2005Essentials

KÖNIGSWIESER & NETWORKSystemic Consultancy and Development

KÖNIGSWIESER & NETWORKSystemic Consultancy and Development

Contents

Roswita Königswieser I Ebrû Sonuç I Jürgen GebhardtAn Integrated Approach to Business and Systemic Process ConsultingFirst published in German in 2005 in “In the Neighborhood of Consulting”,Mohe M. (Ed.), Rosenberger Fachverlag

Ulrike Froschauer I Manfred LuegerReflective-Differentiating Organizational ConsultingReflections on Combining Systemic and Business Process ConsultingFirst published in German in 2005 in “Organisation und Intervention”, Kühl S., Moldaschl M. (Ed.), München u. Mering

Introduction Roswita Königswieser I Martin HillebrandSystemic Consultancy in OrganisationsCarl-Auer Verlag 2005

1. Why Combine Business and Systemic Process Consul-ting?

In this article we examine the possible benefits toclients of a new business model which combines andintegrates two different forms of consulting: businessprocess and systemic process consulting. We report onour own experiences of working in such a combined con-sulting setting and present the general requirementsand success factors for projects of this kind, drawing inthe process on conclusions and information from ourown research reports.

As systemic organizational developers or systemicprocess consultants (we use the terms synonymously)we regularly encounter the limits of compatibility ofbusiness and systemic process consulting, be it in re-structuring projects, in mergers or with the introductionof new production systems. Splitting things up into hardand soft factors, into content and processes is commonpractice in the traditional Western view of the world withits mechanistic paradigms, whereas the holistic viewtaken by the systemic approach focuses basically onintegrating contradictory positions and extremes (seeChapter 2).

For many years this differentiation also proveduseful in determining the various areas of expertise,assigning roles and setting the boundaries between theindividual consulting firms and services available. Evenclients seemed to find it easy to distinguish between thetwo consulting approaches, basing their choice on thefollowing simple maxim: “If we need to increase our pro-duction levels, we call in business process consultants; ifwe want to change our corporate culture, then it’s syste-mic consultancy we need.”

In the meantime, many clients and consultants(regardless of approach) have come to the conclusionthat this division of roles is neither effective nor desira-ble. Indeed, as former McKinsey associates Tom Petersand Robert Waterman note in their bestseller (cf. Petersand Waterman 1982), organizations achieve the bestresults when they consider a combination of hard factors(“strategies, structures, systems”) and soft factors(“staffing, skills, shared values, style of management”).

But theory is one thing and practice another. Thelack of a common view shared by managers and consul-tants alike continues to bring about this split into busi-ness and systemic process consulting. This, in turn, canlead to a situation where two different consulting firmswith their two different approaches and areas of experti-se are hired at the same time by the same company. Thearduous task of pulling together the loose, unconnectedthreads is often left simply to chance, and the results areby no means satisfactory for the client since each firmultimately bases any proposed solutions on its own par-ticular approach and consulting focus, leaving the clientconfused by the range and number of different recom-mendations.

Situations like this only serve to highlight the needfor support from the consulting sector itself in bringingtogether the different approaches, resources and fields ofexpertise, thereby providing a new level of impetus toconsulting and fostering organizational development.

2. Integration Problems – The Main Differences betweenthe Two Approaches

Juxtaposing the ways the two approaches considerthemselves provides a strong indication of where the

By Roswita Königswieser I Ebrû Sonuç I Jürgen Gebhardt

An Integrated Approach to Business and Systemic Process Consulting

First published in German in 2005 in “In the Neighborhood of Consulting”, Mohe M. (Ed.), Rosenberger Fachverlag

integration problems might lie. Critics of a business pro-cess-oriented approach talk of “extended workbenches”for top management, “selling pseudo-collateral” or“know-it-all consultants” (Zech 2004). Yet from the busi-ness process consultants own perspective, it is preciselybecause they do “know better”, they don’t suffer from“corporate tunnel vision” and they can offer better, moreneutral solutions and new ways of solving problems thatthey are approached in the first place.

Disparagers of systemic process consulting brandit as “on the fence” moderation by “softies” or “fairweather consultants” who “block out the business sideof the situation”. But this does not worry the processconsultants; they see themselves as coaches and guideson a learning journey and consider their role as one of“changing patterns” and “empowering” people with newskills for the future.

Attempts to establish a neutral, shared definitionuncover a number of fundamental differences betweenthe two approaches.

The term business process consulting is used torefer to those consulting services in which specially trai-ned consultants use their expert knowledge in such fieldsas business studies, engineering, etc. to help companiessolve specific business problems. In their consulting acti-vities, they draw primarily on standardized knowledgeand their own skills in interpreting the data available.They see this data as problem indicators and use them toidentify the reasons behind a specific issue. In this appro-ach, the solution then lies in the proper and accurateselection, linking and interpretation of this data. The logicbehind the interpretation and the resultant options ituncovers corresponds to a more or less complicated,complex, yet “rational” cause-effect pattern; a pattern towhich social processes have to adapt and comply. Thefocus of attention lies on function-specific logic, e.g. thelogic behind production, purchasing or sales.

This very particular function-specific view of thelogic behind processes and structures has far-reachingconsequences for consulting practice. Although expe-rienced business consultants do make some use of thetools and techniques available for steering social pro-cesses in their assessment of the actual situation andrecommendations for achieving the target situation,communication and social interaction do not play a cen-tral role in their efforts. They are simply a means to anend; a way of leveraging the functional logic. This logic isbased on economic objectives and serves to add value,improve results, increase productivity, raise effective-ness, ensure labor efficiency and eliminate deficits. From the client’s perspective, this approach has a num-

ber of strengths: it helps overcome crises, offers excel-lent ideas, is based on real business contexts, is measu-rable, uses words the client understands and, above all,offers certainty in an uncertain situation. “They can dothe things we can’t do ourselves.” “We know what wewill be getting for our money”.

In contrast, optimizing communication processeswithin and between organizations and their stakehol-ders is a central issue in systemic process consulting.Introducing transparency into patterns of thought andaction ultimately helps an organization to define its owngoals, develop shared values, clarify expectations andreach agreement on how best to implement its plans.Systemic organizational consulting sees and treats anorganization as a living organism with the ability andpower to develop its own solutions to difficult situationsand problems. This approach uses carefully selectedinterventions to help the organization release blockedenergies, reach joint agreements in shared decision-making processes and determine how best to achieve itsstated goals.

Ultimately, both approaches aim to help theirclients become more successful; they just have very dif-ferent ways of doing so.

Systemic process consulting is highly context-oriented, takes a more open attitude to results and indi-vidual process steps, involves those directly affected bythe situation and mobilizes energy. However, it alsorequires reflection and feedback processes. As a result,it initially produces more uncertainty than certainty. Theidentification of internal patterns of thought and action,a deeper understanding of how problems arise and animproved ability to communicate and solve problemsmeans that sustainable solutions emerge for the compa-ny almost of their own accord. However, systemic pro-cess consultants must take care to maintain an appropri-ate distance to the client system to ensure any “blindspots” are noticed.

Business process consultants often think and actin a similar manner to the client. They install themselveson site within the client system and can therefore be con-sulted directly, make concrete suggestions and partici-pate in decision-making processes. The implementationof any proposed measures is left to the client.

A further significant difference between traditionalbusiness process and systemic process consulting lies inthe circumstances and conditions that lead to the selec-tion of a particular approach.

Since systemic consulting ultimately looks tointroduce longer-term, sustainable change, organiza-tions who find themselves facing a crisis that threatenstheir immediate survival generally call in the business

process consultants first. Their hope is that the consul-tants will provide them with the necessary decision-making basis they seek and recommend short-term measures that will have immediate effect. In times ofeconomic stagnation or depression, when longer-term,positive expectations are overshadowed by more pres-sing worries about the immediate future, people oftenlack the time, understanding and insight to think aboutlonger-term, sustainable development. Consequently,the actual needs and expectations of the client systemalso determine the choice of consulting approach: force-ful, clear, profit-oriented, “top-down” measures versusthe impetus and motivation to concentrate and reflect oninherent strengths and powers.

In some cases, companies might just be seeking an“alibi”, i.e. looking to hide behind the reputation of a largeconsulting firm and using its recommendations to endor-se the need for the consulting process itself and/or anyunpopular measures that might need to be implemented.

Interest in the systemic approach often stems eit-her from some form of prior knowledge, understandingor practical experience of process consulting, or frompublications on the subject or through a personal recom-mendation or contact. Any such background influencesnot only the project acquisition activities, but also thesetting for the initial meeting, mutual expectations, con-tractual negotiations and the client-consultant relations-hip. In this sense, not only does each approach get theclients who suit it best, each client also gets the bestform of consulting for its particular situation.

