingly of time, effort, and encouragement, I am sincerely grateful. In addition to his role as committee member, Dr. Crissy provided much in the way of personal guidance and counsel and was a strong positive influence on my decision to interrupt a professional career in order to pursue the further study of management as a doctoral student. My sincere thanks are also due, and freely given, 130 my former employer, Mr. John P. Young, Chairman, John P. Young and Associates Pty. Ltd., Management Consultants. Mr. Young not only reacted enthusiastically to my initial consideration to pursue doctoral studies but was supportive and helpful throughout. ii Finally: and ,. .32.. -n n: lu..-~.. Ex... .c Lav ~;« . 's : “I'D" a; _._. --_c.lv.. u... , -\ r: rgw'g’l “w a..- -x... «a p.. ‘ ‘ -.. .“sm‘ :_ ~v~.: -uuyu.u_v c.» N.” Q"\‘~ V ~~«u. . : - “‘ne‘ ~v c-;_ 2‘: - u... “~ . ‘V‘: ~. ~--\, A > a... .N; ‘. ~~t_ '\‘\.\-' »... i < Finally, and most importantly, the many roles played by my wife were the most instrumental in achieving the satisfactory completion of this work. As a confidante, and as a source of encouragement and constant support, her contribution is immeasurable. Moreover, her willing acceptance of the many restrictions, and frustrations which seem to be the inevitable concomitants of student life allowed the task to be completed. Beyond this she became the perfect, efficient secretary, always deferring other interests and activities, without notice, to type and assemble the interminable number of drafts and revisions which were required at every phase of the project. It is not possible for this formal acknowledgment to adequately recognize her helping roles, but it at least makes them a matter of record. The study resulting in this publication was made under a Doctoral Fellowship in Business Administration granted by the Ford Foundation. However, the conclusions, Opinions, and other statements in this publication are those of the author and are not necessarily those of the Ford Foundation. wnm' - “a .Ltufliab (1‘ V (CV—Q ‘ I-b ...- N. ,,-_,..\-h \ ‘- ‘u .. t, .... v. 5.; ..._,_. .; n ‘(1 -‘___,\_ TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . ii LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . xiii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . l Arrangement of Dissertation. . . . . ll Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 13 II. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK INCLUDING AN EXAMINATION OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . 14 The Organization—Consultant Relationship 17 Differentiating the Relationship . . . 18 The Personality of the Chief Executive . 28 Measures of Effectiveness . . . . 33 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 3H III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY . . . . 36 Nature of the Problem or Situation Leading to the Decision to Obtain External Assistance Reasons for Using an External Consultant 41 Considerations Within the Organization Prior to a Decision About the Assistance to be Sought . . . . 43 Considerations on the Nature of the Consulting Assignment . . . . A6 Considerations of the Working Arrange- ments Between the Consultant and Organization . . . . . . . . . 47 Operating Hypotheses . . . . . A9 Measures and Descriptions of Effectiveness. . 52 Measure of Open— —Mindedness (Dogmatism) . 55 Survey Data . . . . . . . . 57 Research Design. . . . . . 58 The Research Instruments. . . . . . 63 Consultant Research Program. . . . . 63 Executive Opinion Survey. . . . . . 69 iv n- V .MC Ute? “. J .-..a- n \ ‘7'." s. T. w.‘ . w. .. 3 u... n AL a: my mm w” I . n . . . vim AC CC h. um r“ Pv a C» _ _ a; .C . ---vu.. Chapter Pre—Coding of Research Instruments The Survey Sample . . . . Research Methodology Summary . . . . IV. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS Executive Opinion Survey. Survey Data . . . Summary V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The Organization—Consultant Relationship Dogmatism and Consultant Use and Acceptance . . . . . Survey Data BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES 175 186 191 200 200 205 206 209 212 S awn vvnnllv r‘ A” A _c-a.-ch c Ana-- ‘ V. A» «.1 a: We .— H. 3: a: . _ n». n» w.” ~m ~ ‘ A.» . .2 <-,. t.\. . a c . .wux“: .m \ -:~v~ Hut 5‘ . L ;. .e:1 A» _\u a. 3 \. I it. TI.I :1 E a c n\ .. 1 .. _ W. ~ ~ \ 1‘ ~ WV .3. x? «~v W. ~ a». 0 . \\\ \‘~ T: w” at 4‘ T. Q“ «l “u .. A: . \ 1.ua \\\ \\V 10. ll. l2. 13. LIST OF TABLES Composition of research sample——by type of business . . . . . . . . Composition of research sample——by industrial classification . . . . . . Composition of research sample——by number of employees in the organization . . . . . Composition of research sample--by geographic location of the organization . . . Composition of geographic regions by states Comparison of composition of responses with sample of organizations receiving consultant research questionnaire by type of business . Comparison of composition of responses with sample of industrial manufacturing organiza- tions by industrial classification Comparison of composition of responses with sample of organizations receiving consultant research questionnaire by number of employees Comparison of composition of responses with sample of organizations receiving consultant research questionnaire by geographic region Effectiveness of assignment by major situation leading to consultant assignment . . . Effectiveness of assignment by origin and specificity of assignment objectives . Effectiveness of assignment by sponsor's con— cept of the consultant Bases for organization— —consultant misunder— standings by sponsor' S concept of the con— sultant . . . . . . . vi Page 8l 82 83 811 85 88 89 91 92 95 97 99 101 ven ent ‘1 ffect $51gnm v1 .2 A a 7 - rm .9. o Vu...U-v-/V n Table 1A. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19 26 . 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 27. Page Effectiveness of assignment by changes in assignment during progress . . . . . . 102 Effectiveness of assignment by replacement of consultant during assignment progress . . . 104 Effectiveness of assignment by origin of suggestion to seek consultant help . . . . 105 Complete acceptance of consultant‘s recommenda— tions by different organization levels by origin of suggestion to seek consultant help . 107 Degree of concensus of acceptance of recommenda— tions by origin of suggestion to seek con— sultant assistance . . . . . . . . 109 Effectiveness of assignment by degree of con— census concerning consultant assistance . . . 111 Complete acceptance of recommendations by dif— ferent organization levels by degree of con— census concerning consultant assistance . . . 112 Degree of concensus of acceptance of recom- mendations by degree of concensus concerning consultant assistance . . . . . 113 Effectiveness of assignment by level of pre— engagement discussions . . . . . 115 Complete acceptance of recommendations by different organization levels by level of pre— engagement discussions . . . . . . . . 116 Degree of concensus of acceptance of recom— mendations by level of pre—engagement dis— cussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Effectiveness of assignment by level of decision to request consulting help . . . , 118 Effectiveness of assignment by level of decision concerning consultant to be hired . Effectiveness of assignment by level of decision concerning consultant to be hired . . 122 Table 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 3A. 35. 36 37. 38 e 39. 40. Page Complete acceptance of recommendations by different organization levels by level of decision concerning particular consultant to be hired . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 Effectiveness of assignment by degree of Concensus concerning the consultant finally selected . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Effectiveness of assignment by number of con— sulting firms invited for discussions . . . 127 Bases for organization-consultant mis— understandings by number of consulting firms invited for discussions . . . . . . . . 128 Effectiveness of assignment by number of con— sulting firms conducting preliminary investi— gations . . . . . . . . . . 129 Effectiveness of assignment by number of consulting firms submitting a preliminary proposal . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Effectiveness of assignment by basis for selection of consultant . . . . . . . . 134 Bases for organization-consultant misunder— standings by number of consulting firms con— ducting preliminary investigations . . . . 136 Bases for organization—consultant misunder— standings by number of consulting firms sub— mitting a preliminary proposal . . . . . . 138 Effectiveness of assignment by origin and specificity of assignment objectives . . . . 139 Complete acceptance of recommendations by dif— ferent organization levels by origin and specificity of assignment objectives . . . . 1A0 Effectiveness of assignment by awareness of assignment by organization members . . . . 1&2 Complete acceptance of recommendations by dif— ferent organization levels by awareness of objectives by organization members . . . . 14H viii 1. e e V "It :1 — .1 L w LIV fly C e e p 0|. S «T. e F. ”4. .2“ . . 2. 3: S: r. .. v. .y. 5 w. w. e .c C. :C 5 a. C a c n . 5 : . I w“ 5 .3 ....._ _. e ._ _ .. _ a: .. . _ .v I. A; .wu .y _ _ r” n: as n; ”a 2. r" .._ C. 2. I a. .2 . .1 n1. . I w. w. o. C. :1 .. .4... «a A: at J_~m ".»u 2v .«u 1 c n. . J. T. a: :— ..1 .. . _ .C I. .. wk. n. .3 x: n.. Q. J. ._ _ . x: u. .. : l ‘C H. .. a” . _ e. . I s? 2.. “50 . la n . :2 1.. o . ».. 3 _ v.1 ‘ . .. I : ‘ \_‘ \» .V . .NM 3 . . _ . Table A1. A2. A3. AA. A5. A6. A7 A8. A9. 50. 51. 52 0 53 5A. Page Effectiveness of assignment by nature of restrictions placed on consultant . . . . . 145 Effectiveness of assignment by agreement on respective responsibilities . . . . . . . 1A7 Complete acceptance of recommendations by dif— ferent organization levels by agreement on respective responsibilities . . . . . . . 1A9 Bases for organization consultant misunder— standings by agreement on respective responsi— bilities . . . . . . . . . 150 Complete acceptance of recommendations by dif— ferent organization levels by existence of formal organization structure . . . . . . 151 Effectiveness of assignment by consultant's emphasis on problem identification . . . . 153 Evaluation of consultant's report by consult— ant's emphasis on problem identification . . 15A Complete acceptance of recommendations by dif— ferent organization levels by nature of interim reporting arrangements . . . . . . 156 Bases for organization—consultant misunder— standings by nature of interim reporting arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Effectiveness of assignment by involvement of organization members . . . . . . . . . 159 Complete acceptance of recommendations by different organization levels by involvement of organization members . . . . . . . . 161 Complete acceptance of recommendations by different organization levels by nature of final reporting arrangements . . . . . . 163 Bases for organization— consultant misunder— standings by nature of final reporting arrangements . . . . . . . . . 16A Effectiveness of assignment by coordination of consultant's organization contacts . . . 166 ix R 1b in“... - signner‘ .. ‘vvr‘ay‘. M»... .\.4 .vud. Table 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 6A. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. Complete acceptance of recommendations by dif— ferent organization levels by coordination of consultant's organization contacts Effectiveness of assignment by scope of assignment . . . . Complete acceptance of recommendations by dif— ferent organization levels by scope of assignment . . . . . . . Effectiveness of assignment by consultant's participation in implementation . . . . Complete acceptance of recommendations by dif— ferent organization levels by consultant's participation in implementation . . . . . Number of completed executive opinion surveys returned by questionnaire respondents Frequency of use of consultants by open— mindednesS' of chief executive . . . Level of decision to request consulting assist— ance by open—mindedness of chief executive Basis for selection of particular consultant by open—mindedness of chief executive Nature of restrictions placed on consultant by open—mindedness of organization sponsor . . Effectiveness of assignment by open— ~mindedness of organization sponsor . . . . . Acceptance of consultant's recommendations by organization sponsor by his open—mindedness Frequency of use of consultants during three— year period 1965—67 . . . . . . . . . Frequency of use of consultants (1965—1967) by type of business . Frequency of use of consultants by industry classification . . . . . . Page 168 170 171 17A 176 178 181 183 18A 185 229 able Freouercy ' 7G. loyees em) 1 “Y“ s “q... :_...-.- am" e .. -H..- Table Page 70. Frequency of use of consultants by number of employees in the organization . . . . . . 232 71. Frequency of use of consultants by annual sales turnover (1967) . . . . . . . . . 233 72. Frequency of use of consultants by annual sales turnover-—Seney Survey . . . . . . . . 2311 73. Frequency of use of consultants by proportion of management personnel to total employees in the organization . . . . . . . . . . 235 7A. Frequency of use of consultants by proportion of staff personnel to total employees in the organization . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 75. Frequency of use of consultants by education level of chief executive . . . . . . . . 237 76. Frequency of use of consultants by age of chief executive . . . . . . . . . . 238 77. Frequency of use of consultants by geographic location of the organization . . . 239 78. Effectiveness of consulting assignment by type of business . . . . . 2A0 79. Effectiveness of assignment by functional area of assignment . . . . . . . . 2A1 80. Effectiveness of assignment by number of employees in the organization . . . . . . 2A2 81. Effectiveness of assignment by proportion of management personnel to total employees in the organization . . . . . . . 2A3 82. Effectiveness of assignment by proportion of staff personnel to total employees in the organization . . . . . . . . . 2AA 83. Complete acceptance of recommendations by dif— ferent organization levels by amount of fees paid for assignment . . . . . . . . . 2A5 xi Iijajor reason for using consultant by number of employees in the organization . . . . . 246 Willingness of organization to employ same consultant on a future assignment . . . . . 2A7 ildiX :rngr ....w Intrcd‘. :L .. 1. a: .u D» “M ”a he Afl. e I. . 4 Egg: glaai X A. B. C. LIST OF APPENDICES Page Introductory Covering Letter. . . . . 213 Consultant Research Program Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . 215 Executive Opinion Survey Questionnaire . 227 xiii :‘V‘;vw~n‘ .A.»‘...:_ (ff-EV “A ..,,.. »..C .A.... .7. a o 1 .. . n It . c . r. a. . .C . _ ..\\ 2. cc 5 e mu 5 n. {A 3 A a. .3 .. .t . . nu a. .. _ .ru .O“ .3 .. . A. 1... ... . f. «L a,» ‘ c : a A c J _ nu . . h. QC 3y ~\~ \\~ g . ;~ a y I. . w. 2» a... n x. w” l e C. a . z. .3 T“ 2. t. .3 . . . . w. 1. . . .3 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study is to identify factors that influence the effectiveness of the efforts made by external (management) consultants to assist business organizations. The underlying orientation is not one which posits that organization-consultant collaborative efforts are necessarily, or even generally, ineffective. At the same time there is some evidence that the business clients of such relationships are less than completely satisfied with the effectiveness of the help they receive in at. least some instances. Seneyl reported that eight per cent of his survey respondents indicated "unfavorable experiences” with consultants, whereas fifty-three per cent of Quittmeyer's2 sample were less than completely satisfied with their consultant experiences. A study by lWilspn Seney, Effective Use of Business Con— SUItants (New York: Financial Executives Research Foundation Inc., 1963). 2 . L. Quittmeyer, "Management Looks a sultants,” The Management Review, L, March, pp! Li—lLi'l'o t Con— 1961, pending to dequate, E ‘1 mail3 revealec e P Q. .11 (v de as 'v DTOV A : 1w ~-¥.. .v. . qzw~~.- Va“-4; Cons WV 3 revealed that thirty per cent of the businesses Amon responding to that survey regarded as unsatisfactory or inadequate, the recommendations they had received from the external consultant which they had retained to provide assistance. Consistent with these earlier findings, it would seem that there is less than optimum benefit from ' organization-consultant efforts. Of even greater import, however, is that there is little or no evidence which can explain the different levels of consultant effective— ness or organizational satisfaction which are referenced in those surveys. The purpose of this study, then, is to identify factors or characteristics of organization— consultant relationships which are significantly asso- ciated with different measures, or descriptions, of the degree of consultant effectiveness. By so doing the results of this study will provide a base of empirical evidence on which prescriptions for developing effective Organization consultant relationships can be designed. Such prescriptions can then provide a basis for the development of styles of helping relationships which should be clearly superior to the frequent homilies and "home—spun" philosophies that represent the nature of much of the existing literature in the reference area. 3 ' nt Consultin R. F. Amon et al., Manageme _g . (Cambridge: Harvard University Graduate School or Business Administration, 1958). : i ; It has bee spent approximat . - . (a I“ ;s 0 :j ._. <<: (T (D 1\\ \HA 'lgne ( “.104 _-CD. _. 1...-..“ \ ‘r‘c: van-Mrs u.-._v~ -vDC... _ ‘ v‘.*'r<__v. ~ -4 v.1»:- ':»-_-; —,..- .- 1 ..... . ...:.. \ —~. It has been estimated that American organizations spent approximately $650 million in 1962 for assistance with management, operating, and technical problems,” and in the absence of any more recently published estimates it can only be assumed that the current rate of spending is not less. Thus, there is a dollar dimension that justifies research which might lead to any improvement in the effectiveness with which consulting assistance is pro— vided to operating organizations. A further consideration is the increasing rate of change that is observed as a characteristic of the contem— porary organization scene. In meeting the challenges and demands of change, organizations may rely on their own internal resources to identify needs, and plan and imple— ment the appropriate organizational adaptations. A not infrequently adopted alternative to this course of self— sufficiency is for an organization to seek assistance from external agents, or sources——herein described as con— sultants——to play some role in the process of need identi— fication (diagnosis), program evaluation and planning, and the introduction or implementation of change programs. This situation, where changes in an Organization's external and internal environments are demanding changes in the organization itself if it is to retain, or poss1bly ._____________________ uphilip w, Shay, How The President Can Cat E:§t Results from Management Consultants, The Pres1 en. 1 Professional Association Inc., New York, PPA Spec1a StUdy No. 1A, September—October, 1963> p. 1“ regain, its viab rich consult ant .A- its factors whi: 257365. with the n'x fl: WT.“ ::v-:« t n- .3: ' “"" 4-4 v- u..-.. n ”‘2 "w: -» .. ...c-- "" -, ‘ .... “x ‘ gn- * "““M— a.../ a: - . n- ~ V- y..-: 5: <2“. ‘ ‘ ~~:~?"A\ -\ :.W‘ _¥ '-~,w: “‘ ‘_‘;\ kg“ "x: -- ‘ \ut \ “$va x.\ x‘ g “ "‘u . M.‘ 5 \x‘ae . \ ‘3 _ e ‘n\ ‘ ~4.: m regain, its viability-—coupled with the frequency with which consultant assistance for the introduction of appropriately adaptive modifications is sought——provides additional justification at this time for research into the factors which influence the effectiveness of the change process. Thus, while this research is specifically con— cerned with the effectiveness of external consultants, it is also concerned in a more general way with some aspects of the problems of change. Even more specifically, the research focusses on the relationship which develops between an organization and any consultant it retains, as it is considered that the nature of this relationship influences the effectiveness of the entire organization—consultant collaborative effort. The fundamental hypothesis which underlies this research, and which will be tested, is that the effectiveness of consultant—assisted change efforts is a function of the nature of the relationship between an organization and its retained consultant. Accordingly, the research project was designed to: (i) identify situations where an organization has utilized the services of an external consultant for the purpose of assisting with the accomplish— ment of changeo (ii) provide definition and description of the nature of the organization—consultant relationship. )develop me ”I" um e coaside a. .t. h: .J A: w” . . v. .v «V we. #2 a: .__ l. as .u .y at S we. .. .o 2» n: A: .. v. fly .3 w. v. .. .1 2. .. v” FL. ., 2. .2 .. v. . . .2 ... y. .. .t. v. a r. f. _ ., —J (iii) develop measures or descriptions of change, or of meaningful consequences of change, which can be considered with respect to the differing nature of the organization-consultant relationship. Hollander‘s introduction to his annotated bibliog— raphy of the published literature relevant to the con— 5 sulting area emphasizes the importance of the consultant's role as a catalytic agent to induce change and progress. His perception of the differing roles that consultants are epxected to play——covering a range from technical con— tractor to clinical psychotherapista—is shared by the current research, as is his conclusion that there is no useful information on which particular (consultant) posture is typically associated with successful consulting assign— ments. Hollander's call for investigation into the causes of the differences in effectiveness of consulting assign— ments6 could well be taken as the starting point of this research project, The theoretical model around which the research hypotheses and hence, the research design, are built follows directly from Lewin‘s work on the effectiveness of behavioral changes deriving from group decision m...— 5S. C, Hollander, Business Consultants and Clients, Bureau of Business and Economic Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1963, pp, l—7. 6Ibid., p, 70 7 m processes. lhe necessary charac :rg“ lization me: 5 mm: a .l.v-\, -_ WV“ “”3: Nut“; v.. o_ h“ ‘nm‘g. ng~ Arhf‘ ' — A .— Wm WM 3“ - :»“%:R‘- ' ~ ~53 c..,c.._:_; qfiAw ‘ —h~aw W - “‘"hW‘vu ”2- “359”,“- .._ .yan-rCl... nA.., A ‘ ..; — a w \ " 'v” , F~ ‘ v‘ ‘ .,.c _ lr~~ "~ ‘ Aw. “Mg, _ “RY“ A .w _; :.— C a x, Vtu“'~‘w ‘1», My ”Vi- "WAN. processes.7 The importance of personal commitment as a necessary characteristic of effective behavioral change leads directly to the notion that consultant—assisted change efforts which secure the affective involvement of organization members through ensuring their meaningful participation in the several phases of the change process, will be more effective than demands for change which are imposed on organization members, or in which they had inadequate opportunity to participate, Lewin also places strong emphasis on the importance of social support for new or intended modes of behavior with its consequence that resultant changes will be more likely effective when they have won social approval, The concepts of ”participation” and "consensus" derived from this source are used as a basis for opera— tionalizing the general statement of the fundamental research hypothesis into more specific and testable state— ments° Thus, it is hypothesized that consultant- assisted change programs will be more effective, and the required changes more efficiently accomplished, where: (i) organization members ascribe expertise to, and demonstrate trust in the consultant for his ability to develop and implement effective change programs, 7K0 Lewino Forces Behind Food Habits and Methods gr Change, Bulletin CVIII (Washington, Dc C»: National Research Council, 19MB). u I. . . .‘i - u . «D 9i «04 AG no. A: .3 .D _ . _ . . . .2 a t :M s; x: 5 _ l. _ v n 0 e 7. .1 Z r,“ S w” : _ T: 3: _ . ,. .. _. .. S S f x t n .4 O a. .1. W. .__ C r” .o i: .. i. a.“ T w. u“ ., : .3 : w S : C to n n C r1. A. .o no ,.. w. J. E . c , c . e f ... 5 C .l. a Cu A: Q. _ i . o 4‘ k,” , t x; T: e S .3 CD A: C: a. 2. a. c. u... w" _ . ‘T N“ 2. h a n T P. wt. .3 e l.“ vs. .2 .. . h; : l T. 5 4 . .74 ‘0 n5 0 C. C .u r. .. :e _... :_ v. : .t w,” ,3 \ / i \r/ .. _ . i . .l. . . . i t . i u . _ . (ii) (iii) (iV) (v) (Vi) (vii) (viii) the consultant develops a change program on the basis of his diagnosis of organization problems and needs, rather than where he supplies the organization with a "packaged program,” or standard prescription. organization members are advised of the nature of the consultant's intended activities and the reasons for his intervention° the consultant works closely and directly with organization members within a co-operative rather than a co—ercive framework. explicit provision is made for the consultant to report to the organization on his progress and findings throughout the course of the assignment, rather than at its completion only. the organization establishes a specific point of contact and liaison with whom and through whom the consultant can operate. the consultant actively involves organization members——and particularly key managers--in the diagnosis of problems and the development and implementation of appropriate change programs. the scope of the assignment permits (or requires) the consultant to assist with the implementation of recommended programs. 55 1|. ab 5: T4 : c. _ . . . . r e .7. r. v.” To Z .. . a. _ l ._ . 5 : . l S w .2 \ t h, 3 O h u C a n. w” .3 ”a .». a o. S L f l C. : I A. 4 S .. A: A: .. .2 A; z w“ a. x; .a l; C 5 3 C ,.n e T n e l. .C 3: T. T: 5 . c f , c . . \ .2 f .: 5 h 0 O .n u w” m. C 3 : .1 _. ;. .... 5 5 .2 t 0|. ah t 5 «C A e . . A . . . x e we . . . t v . at a. x: Qt .., . u , 5 ‘ x . I“ {v 3 Q» \l y , _ C x / . ~ _ \~ .1 r w Tu T“ u (ix) the organization initiates the original request for help, or other form of contact with the L consultant. (x) the organization does not closely direct the con— sultant‘s work or unreasonably constrain him by embargo or withheld information, from investigating what he perceives as relevant areas of the organi— zation's affairs. (xi) organization members are in general agreement as to the need for, and desirability of obtaining consultant assistance. (xii) organization members are in general agreement as to the particular consultant selected. (xiii) organization members have participated in the discussions and decisions leading to the reten— tion of the consultant. (xiv) the organization considers some changes may be necessary, rather than where a consultant is retained to merely audit the status quo. The question which is being posed by the funda- mental research hypothesis, and its component parts which are approached through the more specific opera- tionalized statements deriving therefrom, is really asking whether an organization—consultant relationship which possesses some particular characteristics is typically associated with successful consultant-assisted change efforts, and wh ferent characte successful or 3::sider only ': -r' rn 17‘" "2 icy: w, mare LC... ‘ 'fi soc-Vic. v4 Jy;;v um. -.-.. 1 -,_n l o_‘:::: - _v M...» ‘ :w;:-: _.. lu.‘_‘,_ "’"‘ ‘ -w~~'~-: ...' — — “c ‘- - 3.-.... :V — w~,.,-.- .” g“~ .“~,, ~‘ - H. ~“"‘:_y,-l .w. ~g_: \. ‘ \ ‘~\ 1: A“‘~Q: _ ‘ Ace ‘:x k. iv“ kw . .t-i‘wa‘ an“: a. g.‘ ‘e x..: if efforts, and whether a relationship with discernibly dif— ferent characteristics is typically associated with unsuccessful or ineffective change efforts. (Rather than consider only the extremes of ”effective-ineffective," it may be more realistic to relate identifiable character— istics to degrees of effectiveness, such as "more effective-less effective.") In addition to attempting to identify factors or characteristics of the organization—consultant relation— ship which influence the effectiveness of consultant— assisted change efforts, the research will also investigate the influence of a selected personal characteristic of organization members' on the effectiveness of consultant- assisted change efforts. The particular characteristic selected is the organi— zation members' open—mindedness or closed—mindedness as conceived by Rokeach and measured by his Dogmatism Scale.8 As conceived by Rokeach the Dogmatism Scale supplies a measure of the structure of an individual‘s belief system, rather than its content, and has been shown to measure general authoritarianism. Its relevance in the present context is that it provides a basis for hypotheses con— cerning an organization member's usage of external con- sultants, and his subsequent acceptance of their advice. 8M. Rokeach, The Open and Closed Mind (New York: Basic Books, 1960). cai . l Specif no Tc .2 : S nu _. A: .3 .1 Y a A: Z .. ..._ .t .1 ._. E e n». i . v“ S .C a. a: C I C .. r: ,2 A: no ”a w. Tu Y. 2. .3 C ex‘:r* .e/ Specifically, the research project will additionally test the hypotheses that: (i) the frequency of use of consultants by an organiza— tion is inversely related to the Dogmatism measure (closed—mindedness) of the organization's chief executive. (ii) there is a relationship between an organization member's open—mindedness (Dogmatism score) and his acceptance of advice from an external consultant, but that such relationship depends on the organization member's concept of the consultant. Thus, the consultant may be perceived as an authority figure whose advice is to be “obeyed.” In these cases it is hypothesized that there will be a direct relationship between the measure of the organization member's Dogmatism and the extent of his acceptance of the consultant's advice. Where the organization member (and most partic- ularly——the sponsor of the consulting assignment within the organization) has a low Dogmatism score, i.e., is Open—minded, it is hypothesized that he will not regard the consultant as an authority figure, and that his acceptance of the consultant's advice will be related to the perceived value of the advice itself, rather than to its source. A third objective of this research project is to identify characteristics of the organization itself which a n 6 Te 4. E S v . C E .2 i. : . y . .l a so at e .3 I ._ _ .. i n. S n _ n. i , 5 any n a C To A: J .. .3 i. 3 A; .1. nu n 9 a _‘_ C 3. a: r” 2. «I. C. ; . 5 e e h n u 5 e 7. a: ,2 ..: 5 ~ ... it P. S C S a ..._ .C m. .7. . . . . n... w c E e u :I. h h“ n J . . N .c x t .l . ., 0|. d MN“ .u .nu «v A: a a. J. a“ it .n.. .. nol. Liv e _w. a» «C .v T: v” n y ‘3 \ . . c. .1 n ..L n . ta . . a .n . .3 w .. . . d nfi ab A: u 5. :1. as ”A . . a. Lb ll. Ad .1. i u. s e 1. S ..4 1.4 .fiA 2. 2. .s‘ m. VA 5 A: r . r u r n .v. . . w .. _ n 5 2. v . .. _ c. _ . : . 2. : 7 ii" are differentially associated with the frequency of con— sultant use, and with the effectiveness of consultant- assisted change programs. This latter aspect of the study is of a survey nature rather than being based on specific hypotheses. It is included in the project because of its intrinsic interest, and also because the envisaged research design will furnish the data required to show any differential associations. The organizational characteristics to be associated with frequency and effectiveness of consultant use in this phase of the research include such factors as organization "size," location, type of business, profitability, and the proportion of management or staff personnel in relation to the total number of employees, An earlier survey pre— sented data relating an organization's frequency of use of consultants to its size (annual dollar sales volume) and to type of business,9 and the present research will provide comparative data. Arrangement of Dissertation This introductory chapter has attempted to provide clear statements of the purposes and nature of the research project, Additionally, a brief overview of the research area and focus has been presented° 9W. Seney, op, cit., p. 6 (Table l). I r, .r .4 ,E . . . . . .l +v e .I. .._ .1 D. 3 : 5 we .. nu .t r: C 3 ml. y 5 ad w‘. 3 a w. .3 C. m. E 3 : i T s» ,3 e .l. 05 O u PM 3 .2 F; n .2 a. a c a. . t C C 5 S A .. t wt. n D. .L w; .wu w o A: a: my .3 . _ . . w” l . x? l » x? .\ p e :1. n. D. M“ 3 r. a .C C. a w“ E z: .3 .... u a d W u e u a. on A: n A: n. s; .3. s: ”A {u 4a a. x; h n Du D. C S .n‘” ._ . w . C a. e .7. a: . . S . . z» .3. A. C u -l n _ . .. _ 5 x u w . _ i r. 2. n b 3 5 5 V e 3 Av 2. . . «C A. n. ... .. w. x. :u S e .n C T1. .nn is W. l. h. is a: . ‘ a.» . \ e P. Lt. . . :. r ~ .. . . .C .3 . . s u 5 e .1 . .3 . . . ; . 5 .C :. nfln s :u .ru F. fl. . 2‘ .; A . . 4. :w « u ~» ;~ _ ~ ~\\ .9 F. ... . . .L .. . .V _ .... . :_ I .. l . {/12 Chapter II will present and discuss the conceptual bases underlying the development of this study, as well as reviewing the relevant, published literature. It will be the purpose of this review to identify the sources of the conceptual ideas underlying the research and its design, and to summarize prior research contributions. The design of the research study is developed in detail in Chapter III. This chapter traces the design of the research methodology and instruments, and also the selection and make—up of the sample population among which the research is to be conducted° An outline of the intended use of the research data, including the analyses to be developed, is also presented. Chapter TV will present the findings of this study. The relevant research data will be presented and analyzed with respect to the research hypotheses so that these latter can be confirmed or rejected. As a concluding statement, Chapter V will review and evaluate the research project. Where the data permit, operational prescriptions for future collaborative efforts between organizations and consultants will be developed. Any weaknesses in, or omissions from, the research design and methodology which may have been disclosed through its conduct will be identified, and used as the bases of prOposals for further research efforts and directions in this vitally important area. in lilo 5 Lb Ad M.— AC AC .. _ .Nu A. e a» C 7; my .r. r“ w. a. at F. «T. .5 .1. n a: a C A” A: 5 O .|. a .3. C n“ C .t a. a: S a 1|. 9. C as a v S .l e n ll. r. V: S _ . .. a m. h C r O O A.» a C ml. n e C .x. r. _. ”a 5 T _ . . e TV .b A v r. _ a y n u. U K n; 2. . v .. . w .u ‘1.— A—y .7. W . _ a :v Q ‘ flol. 3v Cy V n V .- N M . ~ ‘4. n. .nu I V. a. v » . r .. a . .1. AL . . A 4 . a . . .. . .. . /,. 9-3 Summary This research is primarily concerned with the influence of the relationship between an organization and an external consultant it retains on the effectiveness of their collaborative efforts. This relationship is operationalized into testable hypotheses through the Lewinian concept of the influence of affective involve— ment on behavioral change. A second thrust is to test Rokeach‘s open—mindedness construct through researching the relationship between an individual's Dogmatism and his organization‘s use of external consultants and acceptance of their advice. Thirdly, the research will look for differential relationships between an organization's characteristics and its use and acceptance of consultant advice. For each of these objectives the research will attempt to secure empirical evidence by seeking historical information from organizations on their recent consultant experiences. Nu m. e .3 3 .v . . by e A. e kl. a: “C. S .3 a» 7. Va 3: . v "\v C. .J at. e .l. w. u ht. _ . at .. _ .. w . at . _ . y e a n“ 5 S . .. . . a . e .1. fly 4 u .nu J _ 2» a» . . to a C .b m». an a: a: as . . ”a A: nu \ .Nu n. _ 7» I. w)» a» a C . . . . _ _ a. . w. . _ 2. r. .. i : . _ _ a. .C 2. S: C .. 