re Edgar H. Schein, Process Consultation Vol meee eee NT. (981) esdtng , BRcAGSTSOnS Wesley. ‘What Is “Process”? ‘The concept of process is central to an understanding of consultation and management. In its broadest sense “process” re- fexs to how things are done rather than what is done. If I am. crossing the street, that is what I am doing, but the process is how Tam crossing: walking, running, dodging cars, asking some- ‘one to help me across because I feel dizzy, or some other way. Process is everywhere. In order to help, intervene, and fa- cilitate buman problem solving, one must focus cn cominunica- tion and interpersonal processes. The processes we need to learn {0 observe andl manage are those that make a demonstrable dif ference to problem solving, decision making, and organizational effectiveness in general. the decision process in this ‘way becomes more necessary as tech. nological complexity and the rate of change in the environmentProcess Consultation increase. The primary job of line managers will eventually be to secrate The age the proceses that ensure effective decision making. ‘How to Focus on Process How does a consultant or manager know what to focus 02 ‘when trying to intervene to improve a situation? Imagine yourself ro have been invited toa staff meeting to se if you can be helpfal in making that group more effective. If you are the manager who ‘has called the meeting, imagine yourself trying to make the meet- ing 2s effective as possible. What should you be paying attention tof What kinds of interventions should you be considering? ‘Table 3-1 presents a simplifying model of the possibilities. “The cells in the table overlap and, in reality, the distinctions are not as clearcut as the descriptions imply, but we need simplify- {ing models if we are to make any sense at all of the complex data that typically confront us in human siruations. First, we have to differentiate a situation’s content from. its process and its structure. Second, we have to differentiate, for each of the three aspects of a bituation, whether we are focusing ‘on the task issues or the interpersonal issues. ‘Table 34 |, The Foci of Observation and Intervention ‘Task Interpersonal Content 1. Formal agenda, goal | 4: Who is doing what to Brees | 2. How the tak is dove | 5. How members relate 10 cach other, commun cate, ete, Strnetue, 3. Recurpens processes | 6, Resuneat & standard relat roles eperacing tionships,What Is "Process" ‘Task Content (Cell 1). The most obvious thing to focus on, jn the meeting is why the group is there in the first place. Wha i its task? What are the goals of the meeting? Why does the group exist at all? Every group, every organization has an ultirhate func- tion, a:reason for existence, a mission, and its goals and tasks derive from that ultimate function. ‘A group may not be aware of its ultimate mission or may not agree on its goals. In fact, one of the main functions of the . consultant or manager may be to help the group to understand its task-and function. This subject is something that the c sultant of manager should then focus on explicitly, because if there is misunderstanding or disagreement at this level, che group will have a hard time functioning effectively. ‘The most observable aspect of task content is the actual subject matter that the group talks about or works on, what would typically be labeled its formal agenda. If the group has a secretary and keeps minutes, the content of the discussion is what will appear in the minutes. One of the choices you have as a helper, ‘whether in the role of consultant or manager, is to keep close track of the tésk content to make sure that it stays “on track,” to ensure that the group achieves its goals. ‘Task Process (Cell 2). Even if you pay close attention to and actively manage task content, the group may develop com- snunication problems. People may not listen to one another or may misunderstand one another, people may interrupt one an- other, arguments and conflicts may develop, the group may not ‘be able to agree, too much time may be spent on what you might segard as trivial issues, disruptive side: conversations may de~ velop, and other behavior may be displayed that gets in the way of effective task solution. If you have been in a variety. of groups you may also be- ‘come aware that different groups working on the very same task may approach it very differently. In one group the chairperson. calls on people to give their input; another group's chairperson invites anyone to speak who cares to. In one group there is angry confrontation and arguing, in another group there is polite, formal questioning, In one group decisions are made by consensus, in another they are made by voting, and in a third they are made by the manager after listening to the discussion for a while.Process Consultation tn other words, groups ray have the same tak id Se content yet engage in drastically different procesScr of working, con Sk Teak process, then isthe way in which the grouD sToaks, how it solves problems, gathers information, makes de- wo Mind 20.08. Task processes are elusive. 