3. Does a Combined Approach Offer Added Value forClients?

In Faust II Goethe already differentiates betweenthe what and the how in the Laboratory Scene, whenHomunculus proclaims: “Ponder the What – to solve theHow still harder try.”

In less poetic terms, this means that each whatcreates a how and each how is the what in the next step.In an integrative consulting approach, the problem is nolonger split into a what (business process consulting)and a how (systemic process consulting). Instead, pro-fessional, business related issues are embedded fromthe start in an appropriate systemic process architectu-re. The client only deals with one (joint) consultantsystem and can monitor corporate development as awhole; the links between strategy, structure and culture,between market share, profit margins and other goalsare brought together in one single, unified concept. Acombined approach offers many benefits for the client,the four most important of which are:

• Independent problem solving competence and sustai-nability: an integrated development process raisesawareness and broadens and strengthens the clientsystem’s ability to solve problems. The transfer ofknow-how then follows on implicitly, and clients aresoon able to apply the systemic process skills neededto steer their organizations and develop the necessarybusiness process skills without external support. Com-panies who reflect carefully on conflict situations aregenerally more responsive and receptive to their envi-ronments. They adapt better to unforeseen marketdevelopments, develop stable early warning systemsand deal more quickly and efficiently with any crisesthat emerge. By becoming “fit for the future”, compa-nies can transform themselves from followers into lea-ders and develop the strengths they need to movebeyond what they thought were their previous limits.

• Reaching goals more easily: in an integrated approach,the design and implementation phases take placesimultaneously, not consecutively. The way plans aremade and implemented at this early stage, and thepeople involved, play an important role, since this iswhere the impetus is set and the attainability of shortand long-term goals is gauged and assessed. Manycompanies have now come to realize that no matterhow good a concept might be, it will be of little use ifthey do not actively promote it and actually do some-thing with it. Only an integrated consulting approachcan lead to lasting, forward-looking change: it does nottreat organizations like submissive patients who needto be told what medicine to take, but instead encoura-ges them to develop their own powers of self-healing.

• Easing the (internal) potential for conflict: the conflic-ting paradigms found in the two approaches (and inthe client system itself ) can be a major source of con-flict and usually become most apparent when underpressure. In an integrated consultant system, theseparadigms are pre-prepared to perfection and all butpre-digested, thus making them far easier to thenreconcile in the client system. The contradictions, dif-ferences and advantages of the two approaches arejointly reflected upon by all concerned and the resultspresented in the form of integrated interventions. Inthis way, the short-term relief realized through thebusiness consulting measures combines with the long-term support of systemic consulting to produce thebest possible overall effects.

• Building a reputation through social responsibility:companies assume a high degree of social responsibi-lity and make significant contributions to economicprosperity and the quality of life. They create jobs andinfluence politics, education and the Arts. Companies

who opt for an integrated approach are characterizedby greater public visibility and market penetration.This social responsibility is apparent in the impetus itgives to the discourse on socio-relevant issues such asthe future of work, lifelong learning, the new corporaterole in society, the link between sustainability and pro-sperity, ethics, etc.

4. Systemic Integrative Consulting – A New BusinessModel?

Although we have many years of practical expe-rience with integrated consulting projects, we are stillelaborating a model that does justice to the complexityof an integrated approach to change processes. In ourbook on systemic integration management (Königswie-ser et al 2001, p, 53), we introduced a model that illu-strates the work carried out simultaneously on the pro-fessional, content-related and process levels, which isbased on four key factors (structure, culture, strategyand vision) in development processes. The loop betweenthe present and the vision for the future is representedby the continual “systemic reflective loop”. This, in turn,contains the following four iterative steps: gatheringinformation, building hypotheses, planning interven-tions and intervention (see Chapter 3).

Although this model takes the combination of hardand soft factors and of systemic process and businessprocess consulting into account, it by no means integra-tes them fully or sufficiently. We have held many discus-sions and learning workshops with experts and collea-gues to try to develop an extended version of this model,a version that can be seen as a “work in progress”. Figu-re 1* shows an example of one such possible draft model.

Fig. 1: SIM2In our deliberations, we have assumed that much ofwhat really goes on in corporate dynamics is the result ofthe interaction between and the interspersing of thewhats and the hows in strategy, structure and culture.After all, the what cannot be separated from the how;they are dependent on and constantly interact with eachother.

If business process consulting traditionally con-centrates on the what, then its systemic counterpartfocuses on the how. Consequently, as stand-alone solu-tions, neither can really do proper justice to the issues ofcorporate dynamics and development, even if an ab-stractive approach and way of looking at the situationmight sometimes seem necessary to reduce complexity.Depending on the situation and its requirements, needsand necessities, consulting processes based on this

model vary their interventions between the dimensionsin the triangles, without turning them into a uniformmishmash and blurring their limits, yet still introducing anew level of quality. The reflection loops form the linksand are closely interwoven with corporate dynamics anddevelopment.

In fact, in the real and chaotic world, it is thisdepth of perception which highlights some aspects andhides others, without letting them disappear entirelyfrom view. When we look at one specific dimension inclose-up, we can only see the others out of the corner ofour eye. Changing the focus opens up the expanse andreveals the other aspects. Specializing in one aspectallows us to develop excellence and depth withoutlosing sight of the bigger picture.

Complementarity theory (cf. Ruigrok 2000) alsoconfirms a disparately high probability of economic suc-cess when a simultaneous and complementary approachto development processes results in the establishmentof a positive, self-influencing feedback loop.

The reflective aspect inherent in the systemic loopis an indispensable element in a combined consultingapproach. At the initial meeting with the client, it servesto establish a basic assessment of any manifest andlatent issues that might be affecting the client system,an assessment which will later influence the choice ofconsulting staff, the project goals, the priorities set andthe methods chosen.

This reflective meta-communication between thebusiness and systemic process consultants remains anessential component throughout the entire consultingprocess, from the initial diagnosis, through to the projectmilestones and the ongoing discussions that take placewith the client and in the consulting team. It is throughthis ongoing communication that any previously unnoti-ced incompatibilities will ultimately be revealed. If thisreflective element does not become a matter of course ina mixed consulting team, our experience shows that thecombined energies in this team will not be released.

Hand in hand with the reflective, discursive clarifi-cation of the effect of interventions comes a further pro-cess element, namely feedback. This includes the feed-back processes both within the combined consultingteam, between the individual units in the client systemand between the client system and the consultants. It isimportant to ensure that sufficient time and space isgiven to this form of communication and that it is seenand understood by all as a self-organizing process oflearning.

The fascination of this “twin turbo consulting”, asone colleague neatly put it, lies not in the theory, but inthe actual consulting activities themselves. These requi-

* next page

re a shared understanding of project goals, concurrenceon procedures, compatible values and a general settingand framework that can accommodate the process idealsbehind this model.

If the common goals of an integrated consultingapproach are a sustained, qualitative increase in theavailable options for action coupled with greater “mind-fulness” (cf. Weick and Sutcliffe 2004) and greater suc-cess for the client in its business activities, then it is the“attitude” adopted by all the consultants involved thatmakes such an approach work (see Chapter 3). “Attitu-de” is the way we relate to ourselves, our colleagues, ourclients and our general environment; it is the way wethink. It controls our categories of perception, ways ofdoing things, priorities, intervention strategies, limitsand conditions.

5. An Integrative Approach to Consulting

Integrated consulting works best and producesthe most professional results when representatives ofboth approaches work together either in tandem or asmembers of a mixed team. Of course, this is only possi-ble if the team members on both sides are familiar withthe tasks, goals, methods and mental models used in thealternative approach and everyone is prepared to look atorganizational development from a unified perspective. This approach provides access to know-how from bothfields, which can then be turned into hypotheses andapplied as required to suit the actual context and situa-tion. Business process know-how is thus used not to setand plan requirements, but to ask the kind of questionsthat will eventually lead to solutions. In other words,business process consultants act as expert sparringpartners for their systemic process counterparts, addinga further option to proposed solutions and opening upnew ways of looking at innovative measures.

Combining this aspect with systemic processknow-how means that the effects of any planned inter-ventions at the architecture, design and tools levels areconstantly reflected upon and adapted as required tosuit the process. This process of professional reflectionis a central element in the model and produces a quali-tatively different view of the issues. The more intelligentuse of expert knowledge and analytical planningstrengths that comes with the addition of the processfocus simply enhances their existing strengths. Forexample, cost-cutting measures are far easier to sustainif their effects are considered and the people they affectare involved in the decision-making process.