3 r . V . Ir 2‘ .1: a. .3 . t 2. .1 . . c. ,r” 1 :. ... r. E .__ . . . . . . . . :_ . . .. . CHAPTER II CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK INCLUDING AN EXAMINATION OF THE LITERATURE While this research is concerned specifically with the effectiveness of consultant activity, it is set in the broader context of organizational change. Organiza— tional change is a description frequently applied to changes in the formal structure, internal relationships, and/or task assignments in an organization. Guest portrayed the organization as a socio— technical system10 with close and complex inter— relationships between its components, elsewhere identi— fied,11 of: — structure - technology — tasks — people 10R. H. Guest, Organizational Change: The Effect Of Successful Leadership (Homewood, Illinois: Irwin— Dorsey, 1962). 11H. J. Leavitt, "Applied Organization Change in Industry: Structural, Technical, and Human Approaches,“ in New Perspectives in Organization Research, ed. by Cooper, Leavitt, and Shelly (New York: John Wiley, 1'96”), pt 55:: IN e .l C e w . 5 w. . t .3 3 r r O r. C E .C E E .4 i . u e I. a at .1 S 2. r A: t D. 0 e _ ._ r“ r. . _ a . i a c u n QC .3 T. a: ”a 2. 3 : a u S LO“ :1“ E C ._ _ e .w .. w .. P. C S w” 3 3 2C 7” a: 3 A: Lb .Q G. a: TC A: «V .7. w ... S T C Cu n m _ _ . .. _ a. . .3 _ _ it .1. w c . . ad «E . . .3 x C e S w . .: r \v tr“ 2. . » ~ ~ 5 u r .. 2. h . . r .. . _. wl . . :. . r 1 . . . 15 where: Structure refers to systems of communication, author— ity, and superior—subordinate relationships. Technology embraces technical tools, facilities, work processes and procedures. Tasks are the role behaviors of organization members as assigned to maintain the organization and achieve its goals. People are the organization‘s members (employees), their social behaviors in the work situation, and their attitudes, values, beliefs, and personal goals which influence their organization behavior. The underlying interrelationship among these com— ponents means that a change initiated in any one com— ponent may lead to consequent changes in others. Thus, a change in technology may influence, and lead to, changes in tasks, structure, and/or people. However the sequence of change through the various organization components is not inevitable, but rather it is a possible consequence of change in one or other component. In the same way that organization components are interrelated so, too, is there inter—relatedness and interdependence among the sub-parts of an organization. Thus, a change in technology in one sub—part may demand, or lead to, Changes in technology in other subrparts, in addition to changes in other organization components. A change pro— gram which seeks to modify technology only in one S .l e m S v». «C E S .. a E .. . .t C e g n e it Hi r: e N . l C P n t: n h A. n T.. n C .l - n. m . e n. O t d a O O T .L C M u - w . . . e C .1 e h .l P u . . E S u .. w . t n d C a .Tv D. C at . c a: .nu . . e e a . i a O n r a A» u hu .7. i. h... n.. ‘b A: 7.. e O 0 Z W. in a» a» r. . ‘2 A» a . e is i . 1|. .rU .Tv :I. :4. C . w u .. . h . nu w. . . . x e m o n V n W . N .. 1.. a e w t. h . l . e :I. .Q a n1 .L .. . n y. w u .n .. n5 \ t g r a .n nHC Fin 2v w m a V s . ~ ... l» J . 1 ~ Wt. 0 G9 A—v A... H‘. 2v .h . A L .. ~ A: . . n .. I A v .. 0 pm .nd 1.. .nu Av w. _ 1. . . n. . . . . z . . l6 organization sub—part, say, may do just that, and no more. On the other hand, while no consequent changes may be intended, it may be that a technological change may lead to changes in organization members' attitudes and behavior. In an extreme situation, as an example, organization members may refuse to work with new equip— ment or processes because of threats they perceive to their security, job satisfaction, or personal goal achievement.12 Through such an instance it may be seen how a technological change which would seemingly lead to organizational improvement, may produce just the reverse effect through the unanticipated, and unintended, dysfunctional change it gives rise to in the ”people” component. The organization components, or variables, can be differentiated, but with regard to change the differentia— tion is in reSpect to the point of origin of change, rather than with the exclusion of change in the other components. The relevance of this concern with the inter— relatedness of organization components and sub—parts to the present research is that consultant assisted change efforts are not infrequently restricted in scope. Thus, the total organization reSponse to an attempted change M“— 12 . . F. C. Mann and F. W. Neff, Managgng Mayor Change in Organizations (Ann Arbor: Foundation for Research on Human Behavior, 1961). 0 e S t. v. 3: . C C n .7. .t C r.“ .3 Mb“ 3 n 0 a Ty 2. W .. . . . . y a C a. .H C C . . . . x I 3 Lb .I. To a C an .: E m 5 mm .W. a a t. ..,.. :5 .l . x .. a . . . S .T... .un e .1. .C v... x . m e .nu n: . 4 s t u . P. F. h .1. . . 5 ._ A We e mt. .: .u ._ .5. M .h m 4.. .5 .. 17 program may come to be regarded as ineffective because of the resistance provided by organizational sub—parts with which the consultant‘s activities were largely unrelated. The Organization—Consultant Relationship While it appears to have been little researched, the idea that the organization-consultant relationship is a vital factor in the effectiveness of consultant assisted change efforts has appealed—~either intuitively, logically, or experientially—-to other authors. Bennis suggests that: acceptance (of change) also depends on the relation- ship between the change agent and client system: the more profound and anxiety—producing the change, the more a collaborative and closer relationship is required. In addition, we can predict that an anticipated change will be resisted to the degree that the client system possesses little or incor— rect knowledge about the change, has relatively little trust in the source of change, and has relatively low influence in controlling the nature and direction of the change. 14 A subsequent extract indicates: the quality of the relationship is pivotal to the success of the change program 15 Bennis then asks: What social processes inhibit implementation of valid ideas and what social processes facilitate implementation? For example, the relationship 13B. Lippitt, J. Watson and B. Westley, The Dynamics of Planned Change_(New York: Harcourt Brace and World, Inc., 1958). Chapter One contains a well argued exposition of this aspect. lMW . G. Bennis, Changing Organizations (New York: MCGraw— Hill, 1966), . I75. 15 Ibid. p. 176. 13 between St in underst tion withi ships betw the firm a and unders ‘9‘: 71:‘:" T‘VS'Q} .4... .\-.‘e~U—v..-- aaclient 575 sweets :: iithe assssis thhe . :er' -.. -, .5 3 .4“ a 1%; _ ‘ “at... _, ks- ~ ~11- '\ r 18 between staff and line is probably significant in understanding the process of knowledge utiliza- tion within the firm. Similarly, the relation— ships between external consultants and members of the firm are equally crucial. Can we identify and understand the qualities of an effective "helping relationship"? What modes of collabora— tion have been developed which lead to achievement of goals?16 Lippit et al. considered that the success of the change effort rests heavily on the quality and workability of the relationship between the change agent (consultant) and client system (organization)—-and that many vital aspects of this relationship are established very early in the association. For example, a crucial feature is mw the client system begins to think about the change agent.17 A similar notion was employed by Tilles in sug— gesting that the determinants of the ultimate outcome of a client-consultant relationship are probably manifested . . l8 much before the final stages of the relationsh1p. Differentiating the Relationship That there exists concensus as to the importance of the organization—consultant relationship can remain only as an interesting concept until some descr1pt1ons or l6Ibid., pp. 204—205. 17R. Lippit, J. Watson, and B. Westley, op. cit., Chapter 6. 188. Tilles, "An Exploratory Study of the Relat1on— ship Between The Executives of Small Manufacturing ta— Companies and Consultants” (unpubllshed Ph.D. d1ss::s tiOn, Harvard University, Graduate School of Bus1n Administration, 1960). ch 0 1 maasures wh. .alibers, 01 mp y. < will is tas‘. r! 19 measures which can distinguish between different types, or calibers, or orders, of relationships can be developed. This task will be approached through a consideration of the organizational change process and the initiation of the organization—consultant relationship. In gross terms, organization change will be attempted in order to achieve any, or all, of: (i) improvement in productivity (ii) improvement in the perceived satisfaction of organization members or owners (iii) enhancement of personal goal attainment of organization members or owners. ("Productivity” is here used in a global sense with both quantitative and qualitative denotations, to describe a relationship between the "value“ of organization outputs and the "cost” of inputs.) In most change situations, it is likely that improvement in productivity will be a primary purpose, yet it must be allowed that some changes which attempt an improvement in member satisfaction may also be encountered. Such attempts to improve worker satisfac— tion may be made to achieve ultimate productivity improve— ments——perhaps over the course of a longer time horizon—— but may also reflect the social conscience of the Organization with regard to its felt obligation to the "peOple” component. iza Organ Vv t Lb VA 6 _ n _ .1 r a v e d“ W 2. in“... AVII. . .- u. A V v H. H . 1 .. _ . _ .. _ .. . .t u . e E E .3. a 3 . e C r. r“ w. T ». ~_y by Amy fly A—y C. C C. C. C. 20 Organization change programs may be initiated for a wide variety of reasons, each having more or less validity. External (environmental) pressures for change may derive from: (i) (ii) (iii) (iV) (v) (vi) perceived changes in market needs, conditions, structure, or other market parameters. perceived changes in technology. perceived changes in scientific (including the behavioral sciences) knowledge. perceived changes in the availability of resources. perceived changes in culture and cultural values (including legislative and legal sanctions). perceived changes in the requirements or objectives of the organization's owners. Likewise, it may be that pressure for change stems from internal forces such as: (i) (ii) (iii) (iV) changes in the values or goals of organization members. perceived inadequacies in present performance. the awareness of change programs in other (reference) organizations. internally developed technological improvements. The mere (or assumed) existence of any of these external or internal forces is not considered a suffi— cient condition for any attempt to initiate change, however the presence of one or more of these forces would Lr. r; changes ,. , appear to be a e V. .nu hich cou .A. \\<~ .t “A“. - \,:_ ~5..m .‘ s u. .wal 21 appear to be a necessary condition for change. The excep— tions to this may be the changed availability or unavail— ability of resources, the demands of organization owners, and changes in legislative or legal sanctions——any of which could represent a sufficient condition for initiating a change program. The recognition, or assumption, of the existence of any of the previously listed conditions may, however, prompt the organization to initiate action which is intended to lead to organization change, and might reasonably be considered as the first phase of the change process. From this point, an organization may seek to identify more precisely the nature of changed conditions or per— ceived inadequacies through some process of investigation or diagnosis; or otherwise assume their nature and extent. Whether through investigation, or assumption, the establishment of the precise nature of changes in the external and/or internal environments, or the identifica— tion and definition of perceived inadequacies, permits the organization to consider the adaptive responses which could establish congruency between the organization's goals, resources, and behavior, and its environments. From the array of possible action programs which it is able to develOp, the organization will then select those it considers most capable and probable of leading to the accomplishment of its re—defined goals. t ,g. i I l The requ athers which m :hen attempted action program The assi 22 The required organization changes, along with others which may neither be required nor intended, are then attempted through the implementation of the selected action programs. The assistance of an external consultant may be enlisted for any, all, or none of these phases of the organization change process. The reasons why an organi— zation may or may not seek consultant help in its con- frontation with the change process, are not properly the concern of this research, even though they would appear to constitute an important question, and one deserving of investigation. Similarly, it is not the intent of the present research to attempt to determine why an organization may elect neither to develop nor implement programs of adaptation when facing environmental forces which would seem to sponsor action rather than inaction. With the focus on the organization—consultant relation— ship, this research will be concerned with those organi— zations which plan some adaptive response, and of these, only those which seek the assistance of an external change— agent or consultant. The use of the term ”organization—consultant rela- tionship” provides, per se, little meaning as it is broad and lacks specificity. It is clear that it is not the organization, an inanimate entity of itself, which does or does not initiate action. Rather, action decisions F. .V E lL r C .. . C. . . 5. . . I . t I.\ ) .92. S e 3 T: C .. 1 n. n... u . 1 1 .. 1 n S .b .l h" .3 1 . 3 5 w. 5 E S .2 3 .3 a . e s r S C .. 1 n C. 3 5 .2 i 1 . ... T. ..1 m “I. e , S .1 en a .3 C . . . 1 A. ., ...a n .. e 0 .0 VJ a .b n 9 .. c a: e C. n . .3 a 5 5 T 7: 1|. t m .I. a a ...‘u n u .. u «C S. E 3 x: .. 1 p e D» w. L w 7. .v a» . v Q» a; 1.. . x. . ... v .. .. . ..... .2 2e m .l m .a n :1. .‘_ w; 3 .. _ . e .. . x e .. 1 .2 .1 P .l. n3 w.“ Hu 2. A: an .2 «C a . 1. . i U. nu u LU ...: S :y .. L . . 1 w . x . a x. d O 0 fly .I. ~.: w" .\v s v V. .: .fi. . . n. F. 1|. 1‘. .‘A V . A . 2y r. . v... .. . _ . . s r . i. v ‘ 2.x 0. ..L .. / .2 . . . . T . . . . . . ... . . . t . 23 and implementation are the behavior of individual members—— proprietors (who may or may not be considered as organiza— tion members) and employees——of the organization. Par— ticularly, that behavior leading to the securing of con— sultant assistance is the result of decisions taken by organization members, and while the bases for such pro— consultant decisions are not the primary focus of this research, it is nevertheless felt that this research project can, and should attempt to, shed some useful light on this aspect, The organization—consultant relationship is composed of a number of relationships between the consultant and each of possibly several individual organization members. It is further complicated by the relationships and inter— actions among the organization members themselves° It is entirely reasonable to allow that the several relationships between individual members and the consultant could be markedly different, and that the already frequently referenced ”organization—consultant relationship" can be perceived as a single conglomerate relationship only by the consultant, and only after he has integrated the, perhaps several, different individual relationships he perceives, lnevitably, this situation becomes much more complex, and much less tractable where: (1) several, rather than few, organization members are significantly involved with the consultanta there 1 ..I. ll. members 18 puP ) there a i- /: \ consult ZN .L ~I ‘\ 5L my" ”..n .n u n “1 a c .1 . c w. ._ _ .l. e .3 Di Wu «M Tu O 5 n WA. a: S. r. C W." w . :c F» A v r u 2. .L W“ n u .4 v 2. n u r i 2 . w m A.“ I . 1 A 24 (ii) there is less, rather than more, consensus among members as to the course which the organization is pursuing vis—a-vis consultant.assistance. (iii) there are several, rather than one, individual consultants assigned to the project. A further consideration is the concept of relation— ship itself. While it may be envisaged as the style or manner of interaction between the organization—member(s) and consultant, it is difficult to measure or describe in a manner which allows differentiation. However, factors which influence the conditions under which the relationship occurs, and the feelings and attitudes of inter-acting individuals can be identified and classified. Beyond this, it is by inference and assumption that dif— ferences in these conditions and influencing factors are considered to result in differences in the nature of the organization—consultant relationship. There are many phases of the organization—consultant association where differences in conditions and influencing factors can occur. These include: (i) the nature of the organizational situation leading to the consideration of consultant assistance. (ii) the reason(s) for electing to use a consultant. (iii) the nature of discussions and decisions taken within the organization prior to the retention of the consultant. the es1 v) . . I . . 1 . . . . .. d O t n O n. .l. ) to .3 .c S n u C C O E u S n“ S ,C E a . C ..l. e .1 n 5 ..t e l .1 A c e .. c C e .J ...v 0 e W” n w . O S . u .nA. n h b a .l .n 0 e e .... . ._ . :wu . . ..l. t 0 0. LL ..b C ‘m ... ,_ t n1. 5 m m ~ . 5 .. 2» iv v“— .nu ‘ Z _ . r” \l/ .2 .1 1 "ml r u L .. a u {\ J . . _ _ . . . x. Rn; " . \n. x._“" “.N\, m. V“ D\. ‘V“ 25 (iv) the establishment of the consultant association including the scope and limiting constraints of the consulting assignment, the explication of objectives and duties, and the extent of partici- pation by organization members in the determina- tion of these conditions. (v) the arrangements for the working phase of the consulting assignment including reporting arrange- ments, bases for evaluation, involvement of dif— ferent parties in the development of recommenda— tions and in their implementation. Thus the research will infer a different relationship in the situation where the assignment decision was made by the Board of Directors and imposed on the organization, than in the situation where the decision was made by unanimous concensus of, say, the chief operating executive and all members of his immediately subordinate management team. Similarly, significant differences in other aspects of consultant selection, engagement, scope, and conduct of assignment will be bases for inferring dif— ferences in the nature of the organization-consultant relationship. Tilles' research19 highlighted the importance of the structure of the client system and the fact that the people in the system——the management members and lgIbid. h h 0 e W n.» e .1. S l. ... V . v .1 y ml at. T e on ..u a ,1 .n u .n a n.“ N . «.1. l .n pl. L V S ...u S v _ ....“ 3 nu. C S t (\ . n n 4 o O . . .... . l a .l a a n S S O .T. C n . .... C e .... E 1 h v... w a .l. e l n» ..-. no a; .t n. at w . u W O ...u .‘_ ..l. _ a: s . C ..l_ 3 l a n Tu ._ c w .u a. 3 h. e ...a .1 S V s u m an. r. r.” A: ...... S 2. 2. .n e t D. a ..I. .D 2» D. a» A: . a . 4 ..a a: {o . . w .. n1 :1. .n n Em .... .... Q. is we. is a h DE A: C fl. _ A4 _ A .... "Iv 1. _ a . n: .... p s b .nn flu A.» ....w .... ..v :v a 4 ... . .... _ . ~ 26 particularly the chief executive—~form personal relation— ships which have a strong influence on the organization's behavior. The chief executive, and the type of person he is, was found to be a key factor in the client— consultant relationship which Tilles examined in his study of small (fewer than five hundred employees) manufacturing companies. Consistent with this, it was shown that the client is the more important party in determining the client—consultant relationship, and that within the client system it was the sponsor, generally the chief executive, of the consultant‘s intervention who provided the origin, focus, and dimensions of the consulting assignment. Tilles' work suggests a number of factors which would appear to have relevance to the present research project. These are: — the client system is a group of people who are rarely neutral with respect to the situation which a con- sultant has been asked to examine. - the personality of the chief executive is a key factor and may, of itself, preclude the organization from accepting advice from an external source even where this has been requested. — relationships are more difficult to identify and determine where the organization has no structure. the personality and competence of the individual consultant is of far greater importance than the consulting firm he represents. J . the relat espect fit I’ 'lli 'he W1 3 1H4 A- r:‘- ....L ...» an ; .- V‘\ cw- ..-... "1“ *-n\A\-‘ 27 — the relative emphasis on problem diagnosis with respect to the development, evaluation and implementa— tion of recommended change programs. - the willingness of the consultant to adopt the role allocated to him by the client. - the nature of the initial contact between the con— sultant and organization members. — the ways in which organization members perceive, or interpret, the consultant's assignment. — the division of responsibility between organization members and the consultant. — the nature of the organization's request for help. — differences in the functional orientations of the consultant and the several organization members involved in the relationship as the bases for mis— understandings concerning the consulting assignment. — the nature of the expected working relationship between organization members and the consultant. — the definition and explication of the assignment's objectives. — the sharing of client information with the con— sultant and the feeding back of information from consultant to client. — the intended bases for evaluation of the assignment. While the emergence of such factors from a small number of case studies can only be of interest, rather .1 T. S Y. ..L F .t E a h _ . . . . . : _ . . . t . n D. a e a 2 . n . a: .. a . . S ._ . fin 5 :. . t l b O. ...n o "c C 5 .. f. .t a: : a... .. i i... e e r” at ... . c .1; .. . D. .x u ‘T v... «H . ‘ R x S h .I. e U. a w.” w... .. _ ..H . . 5 .. . «t ...... it no. 3 i i t a .n ..-. a a: . _ A: .. _ ... . ..... v... .c s _ S n.. x . DI. C r. e .3 .t pm a: a . a; ..... 5 ... . T. .. . c 0 LI]. :1. no 9. . . r“ .... " ... . c a . .3 .x u . c x o .. l C P. a: m. ”a I: . . ,2 .. at. . ... ... i. n e .1. W. A: at ... . «E w M ... .3 .. .. .2 a v. D. .wu r“ lo n. . _ «c I. .... a. .2 Q. h .1. m no 4.. a. .3 ... . . w. .1 .. .... ... k a.“ Air .1 :. ..y Ap. fly. ... we. 5 .. ... .... _ . \. LL 28 than of significance, it would appear worthwhile to direct the present research toward providing the empirical bases which could establish their significance. The Personality of the Chief Executive The personality of the chief executive was one area to receive attention in Tilles' study,20 and was con— sidered an important element in the organization- consultant relationship, regardless of whether the chief executive was involved as sponsor of the consulting assignment. Tilles recognized that the chief executive's personality may preclude the organization being helped at all by an outside source, either because it may not allow him to initiate a request for help, or because it may prompt him to reject or ignore any advice offered. Tilles associated an inability to delegate in the superior—subordinate relationship with an inability to make effective use of an external consultant. A person— ality which is highly independent and self-sufficient was considered likely to have greater difficulty in recog— nizing the need for help, and in accepting it, if and when offered. Further, this same independence of per— Sonality was likely to cause the chief executive to view the consultant as an expediency, and prompt him to question, modify, or reject any recommendations which may 2OIbid., Chapter II. e S a t .t e r“ .J .. o 2. .L .L h r O. S a .n A: AC. TC .n; wfiu . 4 we ‘3 .x“ ...-» {v T e O ...n .... n» w . n .1 e .Q. a. . c .5. al.. 5 a. D. a m W n u .... S .l r.” 9 n... as . . A: C. s a W. .t .n a n: n c. «C S v-.. I e S e .Tv I V .t a: .n .J ...“ m C H. ) l . e h ..l. k S . e 5 ..-. C T. S ... 5 .fi .. x c 5 d Lb a u C 1.. M.“ _ v w. 2... »m 3: . . ... . ~... . . nd. 6 m ..IL a: e .. _ r.“ 2. _ :c ) w... 2. p .. m an WI. A: h. a: A: .n .. . . .3 2. .3 . . «3 LL e n .z ...n ...: n . .3 .. . .2 . . n. ., A .2 h . e ..|. n D. 0 At a... r" ... ... ... "J ... n. w. .... ... b .Jn ..b a» .3 .... C ... .... .... ... ... ... ... . . .2 .. . o 29 be made. The question which arises from this concern with the personality of the chief executive is whether there is a particular, identifiable personality type which can make most effective use of consultant help and, if so, just what characteristic does this personality possess. Rokeach's theory of belief systems21 is considered to be of relevance to this aspect and has an associated measur— ing instrument——the Dogmatism Scale——available for dif— ferentiating the related personality characteristic of research subjects. Rokeach, whose work derives from the much—studied authoritarian personality, proposes that human personality is a cognitive system made up of belief systems and disbelief systems-—representing the beliefs, sets, expectancies, hypotheses, and the organization or arrangement of these cognitions into systems, At any given time those cognitions which a person accepts as being true for the world he lives in comprise his belief systems, and those he rejects as false represent his disbelief systems. Rokeach's theory recognizes four dif— ferent types, or orders, of beliefs, and describes the organization of the cognitive system as consisting of inter—dependent belief and disbelief systems arranged on a continuum of which the extremities are open (open— mindedness) and closed (closed—mindedness or dogmatic). The way a person's belief—disbelief systems are 21M. Rokeach, op, cits S n S t y e w. e w. E ,3 .3 S 3 C i : _ S E I .1 0 e .1 a .l. .l .t C. .7. a is T: 5 nu w .. .3 ...n S C S V h m Dy ... AC «7. nn .3 .Nu m: e nu n w; xx mi N; ‘1 u :i d w; a @D "V e 5 x) : . C .1 wt“ .2 5.. .. i «t : . C C P. ,3 U \L e e h DD 0 ..l. b C . y. .3 .1 .. it n” nu. iv :i Q Hi ‘ i 3 Z p e n D .b 5 . _ /\ a: n. at .... i .. i ‘ a t a .1 b :1. a .7. P. Wu «C n. . {u . . nu n. x: n my. W. .‘_ and r. «a. .n‘n A: «C A: a. n _ K,” a e .11. e A: . . .. .. . Q~ a: {a : l i y 00 h .l. d n; .1 n“ l w . _ . . . v, r v u nu. LL ..I. T r; ... w . ..u .... ... \ .,.. :i s. i . 0 0 "W O .2 t; at .L 3. AV .. a. t. 7.. .t ‘ \ 3O organized is asserted to determine how he would assess other persons, ideas, or events, That is, whether he will behave in an open—minded or closed-minded way in ordering his view of reality. Dogmatism (closed—mindedness) is defined as: (a) a relatively closed cognitive organization of beliefs and disbeliefs about reality, (b) organized around a central set of beliefs about absolute authority which in turn, (c) provides a framework for patterns of intolerance and qualified tolerance of others.22 High dogmatism is further characterized by a high magnitude of rejection of all disbelief systems, an isolation of beliefs, a high discrepancy in degree of differentiation between belief and disbelief systems, and little differentiation within the disbelief system, It is assumed that the more closed the system, the more the world is perceived as threatening, and the greater the belief in absolute authority. Absolute reliance on authority by the closed- minded person has a concomitant effect in the utilization of irrational rather than rational modes of decision— making, or in evaluating persons, ideas, or events, A consequence of this concept is that persons dif— fering in belief system structures will differ in the manner by which they obtain information, and also differ in their assessment of the information they obtain, The M 2 2M. Rokeach, ”The Nature and Meaning_of Dogmatism," Psychological Review, 61 (1954), pp, 194—204. more closed 5 other personf authority 50‘ authority $01 as other ind: ”We“ . .. , Dutchmen 1C‘~ 9.“ :ae sane syszexs ”.31; 1:213:33. :. "vc‘os‘n " I‘v‘ ...u... but“; :';...1€"‘ ‘M 2: ”at t t». ..c.» uh ”’2 “an '.~~ -- .. c. ..c .- »~~ _ ”3‘ ‘ .. to m- . M “«~\ t \i .~ ‘ka, ._ 2mm, . c n s A ffexkp ~ A it, “a 31 more closed a person's cognitive structure, the more other persons or ideas will be evaluated in terms of the authority sources from which they derive, where such authority sources can be groups or institutions, as well as other individuals perceived as authority figures. An individual with a relatively closed system may sometimes accept change and sometimes show resistance—— for the same reasono Change and resistance in open systems may result equally from a correct, rational appraisal of reality, that is, from independence of, rather than subservience to, conformity pressures. Further, it is not the case that an open—minded person does not at all rely on authority figures and sources—— rather, he will evaluate these rationally, Thus, open— minded persons are more concerned with the content of information than with its source, With regard to information—seeking behavior the Open—minded, or low dogmatism, person will have a ten— dency to become acquainted with disbeliefso That is, he will want to learn about ideas and practices which differ from those he now follows and has accepted as desirable or appropriate. The dogmatism concept has relevance to this research with respect to the individual's information— seeking behavior and adoption of new ideas or practices C I ._ . c. C . x ,E .x I. .. . . . J _ e d t at .3 e e ... wl. .7. V. C 3 C ..u a: a C 3 i » . b .. S a e ..-. d . . .. _ a . my. .3 S .3 i . C m ..I n . n} .. l w. . i C 3 ..b h e m S .t n.“ C a o .1 E v T. S a c a t T C S . l y n Go nu. P O .l :4 a .3 K .3 a: m ... C n. e ... . n. l t a a .l O D. n m. r. n” S 5 Wm mu 3 S .... u} n. C. m ..b H 0 pl X .1.“ _ C. ..T. 3 a ._ . _ at a _ .. . C 2. l . 5 ‘ . .l. LL u on ...v :‘u my .4. Am i . .v .. i Q. hi 3 i \u h u ..l. n; n: in .L 3 a: :c a: it .p.. ‘ o A; c S .G so At .3 A: 2» .. ._ w“ w .u .2 w m w r g . s L. Q. ..I. nun n ”N n . W». n 4 W" n J .3 . t T: . t T: i . s u. ‘3 e. h 0 A.» A: A.» It. . . 5. . o .. a . . . _ . . .s e s _ .A :. ... W “V .L r: W“ W.» ..1 ... in w... . . in \. xn 2‘ . » it u _ . 32 which may be proposed by an external source, such as a consultant. High dogmatism, or closed—minded, persons will tend to restrict their access to, and acquisition of, new information, whereas open—minded persons will be more exposed to new information and thus have more opportunities for adopting new practices. Further, the closed—minded person will tend to reject, or not adopt, a new practice if it does not conform with his accepted ways of doing things, or with the recommendations of his authority figures. However, it would be incorrect to posit an inverse relationship between dogmatism and adope tion, as adoption could be high if recommended by the high dogmatism's authority figures. The conforming nature of closed—minded persons with those they perceive positively will tend to produce such a result. The current research will attempt to relate the dogmatism measure of executives with their information— seeking behavior (use of external consultants) and their adoption of innovations (acceptance and implementation of the proposals recommended by external consultants). Previous research, however, does not provide strong SUpport for the hypothesis that adoption and innovative— ness is related to openmindedness. In his research into the adoption of new practices by farmers, Jamais did establish a weak, negative correlation between dogmatism .\ (L (x .l. E .{x .I 1 _ .L J _ A k r . .2 .. _ . s i c v . x . .1 r n .1 S H” a r. . . «t S C i c E C . i t e a and e t C T. E a n e p t 2‘ S n} a DD . n u an .. _ .L D: a... ... . “d . l a... V O m e n: a C .__ h. To C 5 3 .. T x: 0 DD. 5 h ..V H .3 mu 3 C "x ”a a: n .1 Hi. ..I. .vxu «D :c i. pl pt w . ! n , t ,3 Ti. w . .\J a: a». .n n J . ..I. y a At 2. 2c .va 7 _ val“ hi“ 5 . . .d m n: w, a. 5 a. . v .n.. . _ r. .1 d u 00 n7. . . .... u . ... . . : i n .. m LIV O ... . J n u ..c .. _ w. _ J. k P .. .2 QB ‘d A... r» n.. » . . . a . . J ..x Q» A y 33 and innovativeness.23 Similarly, in an earlier rural study, Rogers showed a weak, negative correlation between dogmatism and the adoption of recommended farm practices.‘2L1 Measures of Effectiveness The difficulty in identifying and measuring the effectiveness of organization change has been recognized by many authors. While changes in organizational vari— ables such as sales, profits, employee turnover, can be measured it is not possible to link such changes causa— tively with other changes which may have been made in any of the organization's components of tasks, structure, technology, or people. It is clear that in the field setting of the organization-consultant relationship there will have been too many uncontrolled and unmeasured factors outside of the organization-consultant relation— ship, but acting contemporaneously, which could have given rise to historically described and/or measured Changes in any objective organization variables. Carlson furnishes evidence that clients, and researchers undertaking market investigations on their behalf, employ different criteria for evaluating such ____~______________l. 23J, F. Jamais, "The Effects of Belief system Styles on the Communication and Adoptlo? Of Farm“ Practices” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1964). 2HE. M. Rogers, ”Personality Correlates of the Adoption of Technological Practices," Rural SOCio ogy, 22 (1957), pp. 267—268. ”H studies, and between clie: quently, the notion of a . satisfied wi‘ Lippit agent can re: 4. ) , \\_‘ 3 ”.- «p “x in ig‘J‘ .-1+> 34 studies, and that such criteria are seldom communicated between client and external consultant.25 Most fre— quently, the criterion of effectiveness is a subjective notion of a client as to whether he likes, or feels satisfied with, the consultant's job. Lippit and his colleagues recognize that the change agent can rarely tell, or be told, how much influence he has had on his client system's course of change.26 Accordingly, it is considered necessary to rely on essentially subjective evaluations, made by key organization members, of the perceived effectiveness of the consultant assisted change efforts, including the identification of organizational characteristics in which they perceive improvements, and the identification of factors and conditions which led to misunderstandings, or incomplete implementation of the consultant’s recom— mendations. Summary The literature provides support for the hypothesis that the relationship between an organization and its retained consultant will influence the effectiveness of their collaborative efforts. Some evidence is available ~i____________w____ 25R. O. Carlson, "High Noon in the Research Market Place,” The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 25, No° 3 (Fall, 1961), p. 331. 