Our Approach | Publications | Who We Are | Training & Consulting | Client Solutions | Home

	A Conversation With the Authors The following a transcript of a December 1998 ExpertRadio program in San Francisco in which Virginia LaGrossa and Suzanne Saxe talked about their book, : Partnering for Results! They were interviewed by Eric Craven. Read the entire interview, or select one of the following topics: The Consultative Balance Clients Partnering Communication Congruency PLOT On-the-Job Tools Inspiration THE CONSULTATIVE BALANCE Interviewer: We have in the studio with us today the co-authors of , Partnering for Results: Virginia LaGrossa and Suzanne Saxe. Welcome, Virginia and Suzanne. Suzanne: Hi. Virginia: Hello. H: To start, I wanted to ask you about what you call the Consultative Balance. Could you tell us more about that? What are some of the elements of it? V: "Balance" is a very important word. When we looked at the nature of people's work in today's organizations, we found that balance was at the heart of how most people need to be working. The three components of the balance are, first, Expertise: the technical or functional expertise that people bring to their job. If you envision a balance, say a child's teeter-totter, expertise is the fulcrum. Coupled with that is a second dimension, Process: a way of working that incorporates an understanding of the business need, an understanding of the path or journey that a project or assignment needs to take in order to be successful. The third part is People--the ability to partner effectively with people, to work with all types of people, all types of personalities, all kinds of situations. Effective professionals these days are able to balance those three dimensions very successfully. H: And how do you see people doing that? Is it something that comes naturally, or must it be learned? S: We'd love to say that it comes to some people naturally. But when we began to talk with people to find out how are they able to do what they do, we found that they had either received some sort of modeling or skill training that was integral to their way of working. If you think in terms of the balance Virginia mentioned, the fulcrum is the person's expertise. Their area of expertise--whether it's engineering, medicine, HR, finance--is where people get their primary training. But then there's another part that is having a process for working with clients. We found that often people get at least some training in this area; they have a sort of skeleton there to build on. The third part of the balance--the "people" part--is the training they may or may not get. Unless they've received some manager training, their skills in this area tend to reflect how they handle their own interpersonal relationships. What we do is help integrate all three parts to help them answer fundamental questions like "How do you get your expertise recognized and used?" "How do you work with people using a process that doesn't just get things done but builds trust and commitment and buy-in?" and "How do you work through the people aspect of any kind of project or assignment?" RETURN TO TOP CLIENTS H: So you're dealing with this question with respect to co-workers, as well as customers? S: Absolutely. V: In the book, the term we use is "client." We wanted a word that would describe a lot of different entities with whom a professional might need to work. So that might include team members, who would obviously be co-workers, but it also includes committees, task forces, and so forth. It also can include end users, the recipients at the implementation stage; they are clients because they're affected by the nature of your work or the results of your work. "Client" can also mean the financial people--those who authorize the budget, who have a say about whether or not the spending for your project is a priority for the organization. There's also the type of client who is a technical expert, or subject matter expert, as they're often called. This person rounds out the technical information that's needed for a project or assignment. To be successful, you need to be able to partner with that person as well. And then there's always the person who is your main point of contact. We call that person the primary client--the day-to-day interface in terms of direction and staying on target and on track. RETURN TO TOP H: Can you tell us how would be useful to, say, someone who is working on the front line or a first-level manager? S: Well, actually --that way of working--is useful to anyone who has longer term relationships. For a front-line person who has ongoing relationships in which they need keep going back to the same people and continue to get buy-in--who needs to develop some sort of relationship and trust-- becomes invaluable. For example, for a front-line manager who is both managing a team and responsible to senior management, it would be useful in both instances. It's really for any professional group that has to develop some sort of relationship. H: Is there an example you could give us where you've used or where it has been shown to be useful? S: Sure. We do a lot of training for companies in the area of technology. One of the major groups we work with are network engineers, or systems integration engineers. They develop, configure, and maintain networks, that type of