The use of reflection loops and self-observationtechniques helps companies to develop new ways of loo-

king at their own organization. This, in turn, equips themwith new ways of steering the organization and new pro-blem-solving patterns. The model also allows the con-sulting team to intervene in extreme situations andshare in the work of dealing with a difficult problem.One of the key elements in this model is its flexibility: itenables consultants to respond to a specific situationand opt for the type of know-how that bests fits currentgaps. What is “right” for one company, might just aseasily be “wrong” in another. Like managers, who haveto adapt their behavior to compensate for the specifics ofa given situation, consultants who work with this appro-ach leverage the actual level of development in the clientsystem.

Developing a relationship of trust with the client isparticularly important in an integrated consulting model.After all, client expectations play a decisive role in theprocess. If a client expects and demands security, clarity,decision-making support, specialist knowledge and aconstant on site consultant presence, a cautious processof persuasion will have to be initiated to encourage themto change their outlook and venture into an unsettlingreflection process. In such cases, the systemic consul-tants will initially have to assume a coaching role to gua-rantee the desired outcome.

Proximity and distance have different, yet equallyvalid functions in each of the two approaches. Businessprocess consultants are actively involved in operationsand have to provide the client with support in day-to-daybusiness activities. Their presence is required on site.Systemic process consultants, on the other hand, canonly properly fulfill their task if they maintain a healthydistance, provide an external perspective, intervene asrequired but then withdraw again to avoid endangeringthe autonomy of the client system.

As a result, coordinating a tandem or team-basedintegrated consulting project is no easy task and mustabove all factor in a considerable amount of time on topof any on site consulting activities for joint reflection.

All these issues serve to shape the profile of a sui-table “candidate” for integrated consulting. In additionto business or systemic process know-how, an integra-ted consultant must also exhibit a certain degree ofmaturity. This does not mean they have to be absolutelyperfect; it simply means they must be able to accommo-date their own strengths and weaknesses – and those ofothers – in a reflected and deliberate manner. This isgenerally referred to as “social competence”.

6. The Main Challenges and Difficulties of a CombinedApproach

The theory sounds relatively simple: bring toget-her, combine and integrate different types of knowledgeand expertise for the good of the client. But, in fact, prac-tice shows it to be an extremely difficult, often almostimpossible undertaking, even if the client expresslyrequested an integrated approach. So why should thisbe the case? Based on our experience, we can offer thefollowing three explanations:

• “The differences are too great”Business and systemic process consultants base theirwork on different theoretical models, constructions ofreality and values. They represent two contrary schoolsof thought. The specific competences available to eachof the two approaches, the way they are applied andthe purpose that they serve are rooted in different,often contradictory basic assumptions. True integra-tion would only be possible if either business processconsulting were to drop its linearity and rational unityor systemic process consulting were to give up itsopenness and assumption of complexity. In otherwords, both approaches would have to either disasso-ciate themselves from or reassess and redevelop theirbasic assumptions. In our personal encounters withrepresentatives of large, traditional consulting firmswho had invited us to take part in joint projects, weobserved a similar set of fears on both sides. Both arestunned by the huge and unsettling differences thatseparate them and threaten their individual identities.They put each other down to protect their own identi-ties and territories. Sutrich (2003) refers in this contextnot only to the “new horizons” appearing on the con-sulting scene, but also to the inhabitants of two diffe-rent groups of islands – history made them arch ene-mies and they still keep up this tradition today.

• “This is pioneering work; it needs to be tried, testedand learned.”Since the underlying paradigms, models and experien-ces behind each approach are so different, the motiva-tion behind any attempts to address the challenge ofintegrating them has to be very strong. Nonetheless,before any such attempt can be made, both sides haveto first acquire a basic understanding of what theircounterparts do and how they achieve it. There is a fargreater risk of competition (“Who is better?”), powerstruggles (“Who has a stronger influence on the clientsystem?”) and identity crises (“Which approach doesthe client seem to prefer?”) in a “mixed” consulting

team than there is in a homogenous one. If the mem-bers of such a team do not accept each other, if theycan’t adopt an attitude of complementarity, if they arenot flexible enough to swap the “lead” to suit the actu-al situation or willing to vary their approach as requi-red, any attempts at cooperation will falter at the firsthurdle, i.e. at the first sign of criticism from the client.

• “Without the necessary structural framework, it simplywon’t work.”Even if the relationship between the tandem partnerscan withstand the strain and everyone sees andaccepts the differences between the two approachesas a valuable resource, successful cooperation stillneeds an appropriate framework and conditions if it isto work.

7. Case Studies

The following case studies illustrate some of the practi-cal issues facing an integrated consulting businessmodel. They were chosen both for the insights they offerinto positive (successful) and negative (unsuccessful)projects alike, as well as for the valuable lessons thatcan be learned from them.

7.1 Project A (Terminated)

BackgroundA leading automobile parts supplier had decided toextend its portfolio to include the development of com-plete vehicles and the construction of niche vehicles. Todo so, the supplier had already acquired another compa-ny specialized in the field of automobile development.They approached us and enquired about specialist coa-ching for setting-up an automobile manufacturing plant.The contact came through one of our partners, who hadextensive knowledge and experience of the automobileindustry.

In our initial meetings with the client, we signaledthe complexity of the situation and drew their attentionto the fact that business process consulting alone wouldnot satisfy their requirements and address the impact ofthe impending change process. The two companies hadvery different cultures: one was a manual, manufacturingenvironment, the other a creative, development organi-zation.

Project GoalsCompany management saw no need for additional syste-mic coaching: all they wanted to do was build theirmanufacturing plant. They did not feel coaching or gui-

dance would facilitate the integration process. After all,“Plenty of other manufacturing companies had been suc-cessfully integrated in the past without the help of con-sultants.” However, when they realized that they couldonly have the business process consulting if they agreedto combine it with systemic consulting for the entirechange process, they somewhat reluctantly gave theirconsent.

Architecture/DesignWe proposed a process architecture and began with asystem diagnosis. The results of this diagnosis wereused to build a set of hypotheses, which were then pres-ented to company management and used to determinethe starting points for the consulting process. A steeringgroup was set up and defined a number sub-projects toaddress particular individual areas where improvementwas required.

We considered the “Planning the ManufacturingPlant” sub-project to be an integral part of the wholechange process, since once completed it would lead to areorientation of the entire company. As a result, we pro-posed that the leader of the “Vehicle Manufacturing”sub-project should also be included in the steering group.But this proposal was rejected by management on thegrounds that they needed to produce rapid results if theywere going to win new projects. The sub-projects there-fore ran in parallel with no attempts to cross-referenceresults.

After a second “sounding board” session, theclients decided they no longer required a combined con-sulting approach in their integration process. We wereasked to moderate future workshops, but we would nolonger be able to steer the entire process. We declinedthis new arrangement: for us the project was effectivelyover.

ResultsThe “Vehicle Manufacturing” project had by then rea-ched the stage where it was ready to hold initial discus-sions with potential clients. However, a subsequentslump in the automobile industry coupled with an eco-nomic downturn in the company, led to the project beingshelved.

Lessons LearnedOne of the major problems in this project was the factthat the two different forms of consulting were “bought”as separate entities and therefore ran alongside eachother from the start. The business process approach waspushed into the leading role, while the significance ofsystemic process consulting and its purpose in the deve-

lopment process was kept deliberately vague and under-valued. Consequently, no coordination of efforts andsynergies between the two approaches was possible.The client accepted neither the need for an integratedapproach nor, for that matter, a systemic approach at all.This highlights the importance of a joint approach andconsensus for the planning and definition of projects ofthis kind. If the client neither appreciates nor embracesan integrated approach, it will be doomed to fail from theoutset.

7.2 Project B (successful)

BackgroundA subsidiary of a large, German industrial group wasfacing difficult times. Its market share was decreasing,its quality levels no longer met customer expectationsand high production costs made it increasingly uncom-petitive. It had already undergone a long-term cost cut-ting program, which had succeeded in returning the com-pany to profit, but the program had also clearly left itsmark on the organization: the workforce was demotiva-ted and staff turnover was high.

Project GoalsManagement decided to initiate a change process that ithoped would turn the company into the industry leaderin terms of price and quality. They engaged the servicesof the consulting firm they felt was best equipped toimplement this change process. We were asked to provi-de support and coaching for the “Production” division.The change process in the Production division was led bytwo senior consultants, one from a traditional consultingbackground, the other with systemic know-how andexpertise. A further five consultants were also involvedin this part of the project.

