Comments

Some wit once wrote that a boat is "a hole in the water surrounded by money."

I am a little troubled by the ideas presented regarding the lack of "focus." Customers and clients have a right to get what they paid for. We can muck around in their business all we want, but in the end they should have been on the right track when they told us what they wanted. It would be kind of arrogant of us as consultants to come back to them with something they didn't ask for because we somehow know what is best for them.

Being able to zero in on the root causes of problems takes incredible concentration and focus. That's the kind of work I do. The first step is usually one of absorption. I absorb everything I can about the people and their operations. Often I follow the old practice of a figurative chalk circle on the floor from which I do not move for a long time and am thus able to truly see what is going on around me. Doing that without falling over from boredom or devolving into daydreaming takes a lot of focus.

I also find that if we don't focus we often don't pay close attention to the other person's statements or point-of-view. We misunderstand what they said or wrote. Sometimes we misunderstand that they aren't even espousing something, but only relating what another has claimed (like Alabamians not being as smart as New Yorkers, for example). Often, as consultants, we find we are not the first ones to be tried out for projects. Companies sometimes have tried other consultants and been disappointed, or have tried to do the job in-house and failed--which also leads to disappointment.

In conclusion, I feel that we must focus very strongly on what we are doing from the very beginning. I would not want to pay a consultant just to see what they came up with. I think I would want something definite for them to do, problem to solve, situation to improve, etc. As a consultant, I think I owe my customers my complete and full focused attention.

And that's just my POV.

Posted by Mike at August 9, 2005 12:59 PM

Let see, "If I (foolishly) bought another boat I'd name it "The Cromwell II."

If you were given a chance would you;

a) buy something that makes a big splash ion water ?b) do something that makes a big splash in humanity ??

seriously ??

Posted by /pd at August 9, 2005 1:17 PM

Of course, undoubtely customers deserve the best of us, that's more a question of integrity and personal ethics but, I don't quite agree with giving them what they want if they are hiring you is because they don't have it so clear or don't know what steps to take in order to achieve it, more when as you said Mike, you "somehow know what is best for them". Do you mean that knowing what is best for them you won't give them the best because they are asking you for other thing that they supposedly want?.

In relation with this, the question pd is making seems pretty clear: making a big splash in humanity. Is it there any other alternative susceptible of being compared with that choice?

Posted by Omara at August 9, 2005 2:42 PM

While it's true that an outsider can sometimes see things those caught up in the situation cannot, it's a familiar lament of consultants that if only their client would do everything they suggested, their business would boom. But most consultants lack practical experience and what sounds good in theory or on paper is not practical in reality.

I think the best consultants are essentially turnaround artists. They can walk into a business and very quickly see all the facets of that business and know what needs to be done to make it sing, and then they set about telling others exactly how to do it.

Understandably, most businesses do not appreciate some upstart who's been given a clearly defined brief to, let's say, recommend a new billing system, proceed to tell them in painful detail EVERYTHING they are doing wrong in all aspects of their business and what they should be doing right instead. But in my view a good consultant cannot do otherwise. I think part of the attraction of being a consultant is that you can't stand seeing things done badly when you know with every fibre of your being how they could be done well. And you want to help.

This kind of consultant however is a very rare breed. They don't last long working for any of the big consultancies because they do not adapt well to the compartmentalizing nature of big businesses where you can't stray across lines without stepping on toes. Many of them turn to buying small troubled companies, turning them around and selling them at a profit where they do not have to be concerned with 'persuading' anyone to do what they know needs to be done to fix the business. Or they become writers (or bloggers!) and the successful ones go on to join the lecture circuit. But that hankering for bringing your ideas to life, seeing them succeed in the real world of business, your own business, must remain pretty strong. At least it does for me.

Posted by Noel Guinane at August 9, 2005 3:18 PM

Tom, you'd just want to sail your Cromwellian boat quietly past Irish shores. They're not huge fans!

I was GM for a Cromwellian Castle Hotel here in Ireland for a few years and there are many older locals who, believe it or not, refuse to step foot inside to this day! But then, it used to be their land.

Go to http://www.markreecastle.ie/

Posted by Tom O'Leary at August 9, 2005 3:48 PM

I remember a story about the time the Anglo-Irish agreement was being negotiated between the Irish and British governments. Members of the Irish government, including the Taoiseach or Prime Minister of Ireland, visited 10 Downing Street and were brought into a room on one wall of which was hung an extremely large portrait of Cromwell. I don't think this was done on purpose by the British government, but it must have been as insulting to the Irish as it would be have been to the Jews had they been shown into a room when negotiating the creation of Israel with a portrait of Hitler eyeing them suspiciously from a wall.