thing. It used to be they would just walk in and say, Oh, let me hook those cables together and configure the system, and then they'd just walk away. But really, they need work with their client to first figure out what the system needs to do. They need to be sure they're thinking in terms of the big picture: the business's issues, its needs as the company grows. And they need to be able to work with their client groups and get commitment from all those people involved. This is key to their success. Since we've been working with them, they don't just go in and hook cables together anymore. H: What you're saying is that people in a variety of what at one time were very task-specific situations are now finding that they have to work more broadly, on multiple levels--so traditional job descriptions don't really fit anymore? V: Right. In fact, we've identified three elements that make the shift to this new way of working critical. One is a clear requirement that people understand the needs of business--whether that's the business they're in or their customer's business. Let's take an HR professional as an example. Gone are the days where an HR professional can say, Well, gee, my job is compensation, or My job is benefits--and stay separate from the changing demands on compensation or benefits. Being able to provide expertise in the context of where the business is going is critical. And that point really transcends any job function nowadays, whether you're a front-line person, a manager, or a knowledgeable professional worker within an organization. Another component or emerging factor is the ability to articulate one's expertise in the context of that business need. You can't just come in as an expert anymore and expect people to pay attention to you. You have to convey your expertise in the context of what the business needs. And the third element is partnering. RETURN TO TOP	Hear this interview online at ExpertRadio.com.
	PARTNERING H: Let's talk about that. Your approach to partnering with customers is very interesting, but at the same time, there's the question of partnering within the organization--with co-workers. You talk at some length in the book about trust as a necessary aspect of partnering, how to establish trust and so forth. But let me play devil's advocate for a moment and ask how any of this can work if you have people who fundamentally just don't get along? S: Yes, there are quite a few of those. One important element of a partnering relationship--if you think in terms of your own experience, for example--is a sense of a common value. It may be that you simply have a common goal of getting the work done. You and the person you're working with--or the team of people--share a common vision or common goals and know what you're striving toward. Another element is commitment: You both want to see it through. Through that relationship there can be a building of trust. The notion of open and complete communication is part of this, though that sounds high flown. The point is that, even though you may not agree, you're both willing to talk about things until you attain some sort of understanding and completeness for the discussion or issue. H: Yes. That point is critical--the willingness to at least try to communicate. But what about when that willingness simply is not there? V: There is an element of partnering that has to do with natural chemistry. We all have experiences where we just click with someone immediately--it just feels comfortable and so forth. And then there's the opposite of that--bad chemistry or outright animosity. We make in the book the point that while it isn't possible to partner at the same level with everyone, it probably is possible to establish a partnering relationship with almost anyone--if you focus on what's important to that person. A major skill that unfortunately often falls by the wayside is the one-on-one, face-to-face communication that says, Help me understand why this is a concern to you. Getting to an understanding of a person, what motivates them, what concerns they have, what keeps them up at night, is key to finding a way to work with that person. S: It's also important to recognize that works at two levels. There is the individual learning how to work consultatively, and then there is the organization helping to foster that approach. The organization has to be ready to allow that to happen, to help and enable that to happen. As you know, it doesn't happen overnight. But organizations are moving in that direction. Some are further along than others. Some may never get there. And in some organizations there is one group that does it and shows that it can be a success. In reality, both the individual and the organizational factors have to come together for it to work. RETURN TO TOP COMMUNICATION H: One of the most fascinating things in your book is the extensive reference and discussion to the different kinds of communication--the fact that nonverbal communication and how things are said is the major communication that's going on. What effect does that have in the world we have now, of electronics and email and such? What is the importance of nonverbal communication there? Are we in store for a lot more difficulties, rather than less? V: There are a couple of things going on here. One is the technology, which is distancing us