Architecture/DesignThe company had already decided to introduce a newproduction system and, since their US-based parentcompany had also recently introduced such a system,they felt it would be advantageous to use the same one.However, the system could not simply be implementedas it was: some customization was needed to addressboth cultural differences and local technical constraints.Introducing a production system of this kind would meana complete change in workflows and the way things weredone – both at management and grassroots level. Basi-cally, they were trying to introduce more teamwork, todelegate responsibility for quality and productivity andcreate awareness of the need for discipline and standardprocedures. A target system that took into consideration

both hard and soft factors was also developed and inte-grated into a balanced scorecard.

The architecture agreed upon for this project allo-wed people both to contribute to and at the same timelearn about the new production system. When thesystem was later introduced across all manufacturingplants, what had been learned in this initial phase wasthen passed on to the remaining 17,000 employees usinga cascade process.

The first step in the change process was again theformation of a steering group, this time chaired by theMember of the Board responsible for Production. Thesteering group also included individual plant managersand representatives of the central divisions. It was coa-ched by two consultants (one from each of the approa-ches).

The production system envisaged five sub-systems, each aimed at a specific aspect. It also includedover one hundred individual tools. The steering group’sfirst task was to define the new production system andsub-systems in greater detail and allocate the necessarytools.

Five working groups were then formed to work onthe concepts planned for each individual sub-system.They were each to produce a manual explaining theeffects and interaction between the various processes inclear and concise terms; a task which took around fourmonths. These interdisciplinary working groups alsoincluded representatives of each of the individual plants,thus ensuring that the acquired know-how would laterbe available at a local level. Work began with a kick-offmeeting to present and discuss aims and objectives.

In this phase, progress was presented to the stee-ring group at four-weekly intervals; any open issueswere discussed and resolved in these meetings. Weeklytelephone conferences were held between the consul-tants and the sub-project leaders to clarify and definethe links between the individual projects.

Once the manuals were ready, a workshop lastingseveral days was organized for all involved to communi-cate what had been learned in the working groups.Implementation teams were formed for each plant, eachmade up entirely of local staff involved in the conceptualphase. Pilot areas were selected for the introduction ofthe system in the plants.

ResultsThe first measurable effects were achieved within a veryshort period of time. Quality levels improved tremen-dously. The system was subsequently introduced com-pany-wide.

Lessons LearnedOne factor in the successful completion of this projectwas the fact that the systemic and business process con-sultants worked together harmoniously from the outset.The client was not really aware of any differences bet-ween the two approaches during the actual consultingprocess. Any decisions on what, when and how thingswere to be done were taken jointly by the entire consul-ting team. Both sides had a good understanding of theother approach and respected each other’s work. Someadditional factors that contributed to its success inclu-ded: mutual acceptance of the agreed architecture; thedefinition and implementation of the process by theclients themselves with the support of the systemic pro-cess consultants (an approach the business process con-sultants found quite unusual) and the parallel coachingfor the management team.

7.3 Project C (successful)

BackgroundThe client for this project is a highly profitable Swisscompany, which enjoys near-monopoly status in thecountry’s retail market and is regarded in Switzerlandalmost as a national icon. However, its cooperative-likestructure and high vertical integration also brought withthem a decentralized autonomy, complicated cost struc-tures and slow decision-making processes. Changeswere urgently needed if the company was to retain itsleading position in an increasingly competitive market.The situation boded well for a combined approach: oursponsor in the largest division (Purchasing and Marke-ting) was a holistically-minded, highly respected mana-ger, while the project leader was a systems thinking-oriented “doer” with a strong influence on the choice ofthe consultants.

Project Goals• To introduce a competitive, efficient, forward-looking

structure: the company should retain its leading posi-tion in the home market and, at the same time, expandits international activities.

• To develop a strategic vision that reflected the new cor-porate self-image.

• To cut costs by 15 % and increase efficiency by 20 %.• To introduce a culture of empowerment and develop

the competences required both at a corporate and at apersonal/role level to reach these ambitious goals.

• To bring about a change in mentality and attitudeamongst all employees.

Architecture/DesignA system diagnosis (addressing professional and cultu-ral issues) was carried out using group interviews andother analysis forms. The results of this diagnosis weremirrored to key corporate players in a two-day works-hop. The conclusion: a great, friendly company thatnonetheless demonstrated a tendency to bury its head inthe sand with regard to the future.Goals were agreed and set in cooperation with theclients, the process architecture was defined and the fol-lowing sub-projects agreed: structure, cost cutting po-tential, identity and leadership. Six months down theline, when it became apparent that the goals could notbe achieved without job losses, a further sub-projectwas added: dealing with uncertainty and change.The sub-project leaders met every four weeks in thesteering group, which was made up of representatives ofall – at the time nine – hierarchical levels. Two membersof the six-person consulting team (three business andthree systemic process consultants) coached and guidedthe steering group, the project group and the conflict-rid-den sponsor group. The groups were very motivated andthe feedback they received was positive: they were“doing a great job”; their work was courageous, innovati-ve and taboo-breaking yet mindful of corporate cultureand identity. The consulting team provided support in theform of scenarios and decision-making options and intro-duced reflection loops not only in its own deliberations,but also in its work with the client, thus reducing blindspots, raising awareness and heightening alertness.

One peculiarity of this project was the involvementof a group of “special experts” from an international con-sulting firm. They had been given a very specific briefand allocated very specific roles (e.g. calculatingmodels) by top management, a fact that, as it later tran-spired, had somewhat “hurt their pride”. Consequently,they found it difficult to cooperate with us as processleaders and coordinators and were very critical and dis-missive of the whole process, commenting at one stage:“The groups will never make it without our help.” Butmake it they did. Our particular role was “limited” to pro-fessional and process coaching and guidance.

ResultsOver a twelve-month period, the company underwent aprocess of radical systemic change. Of the nine originalhierarchical levels, only six remained. Efficiency wasindeed increased by an estimated 20 %. Cost cuttingmeasures were identified to achieve the targeted 15 % insavings, with more in reserve for further investments.The workforce was reduced by 10 %. Everyone faced anddealt with their grief, anger and uncertainty together.

The process of changing mentalities and attitudes is stillongoing.

Lessons learnedThis project highlights the importance of co-develop-ment and a good understanding of the chosen approachon the part of the client. In this case, both the project lea-ders and the sponsors supported the integrated appro-ach and were convinced of its benefits from the start. Theconsultants and clients worked together to co-developthe project. The mixed consulting team, whose membersall shared a similar mindset, trusted and respected eachother and were very motivated by the prospect of deve-loping this model further. As a consulting team, we alsobenefited greatly from the inclusion of a supervision forour own work and an evaluation of our own processesduring the project. However, we had not expected toencounter such a feeling of mistrust and lack of respectfrom the “special experts”. Despite all our best efforts,we were unable to establish any common ground bet-ween us and them.

8. Critical Success Factors

There are many aspects that contribute to the suc-cess of an integrated approach to organizational consul-ting. Based on our own practical experience and drawingon the conclusions of the research reports based on ourconsulting projects (e.g. Froschauer and Lueger 2003),we would like to draw particular attention to the follo-wing critical success factors:

• Mutual acceptance and respect• Basic know-how of both approaches• Common values• A reflective approach to consulting activities• Seamless transitions to suit the individual situation.

These success factors have, in turn, helped us todetermine the main conditions that we feel have to bemet to ensure the success of an integrated consultingproject:1. A clear contract must be established with the client

system, which defines expectations and sets them asgoals that are clearly understood by all concerned.

2. The client must be in favor of an integrated approachand recognize the added value it provides (method andeffect).

3. The project must be carried out in close collaborationwith internal experts and involve the people who willbe affected by the change.

4. Relevant stakeholders and interest groups (e.g. custo-

mers, shareholders, management, suppliers, employ-ees) must be involved in the project and there must bea constant review of the correlation between processdecisions and economic aspects (benchmarking).

5. Professional expertise should be made available if re-quired (what, when, how much, where development isneeded, where to implement change).

6. Any decisions made and their consequences must beclear to all concerned.

7. Reflection loops should become standard practice.8. Consultants must work in close collaboration with the

project leaders who, in turn, recognize and personifythe logic behind such an integrated approach.

9. The project must be based on an architecture that in-spires confidence and facilitates dealing with uncer-tainty.

10. The work carried out by the consulting staff must beof a high quality and must factor in enough time andcapacity for reflection, for decisions concerning anyinterventions, for supervision. Responsibility for theproject as a whole must also, of course, be shared byall concerned.