1 is 10% > ‘expe- cisions, aig obarcve them but hard to define and clearly segre- gate therm from the content that is being ‘worked on. Croup gate them fromanat they ean partially control, the content Go riches by controlling the proces, a8 senatore do ‘when they fili- comes by coMjebaters do when they destroy an opponent's @E% Duster of 3 omare by sidicule, changing the subject or in ther ey diverting tne process from what has been, sd; One of the ware arrests for the inervener i not to get seduced by the core «eet 10 get oo caught up in the actual problem the grow is went Ing on as ¢9 cease to pay attention to how it is working. ‘task Stracture (Cell 3). You will notice if you observe @ group for some period of time that certain pattems recas, that arene Kinds of events happen regularly and some Kinds of events some happen. For example, one group always uses parliamentary Riper, while snother one refuses to vote on any issue even They cantor resolve the issue by any other means. One group Glways bas an agenda and follows it slavishly, while another waits ‘inti? the meeting begins before generating a list of topics, If the group contains more than one level of management ‘you may notice some people interrupt others consistently while 2ihers never interrupt each other, and the pattern you may ‘observe is that higher sankcing people interrupt lower ranking ones be thought ofas the cask stractare ofthe group, relatively stabi recurring processes that help the group or organization to get its tasks accomplished. ‘in large organizations we think of the structure as being the formal hierarchy, the defined chain of command, the systems of information and control, and other stable recurring processesWhat Is “Process” shat are taught to newcomers as “the way we work around here.” put it is important to-recognize that the concept of structure is, only an extension of the concept of process in that it zefets to those processes that are stable, recurring, and defined by mem- pers in the group as their “structure.” "All groups require such regularities and stability to make heir environment and working patterns predictable and, thereby, manageable. The assumptions that develop over time as the un- Terlying premises of those patterns can then be thought of ws part of the culture of the group. They become shared and taken for granted, and the structures that we can observe can be viewed 28 Bifects or manifestations of the culture of the group [Schein, 19859), "The culture itself is not immediately visible because it is best thought of as the taken for granted underlying and uncon scious assumptions that have evolved over time to deal with the Sarions external and internal issues that the group has had to face {Schein, 19850), Bue the culture will be reflected in the overt be- havior that is visible and ean be searched out through a joint proce cess of inquiry between the outsider and members of the grovp- For purposes of this model it is useful to focus on the manifest artifacts, the visible behavior, always bearing in mind that they Jeflect important underlying assumptions that will eventually hhave to be taken into account. “The task structure that evolves ia a group is composed of segularities that pertain specifically to the group's survival in its external environment. All groups face at least five basic survival problems: 1. Defining the fundamental mission that justifies its existence—its primary task. The structural elements dealing with this issue are usually company charters, statements of philosophy or mission, formal agends statements, and other efforts to dot ‘uument members’ implicit understanding about the role of the P ‘2. Setting specific goals derived from the mission. The structural elements are written goal statements, formal planning pete and hii outcomes, publicly defined targets and dead- 8.* Process Consultation 8, Deciding what means to use to accomplish the goals. “The structures for accomplishing goals are the defined formal or ganization, assigned task roles, and recurring procedures for solv- 4ng problems and making decisions. ‘4. Measuring and monitoring whether or not goals are being accomplished. Formal information and control systems a= setup, and managerial planning, budgeting, and review processes are formalized. '5. Getting back on course by fixing problems once they. axe identified (when the group discovers it is off target or not ‘accomplishing its goals). A group needs processes for zemedying situations, fixing probleme, getting itself back on course. Often solutions are invented ad hoc, but any group or organization has tobe able to regularize remedial and corrective processes and thus make them part of the structure of the group. Ina young group, the task structure processes will not be ‘very stable; the young group is not very structured. As the group evolves, it develops assumptions about itself. If those assump- tions lead to success, they eventually become the culture of the ‘group. They then become visible and may be formally described in organization charts, manuals of procedure, rales of order, and other artifacts of the culture. Interpersonal Content (Cell 4). We have now defined all the cells that deal with the group's task, its problems of survival in its environment, but, of course, the consultant or manager ebserving the group will note immediately that many of the salient events that occur in the group have to do with what the members are doing to one another, much of which may have selatively little to do with the task at 2 manifest level. ‘We will see that Joe seems to always get into fights with Joan, and that Mildred consistently supports Jim, almost no mat- ter what he says, and that Rudy dominates the conversation and tries to control all the other merabers, while Paul speaks up rarely, and only when asked a direct question. We will note that some people interrupt others; that some people increase the tension in the group by being divisive, while others reduce tension by crack Sng a joke at just the right moment when things were getting tooWhot Ie “Process”? tense, We will sce that some merabers are good initiators nd en. tagizers of the group, while others are good summarizes and are She to test consensus in the