26R. Lippit, J. Watson, and B. Westley, op. cit., Chapter VII. from the ob studies of ‘ empirical e' These importance < These same case studies directed attention to the {importance of the personality of the chief executive in influencing his organization's use and acceptance of consultant advice, and the theory developed on the ‘ nature of individual belief systems provides a means for ‘ operationalizing and testing this concept. vi. :L 7,. .7. .3 5 e i . .1. A.“ .1 nu mi, 3 e n: vi. .4 . U i . Wu a: i . .2 5 C Q“ n ‘ Ru w” n: T. n: C n. .... kn ms n.. S i; e O f: a. 1. .C a. A. it A; mu L N t A. ,n“ .l. w. .n.. 3‘ A: v... i. : e «t i i — . a. at a. .u «c .d. 1: .3 . 4‘ «» a i S . _ {c .3 a, A. s i \C . _ 1. s: .? VJ I a c I. . n . .\< ~ . \ v — .y» a . FL. 2 ‘ . x — ~\~ » .. . . ~_\ \ s ‘ ~ ._ ;. :_ i. , s. .: CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY This research was undertaken to test the hypotheses that: (i) the effectiveness of consultant assisted organiza— tional change programs is a function of the organization—consultant relationship. (ii) the use of external consultants and the acceptance of their recommendations by organizations is related to the openmindedness of their chief executivese A collateral objective is to survey the use of external consultants with respect to certain organization character- isticso While there is an abundance of sources which emphasize the importance of the organization—consultant relationship, such references are almost exclusively 'homiletic, and unsupported by significant empirical evidence which alone can confirm their veracity, InSpec— tion of the literature failed to reveal any prior empiri— cal research in the reference area (iae., with respect to the fundamental research hypothesis) and thus the attempt here is in the nature of a pioneering incursion 36 into an area of Tilles; same problex approach way organizatio: 3:" informat 37 into an area of vital concern and significance. The work of Tilles,27 however, was to some extent directed at the same problem as is being addressed in this project. His approach was to examine and report on ten separate organization—consultant relationships through an analysis of information obtained from interviews, observations, and discussions with members of these organizations, and also with their consultants. His case study type of approach did not provide the empirical base which is the objective of the present research, but it was based on that author's notion that the determinants of the outcome of a client— consultant relationship are probably manifested much before the final stages of the relationship. The fundamental research hypothesis concerning the effectiveness of consultant assisted change efforts and the organization consultant relationship required: (i) the identification of organizations which have used the services of external consultants. (ii) the means for distinguishing between different types or natures of organization—consultant relationships. (iii) measures, or descriptions, of the resulting effectiveness of the consultant assisted change efforts. 27 Seymour Tilles, Op. cit. In adc‘ mindedness ( measurement aspects of 1 tion of tho: ()1 I n) ’J ‘4‘. [\1 p) ( J _) < 32‘ ESSQECE w 38 In addition, the hypothesis concerning the open— mindedness of the organizations' chief executives required measurement of such open—mindedness. Finally, the survey aspects of the research projects required the identifica— tion of those organizational characteristics considered to be relevant. The basis for the identification of different organization—consultant relationships is the inference, or assumption, that differences in the initial arrange— ments and negotiations within the client organization itself, and then between organization and consultant, will lead to differences in their relationships. These factors are considered to comprise: (l) differences in the organization problems or situation leading to the consideration of obtain— ing external assistance. (2) differences in the reasons for using an external consultant. (3) considerations made in the organization prior to the decision about the assistance to be sought. (4) considerations concerning the nature of the con— sulting assignment. (5) considerations of the working arrangements between consultant and organization. h. .C E C E E d e C Z .l O at I 5 v. C E x »: a S .1. .t S n” ... . . _ v. . c C W ... S e n ..- S a e C .. d nu a. i “H. . . t S C n i n y VD a n ..l .1 S s i C .3 C .T. 3 w} .l. a at CC ..i ah 2o nu w“ w u 2. .l a» a t x: m P. a e e .n. 3 3 ._ _ I ._ i 5 5 n. Dy 0 Lb nv .. . hu. 2» 1v 1 i ‘3 e; ‘ ~ K, . g y n V. .hu .. a» ..y .. h: a . rt. ‘. ..l o e A.» F-C A: . _ ~u V“ A: 2» ‘\~ nv « c “L. .1. .«Vru .Inwu -. i. .v . “A w... \ c a“ .n u a s .. A .. n s t . _ D _ T“ .3 w“ .v ... .. .. .. i .... E. «u. .2 .. . ..t Nature of the Problem or Situation Leading to the Decision to Obtain External Assistance In addition to those occasions on which an organiza— tion may seek consultant help are those other occasions where the consultant is the initiator——seeking to interest the organization in using his services. The consultant might initiate such a contact as a "cold—canvass," or on the basis of information about the organization's diffi— culties as reported by a related third party, or by independent informants. In any case, where the consultant initiated contact leads to his retention by the organiza— tion for the purpose of providing assistance in effecting organization changes, such instance will be the legitimate concern of this research. It is expected, however, that the organization will generally initiate contact with the consultant with a request for services, or with an invitation to the consultant to make a preliminary diag— nostic investigation of an organizational situation as a basis for developing and submitting a proposal and quotation concerning the assistance that could be supplied. The following generalized descriptions relate to the occasions on which consultant assistance may be sought: (1) the organization requires an audit of some or all of its components to confirm that their present arrange— ment represents the "optimum" condition with respect to n e a t T e C I Y. E y . _ _ t . . . O T m ml .1 O .I. 3 n C C: o. 3 w. m. C u... i. A. ..l. mi 0 S .D e 9. .7. n“ 3 2. I. ..\u . . t x: t u n e a H a: .... w” ... "\ so .... 9 . T. a C O 5 GD h ..I. .t a» a.“ .x. 5 .r a ...n ...“ ..J I I Z :1. m n t Di 3 . . . i. ”in . . ... . . .L T. :u .....— e at a ..l. .1. n AL a... a c w .. . n h a P. Lb . I. \i 1 A: .2 a: x c Q. . . s . \ a Lb u ".0 «D ) n“ i. m m \x« .3 w u x : . v. . 2. it : . 00 LL 0. :l :l a» .7. m. .. .wu w" .. . .. z. .5 .. r. 0 .I. p. VA .... flu J. A . _ r" . t _ . . .y . 2. t 0 .../u s D. A.» II t .i. rw\ 1. . \ s.— . . ~ 2‘ M . Va 43‘“- N» .V' #0 organization objectives and resources, and with respect to the current state of knowledge and technology. This situation may give rise to recommendations for change programs or may simply confirm the adequacy of the existing situation. (ii) the organization desires to make improvements in identifiable areas of one or more of its components. (iii) the organization perceives a need to conduct training activities to effect improvement of member per— formance in areas it considers to be inadequate. (iv) the organization requires assistance in identifying and solving problems where it recognizes only their consequences rather than their causes or nature. (v) the organization requires evaluation and recommenda— tion of various available problem solutions where con— sensus or resolution cannot be made among organization members. (vi) the organization requires investigation and/or action with respect to identified problem situations where they have the ability to solve these, but not the capacity——in terms of available organization members—-to do so at the time required. (vii) the organization requires an investigation and analysis of external environmental conditions which can reveal the degree of inconsistency of the present arrangement of organization components with respect thereto. e t ...v . e S e .1 C. n. 21 . e e 3 so . u ... E . s . . . C .... O h n n .1. n e h C E T C _ . E . . 3 i r: S 3 t .l e U t F. ..t a .t m. a. a :e S 2. E n E u .. 1. n} n. m 0T. D. r. u 5 s . 3 .l. .1 w .u .l T C . _ n. : . S .3. m e S no no I. T. . . z. w. «A ...... . . .... a. mu 3 V S 5 .C D. 2. vi. I. . c . . .. at .1 w. u. S .l O 0 e ..t : _ uJ w m v. n. C v, . . .. a . : . x: v ..l. P. c \l/ ..x. .D n; J _ 2. :c v. .. . . . a i... we I. ... _.. . ..l. s D. c VA \I w. W. . .. “L . 2. o _ : . n . u . . . V t m u :i flu VA . c 2. A s «C ..A rt L .. _. .... . . t . . . . g i ..l. J}. Cu II\ .t I it w . .. . . . .3 ... ... . . . . .2 x . . . . Al (viii) the organization requires external assistance as its own internal efforts to resolve problems or effect improvements have been unsuccessful or only partially successful. (ix) the organization perceives some value in adding to its prestige through associating with a consultant. (x) the organization is motivated by "political" considerations to secure the services of a consultant to carry out programs which it would find disadvantageous to implement itself. Reasons for Using an External Consultant The organization will have at least one, and possibly several, reasons for obtaining the assistance of an external consultant in attempting to develop and implement appropriate organizational adaptations to perceived environmental changes. In addition to the possibility that this initial orientation may relate differentially to ultimate effectiveness, such reason(s) may also influence the ensuing organization—consultant relation— ship. The reason(s) for enlisting consultant help are considered to derive from the organization's perceptions concerning: (1) a consultant's superior ability (i.e., superior with respect to the abilities of organization members) to provide new ideas and a fresh approach to the organiza— tion's problems. i___‘ . ( f ( C h t C m ..t C C 3 5 _ _ C v. ._ _ 3 2. ... t u 0 n a . e S .. .. S ... u a 1x. a v.1 e 9. ,.t a .C a a p c T. S . t y 0 pl 3 n“ Go m .u :o 3 Pl 5 e e r n r. at n n c .l. .O «Y. m.“ y. . C 0 w.” I x: \x t by \/ a» D. «C :c I. . u i u ._ . \D/ n .l. :I. n \V« .i. r. w" w. \ 1 r“ .3 .. ... ..I. e b .l ..l. A: .vUv nu. rim \ .y .. _ We _ a y . _ . L. 4 . :1 d n.‘— ll. an. h 1|. — m r: 1 hp h . i .. . Tu ... .. . ( .I. «D /. \ CC . v /1 w. w. a V w. . . _ . ... . . n- ..L W mw 42 (ii) a consultant's superior ability to diagnose and identify the organization's problems and evaluate pos— sible solutions. (iii) a consultant‘s specialized skills and experiences gained from other organizations which may be applied to the present situation. (iv) a consultant's superior ability to introduce and implement change programs in an effective and efficient manner. (v) a consultant's ability to provide independent opinion based on unbiased judgment and comparative freedom from organizational involvement and its consequences. (vi) a consultant's superior ability to train organiza— tion members in techniques and skills required to handle existing situations or those likely to emerge. (vii) the availability of a consultant to undertake the necessary work at the time required where competent organization members cannot be made available. (viii) the confidential nature of the organization's problem wherein the consultant can provide protection against the disclosure of organization identity, or gain information to which the organization would not other— wise have access. C. C e C rt 11. ft 7. .l _ , A . _ . . .L l h y ..I. C. a: mi .nc Wu .. i A: .t l t k e t l t "V9 .1. Ci 9. .7. S n .. 2c M. :d u u m\. C h .0 a .n T. n7. n1. 5 vi. a: n» C 3. .2 mi. 0 a Z A ... _ . _ S n . A c C: 4 i C. _ L i» Liv LU ..1. .Il. a: a. O n \u A.» .w. i . y H; ~ ~ .7. n ad u C. C. _v ‘ , ‘y ”a ~.. Mn .Q V a it 1‘. at n». x x, .7. i C C x S n6 AC :3 n ...; u . :11 A» . _ z . ~ ‘ i .3 2c 2» n .. u e “nu n; «C r‘u .. _ .. _ .ru cc . . : _ _ .3 s .. T“ n. 1 z r i .II. .7. n4 w“ ... .. y , . v _»u k» \ a: .. «3 «e \. Ll[‘\‘ ‘ 223/ “ Considerations Within the OrganizatiOn Prior to a Decision About the Assistance to be Sought The considerations of organization members which lead to the securing of consultant assistance will inevitably have an effect on the nature of the ensuing organization—consultant relationship, which the funda— 1 mental hypothesis underlying this research posits to be influential in determining the effectiveness of collabora— tive efforts. The relevant questions to be considered are: (i) which organization member, or members, initiates the possibility, or desirability, of considering consultant help? (ii) which organization members discuss this possi— bility? (iii) which organization member makes the decision to seek consultant help, or is this decision made outside the organization? (For these considerations any non— executive member of the organization's Board of Directors, or corporate personnel in the case where the organization is a division or subsidiary of a larger corporate entity, would be regarded as being ”outside" the organization,) (iV) at what level in the organization was the pro— consultant decision ultimately authorized? (V) what was the extent of concensus or disagreement among those organization members to be affected, concerning the decision to obtain consultant help? E d .1 ml. 0 s S e n I] a ..b 01’ UHCGI’ ing onsult A v F: r: AL I. . ..x . _ Y . .\ .~\ _. .t E Z C at C 9 v4 ... it e ,3 . K i t l W ... e a S w. mu. r _ n e .L : . r: . m a t i t h“ «I. .3 : _ a: . v A: h; C C T. H“ e «1 .V\» a e .7. U... C i . .. i if. n . . C N... 2 2m .1 \I/ 3: .3 a: A w . A» ‘C A» v _ n . al.. A» .. i n .. x: .... wl .n}. a: Ta nu \u x: .3 h. P T: Wu ‘3 .1. C ... \J .t .C T. S .. . . .. .2 ”w A: n: x: 3 ..x. A: VA a u r . J . l . h .. 1» Q» T: T: V y a t V. r. .nu ._ .3 «. .. at 1.. ».. :. .A 1. n: r. v. :c l I‘\ ...m ..vu I X . . . ~ . . a y I ‘ n v a « s is e a \ :w/ (vi) at what point in time with respect to the aware— ness or identification of the organization's problems or uncertainties, was consultant help sought? (vii) how many consultants (either individuals or consulting firms) were invited by the organization to discuss the situation, or to submit proposals prior to the selection of a consultant? (viii) what is the nature of the procedure adopted by an organization for the selection of a consultant, and what selection criteria are used? (ix) at what level in the organization, or by whom, is the decision made concerning the particular consultant to be hired? Many of the preceding questions relate to organiza— tion activity which could be expected to occur before any consultant contact is actually madea However, the nature of their enactment is considered likely to have an influence on the relationship ultimately established between the organization and its chosen consultant, Any number of arrangements could be envisaged as possibly occurring. The Board of Directors or corporate personnel (as ”non—members" of the organization) may decide on the engagement of a consultant and ”impose" him on the Organization. The organization's chief operating execu— tive may make a decision to engage a consultant and proceed to do so, maintaining himself as the sole point I t 1 1 of contact taut on otr again, the '::~~i ,.;__ a \ . ‘F “0.. “‘4“ M, “' ‘2": w, L MM. «t "A“ H . H \\ 1‘ ‘ » ‘~~ V" x.‘ L“ A. ‘1; “' a __ “Ag? 3 .F N.“ ‘ ‘ . WM \ N: is Hg \ a : ‘ s k \ } ‘~ M of contact with the consultant, or ”imposing" the consul- tant on other, subordinate, organization members. Then again, the decision may be made at a lower management level, or could perhaps originate as a recommendation from a lower management level. A similar variety of possibilities exists with respect to the selection of a particular consultant and the process through which this is accomplished. Whether only one consultant is invited to assist the organization, perhaps on the basis of a previously established personal relationship with an organization member, or for any reason; or whether a number of con— sultants are invited for preliminary discussions or to make preliminary diagnostic investigations, could have an influence on the nature of the organization—consultant relationship which ultimately develops, and which is hypothesized to have an influence on the effectiveness of the organization's subsequent achievements. In like manner, there will be variation in the timing at which consultant help is sought, wherein an urgent appeal to assist with a dramatically serious situation, which may have resulted from the ineffectiveness or inappropriate- ness of internally sponsored attempts, will likely produce an order of relationship which will differ from one which is developed in a situation where the request for help is timely, and made on more of a "preventive“ basis. Jg‘ .C C C (x fix. .. . . x .2 ..\ 5x a g .l .l C .Q .l n“ w“ w u cc 5 S e . . .I. T. .n .. n S t v» n a: Q a c T e T. C. . . r. .1 D. f. n ..I. .1». S Ru . . A: C : _ A c «b C Q «C a T». n C e 6 AC 9: S 5 A: ._ _ x t r. .3 . . P e u .C .Q r. P“ S S 5 .n .. . e S m .. 5 . i e 10. Q. n u C C V ._ . .3 rd: A: C: s a mu c 6 .li .. . H. w .. . 4 \) :vu ._ a 1 ‘ S n AL 0v _U AV \\/ 3. . » N‘v » . I. _ 1y r . ~\~ ~ ~ H .. 0 1B” .fin “(u r‘" I. _ .n a A: I. _ a . u v‘. 1 _ .n u 1y i» A: ‘ \ any —V LV v.- 3. y .. ~.: .v 1. n~ . um I“ ~.. \. 1 ‘ ,6/ Considerations on the Nature of the ConsultingrAssignment ( In addition to those preliminary considerations concerning the possibility of seeking consultant help and the decisions relating to consultant engagement, there are r the questions which relate to the scope and nature of the intended consulting assignment. Relevant features here include: (i) whether the selected consultant is required by the organization to conduct preliminary diagnostic investi— gations and submit a proposed program for the organiza— tion's consideration and acceptance, or whether he is commissioned to proceed immediately with tasks designated by the organization. (ii) the scope of the consulting assignment as regards the phases of investigation, program development, recom— mendations, and implementation, and the manner in which this scope is determined. (iii) the extent to which the organization's expectations with respect to the required outcomes from the consulting assignment were identified and made explicit, and for— malized in any agreement between the organization and consultant. (iV) the extent to which organization members were formally advised of the proposed introduction of the consultant, and of the objectives of his assignment. h t O h e .1 5. W .L ,3 . t . . n. E R“ C H S . t n e .l ..t V ..t .t a. . . w u w. E ... . e C a; L... a h at .l a . V .l. a. E C. U. a .L .3 LIV t a Lb Z a: nu. »\ “f N» .L wu .\ .3 . l m C .l i .1. 2. w. n . 1 _l mu u (n F. De n u \) .. w .J a .5 It mm. 3. ML . e w .. x c S C 0 ) D. 9. Qt _ . H“ at .2 V y. a A» at w t. x: J . i n :1. 5|. ..I. S CC 3.. . . ..w. «u . t {u «C Wu ‘ e . » . . v 0 in“ n V A: 17. 11. y: Av «\V a e x . a y .n . .x s 3 . .x « \.. .... c "N .)_ (\ n. «J .. /\ rt. 2. :. ... .... .. a. 1 I. . .. ——v (v) the constraints, or restrictions, imposed on the consultant by the organization, with respect to areas in which the consultant should not work, or to people or information to which he should not have access. (vi) the definition or shared understanding of the respective duties to be assumed by the consultant and organization members, and their division of responsibili— ties. (vii) the definition or shared understanding of the point at which the consultant's work would be regarded as complete. Considerations of the Working Arrange— ments Between the Consultant and Organization There are many factors relating to the nature of the consultant's intervention, or entry, into the organi— zation which will also influence the organization— consultant relationship. Proceeding beyond the consult— ant's period of entry there are other features of the modus operandi which would appear to further influence the nature of this developing relationship. These could concern the selection of an organization member as a point of contact and liaison with the consultant; the working methods and approach the consultant will be required to adopt; the informing of organization members as to the intended introduction of the consultant into the organi— zation. Whether such considerations are made prior to .. . E v. 41 1 . 1 . l h d e D. 0 .C .1. ...: U .L C C C ... ...... xi. _ . . b t n f «HM .u 3 w- t .. U C .. .. t .. C C a a 0 O h 0!. 3 e. .1 .. . ... : . LIV r. d C by TV «v M“ Tu w.“ ... 2y 3 .n . S e 3 e v.1. n» nu ht. «H. «v .3 id . . .\. e h S h r AG 3 2. A: T: 2. we . . \ , . . r. ..b n C u a QC .. .v .» .... \ .v nu: .. . «C . . e a» O ..I. .b .3 2. )l n... . . «D J _ . _ «C N m 4 . 4 u \ . . ... .. h vfl .1 .fi.. A: .nA. : _ a. .. a .E . . a k... . » . . w .. Y. ... .rlJ w .v w n1 W. nn. .(x 1L l. C. . 2. . . . . . ... ... ~ .. 118 the establishment of contact with the consultant, or whether the consultant is made a party to such considera— tions, and in either case, the nature of the arrangements which do eventuate will all have an influence on the nature of the relationship which is the focus of this research project. More specifically, the relevant factors for this phase of development are: (i) the nature of the arrangements for collaboration, contact, and liaison between the organization and con— sultant during the working phases of the consultant‘s assignment. (ii) the nature of the arrangements made for the con- sultant to report on his activities and progress during the conduct of the consulting assignment and also at its completion. (iii) the manner in which the consultant attempted to involve organization members in the assignment, and secure their commitment to the programs he wanted recommended. (iv) the consultant‘s relative emphasis on diagnosis and identification of the organization's problems. (V) the nature of any changes made in the scope, extent, objectives, or timing of the consulting assign— ment which were made during its progress on the recom— mendation of either the consultant or organization members. ..rl. T». r: t m d n P. .1 n O D. 6 Ab e e h m h I: t 0 LI. ll 0V V e n ..l. P. ... . 49 (vi) the extent to which the consultant participated in the implementation of any of the programs he recommended. Operating Hypotheses Consistent with the influencing factors enumerated in the preceding sections, it is now possible to opera— tionalize the fundamental research hypothesis by restate— ment as a series of testable propositions. The fundamental hypothesis which the research is attempting to test is that: the effectiveness of consultant assisted change efforts is a function of the organization— consultant relationship. Specifically, it is hypothesized that consultant assisted change programs will be more effective where: l. the organization considers some changes may be necessary, rather than where a consultant is retained to audit the status quo. 2. the organization ascribes some expertise to, and demonstrates trust in the consultant for his ability to develop and implement an effective change program, 3. the organization initiates the original suggestion to seek consultant help, rather than responding to a suggestion initiated by the consultant. ..J E r. a CV C .7 a .0 it Qv C e e S . t n l a c u u .r; n n a r e u hi. D. C 1 H a o . . S C 2. C S r: C a t e S C "a a Y C .v C. n} .7. DD e .l. V O S SC 5 e O s «t e x c .\u e S 5 5 P. h u e ‘n :1. pl F. .H .H r. ... .n u n . n . n . n.” 10. e 5 ..n o ..Ia .D S ..Iu .a O «.1. Lb ..L 0:. ma .t «c .. ht. s1 . . .n. h; a. rILu E../ r r a _ H .. . ... . ... _ m . _ _ . \n 10. ll. /' 5,. organization members are in general agreement as to the need for, and desirability of obtaining con— sultant assistance. several organization members, and particularly those to be affected, have participated in the discussions and decisions leading to the retention of a consultant. organization members are in general agreement as to the particular consultant selected. the consultant finally appointed has been selected from two or more consultants invited for preliminary discussions or to make preliminary diagnoses. the consultant finally appointed has been selected on the basis of some identified, objective criteria. the selected consultant has been required to conduct preliminary diagnostic investigations and develop a proposed program for the organization's approval and acceptance. the organization's goals and expectations with respect to the required outcomes from the consulting assignment are identified and made explicit. the organization does not closely direct the con— sultant's work, or unreasonably constrain him, by embargo or withheld information, from investigating what he perceives as relevant areas of the organi— zation's affairs. ,. x»: n7 1 W—. ~——‘. __~_ 12. 13. 14. 15. l6. 17. 18. 2%? there is clear definition, and shared understanding of the respective duties to be assumed by the con— sultant and organization members. the consultant develops his recommendations for organization change on the basis of his investiga- tions of organization problems and needs, rather than where he supplies the organization with a standardized, ”pre-packaged" program. the organization makes specific provision for the consultant to report to the organization on his porgress and findings throughout the course of his assignment, rather than only at its completion. the consultant works closely and directly with organization members within a cooperative rather than a directive framework. the organization establishes a specific point of contact and liaison with whom and through whom the consultant can operate. the consultant actively involves organization members—-and particularly key managers—~in the development and implementation of recommended change programs. the scope of the assignment requires (or permits) the consultant to participate in the implementation of recommended change programs. The .1 .E .l S O p 0 nl p consultar typically and wheth '1‘. :w. AL». J . a: Ch 7‘ :\ >L fix J \ . x . h . t n S «C e S a v e w“ a: n a. a S at a T. a O S at S l a ,u u n a a a: h» a c A». k“ e m .1. C it e .C .l .7. ma .1 h . .1 : a n; .L m ... n; D. S n, a 3 n C m. “I“ ..d O a: : . : _ «L VJ n1 ht. .... is. ‘5 k. nu q. . NH .3 v.0 h. {v vi” 3: w... {x 32 n; at 1\ Hi 3 _ w. ‘2 n a: x: «l n. Q» S» H. A» . , u _ no a a: n: ... 2. ~m st \V Wu ~.,. c I 52 The question which is being posed by these propositions is really asking whether an organization- consultant relationship of one particular type is typically associated with successful change efforts, and whether a relationship of a discernably different type is typically associated with unsuccessful or ineffective change efforts. Measures and Descriptions of Effectiveness This research attempted to secure historical information rather than represent the starting point of a longitudinal study which could observe, describe, and possibly measure the effects of on—going consultant assisted change programs. Because of its field setting, any research data in the form of measured organization variables over the duration of an organization—consultant association would not be able to be linked causatively with the research variable. Clearly, there would be too many unmeasured and uncontrolled factors outside of the organization—consultant relationship, but acting con— temporaneously, which could give rise to historically described, and/or measured, changes in any such objective Organization variables. An attempt was made to secure measures of apparently relevant organization variables Over the duration of the relevant time period, but SUCh measures can be no more than associated with the nature of ‘ the resear considered evaluation 3 QA‘A ~ quuPb a“ '~;~. «M. ._~ ”mica: Lf ./ 3 :~ "n "‘CVVLVSI . k g, ..... 3“ w: :\ 49 2. a. l;\ - v I’E‘:w- vLL"’\\‘\ L ‘Lu ‘W~~ . t .'.‘~‘ Raj. 2‘ a “v ' L .k ‘ “A \V"; : ~. egg: . 53 nature of the organization—consultant relationship which the research will also disclose. Accordingly, it is considered necessary to rely essentially on subjective evaluations made by key organization members of the per— ceived effectiveness of consultant—assisted change efforts. To accomplish this, organization members were asked to subjectively rate their evaluation of the consultant's effectiveness, identify organization activities and con— ditions in which they perceive improvements, and identify factors and conditions which led to misunderstandings between the organization and consultant, or to incomplete implementation of the consultant's recommendations. (1) Specifically, descriptions of effectiveness were sought in the following areas: a subjectively rated evaluation of the overall (ii) effectiveness of the consulting assignment in terms of achieving desired results or improvements. final report. an evaluation of the quality of the consultant's (iii) the extent of acceptance, disagreement, or (iv) rejection of the consultant's recommendations by various organization members. the extent of perceived changes and improvements in Specified organizational conditions such as: — job satisfaction of workers — job satisfaction of managers :“Q N 3 flux 54 internal communications — internal relationships — new business opportunities - ability to deal with future problems — skills and abilities of organization members — dependence of organization members on external assistance - management decision—making (v) the nature of misunderstandings between organiza— tion members and consultant and the extent to which these detracted from the possible effectiveness of the assignment. (vi) the reasons for modifying, or only partially implementing the consultant's recommendations. (Vii) the duration of the assignment in comparison with the original estimate or schedule. (viii) the organization's assessment of value received in relation to the amount of the consultant‘s fees. (ix) whether the same consultant would be hired again should the organization require external assistance on a future occasion. In addition to these subjective evaluations there are a number of organization variables to be measured. — number of employees — number of management and supervisory personnel — number of non—management staff personnel . _ \ .r. r s E w H mu 0 a.» w .. .l‘ : . V0 . c; t a ,Tv at e .u .fiu wr. Wr. : z. a e ...V. m ... N. 3C u. 0 a a C. a e e C Q; l o \. . l t ..d S S xxx Q r... A D. e Z Z db .. a; a; .1. a S l .1. .7 .l a l w l 3 Vu h ..I. ..l. 3 at a: t l . , l at . . .a ._\ i t 3 «E h t n n e at w. .t al. «C n. ... ...» it w. «i. .n.. .l a a l. ... D. .n. a. w. «t .3 l v w. 5 N... a. T. e d 00 CD n3 a c .x s ”\v w. .Gn .. m h . : . T» T: .u 1 c h n V. ml at a“ w“ ..u a; To ... .t «y :u w” as 2.. .\ ad Av nu a: .2 .. . .2 . ._ . . . i It : . h . ‘ \ . t . . .. t a? — annual sales turnover — annual net income A second objective of this research was to test the hypothesis that the use of external consultants, and the acceptance of their recommendations by an organization is related to the open—mindedness of the organization's chief executive. Measure of Open—Mindedness (Dogmatism) Open—mindedness was measured by Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale, and on the recommendation of its author28 the shortened twenty—item version of the scale will be used in preference to the original forty—item scale. The short form Dogmatism Scale was developed by Troldahl and Powell29 who showed by its use in field studies, that its correlation with the forty—item version was 0.9A (the lower of correlations determined in two separate field studies). As well as a high correlation with the original forty—item scale, the short form contains items which maintain its reliability whether administered by personal interview or by self-administration. The Short Form Dogmatism Scale presents the subject, whose open—mindedness 28Milton Rokeach, Professor, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, U.S.A. 29V. C. Troldahl, and F. A. Powell, ”A Short Form Dogmatism Scale for Use in Field Studies,” Social Forces, Vol. AM, No. 2 (December, 1965), pp. 2ll—2lA. is to be measured, with twenty statements and requests the subject to indicate the extent of his agreement or disagreement with each statement, viz: Statement Extent of Agreement 1. In this complicated world Agree very much of ours the only way we Agree on the whole can know what's going on Agree a little is to rely on leaders or Disagree a little experts who can be trusted Disagree on the whole Disagree very much Each answer is scored by allocating a number of points to the extent of agreement or disagreement indicated by the subject: Agree very much 7 points Agree on the whole 6 " Agree a little 5 " Disagree a little 3 " Disagree on the whole 2 " Disagree very much 1 point The Dogmatism Score is then determined by summing the points scored for each statement. Using this scale with the Short Form allows Dogmatism Scores to range from a low score of 20 (extremely open—minded) to a high score of 1A0 (extremely closed—minded). The Dogmatism Score thus determined for the chief executive or other organiza— tion members can then be considered in relation to the frequency of use of external consultants by an t niza na ~90 «I. F. 31. ,E T. ms nu. .l. A: w“ «s l». k... ..i. a: A: a“ .: ~._ 3 l s l S . ‘\s 7 4a 3 _ . . t a . a . n... x: {a {a a» a; _ a x? as l _ a: m. .7. ..\ x; x. x: 5 {a i. . l J. .. 2. l. .. u. 2‘ x: .. Tc kn .l l. .i : “I organization, and the extent of its acceptance of advice from external sources. . It is hypothesized that there will be an inverse relationship between an organization sponsor's Dogmatism Score and his voluntary use of consultants. Next, it is hypothesized that there will be a relationship between the organization sponsor's Dogmatism Score and his acceptance of advice from a consultant, but that such relationship will depend on his concept of the consultant. Thus he may see the consultant as an authority figure whose advice is to be obeyed, in which case it is hypothesized that there will be a direct relationship between Dogmatism Score and his acceptance of a consultant's recommendations. Where the organization member (or consultant sponsor) has a low Dogmatism Score, meaning that he is more open— minded, it is hypothesized that he will not regard the consultant as an authority figure, and that his accept— ance of advice would be related to the calibre of advice itself rather than to its source. Survey Data The third objective of this research project was to gather survey data which can relate the frequency and effectiveness of consultant use with several organi— zation characteristics. The characteristics to be related to consultant use are: ..l. .7 ...—av __ .