It will take some time yet for this integrated model toreach maturity, for clear concepts and terminology toemerge and for the design principles to evolve and beco-me communicable. After all, it is very much a work inprogress. This article is intended merely as an interimreport, a contribution to the discourse.

9. References

Froschauer, U. & Lueger, M. (2003): Reflective-differentiating Con-

sulting. Reflections on Combining Systemic Process and Business

Process Consulting. Vienna: Unpublished Research Report.

Königswieser, R., Cichy, U., Jochum, G. (2001): SIMsalabim. Verände-

rung ist keine Zauberei. SystemischesIntegrationsManagement.

Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta

Mohe, M. & Heinecke, M. J. (Eds.) (2002): Consulting – Problemlö-

sung als Geschäftsmodell. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta

Peters, T. & Waterman, R. (1982): In Search of Excellence: Lessons

from America’s Best-Run Companies. New York: Harper & Row.

Ruigrok, W. (2000): Komplementaritäten. In: GDI-Impuls, 2/2000,

p. 49 ff.

Sutrich, O (2003): Neuland für junge Berater am Horizont. In: Zeit-

schrift Profile. 5/03, p. 53-65

Weick, K, E. & Sutcliffe, K. E. (2001): Managing the Unexpected:

Assuring High Performance in an Age of Complexity. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Zech, R. (2004): Rat und Unrat – Eine kleine Reflexion über Bera-

tung. In: Grosz, A. & Witt, J. (Eds.): Living at Work. Munich/Vienna:

Hanser.

In addition to the authors, the following colleagues participated in

these learning workshops: Uwe Cichy, Uwe Dahl, Gerhard Jochum,

Ulrich Königswieser, Erik Lang, Christian Matul, Peter Panholzer,

Patricia Van Overstraeten..

1. Introduction

For their work with client systems, organizationalconsultants must have deep-rooted prior theoreticalknowledge of a) how organizations work in general, (b)how interventions can work in organizations and (c) howconsultants as outsiders can acquire knowledge aboutan organization. It is this threefold understanding thatenables them to develop suitable consulting strategies.However, it is precisely in this basic understanding thatthe various consulting approaches available on the mar-ket generally differ. Against this background, an empiri-cal study was carried out to determine the differencesperceived by clients between the various consultingapproaches. Among other things, the results of thisstudy show that clients are critical of the differentiationbetween the various consulting forms that currently pre-vails. They expect an external consultant to provide theirorganization with customized consulting services thatmeet their specific needs and effectively amalgamateboth business and systemic process know-how. The rea-sons for these expectations are clear: clients expect tobe able to benefit from the individual strengths of eachof these two approaches.

The key seems to lie in finding a “happy medium”,i.e. in combining the different approaches in actual con-sulting practice. To establish a better understanding of what a combination of different consulting approachesentails, an accompanying study of the implementation ofa combined approach was carried out in cooperationwith a consulting firm. However, this accompanying

study shows that there is little to be gained by simplytrying to combine the different approaches and that theresultant problems can have a serious effect on the con-sulting process. Nonetheless, the analysis of such con-sulting processes not only provided a better understand-ing of the difficulties involved in combining the differentapproaches, it also offered a good opportunity to look atpossible alternatives.

However, there is also another important factor tobe considered: when management turns to consultancy,it often expects high quality results as quickly, reliablyand cheaply as possible. This hope and cry for help frommanagement in dealing with a perceived loss of controlin a complex, ever-changing world might well result in abooming consulting market (cf. Kieser 2002: 59ff ), butalso assumes that social processes can be steered orcontrolled rationally (if this were not the case, therewould be little need for consulting), an assumption thatis difficult to reconcile with more sophisticated ap-proaches to organizational theory (from Weber 1980through Simon 1981 to Weick 1985, Türk 1995 orLuhmann 2000). Any critical discussion of consultingmust therefore also bear in mind the difficulties andunderlying rationality involved in steering organizations.

This article begins with a discussion of the differ-ences between the various consulting approaches iden-tified in an initial study of clients’ experiences with con-sulting processes (see Point 2.). It then goes on to elab-orate those specific issues identified in the subsequent

1. Introduction

2. Approaches to Consulting

3. The Problems of Combining The Two Different Approaches

4. A Bridging Function

5. Reflective-differentiating Consulting: Developments To Date

6. References

By Ulrike Froschauer I Manfred Lueger

Reflective-Differentiating Organizational ConsultingReflections on Combining Systemic and Business Process Consulting

First published in German in 2005 in „Organisation und Intervention“,

Kühl S., Moldaschl M. (Ed.), München u. Mering

accompanying study as particularly obstructive to a com-bined approach (see Point 3.). This is followed by somegeneral reflections on a “reflective-differentiating” con-sulting approach and its attempts to deal with the prob-lems raised by the contradictions in the different con-sulting philosophies.

2. Approaches to Consulting2.1 Typical Differences

Consulting firms often ask themselves how theirclients, i.e. the companies they provide consulting servic-es to, perceive the differences between the various con-sulting approaches. In cooperation with three consultingfirms – Beratergruppe Neuwaldegg, C/O/N/E/C/T/A andHernstein International Management Institute (through R.Königswieser) – a research project was set up to examineclients’ experiences with consulting processes (formethodological, methodical background see Froschauerand Lueger 2001). Interviews were held with companieswho had practical experience of two or more different con-sulting firms and approaches. The information obtainedwas interpreted and the preliminary results discussed at aone-day workshop with representatives from both the par-ticipating companies and the consulting firms. Followingan analysis of the workshop proceedings, further inter-views were held with the companies, and the results inter-preted and compared with the personal experiences ofconsultants from different backgrounds and approaches.The study produced a type reconstruction of consultingapproaches, which revealed a dichotomy of contrary viewson the purpose of consulting, the principles behind it, therelationship to the client and the type of interventionsrequired. The main characteristics of each of these twoviews or approaches can be summarized as follows:

a) The first approach (incidentally very heteroge-neous in content) – referred to here as “business processconsulting” or simply “business consulting” – concen-trates its activities around its own expertise in the specif-ic problems to be resolved in a given organization. In thissense, the consulting activities serve to determine exist-ing external and internal problems, provide detailed rec-ommendations for resolving these problems and help theorganization to implement these recommendations from amanagement perspective. This fits well, for example, withthe McKinsey guiding principle: “Take a top managementperspective.“ As long as the organization implements therecommendations as suggested, there is no reason whythey should not produce the desired effect (cf. the stan-dard paradigm in Moldaschl 2001a:139). Behind this con-cept lies the notion of a rational process, i.e. we have a

problem; this problem can be resolved using specificmeasures (for rational decision-making see Simon 1981).

b) The second approach centers its activities ondesigning of processes that encourage organizationaldevelopment and is referred to here as “systemic processconsulting” or simply “process consulting” (this kind ofapproach is often systemic in nature; cf. Nagel and Wim-mer 2002; Groth 1999; Königswieser and Hillebrand 2004;for various forms of organizational development see alsoTrebesch 2000). Its particular expertise lies in the designof organizational development and/or problem-solvingprocesses, whereby it also assumes that any necessarybusiness expertise will be available in the organizationitself (cf. the proceduralist paradigm in Moldaschl2001a:140). The paramount question here is how toempower consulting clients to activate and make bestpossible use of system-inherent potential and resources.Consulting becomes a self-help guideline. Behind thisapproach lies a concept of momentum (autopoiesis) foundin a particularly elaborated form in modern sociologicalsystems theory (Luhmann 2000, Baecker 2003).

A careful examination of the differences betweenbusiness process and systemic process consulting uncov-ers a number of levels. These are compared in detail in thefollowing table.

*next page

Consulting is oriented around a specific business issuein the organization and provides appropriate professio-nal expertise regarding effective interventions. It offersquick results that can usually be measured in economicterms.

Consulting follows a clear goal: it should help to resolveexisting problems. Project goals must be clearly definedif consultants are to be able to propose detailed measu-res for reaching these goals.

The consultant system develops appropriate conceptsbased on these goals and proposes measures for theirimplementation. In this way, it makes decisions for theorganization.

The consultant system steers the organization and assu-mes a kind of leadership function.

The consultants introduce specific, contentrelated know-ledge into the organization. The client must thereforestrive to acquire and apply this knowledge.

In this respect, consulting not only stabilizes existingorganizational structures, it also improves certain struc-tures and promotes problem-solving competences.

Business consulting follows the logic behind the way theorganization thinks and acts. It uses language the clientsystem understands and orients itself on the economicrationality of organizational processes.

The high level of standardization enables firms to deployjunior consultants after a relatively short training period.This is important for larger consulting firms, who com-pensate high consultant turnover through elaborateknowledge management efforts. The consulting firmplays the central role in the consulting services, the con-sultants can be replaced as required. This enforces theneed for a stylized corporate identity.