group. just as we can tzack the content agenda of the gr0¥P, We can alee wack "who does what to whom,” “who plays what roles can ey and construek a picture ofthe group i tems oF 3a the Er aers and their relationabps to one another and 9 the act poveas the focus in cell | is on the task content, the Be eee cell 4 would be on the relationships among the nicmsbers eek group regardless of what the groupis actually working on- “nterpersopal Process (Cell 5). Separating, process from context ie diffeule in the task area because people consciously aoa graciously manipulate both process and content. But jose ani] unconmesble to observe a group at work and abstract the as i 35 Popsger to accomplish that work, so it is possible to mieinect the interpersonal processes evident in a s40UP Jpaependent of the actual people involved in these processet “Thus, for example, one group may exhibit freqyere confrontation and arguing smong members, while another gF000'= cones rnay always be very polite and agree with one another mem group people may listen to each other intently and fy to Bafa da each others! ideas, while in another group they ms pee sandy vie for one another's attention, paying more srsentien cosa cy present their own view than to whet otbersmay have said. Ie is important to observe interpersonal process because wap outtomes zesult from a complex interaction of what B00 Fo oe ask (ell 2} and interpersonal (cell 5) level. For example, You may notice that different members have different definitions year mele and this leads to various Kinds of communication oe ar game interfering with task performance. You may also 50 area cmgamae members systematically seem not to listen to other ae hats, resulting in imperfect accumulation of information rel evant to the task. ‘Or you may siotice that, while some members are working oon generating alternative solutions, others are busy advocating & oe Hing one of these solutions, and it may stxike you that certain aa peng are always attacking what certain other members bringProcess Consultation ‘up no matter what the task content, Such {interpersonal conflicts BP Hewaly get in the way of effective decision making, Or you Shay notes that egreat many good ideas have been ‘proposed but Thay the group has fost track of them because no one has Ft them aaa aero yce whenever anyone offers tobe tbe records O70 on the boast rongly resist che idea with jibes about grabbing the chalk as being a power ploy. ‘All of these behaviors also involve task processse previously defined in that they aflect directly the fers of the reap ta work on its task, But, at the same time, 4c of these Eroceasedulso involve aspects of members’ relationships ‘with and Fechngs about one another, their roles, and soutual intvenrs ters that donot directly affect che task. These then would be aang lee of anterpersonal process that seem more motivated Dy ‘he feelings people bave toward cach other than by task. concer, dace ike toughest choices for the intervener is deciding when oo tervone around such processes and when merely to note them and Jeave them elone. nterpersoval Structure (Céll 6). Ya order to develop structure thats, stable, recurting processes — the group needs Sedcvelopa culture chat will salve its problems of survival in the SSteaal eovironment. Similarly, any group or organization needs SS'develop stable, recurring processes to manage. its internal Affaire, co enable xsembers to work together and to fecl secure 28 igoup, Recurring and stable processes are necessary to make she seein group environment safe and predictable so that members can relax enough to put their emotional energy into working on ‘the survival tasks (Schein, 19859). Part of the culture of the group, then, can be thought of a5 ‘the stable perceptions, thought processes, feelings, and commu: nication rules that permit the group to function as a group. What ‘re the intemal problems for which such stability is zequiredt or ‘any group to function it must develop a stable solution for each of the following problems: 1. How to communicate with each other — developing § common lengiage. The observable structure wil be the actual Tanguage the group evolves as it works together: special termi-What is “Process”! ‘nology, special meanings attached to certain words and concepts, ‘ind special symbols that only insiders will understand. 2. How to define its own boundaries — developing rules of inclusion and exclusion, The observable structure will be the Policies and practices of recraftment, who is given symbols of veemnbership such as uniforms or badges, policies about rehiring Jeople who may have left, policies toward temporary members peer uct workers, rules abot whom one tells things and fom ~ Yitiom one, must keep secrets, and 60 on. 3. How to allocate power and authority — developing cx teria for who can influence whom and on what issues. In this rea what is formally structured and how things work out in prac- tice have often been noted to be different, It is possible to publish ‘organization charts and to have rules about the chain of com- ‘Snend, but observers often note that even on a segular basis some Bf these rules are ignored and alternate structures will develop that often get labeled the “informal” structure. ‘4, How. to. define appropriate peer relationships — developing criteria for openness and intimacy, appropriate levels Sfcooperation and competition. This area is often the least strac- Cured and, therefore, the source of most anxiety until new mem- Jers have learned the implicit mes of the game. But in observing fadoctrination programs or mentoring discussions, one notes structure expressed by such remarks as “Around here