— (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (V) (Vi) (vii) the general nature of the organization's business. the industry classification (for manufacturing organizations). the geographic location of the organization. the total number of employees in the organization. the proportion of management or staff personnel to the total number of employees in the organization. the sales turnover of the organization. the net income of the organization. Finally, the research will survey the possible associations between consultant use and: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) the nature of the consulting assignment. the amount of fees paid to the consultant. the age of the organization's chief executive or consultant sponsor. the educational level of the organization's chief executive or consultant sponsor. Research Design In order to obtain a significant quantity of empirical data it is considered that a questionnaire Will represent the most appropriate and useful research instrument. which collected research data through intensive It is recognized that a case study approach intervie particul members the inte - i “V” 'm‘f .LL..: '1. - — 51L. Igwgv-A assault: ..._5 :“E Z ‘-‘\; —v .... -.- \_:‘V ‘5). 1:; ..“<“ * ”tug. cg; ;. 59 interviewing may yield data of a different nature—— particularly as it would be possible to use several members of an organization as sources of information, the internal consistency of which would usefully attest to its adequacy and accuracy. However, such an approach would inevitably restrict the quantity of information which could be obtained (i.e., the number of organiza— tions which could be examined) because of the practical limitations which constrain research of this nature. Because of the complete absence of empirical evidence in this area it is considered that quantity of usable data is the paramount factor, and that a questionnaire instru— ment can be designed so as to permit confidence in the accuracy and completeness of the data it gathers. The data required by this research was sought exclusively from operating organizations rather than consultants. The interrogation of the consultant partners of organization—consultant relationships is outside the scope of this study. As well as a potential bias, the consultant is rarely aware of the organizational activity which preceded his retention, and too often remains unaware of the effectiveness of his helping efforts. For practical reasons, the organization respond— ents to the survey instrument to be used in the present research project can be only one individual organization ..c 3 r e b m e m addressee sion veral cision de Y. r . e at a «T. ”V C: .1. a» _ 4 3 ) n. r“ ..J C e a... a .. i .3 3 w.” l . .. _ W___‘J‘._.____.____,___‘___‘,___v____.___h 60 member, and thus the question of the most appropriate addressee is immediately encountered. Earlier dis— cussion has indicated the possible involvement of several organization members participating in any decision leading to the retention of a consultant, and also the possibility of such decision being made at any of several points or levels within the organization. While the most appropriate addressee may vary from organization to organization there would appear to be no way, within the confines of questionnaire based informa— tion gathering, by which the desirable specificity of identification could be made. Accordingly, the research questionnaire was addressed to the chief operating executive of each organization to be surveyed. The chief executive was requrested to provide the information himself, or in the instances where he has had no close or direct association with the consulting assignment, he was asked to arrange for its completion by that particu— lar organization member whom he would regard as the sponsor of the consulting assignment. As regards matters of relevant organizational fact and detail which were sought by some sections of the questionnaire, the directions which accompany the instrument suggested its completion by appropriately informed organization members. The research questionnaire sought information about the organizational arrangements preceding and mg 5 i wl u d the freC certain I C h h whic Wu” Z G .L C .L .7. 3‘. «3 Cu AL .wu r.“ .1 at U as a a 3 .3 .3 _ . UD .Tv “n w.“ «t .fl. n: We a» «J .1. We a.» k L .nu 1 v nu. -'v 61 during a consulting engagement, and about its ultimate effectiveness. Also sought is information concerning the frequency and type of consultant use, and about certain organization and individual characteristics. All these items have, or are related to, a time base which had to be specified in order to obtain comparable data. With respect to the frequency of use of consultants, organizational respondents will be asked to furnish this data for the three—year period ending December, 1967. Consistently, the particular consultant relationship to be described by respondents was specified as that one conducted during this three year period which was com— pleted most recently prior to December, 1967. Other factual data were requested as of this same date, unless otherwise specified in a particular questionnaire item. The date of December, 1967 has been used because of its relationship to the period when the questionnaire will be distributed and the data gathered——June—Ju1y, 1968. The December, 1967 date is sufficiently recent to the survey period to permit respondents to recall relevant details, and appropriately timed to allow some reasonable assessment of effectiveness to have been made. It is recognized that some organizations will have participated in many consulting engagements during the specified three—year period, and that the arrangements precedin ship may By askin describe than to period, properly in turnover AA a. 1L tvnbdir‘a v 3“ C: ~r" ‘ ‘3526 so 62 preceding and during the organization—consultant relation— ship may have differed from one such occasion to another. By asking organization respondents specifically to describe the most recently completed assignment, rather than to choose and describe any assignments during this period, it is considered that the data provided were properly randomized. In attempting to relate current organization characteristics, such as number of employees, sales turnover, and net income with the frequency of use of consultants over a period it is possible, first, that this very use of consultants has given rise to the identifiable characteristics, or at least to some of them. Secondly, the presently observable characteristics may be quite unrelated to those extant at the time the consultant activity was carried out. Only by restricting the dura— tion of the historical time period to be considered can these effects be minimized. The three—year period chosen appeals, intuitively, as a reasonable period given this problem, and because it was the period chosen by Seney in his previously referenced survey,30 it will permit comparisons between this and the earlier study. The problem with respect to the attempt to relate the frequency and effectiveness of consultant use with 30 Wilson Seney, op. cit. persona managen have be the pre pertair questic C SSSDAI _ _ __,_— MAM—“#M. 63 personal characteristics of the chief executive and other management members is that the present incumbents may not have been the persons in those offices during the time of the previous consulting assignment. The relevant dates pertaining to these situations were requested by the questionnaire and used as bases for excluding or including the data for analysis. Again, the effect was minimized by restricting the duration of the time period to be considered. The Research Instruments It has been determined that a questionnaire is the most effective and appropriate instrument for gathering the required survey data from organization respondents. Two questionnaires were developed and entitled: Consultant Research Program, and Executive Opinion Survey——and have been included in the Appendix section of this thesis. Consultant Research Program This questionnaire has been designed in eight sections to allow respondents to furnish all of the information necessary for testing several of the research hypotheses. The questionnaire has been designed on a "forced-choice" basis with an array of descriptive choices, including an "open" choice, offered to the respondent from which he is to indicate the most relevant, p LL .1 qflu A: ._ . c. . p r .T; a ..l. W. ..1. a .4 . re. . _ c. . a nd .11 m n O .C at w.“ up. 3 3: 2.. is.“ . . n . .. . Wk. A; . . .\ .2 . . p u to 50 y n G a. wu. at .3 . . _ .... .. .L w. nu Lb S n e .‘. .v S . t S ._ . .nl a: .L C. x c 5 x: 2. ..Q S e n e «an. t ..C S. to A: . .. «U. «C ‘2 in As V. . . . O in 0 AC n 25 w‘. 5. e a v .nu L a». .. «C .. w . ..q .. H» m it C D a: ab 2. .... h. w. at .u a: ... .«q . . ... xv. .. .... ? 64. most appropriate, or most nearly correct description for l the particualr situation of the most recently completed l consulting experience he is reporting. The attempt has been made to include all of the likely possibilities, and this construction should permit the meaningful categorization of responses as required for purposes of analysis. Wherever it was possible that more than one of the descriptive choices for any one item might reasonably be chosen, respondents were given the oppor— tunity of indicating all of these choices which, together, most properly describe that situationo At the analysis phase, any such multiple responses were handled by recog— nizing categories for the different possible combinations of responses. ' The penalty for constructing a questionnaire in this detail is that it results in an instrument which ‘ appears extremely long and much more formidable than J one which presents open—ended questions and requests descriptive responseso Its advantage, however, is that it provides data which are, analytically, much more tractable. In all cases the Consultant Research Program _ _._. ..' —‘—._"-‘—'=‘:‘-.—“‘ ‘— questionnaire were mailed to the chief operating execu— tive of the selected organization——either a company, or ...—— z a largely autonomous division or operating location (plant, store, etc.) of a larger organization——and requested 7 of the quantita‘ ables wh records q . 25-. ”VLle" \ _-W.— _ fi— requested him to personally complete Sections 1 through 7 of the eight section questionnaire. Section 8 requests quantitative information concerning organization vari— ables which would normally be available from company records and could be completed by whomever the chief executive may deem appropriate, The content of the Consultant Research Program questionnaire has been largely foreshadowed by the dis— cussion in an earlier section of this chapter which con— sidered the various organizational arrangements and activities which might precede and continue through an organization—consultant relationship. An outline of the content of this questionnaire follows: Section 1 Section 1 of this questionnaire requests general information about the organization, its use of external consultants, and about the chief executive or other organization sponsor of the most recently completed (ioeo prior to December, 1967) consulting assignment, This information shows the "consultant—proneness" of the organization in terms of organizational characteristics, and was also used in analyses of the effectiveness of consulting assignments. The personal data concerning the chief executive or other sponsor were used in con— junction with the open—mindedness data (Dogmatism Scores) to be provided by the Executive Opinion Survey instrument” n O 1 T4 c e S perceive Section "1.1%" :1325 T————' 66 Section 2 This section seeks to identify the nature of the situation which led the organization to seek consultant assistance on the most recently completed occasion. This factor was related to various descriptions of the perceived effectiveness of the ensuing consulting assignment. Section 3 Section 3 seeks to identify the major reason for an organization's use of an external consultant in the reported situation. This factor was also related to the perceived effectiveness of the assignment, and additionally to some of the quantitative measures of organization dimensions. Section 4 The questions in this section pertain to considera— tions of the initiation and subsequent levels of dis— cussion, consensus, and decision—making by organization members concerning the engagement of the consultant, as well as to the bases and criteria for his selection, These data are considered extremely relevant to the nature of the ensuing organization—consultant relationship and are thus basic to the fundamental research hypotheSis. The several factors were all related to the various descriptions of perceived effectiveness of the most recently completed consulting assignmentc n Se i t C e S of tions expectat the cons a» ”D r _ _ .L x x 3 ml. u flu “U. wl mu W. . x .E . t n “a Q ..‘. a: 2d s: at : . . x c ‘ i \u ..I. at. ..v. _ u .v w. ‘no _ e y. a: QL T» A _ e a S n. C .x e 3: m T. a e , 1. ... _ . t M , l i ‘ CO A: a: «C ”.1“ nt. hi. it «C «1 a» a; x? i l a l i .Q. n‘. "Y «C .3 C . . m u. . a co .. _ A: a: w u S t 67 Section 5 Section 5 comprises questions relating to considera— tions of organization members about their objectives, expectations, and the working arrangements they required the consultant to observe——which might normally be made before the commencement of the consulting assignment. Again, such information is basic to the fundamental research hypothesis and was appropriately related to the various descriptions of perceived assignment effectiveness, Section 6 The questions in this section focus on the con— sultant's part in establishing the bases for his modus ) operandi by considering arrangements for interim report— ‘ ing and coordination, and involvement of organization members in the various phases of the consulting assign— ment° These items all contribute to the nature of the ? organization—consultant relationship which emerged in each case, and were, as in the preceding sections, l related to the descriptions of perceived assignment effectivenessc Section 7 Section 7 contains the various descriptions, or dimensions, by which the most recently completed con- sulting assignment has been, or could be, evaluated, All are subjective, qualitative descriptions of how the g c? l effective organizat Included sidered l influencl the re Ch 3.4:” 07” ‘\vv~ 1 - “l . emuide i rm; .1» ‘fi-_ t. 2“ L «A ~: For .qg 68. effectiveness of the assignment was perceived by the organization's chief executive or other sponsor. Included are specific characteristics which were con— sidered by the organization sponsor to have had an influence on assignment effectiveness; organization areas where change was observed; as well as more general descrip- tions of goal achievement and assignment effectiveness. Section 8 This section requests annual information for the year to December, 1967, and the three preceding years, on such organization dimensions as the total number of employees, the number of management personnel, sales turnover, and net income. Such longitudinal data could be used for ”before and after” measures of the conse— quences of the consulting assignment. The Consultant Research Program questionnaire does not require disclosure of the respondent's corporate or personal identity, but in order to know the composition of the total response, each questionnaire was accompanied by an identifying reply card which respondents were asked to return separately from, and independently of, the completed questionnaires. It would thus be possible to describe the population represented by the research data while still offering individual respondents the guarantee of anonymity to encourage their completion of the questionnaire. I l n n S 1 t r TI. 0 n It n S O C C Y. . _ .l 0 n C .l .L n. VJ l .3 O S s _ S .1. x _ . x .\ ..t .l e a n C 9 Tu e e S a i A c ..u a C a \n S h. T S n S e .1. Ru .1 V. S L v n: n.“ n C «u. i t .L M LL, WA. it x: a» e .l. e 1K 3 e Lb w. e e n . 3 at 5 at it 7 l C F: C RI. C. u D. 17. O Ru 5 so u u a _ .fiu we. at a» 5 n I WA A: Q 0 he, 3 _ \ ww AU; 0 U. 3A 9. u 7. Co «u. at. . u ‘3 Pu \ u A“ w. . it 3 _ x o . x to . L x \ Nu 69" Executive Opinion Survey In addition to the Consultant Research Program questionnaire is another instrument styled the "Executive Opinion Survey" questionnaire. This latter instrument presents the twenty—item, "short—form," version of Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale arranged for convenient self- administration by organization respondents, which is being used to obtain a measure of the open—mindedness of organi— zation members. Four copies of the Executive Opinion Survey were mailed with each Consultant Research Program questionnaire with the request that one of these be com— pleted by the chief executive, and the others by up to three other organization members, including the assignment sponsor where this is not the chief executive, who have been significantly involved with the consulting assignment described in the research questionnaire. The intended use of the Dogmatism Scores is to relate them to the frequency of consultant use and the acceptance of con— sultant recommendations. It is considered that these factors may show a different relationship to the mean Dogmatism Score of a group of organization members than to the Dogmatism Score of the chief executive, or other sponsor, alone. The concept underlying this possibility is that the social pressures in an organization where other members are more open (or closed) minded may pro— duce a climate which is more (or less) conducive to consulta1 signific of one s |—] rv Researc‘: -- ~.-W——— 7O consultant use and influence and that this may be a more significant determinant than the open mindedness measure of one single executive. Pre-Codinggof Research Instruments The forced choice arrangement of both the Consultant Research Program and the Executive Opinion Survey question— naire permits their pre—coding to facilitate the subsequent transfer of the research data to punched cards. In this form the data were then conveniently introduced into a computer along with a program which secured the required analyses and frequency distributions. The Survey Sample The research instruments were addressed exclusively to the chief operating executives of selected organiza— tions——either independent companies, or operating plants, stores, offices, or divisions of larger corporations. With the chief executive as the addressee, and also the desired respondent, it is considered pointless to address the questionnaires to the corporate headquarters of multi- plant, major, corporations where the corporate chief executive is unlikely to have been in close contact with the type of operating detail concerned with the question- naire items. Accordingly, the instruments were mailed to the operating head of a singularly located operating organization. 71 While problems of change confront non—business organizations as well as business organizations, and while it is recognized that the former also make use of the assistance of external consultants, it is intended to focus the primary thrust of this investigation into the consultant relationship with business organizations. This restriction may influence the nature of measures and descriptions of the extent of organization change which can be considered (for example: sales turnover, profit— ability) and, consequently, may influence the extent to which any findings can be transferred to non—business situations. Anything beyond conjecture on this aSpect, however, must await the completion of the research work and the development of its empirically based findings. An exception to the exclusive business concentration of this research was made, however, to permit an examina— tion of the consulting relationship in governmental departments and agencies. More and more government instrumentalities are making increasing use of external consulting assistance, and it is considered both opportune and potentially useful to gather data which might show comparisons or contrasts between the condi— tions for effective organization—consultant collaboration in business organizations on the one hand, and in govern— ment agencies on the other. Th to be ad to provi in each be analy - by d _ .y r _ t. “y a - oy 2 72 The sample population of business organizations to be addressed was a random sample of sufficient size to provide a statistically meaningful number of responses in each category of any classification into which it may be analyzed. The Consultant Research Program question— naire provided information which permitted the classifi— cation of responses in the following ways: — by type of business (7 categories including government) — by industry classification (9 categories) — by geographic location (9 categories) — by distance from major city (5 categories) — by number of employees (6 categories) — by annual sales volume (8 categories) — by annual net income (9 categories) It was considered, somewhat arbitrarily, that the sample should contain 1500—2000 organizations. While this may appear to be a large sample it was recognized that the formidable appearance of the research instru— ments would likely discourage their completion by addressees. No useful basis for predicting the likely reSponse rate was available, but it was allowed that this could be as low as ten per cent. The source of a "universe” from which to select the research sample and obtain the required mailing informa- tion about addressees is another requirement. Of the more than four million business enterprises in the U.S,A. many are consulti consider should n describe 73 many are of such small size that their use of external consulting assistance is unlikely. Accordingly, it is considered that all firms included in the research sample should meet a minimum size criterion which could be described by: — number of employees — annual (or other period) sales turnover — net worth A size criterion set entirely on the basis of number of employees would tend to exclude "capital—intensive" firms of which there may be many that have sought consulting assistance. The sales turnover criterion poses the prob— lem of identifying an appropriate surrogate dimension for those firms, such as banks or other financial institutions, which do not engage in a selling activity. The net worth criterion, however, does not introduce a problem of this type and was therefore selected to be used in conjunction with a second criterion based on the number of employees in the organization. An almost complete, and certainly representative, universe of business firms in the U.S.A. which have a reported net worth (including intangibles) of one million dollars or more is provided by Dun and Bradstreet's "1968 n31 Million Dollar Directory. This directory presents an 31Dun and Bradstreet, "I968 Million Dollar Directory," (New York: Dun and Bradstreet, Inc., 1968). alphabeti indicatec the publi more thal includes lranspor ECDPQ\ TRTp ‘1‘” D. 2A alphabetical listing of 29,000 U.S. firms meeting this indicated net worth criterion, which were extracted by the publishers from their examination of reports from more than three million business firms. This listing includes the categories of: Industrials, Utilities, Transportation, Banks and Trusts, Stockbrokers, Mutual and Stock Insurance, Wholesalers, and Retailers. Excluded are Professional and Consulting organizations, Hospitals, Credit Agencies, and Financial and Insurance institutions other than those noted as inclusions, or which are other— wise "prominent.” The directory entries provide the name and address of each firm, the names of its principal officers, number of employees, and in the case of divisionalized organizations, the names of the operating divisions. Because it is comprehensive, relevant, and up to \ date, and because it provides the required mailing information it was decided to select the random research sample from this source. The directory is arranged with approximately twenty entries on each of approximately 1500 pages. The random sample was selected by randomly selecting a number between one and twenty and then extracting that numbered entry from each page. Where this identified a firm with fewer than one hundred employees, the next listed firm on that page which met “-————\ —~——-. this additional criterion was selected. In this way a .L— W sample c reported each em; T1 was com] 1967-68 major d Governm "r1 ‘ 75 , sample of 1575 business organizations, each having a > reported net worth of one million dollars or more, and 3 each employing one hundred or more people, was collected. 5 The sample of government departments and agencies ’ was compiled from the U.S. Government Organization Manual 1967—68.32 This publication provides a listing of all major departments and agencies of the U.S. Federal ’ Government, including the names and mailing addresses of their principal officers. Rather than a random selection, each department and agency was selected for inclusion in the research sample. In the case of the large departments and agencies each w——V major division was included. In this way a listing of 120 government departments and agencies (or their major divisions where appropriate) was compiled. In addition to the 1695 organizations selected from these sources there were a further five business firms which had been selected for purposes of conducting a preliminary test of the research instruments (described In order to test the suitability of the research instruments, and to determine that organizational addresses in the next section of this thesis). The final sample ) ’ thus contained a total of 1700 organizations. { Research Methodology | i 32U.S. Government Organization Manual 1967—68 (Washington, D.C.: Office of the Federal Registrar, 3 June, 1967). 1" could n< would h: a preli organiz the res of empl Bradstr organiz during working resear the se /7/6 could not only understand the questions, but that they would have a comparable, or common, understanding of them, a preliminary test run was conducted. Twenty business organizations geographically located in the vicinity of the researcher (Lansing, Michigan) which met the ”number of employees" criterion were selected from Dun and Bradstreet's "1968 Million Dollar Directory.” These organizations were contacted directly by the researcher during May, 1968, with a request for their cooperation in working through the two research instruments with the researcher. Only seven of these organizations had used the services of external consultants during the three— year period through December 1967, and five of these agreed to participate in testing the instruments. The researcher personally visited the chief executives (either President or General Manager) of these cooperating organizations during June, 1968. At each interview the researcher handed the research instru— ments with accompanying printed instructions to the respondent and requested that he complete the question— naires without comment or assistance from the researcher. When completed, the researcher worked through the instru— ments with each respondent checking his understanding of the meaning and intent of each question. These inter— views revealed that, apart from their length and the time required for their completion (approximately ninety minutes) to the I found ti was lit1 the . n—a, 0 were ma .r J7" / ( minutes), the questionnaires presented no difficulties to the respondents. Each executive indicated that he 1 found the questions meaningful and clear, and that there was little difficulty in recalling the relevant details of the consulting assignment which they were describing. I Some suggestions for minor changes in terminology were made during this testing phase, and these were incorporated into the questionnaire (Consultant Research PrOgram) prior to its final printing. The questionnaires were mailed to the entire sample I on July ll, 1968, under the cover of a letter personally addressed, by name, to each chief executive, and signed r by both the researcher and the chairman of his disserta— [ tion committee. The instructions for completing the instruments were printed integrally with the Consultant ‘ Research Program questionnaire which also included, as . previously discussed, a serially numbered, detachable reply slip. No pre—paid reply envelope was provided for the use of respondents as it was considered that such a , feature would have no influence on returns because of the senior executive status of the addressees. Although the reply cards would have permitted a follow—up request to be made to those organizations which did not respond, such follow—up was not made. As well as considerations of time and expense, it was felt that w organizational respondents would decide their intention ; ii ll,// to repl instrum second Tables Table Tabl Tabl Tabl sever _‘, .___—_ “W v—‘v 78 to reply, or not, on their initial receipt of the instruments and that the incremental response from a second mailing would be slight. The distribution of the research sample is shown by Tables 1 through A: Table 1 Composition of Research Sample—~by Type of Business Table 2 Composition of Research Sample——by Industrial Classification Table 3 Composition of Research Sample—-by Number of Employees in the Organization Table A Composition of Research Sample-—by Geographic Location of the Organization Additionally, Table 5: Composition of Geographic Regions—— by States, provides supplementary detail to Table A. Summary The research sought empirical evidence to test the several operationalized statements derived from the fundamental research hypothesis concerning the effective— ness of consultant assisted organizational change efforts and the organization—consultant relationship. These operationalized statements, or working hypotheses, have been developed from: — considerations of the differences in organization problems or situations leading to the retention of a consultant. COHS - cons deci - COME arrang ._—~ ‘ —& ~—- 79 - considerations of the reasons for using a consultant. — considerations made in the organization prior to the decision to engage a consultant. — considerations on the nature of the consulting assignment. — considerations of the working arrangements between consultant and organization. Each of these aspects allows several different arrangements, or organizational situations, to be associated with the consulting assignment. Consulting assignments were described with respect to these different arrangements and then associated with measures and descriptions of effectiveness. A questionnaire is considered to be the most appropriate research instrument to gather the quantity of empirical data which are necessary. Such an instrument—— entitled the Consultant Research Program questionnaire—— has been developed as a compilation of questions relating to the preceding organizational situations and arrange— ments. The relationship between a chief executive's open- mindedness and his organization's use and acceptance of consultant advice was determined by obtaining measures of chief executives‘ Dogmatism and considering these with respect to the relevant organization variables. The twenty item, short form version of Rokeach's "Dogmatism Scale"——sty1ed as the Executive Opinion Survey questio: measure T confirm executi busines 80 questionnaire in this study——was used to obtain these measures. The research instruments were field tested to confirm their suitability and then mailed to the chief executives of a randomly selected sample of 1,575 business organizations which met specified minimum size criteria. Additionally, the instruments were mailed to the chief executives (or equivalent) of 170 federal government departments and agencies. The several hypotheses which were developed from the fundamental research objective were tested by analysis of the data furnished by respondents to the survey instruments. TABLE 1 Type 0: 81 TABLE l.——Composition of research sample by type of business. Organizations Type of Business in Sample Number % Industrial Manufacturing 805 47.” Merchandising and Distribution 2A9 lu.7 Financial Institutions (incl. Banks, Insurance) 213 12.5 Transportation 61 3-6 Public Utility 77 4.5 Other 175 10.3 Federal Government Departments and Agencies 120 7-0 1700 100.0 TOTAL TABLE 2 lndust 82 TABLE 2.-—Composition of research sample by industry classification. Organizations Industry Classification 1“ Sample Number % Automotive and Transportation Equipment 20 2.5 Drugs, Chemicals, Petroleum and Allied Products and Industries 57 7.1 Textiles, Clothing, and Footwear 101 12.5 Food, Beverages, Tobacco 106 13.2 Electrical and Electronic Goods and Equipment 76 9.4 Metals, Minerals 33 “.1 Engineering, Machinery, and Metalworking 220 27.4 Construction Materials, Lumber, Hardware 56 7.0 AerOSpace and Defense 7 0.9 Miscellaneous Manufacturing 129 15.9 805 100.0 TOTAL TABLE ‘ Numb e r l, 83 TABLE 3.——Composition of research sample—~by number of employees in the organization. Number of Employees in the Organizations in Sample Organization Number % 100 - 500 employees iouu 61.5 501 — 1000 208 12.2 1001 — 2500 154 9.1 2501 — 5000 61 3.6 5001 — 10000 55 3.2 Over 10000 M6 2.7 Not Known 12 0.7 Sub—Total of Business Organizations 1580 93.0 Add: Federal Government Departments and Agencies 120 7.0 1700 100.0 TOTAL Locati (Geo 84 TABLE 4.——Composition of research sample-—by geographic location of the organization. Location of Organization (Geographic Region) Organizations in Sample Number % New England Region 103 6.1 Middle Atlantic 407 24.0 South Atlantic 176 10.4 East South Central 70 4.1 West South Central 121 7-1 East North Central 394 23.2 West North Central 112 6.6 Mountain 42 2.5 Pacific 155 9.0 Sub—Total of Business Organizations 1580 93.0 Add: Federal Government Departments and Agencies 120 7°0 1700 100.0 TOTAL 5'10 ur. ‘U 85 TABLE 5.——Composition of geographic regions—~by states. Geographic Region States New England Region Middle Atlantic South Atlantic East South Central West South Central East North Central West North Central Mountain Pacific Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut. New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey. Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Washington D.C. Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi. Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas. Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin. Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri. Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico. Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, Alaska. the t numbe 1A) 1.180 1'; 1‘1': wM L n1 Q» .. . W. D «C ml. ..wx «mu L mu 0 dd .0 D. at w x A: A; n: C L b WU O «t 0. a. _ V—*V— v ———‘,——w——_\‘————__ ._W_ -W‘— CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF RESULTS The response from organizational addressees com— prised: 145 reply cards indicating the addressee's intention to not complete and return the research instruments, and; 147 reply cards indicating that the research instruments would be completed and returned. Additionally, personal letters accompanied 65 of the total 392 responses (23.1% of the survey sample). A number of these letters, including those received from consulting firms which happened to be included in the survey sample and one received from the Association of Consulting Management Engineers Inc., which had been advised of the research project by some organizational addressees, were commendatory and encouraging with their appreciation of the potential value of the study. Many others merely acknowledged that their organizations did not have any, or recent, consultant experience, and a few resented the imposition of this research on the all— too—valuable time of the executive addressees. 