Cromwell probably had good and bad points, the bad being his absolute hatred of anyone practicing Catholicism, especially the Irish, who he slaughtered for it.

Posted by Noel Guinane at August 9, 2005 4:09 PM

There is a fabulous Sanskrit quote similar to the one you have posted. I am not sure if it was by the poet Kalidasa or someone else, but this is what it says.

Look to this day… for it is the very essence of life. For yesterday is but a dream and tomorrow is only a vision. But today, well-lived, makes every yesteday a dream of happiness and every tomorrow a vision of hope.

Posted by neelakantan at August 9, 2005 9:54 PM

My favourite Cromwell quote: "He who stops being better stops being good. " Amen to that.

Posted by Mark JF at August 10, 2005 3:02 AM

I don't know Mark JF. I'd be more inclined to believe that "He who stops being good stops being good." Some of the nicest things in life haven't been improved upon. Those consistent, unblemished wonders of the world like the Painted Desert, Grand Canyon, etc.

Likewise, with people, 'goodness' doesn't necessarily deteriorate with stagnation. The desire to continually improve ourselves often leaves us wanting. Our basic human needs never change, and yet we toil endlessly to improve everything around us. This historical endeavour of continual improvement will never fulfill us; and I believe that we will eventually understand that our exploitation of all that is around us has been nothing more than long detour to ultimate understanding, fulfillment and harmony. All which already exists within us.

Then, I suppose, there is the point of continual improvements as being necessary for our evolution. It is through our becoming "better" in scientific pursuits that we enjoy longer, healthier lives today with less infant mortality, etc.

All that philosophical babble aside, and in context to this site; I suppose that in relation to competitive business, it certainly is essential to continually improve to survive. I'm trying to think of products/services that haven't become 'better' over the years, and are still considered "good"...but I can't. Fine jewlery perhaps? Prostitution? Music in a cultural/emotional context?

Posted by Tom O'Leary at August 10, 2005 8:47 AM

The Grand Canyon and the Painted Desert are actually works in progress, aren't they Tom? The river is still eroding the ground at the bottom of the canyon, changing the landscape little by little. The desert sands shift constantly, animals leave tracks, plants come and go. All are constantly in a state of change.

Posted by Mike at August 10, 2005 8:57 AM

You're right Mike, there is constant change in ourselves and in nature; but not a conscious effort for betterment. Sometimes when you leave something to evolve naturally, miraculous things can happen...like the Grand Canyon, the caterpillar, etc. Now if we tried to improve the Grand Canyon consciously, using our technology, landscape architectural advances, modern machinery, etc. I would guess that it wouldn't nearly be as wonderful as it is just being there, evolving in its natural state....unless we put a Wal*Mart in the middle of it...or a kick ass rollercoaster of course!

Posted by Tom O'Leary at August 10, 2005 1:30 PM

Tom, I think most of us have "a conscious effort for betterment." And the same is true of nature - everything in it is competing to survive and succeeds by improving its ability to adapt to constantly changing conditions. That which doesn't dies out. Naturally, other species and lifeforms go about the race differently than we do and operate on a different timescale, but the impulse for betterment is one of the things that defines life. And the driving force is competition.

Posted by Noel Guinane at August 10, 2005 5:46 PM

Noel, don't know if I buy into nature's conscious effort for betterment. I do agree that all living things in nature adjust instinctively as required by their environment to survive. With man, sometimes our conscious decisions to survive create more of a threat to ourselves than before. Take our continual 'conscious' improvement of weapons systems over time. Our conscious efforts to 'improve' have resulted in our capacity to wipe out the world, where as years ago, we could only kill the person in front of us.

I don't believe that a natural system can be improved...just exploited.

I still think that it would be cool to have a Wal Mart in the Grand Canyon! The contrast between nature's progress and our own within it would be interesting as a visual study.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at August 11, 2005 4:34 AM

Average temperature inside the Grand Canyon is over 100 degrees F. The only way down is by mule-back, and there's a two year wait for that ride. I don't think that fits Wal-Mart's business model. ;-)

Posted by Mike at August 11, 2005 12:59 PM

But think of the market that they'd have for battery powered air conditioning units and battery-powered scooters (to get back up that hill!)

Posted by Tom O'Leary at August 11, 2005 1:37 PM

Tom, "nature's conscious effort for betterment" is proven scientific fact. I'll agree that it is a blind effort, but there is no doubt that it is a conscious one. You might find The Selfish Gene, a bestseller written by Richard Dawkins in the mid-70s, interesting.