teamwork. js the name of the game," “Never get caught playing politics,” ‘We always address the boss by his title here,” “We are very in- formal and on a first name basis here," "You always better tell exactly what you think, even if you feel it might get you into frouble/" or "You always have to be careful not to contradict the ‘boss in public,” and so on. Such rules do not get embedded as readily as more explicit rules in the visible formal structure, but they always exist in the culture (Van Maanen, 1979). '5. How to allocate status and rewards. The formal reward system, the performance appraisal system, the ratings of poten ‘Dal, and the actual recurring procedures for promoting and oth- trwise rewarding and punishing people are usually observable. AS in item 4, however, the: structures embodied in written policies and procedures donot always match the recurring regularities that ay be observed — the informal reward system.Process Consultation 6, How to deal with unexplainable, unmanageable, ad threatening events This area is the least likely to be formally eat e ough every group will evolve situals and procedures fer desling with those unpredictable and stressful events that cam tor eeeotly controlled. It may develop superstitions, myths, oF pot belie nituale ike rain dances. Such processes may become syle in that they arc passed on and taught to new generations of members. ‘As it interacts, the group evolves stable perceptions and clationships to deal with each of the above areas, and these grad- Tully become assumptions about itself and come to constitute a wanjor part of the group's culture. Once agatn, the underlying as- Sumptfons will not be visible in the overt workings of the group, but the process cbserver will see the effects in the political alli sets, in the communication pattems, in the recurring patterns ‘of expressed feelings of members toward each other, and in the Geletence and demeanor they display toward each other. “The immediate intervention focus should be on the dy- namie processes that aze visible because then members can see ihe same things that the observer sees. Eventually, as the group Jtself becomes more sophisticated in analyzing its own processes, Jess visible structural and cultural elements can increasingly be- come the focus of intervention. ‘in summery, a5 the consultant or manager, you would note events in all six cells of Table 3-1. The key question to consider; ‘then, is which of these events are most relevant to increasing the effectiveness of the group. The Primary Task as the Basis for Intervention “The mos: important criterion for deciding what to observe and where to intervene is your perception of what the primary task of the group is. By primary task mean that set of goals which justify the existence of the group, the season for which it was called together, its basic mission, the perceptions that relate the group to its external envizonment and that will ultimately de~ {ermine its survival ag a group. The primary task will not alwaysWhat Js “Process' bbe immediately obvious but can generally be inferred or even ‘asked about. If the timing of the question is premature, one may ‘bot get an accurate answer, so further observation and rhecking cay be required. ‘in a new relationship with an individual client or when snanaging a new group, the focus that is safest and most likely to be productive is the process consultant's owit primary task oF goals as a helper or manager. What are you and your client or » ubordinates trying to dof Where do you want to be by when? What next steps make most sense given what you are trying to accomplish? ‘Ynmany consulting models this focus is often identified as ‘setting a contract with the client" That is usually not the right formulation. It is better to focus on our immediate goals in order to be able to intervene effectively from the outset, to be helpful to the client or subordinates from the moment of contact. For the outside consultant, overt concem for what the lient is trying to accomplish 1) signals interest in helping, 2) elic- its data that are needed in order to decide how to help, and, most important, 3} is already a critical intervention, forcing clients to articulate what they are trying to accomplish. Often this cums ‘out to be helpful in that it starts the client thinking about goals. ‘The contract that may arise is a by-product, not the primary goal. “The same logic applies to managers whose subordinates come to them with problems. The manager who wants to be help- fal should focus on what the subordinates are trying to accom plish, why they are having difficulty with it, why they are having difficulty tight now, why they are coming to the boss for help, ‘nd 60 on, but always remain focuseil on the primary task, As the ‘answers to these questions reveal other concems, the focus can shift to them, but the initial focus should stay in cells 1 and2 of ‘Table 3-1. Focus of Interventions: Task Content, Task Process, or ‘Task Structure? ‘The client is usually pretty sensitive to the contesit issues ‘but is likely to be insensitive to process and structure. The bar- riers to more effective task accomplishment often lie in the procProcess Consultation esses or structze, yet these aze often the least visible aspects of Taee* pings are done. Hence bringing to light new daa OR TTT a ang ao cod helping cients to see such data on thei! owe a aerate je moat likely tobe belpful. Generally the fas con te ae ap highly visible and chances are that the Cicht ce et i ihat area than the belper anyway. Bus che £o0, 4o oor cor anager can really help by noting bow the task procs! sultant or ine belpe or hinders decision making and