86 complet complei receiv< questil those fewer naires pared ming S Univer iable 87 While 147 addressees indicated their intentions to complete and return the research instruments, only 133 completed responses (7.8% of the survey sample) were received. Some of these respondents left various questionnaire items unanswered and this is reflected in those analytical tables which show a total response of fewer than 133. Upon receipt, the completed question— naires were coded, key—punched onto data cards and pre— pared for computer analysis by the Applications Program— ming Section, Computer Laboratory, Michigan State University. The Applications Programming Section was also employed to develop the required programs for com— puter analysis on the basis of the researcher‘s instruc- tions as to the variables to be related and presented as contingency tables, and for other analyses in the form of frequency distributions. The composition of reSponses, and a comparison with the composition of the survey sample, is presented in Tables 6 through 9: Table 6: Comparison of Composition of Responses with Sample of Organizations Receiving Consultant Research Questionnaire by Type of Business. Table 7: Comparison of Composition of Responses with Sample of Industrial Manufacturing Organiza— tions by Industry Classification. TABLE samp 16 Type ~- wk.- 88 TABLE 6.——Comparison of composition of responses with sample of organizations receiving consultant research questionnaire——by type of business. No. of No. of Organizations Responses Sampled Type of Business No. % No % Industrial Manufacturing 805 47.4 58 43.6 Merchandising and Distribution 249 14.7 12 9.0 Financial Institutions (Incl. Banks, Insurance) 213 12.5 25 18.8 Transportation 61 3.6 l 0.8 Public Utility 77 4.5 5 3.8 Other 175 10.3 9 6.8 Federal Government Agencies and Departments 120 7.0 23 17.2 TOTAL 1700 100.0 133 100.0 . e no Lt .11 Wt T. U; ml sample =5 1 dust Autom 1 rue Fe Pr xt am 00 To c 0 TABLE 89 TABLE 7.——Comparison of composition of responses with sample of industrial manufacturing organizations by industry classification. No. of No. of Organizations ReSponses Industry Classification Sampled No % No % Automotive and Transporta— tion Equipment 20 2.5 7 12.1 Drugs, Chemicals, Petroleum, and Allied Products and Industries 57 7.1 3 5.2 Textiles, Clothing and Footwear 101 12.5 5 8.6 Food, Beverages, Tobacco 106 13.2 4 6.9 Electrical and Electronic Goods and Equipment 76 9.4 8 13.6 Metals, Minerals 33 4.1 4 6.9 Engineering, Machinery, and Metalworking 220 27.4 11 19.0 Construction Materials, Lumber, Hardware 56 7.0 7 12.1 Aerospace and Defense 7 0.9 2 3.5 Miscellaneous Manufacturing 129 15.9 7 12.1 TOTAL of Industrial Manufacturing Organizations 805 100.0 58 100.0 Table Table 90 Table 8: Comparison of Composition of Responses with Sample of Organizations Receiving Consultant Research Questionnaire by Number of Employees. Table 9: Comparison of Composition of Responses with Sample of Organizations Receiving Consultant Research Questionnaire by Geographic Region. Inspection of these tables shows that the distribu— tion of responses is essentially similar to the distribu— tion in the original survey sample. Goodman—Kruskal coefficients of ordinal association (G) between the response distribution and the sample distribution were calculated for: Table 6 G = 0.80 Table 7 G = 0.78 Table 8 G = 0.78 Table 9 G = 0.76 These coefficients can be interpreted to mean that there is from 76% to 80% greater agreement than disagree— ment between the response distributions and the sample distributions. It is not possible, however, to make any further claim concerning the extent to which the question— naire responses can be taken as representative of the survey sample. The raw data were analyzed in the form of con— tingency tables which related an item describing one aspect of the organization—consultant relationship to Ft TABLE sample Numbe th TABLE 8.--Comparison of composition of responses with sample of organizations receiving consultant research questionnaire——by number of employees. Number of Employees in Organizations Responses . . in Sample the Organization No. % No % 100 — 500 Employees 1044 61.5 71 53.4 501 — 1000 208 12.2 12 9.0 1001 — 2500 154 9.1 11 8.3 2501 — 5000 61 3.6 6 4.5 5001 — 10000 55 3.2 2 1.5 Over 10000 46 2.7 5 3.8 Not Known 12 0.7 3 2.2 Sub—Total of Business Organizations 1580 93.0 110 82.7 Add: Federal Government Departments and Agencies 120 7.0 23 17.3 TOTAL 1700 100.0 133 100.0 TABLE sample Locati (Gec TABLE 9.——Comparison of composition of responses with sample of organizations receiving consultant research questionnaire——by geographic region. No. of No. of Location of Organization Organizations Responses . . Sampled (Geographic Region) No % NO % New England 103 6.1 8 6.1 Middle Atlantic 407 24.0 26 19.7 South Atlantic 176 10.4 11 8.3 East South Central 70 4.1 l 0.8 West South Central 121 7.1 3 2.3 East North Central 394 23.2 35 26.5 West North Central , 112 6.6 13 9.9 Mountain 42 2.5 2 1.5 Pacific 155 9.0 10 7.6 Sub—Total of Business Organizations 1580 93.0 109 82.7 Add: Federal Government Departments and Agencies 120 7.0 23 17.3 TOTAL 1700 100.0 132 100.0 one or ness 1 Progrz analy which 93 one or other of the descriptions of assignment effective— ness provided by Section 7 of the Consultant Research Program questionnaire. The variables selected for such analysis were those relating to the operational hypotheses which had been derived from the fundamental research hypothesis concerning the influence of the organization— consultant relationship on the effectiveness of consultant assisted change efforts. In this way, the empirical data gathered by the research could be used to confirm or reject the several underlying hypotheses. The comparatively small number of responses in which the reporting organization described the nature and arrangement of their consultant experience presents an all too obvious restriction on the strength of any assertions which can be based on a review of the data. Of the 133 organizational respondents, only 91 (68.4%) reported on a consulting experience which had occurred during the three year reference period, and not all of these reported fully on each item in the questionnaire. This results in even smaller numbers of responses appearing in the various cells of the analytical tables and precludes the use of those statistical tests which could otherwise demonstrate the significance of the research data. For this reason it is considered that the data may be more correctly used to indicate probable directional effects rather than to conclusively prove or dis discus Assi Item we :1 E 94 or disprove the related hypotheses. Consequently, the discussion of the data analyses includes a minimal amount of statistical manipulation and inference. In the following discussion of data in relation to the operational hypotheses, those instances where only one or two responses are available have been largely ignored because of uncertainty about their significance, and their potentially misleading consequences. Hypothesis 1. Consultant—assisted change programs are more effective where the organi— zation considers some changes may be necessary, rather than where a consultant is retained to audit the status quo. Relevant data are presented in Table 10: "Effectiveness of Assignment by Major Situation Leading to Consultant Assignment." (This table relates data from questionnaire Item 2 and Item 7.) Overall, 37.2% of all assignments were judged by their organizational respondents as being completely effective in terms of achieving the desired changes or improvements. However, — only 33.3% were judged as completely effective where the organization was unaware of any general or partic- ular problems, but retained a consultant to conduct an examination and evaluation of its operations, practices, and policies in order to confirm their adequacy. / :K '1] LI} (4) f) (T) IE' 95 TABLE 10.——Effectiveness of assignment by major situation leading to consultant assignment. Major Situation Leading to Consulting Assignment Assignment Degree of Effectiveness of A* B* C* 0* E* Fifi Total Contact initiated by consultant, with offer to investigate and recommend services. (% Across) Organization unaware of problems, but wanted examination and evalua~ tion of operations. Organization primarily concerned about adequacy of its ”technology.” Organization primarily concerned about the adequacy of its manage— ment personnel and practices. Organization primarily concerned about the adequacy of its formal structure. Organization primarily concerned with change in external conditions. Other reason. No reason indicated as most important. TOTAL 1 (50.0%) 2 (33.3%) 14 (41.2%) 13 (52.0%) 1 (16.7%) 1 (14.3) 2 (25.0) 1 (16.7%) 0 1 O 0 0 34 25 35 (37.2%) 12 28 6 6 94 >l< "ljfl‘lUOUtJb H H H II II II Completely effective. Generally effective, but felt it could have been better. Moderately effective but some problems yet remain. Minimally effective and generally disappointing. No worthwhile results achieved. Not known as results cannot be evaluated. — onl O "i: 96 — only 26.7% were judged as completely effective where the organization reported no particular situation as precipitating the consultant's engagement. - only 14.3% were judged completely effective where the organization was concerned primarily with changes that had taken place in the external environments. These preceding situations represent those where it could be reasonably inferred that the organization does not necessarily see internal changes as inevitable. In contrast, in those situations where the consultant's engagement was prompted by some perceived inadequacy in the organization's practices, policies, personnel or Structure—-from which a consideration of the necessity for change could be reasonably inferred——there were 43.2% Of assignments judged as completely effective. Thus, these data are considered as being in the direction of supporting the underlying hypothesis. Further evidence is presented by Table 11: "Effective— ness of Assignment by Origin and Specificity of Assignment Objectives.” (From questionnaire Item 5.4 and Item 7.1), It is argued that those occasions where the organization formulated its own specific objectives with respect to the required outcomes from the consulting assignments are more likely associated with a realization of the need for change than those other situations where either the con— Sultant assisted in the formulation of specific goals, QC QECU rU .UG C(\ 97 Aso.ooav As:.m©v Aam.smv mm om mm Qfiw A&O.OOHV Amm.mmv Axw :zv Ugo mnoQEoE CowpmNflCmmuo oLoE so mm ma ma oco hp oopoHSELow wamow oflwfioomm Ammono< sv Ammoso< RV thESZ sooesz o>flpoommm mo>fipoompo onEcwflwm< hHopoHQEoo o>flpoonwm mo hpaoamaoodm poo cflmflno Hmpoe cone mood zaopoHQEoo . . . pcoEcmem< mo mmoco>flpoomnm no oopwom pcoEQmHmmm mo .mo>flpoonpo mpMOHMfloon Ugo snmflso hp psoEcmHmoo mo mmoso>flpoo%MMIl.Hfl mqm “II" ”II“ Completely effective. Generally effective, but felt it could have been better. Moderately effective but some problems yet remain. Minimally effective and generally disappointing. No worthwhile results achieved. Not known as results cannot be evaluated. valua comp] Table stan ques misu 100 valuable, and only 32.6% of such cases were judged as completely effective. While these data are not entirely consistent, Table 13: "Bases for Organization—Consultant Misunder— standings by Sponsor's Concept of the Consultant" (from questionnaire Item 5.10 and Item 7.8) indicates that misunderstandings occurred least often where the consult- ant was regarded as a collaborating equal (misunder- standings between organization and consultant reported in only 31.3% of cases), or where the consultant was regarded as an expert external resource (misunderstand— ings in only 33.3% of cases). As misunderstandings between organization and con— sultant are considered to detract from the potential effectiveness of the consultant assisted change effort, these data are in the direction of supporting the under— lying hypothesis. Further evidence is provided by the way in which changes were made in the consulting assignment itself during its progress. Any such changes made unilaterally by one or more organization members could be regarded as demonstrating less respect and trust in the consultant than where the latter participated in modifying the originally agreed assignment program. Table 14: "Effectiveness of Assignment by Changes in Assignment during Progress" (from questionnaire Items 6.7 and 7.1) .DCCDHSWCOO LOCCIDAE JCODHSQCCUlZC~QTNwliflLC L3; ILHEQII.W\ i43<§ MO DQOOCOO W.LOMCCQL kfl WSCATCCUE (|( 101 m > > 9 TL ) \/ \l \u/ \/ O 9 . . . . a . aw om mH m m m H m qaeoe Ass.sqv .coao Hm OH H m z o o m Iosoonqoo Mom :oonooo: oopoHQEoo o hc>HHo© UH503 on: :.L0poonpcoo: peoccogoocH so m< Ass.mmv . oHnosHo> m: mm s m m m o 0 mos ooCoUCoQooCH omogs .QOHpmNHsmeo one mo oonpso p59 flcondomon pnmdxo so m< Asm.wmv cosopHono thCHOH on UHSOo mH HH m o H H o o mEmpwosQ Eonp cpHs Hosoo mQHpohopmHHoo o m< Axo.mmv mo>HpoopHo mm economms on 0p 2 H m o H o o 0 one: mQOHpoocoEEooos omogs :LOHsoQSm: o m< ARo.ov Ammonoo RV H o o o o o H o someoom so oocHEnopoo mm newswopo p50 shame UHSOB on; :opocHULOQSm: psopooEoo o md *U,. . *m. *m *Q *0 *m *< Hopos ... scooHsnsoo _. mwcHoQopmsoocdez mo pooocoo m_pomcoom SOHpoNHcowpo pquHSmQOQICOHpoNHcomHO mo endpmz . , .pquHSmsoo mo pgoosoo m.nomcogm hp mwchsmpmsooszmHE pumpHSmQOoIQOprNHQomho mom momcmll.MH mqmn 1g [:1 ("J (1 LT) :5- II H l 000 orig H l sz [—10 n; H * a: J I (D *‘S (3 m tOtal lSVel TECQmI 107 TABLE 17.--Complete acceptance of recommendations by dif— ferent organization levels by origin of suggestion to seek ' consultant help. Organization Level Origin of Suggestion to Completely Accepting Seek Consultant Help total A* B* C* D* E* F* Consultant himself 1 0 1 l l l 5 (% of Total Responses)** (ll-9%) Chairman, board, or 1 2 0 1 2 0 ' corporate personnel (15.0%) . . 12 23 4 11 9 10 69 Chief executive (27 0%) Separtment heads imme- ‘ diately subordinate to 8 12 7 5 8 5 45 chief executive (29.0%) Lower level of management 0 O O O O O (0007) Influential person(s) ) external to the organiza— 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 . tion (0.0%) Other 1 1 l 1 1 O 5 (83.4%) ' TOTAL 23 38 13 19 21 16 130 . (25.7%) *A = Chairman, board, or corporate personnel. B = Chief executive C = Other organization sponsor > D = Managers immediately subordinate to chief executive E = Heads of departments or areas to be affected F = All managers advised of assignment. ** ‘ Per cent of Total Responses is the proportion of the ' total number of responses made by each organizational \ level which completely accepted the consultant's recommendations. proportior originate< in 27.8% ‘ Hyp pro tio the con One members t suggesti< assignme1 often (4 108 proportionately very much higher where this situation originated within the organization (complete acceptance in 27.8% of such occasions). Hypothesis 4. Consultant-assisted change programs are more effective where organiza— tion members are in general agreement as to the need for, and desirability of, obtaining consultant assistance. One indication of the agreement of organization members to seek consultant help is the origin of the suggestion to seek consultant help. Table 16 indicates assignments are judged as completely effective most often (42.8% of such occasions) when this suggestion originated with the management group immediately sub— ordinate to the chief executive. Consistently, Table 17 indicates that the consultants' recommendations are com- pletely accepted by all management levels most often (29.0% of such occasions) where the consultant suggestion was initiated by this same group. Table 18: "Degree of Concensus of Acceptance of Recommendations by Origin of Suggestion to Seek Con— sultant Help” (from questionnaire Items 4.1 and 7.5) adds further evidence with its indication that there is complete (or almost complete) agreement concerning the acceptance of recommendations most often (48.2% of cases) where the consultant suggestion was initiated by department head(s) immediately subordinate to the chief executive. Where there is complete (or almost complete) TABLE 18. tions by —# Origin of to Seek C He] Consultar (% acros: Chairman corporat. Chief ex Departme immediat to chief Lower 1e mana geme Influent OUtside Organize “=31: ’0 If) (.7 (41 L17 II II I! II ll 3 D) 109 TABLE 18.—-Degree of concensus of acceptance of recommenda- tions by origin of suggestion to seek consultant help. Concensus Concerning Accep— tance of Recommendations Origin of Suggestion to Seek Consultant total Help A* 3* 0* D* E* F* Consultant himself 0 0 0 4 3 0 7 (% across) (42.9%) Chairman, board, or 0 2 1 3 1 0 7 corporate personnel (14.3%) . . 2 1 4 19 17 4 47 Chief executive (36.2%) Department head(s) immediately subordinate 0 1 1 8 13 4 27 to chief executive (48.2%) Lower level of 0 0 0 l 0 0 1 management (0.0%) Influential person(s) outside of the 0 O O 0 1 0 1 organization (100.0%) 0 0 l 0 1 Other (100.0%) TOTAL 2 4 6 35 36 8 91 (39.6) *A = Strong and almost complete disagreement among organization members Majority disagreement but some members in favor About equally divided Majority in agreement but some disagreement Complete or almost complete agreement Degree of concensus not known 'IJWUOW H H II N ll concensus decision are most 41.0% of ness of A Consultar and 7.1) Ta‘ by Diffe Concerni items 4. of Accep Concerni Items 4. H {—4.14071m 110 concensus among organization members concerning the decision to hire a consultant, the ensuing assignments are most often judged as being completely effective——in 41.0% of such cases——as shown by Table 19: ”Effective— ness of Assignment by Degree of Concensus Concerning Consultant Assistance" (from questionnaire Items 4.5 and 7.1). Table 20: "Complete Acceptance of Recommendations by Different Organization Levels by Degree of Concensus Concerning Consultant Assistance” (from questionnaire Items 4.5 and 7.4), and Table 21: "Degree of Concensus of Acceptance of Recommendations by Degree of Concensus Concerning Consultant Assistance" (from questionnaire Items 4.5 and 7.5) provide further supporting data. Thus all the available evidence is consistent, and in the direction of confirming the hypothesis that con- sultant assistance will be more effective where organiza— tion members are in agreement as to its need and desirability. Hypothesis 5. Consultant—assisted change programs will be more effective where several organization members, and particularly those likely to be affected, have participated in the discussions and decisions leading to the retention of a consultant. A considerable amount of data relevant to this hypothesis are presented in the following tables: TABLE 19-- c Degree Concernil Ass: Strong an plete dis Majority but some favor. About eqx Majority some dis 00mplete COmplete DEEree c diQagree members TOTAL >1: UJ II) II I O (D ('3 O I E _. JET! N Z' ('7' 111 TABLE l9.——Effectiveness of assignment by degree of con— census concerning consultant assistance. Degree of Effectiveness of Degree of concensus . Concerning Consultant Ass1gnment Total Ass1stance A* B* 0* D* E* F* Strong and almost com— 1 0 O O O l 2 plete disagreement (50.0%) (% Across) Majority disagreement, l O O O 1 but some members in (100.0%) favor. About equally divided. 0 O l l O O 2 (0.0%) Majority agreement, but 7 l 3 l 20 some disagreement. (35.0%) Complete, or almost 25 10 l5 5 3 3 51 complete, agreement. (41.0%) Degree of concensus or 1 l 6 O O 2 10 disagreement among (10.0%) members not known. TOTAL .35 13 28 7 6 7 96 (36.5%) *A = Completely effective. B = Generally effective, but felt it could have been better. C = Moderately effective but some problems yet remain. D = Minimally effective and generally disappointing. E = No worthwhile results achieved. F = Not known as results cannot be evaluated. TABLE 20. - ferent org Degree of Strong an disagreem Responses Majority but some About equ Majority some dise Complete, Complete, Degree oi not know TOTAL ./ L11 I, u r; l‘ :T ")J L1] 1:} (‘4) 112 TABLE 20.--Complete acceptance of recommendations by dif- ferent organization levels by degree of consensus concern— ing consultant assistance. Organization Level Completely Accepting Degree of Consensus total A* B* 0* D* E* F* Strong and almost complete disagreement (% of Total 0 l O O l 0 2 Responses) (18.0%) Majority disagreement, l l l O O 3 but some members in favor (50.0%) About equally divided 0 O 0 O O O O (0.0%) Majority agreement, but 5 7 2 2 3 2 21 a some disagreement (20.6%) I Complete, or almost 18 26 10 17 18 14 103 complete, agreement (31.2%) Degree of consensus 0 M 0 l O O 5 not known (10.2%) TOTAL 24 39 13 20 22 16 13A (26.2%) *A = Chairman, board, or corporate personnel B = Chief executive C = Other organization sponsor D = Managers immediately subordinate to chief executive E = Heads of departments or areas to be affected F = All managers advised of assignment. TABLE 21.- mendation: ———’_——=——' Organizat Concensus Consultan Strong an complete (A across Majority but some favor Mom em Majority some dis Complete plete 3E Degree c not knoy hdlrlrjrutx u n u n u 3 m 113 TABLE 21.——Degree of concensus of acceptance of recom— mendations by degree of concensus concerning consultant assistance. Organization Members' Concensus Concerning Accep— Concensus Concerning tance of Recommendations Consultant Assistance total A* 3* 0* Die E* F* Strong and almost complete disagreement O O O l l O 2 (% across) (50.0%) Majority disagreement, but some members in O O 0 l 0 O I favor (0.0%) About equally divided 0 l l O O 2 (0.0%) Majority agreement, but 2 O l 9 8 O 20 some disagreement (A0.0%) Complete, or almost com— 0 3 3 19 28 6 59 plete agreement (47.5%) Degree of concensus 0 O 1 5 O 2 8 not known (0.0%) TOTAL 2 A 6 35 37 8 92 (Ao.2%) *A = Strong and almost complete disagreement among organization members _ B = Majority disagreement but some members in favor C = About equally divided _ D = Majority in agreement but some disagreement E = Complete or almost complete agreement F = Degree of concensus not known Table 22 Table 23 Table 2A 114 Table 22: "Effectiveness of Assignment by Level of Pre—Engagement Discussions" (from question— naire Items 4.2 and 7.1). Table 23: "Complete Acceptance of Recommendations by Different Organization Levels by Level of Pre—Engagement Discussion" (from question— naire Items 4.2 and 7.4). Table 24: "Degree of Concensus of Acceptance of Recommendations by Level of Pre-Engagement Discussions" (from questionnaire Items 4.2 and 7.5). Table 25: "Effectiveness of Assignment by Level of Decision to Request Consulting Help" (from questionnaire Items 4.3 and 7.1). Table 26: "Effectiveness of Assignment by Level of Determination of Assignment Scope" (from questionnaire Items 5.2 and 7.1). Table 22 indicates that consulting assignments were most often judged as completely effective where there were pre—engagement discussions among several organiza- tion members (completely effective in 47.6% of such cases), and next most often (34.5%) where pre—engagement discussions were held between the chief executive and his immediate subordinates. Assignments were least Often judged as completely effective (25.0% of cases) Where no organization members were involved in TABLE 22. Level of Die Discussic chief exe peers or Discussi< executiv< subordin Discussi departme Discussi those de involved action. superio: MSdiate A11 oth of prec TOTAL 7 '21 LT] (T1 0 DJ :9 I u 20 O (D 115 TABLE 22.——Effectiveness of assignment by level of pre— engagement discussions. Degree of Effectiveness of Level of Pre—Engagement Assignment Discussions Total A* B* 0* D* E* F* Discussions between 7 1 7 2 2 2 21 chief executive and (33.3%) peers or superiors. (% Across) Discussions between chief lO 4 8 2 3 2 29 executive and immediate (34.5%) subordinates. Discussions among all 1 O O l O 0 2 department heads. (50.0%) Discussions among only 0 O l 0 0 O l . those department heads (0.0%) involved in proposed action. Discussions among mana- O l l O O O 2 gers of department(s) (0.0%) or area(s) considering assistance. No discussion, as deci— l l l O 0 l 4 sion about consultant (25.0%) made unilaterally. Other. 2 0 O O O O 2 (100.0%) Discussions between 4 2 5 2 l 0 1” chief executive, (28.6%) superiors, and im— mediate subordinates. All other combinations 10 4 5 0 O 2 21 of preceding parties. (47.6%) TOTAL 35 13 28 7 6 7 96 (36.5%) * WLUCJCDUJP Completely effective. Generally effective, but felt it could have been better. Moderately effective but some problems yet remain. Minimally effective and generally disappOinting. No worthwhile results achieved. Not known as results cannot be evaluated. "II" "II” TABLE 21 differe: Discuss executf superi< Respon Discus chief immedi TN DISC exec and 0rdi :2 I * '11 {11 (a m r11 :2 116 TABLE 23.——Complete acceptance of recommendations by different organization levels by level of pre—engagement discussions. Level of Pre—Engagement Organization Level Discussions Completely Accepting total A* B* C* D* E* F* Discussions between chief executive and peers or superiors (% of Total 4 9 l 4 3 l 22 Responses) (19.5%) Discussions between chief executive and 8 l3 7 8 9 51 immediate subordinates (34.2%) Discussions among all 1 l 0 l l l 5 department heads (41.7%) Discussions among heads of department(s) or O O O O O area(s) to be affected (0.0%) Discussions among all managers in the depart— ment(s) considering O O 0 O O O assistance (0.0%) No discussions——as decision was made 0 l l 0 l l 4 unilaterally (25.0%) Other 5 10 3 5 8 6 38 (29.7%) Discussions between chief executive and superiors 4 and immediate sub— 5 5 l 2 O 1 l ordinates (17'l%> TOTAL 24 39 13 2O 22 16 134 (26.2%) *A = Chief, board or corporate personnel B = Chief executive C = Other organization sponsor . _ D = Managers immediately subordinate to chief executive E = Heads of departments or areas to be affected F = All managers advised of assignment TABLE 24. ti fi Level of Engagemer Discussic Discussi< chief exe peers or (% acros Discussi chief ex immediat Discussi departme Discussi those de involvec action Discuss manager or area assista N0 disc decisic sultant lateral Other DiSCus. Chief Superi inmedi y; H C} (’J (D I ”11 [7‘] l 117 TABLE 24.——Degree of concensus of acceptance of recommenda— tions by level of pre—engagement discussions. Concensus Concerning Accep— Level of Pre— tance of Recommendations Engagement total Discussions A* B* 0* D* E* F* Discussions between chief executive and peers or superiors l l 2 7 7 2 20 (% across) (35.0%) Discussions between chief executive and l l 2 8 l4 1 27 immediate subordinates (51.8%) Discussions among all 0 0 0 l l O 2 department heads (50.0%) Discussions among only those department heads involved in proposed 0 l O O 0 action (0.0%) Discussions among managers of departments or areas considering O 0 0 l O l assistance (0.0%) No discussions, as decision about con— sultant made uni- O O l l l laterally (33.3%) Other 0 O O 1 (50.0%) Discussions between chief executive, superiors, and 0 l l immediate subordinates All other combinations 0 O of preceding parties 4 (28.6%) 9 (42.9%) 2 4 6 35 37 8 92 TOTAL (40.2%) Strong and almost complete disagreement among organi— zation members _ y Majority disagreement but some members in favor About equally divided ‘ Majority in agreement but some disagreement Complete or almost complete agreement Degree of concensus not known *A WWUOUJ II II II II II TABLE 25. Level of Request C Chairman corporat« Chief ex Head(s) partment to be af Other. Chief e: With 5 u} p0rate 1 Chief e with he departm All 0th DPecedi TOTAI / * ’TJL'FJUKDUJID u u u H II M Z 118 TABLE 25.——Effectiveness of assignment by level at decision to request consulting help. Degree of Effectiveness of Level of Decision to Assignment Request Consulting Help Total A* B* C* D* E* F* Chairman, board, or 6 O 3 0 3 l 13 corporate personnel. (46.2%) (% Across) Chief executive. 2l 8 17 5 3 2 56 (37.5%) Head(s) of relevant de— 4 2 3 l O 3 l3 partment(s) or area(s) (30.8%) to be affected. Other. 0 2 O O O O 2 (0.0%) Chief executive together 1 1 2 O O l 5 with superiors or cor— (20.0%) porate personnel. Chief executive together 3 0 3 O O 0 6 with head(s) of relevant (50.0%) department(s) or area(s). All other combinations of O 0 O l 0 0 l preceding parties. (0.0%) TOTAL 35 3 13 28 7 6 7 96 (36.5%) *A = Com letel effective. B = Gengrallyyeffective, but felt it could have been better. C = Moderately effective but some problems yet remain. D = Minimally effective and generally disappOinting. E = No worthwhile results achieved. F = Not known as results cannot be evaluated. TABLE 26.- Level of of Assig __’——— Chairman. corporate Chief EXT Departme relevant area(s), Consults Chief e: with de} Chief e with co Departn Eether Other ( precedi TOTA / u: ’7‘] 1‘7 (j 0 (TD :I> II H II I! H H -—.« 7 119 TABLE 26.——Effectiveness of assignment by level of determi— nation of assignment scope. Degree of Effectiveness of Level of Determination Assignment of Assignment Scope Total A* B* C* D* E* F* Chairman, board, or 3 1 2 O O O 6 corporate personnel. (50.0%) (% Across) Chief Executive 12 l 13 2 5 2 35 (34.3%) Department head(s) of 10 2 5 2 O 2 21 relevant organization (47.6%) area(s). Consultant himself. 0 0 O O 1 O l (0.0%) Chief executive together 6 2 5 l 0 1 15 with department head(s). (40.0%) Chief executive together 0 l 1 0 0 0 2 with consultant. (0.0%) Department head(s) to— l O O O O l 2 gether with consultant. (50.0%) Other combination of 1 3 2 2 0 l 9 preceding parties. (11.1%) TOTAL 33 10 28 7 6 7 91 (36.3%) * 'IZIL'UUOUjp II II II II II II Com letel effective. Gengrallyyeffective, but felt it could have been better. Moderately effective but some problems yet remain. Minimally effective and generally disappOinting. No worthwhile results achieved. Not known as results cannot be evaluated. pre-engag was made data in : tions wi analysis organize cussion: B: mendati within complet where c 120 pre-engagement discussions and the engagement decision was made unilaterally. Table 23 provides consistent data in rating the complete acceptance of recommenda— tions with respect to the same variable. In this analysis, complete acceptance of recommendations by all organization levels is most frequent (41.7%) where dis— cussions were held among all department heads. By relating the concensus of acceptance of recom— mendation to the nature of pre—engagement discussions within the organization, Table 24 shows that there is complete (or almost complete) agreement most often where discussions were held between the chief executive and his immediately subordinate managers (51.8% of such cases showed complete, or almost complete, agreement con— cerning the acceptance of recommendations). While the data are inadequate, Table 25 indicates that assignments are most often judged as completely effective where the decision to retain a consultant was made jointly by the chief executive together with the heads of the relevant departments or areas to be affected (50.0% of such cases). Table 26 furnishes data which indicate an assignment was more often judged as com- pletely effective where its scope was determined by the department heads of the related organization areas (47.6% were judged completely effective), than where the assignment scope was determined by the chief executiv tive). Al directi< effecti‘ organiz decisio sultant .‘vafl '-r‘ consid partic consul of Ass to be indie plete Selec L0get heads arra Dlet 121 executive alone (34.3% were judged completely effec— tive). All of these data would appear to be in the direction of supporting the hypothesis that assignment effectiveness is related to the participation, by organization members, in the discussions and ultimate decision concerning the retention of an external con— sultant. Hypothesis 6. Consultant-assisted change programs are more effective where organiza— tion members are in general agreement as to the particular consultant selected. Evidence for this hypothesis is provided by a consideration of which organization members made, or participated in making, the decision about the particular consultant to be selected. Table 27: ”Effectiveness of Assignment by Level of Decision Concerning Consultant to be Hired" (from questionnaire Items 4.12 and 7.1) indicates assignments were most often judged as com— pletely effective where the decision on consultant selection was made jointly by the chief executive together with his immediately subordinate department heads (54.6% judged as completely effective). This arrangement resulted in assignments being judged com- pletely effective more frequently than where the chief executive alone (35.2% completely effective) or the department heads alone (29.4% completely effective) made the selection decision. Chairman corporat Chief e; :14 “FJ [11 C] (‘1 (I? 3> 122 TABLE 27.——Effectiveness of assignment by level of decision concerning consultant to be hired. Level of Decision Degree of Effectiveness of Concerning Consultant Ass1gnment Total to be Hired A* B* 0* D* E* F* Chairman, board, or 5 O 3 O 2 O 10 corporate personnel. (50.0%) (% Across) Chief executive. l9 7 l7 4 4 3 54 (35.2%) Department head(s) of 5 3 4 2 0 3 17 relevant organization (29-4%) area(s). Chief executive, together 1 0 O 0 O 0 l with chairman, board or (100.0%) corporate personnel. Chief executive, together 6 0 4 0 O 1 11 with department heads. (54.6%) Other. 0 3 O l O O 4 (0.0%) TOTAL 36 13 28 7 6 7 97 (37.1%) *A = Completely effective. B = Generally effective, but felt it could have been better. C = Moderately effective but some problems yet remain. D = Minimally effective and generally disappointing. E = No worthwhile results achieved. F = Not known as results cannot be evaluated. Tat by Diffei Concerni‘ question organize tiveness occurrez made jO subordi pletely E by Beg] 123 Table 28: "Complete Acceptance of Recommendations by Different Organization Levels by Level of Decision Concerning Particular Consultant to be Hired" (from questionnaire Items 4.12 and 7.4) relates the same organization variable to a different measure of effec— tiveness. Complete acceptance of recommendations occurred most often where the selectiOn decision was made jointly by the chief executive and his immediately subordinate department heads (recommendations were com- pletely accepted by all levels in 39.4% of such cases). Finally, Table 29: ”Effectiveness of Assignment by Degree of Concensus Concerning Consultant Finally Selected" (from questionnaire Items 4.13 and 7.1) indicates that assignments are most often judged as completely effective where there is complete or almost complete, agreement among organization members con— cerning the consultant to be appointed (such assignments were judged as completely effective in 39.7% of cases). These data are not entirely conclusive, but they are consistent in direction and provide at least tentative confirmation of the underlying hypothesis. Hypothesis 7. Consultant—assisted change programs are more effective where the con— sultant finally appointed has been selected from two or more consultants invited by the organization for preliminary discussions or to make preliminary diagnoses. Consulting assignments are evaluated as completely effective most often where two or three consultants TABLE diffe Level Conce Const Chair corpc of a2 Chie with pers Chic witi depg o :p H) :4 H I >l< .g m r: 0 cu ;1> 124 TABLE 28.