Consulting focuses on the development process in deter-mining the requirements placed on the organization andtherefore provides process know-how. Promises thatclients will be better able to deal with problems in thefuture.

The consulting process orients itself on the dynamics oforganizational development requirements. As a result ofits open procedural approach, the status of the develop-ment is checked at regular intervals.

Consulting supports the organization in its decision-making processes, whereby responsibility remains in theorganization. This requires a permanent process of nego-tiation and reflection.

Consulting is seen as a process of co-construction inwhich goals are negotiated.

Consulting encourages the organization to mobilize itsproblem-solving competences, thus promoting activelearning and self-initiative on the part of the client.

Consulting questions the dynamics of the organization inquestion and thus promotes its ability to design deve-lopment processes.

Process consulting maintains a greater distance to theclient system to enable it to uncover the organization’s spe-cific blind spots. It orients itself on the social logic of orga-nizational action with a strong focus on communication.

The limited opportunities for standardization in consul-ting processes and the highly tuned social skills thatconsultants must have for the negotiation processeswith the client require the use of highly experienced con-sultants. As a result, process consulting firms are gene-rally smaller in size and their consultants are older. Thepersonalities of these consultants play the central role.

Principles

Practice

Business Process Consulting Systemic Process Consulting

Relationship between Client and Consultant System

The relationship between the client and the consultantsystem is based on the difference between their respec-tive levels of knowledge: the consultant system has theparticular knowledge required to fill the gap in knowled-ge or skills identified in the client system. This differen-ce creates an asymmetrical relationship of cooperation.

Business consulting introduces already existing know-ledge into the respective organization. An initial analysisis therefore oriented on any adaptation requirements.

The client system is dependent on the professionalexpertise of the consultant system and basically electsthe level of consulting required when it awards the con-tract. The consultant system defines the consulting pro-cedure within the framework of this contract.

The client system is dependent on the professional exper-tise of the consultant system and basically elects the levelof consulting required when it awards the contract. Theconsultant system defines the consulting procedure wit-hin the framework of this contract.

The consultants focus their contacts at managementlevel, often with the aim of establishing a permanentrelationship between the client and consulting firms.

Different forms of expertise are used in the consultingprocess: the client system provides the business know-ledge, while the consultant system contributes sophisti-cated process know-how. It is the combination of boththat guarantees success. Consequently, this form of con-sulting is based on a symmetrical relationship.

Process consulting explores the skills already available inthe organization and the way things are done in its initialanalysis phase. The results of this analysis are used todevelop appropriate process strategies.

The goal of consulting is to strengthen the independen-ce of the client system. As a result, the client systemassumes responsibility on its own and cooperates withthe consultant system in its organizational developmentprocess.

Consulting takes care to include contact to as manymembers of the organization from as many differentunits as possible and keeps the need for consulting to alimit.

The relationship between the client and the consultantsystems is one of mutual respect.

2.2 Deficits of Polarization

Behind these consulting principles, their associatedpractices and the relationship developed in the consultingprocess between the client and consultant systems liespecific assumptions about the way organizations work. Amore mechanistic understanding of organizations basedon economic rationality dominates on the business con-sulting side, while its systemic counterpart favors a moredynamic understanding of organizations using the imagescreated in social processes as the basis for the way peopleact. Nonetheless, both approaches limit the options opento clients, who must choose between two conflicting alter-natives. They can concentrate either on resolving functio-nal deficits (and thus on externalizing the justification forplanned rationalization measures) or on ensuring thesustained development of the company’s own problem-solving competences and potential.

It can therefore come as no surprise that clients arebecoming increasingly critical of the one-sidedness ofeach particular approach. After all, when they opt for oneof them, they “buy in” not only its strengths, but also itsweaknesses. Successfully filling any functional or busi-ness gaps will be of little use if the workforce does notfully participate. Similarly, resolving any problems incommunication processes will also be of little use ifthere are still functional deficiencies to resolve and thecompany is under economic pressure. Consequently,companies increasingly expect solutions which combinethe strengths of both approaches. This is also linked tothe management expectation that consulting will provi-de them with greater control in an increasingly complexand dynamic inner and outer environment, despite pres-sure from different interest groups, thereby helping themto negotiate their way through the jungle of differentmanagement trends (Kieser 2002:59 et seqq.).

Table 1: Differences between Business Process and Systemic Process Consulting

In addition, there is also the question of how theconsultant system obtains the knowledge required todevelop its intervention strategies, and each approachhas its own thoughts on this matter. Business processconsulting tries to identify the gaps in knowledge andexpertise in the organization that need to be filledthrough the consulting process. This requires an analy-sis of the problem at the start of the project and, ideally,a check that the goals have been achieved at the end.Systemic process consulting on the other hand tries tofoster organizational self-development by identifyingexisting potential and barriers. An approach of this natu-re requires more than a simple one-off diagnosis of theorganization at the start of the project: repeated analy-ses of organizational dynamics must be included asfeedback loops in the consulting process.

But both forms of knowledge creation focus lesson the client’s existing situation and constraints andmore on their own options for action. By integrating thepeculiarities of that particular company into their own(one-sided) consulting strategy, they establish a connec-tion with the client. In doing so, both approaches followa logic of subsumption: you take a general strategy andlook for points that fit this strategy in the company. If youare careful and adept enough, you are bound to find sui-table points somewhere. That’s why process consultantslook to convince clients that successful organizationaldevelopment can only be achieved through a continuousand lasting furtherance of internal problem-solving skillsand mobilization of acceptance. Business process con-sulting on the other hand offers the prospect of a quicksolution to the problem by providing the company withaccess to the necessary know-how. However, what’s mis-sing in both cases is a reflection on the suitability ofgeneral consulting strategies and individual interven-tions for the actual situation in the company in question.This includes, for example, the interests promoted by aparticular approach, how the consulting is embedded inthe organization’s power system, the extent to which aspecific positioning of consulting in the organizationcould restrict its scope. Yet it is exactly this reflectivedistance that is needed to enable development thatsatisfies the company’s different requirements, regard-less of the internal combination of interests.

3. The Problems of Combining The Two Different Approaches

Consulting approaches that ignore this polarizationtherefore have to overcome two central problems. Firstly,they have to find a way of combining the two approachesthat, despite their incompatibilities, increases the optionsopen to the client consultant system. Secondly, they have

to find a way of promoting internal reflection that maintainsa critical distance to the client and prevents individual inte-rest groups in the client system from subliminally monopo-lizing (often in the interests of management) the situationand obstructing the view of processes in the company.

To establish a more accurate indication of how syste-mic and business process consulting can be combined inpractice, a two-year research project was set up in coope-ration with a consulting firm (Königswieser & Network) toanalyze their experiences of working with a combined stra-tegy in a number of ongoing projects. For this purpose,interviews were held with consultants working on theseconsulting projects. The interviews were interpreted, andthe intermediate results mirrored to the consulting firm andparticipating network partners in a workshop setting. Atotal of five such workshops were analyzed and also usedto plan the next steps in the actual consulting projects.

3.1 How Differences are Viewed and the Result: “Muddling Through”.

At first glance, launching a combined consultingproject using experts from both approaches seems easy:all you have to do fulfil the client’s wish and combine thetwo sets of knowledge and expertise. The expected ad-vantages of a combined approach are also plausible: allthe strengths, none of the weaknesses and, an addedbenefit, it is very much in the client’s interest.

What in theory sounds like such a promising“happy medium”, turns out in practice to be a totallyunrealistic hope. Popular descriptions of the two appro-aches and their integrability are often based on threecommon, misleading myths which highlight the actualproblems encountered in any attempts at combination:

Myth 1: process consulting focuses solely on processes.In practice, typical process consulting cases are oftenconfronted with demanding content-related issues thathave to be resolved on site. To satisfy client demands,some way of dealing with these issues is usually found.Consequently, most systemic process consulting pro-jects also involve some elements of business processconsulting. But it is in precisely this combination that avery particular problem can arise: organization’s havevery high expectations of such solutions and thus incre-ase their pressure on the consultant system to accelera-te delivery, when, in fact, it is deceleration that is soimportant in systemic process-oriented consulting (Wim-mer 2004:140 et seq.). If the necessary time and spacecannot be created, process-oriented consulting findsitself increasingly pushed into a legitimizing role. Thiscan then sometimes lead to the criticism that process

consulting (usually systemic consulting) will throw itsprinciples out the window if the situation requires.