problem: solv- “the proceas of susfacing and changing structure may 5° valve conf pntive of even manipulative interventions where che vol eant in the expert or doctor role dircetly manipulates DOF erie of the structure in order to change other parts of a system. {Hons of bevome sigi. Such systemic interventions have become coat aoa in family therapy and are incressingly being applied in Copunizatfonal settings, but they are rarely appropriate wath OFBeash process consultation has gone on t0 find out, whether Kents are genuinely “stuck,” unable to diagnose or influence Shetewn system (Madanes, 1981; Durkin, 1981; Borwick, 1983) "Another Kind of structural intervention that may belp tO get che elient unstuck is to define a pew structure a8 an “expe Bee be tried” rather than a final recommendation to be MJapted. Such an, intervention is likely to be powerful and eo. seorive in that it forces into consciousness routines that may be deliberately concealed. Why Not Focus on Interpersonal Process and Structure} Since interpersonal issues sre generally very salient and easily observed, it is tempting to focus the interventions directly Gn such issues. The primary reason not to do so is basically cul- ural. In our eulture task accomplishment, progress, goal attain: ment, and achievement are so central to relationships that most Of the motivation for improvement comes from preoccupation Suith a tasle Even if a personal relationship becomes a problem, ‘We define relationship improvement as a “task” to be accom plished. TE is likely that in some other cultures where “effective selotionships"” and “harmony” axe more important than task ae Complishment, the focus for facilitative intervention would shift 150What Is “Process"t to interpersonal processes, but in the United States a focus on such matters at the outset is likely to be seen as a waste of time, jnrelevant, soft, and motivated by false emphases on {‘human- jem." Consultants or managers who try to promote harmony may fail unless they establish credibility by beginning with task proc- ¢ss interventions. ‘A second reason for avoiding focusing on interpersonal process interventions is that management or consulting to orgs: Pioations fs itself task focused, Organizations are task oriented by definition, They are created to achieve certain goals, to accorn- plish tasks. Management is typically defined as the attainment of goals. Consultants who work with organizations are typically ‘brought in by managers who are “hnarting” because tasks are not being accomplished in desired ways. ‘Thus, interpersonal issues are seen as relevant by most client systems only insofar as they influence task accomplish- ment. If such relationship issues become primary we think not ‘of consultation but of therapy, and we tend to place such thera~ peutic interventions into contexts outside of the work sphere. A family business may be engaged with a consultant working on ‘business problems and be working with the same consultant or a different one on family issues [Beckhard and Dyer, 1983). It is important to differentiate these processes and to recognize that only in the therapeutic context is the relationship focus legiti- ‘mately the primary one. ‘On the other hand, if interpersonal issues are clearly in- terfering with task accomplishment, and the consultant or man- ‘ager believes that this is highly visible to the participants them- selves, it may be entirely appropriate to shift explicitly to an interpersonal intervention. What kind of intervention to make and how to frame it will be discussed in later chapters. Does it make a difference in the interpersonal arena whether one focuses on content, process, or structure} Is it im- portant to distinguish content from process or structure in this area? The answer is yes because of the different consequences of interventions in the different cells of Table 3.1. You may readily observe interpersonal content in the sense of who actually feels how and is doing what to whom. Nonetheless, it is in this area ‘where you should be most careful because people are most likelyProcess Consultation tobe sensitive and defensive about the actual naming of names. When you “name names” instead of merely pointing out s 8°. eral process, people feel they will lose face, and eo naming names is taboo in most cultures. : Por example, Tmay observe a pattem that Pete is always Snterrupting Jane ind anay conclude that this reflects a real co” nity om Pete's part toward Jane (Cells 4-6). IFT decide to intervene rae oT pelleve 2ete's behavior is making the group less effec: tive, Tstll have a choice around which cell to focw Cell 4 (Content): “Pete, why are you always interrupting Janet” Cell § [Process}:“L notice that certain merabers tend to in- femupt others, and wonder whether this is geting in the -way of communication?” Cell 6(Structure} “As our discussion has proceeded Ihave tboticed that whenever we interrupt cach other, the dis- cusson isnot 5 ‘productive. Should we do something about Of course these illustrative interventions differ on dimen sions other than content, process, and structure, but it should be Clear that the highest risk is associated with the content inter- ‘Yention because it threatens to make both Pete and Jane lose face. ‘The structural intervention is the safest but the least likely to be. productive because it does not provide a specific reference for the group 10 organize around. The process intervention maximizes specificity without making people lose face. Tn summary: 1. Process is always to be favored as an intervention focus ‘ver content. 