——Comp1ete acceptance of recommendations by different organization levels by level of decision concerning particular consultant to be hired Organization Level Level of Decision Completely Accepting Concerning Particular total Consultant to be Hired A* B* C* D* E* * Chairman, board or corporate personnel (% of all cases) 4 4 1 4 3 1 17 (32.1%) . . 13 2A 7 10 11 8 73 Chief executive (24.7%) Head(s) of department(s) 1 4 5 2 5 3 20 or area(s) to be affected (25.4%) Other 0 O O 0 0 O (0.0%) Chief executive together with board, or corporate 1 l O l O O 3 personnel (50.0%) Chief executive together with head(s) or relevant 5 6 O 4 4 5 24 department(s) (39.4%) All other combinations 1 1 O O O 2 of preceding parties (9.1%) TOTAL 25 4O 13 21 23 17 139 (26.9%) *A = Chairman, board or corporate personnel B = Chief executive C = Other organization sponsor D = Managers immediately subordinate to chief executive E = Heads of departments or areas to be affected F = All managers advised of assignment ul‘fiz‘u i TABLE 29 C ____.—-—-—- ___._—— Degree Concern Final Strong 6 plete di Majority some mer Organiz: about e< Majorit some d1 Ccmplet complet :4< ‘rj Ill (4} (D (’17 £14" 125 TABLE 29.——Effectiveness of assignment by degree of con— census concerning consultant finally selected. Degree of Consensus Degree of Effectiveness of . Ass1gnment Concerning Consultant . Total Finally Selected A* B* 0* D* E* F* Strong and almost com— 0 O O O 0 O O plete disagreement. — (% Across) Majority disagreement but 1 O O 0 O O 1 some members in favor. (100.0%) Organization members 0 O l O O O 1 about equally divided. (0.0%) Majority agreement, but 4 l 2 2 2 O 11 some disagreement. (36.4%) Complete, or almost 29 ll 20 4 2 7 73 complete agreement. (39.7%) Degree of concensus 2 1 5 1 l 2 12 not known. (16.7%) TOTAL 36 13 28 7 5 9 98 (36.8%) *A = Completely effective. B = Generally effective, but felt it could have been better. C = Moderately effective but some problems yet remain. D = Minimally effective and generally disappointing. E = No worthwhile results achieved. F = Not known as results cannot be evaluated. have bee cases). lower be complete were in1 is furn by Numb (from q M consult ants he of sucl consul for Or Of Cor AUesti 126 have been invited for preliminary discussions (39.0% of cases). The proportion of assignments so evaluated is lower both where only one consultant was invited (37.8% completely effective) or where four or more consultants were invited (27.3% completely effective). This evidence is furnished by Table 30: ”Effectiveness of Assignment by Number of Consulting Firms Invited for Discussions" (from questionnaire Items 4.7 and 7.1). Misunderstandings between the organization and its consultant occur least Often where two or three consult— ants have been invited for preliminary discussions (33.3% of such cases) and most often (45.5%) where four or more consultants were invited——as shown by Table 31: "Bases for Organization—Consultant Misunderstandings by Number of Consulting Firms Invited for Discussions” (from questionnaire Items 4.7 and 7.8). However, when the variable becomes the number of consultants conducting preliminary examinations, as in Table 32, the proportion of assignments evaluated as completely effective is greatest where there have been four or more consultants (66.7%). But in this analysis, also, the proportion judged as completely effective is greater where there have been two or three consultants (46.2%) than where there has been a preliminary investi— gation conducted by only one consultant (17.4% judged as completely effective). The high proportion of TABLE 3C Numbel Firm: 1 Only 2or3 L(orm Not in 'Tll?1lj()w;x> H H H H H II 127 TABLE 30.-—Effectiveness of assignment by number of con— sulting firms invited for discussions. Number of Consulting Degree of Effectiveness of Firms Invited for ASSlsnment ' ' ' Total DiscuSSion A* B* 0* D* E* F* 1 Only 20 5 3‘ 3 61 23 (% Across) (37.8%) 2 or 3 7 2 4 O 3 2 18 (39.0%) 4 or more 3 2 4 1 0 l 11 (27.3%) Not indicated. 0 0 O O O l l (0.0%) TOTAL 33 ll 28 6 6 7 91 (36.3%) *A = Completely effective. B = Generally effective, but felt it could have been better. C = Moderately effective but some problems yet remain. D = Minimally effective and generally disappointing. E = No worthwhile results achieved. F = Not known as results cannot be evaluated. #Cfl Icoo pHo .HmDE rrr:u.$(r\ (.1 a . .wCOHmwdomfiU MOM UMDH>CH WELHM SC an waHUCMDMMOUESMHE DCMDHSWCO MCHDHSM UIEOHDMNHCN MLO MOM mmmmmll.dm NQQ coospop moocmhomwflm won mooqohommflo .pcmuHSmcoo paw homsodm QOprNchwho no mccsohmewn Coos .QOflpOHQEoo psoEcmHmmm l1 <1 CDOQIIJEQCD e0 mpdoosoo m.pcpr:msoo one m.HOmGOQm cowpmuflsmmso somzpon monsohOMMHQ n * lIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII: smse _ mm om NH m a m H m Haeoe Ago.OOHv H H o o o o o o oopooHocH ooz Hem.:mv HH e H H o H o m onos no : Aes.mmv mH NH m o m o o H m to m Axm.wmv . Ammopom ev mm Hm m a e N H o sHeo H *w *m *m *0 *o *m *< Hmpoe mm: mQOHmmsomHQ pom poaa>cH chmpmHOUQSmHz mEsHm mcfipHSmcoo mo gonadz pcwpasmsoouc0HpmNficmwso mo chapwz .mCOHmmSOmHU mom empfi>cfi wEHHm mcflpfism Isoo mo Lopez: an mmcflccwumHOUGSmHE unmpHSmcoo:QOHpmNHsmwso mom mommmll.am mqm[< k41:1!_FJU<3U311> I! H H II II II TABLE 32.——Effectiveness of assignment by number of con— sulting firms conducting preliminary investigations. Number of Consulting Degree Of Eigzigigzfiiss Of Firms Conducting Pre— Total liminary Investigations A* B* 0* D* E* F* No preliminary investi— 21 gations conducted. (39.6%) (% Across) l 4 6 6 3 3 l 23 (17.4%) 2 or 3 6 O 4 1 l l 13 (46.2%) 4 or more 2 O l O O O 3 (66.7%) TOTAL 33 11 28 7 6 7 92 (35.9%) *A = Completely effective. B = Generally effective, but felt it could have been better. 0 = Moderately effective but some problems yet remain. D = Minimally effective and generally disappointing. E = No worthwhile results achieved. F = Not known as results cannot be evaluated. assignme liminary such ca: with the underly Assignm liminar and 7.1 7 Table j Consul‘ Sidere result file at( only inves 130 assignments judged as completely effective when no pre- liminary investigations have been conducted (39.6% of such cases) must be noted, as it appears inconsistent with the other data in this table and also with the underlying hypothesis—-see Table 32: "Effectiveness of Assignment by Number of Consulting Firms Conducting Pre— liminary Investigations" (from questionnaire Items 4.8 and 7.1). An essentially similar situation is described by Table 33: ”Effectiveness of Assignment by Number of Consulting Firms Submitting a Preliminary Proposal" (from questionnaire Items 4.9 and 7.1). A review of all the related evidence leaves con— siderable uncertainty about this hypothesis. While the resulting assignment effectiveness is consistently greater where two or three consultants, rather than only one, are involved in preliminary discussions and investigations, there appears to be a curvilinearity in the relationship evidenced by the decrease in effec- tiveness where four or more consultants have been involved. A possible explanation is that with this greater number of proposals and/or viewpoints presented in discussion, the organization becomes confused as to the objectives it should seek and the optimal arrangement for their accomplishment. Further, the knowledge of the potential for organization improvement provided by the TABLE 3: y Number Firms 8 posal tion No prop prior 1 consult a: "U ’7] (j (72' (71 if) I 131 TABLE 33.——Effectiveness of assignment by number of con- sulting firms submitting a preliminary proposal. Number of Consulting Firms Submitting a Pro— Degree of Effectiveness of posal Prior to Selec— Ass1gnment . f Total tion 0 Consultant A* B* 0* D* E* F* No proposals submitted 14 3 ll 2 2 2 34 prior to selection of (41.2%) consultant. (% Across) 1 l2 6 l3 4 4 2 41 (29.3%) 2 or 3 4 l 2 l O l 9 ' (44.4%) 4 or more 3 l 2 0 O 2 8 (37.5%) TOTAL 33 11 28 7 6 7 92 (35.9%) *A = Completely effective. , B = Generally effective, but felt it could have been better. C = Moderately effective but some problems yet remain. D = Minimally effective and generally disappointing. E = No worthwhile results achieved. F = Not known as results cannot be evaluated. aggrega ants ma which n satisfy of eflc son wil more d a comp consul submit WhO \ COndl Who 132 aggregation of proposals introduced by several consult— ants may lead the organization to develop expectations which no one of the consultants could be expected to satisfy. Thus the organization‘s ultimate perception of effectiveness may become moderated through compari— son with inflated expectations. A similarly plausible explanation, however, is more difficult to develop for the situations which show a comparatively high level of effectiveness where no consultants conduct preliminary investigations, and none submit an assignment proposal to the organization prior to the selection of a particular consultant. It is sug— gested that these data may derive from situations where the organization is clear as to its needs and expecta— tions following internal discussions among appropriate organization members. Thus, the organization knows what it wants to achieve and is able to select a consultant who will be likely to accomplish these requirements by conducting preliminary discussions with two or three who are appropriately qualified and experienced. Consequently, it would appear that the data con- firm a somewhat modified hypothesis which would state that assignment effectiveness is greater where the con— sultant is selected from two or three consultants invited by the organization for preliminary discussions prior to a final appointment. ”Effec Consul This t often consul in as COle 133 Hypothesis 8. Consultant—assisted change programs are more effective where the con— sultant finally appointed has been selected on the basis of some objective, identified criteria. Relevant data are presented in Table 34: "Effectiveness of Assignment by Basis for Selection of Consultant" (from questionnaire Items 4.11 and 7.1). This table shows that consulting assignments were most often judged as being completely effective where the consultant was selected on the basis of his previous consulting relationship(s) with the organization (63.6% of such cases were judged as completely effective). Effectiveness is high where the appointment is made on the basis of recommendations from external sources (60.0% of assignments in this situation were judged as being completely effective), or where no particular basis for selection was identified (57.2% judged as completely effective). However, appointments made on the bases of previous (personal) contacts between the consultant and members of the organization, or impressions they held concerning the consultant's reputation, resulted in assignments which were infrequently,judged to be completely effective. Similarly, and perhaps even more significantly, assignments carried out by consultants who were selected on the nature and content of their proposal, and the manner of its presentation to the TABLE 31 Basis PartiC' Persona created during diagnos Known l sultant member Impres organ: concei sulta; * ,4. :E. O (1, H .. ’1'] (7’1 ’0 (D 134 TABLE 34.——Effectiveness of assignment by basis for selec- tion of consultant. Degree of Effectiveness of Basis for Selection of Assignment Particular Consultant Total A* B* 0* D* E* F* Personal impression 2 l 1 2 O 0 6 created by consultant (33.3%) during preliminary diagnostic phase. (% Across) Known record of con— 7 1 9 l 2 2 22 sultant's assignments (31.8%) in other organizations. Previous consulting re— 14 l 3 l 1 2 22 lationships with the (63.6%) organization. Previous contacts be— 1 3 2 2 2 l 11 tween consultant and (9.1%) chief executive or other organization members. Impressions held by O 2 3 O 1 l 7 organization members (0.0%) concerning the con— sultant's reputation. Recommendations from 3 0 2 0 0 0 5 sources external to (60.0%) the organization. Nature and content of 1 _ 1 5 1 O 0 8 consultant's proposal, (12.5%) and manner of presen— tation. On—going retainer agree— 0 0 l 0 O 1 2 ment between organiza— (0.0%) tion and consultant. Other. 1 2 O O O O 3 (33.3%) No reason indicated as most important. 4 l 2 O 0 O 7 (57.2) TOTAL 33 12 28 7 6 7 93 (35.5%) *A = Completely effective; B = Generally effective, but felt it could have been better; C = some problems yet reaming generally disappointing; F‘: D: E: Moderately effective but Minimally effective and No worthwhile results achieved; - Not known as results cannot be evaluated. organiz 12.5% 0 not all howevel indica 135 organization were judged as completely effective in only 12.5% of cases. It is considered that the evidence available does not allow this hypothesis to be confirmed. Neither, however, can it be completely rejected as there is an indication that consultant appointments based on personal predispositions (which might reasonably be considered as a corollary to the stated hypothesis) result in assignments which are infrequently judged as being completely effective. Hypothesis 9. Consultant—assisted change programs are more effective where the selected consultant has been required to conduct pre— liminary diagnostic investigations and develop a proposed program for the organization‘s approval and acceptance. Table 32 indicates that where one or more pre- liminary investigations have been conducted the subse— quent consulting assignments are judged as completely effective in 30.8% of cases, whereas 39.6% of assign— ments are so judged where there has been no preliminary investigation. Table 35: ”Bases for Organization— Consultant Misunderstandings by Number of Consulting Firms Conducting Preliminary Investigations" (from questionnaire Items 4.8 and 7.8) presents a similar picture. Some misunderstandings occurred in 41.7% of assignments where one or more preliminary investigations were conducted, but only in 37.5% of assignments where there was no preliminary investigation. UtinIIJI. r PCMDHSmCOOICOHDMNfiCMWLO.90 OLSDOZ .MCOHDNWHDmmIVCHH \ALMCfiEHHTLQ Evaluate: ....LOO mEhfitH NEH COICQHHMNHEMWLO (H064 Dmmmmllumm mqmfig IDHSMCOO H0 MTDESC kn MMCHCCMPMMMUCiMHE DCMUHE. ( 7|. l: I ..Il‘l l | Ill .4 .l. Ifllll .pcmpHscho one cOHQBNstwho coospon mmcHUQMUmnoocsmHE oz u o .mCOHposBHm mcHooooHQ mo mCOHpocHnEoo HH< u m .Honoo u m .pcopHchov mo omomLSQ psono wodoocoo.mponEoE COHpmNHcomso mcoEo mooQOLOCMHQ A Q .pcopHSmcoo pan HOmCOdm QOHHoNHEowHo mo mpsH0d36H> coospon moosopogmflm u o .pcopHSmsoo was acmcomm QOHpoNHQmwpo mo mUGSOmeoon soozpon mtoQOLOHMHQ n m .COHpOHQEoo psoEcmewm mo mpdoocoo m.ucopHdeoo one m.hOmQOQm QOHpoNHcowmo coozpop mooconomMHo n a * nem.omv 2w Hm NH m m m H m HHBOB 6 AH0.00HV 3. m o o o o o o o OLOE no a l Hem.Hmv MH w H o m o o H m no N Aso.omv om OH H m m o H o H Asm.mmv Ammonom RV umposocoo m: om s m m m o m mQOHpoprmo>cH zsosHsHHosd 02 *m *m *m *Q *0 *m *¢ mCOHpomemo>cH proa mhocHEHHohm wchosocoo mwcHocopmHOUCSmHz mELHm wchHsmcoo mo LonESZ pampHSmCOOICOHuoNHcomno mo manpoz IpHdmcoo .mcoHpmmemo>cH mhosHEHHond mchosszoo mELH.H msH mo Loafing an wmcHUCMmeOUCSwHE pampHowgoolcoHpmNHcmwho pom monomll.mm mqmLTETEerGSK c 1!.... [COO MO BODESC an mMCHUCGDmLOUCSmHE DCMDHSWCGm3COHuMNHEMMLO L0H WCWTEII Mo LLG neespon meoneneMMHQ u o .unepHnmnoo one acmnOQm noHpeNHnewno mo monnoumxoen neezpen moononeMMHo u m .noHpoHQEoo pnoEanmme mo mpdeonoo m_pnepHnmnoo one w.nomn0Qm nOHpeNHnewno noespen moononoMMHQ u <* Ham.omv :w Hm NH m m m H m HHBOB Hemeev w m o H o H o H enoE no : Anw.mmv m m H H o o o w m no N 8 AHHHB 33 em mH s H m H H o H l Ham.msv Ammonoe Hv pnepHnwnoo mo nOHpoeHom om mm 2 m H H o o op HOHnQ ooppHEQSm mHemogonQ .oz *0 *m *m *0 *o *m *< pnepHnmnoo no nOHpoeHem op Hepoe nOHnm Hemogonm e manpHEnnm mEnHm wanHnmnoo mo nonEsz mmnHonepmneonanz pnepHSmnOOInOHpeNHnewno mo .HemOQond mnenHEHHend Inoo mo Lennon an mmnHonepmneonann onnpez e manpHnnnm mEnHm wanHnm pnepHnwncoanOHpeNHnemno non mememlu.wm mqm11 gr, (I) 74- :L> (D O C" u w :-1 u 142 TABLE 39.—-Effectiveness of assignment by awareness of assignment objections by organization members. Organization Members Degree of Effectiveness of Formally Advised of Ass1gnment Total Assignment Objectives A* B* 0* D* E* F* Chairman, board, or 1 O O 1 O O 2 corporate personnel. (50.0%) (% Across) Chief executive only. 1 0 l l O O 3 (33.3%) Managers immediately 6 l 3 l 1 O 12 subordinate to chief (50.0%) executive. Managers in affected 2 l 3 1 l l 9 department(s) or (22.2%) area(s). All managers in the l 0 3 O O l 5 organization. (20.0%) No organization mem- l O O l l l 4 bers advised as speci— (25.0%) fic objectives not identified. Chief executive to— 1 O 0 l 2 0 4 gether with board or (25.0%) corporate personnel. Chief executive and l 1 1 O O O 3 immediately subordi- (33.3%) nate managers. Chief executive, sub— 3 4 l 0 0 0 8 ordinate managers, and (37.5%) managers of affected department(s) or area(s). All other combina— l9 5 l6 1 l 4 46 tions of preceding (41.3%) parties. TOTAL 36 12 28 7 6 7 96 (37.5%) *A = Completely effective; B = Generally effective, but felt it could have been better; C = Moderately effective but some problems yet remain; D = Minimally effective and generally disappointing; E = No worthwhile results achieved; F — Not known as results cannot be evaluated. "Compl Organi Organi 7.4). the d assig tion 143 This evaluation is essentially repeated by Table 40: "Complete Acceptance of Recommendations by Different Organization Levels by Awareness of Objectives by Organization Members" (from questionnaire Items 5.6 and 7.4). Thus, the available evidence is consistently in the direction of supporting the hypothesis which relates assignment effectiveness to the specificity and explica— tion of assignment objectives. Hypothesis ll. Consultant-assisted change programs are more effective where the organization does not closely direct the consultant's work, or unreasonably constrain him, by embargo or withheld information. Assignments were most Often judged as completely effective where the organization restricted the work area in which the consultant was permitted to operate (60.0% of such cases were completely effective). Overall, however, judgments of complete effectiveness were more frequent (37.7%) where no restrictions were placed on the consultant, than where the organization constrained him in one way or another (32.0% completely effective)——see Table 41: "Effectiveness of Assignment by Nature of Restrictions Placed on Consultant" (from questionnaire Items 5.7 and 7.1). The manner in which any changes were made to the nature of the assignment during its progress is another factor which might relate to this hypothesis. Where 7 TABLE 4 ferent Organi: Formali Assign] . Chairm porate all ca Chief Manage ordinz Manag or ar All m organ Chair corpc chief Chie C118? Chie diat and 0693 All DPe( ea :7: ’11 EU (.7 (A) (7‘1 I" I 144 TABLE 40.——Complete acceptance of recommendations by dif— ferent organization levels by awareness of objectives by organization members. Organization Level Organization Members Completely Accepting Formally Advised of Assignment Objectives A* B* 0* D* E* F* Total Chairman, board or cor— porate personnel (% of O l O 1 l l 4 all cases) (33.3%) . . O O O O 0 Chief executive only (0 0%) Managers immediately sub— 2 6 3 5 4 4 24 ordinate to chief executive (38.1%) Managers of department(s) 0 l 2 0 3 2 8 or area(s) to be affected (20.0%) All managers in the 2 2 O l O O 5 organization (15.1%) Chairman, board, or corporate personnel and l l O l O O. 3 chief executive (13.0%) Chief executive and imme— l l O l 1 1 5 diately subordinate managers (35.7%) Chief executive, imme— diately subordinate managers and managers of affected 1 4 0 1 2 2 10 department(s) or area(s) (22.2%) All other combinations of 17 23 8 l2 l2 7‘ 78 preceding parties (27.8%) TOTAL 24 39 13 21 23 17 137 (26.8) >1: WWUOUJID Chairman, board, or corporate personnel Chief executive Other organization sponsor Managers immediately subordinate to chief executive Heads of departments or areas to be affected All managers advised of assignment. II II ll 11 H H Work a1 Person strict Inform restri No res on cor Other Nork conta Persc info: restl A11( 131-”€01 TO l :g “F1 [11 ff? 0 L17 3) .. .. u 145 TABLE 41.——Effectiveness of assignment by nature of re— strictions placed on consultant. Restrictions Imposed on Degree of Effectiveness of Consultant by Ass1gnment Total Organization A* B* 0* D* E* F* Work area restricted. 3 O 2 O O O 5 (% Across) (60.0%) Personal contacts re— stricted. 1 1 1 O O O 3 (33.3%) Information access 0 l 0 O O O l restricted. (0.0%) No restrictions placed 26 7 21 6 5 4 69 on consultant. (37.7%) Other. 0 1 1 O O 2 4 (0.0%) Work areas and personal 1 l l 0 l O 4 contacts restricted. (25.0%) Personal contacts and l O l O O O 2 information access (50.0%) restricted. All other combinations of 2 l l 1 O l 6 preceding situations. (33.3%) TOTAL 34 12 28 7 6 7 94 (36.2%) *A = Completely effective. B = Generally effective, but felt it could have been better. C = Moderately effective but some problems yet remain. D = Minimally effective and generally disappointing. E = No worthwhile results achieved. F = Not known as results cannot be evaluated. any su organi the cc a cone under assig organ. effec 146 any such changes are made unilaterally by one or more organization members, but without the concurrence of (the consultant, this could represent the imposition of a constraint on the consultant. As indicated previously under the discussion of Hypothesis 2, by Table 14, assignments in which changes were made unilaterally by organization members were less often judged as completely effective (23.5% of cases) than where changes were introduced with the concurrence of the consultant (44.4% of these assignments were judged as completely effective). While not extensive, the available evidence for this hypothesis is in the direction of providing support. The hypothesis can certainly not be rejected even though it is not possible to claim strong confirmation. Hypothesis l2. Consultant—assisted change programs are more effective where there is clear definition, and shared understanding of the respective duties to be assumed by the consultant and organization members. Table 42: "Effectiveness of Assignment by Agree— ment on Respective Responsibilities (from questionnaire Items 5.8 and 7.1) indicates that effectiveness was greatest where the orgization’s chief executive laid down the duties to be assumed by all parties (47.4% of such assignments were judged as completely effective), and next where duties were allocated by mutual agree— ment between the consultant and organization members (43.7% completely effective). Neither of the two TABLE 4 Nature Betwee Menu sulte Dutie: Board, sonnel for al Chief down 0 partie Mutua dutie sulta execu Consu chief dutie acce; Mutuz duti sult orga Matt resu conc 8th( I 22 I11 [1‘] ljjO UJD> 147 TABLE 42.-—Effectiveness of assignment by agreement on respective responsibilities. Nature of Discussions Between Organization Degree of Effectiveness of Assignment sgiggitscgggegigng Total * * x x * * Duties to be Assumed A B C D E F Board, or corporate per— 0 0 O 0 0 0 O sonnel laid down duties — for all parties. (% Across) Chief executive laid 9 l 6 O 2 l 19 down duties for all (47.4%) parties. Mutual agreement on 10 3 12 2 2 3 32 duties reached by con— (31.3%) sultant and chief executive. Consultant advised O l 0 l O O 2 chief executive of (0.0%) duties he would accept. Mutual agreement on 14 6 6 3 l 2 32 duties reached by con- (43.7%) sultant and other organization members. Matter not discussed — O 0 0 1 l 0 2 resulting in uncertainty (0.0%) concerning duties. Other. 2 0 l O O l 4 (50.0%) TOTAL 35 11 25 7 6 7 91 (38.5%) *A = Completely effective. B = Generally effective, but felt it could have been better. C = Moderately effective but some problems yet remain. D = Minimally effective and generally disappointing. E = No worthwhile results achieved. F = Not known as results cannot be evaluated. assignn discus: indica judged Reconn Agree naire frequ dutie 1A8 assignments where the matter of allocating duties was not discussed, nor the two assignments where the consultant indicated the duties he was prepared to accept, were judged as being completely effective. As reported by Table A3: "Complete Acceptance of Recommendations by Different Organization Levels by Agreement on Respective Responsibilities" (from question— naire Items 5.8 and 7.u) complete acceptance was most frequent (35.8%) where there was mutual agreement on duties between the consultant and organization memberso Table UH: ”Bases for Organization Consultant Misunderstandings by Agreement on Respective Responsi- bilities” (from questionnaire Items 5.8 and 7.4) pro- vides further support that misunderstandings were fewest when there was mutual agreement on the allocation of duties (misunderstandings in 27.6% of assignments) and most frequent where this issue was not clarified (mis— understandings in 50.0% of assignments). Where an organization does not have an accurate, explicit organization structure with organization members assigned specified responsibilities, it is considered likely that the respective roles of the consultant and organization members could only be less well defined. Thus a relationship between assignment effectiveness and the existence of an accurate structure will be pertinent to this hypothesis. Table 45: ”Complete Acceptance of TABLE A ferent ___————— ___._———— Nature BetweeI Member: Concer b Consu exeCL woulc Mutuz read 0the I * "IJHkaOUZJJ; 1A9 TABLE A3.—-Complete acceptance of recommendations by dif— ferent organization levels by agreement on respective responsibilities. Nature of Discussion Organization Level Between Organization Completely Accepting Members and Consultant total Concerning Duties to A* B* C* D* E* F* be Assumed Board or corporate person— nel laid down duties for O O O 0 O O 0 all parties (% of all cases) Chief executive laid down 5 7 l A A A 25 duties for all parties (23.8%) Mutual agreement on duties reached by consultant and 8 l7 3 6 A 3 Al ‘ chief executive (22.9%) Consultant advised chief executive of duties he 1 O O O O O 1 would accept (803%) Mutual agreement on duties reached by consultant and 8 l2 7 10 12 9 58 other organization members (35.8%) Matter not discussed resulting in uncertainty 0 O O O l O 1 concerning duties (8.3%) Other 1 l l l l l 6 (35.3%) TOTAL 23 37 12 21 22 17 132 (27.1%) >|< 'IJLTJUQUJ3> I! H H II II II Chairman, board or corporate personnel Chief executive Other organization sponsor Managers immediately subordinate to chief executive Heads of departments or areas to be affected All managers advised of assignment HMPOE mMQHUCGDmEOUCSmHE HDNNHCQmAO ho OLSUMZ COHuNNfiCNMhO C¢Q3+qfi SI. llllnflllllflliflflfllflfluullflfliE, . mmeH -mQHuHHHDHmCOQ SWHE Dean. "MCOUICOHDNNHCMMM PCGDHSWCOOICO 0 .NOcH WQMNQII.QJ mqmafifi MWNIHpowammrn c0 QEAEQULMT \nD mwcififivcmnrnwhnmvfiv: ill? yll‘l‘ :4" Homomha m gems COH P Hb accepts pop mocwkwmmHQ o nooSumn mmcHUcmpmnmUQSmHE 02 u m was WCOHom:pHm we mhonpo u m mucouHchoo mo omOQMSQ psonm mpawozoo.m&c o mpcmuHSmeoo can homecom COHpmNHcmwno mo mchOQBm Hancoo was homeomm COHpmNHcmwmo mo mUCSOwaomn now; a pemEemHmmm mo mudoocoo w.pQMpH5wcoo pew m.nomcoqw COprNHcmmso consume mom .COHpoHQEoo pCdedm: O wCOprC H950 mNHcmwno macaw MOCQnerHIHHQ M O GOHpmNHzmmh HH< u m moccs®MMHo n macaw OO Ucw .I. \I‘lll‘ OC$.H@.H.HHQ H 4* “Rm.Hmv 7I1IIInrnr:rzI1I11:1:irilrllalyattrnttrr w mm HH m m m H m IIIUWIIIIIIW. Hflpsomxm moans smma>sm pampasmcoo Awm.mmv m>Hu30mxm MMHQU cam pcwqumQOO om mH m m m H o m an eurommg moapse co pcmEmemm Heaps: AsH.Hmv . mmHumwd mH HH m o m H H o HHm pom moHpso csoo onH m>Hp:ocxc mmHno I Ammopow RV mepLMQ HHm Lou mchso o o o o o o o o czop oHMH Homeowsmg mumpoonoo so Acamom *3 *m *m *3 *0 *m *¢ Hmuoe meSmw< on on mmcHUCmumhopCSmHz modeQ MCHcsmocoo pampHdweoo new msmnEmz pauszmCOOIQOHpmNchwLO mo cazumz :owumNHcmmso emmzpmm COHmmdomHQ mo mmdpmz .mmeHHHnHmconmh m>Hpomdmwu so pcwEmmhmm an mwzwocmummeCSmHs pawn.swsooICOHpmuHcmwso mom mommmni.:: mqm TABLE A6.——Effectiveness of assignment by consultant's emphasis on problem identification. Relative Emphasis by Consultant on Diagnosis Degree of Effectiveness of and Problem Ass1gnment Total Identification A* B* 0* D* E* F* Little emphasis on diagno— 7 3 3 l 3 l 18 sis — accepted diagnosis (38.9%) provided by organization. (% Across) Considerable emphasis l8 7 22 2 2 5 56 including preliminary (32.2%) study to confirm problem or otherwise identify. Complete emphasis on 6 2 diagnosis such that (A2.9%) consultant regarded assignment then com- plete. TOTAL 31 12 28 5 6 6 88 (35.2%) *A = Completely effective. . B = Generally effective, but felt it could have been better. C = Moderately effective but some problems yet remain. D = Minimally effective and generally disappOinting. E = No worthwhile results achieved. F = Not known as results cannot be evaluated. ((w¢(( «r. . . COO an nthOQQCH W.Dc.mnv.fijm~\~00 ..HC CCvLG..r(.JL EOHDOLQ E0 mHWMSQEO m.qupH3m .wEoHnonQ QOprNHcmwno mo owmho>oo 5H mpmHQEoo one .mpHHwSU anm n .QpHs pHmmU pom wpomgmw pcwppOQEH mEom use .mpHHmdU.£me n .m>Hpmoho cage eczema cxHHemExnoz use .oHQMmeoo< u .»H0powmmewmc5 AHHwthow pew .szHmsu moom u .pGMpHSmcoo an ©o©H>opQ apogee oz u .cHQMmeoom zHHmEHCHE pew .thHmdd 30H u osQ mHmocmmHo umpamoomlanmocmeo so mHmszEm mepHA *m *m *9 *o *m *< . Hmpoe COHmeHMHpccUH EmHnopm pew mHmocmeo whoamm m.uQMpH5mcoo mo szHwSG Co pcprSmcoo >9 mHmeQEm popmHmm .COHumOHMHpsme EmHnopq so mHmMQQEo m.ucmpH5wcoo he phonon m_pcmeH:meoo mo COHpmSHm>MII.s: mqm9: {‘1 (1) :3 >4 :1) I / 161 TABLE 51.——Complete acceptance of recommendations by different organization levels by involvement of organiza— tion members. Organization Level Nature of Involvement of Completely Accepting Organization Members in Assignment total A* B* 0* D* E* F* Worked closely with con— sultant on a cooperative l 3 l 2 2 2 ll participatory basis (% (16.2%) across) Recommendations developed through joint discussions 2 2 l l 2 3 11 with consultant (36.7%) Organization members not actively involved, but kept 2 3 1 2 l l 10 well informed by consultant (33.3%) Cooperative, participatory relationship plus feedback 1 1 l O 0 0 3 from consultant (50.0%) Cooperative, participatory relationship with some proposals initiated by l 2 l 2 l 1 organization members (66.7%) Cooperative, participatory relationship with recommen— dations arising from joint 0 l l l O 0 discussions (11.5%) Cooperative participatory relationship with organiza— tion members assigned 1 l O 1 l 1 5 specific roles (83.3%) All other combinations of 14 21 7 10 l5 8 75 preceding arrangements (31.1%) No attempt to involve organization members—— all recommendations 2 5 O 2 l l 11 made by consultant (13.8%) TOTAL 2A 39 13 21 23 17 137 (27.4%) *A = Chairman, board, or corporate personnel; B = chief executive; C = other organization sponsor; D = managers immediately subordinate to chief executive; E = heads of departments or areas to be affected; F = all managers advised of assignment. IIIIIIIIIllllI::::i___________________________ Next 1 menda made were tion final Acce] Leve 162 Next to least often completely accepted were the recom— mendations from those assignments where no effort was made to involve organization members (recommendations were completely accepted in only 13.8% of these cases). A further reflection of the involvement of organiza— tion members is provided by the nature of the consultant's final reporting arrangements. From Table 52: "Complete Acceptance of Recommendations by Different Organization Levels by Nature of Final Reporting Arrangement" (from questionnaire Items 6.2 and 7.4) it is seen that complete acceptance is highest (58.3%) where the consultant's report is discussed with organization members to be affected, and lowest when discussed with the organization‘s chief executive only (9.3% of such cases were completely accepted). Somewhat inconsistent, however, is the low level of complete acceptance (17.2%) obtained when the consultant's report was prepared only after proposals had been discussed with organization members. With respect to misunderstandings between the consultant and the organization, there were fewest in those assignments where the final report was discussed with organization members to be affected and most frequent where the final report was either delivered to the organization sponsor, or discussed with the chief executive-—see Table 53: "Bases for Organization- TABLE ferent Nature Norma organ <% of Sever repor affec membe Writi 163 TABLE 52.-—Complete acceptance of recommendations by dif- ferent organization levels by nature of final reporting arrangements. Nature of Final Reporting Organization Level Completely Accepting Arrangements A* Formal written report to organization sponsor only 2 (% of all cases) Several copies of final report for distribution to affected organization 2 members Written report delivered to, and discussed with board or corporate per— 1 sonnel Written report discussed 1 with chief executive Written report discussed with affected organization 2 members Written report prepared by consultant, only after pro— posals discussed with 1 organization members Other Written report discussed with chief executive and 2 other organization members All other combinations of 10 preceding arrangements * 'IIL'UUOCUID TOTAL II ll 11 H II ll 2” Chairman, board, or corporate personnel Chief executive Other organization sponsor B36 17 39 C96 13 Dae I\) 10 21 E* |__l 13 23 total F* 11 (38.0%) 9 (13.8%) 5 (17.8%) o u (9.3%) 1H (58.3%) o 6 (17.2%) 2 12 (26.1%) 9 (~) 67 (31.8%) 17 137 (27.2%) Managers immediately subordinate to chief executive Heads of departments or areas to be affected All managers advised of assignment <1 :p U: L.. [T1 Nature 16A TABLE 53.--Bases for organization—consultant ' a misunderstandings by nature of final reporting rrangements. Nature of Organization—Consultant Misunderstandings Nature of Final Reporting Arrangements . Total A* B* C* D* E* F“ G‘ Formal written report to organization 0 0 O 1 3 6 sponsor only (% across (50.0%) Several copies of final report for distribu- 0 O 0 O O 8 11 tion to affected organization members (72.7%) Written report discussed with board of 0 0 0 0 1 3 5 corporate personnel by consultant (60.0%) Written report discussed with chief executive 0 0 l 3 O A 8 by consultant (50.0%) Written report discussed with affected 0 O 0 0 0 0 3 organization members by consultant (100.0%) Written report prepared by consultant after discussion of proposals with organization 0 O 1 O l A 6 members (66.7%) Other 0 1 0 l 1 3 .8 (37.5%) Written report discussed with board and chief O O 0 0 0 1 1 executive (100.0%) Written report discussed with chief executive 0 0 0 0 1 ' 2 A and affected organization members (50.0%) All other combinations of preceding 3 O l u 22 35 arrangements (62.9%) TOTAL 3 1 3 9 5 53 87 (61.0%) s A _ completion. Other. All combinations of preceding situation. Q’DMUOW I! H II II II II Difference between backgrounds of organization Difference between viewpoints of organization sponsor and consultant. Differences among organization members'concepts about purpose of consultant. sponsor and consultant. No misunderstandings between organization and consultant. Differences between organization sponsor's and consultant's concepts of assignment Consui Arran ficie of ti and < the CUBS 165 Consultant Misunderstandings by Nature of Final Reporting Arrangements" (from questionnaire Items 6.2 and 7.8). Thus, the evidence appears fairly clear and suf— ficiently compelling to permit the tentative acceptance of the underlying hypothesis. An apparent inconsistency, and one which cannot be explained, is the low level of effectiveness associated with those assignments where the consultant's recommendations arose from joint dis— cussions between the consultant and organization members. Hypothesis 16. Consultant—assisted change programs are more effective where the organi— zation establishes a specific point of contact and liaison with whom and through whom the consultant can operate. Tables A8 and A9, previously discussed under Hypothesis 1A, indicate that complete acceptance is higher than average, and misunderstandings least fre— quent, when the consultant submitted progress reports through designated organization members. Table 5A: ”Effectiveness of Assignment by Coordination of Consultant's Organization Contacts" (from questionnaire Items 6.A and 7.1) shows that assignments are most often judged as completely effective where the organization‘s chief executive (or other assignment sponsor) was specifically designated as con— sultant liaison. Next most effective arrangement was where a particular organization member was designated as consultant liaison, and least effective was the TABLE Coordi Betwe Org: Organ desig to in conta ConSL own 1 Diffl memb: work cons Chie othe as 1 suit a: .firnljotjjp 166 TABLE 5A.