As consultants we are often faced with a dilemma.  Our clients hire us because they need a fresh perspective that is unencumbered by the internal constraints, politics, and metrics that guide the day to day activities.  We know, however, that our recommendations cannot be implemented unless the organization adopts them.  If the recommendations are perceived to be too (scary, out there, different, impossible, etc) the likelihood of adoption is diminished.

This is a tricky balance to strike.  Some consultants solve it by presenting a fully implementable, turnkey solution to the organization.  Success usually requires a mandate from the most senior members of the organization for any type of adoption to occur.  We can see the organizational problems this could cause, but there are times (such as extreme organizational crisis) that it is the best way to proceed. 

Others involve client teams through the entire, messy process.  Success requires that all the client team members are able to suspend judgment while exploring new business realities.  They also need to be able to keep one foot in the comfort zone of the current business, while the other foot is outside their comfort zone.  This is a lot to expect of anyone, and can only work if enough time is invested in selecting these people and setting the right expectations for them to succeed.

It occurred to me the other day that the best results happen with a combination of these methods.  Sean Howard had a post about the role of serious play in the boardroom.  In it, he discussed a frightening experience where he brought crayons and blank paper to a final presentation meeting.  As I was reading the post and related comments, I started thinking about how the level of finish in a prototype can help to facilitate an environment conducive to mutual creation of the final solution.  As I thought about it more, I think the element of timing also played a crucial role.  Sean's team had already done 2 months of work.  While the elements for success existed, there was a need to simplify this complex information in order to communicate it to a diverse group.  Having the group join the process in how to communicate to each other was an excellent way to acheive that goal.

Clients often choose consultants for their proposals of "delivering a turnkey solution", or "involving us every step of the way".  These messages are easy to understand, and can only work under ideal conditions.  For the rest of us, accept the fact that some things are best left to the outsider, and spend time figuring out the best time for mutual creation.  It will be different for each client, consultant, and type of problem.   

In my opinion, one behavior with perhaps the greatest potential to kill to innovation is the aversion to using the phrase "I don't know." 

Let's say you are leading a new project to develop a completely new offering for your company, the outcome is highly uncertain, and someone asks you a question like what you think the selling price of the new offering should be.  Of course you want to give an answer that sounds like you are in control of the process; that you are capable, and confident, and you know what you are doing.  But let's face it.  If you are doing something truly new, you shouldn't have any idea of what the final selling price should be. At least not at the beginning stage of the process designed to figure out what type of offering you should be developing in the first place. 

Would you be empowered at your company to say "I don't know what the selling price should be?", and would you be empowered to follow up that answer with "and at this point in this type of project we shouldn't know the answer to that question?"  If you gave that type of answer, would you be removed as the project leader because you "don't know what you are doing?"  And if you gave an answer that would assure everyone of a certain outcome, would you be sabotaging your ability to truly innovate?

As discussed in an earlier post, companies reward certainty.  Unfortunately, this reward is often employed at every stage of every process.  Would I ever advocate launching a new offering without thoroughly evaluating what the correct price will be?  Absolutely not.  And of course, "I don't know", may really mean that the person doesn't know what they are doing.  What I am advocating is that we consider the context of the rewards we employ.  Rewards should be consistent with the type and scope of the work we are doing.  We should be clear about the expected outcomes of a project, and what types of decisions should be able to be made at each step. 

There is a time and place for every question. If we're not careful, the "right" answer will be given at the wrong time.  At that point, it may as well be the wrong answer.

The Wall Street Journal published their list of the top management gurus today.  Here's the part that was most interesting to me:

...changes show that time-strapped managers are hungry for easily digestible advice wherever they can find it. Today, the most pressing themes include globalization, motivation and innovation. Traditional business gurus writing "weighty tomes" are in decline, he says.

The call is for management by sound bite.  Unfortunately, the themes of globalization, motivation, and innovation don't necessarily lend themselves well to the sound bite.  Well, the problem is that they do, but those sound bites are usually dumbed-down, sexy PR statements.  The real work requires a complex intertwining of skills to ensure success.  Don't get me wrong, each of the top five gurus is very accomplished in their own right, but no single one of them has the right answer.

That's why they can all exist on the speaking circuit.  They all have something valuable to say, and it's up to you to use it wisely.