2, Task process is always to be favored qver interpersonal process. : 3, Structural interventions are in principle the most pow- ‘erful in that they deal with recurrent stable processes rather than the dynamic fluid ones, but they are also Tikely to be most resisted because there is comfort in structure, and also the most likely to be misunderstood Decause they are, of necessity, general.What Is “Proces: ‘Hence a focus on the dynamic task processes — how & client of proup sets goals, gathers information, solves probless, makes decisions, ‘and allocates work roles —is the focus most Jikely to be helpful. In the example given next the issue) of where tx fonas interventions came up repeatedly. Because this case will also be used throughout the book, a certain amount ‘of back- ground is provided at ehis point. ‘Helping to Build a New Rrecutive Committee: The Billings Manufacturing Company Bill Stone, the president and founder ofa small but rapidly rowing manufacturing company, called me to seek some vice ee iring a new vice president for human resources. I bad done & Serine s. eaeer development for the top fifteen managers of sear rorapany three years before, had known the corporate vise eAlent for planning, and had worked with the recently + picted vee president for/maman resources a year oF So before when arte vical joined this company. So 1 had various bits of know!” Spe about the company and they bad various bits of knowledge about me. Getting Acquainted with the Client. Stone shentioned i= hie fice rhone call that when the previous vice president of Bie von Tecources was leaving, be had recommended that they ar get someone from academia to take the job since Stone bad wiBelrasticulated philosophy of human resource management 4 had te contiue to be well stated and well implemented. sa pesked whether this concept made any sense and whether t Stone sek tr professor would even consider taking an sndustial Jhb fora while said that I would not personally consider SSE sees job but would be glad to examine the concept with bine ant ee wshere-we might come out. We agreed to meet for a long Junch at the Massachusetts Instimate of Technology. ‘Ke ihe lunch Stone reviewed some of the decisions be had nade recently. The fifteen-person executive committee was net aaa ng effectively, s0 he had begun to meet on a regular basis Wh tad exeentive viee presidents, the chief financial offices, and {the vice president in charge of new acquisitions. This group wasProcess Consultation good nvclens for a more streamlined and effective, execute 1 eoctitiee, but they needed to add a vice president for bumen Sespuuces end had just Inunched a search for such a person. Se aT viewed what be was really looking for in this role, and it beeame apparent that everyone in the nev execute cae erties would bave a big take in deciding the kind of persce cael The idea arising from this discussion was that I should seed come of the meetings of this new executive committes; caremfilly the mecting where the job description for the buna especially P would be hammered out. The other members agreed TOI attendance would be helpful, though St was not st al sean Tra ime whether 1 would be there as an expert telling chem Sthat they shouldbe locking for, ors a process consultant helping them to figare ont what they needed. I was tempted to try tO Clarify this point at the outset but decided that they probably were serie themselves what kind of help I could offer, hence their saswer might not be very meaningful tntil after we had had some contact. Deciding the Intervention Focus. The first three-hour meeting I attended brought out many of the issues of what role qo be invand whst to focus on in the group’s work, Lattempted to Shake clear at the beginning of the meeting that I saw my role as {hat of helping the group to clarify its own thinking and that 1 would not be an expert on what their human resource VP should Be — that is, I would not get into task content, but would focus ‘on task process. also said that Stone had asked me to work with this group over a period of several mectings to help it to become fan elfective group, which might involve me in clarifying and intervening not only on task process but also on interpersonal process. The group seemed to understand these distinctions and ‘agreed that such a role could be helpful. ‘As the discussion began, I found myself intervening frequently on the line between task content and process. 1 kept raising content questions about the role that the new vice ‘president was supposed to play in the new executive committee, especially vis2-vis Stone, but I was careful to time the questions fo that the greup would have every chance to raise these issues (on its own. 1 also framed the questions in‘the most general wayWhat Is "Process"? so a3 to minimize my own coitent biases. In effect { was performing some problem-identifying functions that were missing in the group's discussion, but instead of simply saying that such, functions were missing (which would have been a pure process intervention}, I actually asked the content question to facilitate the group's forward movement. 