Myth 2: business process consulting focuses solely onbusiness issues. This is not even the case in projects withprecise, predefined goals, where business consultingassumes a decision-making and implementation role. Inmany cases, acceptance of the project by the workforce isalso required and, for this reason, some process compo-nents will always have to be included if the project is tosucceed, particularly when it comes to convincing peopleof the benefits of any planned measures. It is through thiscombination with process consulting that new goals orissues affecting the project as a whole are often identifiedin the course of a consulting project. In such cases, busi-ness process consulting may even find itself overtaken bydevelopment dynamics and must adapt to the changes.

Myth 3: If consultants embody both approaches, success-ful integration is guaranteed. In practice, this usually turnsout to be a false assumption because each approach ulti-mately pursues its own, distinct intervention strategy. Thedivergent philosophies behind these strategies mean theycan only ever be semi-compatible. Furthermore, consul-tants in ongoing consulting processes usually find them-selves under pressure to perform and have to resolve con-flicts ad hoc. In doing so, they tend to orient themselvespragmatically on concrete situations and not on the syste-matics of the individual approaches. This, in turn, leads toshort-term monopolization by any dominant managementintentions.

The analysis carried out in the course of the accom-panying study showed that consultants tend to see the“other” approach as an ideal type and therefore restrictedto its own particular field, whereas their own approach ismore universal, adaptable and can be easily applied incross-border situations. Subliminally, they insinuate thattheir counterparts have much to learn, while they them-selves are very open and, in fact, largely do what othersdemand: business consultants consider themselves to beintegrated in a process, while process consultants, in turn,see themselves as helping to solve business problems.But in a combination project, both try to give their ownparticular ideas center stage and accord their counter-parts only a supporting role. As far as the business con-sultants are concerned, their process counterparts carryout the work of winning acceptance for and minimizingresistance to the project (usually from the “stubborn”realms of middle management and the “reluctant” work-force). For process consulting, the “business” compo-nents are additional services that serve to ensure the suc-cess of the project. The result is a conflict-ridden hierar-

chical battle, at times even fought out through the client.On the other hand, consultants who feel equally at homein both approaches are faced with a structural problem:they cannot fulfill the requirements of each approachsimultaneously.

Often the pressure to produce results on the spotprevents the systematic implementation of a combinedstrategy, and the combining of the two approaches gene-rally takes place without any real reflection. This high-lights two problems. Firstly, there is the risk that the twodifferent approaches will undermine each other. Secondly,deviations from a particular approach can often emerge asa result of consulting situations requiring decisions to bemade or resistance overcome. In situations of this kind,the “other” approach is often relegated to forming part ofa workaround to overcome these difficulties.

This leads to a further difference between the twoapproaches: the closer the consulting ties itself to resol-ving organizational problems, the more it finds itself at themercy of practical realities. These call for a maintaining ofthe principle of rationality as a rescue vessel in the midd-le of a stormy sea, because the management of a compa-ny finds itself caught in the crossfire of expectations andtries to delegate these to the consultants. As soon as soci-al phenomena are separated from practical intentions inthe consulting process and questioned separately, theproblem of rationality immediately comes to the fore (cf.Froschauer 2002). From this perspective, process consul-ting projects might have less in common with urgentmanagement demands (particularly in a crisis), but theyare also more critical of what goes on in a company. Howe-ver, it should also not be borne in mind that the linking ofconsulting activities to corporate interests can never betruly free from intentions and constricts the unrestrictedview of organizational dynamics.

The linking of the two approaches thus turns intothe kind of decision-making process referred to in a politi-cal or administrative context as the “muddling through”(Lindblom 1959) or later the “garbage can” model. Accor-ding to this model, when people opt for a “small steps”policy, they orient themselves largely on current require-ments without any real further reflection. However, thissometimes causes consultants to lose sight of highergoals and can make the consulting process a little erratic.This is compounded by the fact that pressure to deliversolutions gives business consulting the upper hand and,all of a sudden, a well thought out consulting strategy iscircumvented. But there is also an unpleasant side to adecision-making “garbage can” into which all manner ofdecision-makers drop problems and solutions. If, forexample, decisions are expected on specific occasions,the various participants can take advantage of the garba-

ge can to rummage around in the heap of available pro-blems and solutions. Decisions are then used for thebenefit of different interests, in attempts to gain influence,for defining problems or problem-solving strategies, whe-reby the actual decision-making process largely eludesany predictable calculation (March 1988). But the factshould also not be ignored that according to the garbagecan model although a large number of rational processestake place, the context surrounding any final decision isnonetheless so ambiguous and contradictory that it can atbest be referred to as bounded rationality.

3.2 Incompatibilities between the Approaches

The analysis revealed that in combined consultingprocesses, consultants try to adopt a patchwork strategythat is flexible both to their own approach and to that oftheir counterparts. This only works as long as there is nodeclared consulting strategy and everyone works to atacit, unspoken understanding (which would otherwisebe exposed as fiction). Although this enables them touphold their own view of things, it is also a constantsource of conflicts in the consulting process, conflictsbattled out both within the consulting team and in thecompany itself – with unpleasant consequences for allconcerned.

However, behind these practical everyday rela-tionship strategies lies a methodological problem: eachapproach has a different understanding of consulting.The study revealed three fundamental areas of incompa-tibility which question the suitability of a simple combi-nation of the two approaches for consulting projects:

a) Incompatible concepts: as shown above, thetwo approaches are clearly incompatible on a number ofcounts. The business process approach with its mecha-nistic understanding of organizations has satisfactorysolutions to offer for many problems. That’s why boththe process and the expected results are clearly definedand form a major part of the consulting agreement. If theorganization then still does not function properly, thereason must lie in its poor implementation of the propo-sed solutions. Conversely, there are no clear problems orobvious solutions in the systemic process approach. Pro-blems are identified collectively in the client consultantsystem and then looked for using a strategy loosely cou-ple to existing organizational dynamics. In the process,the organization should learn to recognize and deal withboth current and future problems on its own. Whereas inbusiness consulting the journey from problem to solu-tion is clearly mapped out, in process consulting noteven the road to the problem is totally clear, and the

quest for the solution is more complex still. Integratingthe two approaches would require each to concede someground: business consulting would have to give up itslinearity and process consulting its openness. The lack ofcompatibility in basic principles would mean each siderevealing its strengths, yet receiving no adequate com-pensation in return.

b) Incompatible expectations: clients who favorthe business process approach generally expect the con-sultants to tell them what to do next. The advice theyreceive is often linked to cost-cutting and rationalizationmeasures. These issues are stabilized by the work of theconsulting team, whereby a large proportion of consul-ting projects are follow-on projects. Conversely, whenclients with prior experience of process consulting con-tact a consultancy, their expectations center around theassumption that any solutions will be developed as ajoint effort between the consultant and client systems. Inthis sense, although clients criticize the shortcomings ofeach approach, they themselves also foster one-sidedexpectations of consulting. In practice, attempts torepresent both approaches often ultimately involve ananalysis of what the client actually wants and the imple-mentation of the approach that best suits these wishes.This is not integrated consulting, it is simply a decisionon the part of a consultant system to use one particularapproach and, at the same time, incorporate someaspects of the other into the consulting process. In manycases, the client is not even aware that these are twoconflicting consulting strategies and that they cannotreally be combined without friction.

c) Structural conflicts in an integrated consultantsystem: consulting firms who offer a combined approachmust have access to all the different competences requi-red in their own consultant system. Furthermore, theymust also be able to reconcile the incompatibilities des-cribed above. However, consultants who take their taskseriously, find themselves confronted in this situationwith conflicting expectations. For example, whereasbusiness process consultants should resolutely seekclear guidelines, their process oriented colleagues mightsee this as totally counterproductive and try to torpedothis requirement. After all, it contradicts their own con-cept of what constitutes “reputable” or “good” consul-ting. As a result, the consultant system finds itself threa-tened by an internal siege, fought out in the worst casein the firm itself. This is further compounded by the issueof lead. Which approach should take the lead when noconsensus can be reached? Should it be business con-sulting with its promise of quick solutions to actual pro-

blems (with process consulting in tow to ensure that theproposed solution wins acceptance)? Or should it beprocess consulting with its analysis of the roots of anyconcrete problems and subsequent cooperative searchfor ways to overcome these problems in the system (withsupport from business consulting)? The issue here iswho should assume the leading role and who gets thesupporting role. However, this would, in turn, require adecision on the fundamental approach to be taken to theconsulting and thus run counter to an integration of thetwo approaches.