as opposed to bringing us together--that's the point you're making. But we're also dealing with other changes. What organization do you know that has more resources than they can use and just doesn't have enough work to go around? None, right? In fact, it's the opposite. No one has enough resources and everyone has a lot of work. So people seldom have the chance to sit down together and say, Gee, what are we learning here? In retrospect, we could have done it a better way. What's really missing from the equation is consciousness or conscientiousness: actually paying attention to people, observing, listening closely to what they say, paying attention to their body language. So much is being written about resistance, you know, "What's behind resistance?" Nine times out of ten, people are resistant because they aren't listened to or their needs aren't asked about. But it's becoming increasingly important to do so. Personally, I'm very optimistic about communication. I think that we're getting to a place where even though technology might not be helping us talk face to face, it is elevating the importance of it. And I think people are coming back together in that regard, more than maybe we think they are. H: So, in a way, one of your big messages is simply "pay attention." V: Exactly. H: And the book is, "here's how." V: Exactly. RETURN TO TOP CONGRUENCY H: You have some very interesting numbers in the book. They were that 55 percent of communication is based on body language, 28 percent is tone of voice, and 7 percent is words. I wondered, first, where you got the information or the data that's based on? S: Those numbers came from a study that's been around for a while, described in a book called Silent Messages by Albert Mehrabian. Let me add that there's been some controversy about the research. However, in training thousands of people, we've found that people see some truth in the idea. The basic point is that body language and tone of voice really do allow you to perceive whether what people are saying in words is truthful or not. And what we really try to get people to do is to focus on what we call the incongruencies, or inconsistencies, between the body language, the tone of voice, and the words. So, in other words, Eric, if I said to you in a monotone, "Eric--Be glad to work with you, no problem," would you believe me? H: Probably not. S: But if I said something like, "Eric--Can't wait to work with you! I'd love to work with you! I'm really excited to be working with you! . . . " H: Right. I see. S: You can hear a difference. But most often, what happens is that people tune out those incongruencies or inconsistencies. Hearing them it doesn't mean you have to do anything about it necessarily, it just means you need to pay attention, to notice. Has it happened more than once. Is there a message here? Is it a red flag that I should pay attention to? H: Yes. I imagine some occupational groups get training like this routinely, because it's essential to their job--police officers, for example, or obviously psychiatrists. But you're basically saying everybody needs this. V: It's interesting that you mention that, because we looked at methodologies that various professions use--police officers, psychologists, salespeople. These people, in particular, are trained to go into a situation, size it up, figure out what's going on with the people, what action needs to be taken, and then act on that information. We wanted to come up with shorthand models that any professional could take use to walk into a situation, size it up, size up the people, and figure out the best course to take. A lot of the tools in the book are designed to help the reader do that. RETURN TO TOP
	PLOT H: I thought the PLOT tool, in particular, was very interesting. Can you say a little bit about that: the acronym, what it stands for, and how people can use it to summarize their sense of the people they need to work with? V: Well, PLOT is a way of quickly capturing the observations you make about people. Take an example. Say you're getting ready for a meeting. To prepare for that meeting you might jot down who will be attending, an agenda, the key points you want to make, the outcome you want to achieve. We found that people who were exceptional at producing results also plan how they're going to work with the people at the meeting. And part of doing that is reflecting on what they've learned about those people in previous experiences. What we wanted to do, again, was to create a shorthand way for people to think about their observations and what they've learned and then be able to take action. So the acronym PLOT stands for four things: first, Personality. How would you describe that person's personality? H: Describe it in what sense? Can you give an example of describing someone's personality? V: Personality might include bubbly, cheerful, excitable, likes to get into deep conversations . . . H: Outright psychotic? V: There you go. That would be another example. H: So that's the P in PLOT? V: That's the P. The L is Language. How do the person communicate? What do you read from their body language? Do they demonstrate their behaviors in an exaggerated fashion, or are they kind of closed in? The first two, the P and the L, really describe what the person is like as a person. O stands for Opinion and frame of