1 asked, for example, “Is the new VP expected to be only an implementer or is he expected to contribute to the architec- ‘ture of human resuurve policies?” The gioup said unanimously that they wanted an architect. “Do you want a person who would argue with you and one strong enovgh to stand up to the kind of fighting that the group often engages int” I asked this because it ‘was obvious after fifteen minutes of observation that the group was used to intense debate and confrontation, and that Stone ‘himself was often very strong in his own opinions. They said they wanted a strong confronter, and Stone agreed. Note again that I did not limit the intervention to simply noting that the group argued a Jot and that Stone was a strong figure {interpersonal con- tent and process), but embedded the data in a task content ques- tion that facilitated further problem solving. “Do you want someone with a track record primarily as a ‘human resource professional or someone with credibility as a Hine manager!” I wanted to force out into the open what the group really thought about the human resource function, because I be- yan to suspect that they looked down on it. At this point my expertise and prior experience were seducing me into content opinions, but I did not have to voice those opinions. I could stay on the process level. To voice my suspicion would have raised issues about content structure (their stable perceptions of roles), which would have been dangerous because it might have precip- itated a quick denial and some suspicion of me, $0 chose a more neutral question. They said they wanted both things. ‘As consensus emerged on various of these ritesia I wrote them down‘on the blackboard, since it was obvious that the group ‘was having trouble remembering what it had said. (This was a task process intervention} Periodically I found myself having to deal directly with ‘content and was forced to deal with perceptions that J had expert ‘knowledge in this area. I was asked, for example, what kind ofProcess Consultation people were in comparable jobs in other companies thet a8 Por far with. T could not deny my expertie in this area, relative eithe tortevge of the group, £01 gave answers that } thought onl aid their thinking without making specific recommends, Heaaeaaies what they tight need. L emphasized the variety of such people that knew In order to ‘broaden the group's knowl ige base of what was possible. ace oP wether Thad any knowledge of how this kind of function was organized in other companies such es theis. ‘Aerin Thad to admit to some knowledge, but Iwas careful to offer aber of different options that Iwas aware of so as not to bise Sitidiscuction or get into a direct argument with any member of the group about the “right” way to do it. found that ¥ eould give Snformation but always tried to cast it in the form of an issue, the pros and coas of different approaches. Shrerpersonal issues were obvious and ubiquitous. One of the executive vice presidents, Tom Riley, was obviously a central fand aggressive figure in the group. He frequently argued with Stone and between them the two used up a large percentage of the group's discussion time. One of the members was somewhat hhard of hearing and seemed to participate less, though it was not clear tome at the time whether or not his reluctance to partic ‘pate was related to the heating disability. ‘When real disagreements erupted, there seemed to be a norm to agree to disagree sather than to resolve the issue, a norm that often left me wondering what, if anything had been decided. It raised the possibility that the group knew that in such cases Stone would resolve the issue after the meeting, but I did not mow enough of the history of the group to second-guess this 2s- ‘pect of their structure. ‘While all of these interpersonal issues potentially got in ‘the way of clear resolution of the problem of developing the cri teria for the eclection of their human resource VP, at this first meeting I could not possibly intervene on such issues directly ‘Decause T did not know enough about what was really going on. Later in the project, after I had interviewed all the members of the group and they had agreed to discuss “how the group func: tioned,” it was possible to bring ut these issues because they hed been brought out in individual interviews,What Is “Process”! The meeting ended with an agreement that Stone would take down all my notes from the board and circulate them, Con- siderable consensus had been achieved and a process agreed upon for interviewing candidates. Criteria were tobe tested by applying them to each of the major candidates to be interviewed. At a later ‘mecting that I would attend, the prime candidates would be re- ‘viewed by the entire group. Lessons. As T reviewed my role in this meeting, it was clearly to force clarity of eriterion setting by asking questions Gwhenever I felt that the group was being vague or ambiguous and by testing consensus in areas of agreement. I also focused the group by recording their points on the board and helped to design the subsequent interview and selection process. All of these interventions were clearly task process oriented, but they involved the content of what the group was working on and thus did not divert the group into a pure process discussion, something that I thought they were not ready for. Manoging an Academic Group: Managerial Choices on Intervention Focus Does a line manager have the same range of choices as the consultant in deciding on an intervention focus? Ican answer this question best by reconstructing some of the decisions T had to tnake when Iwas chairman of a ten-person academic group within the Sloan School of Management at MIT. The managerial role ob- “iously required the setting of goals and targets, but I found from the outset that if did not get complete consensus on the mission of the group, any program of implementation was bound to fail. So any first task was how to design a process that would ensure ‘consensus on what we were trying to do. ‘My first interventions were to create opportunities in i dividual conversations and in group meetings to discuss our prior ities. These priorities were 1) to creste an environment in which ‘we could be productive researcher scholars; 2] to develop a cur riculum that met the