Here's something the author said after it was published:

"I have had the predictable spate of letters from faith's victims, protesting about my criticisms of it. Faith is such a successful brainwasher in its own favour, especially a brainwasher of children, that it is hard to break its hold. But what, after all, is faith? It is a state of mind that leads people to believe something - it doesn't matter what - in the total absence of supporting evidence. If there were good supporting evidence then faith would be superfluous, for the evidence would compel us to believe it anyway. It is this that makes the often-parrotted claim that 'evolution is a matter of faith' so silly. People believe in evolution not because they arbitrarily want to believe it but because of overwhelming, publicly available evidence.

I said `it doesn't matter what' the faithful believe, which suggests that people have faith in entirely daft, arbitrary things, like the electric monk in Douglas Adam's delightful Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency. He was purpose-built to do your believing for you, and very successful at it. On the day that we meet him he unshakingly believes, against all the evidence, that everything in the world is pink. I don't want to argue that things in which a particular individual has faith are necessarily daft. They may or may not be. The point is that there is no way of deciding whether they are, and no way of preferring one article of faith over another, because evidence is explicitly eschewed. Indeed the fact that true faith doesn't need evidence is held up as its greatest virtue; this was the point of my quoting the story of Doubting Thomas, the only really admirable member of the apostles.

Faith cannot move mountains (though generations of children are solemnly told the contrary and believe it). But it is capable of driving people to such dangerous folly. It leads people to believe in whatever it is so strongly that in extreme cases thay are prepared to kill and die for it without the need for further justification. Keith Henson has coined the name 'memeoids' for 'victims that have been taken over by a meme to the extent that their own survival becomes inconsequential ... You see lots of these people on the evening news from such places as Belfast or Beirut'.

Faith is powerful enough to immunize people against all appeals to pity, to forgiveness, to decent human feelings. It even immunizes them against fear, if they honestly believe that a martyr's death will send them straight to heaven. What a weapon! Religious faith deserves a chapter to itself in the annals of war technology, on an even footing with the longbow, the warhorse, the tank, and the hydrogen bomb."

Posted by Noel Guinane at August 11, 2005 2:16 PM

Noel, I love the part..."Religious faith deserves a chapter to itself in the annals of war technology, on an even footing with the longbow, the warhorse, the tank, and the hydrogen bomb"

It reminds me of the NRA slogan..."Guns don't kill people, people do."

Posted by Tom O'Leary at August 14, 2005 3:03 AM

Can't say I love that part, Tom. Really wish it wasn't that way.

Posted by Noel Guinane at August 14, 2005 8:01 AM

...and you accused me of being utopian ;) I think that it's a very accurate insight. How many people have been killed in the name of gods in our history?

Posted by Tom O'Leary at August 14, 2005 2:13 PM

Tom O', wishing something were not true is not the same thing as believing it is not true. Utopian thinking is believing in an ideal that does not reflect reality and comes about usually because people have not thought their opinions through. They want to believe what they want to believe, despite any evidence to the contrary.

I know the damage extreme religious faith has caused throughout history, and is causing today. I can wish it isn't, and wasn't, used in that way without deluding myself into believing it isn't at the moment and wasn't in the past used as a weapon.

Posted by Noel Guinane at August 14, 2005 4:03 PM

"They want to believe what they want to believe, despite any evidence to the contrary."

Aren't they called visionaries? I think that we need more of that kind of thinking, not less of it. I'm sure that many people shared your pragmatic views when it was speculated that the world might not be flat, or that one day we would travel in the sky...

Posted by Tom O'Leary at August 14, 2005 5:40 PM

People who ignore evidence, Tom, are not visionaries. They're nutters. I said evidence, not speculation.

Posted by Noel Guinane at August 14, 2005 6:19 PM

Sometimes, yesterday's evidence is tomorrow's folly as far as I'm concerned. Likewise, [some of] today's nutters will be tomorrow's geniuses.

You'd enjoy the following Noel:

http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-alternative-speculative-and-disputed-theories

Posted by Tom O'Leary at August 15, 2005 4:12 AM

Evidence or proof really isn't the same thing as theory or speculation in either a court or a lab.

I agree that what much of what we know today will be improved on tomorrow, but I do not think it will achieved by ignoring today's evidence. Someone standing on someone else's shoulders who proved something and taking what they've proven further, yes. Someone coming up with something completely out of the blue, possibly, but it won't be done by ignoring what others have proven. If it's evidence, I think it has to be taken into account.

Posted by Noel Guinane at August 15, 2005 5:13 AM