reference. What are the person's perceptions, concerns about the work you're doing together, and maybe about you or the organization, or the part the organization that you represent. H: What would be an example of that? V: That they are really not excited about the project; they think that it's a big mistake for the organization to invest in it. Or maybe the opposite of that; They're really excited about the project, really happy to be working with you, like you a lot, that type of thing. And the T is Task approach. How do they get things done? Do they delegate? Are they a control freak? Do they like a lot of information or do they like just the executive summary version? H: OK. So when somebody puts together this information, how do they use it? S: Let me give you an example. In a lot of workshops, we have people develop PLOTs on a client of theirs. We ask them to pick somebody that isn't the easiest person for them to work with. They take a few minutes--literally, only a couple minutes--and begin to gather some thoughts about how the person really is: "This is why he reacted that way the other day." Then we ask them to share it with someone else. As they talk, they begin to develop some insights; they start to discover what has and hasn't worked. What have they been doing that they should continue doing? And on the flip side, What have they been doing that doesn't work? What could they maybe do something differently? One thing we have found is that people tend to work with others in exactly the same way, regardless of who they are or what they're about--even when it doesn't work. So what this tool does is give people an opportunity to reflect and say, Hmm, maybe this person is a little bit different. Maybe I ought to try a different approach. We try to expand their capabilities in working with people, so they become much more flexible. H: So it's a real feedback thing. S: Absolutely. V: It comes back to the fact that in order to partner effectively, you really have to understand the other person. Again, it has to be a conscious reflection--that kind of understanding doesn't just happen. We're far too busy in this day and age . . . RETURN TO TOP
	ON-THE-JOB TOOLS H: That raises a key point. How can all this work in situations where people really are too busy, because of the nature of things? We've had callers on the show tell us incredible tales of woe, where as a result of downsizing or corporate restructuring, suddenly there're fewer people doing a lot more work. And how do they find the time to do to use tools such as the ones in your book? S: Well, one issue is how much time is taken up simply by worrying about these things. Generally, people spend a lot of time worrying. So we suggest that instead of worrying, they take some action. H: Do something about it. S: Yeah! Use some of these tools and actually make something happen. H: But worrying is fun. S: Sure, I know that. But we try to help them worry in a healthier way--let's put it that way. V: We recognize the limits on people's time. So one of our goals was to avoid a laborious, time-consuming methodology. really is a handbook--a compilation of tools and techniques that, while they aren't simplistic, don't require that you spend a lot of time thinking about it. The models that we have in there, such as PLOT, are things people can keep in their hands. You can walk around with them and think about them in the course of a meeting or other interaction. It's not like you have to fill out a lot of forms or some huge paper-based time-consuming effort. H: Yes. One of the things I like about the book a lot is all the various tools you have. In addition PLOT there are a whole bunch of assessments that people can use, like the partnering comfort factors assessment. And it's nicely set up with icons for stories, and tips, and things like that. I thought the book is well designed to be very useful. V: Thank you. H: Well, thank you very much for being with us today. I've enjoyed this, and we look forward to your next book! V: Thanks! S: Thanks! INSPIRATION H: As kind of a summary, I wanted to ask you, Suzanne, about a poem you included in the book that I really enjoy--the one by your dad, Jerry Saxe, about partnering. S: OK. H: Could you maybe tell us a little about it, and then read it for us? S: Sure. Just to give a quick background: Virginia and I feel like we partner quite a bit--and have most of our lives. But it really started way back when. My father is the role model of partnering. When his first grandson was born, he decided that his name was going to be Partner instead of Grandpa, and since then everybody has called him Partner. H: That's great. S: So, his poem: Partnering When you engage in some activity in common with another, You are players on the same side, you are partners with each other. Working together, pulling together, being a co-worker and a teammate, Whatever you call it, you are never second rate. When you do your job, do it with finesse, And you shall see partnering is a success. H: That's great. Well, I want to thank you very much for being with us today. I've enjoyed this. We look forward to your next book! V: Thanks! S: Thanks! RETURN TO TOP	Advance Consulting now offers an online collection of tools to support The Consultative Approach. More info about the toolkit. See the online demo beta version.