needs of our students and drew on our own strengths; 3) to ereate a recruitment, hiring, and promotion sy5- tem that would ensure that we get the best possible colleagues as positions opened up; 4] to ensure that we would attract the 157Proeess Consetation ‘pest possible Ph.D. students into our group hy creating a program pe stducation and taining for them that would ensure their aca- demic success. ! Thad been justramental in bringing several new faculty into the group s0 one of my own main goals was to make sure that They be productive so that they would achieve tenure. In each of Shade areas, task process interventions were the Key. We necded So develop 2 pattern of meetings that would be optimal for com- WS smivation, we needed to marshal financial, space, and other re~ Rurees that would make it possible for faculty to maximize their productivity, and we needed to minimize administrative duties Bnd processes to conserve time for teaching and scholarly activ- ities. For example, in order to get optimal secretarial help and still have each secretary work for three faculty members, it was necessary to examine why secretaries were from time to time ‘overloaded and demoralized. We involved our sentor secretary in {he process of figuring out what to do and discovered from dis- Ccuseing the process together that the main source of strain was Speing sent to the library and the photocopying machine all the ‘time, thus intermpting desk work, phone answering, and other Gutics. We had incorrectly assumed that the secretaries felt overloaded with typing. Once we realized it was the constant er- sands that were the source of irritation we redesigned the secre~ tarial process by hising a student to be the all-purpose errand per- ‘son to whom all the secretaries on the floor could give work that {was away from the desk. We analyzed the work process, xede- signed it, and cured the problem. We realized that the secretaries owned the problem and needed help and leamed that our own diagnosis of the problem was, in fact, incorrect. "Another example of taking the process orientation con- cemed controlling phone costs. Each month I received a docu- spent that listedall phone calls made from each faculty member's phone. It was very tempting to delve into the “content” to see ‘who was overusing the phone, but I feared that doing so would ‘tempt me into confrontations with colleagues that would not only he embarrassing but would distract us from the more important mission of getting our scholarly and other work done. ‘Looking at this problem from a process consultant's point 158What Is "Process" ‘of view Jed to the following procedure. Itold my secretary not to Show me the sheets at all but to cut them up so that each person could be given his own individual information. I wrote a memo Saying that we needed to monitor our own phone calls because ef rising costs and the report that some unauthorized calls were Being made on our phones. Each person got a copy of the memo and his own data, At a subsequent faculty meeting we discussed shether anything further needed to be done about the phone sit- Mation. Everyone reported finding some uscful thinga in their own Gata, an unauthorized person was located who had made over §$200.00 worth of personal calls, and costs generally dropped dra- snatically. ‘Whenever general administrative issues came up, I reiter- ‘ated our shared goals but then put the emphasis on how we could collectively design better processes for mecting those goals. T sarely had to "make a decision” because invariably we reached a consensus on how things should be done that everyone under: ‘Stood immediately. My job was to ensure that we identified the problem and took the time to design a process to fix it. ‘When individual colleagues or students canie 10 me with problems, I found that the best stance was to keep asking ques ions that would clarify how the person was seeing the problem ‘and, more important, to ask what the person had already tried to Go about it. New ideas usually emerged that could be imple- sented. IFT threw in may own ideas, however, they were often off target. found myself to be most effective and helpful ifI took a task process orientation unless 1 had specific information that needed to be shated, in which case I would, of course, share it. Conclusion ‘Most of the illustrations given in this chapter refer to the consultant or manager working with a group. In xeality the con: sultant will sometimes be working in a one-to-one relationship ‘with a client, sometimes in a group setting, sometimes in a larger organizational setting, and sometimes will be recommending in- terventions that apply to organizational units not being directly -worked with at all, For example, the consultant may recommend : 159Process Consultation a special kind of meeting or the conducting of a survey. So a tax- ‘onomy of interventjons must take into account not only the is- suea discussed here but also different client settings. (The variety of client settings is the subject of Chapters 7 and 10} Which intervention is most appropriate depends also on the stage of the consultation project. The kinds of things the con- sultant can and should do when first establishing a relationship ‘with a contact client may differ substantially from what can be done after the consultant has worked with various groups in the ‘organization, understands something of the culture, and bas mul- tiple clients in the system. Becoming more familiar with what ‘the various clieats are ready for, the consultant can begin to shift +o cells other than task process if interpersonal or content issues are interfering with effective problem solving. 160