——Effectiveness of assignment by coordination of consultant's organization contacts. Coordination of Contacts Degree 0f Eigzgtigzgiss Of Between Consultant and g Organization Members A* B* 0* D* E* Fw Total Organization member 11 A 9 3 2 2 31 designated as liaison (35.5%) to initiate required contacts. (% Across) Consultant established 5 O 5 2 3 O own points of contact. (33.3%) Different organization 1 members designated as (25.0%) working assistants to consultant. 15 Chief executive (or 5 l A l 0 1 12 other sponsor) acted (A1.7%) . as liaison for con— ' sultant. No liaison established, 1 and no attempt by (100.0%) Organization to coordi— nate contacts. All combinations of 13 5 9 1 O A 32 preceding arrangements. (AO.6%) TOTAL 36 12 27 7 6 7 95 (37.9%) *A = Completely effective. B = Generally effective, but felt it could have been better. C = Moderately effective but some problems yet remain. D = Minimally effective and generally disappointing. E = No worthwhile results achieved. F = Not known as results cannot be evaluated. arran assig Acca Leve Cont Recc 167 arrangement where different organization members were assigned as working assistants. Further support is provided by Table 55: "Complete Acceptance of Recommendations by Differing Organization Levels by Coordination of Consultant's Organization Contacts" (from questionnaire Items 6.A and 7.A). Recommendations are most often completely accepted (30.3% of such cases) where a particular organization member has been designated as consultant liaison, and least often where either the assignment sponsor acted as con— sultant liaison, or otherwise where different organiza— tion members were assigned as working assistants to the consultants. Under neither of these arrangements were the consultant's recommendations completely accepted in any of the associated assignments. While the evidence is not strong, it is in the direction of the hypothesis, and is considered to permit its tentative confirmation. Hypothesis 17. Consultant—assisted change programs are more effective where the con— sultant actively involves organization members——and particularly key managers—~in the development and implementation of recommended change programs. Examination of the available data indicates that there is just no evidence which specifically relates to this hypothesis. It would seem that the hypothesis is essentially similar to Hypothesis l5——at least to the TABLE ferent Coord: Betw< Org Organ desig initi (% oi Consm poini the Assi as 1 orga Diff ment worl con: and tio Spo 168 TABLE 55.——Complete acceptance of recommendations by dif— ferent organization levels by coordination of consultant's organization contacts. Coordination of Contacts Organization Level Between Consultant and Completely Accepting Organization Members total A* B* C* D* E* F* Organization member designated as liaison to initiate required contacts 7 1A 7 8 7 6 A9 (% of all cases) (30.3%) Consultant established own points of contact within 2 5 O 2 3 2 1A the organization (16.7%) Assignment sponsor acted as liaison between 3 A O 2 1 0 10 organization and consultant (16.2%) Different organization members designated as working assistants to 0 0 O 0 0 0 O consultant (0.0%) No liaison established and no attempt by organiza- O O 1 0 1 1 tion to coordinate contacts (50.0%) Sponsor acted as liaison but with consultant estab— l l O l 1 1 lishing his own contacts (—) All other combinations 11 15 5 8 10 7 56 of preceding arrangements (29.3%) TOTAL 2A 39 13 21 23 17 137 (27.2) *A = Chairman, board, or corporate personnel B = Chief executive C = Other organization sponsor D = Managers immediately subordinate to chief executive E = Heads of departments or areas to be affected F = All managers advised of assignment point avail must reje 169 point of being impossible to differentiate with the available data. Accordingly, it is considered that this hypothesis must be omitted as it can be neither confirmed nor rejected. Hypothesis l8. Consultant—assisted change programs are more effective where the scope of the assignment requires (or permits) the consultant to participate in the implementa— tion of recommended change programs. Table 56: "Effectiveness of Assignment by Scope of Assignment" (from questionnaire Items 5.1 and 7.1) shows a high proportion (60.0%) of assignments are judged as completely effective where the consultant was required to implement action programs. Also, those assignments where implementation of recommendations was included as part of the assignment scope were judged as completely effective in A2.6% of cases, whereas only 32.6% were completely effective where the scope did not include the implementation phase. Where the measure of effectiveness is the complete acceptance of the con— sultant's recommendations, the comparative evaluations for the inclusion or exclusion of the implementation phase are 30.A% and 21.8% of cases respectively-~see Table 57: "Complete Acceptance of Recommendations by Different Organization Levels by Scope of Assignment" (from questionnaire Items 5.1 and 7.A). TABLE I—E! o .... 170 TABLE 56.——Effectiveness of assignment by scope of assignment. Degree of Effectiveness of . Assignment Scope of ASSlgnment Total A* B* C* D* E* F* To diagnose and identify 1 0 1 0 0 O 2 organization problems. (50.0%) (% Across) To develop possible solu— A l 5 1 2 2 15 tions or action programs. (26.7%) To evaluate possible 0 0 2 0 0 2 A solutions or action (0.0%) programs. To recommend action 2 0 0 1 2 l 6 programs. (33.3%) To implement action 3 0 2 0 0 0 5 programs (incl. train— (60.0%) ins) To diagnose problems and 5 1 l l O 0 8 develop solutions. (62.5%) To diagnose problems 1 l A O O 2 8 and develop, evaluate, (12.5%) and recommend solutions. All phases — from 2 l 3 0 2 O 8 diagnosis through imple— (25.0%) mentation. To recommend and imple— l 2 O 0 O 0 3 ment only. (33.3%) All other combinations 1 7 10 A O O 38 of various assignment (AA.7%) phases. TOTAL 36 13 28 7 6 7 97 (37.1%) *A = Completely effective. B = Generally effective, but felt it could have been better. C = Moderately effective but some problems yet remain. D = Minimally effective and generally disappointing. E = No worthwhile results achieved. F = Not known as results cannot be evaluated. TABLE di f * ’11171 C (4) CU LP 171 TABLE 57.——Complete acceptance of recommendations by different organization levels by scope of assignment. Organization Level Scope of Assignment Completely Accepting total A* B* 0* D* E* F* To diagnose and identify organization problems (% l l O 1 1 1 5 of all cases) (Al.7%) To develop possible solu— 3 6 O 2 2 1 1A tions or action programs (19.2%) To evaluate possible solu— O l O O O 0 1 tions of action programs ( 6.3%) To recommend action 2 2 l 2 3 2 12 programs (36.A%) To implement action pro- 2 2 1 O l 0 grams (including training) (20.0%) To diagnose problems and O 3 l l 1 l 7 develop possible solutions (16.3%) To diagnose problems, and develop, evaluate, and l 3 O 1 O 1 6 recommend action programs (15.A%) All phases—~from diagnosis 3 3 l 2 2 2 13 through implementation (28.9%) To recommend and implement 1 l O l 0 0 action programs (27.3%) All other combinations of 12 18 9 11 13 9 72 various assignment phases (33.8%) TOTAL 25 A0 13 21 23 17 139 (26.9%) *A = Chairman, board, or corporate personnel B = Chief executive C = Other organization sponsor D = Managers immediately subordinate to chief executive E = Heads of departments or areas to be affected F = All managers advised of assignment ”Effe tion and mend sult ques 172 Further evidence is provided by Table 58: "Effectiveness of Assignment by Consultant's Participa— tion in Implementation" (from questionnaire Items 6.10 and 7.1), and Table 59: ”Complete Acceptance of Recom— mendations by Different Organization Levels by Con— sultant's Participation in Implementation" (from questionnaire Items 6.10 and 7.A). Table 58 shows that assignments are most Often judged as completely effective where implementation was shared between consultant and organization members (39.1% of cases) but this was only marginally greater than the degree of complete effectiveness where the con— sultant did not participate in implementation (38.5% of such cases were judged as completely effective). Also, assignments where the implementation of recommendations was handled entirely by the consultant were judged as completely effective in only 25.0% of cases. An essentially similar pattern is provided by Table 59 which used the measure of complete acceptance of recom— mendations with respect to the same organization variable. The resultant situation is thus somewhat uncertain. On the one hand, the inclusion of an implementation phase in the scope of the assignment is associated with a clearly superior measure of assignment effectiveness. On the other hand, effectiveness is lower where such tio I :4: .1. W. 74H rs r—rr n> 173 TABLE 58.——Effectiveness of assignment by consultant's participation in implementation. Extent of Consultant‘s Degree of Effectiveness of . . . . . Ass1gnment Participation in Total Implementation A* B* 0* D* E* F* Implementation entirely l O 3 O O O A by consultant. (25.0%)' (% Across) Implementation shared by 9 5 6 2 l 0 23 consultant and organiza— (39.1%) tion members. Initial implementation 5 2 5 O 0 1 l3 phases shared, but subse— (38.A%) quent phases handled by organization members. Implementation by organi— 5 3 6 O O 1 15 zation members with con— (33.3%) sultant available for advice. No participation by con— 12 3 7 2 A 3 31 sultant in implementation. (38.6%) Consultant's recommenda— 0 0 l 2 1 O A tions not implemented. (0.0%) Other. 1 O 0 O O 1 2 (50.0%) TOTAL .33 13 28 6 6 6 92 (35.9%) * WW’UOWL‘D Completely effective. Generally effective, but felt it could have been better. Moderately effective but some problems yet remain. Minimally effective and generally disappointing. No worthwhile results achieved. Not known as results cannot be evaluated. II II II I! H H TABLZ fere 17A TABLE 59.—-Complete acceptance of recommendations by dif— ferent organization levels by consultant's participation in implementation. Organization Level I Extent of Consultant 5 Completely Accepting Participation ln - total Implementation A* B* C* D* E* F* Implementation Entirely By Consultant (% of All 1 1 0 l O 0 3 Cases) (21.A%) Implementation shared by consultant and organization 6 12 6 5 7 A A0 members (29.8%) Initial implementation phases shared but subse— quent phases handled by 3 A l 2 l 1 l2 organization members (16.7%) Implementation by organization members, but with consultant 5 6 2 3 3 3 22 available for advice (28.6%) No participation by consultant in 7 l3 3 6 9 7 A5 implementation (27.8%) Consultant's recommenda— O O l l l l A tions not implemented (20.0%) Other 1 1 O 1 1 0 A (36.A%) TOTAL 23 37 l3 19 22 16 130 (26.5%) *A = Chairman, board or corporate personnel B = Chief executive C = Other organization sponsor D = Managers immediately subordinate to chief executive E = Heads of departments or areas to be affected F = All managers advised of assignment implen and ti impla membe where orgar in t1 side: ora insl 175 implementation is handled by the consultant exclusively, and the effectiveness resulting from a sharing of implementation between the consultant and organization members is only marginally superior to the arrangement where implementation was the exclusive concern of organization members. While the available evidence is in the direction of supporting the hypothesis it is con- sidered insufficiently strong to allow its confirmation or acceptance. Executive Opinion Survey The Executive Opinion Survey questionnaire was the instrument used to obtain measures of the open—mindedness (Dogmatism) of organization respondents. A total of 176 completed questionnaires was received from 122 responding organizations. Each organization had been furnished with, and requested to arrange for the completion and return of, four copies of this questionnaire but only 8 organizations did so. In the majority of cases the organization respondent to the Consultant Research Program questionnaire completed and returned one copy only of the Executive Opinion Survey questionnaire. The response pattern is summarized in Table 60: ”Number of Completed Executive Opinion Surveys Returned by Questionnaire Respondents." .MDCOUCOQMOh than HQO ®>HDSUOK. C OODOHQEOO M0 LODESZII.OW NQQh3m COHC ‘lllul‘l (I‘ll msfi mma qnsm QOfiCfloo oz mzm>nsm soacflmo mpoopooomom ohHmCCOflpmoda spas empoaQEOQ mo .02 Hmuoe OLHmCCOHmeSG Mo .02 cosmopom mao>s5m mo .02 .mpcmosoowmn chase ICOHpmwsv an cosmopop m>m>h5m COHCfioo o>Hu50omc poucamfioo mo amasszll.om mqmHD500K® MOHSO .HO MMOCUODCHE|C®QO \AD Our: fiSMCOU (HO OMS MO \AOCOSUDMK Hm madam .H. 178 oases I o o o o o o o o I o o o 03H 7 HNH . Ao.OOHV o o o o o o o o m omH u HOH . gash; m m s o o o H o o N o o a OOH : Hm Axo.mmv m.m o: m o m m H H s o s :H ow 1 Ho Has.smv 5.: H: H m m m w m z a w OH om u H: Aeo.omv Ammosoo RV w.H : o o o o H o o H o m o: . om saw was QNS e HsB A B E J d E B uoo B O u .L Amhoom a .. V . n I u m H o . “Hm.N % m soeo om oH mH HH OH w m s m coHoo co m. s .0 m w. mmoQUOUQHEIQOQO w o s poopHSmcoo comb was COHpmNficmwso mCOHmmooo Mo .02 a J .. Umh II...” mamfib Lo>HpSOONo MOHno mo mmozcooefielcomo an muss Homcoo mo mm: mo homo: m m O>H930cxw cq.sc a. . . Iliakau u l .®>fiDSOOX® MOHS HO>m¥Hll -NW mqmOHos moHAwmeepswooo Q c 05 Ago mv u Aso.ov Aso.ov Aam.sv Heo.o, . . soooowoo o>Hosooxo cmmmw . N o o o \ Aso omv H o Hoccomsoo oomnoo H [zoo so moOHsoozm Asm.Hv : Axo.ov Aso.ov Ago. . socpchB o>Hpmooxo cmwmw H o o o o oi AsmHmV Haemov AAH.sc - Aso.ov iso.oo lem. . ..AAO :v .m. . . m o o o H Hem HHV Asooov . vaooso ooowwoomcm co co . . ucm>OHOHVWoofimwmmmm Hem moo n Ago OOHV AH0.00HV Aso.oov Aso.oov HHo.omv . q o H : mH Hm H o>HBSOoxO MOHno “mm MHV on Axm.ov “wo.ov Awo.mmv Axm.mv Ado.ov Hcccowpoo coopoapoo o m m o no “canon .cmEHHmco ARV ARV ARV ARV Ase ARV Aev oooooonma *m *m *Q *0 *m *4 pcprSmcoo pmosuom HapoB on COHwHoom mo Ho>oq Amsoom EmHumewoo we commosoxmv o>Hp50oxm mmHno mo mmoooooonucwgo .o>Huzooxo mmHzn no mmmcooucHEIcmoo an oocmpmHmmm pompHSmcoo assume on COHmHooc mo Ho>mqll.mw mamHDOOMMMII.mm qudfi. .mpoom EprOEmom mm commosoxm ** ozH I HNH n m ONH I HOH n m OOH I Hm n O OO I HO n O 00 I H: n m o: I ON u <* OO O m m mm mm m Ho on posses mpHsmoo mm czocx oz O O O O m n O oo>OH£om prdmos mHszgpoos oz MW O O O O H x H wchcHoagmmHo mHHmhocow 1 one o>Hpoommo zHHOEHcHz am O H H m HH m wchHwEoo wEOHQOHQ oEom p59 o>Hpoommo hHOpmHoooz OH O O m m m O coupon coon o>mn UHSOO p59 o>Hpoommo HHstocOO Hem.mmv I Aao.omv Aso.ozv Hem.osv Ham.:mv Ho.ov mm o H m MH mH o o>Hpoocco sHopoHoeoo ARV ARV ARV AHO HHO ARV ARV *m *m *o *o *m *< pcoEcmHmm< Hoooe **oomcoom COHOONchwso mo mmoopoocHzlsoQo mo mmoom>Hpoommm .somcoom COHpmNHQOmHo mo wmocpopoHEIcooo an peoecmHmmm mo mmoc6>HOOOMMMII.mm mHmoHoA poo H0O ozocx poz m o o o H a o eoHoooHos opoHOEoO N O O O H H O QOHOOOHOH o>Hmcwpxm mH O O m m z m psoEoohwmch oEow a pop .oocwpaooom Hmeamm mm o H H OH m H meoowoso op mQOHpoOHmHooE csz 959 aOHoHocHLQ CH ooompgooo< Aes.:mv I “Ho.ov Aeo.ozv Hem.wmv Asm.mev AH0.0V ON O O m O OH O woodpaooow OOOHoEoo ARV Haw ARV ARV HHV HHO ARV *m *m *Q *o *m *< mQOHpmeooEEooom mo Hapoe **nomo0dm COHumchwwso mo mmbCpoocHzIoooo .mwocoochEIcooo mocmpoooo< mo ooswoo mHs an howsoom QOHOONHcowpo no mCOHpmpcoEEooos m.pompHsmooo mo woodpdooo Specific goals determined by managers of affected functional areas , and approved by chief executive ( ) Specific goals discussed and agreed between chief executive and (49) consultant Specific goals discussed and agreed between other organization members and consultant (50) ' ' ' ' ' ting only the general nature eneralized, non-speCiflc goals (indlca . . ~ gt desired changes) discussed among organization members, includ- ing chief executive and members of the Board (5 ) No discussion on specific goals or expected outcomes by organiza— [1(52) tion members Goals determined entirely by the consultant [:1 (53) . 54 Other (please specrfy) / EH ) ent were the organization’s expectations formalized in any xt 5'5 To what 8 etween the organization and consultant? agreementb (Check one statement only.) i detailing scope, procedures, and expected out- [03 - men - . wirtten state y consultant and given to the organization comes prepared b Written statement from the consultant to the organization with geIr- ‘ eral description of the nature of the assignment and rates for con- D sultant’s charges only (55) Verbal agreement only, with no written submission from consultant 1 to the organization D Other (please specify) [i] 5.6 Which organization members were formally advised of the organiza- tion's obiectives with respect to the consultant's assignment? (Check all statements which are true.) Board of Directors or Chairman of the Company, or corporate head. quarters personnel (in the case of a Division or Subsidiary) Ci (56) Chief Executive E] (57) Management group immediately subordinate to the chief executive C] (58) Managers in affected departments or areas of the organization [I (59) The entire management group in the organization ) l A a: o All management and rank and file personnel ._- D El A as No organization members formally advised as specific objectives were not identified or discussed 5.7 What CONSTRAINTS, OR LIMITS, did the organization impose as to areas in which the consultant should not work, or to people, or infor- mation to which he should not have access? (Check all statements which are true.) Work area restricted as ‘1‘” Personal contacts restricted A as 5 Information access restricted A as u-e v as m v No restrictions placed on consultant Other IZICICICID 67) $51 00 To what extent were the respective DUTIES TO BE ASSUMED by the consultant and organization members, and their division of responsr- bilities, discussed between the organization and the consultant? (Check one statement only.) Board of Directors or Chairman of the Company, or corporate head- quarters personnel (in the case of a Division or Subsidiary) laid ,, down the duties and responsibilities for all parties [3 Chief executive laid down the duties and responsibilities torall . parties D Agreement regarding respective duties and responsibilities reached 1 through mutual discussion between chief executive and consultant C(53) Consultant advised the chief executive of the duties and the re- sponsibilities he would assume Du. Agreement regarding duties and responsibilities reached through discussion between organization members and consultant Matter not discussed between the parties resulting in uncertainty regarding respective duties and responsibilities D- DMD“ Other (please specify) // H’d—J/ ._’__/// To what extent did a FORMAL ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE which defined the duties, responsibilities, and relationships of organization members, exist PRIOR to the intervention of the consultant. S.” to (Check one statement only.) Noxdefined management structure or permanent rest)onSibility alio- E] cations (liganiialioo structure establish somewhat flexible formal structure developed, but nate managers Formal structure developed and renal allocations and relationsh iomal structure well defined, i lived actual working arrangemr iii hiitial tray did the chief execul retard the consultant? (Check one statement only.) 1 Isa competent subordinate W l mined by the chief executive or is a superior, by virtue of his whoserecommendationswere loa collaborating equal witl l organizational sponsor could grams, and jointly consider in As an expert resource, but a provide useful insights on th one Is an independent contract the form of recommendation for implementation, modific Other (please specify) — a s. morons IN THE GANIZATION-CON THE mosr REcEi ASSIGNMENT it What arrangements were in: to report on his activities expenses incuned) to the or (Check all statements whici Regularly scheduled meet tors, or with corporate Diilsmn or Subsidiary) Regularly scheduled mee lleelings with Chief Exec Regular meetings with it Progress reports to be i had been designated a consultant Regularwrltten reports dccasrorral written repr finalleport a nd re utergnmenl W Other (please specrfy) p in the organization As a collaborating equal with whom the chief executive or other wmmmmt‘tmemm'fimtlfl‘ Organization structure established, but “loosely” defined and/or 1 62 How were the consultant’s final report or findings transmitted to the re of the asslgiimentaiid rates for. somewhat flexib|e I] organization? . , , : Formal structure developed, but not known to or used by subordi- 2 (Ohm all statements WhtCh are true.) Ino mittensubmlssurrfronm; nate managers D (69) Formal, written reportdelivered to the organization sponsor only El (6) Formal structure developed and promulgated but not descriptive of 3 Several copies of a formal written report delivered to theorganiza- actual allocations and relationships D tion for distribution to organization members involved With, or af- . , ' Formal structure well defined, widely known and accurately reflec- , fected by,the assignment '1: formally Womm tive °f actual working arrangements D Written reportdelivered and discussed with Chairman or Board mm o coiisrllant'sassrgiiiiierlti bers, or corporate personnel (in the case of a Division or Subsidiary) l] (8) et"till 5.10 In what way did the chief executive, or other organizational sponsor, Written report discussed with Chief Executive El (9) re ard the consultant? _ ‘ nan of the Company, or connotation g Written report discussed with organization members involved With, so Of a Dmsron 0' Subsidiary) ’3 (Check one statement only.) or affected by, the assignment I] (10) I As a competentsfubordinate whoflwould carrytout progrgzirsas deter- ["3 Written report prepared by consultant only after its intended content :er subordinate to tilt thitltttttlt‘ :3 mined by the cm executive or 0 e' odrganisa ion rrtier: d t had been discussed among organization members and the consultant I] (11) - - e; As a superior, by virtue of his repute or emons ra e exper ese, 1 , nentsorareasoftfieorganlltnn whose recommendations were to be regarded as directives Cl Other (please specrfy) E] (12) tfile personnel organizational sponsor could mutually plan investigations and pro- [2] 0 6'3 3:381:33 (If)? :zzuigntillgitfzi:mmgftLNZEEinggfinfl1‘3:at: ormally advised as specific objeihls’ ' grams, and jointly consrder their outcomes and implications (7 ) recommended? v sed :- As an expert resource, but outside of the organization, who could 3 . ~ _ . provide useful insights on the basis of his expertese and independ- Cl (Check all statements Wh'Ch are true.) ITS, did the organization [Willi ence Feeding back of information by consultant to organization members should notw7otltr0t '0 WW " As an independent contractor who woujd “deliver his package" in during the assignment to provide them with bases for developing haveaccess. the form of recommendations which the organization could consider 4 recommendations [:1 (13) etrue.) _, for implementation, modification, 0' rejection—in Wh0|€ 0' in part B Consultant worked closely with organization members on a coopera- _. Other (please specify) tive, participatory basis, rather than a detached or directive basis E] (14) :1 [53 Continuing discussion of ideas and information with organization . members to provide them with the bases for developing recommen- ) :. dations rather than these all coming from the consultant [I (15) sultant : Recommendationsdeveloped through joint discussions between con- /; 6. FACTORS IN THE WORKING PHASE (MEI-LITE '90}: sultantand organization members {305) GANIZATION-CONSULTANT RELATIO . . . .. . . , . IIEDlIlf Organization members assrgned specrfic roles during diagnostic and active DUTIES qufhisiigdw ., THE MOST RECENTLY COMPLETED CONSULTING problem solvmg phases to ensure their involvementwith, and com- embers, and mgllieconwlltll' ASSIGNMENT mitment to, the ensuing recommendations [3 (17) iza onan ' ~ - organ Organization members not actively involved in the assignment, but ltl‘“ 5.1 What arrangements were made, AT THE OUTSET, for the consultant keptwell informed by the consultant at all times [:1 (13) It l:.'.‘ - - - ~ ‘ ian oftheCOmpanymicowt ”I to report on his actwrties and progress (other than time spent and No attem t made to involve 0, an' - . case of a Division orSlilttld'alll'“. expenses incuned) to the organization? p g lzation members, and all recom . mendations formally made by the consultant without referenCe to bilitiemranpames l ' ' (Check all statements which are true.) organization members D (19) ' bilities cii , . the duties and respond , Regularly scheduled meetings with the Chairman or Board of Direc- Other (please SDelei’) K— E] (20) ”M tors, or with corporate headquarters personnel (in the case of a [1(71) , W, . . . . . _ ive duties‘and 'ttl‘t""';'ll'i‘hui DIVISion or SubSIdiary) 5.4 How did the consultant maintain a CO-ORDINATED CONTACT with etween chief executive r , Regularly scheduled meetings with Chief Executive [3 (72) the organization during the various phases of the assignment? , out, . . . . . . f executive of the duties an , Meetings With Chief Executive as and when requested by either party D (73) (ChECk all statements WhICh are true.) we hit sreachedll‘i't' - Regular meetings with top management group [:j (74) A particular organization member, other than the chief executive or me - _ . and ”SESZSQnaconsutad ’ Progress reports to be made through an organization member who 3?];izsgggrsloghdwszngfifgfgfiw. 2‘: permfinent “also“ between the ion rnem ’ in untitlt'i'e had been designated as the liaison between the organization and asgre ui ed 0 ml la eo er organizational contacts en the partiesresultlnt , consultant [:1 (75) q I D (21) 1dresponsjpriilies : Re ula 'tt . . Consultant established his own points of contact as he moved 0 g If V": en reports to cm“ Executive D (76) through the various departments and areas of the organization D (22) ccas ' ' ' . . . . . iona written reports to Chief Executive C] (77) Different organization members were designated as working assist- / Finalreport and recommendations onlyflat the completion of the ants to the consultant for different phases and areas of the as I] (23) / _ aSSlgnment E] (78) signment . Other (please specify) h D (79) Chief executive or other organizational sponsor acted as liaison and QANIZWON STRUClURE,'E point of coordination between the organization and consultant [:1 (24) ”1' Skand relationships ologtttm‘ ‘ ' No point of liaison established, and no attempt by the organization Itelfvénllon of the consultant. (1,4) to co-ordinate the different aspects of the consultant's assignment 1:] (25) Other (please specify) ~———“—— Cl (26) f eorpermanentresptlf‘w:i' (5) it or % kt 6.5 What relative emphasis did the consultant place on diagnosing and identifying organization problems himself? (Check one statement only.) Little emphasis on diagnosis, but completely accepting the organi- “ zation’s identification of the problem(s) U Considerable emphasis on diagnosis to the extent of preliminary in- vestigations to confirm the problem statement as given, or to other- wise suitably identify and define the organization’s situation as a I basis for development of recommendations [1(27 Complete emphasis on diagnosis such that consultant regarded his job as complete when the organization's problem(s) had been iden- 2 tified and defined, and their causes made explicit 6.6 What arrangements were made, AT THE OUTSET, for evaluating the effectiveness of the consulting assignment — by either the consultant or the organization? (Check all statements which are true.) Evaluation to be based on subjective assessments by organization members alone 28) Evaluation to be based on subjective assessments by organization members in conjunction with the consultant D (29) No pre-arrangements made for evaluation of the assignment effec- tiveness Cl (30) Other (please specify) Cl (31) What CHANGES to the scope, extent, objective, or timing of the as- signment were made during its progress? (Check all statements which are true.) Changes made at the direction of the chief executive on the basis of his evaluation of progress data, or other reason Changes made at the request of other organization members [I (33) Changes mutually agreed by discussion between consultant and or- ganization members Ct (34) Changes made unilaterally by the consultant 1:) (35) Changes requested by the organization but not agreed to by the consultant D (36) Changes requested by the consultant, but not agreed to by the organization No changes made, or requested, to the original terms of the as- signment Cl (38) Other (please specify) [3 (39) 6.8 Was the individual consultant who commenced the assignment re- placed during its course? (Check all statements which are true.) No change in consultant requested or made 1:] (40) Change made at the request of the organization because of the con- sultant’s personal incompatability with organization members C] (41) Change made at the request of the organization because of organi- zation members' uncertainty about consultant’s competence C] (42) Change requested by organization but not agreed to by consulting firm Cl (43) Assignment prematurely terminated because of dissatisfaction with individual consultant C] (44) Different consultant assigned to working phase than carried out preliminary diagnosis D (45) >1 ... 'N 6.9 Where there was a change of consulting personnel did any organiza- tion members have an opportunity to meet and approve the newly assigned individual before he commenced on the job? ft 1 Yes El No C] 2 Not applicable CI 6.10 To what extent did the consultant participate in the implementation of the (change) programs he recommended? (Check one statement only.) Implementation entirely by consultant Implementation shared by consultant and organization members D~i:i= initial phase of implementation shared by consultant and organiza- tion members, but subsequent phases handled by organization mm 2 bers alone Implementation by organization members with consultant present in resource or advisory capacity Is] No participation by consultant in implementation phase [j Consultant’s recommendations not implemented 5D Other (please specify) tit 6.11 With respect to the most recently completed consulting assignment which has been the subject for all responses in this questionnaire, was the same situation or problem assigned to any other consultant or firm at any prior time? (Check one statement only.) Assignment originally allocated to another consultant (firm) but u terminated prematurely by the organization Assignment originally allocated to another consultant (firm), but 1 terminated prematurely by the consultant Assignment only ever handled by the consultant (firm) who com- 2 pleted it SUBJECTIVE EVALUATIONS OF THE EFFECTIVE- NESS OF THE MOST RECENTLY COMPLETED CONSULTING ASSIGNMENT How EFFECTIVE was the consulting assignment judged to be in terms of achieving the desired changes or improvements? (Check one statement only.) [I l S r: El it it to D (49) No Generally Minimally Completely Moderately Not known worth- effective, effective, effective. effective, asresults while butfeltit and butsome cannotbe results couldhave generally problems evaluated achieved. been better.disappoint- yet remain. ing, How was the CONSULTANT’S REPORT (i.e. diagnosis, analyses, and recommendations) rated in terms of its quality? (Check one statement only.) It Poor quality, and considered as generally unsatisfactory [14 High quality, but some important aspects not dealt with [? Low quality, and minimally acceptable E (50) High quality, and complete in its coverage of organization DFOblems A Acceptable quality, but “workmanlike” rather than creative [5; No‘report provided by consultant (45) III A 4:- 00 V ' It thatinftoence do you feel the follovr‘ obonconsuttant relationship had or ltl’lltt! (tor each statemenl— Place a cher bettescribes the influence of that I Moder- ately I Nega-I ; ive ;[i)tbeanount of coopera— " tiorgiieobjorpanization I] wrbers to the consultant Ibthe personality of the i tnajor) consultant and his loomnatnanneriwapproach— D ‘ importation members hi) the "technical" com~ palette of the consultant [I ' lit) the consultants knowl- edge of the organization's Ct business and its particular problems [It-tilt elleetixeness with which the consultant report- do ledbactr information E totheorganiration (ii) the extent to which the consultants wortfocused on the major problems as per- cent by the organization i hit the extent to which the consultants investigations interfered withorinterrupted eorganization's normal at- hwlits (out) the duration of the di- ‘ moss and recommenda- 1 tons phases of the consult» tilt assrgnmept lit) the ability of organiza ton members to understand and reach consensus con cerning the consultants rec omnendations t1) the objectivityof the con sultant's recommendations tn) the similarity of protes‘ sonal bactgrounds of the cot executive (or other sponsor) and the consultanI no) theextent to whichrec ommendatrons could be dis cussed without offending th consultant (rwnthe extent to with other known ideas or E brooches were explored ‘ tore the consultant's ti rtcummendalronsweremr 4— l With! personnel (Trillium mercedontlrejobz 1 Notapplicable I] .5 Int participate in the implerinbb'm ornmended? - sultant r E ultant and organization members 5 1 shared by consultant and organs— phases handled by organization nan : to members with consultant presentE l 't to implementation phase r i-— r41— not implemented /- Iy completed consulting assimnat all responses in this quesbonoave to assigned to any other consolbiil l to another consultant (fim) but: ganization . to another consultant (illitl).bltt; insultant ; -: by the consultant (Iirm) who con i .TIONS OF THE EFFECTIVE;- iT RECENTLY COMPLEI IMENT g assignment judged to be in turn improvements? 1 j ’1 i D ..' . .. Moderately Norton D Completely New ' tive effective. effec , ,, butsome can ... problems colon. yet remain, OIIT (Le. diagnosis. analyses, and its quality? nerally unsatisfactory spects not dealt with able ‘ l as overage of organization probe er than creative xr\\4\\ rke” rath % 7.3 What influence do you feel the following characteristics of the organi- zation-consultant relationship had on the quality of the consultant’s REPORT? (For each statement—Place a check mark under the column which best describes the influence of that characteristic.) (i) The amount of coopera- tion given by organization members to the consultant (ii) The personality of the (major) consultant and his personal manner in approach» ing organization members (iii) The ”technical" com- petence of the consultant (iv) The consultant’s knowl- edge of the organization’s business and its particular problems (v) The effectiveness with which the consultant report- ed or fedback information to the organization (vi) The extent to which the consultant’s workfocused on the major problems as per~ ceived by the organization (vii) The extent to which the consultant’s investigations interfered with orinterrupted the organization’s normalac- tivities (viii) The duration of the di~ agnosis and recommenda- tions phases of the consult- ing assignment (ix) The ability of organiza- tion members to understand and reach consensus con- cerning the consultant’s rec- ommendations (x) The objectivity ofthe con- sultant's recommendations (xi) The similarity of profes- sional backgrounds of the chief executive (or other sponsor) and the consultant (xii) The extent to which rec- ommendations could be dis- cussed without offendingthe consultant (xiii) The extent to which other known ideas or ap- proaches were explored be fore the consultants final recommendationsweremade Nature of Influence Moder- Strong- No Strong- Moder- No ately ly lnflu- ly ately Opin- Nega- Nega- ence Posi- Posi- ion ive tive tive tive 012345 DECIDED DECIDED (51) (52) (53) (54) (55) (56) (57) (58) (59) (60) (61) (62) (53) (xiv) The extent to whichthe Nature of Influence Moder- Strong- No Strong- Moder- No ately Iy Intlu- Iy ately Opin- Nega- Nega- ence Posi- Posi- ion ive tive tive tive oizats CIDEIEIDCI consultant made use of the (54) abilitiesof organization mem- bers and existing organiza- tion knowledge and experi- ence 7.4 To what extent, and by whom, were the consultant's recommendations disagreed with or rejected? (Check one column only for each statement) Not Com- Exten- Partial Accept- Complete Known plete sive Accept- ance in Accept- or Rejec- Rejec- ance, but Principle, ance with Not tion tion some Dis- butwith little Dis- Rele- agreement Modifica- agreement vant tions to Programs Board ofDirectors, o 1 I 3 4 5 or corporate head- [1 El CI [3 [I D (55) quarters personnel (in the case of a Division or Subsid- iary) Chief ExecutiVe [3 CI [:1 D (66) Other organization sponsor E] Cl C] (67) Managementgroup immediatelysubor. dinate to chief ex- ecutive [I U [3 [I U D (53) Heads of depart- ments or areas to be affected [3 [j E] [:1 [I [j (69) All managers and supervisors who knew of recom- mendations D D El E] El (70) 7.5 What was the extent of disagreement among all those organization members who would be affected by them, concerning the acceptance of the consultant’s recommendations? (Check one statement only.) Strong and almost complete disagreement by all affected organiza~ [El tion members Majority disagreement, but some members in favor 1D About equally divided E2] (71) Majority agreement, but some disagreement [33 Complete or almost complete agreement AD Degree of consensus or disagreement not known [5:] \l as TO BE ANSWERED ONLY IN THOSE CASES WHERE THE CONSULT- ANT WAS INVOLVED, AT LEAST IN PART, IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF HIS RECOMMENDATIONS OR OTHER CHANGE PROGRAMS. What influence do you feel the following characteristics of the or- ganization-consultant relationship had on the effectiveness with which recommendations or other change programs were implemented? (For each statement—Place a check mark under the column which best describes the influence of that characteristic.) Nature of Influence Moder— Strong- No Strong. Moder- No ately ly lnflu- ly ately Opin- Nega- Nega- ence Posi- Posi- ion ive tive tive tive (i) The amount of coopera- a I 5 tion given by organization 0 1 2 members to the consultant D D [j D D 1:] (ii) The personality of the (major) consultant and his personal manner in working with organization members D D D D D D (iii) The ”technical" compe- tence of the consultant D D 1:) (iv) The consultants knowl- edge of the organization's business and its particular problems D D D D D 1:] (v) The effectiveness with which the consultant report- ed or fedback information to the organization D D D D D [3 (vi) The extent to which im plementation interfered with or interrupted the organiza— tion’s normal activities (vii) The duration of the im- plementation phase of the [j assignment (viii) The ability of organiza- tion members to reach con- sensus concerning the pro» m posed methods of progra D D implementation D D [:j g (ix) The extent to which the consultant made use of the abilities of organization members to assist in imple- menting the recommended D D D programs D D D ' the following areas or I do on PERCEIVE CHANGES in ‘ 7'7 lznvdHTdniflgbseqzent, to and as the probable and at least partial consequence of the consultant’s assignment? (Place a check mark under the most appropriate column for each statement.) Little Moderate Situation Great No Change lmprove- Worsened lmproue- Opin- me e IOTI 3 d o I z D E] D D D Job satisfaction of work- ers Job satisfaction of man- agers Internal communica- tions D D D D D D D D (72) (73) (74) (75) (76) (77) (78) (79) (80) (1-4) Little Moderate Situation Great No Change lmprove- Worsened Improve. Opin- ment ment ion N Internal relationships 0 l 2 3 ‘ among managers and D D D D [j (9) functional groups New business opportun- ities in effect, or under consideration D D D D D (10) Ability of the organiza— tion to deal with future problems D D D D D (11) Skills and abilities of or- ganization members D D D D D (12) Less dependence of or ganization members on external assistance D D D D (13) Management decision making D D D D D (14) 7.8 To what extentdid any of the following conditions lead to MISUNDER- STANDINGS between the organization and consultant, and detract from the possible effectiveness of the assignment? (Check all statements which are true.) Differences between the chief executive's (or other sponsor) and the consultants concept of the point at which the consultant's work would be regarded as completed D (15) Differences between the professional backgrounds of the chief exec- utive (or other sponsor) and the consultant D (16) Differences between the general managementviewpoint of the chief executive, and the specialized functional viewpoint of the consultant D (17) Differences between the assumptions made by the chief executive (or other sponsor) and the consultant about the responsibility for problem identification and definition D (18) Differences among organization members in their interpretation of the organization's purpose in using consultant help D (19) Differences between the assumptions made by the chief executive (or other sponsor) and the consultant about the division of tasks between the consultant and organization members D (20) D (21) D (22) No misunderstandings between organization and consultant Other (please describe) 7.9 What were the major reasons for only PARTIALLY IMPLEMENTING, or otherwise considerably modifying the consultant's recommendations? (Check all statements which are true, then draw a circle around the one which best describes the major reason.) Organization did not have the required resources (other than per- sonnel) Organization did not have personnel with the required skills D (24) Appropriately skilled personnel could not be made availablefor im- plementation tasks Implementation regarded as a poor investment on the basis of prob- able costs and returns D (25) Recommendations required action with respect to personnel which the organization did not wish to take Situation 6 7 real Ito " Worsened Improve 0pin ‘7 1 1 ‘ D D I] “I U I] I] (m, D D U luv pg conditions lead to MISIJIIDEI- on and consultant, and detail assignment? ecutive’s (or other sponsor) and point at which the consultants ed ral backgrounds of the chief erec- isullant I anagement view ional viewpoint rns mad tant about the responsibility for Elli I mbers in their interpretat :onsultant help ns made by the chief er am about the division 0 ‘ " tion members UIZ iizalion and / / ARTMLIY onsultant’s me then drawa n.) id resources ( h the reourreds of be madeava simen reapect I0 93‘5”" U D Dill point of the chief of the consultant [Till e by the chief executive ion of Of ecutive f Lasts consultant Ell Oil IMPLEMENTING. 0’ mmendationsi circle around the other thrill I)?" \T‘t‘ kills liable for in 73.71 ton the basis of plot 7 fl,_, hich , net w Eli Recommendations unclear and notp ‘ programs the presentation of recommend , lated to convince organization mem llrpn‘nation members did not con rindyerpert r feeling by organization members - . muldbedeveloped I [oddity of consultant to achieve 1 beisrrith regard to the interpreta . . : lbeaceeptanceofhisrecommenda‘ _ . '_ - ' I toestionnot applicable as essen - . .. . . . l implementedbytheorganization turn in the actual duration of ( tusulhnl‘soriginal estimate? ) (thertone statement only.) ) Significantly longer than original Ibuut the same as the original - , Shorter than the original estima ‘ longer than orig'nal estimate mutually revised estimate Other (please Specify) ,II II the completion of the assig ‘ regarded in relation to what I beable to gain from the assign (Check one statement only.) fee regarded as "modest” in l tee regarded as high but it actual or potential benefits tee regarded as reasonable i fits Fee related to the amount i - than to the benefits provide high when evaluated by this Other (please specify) ——- ltt If it were possible, would tl sulting Trim be retained at another assignment? (Check one statement only.) Would be prepared to reta (Where more than one i refer to the major membe Would he prepared to r same individual consulta Would not be prepared indrvidual(s) again i Mi 0n the basis of the exp have described in this I] knowledge ~ please indi important for ensuring a (first, check all statem these checked statemen lorswhrch you consider —— ‘~——\, Recommendations unclear and not presented in the form of specific action programs a Poor presentation of recommendations by the consultant which failed to convince organization members of their necessity Organization members did not consider the consultant to be suffi- ciently expert Feeling by organization members that better recommendations could be developed Inability of consultant to achieve consensus of organization mem- bers with regard to the interpretation of the problem situation and the acceptance of his recommendations Question not applicable as essentially all recommendations were implemented by the organization 1.10 How did the actual duration of the assignment compare with the consultant's original estimate? (Check one statement only.) 0 Significantly longer than original estimate C] I About the same as the original estimate Cl 2 Shorter than the original estimate Cl 3 Longer than original estimate but approximately consistent with a Cl mutually revised estimate ‘ Other (please specify) 7.11 At the completion of the assignment, how was the consultant’s fee regarded in relation to what the organization had gained, or would be able to gain from the assignment? (Check one statement only.) Fee regarded as “modest” in relation to actual or potential benefits 0 [3 Fee regarded as high but more than adequately justified by the 1 actual or potential benefits C] Fee regarded as reasonable in relation to actual or potential bene- , fits Fee related to the amount of work done by the consultant, rather - than to the benefits provided to the organization, and regarded as 3 high when evaluated by this criterion Cl 4 Other (please specify) [3 7.12 If it were possible, would the same individual consultant(s) or con- sulting firm be retained again under similar circumstances or for another assignment? (Check one statement only.) Would be prepared to retain the same individual consultant. , (Where more than one individual was assigned, this statement will 1:] refer to the major member of the consulting team) Would be prepared to retain the same consulting firm but not the , same individual consultant individual(s) again 7.13 On the basis of the experience with the consulting engagement you have described in this questionnaire, and your other experience and knowledge — please indicate those characteristics which you feel are important for ensuring an effective (or ideal) consulting assignment. (First, check all statements which you feel are important. Then from these checked statements only—double check the five, or fewer fac tors which you consider most important.) (34-35) C] (38) Would not be prepared to retain either the same consulting firm or 2 C] (i) The consultant’s specialized skills and ex- perience (ii) The consultant's knowledge of the organi- zation’s business and its particular problems (iii) The initiation of a recommendation for consulting assistance from the organization area and level where this help is required (iv) Discussion among all organization mem- bers who might become involved with a con- sulting assignment before a decision to pro: ceed is taken (v) Consensus among organization members who might become involved concerning the de- cision to retain an external consultant (vi) Consensus among organization members who might become involved concerning the selection of a particular consultant (vii) identifying and making explicit the organi- zation’s objectives in initiating a consulting assignment (viii) Advising organization members that a consultant has been retained, and of the ob- jectives of the proposed assignment (ix) Clarifying for all parties the intended divi- sion of tasks between the consultant and or~ ganization members (x) Requiring the consultant to make interim reports to the organization on progress and findings of the assignment (xi) The consultant's placement of emphasis on problem identification and definition (xii) The designation of a particular organiza- tion member to coordinate the consultant’s contacts and to act as liaison between organi- zation and consultant (xiii) Participation by the consultantin the im- plementation of recommended programs (xiv) The amount of co-operation given by or‘ ganization members to the consultant (xv) The personality of the consultant and his personal manner in working with organization members (xvi) The consultant's ability to report orteed back information to the organization (xvii) The extent to which the consultant to cuses his work on the major problems as per- ceived by the organization (xviii)'The extent to which the consultant’s work interferes with or interrupts the organi- zation's normal activities (xix) The similarity ofprofessional backgrounds of the organization sponsor and the consultant (xx) The extent to which a consultant makes use of the abilities, knowledge, and experience of organization members Check of Double Important Check of Factors Five Most Important Factors 0 1 Cl C! (39) U D (40) Cl Cl (41) D (42) D (43) D (44> U (45) E] (46) D (47) D (48) E1 (49) (50) U (51) D (52) (53) U (54) D (55) D U (56) D D or) D D (so) 8.2 No. olManagementEm- playees (incl. SUPCWISE or: and Foremm) Dec. 1967 113 No. of “Stall" EmpIay. mfie Emplo ' ' lees who I] 1 . ' I ”5 ’9 are neither direct pm. on) m BX[Mg/I017;Z::efzzrgzgz%:rflmem— [3 U (59) duction Workers nor ex . 1524;77:5er [5250/1749 inro red with hint, and mammmpmmw Dec. 1957 with his recommendations and their implemen- 8.4 TotalAnnualSaIes (3 Millions) tation (rrxir) The extent to which organ/2a ( bers become committed to see/ring and In ducing improvements into the organization (xx/ii) The duration of the consulting assign- merit a D (61) (XX/II) The completeness of the preliminary briefing of the consultant by organization mem- U I] (52) bers (xxv) The extent to which the consultant is permitted to investigate what he perceives as relevant areas—free from constraint, embargo or information withheld by the organization [:7 CI (63) Dec. 1964 C1 CI (64) (xxvi) Other (please describe) __———— If,“ _’___’__'_,_._._.— U D (65) 8.5 Net Income - lmer Taxes and Depreciation Dec. 1967 Dec. 1967 tion mem- tro- D (60) Dec. 1966 Dec. 1965 (xxvii) Other (please describe) _,————— /___,——— (s millions/year) (1-4) Dec. 1966 E] (5) 8. ORGANIZATION STATISTICS Dec. 1965 8.1 Total No. OI Employees Dec. 1967* (510) Dec. 1964 Dec. 1966 (ll-15) 066.1965 K‘— (16-20) Dec. 1354 \ (2125) (26) '5 The 1% . ‘m m MM “3561' EWIQNQ mmmfi‘jxfig‘fl be the mm “mm E m (\a\e\m\m\et\ whiz; as at me date, m T e“ 3‘ ‘5 abviopi'm e. (31.34) (3533) (39-42) (43-46) (47-50) (5257) (58-63) (6169) (70-75) (51) (76) (2730) ~ (31-34) (3338) (3942) (43.46) ”W APPENDIX C i ___._“__,_._-. __ war—m (52.57) 1 (58-63) 1 (6469) (70.75) “* Executive Opinion Survey Questionnaire Yum m this n, .. Hill-munch»! “hwmhomflw “um-amt “hfimmmw mflnistorflym “Immune rm. IHHMBMHIM “Midasloflmit is“ III-Into int: 01mph immtflmulmretur “Iliad 11m IIII) Ill flhm “N we inst don't km “indium. ”HIIIMIIIHIIII “WI-d. ”HM Ium oI llompleted by (check one only): tibial Executive (as sponsor of consulting assignment) (Bidet Executive (as Non-sponsor) Ether E’x‘écutive (as sponsor). Position Title: rm ’. 1. In this complicated world of ours the only way we can know what’s going on is to rely on leaders or experts who can be trusted. 2. My blood boils whenever a per- son stubbornly refuses to admit he’s wrong. 3. There are two kinds of people in this world; those who are for the truth and those who are against the truth. w"< 4. Most people just don’t know what’s good for them. 5. Of all the different philoso- phies which exist in this world there is probably onlyonewhich is correct. 6. The highest form of govern- ment is a democracy and the highest form of democracy is a government run by those who are most intelligent. “1‘. idthe'r Executive (as Non-sponsor). Position Title: Please be careful not to omit any of the statements. AGREE very on the a much whole little ClClEl EDD EDD [3E] DIED DIED MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Graduate School of Business Administration EXECUTIVE OPINION SURVEY efo‘llowing statements have been made by some people as their opinions on'several topics. You may find yourself agreeing strongly with some of the ' statements. . . .disagreeing just as strongly with others. . . and perhaps un- certain about others. Whether you agree or disagree with any statement, you can be sure that many other people feel the same as you do. We. want your personal opinion on each statement . . . . whether you agree or disagree with it, and how strongly you agree or disagree. You should indicate this by placing a check mark in the box which best describes your opinion on each of these statements. if; [j (6) :‘i 3 Cl DISAGREE a on the very little whole much 3 Z I II] E! El (7) E] E El (8) E] [I [I (9) El [3 El (10) E] El [21(11) [:1 CI El (12) 7. The main thing in life is fora person to want to do some- thing important. 8. l'd like it it I could find some- one who would tell me how to solve my personal problems. 9. Most of the ideas which get printed nowadays aren't worth the paper they are printed on. 10. Man on his own is a helpless and miserable creature. 11. It is only when a person devotes himself to an ideal or cause that life becomes meaningful. 12. Most people just don't give a “damn” for others. 13. To compromise with our poll- tical opponents is dangerous because it usually leads to the betrayal of our own side. 14. It is often desirable to reserve judgement about what's going on until one has had a chance to hear the opinions of those one respects. 15. The present is all too often full of unhappiness. It is only the future that counts. 16. The United States and Russia have just about nothing in common. 17. In a discussion I often find it necessary to repeat myself sev- eral times to make sure I am being understood. 18. While I don'tlike to admit this even to myself, my secretam- bition is to become a greatman, like Einstein, or Beethoven, or Shakespeare. 19. Even though freedom of speech for all groups is a worthwhile goal, it is unfortunately neces- sary to restrict the freedom of certain political groups. 20. It is better to be a dead hero than to be a live coward. much whole little AGREE very on the a 7 Ii 5 El CI El III [I E] Cl E] El Cl El [II D D D D I] Cl El CI Cl El Cl C] E] El El Cl U U D [1 El El Cl E Cl [3 Cl [3 D D (14) D (5) DISAGREE a on the very little whole much 3 2 1 El El El (13) E] El (:1 (14) E] D D (15) III [I D (16) 1:] El El (17) Cl E] E1 (13) D D D (19) D D D (20) D D D (21) D D 1:] (22) D U D (23) D ‘3 U (25) D ‘3 D (25) TABLE 67 No. of - ‘j: ' ‘5. Organiz ‘ Used Co _————— 229 TABLE 67.——Frequency of use of consultants during three year period 1965-1967. No. of Occasions No. of Organizations Organization has Reporting Used Consultant (%) O 42 (31.6) 1 15 2 15 3 1M 4 4 5 ' 6 6 — 10 17 11—15 6 16—20 3 f Over 20 8 I Not Indicated 3 3 TOTAL 133 Average per Organization 3.3 Hence ( QGMDHSmCOO Comb man COHDMNHmekO nQOHmNUUO MO .02 .mmmfldmdn MO Oahu hn Ahmmdlmwmflv mus, ..FHSWQOO .HO Owl .HO h0§®36t§hll.mm MQQ.wHV moHocow< can wH m o a H H H H m H m mucoappwooo psoecpo>ow Aso.ov m o o o m o o o m o o szHHpD OHdem Ago.ov H o o o o H o o o o o COHpMpLoamzth A&N.sz OOCNMSWCH :m o o o m m o m m m OH and HMHocwch SE63 HH H o H o o o H H m m wchchmnoaoz Qwemv Ammocow “3 mm m m H m m m m n w MH wcthpommssmz HmthwSGCH om co>o omrmH erHH OHrm m z m m H 0 Hence mmochdm mo maze puprSmcoo womb was COHpmNchmno mCOHmoooo mo .02 .mmochsn mo mom» an AwmermmmHv maimnHchoo mo mm: mo moCoSUohmrr.wm mHmom .ooom A&m.mmv hmm3poom m o o o o o o H H .wanpOHo .mmHproe Axo.ov mmHapmsccH Una mposooam UoHHH< m o o o m o o o o can EsoHoppom .mHoOHEoco .mwSpo . Afio.ov mmopom RV pGoEQHsum m H o o m o o H o COHpmppommcth vow o>HpoEOps< m ammo omer erHH OHrm m 2 H o W COprOHMHmmmHo zhpmdUcH pcmqumcoo comb was COHpmNchwho mQOHmwooo mo .02 .COHuMUHMHmmeo hhpmzucH an mp: uHSmcoo mo om: mo mocoddopmrr.mm mqm<9 Z w a Tr .2 1r < on... me. ..:-.l\-.. COHQNNHEQUMO mcc TrflwN Tr . w S O W mpcmpddmfloo CH wmthHQEm ..Ho 02 d O S Ummb was COHDGNHmeLO mCOHmmooO MO .02 a J To .90 PNNHCNMMO OED CH mmmanHQEm .HO .HODESC an mu: pHDWEOO cHO mom: ..HO \nUCOSUOeHnHII.ON NQQGRU -rl 232 .poommo msHpQOpmHo mo om:doon mmmMLo>m wcHuMHSOHwo CH UopuHEo momcoamoh omega * AH0.0NV m.m ONH O m O OH O O OH mH mH pm Haaoe ..... H&0.0V Oopeogom poz N.m O H O O O H H O H O O moOOOHOsm mo .02 AH0.00 O.MH OH m H m H O H H O O O OOOOH eo>o AH0.0V m.O m O O O N O O H O O O OOOOH r Hoom AHO.ONV 0.0 m O H O N O O O H O H ooom r Homm Hm.mHv m.m mH N O O m H H O m m N oomm r HOOH AN0.0NV m.m :H O O O m m O e H O O OOOH r Hom ARN.H:O Ammoeom RV m.m ms H H m N H H O O NH om moo>OHOsm oom r OOH OHV HON JUA 8J0 cocoa don. means go ON ON- m- r m m 193 .41; OH HHH OHO O m H O 2 mad Trz ho>o 99* U? 3U 31. M. M W .m. COHpmNHcmmho on» u . u mucouHSmsoo CH mmmHOHQEm mo .02 m o s womb mm: QOHPMNHwapo wQOHmmooo mo .02 JJ .COHpmNHcmwho map CH moomOHQEo mo gonads an mpgngSmcoO mo om: mo zoomsaohmrr.on mqmOCth .L. ow mmdmm Hmzflfi< uotqe Jed sous .ON * 0 To suotqe pGNpHSmCOO Ummb won COdeNHcmwfiO wCOHWMOOO %O .02 J0 .Ahwmflv h0>0flh5u mmvddm HNSCCM \AD mpidu ZWCOO MO 0m: MO h0C®3U®Ln~II.HN N‘Hmcfim 233 .poommo wCHpQOpmHU mo omsmoon mmwwho>m wszwHSOHmo CH coppHEo momcoamwh omosa w AO0.000 O.O ONH O O O OH O O OH OH OH Om HOBOO AOO.NOV Oepcoaom 0.0 OO O H m N m H N O O NH so: co>ocesa monm Hoscc< AOO.OO OOHHHHz 0.0 N O O O H O O O O H O OOOO eo>o AO0.0HO 0.0 O H H ,O H O H O O H H .5 OOO r HONO AO0.00 O.O O O O H N O O O N N O .s OON r HOHO HO0.000 N.N OH O O O H O H m H H m .s OOH r HOO AO0.00 O.O O O O O N O O H O O O .5 OO r ONO AO0.000 N.m NN O H O m H O O N N O .s ON r HHO AO0.000 . r 0.0 ON H O N O H H H O O O s OH OO Ammoaow AOOJHOV Ov COHHHHz O.H NH O O O H H O N N H O OO can» mmoq 03V HOTu JUA 8J0 cocoa Sonar». EBJ d9? U39 0U.L Hmfiw mun ON ONrH OHrHH . O m Wm... ammo .85 O OHO O N H O AOOOHHHHE 3 In+N s I OOOHrco>occse Wham w W monm Hmscc< w o s pddedmcoo comb was COprNHcmwho mCOHmmooo mo .02 JIO .AumeV hm>osh59 mOHmm Hmsccm an mpswumzmcoo mo mm: mo monoSUopmrr.HO mqmOCLSB O S . mm m NSEE u W m.» mpfldufidmfloo H m. H. < “do we S womb mos COHPNNOENMLO nCOHnMooO MO .02 J w.%0>h5w h0C0WIIMQ>OEESP mmflflm HNSCCN hfl WDCNL SWCOO M0 ®m3 MO %0§®3U®hhll.mk MQQQE IIIHE 23M .poomwm wCHupoumHv mo omdwoon mowwho>m wCHpOHSOHmo CH ooppHEo omCommoC mHCBn mo>H950oxm HmHoCMCHm .AmomH ..oCH COprcCsom Commomom "xmow 3ozv mprpHsmCoo mmmCHmsm mo ow: o>Hpoommm flmoCom .zm HON.ONO O.N ONO ON OH ON ON OH OO OO OO HHH OOBOO OOO.HOO czoqx O.H OHH O O O O O HN HN ON OO poz co>occsa monm HOCCC< OOO.HHO H.O OH H H N H O O O O N OOHHHHs OOOO Co>o OO0.00 H.O ON O O O H O OH O O O .5 OOO r OONO HON.OHO O.O OO O O O O O O O O O .s OON r OOHO AOO.HOO O.N NO O N O H N O OH O OH 5 OOH r OOO AO0.0NO H.N OO O O O O O OH HH OH OH .2 OO . ONO HO0.0NO O.N OO O O N O H OH O OH OH .5 ON r OHO OO0.000 H.H OO O O O N H N O OH OH .5 OH . OO HON.OOO Ammocoe OV O.O OH OH .O O O O O O O O OOHHHHz OO OOOO mmoq OHV HOL Jun 9J0 0038 Song. BEJ d2? ugse o ucr ON ONrHH OHrO O O O N H O Hmfi WHN C30 2 9 Tee 0 AOOOHHHHO OO WWW Ow MO... Cm>0CCSB m s. m N mpCmpHSOCoo monm HOSCC< w w 9 comb me COHpmNHCOwCo OCOHmOooo mo .02 J «5 .mm>h:m zoComIICo>0CCCp onmm HOCCCO an muC p flmCoo mo om: mo Oocosuocmrr.NO OHOOB mm N N O OH O N OH OH HH ON HOBOB TOOOOO OO O N m m m H O O O OH O0.0H COCO Copmopw AOOONO NW OO N O H m N H O O O mH O0.0H Can» OOOH 2 ON ONrOH OHrHH OHrO O O O N H O :3 Co>o OOOOOHQEM no hmnECz Hmpoe Hmpoe op HoCComCmm . pCmEowamz no OHQOm pCmszmCoo Oomb mmC COHpONHCOwCO mCOHmmooo mo 02 .COHpmNHmeCo on CH moOOOHQEm Hmuou on HoCCowhom pCoEowawE mo COHuCoQomQ an mqupHSOCoo mo mm: mo OoCoCdmCmrr. MO MHmo . OOOOOHQEM mo Conesz HOpoe on HOCComCOm pCOszmCoO OOO: mOC COHpONHCOwCO mConOooO mo .02 OOOpm mo OHpOm .COHpONHCOwao OCu CH OOOOOHQEO HOOOp 0p HmCCOOCOQ OOOpw mo COHOCOQOCQ On prOpHdmCoo mo Om: mo OoCosvohmrr.OO mHmHP30®N® MOHEO .HO H®>®H EOOUGOSUO Own WHETDHSWEOU .HO Om: cHO OOQOBUOLKII.mO MQQQB 237 OO O N O O O O OH OH NH ON OOOOO OOH.mHV oohwom 0.0 ON ,N N O O O O O O H O OOOOOOOO pmom ARO.mNV mpwdwwfiw N.O OH N O O N H H N H H O rumom 98m AOOOOV N.N ON O O O O O H O O N HH OOOOOOOO OOOHHOO OO0.0NO O.N ON O O N N O H O H O O OOOHHOO 25m AOO.mwv mudddmhw 0.0 O O O O O O O O O H N HOOOOOOOHO OO0.00HV AmmoCoO Ow O.O H O O O O O O O O O H HooOOO OOHO 9:8 03V HOL OOO OOO ON mama www $5 ONrOH OHrHH OHIO O O O N H O Trees UTr ZOO OOO Wu N u 4. SHOOOOOO OOHOO (Ho HMO s No H33 83855 uauo w J uCOpHSOCoo womb mOC COHpONHCOmCo mConOooo mo .02 91.. J .o>HusooxO MOHCO mo HO>OH COHpOosco On muCansmCoo mo mm: mo OoCOsOOCmIr.mO mHmO wCHpOHSOHOo CH OOppHEo mOwCoamoa ommCBO OO0.000 H.O OO «O N O O O O OH OH OH HO OOOOO AOO.OOHO 0.0 N O O O .O . O O O O O N OOOOO OO pm>o OO0.00V H.H O O O O O O O N O O O OO r HO OO0.000 O.N OO ON O N O O N O O O OH OO . HO OO0.0NO H.O OO mN N N O O O O O O O OO r HO OO0.0HO Ammopoe OO 0.0 O O O H O O H O H N H OOOOO OO . HO 03V HOL JUA 94.0 333 Sean... mama .mwm. ON ONrOH OHrHH OHrO O O O N H O Taco UT. .HmO. nzc w 9 Wm M o o>Hudooxm mwm qua. m. OOHOO .8 OOO S- u.d o m w pCOpHdmCoO Com: mOC COHpONHCOwCo mConOooo mo .02 are J .o>Hpsooxo MOHCO mo OOO On mpCOpHsmCoo mo om: mo OoCosOoCmrr.OO mquB [Cl 1! < ..t l r . . I. Goa ..u I. GO DNUOQ Z w 8 m... W W MO H D» 3 o .02. 4U N u 1. wk) wCOHmOUOO .HO . 1. O on T. GO DQNHCN C m S . m we QCOUHSOCOO Ummb mm: H d O S LE." l|.0.0 MQQSH 8 1c .. SmEOO MO Om: cHO OOEOSUOPHH J HDNUOH OHEthwomw in muG:....n GO .COHDMNOCOWFO MO 239 OOO.NOO m.m mNH O m O OH O m OH OH OH NO HOBOB HOH.ONV OOHoCom< 0.0 MN m H O N H H H N H O OCO qumEpCOamo pCoECCo>oO HOCOOOm OON.NNO O.N O O O O H H H H N H N OHMHoOm AOOOOV 0.0 N O O H O O O O O O H CHOucsoz AO0.00V 0.0 MH O H O m H O N H O m HOCOCOO CpCoz pmoz AOONOO O.H mm m O H H O O m m O OH HOCpCOO Cpaoz mem OO0.00V O.m m O O O H O O O O H H HOCpCOO Cpsom pmmz TOOOO O.m H O O O O O O H O O O HOCpCOO Cpsom mem AOOOOO O.H HH H O O O H O O O H O OHOCOHO< Cpsom AOOOOV O.m ON H H O m H H N N O O OHpCOHp< OHOOHE AOOOHO A382 § 0.0 O O O O O H O N O O H OCOHow 3oz l mww OOO. Guam...“ “w 2 ON ONrOH OHrHH OHIO O O O N H O WOHOO e . o u .L ..Hm>o ACOHwom 2 wow WHW OHCQOCwOOOV Wmc N WW . COHOONHCOOCO m..m.O.o 8 m. 0 mo COHpOooH u u J pCOpHsmCoo comb OOC COHpONHCOMCO mCOHmOooo O0 .02 Om. .. a . .COHpONHCOwCo mo CoHpOOOH OHCQOCwoow On mmCOOHsmCoo O0 mm: mo OoCOSOOCmrI.OO mHml< WWUOUJD Completely effective. Generally effective, but felt it could have been better. Moderately effective but some problems yet remain. Minimally effective and generally disappointing. No worthwhile results achieved. Not known as results cannot be evaluated. 1| 1| ll II I] ll TABLE 79-- Functic Ass _—...————- General m: organizat Personnel tions (in salary sy Financial and insux Office,‘ system, cessing. Sales ar (incl. ; developr Manufac Technio Genera} 0ther_ TOTA / >1: ’IJL‘UUOUJLD H H H H H H 2&1 TABLE 79.——Effectiveness of assignment by functional area assignment. of Degree of Effectiveness of Functional Area of Assignment Assignment Total A* B* C* D* E* F* General management, 6 2 6 l l l 1? organization (% Across) (35.3%) Personnel, labor rela— lO 0 4 O O O 14 tions (incl. wage and (71.5%) salary systems). Financial, accounting, A O l O l l 7 and insurance. (57.2%) Office, information 2 3 2 2 l 1 ll system, and data pro— (18.2%) cessing. Sales and marketing 2 l 2 l O O 6 (incl. product (33.3%) development). Manufacturing. 2 O 5 0 2 1 10 (20.0%) Technical, scientific. 5 l 2 2 O 2 12 (141.7%) General economic. O O 2 0 0 l 3 (0.0%) Other. 2 3 l l O O 7 (28.6%) TOTAL 33 10 25 7 5 7 87 (37.9%) >|< ’IJEI‘JUOUCJID II II II II II II Generally effective, Moderately effective but some problems yet remain. Minimally effective and generally disappointing. No worthwhile results achieved. Not known as results cannot be evaluated. Completely effective. but felt it could have been better. TABLE 80 Number 0 the O 10 — 500 501 — 1, 1,0001- 2,501 _ 5,001 - More tr TOTA * ’IJLTJUOCC'ID "fl ”HHH 772300 TABLE 80.—-Effectiveness of assignment by number of em— 242 ployees in the organization. Number of Employees in Degree of Effectiveness of the Organization Assignment Total A* 5* C* D* E* F* 10 - 500 Employees 21 5 l2 3 5 4 50 (% Across) (42.0%) 501—1,000 A 2 4 o o o 10 (110.0%) 1,0001—2,500 3 2 u o o 1 10 (30.0%) 2,501 — 5,000 2 2 2 0 0 1 7 (28.6%) 5,001 — 10,000 1 O l 1 O 0 3 (33.3%) More than 10,000 2 2 u 2 1 1 12 (16.7%) TOTAL 33 13 27 6 6 7 92 (35.9%) * "EIITUUOUdb II II II II ll ll Completely effective. Generally effective, Moderately effective but some pro Minimally effective and generally disappointing. No worthwhile results achieved. Not known as results cannot be evaluated. but felt it could have been better. blems yet remain. TABLE 81. 1 Ratio of sonnel t of Em Less thE Greater TOTAL >l< ujmoow3> II M H H II II ZZZZ C30 243 1 TABLE 81.——Effectiveness of assignment by proportion of management personnel to total employees in the organization. Ratio of Management Per— sonnel to Total Number Degree of Effectiveness of Assignment Total of Employees (%) A* B* 0* D* E* F* Less than 10.0% 12 13 3 3 0 36 (% Across) (33.3%) Greater than 10.0% 14 4 10 2 2 4 36 ; (38.9%) i TOTAL 26 9 23 5 5 4 72 (36.2%) >I< ’TIU'JUOtfitp II II II II II II Completely effective. Generally effective, but felt it could have been better. Moderately effective but some problems yet remain. Minimally effective and generally disappointing. No worthwhile results achieved. Not known as results cannot be evaluated. TABLE 82 Ratio 0: toF Empl Less th Greater TOTAI * wmcjowb C“ II II H H II II 22230 244 TABLE 82.-—Effectiveness of assignment by proportion of staff personnel to total employees in the organization. Ratio of Staff Personnel Degree Of Effectiveness Of Ass1gnment to Total N0. of Total Employees (%) .A* B* 0* D* E* F* Less than 20.0% 21 12 4 2 1 45 (46.7%) Greater than 20.0% 0 2 6 l l 2 12 (0.0%) TOTAL 21 18 5 3 3 57 (36.8%) * "EF‘JUOUJID II ll II II || || Completely effective. Moderately effective but some problems yet remain. Minimally effective and generally disappointing. No worthwhile results achieved. Not known as results cannot be evaluated. Generally effective, but felt it could have been better. TABLE 83 ferent ( Amount < $2,001 $5,001 $10,001 $20,001 Over $5 TOTM / * ujrrJCjOUULD n u u u u u >)Z:E§c3 (1;: Per tota leVe recc 245 TABLE 83.-—Complete acceptance of recommendations by dif— ferent organizational levels by amount of fees paid for assignment. Organization.Level Amount of Fees Paid Completely Accepting total A* B* C* D* E* F* Less than $1,000** 1 4 2 1 2 2 12 (% of Total Responses) (19.0%) $1,000 — 2,000 2 2 l 2 1 l 9 (25.0%) $2,001 — 5,000 2 5 2 4 4 4 21 (36.3%) 1 $5,001 - 10,000 2 5 O 3 3 1 14 (18.9%) 1 $10,001 — 20,000 8 l2 5 6 10 7 48 (40.7%) $20,001 — 50,000 5 6 l 2 2 O 16 (17.0%) Over $50,000 5 6 2 3 1 2 19 (25.3%) TOTAL 25 4O 13 21 23 17 139 (26.9%) *A = Chairman, board, or corporate personnel B = Chief executive C = Other organization sponsor D = Managers immediately subordinate to chief executive E = Heads of departments or areas to be affected F = All managers advised of assignment *Per cent of Total Responses is the proportion of the total number of responses made by each organizational level which completely accepted the consultant's recommendations gum—g—‘ii TABLE 84 fi Major Re Con Consulta ability ideas ar Consults ability zation 1 evaluate Consult skills other 0 Consult ability impleme Consult provide based ( ment Consul abilit tion m requir The av consul the WC requir The c( the p] SUltar dlScL Other NO re most TC \1 LOAH c u c: C) 246 TABLE 84.——Major reason for using consultant by number of employees in the organization. No. of Employees in the Major Reason for Using organization Total Consultant A* B* 0* D* E* F* (%) Consultant's superior ability to provide new 4 l 1 2 0 3 ll ideas and a fresh approach (11.7%) Consultant's superior ability to diagnose organi- zation problems and 1 1 0 0 O 10 evaluate solutions (10.6%) Consultant's specialized skills and experience from 13 4 2 O O 21 other organizations (22.4%) Consultant's superior ability to introduce and 2 O O 1 O 3 implement change efficiently (3.2%) Consultant's ability to provide independent opinion based on unbiased judge— 11 1 5 3 2 6 28 ment (29.8%) Consultant's superior ability to train organiza— tion members in techniques 2 l O O O 0 required by problems (3.2%) The availability of the consultant to undertake the work at the time 7 l l l l 1 required The confidential nature of the problem where the con— sultant can prevent O O O O O O disclosure Other 1 l O O O O 12 (12.8%) o (0.0%) 2 (2.1%) No reason indicated as 2 l l O O O (4.8%) most important A 50 11 11 7 94 TOT L (100.0%) *A = 100—500 employees; B = 501—1,000 employees; C = l,OOO—2,5OO employees; D = 2,501—5,000 employees; E = 5,001—10,000 employees; and F = Over 10,000 employees. .OGOEGmHmmN whipdm a no OCMOHSmCoo TEQm >0HQE0 0p Coapmmflcomko M0 mmmcmcfifififizll.mm mqmHOCH so EmHO wchHdmcoo 68mm map OH noanw cprmh on commaohm on no: OHsoz 3.1: 35359: O 08mm on» no: p59 .EaHm mchHSmcoo 05mm 059 szpoa o» Oohmmopm on OHsoz AH.Omv pampHsmcoo HOSOH>HOCH NO mEmm map chpoh on Oohmaopa on OHsoz $3 Ocaphommm mucoocogmom mo .02 psprSmcoo mEmm quuom on wwocmcHHHfiz .pCmEstmmm magpsm m :o pampHSmcoo oEmm OOHQEO 0p COHOONHCOOMO mo mmoswcHHHH3|I.mO mqm