Experience of combined consulting processes indi-cates that these are not only confronted with problems inthe client system, they also face internal difficulties in theconsultant system as well. The client’s often unrealisticexpectations of what can be achieved through consultingcannot really be fulfilled using one single approach. Typi-cal problems in a business process oriented project inclu-de: a lack of acceptance in the organization, resistance(often considerable) to certain measures; the limitedsustainability of the imposed changes; a loss of trust; arise in the number of conflicts and reduction in teamwork(cf. Kolbeck 2001:42 et seq.). In this case, some aspectsof a process oriented strategy are required, althoughsince they ultimately only remove the symptoms of a pro-blem and do not offer any solutions, they can only everhave a partial effect. Furthermore, specific settings in aconsulting process often tend to force one side into thebackground, a situation that becomes all the more likelyif consultant(s) try to resolve ongoing, process problemsusing a business process oriented approach. This is alsorelated to the criticisms of process oriented consulting,namely that it takes too long, offers few guidelines for theclient, defines problems in an overly complex way and istotally unsuitable for crisis situations. To avoid these cri-ticisms, process consulting finds itself in the awkwardposition of having to adapt to the current situation andthus no longer remaining true to its own claims. In thisrespect, it runs the risk of creating similar problems tobusiness process consulting.

The business interests of the consulting firm alsoplay a key role here. If a consulting firm is determined towin a contract at all costs, it will tend to accommodateclient requirements as far as possible: a strong argumentfor connectivity. However, if it decides that irritations arerequired to induce a willingness on the part of the clientto change, it will have to establish the necessary distan-ce and thereby risk not only losing the contract, but alsothe possible continuation of a project and any subse-quent economic consequences for its own company.Consequently, economic interests superimpose the cho-ice of consulting approach. Consultants can only make a

free choice if they distance themselves from their busi-ness interests – an improbable scenario given that con-sulting firms also form part of the economic system andthus also need clients.The situation is intensified by the fact that each of thetwo approaches lays claim to its own rationality. Busi-ness consulting claims to deliver a rational solution to aproblem that can therefore be planned. Process consul-ting assumes that it can indeed use targeted communi-cation to intervene rationally in the way an organizationfunctions, causing it at least to move in a desired direc-tion. However, it also emphasizes that neither the coursenor the result of any interventions can actually be pre-dicted (cf. Königswieser and Exner 1998:13; Nagel andWimmer 2002:291 et seq.). In this way, the rational stee-rability of organizations remains unquestioned as abasis for legitimizing consulting activities. Neubergerrefers in a consulting context here to organizationalhypocrisy: “It creates the impression both inside andoutside the organization that those responsible believein rationality, control, predictability, transparency, effi-ciency, etc. and are trying to put things right, only then toturn round and do what realpolitik demands or allows.”(Neuburger 2002:159). In this context, researchers,managers and consultants alike are all part of a symbo-lic “management” that conveys the myth of predictabili-ty and steerability.

Weick (2001; see also 1995) radicalizes this posi-tion in his retrospective model of rationality. Accordingto this model, people act first, then understand and final-ly try to make sense of their actions. A weighing up ofgoals, options and purposes slips into the background,while rationality gains importance in meta communica-tion on decisions and in legitimation strategies for safe-guarding leadership. Thus, rationality not only providesorientation, it also assumes a legitimation function. In aconsulting context, this means that when consultantswant others to see what they are doing as sensible, theyrefer to it as rational. Decisions can then later be justifiedunder the pretext of rationality, while the rhetorical refe-rence to rationality serves to create room for furtherdecisions. As a result, depending on the context, consul-ting might seem “rational” without actually being so.

4. A Bridging Function

If it is indeed the case that neither of the twoapproaches can be implemented in their pure form, andthe rationality of consulting behavior is also precarious,how then can these two approaches be combined toensure that they both support (not obstruct) each otherand, at the same time, enable systematic, albeit not

completely steerable, organizational development? Aspart of the accompanying study, the concept of “reflecti-ve-differentiating” consulting was developed to addressthis question and places two components firmly in theforeground. On the one hand, it emphasizes the impor-tance of permanent reflection in consulting activities formaking sense of the inherent logic of an organization(also with respect to bounded logic) and the consequen-ces of any interventions as well as systematizing the fle-xibility of the consulting process in the context of orga-nizational dynamics (hence reflective) On the other, itassumes the differences between the two approachescannot be surmounted and that a specific strategy is the-refore required to deal with the different views (hencedifferentiating).

The following section provides an explanation ofthe image of organizations presumed by such an appro-ach and is followed by a description of its idiosyncrasies.

4.1 Reflection: the Consequence of a Specific View of Organizations

Behind such a concept of consulting behavior liesa very specific view of organizations based on an inter-active construction of reality (e.g. Shibutani 2000).Weick (1995) refers here to the sensemaking process inorganizations, which enables people to act by lining theworld with coherence as context and thus creating orderand predictability. It is therefore assumed that, in theconsulting process, this collective framing of reality is abasic condition for collective consulting action. Thismakes it all the more important to understand the parti-cular views used by the members of an organization andwhich influence their behavior. Consequently, consultingcannot therefore assume the existence of a quasi “objec-tive reality” for the organization. Instead, it must takeinto account the views shared by specific groups in theorganization (also with regard to consulting). It mustconsider not only the bare facts, but also the way they fitinto a particular sensemaking context. Not just themanagement perspective counts, but also the views ofthe workforce, who view certain issues from their every-day experiences in the organization.

Communication plays a central role in this kind ofapproach. However, is it a common misconception thatsimply passing on information will be enough to transferknowledge. Modern communication theories refer in thiscontext to three different sub-processes (cf. Luhmann1988:11): the selection of the information (“What I wantto say!”), the selection of a communication form (“How Iwant to say it!”) and the selection of a sensemakingmodel (“How it will be understood!”). Accordingly, each

message or action can be interpreted in many differentways and, indeed, if communication is an expected partof a particular interaction, the very act of not communi-cating can itself be seen and interpreted as a form ofcommunication (e.g. as an affront or as ignorance). Ifattempts to improve the flow of information in an organi-zation oversee a lack of confidence in management onthe part of the workforce, it is quite possible that anyimprovement in the information flow will only serve toexacerbate the communication problems: structuringthe information could awaken the impression that im-portant matters are being concealed: increasing theamount of information available could encourage thenotion that staff are being flooded with information toprevent them from identifying important issues. Accor-dingly, the significance of interventions lies not in theirintentions, but only becomes apparent when any reac-tions are also considered.

This, in turn, reveals a further characteristic of thisunderstanding of organizations: to be able to act in anorganization, the actors require an image of their ownorganization for orientation purposes, created by areduction in complexity. Therefore, the planning of a con-sulting process should reflect the issues that commandthe attention of the actors in an organization and the waythey order ongoing events to give them meaning andmeet their own expectations. Only in this way will theyestablish connection points which make pertinent infor-mation accessible to the organization or open up oppor-tunities for organizations themselves to discover alter-native views and expand their options.

Established structures within the organization sta-bilize the social order and make behavior predictable.The structuring of an organization thus creates an orderby which things, people and behaviors can be linked in arule-based context. This order reflects cooperative rela-tionships and stipulates patterns of behavior and, at thesame time, creates principles which regulate communi-cation and behavior in general. Consultancy finds itselfconfronted with these historically rooted structures andmust take on the task of determining their meaning andconsequences in order for the organization to reveal furt-her opportunities.

These three components, namely communication,meaning and structure, show that organizations are notfixed, but constantly changing entities. As far as commu-nication is concerned, this results from the fact that eachobservation has to be interpreted, which in turn opensup a multitude of options. With regard to meaning, eve-rything is placed in a relevant time context, where expec-tations based on previous experience are drawn uponand, in turn modified to reflect the interpretation of the

current experience. This repeated, regular creation ofmeaning produces structures which, as a result of thefragile sensemaking process, are subject to constantchange and which can be completely detached from theintentions of the members of the organization. Thisexplains why problems frequently surface in organiza-tions that are known to both staff and management and,although they are affected by these problems, they cannonetheless to do nothing about. In cases like these,external help is needed to learn how such problemsdevelop in the organization, the purpose they serve andwhat is preventing their successful resolution.

Consultancy cannot ignore the culture and the waythings are done in an organization if it wants to under-stand what motivates specific client interests, what cau-ses certain problems or why people react to interven-tions in a particular way. This should not be misinterpre-ted as a demand for the organization to change. The aimis not to gather hard facts, but to understand their con-text. Consultancy has to take the internal and externalplayers in an organization seriously if it is to provide thesupport an organization needs in its efforts to sustain-ably master complex demands. This requires the com-mitment of the workforce, commitment that can only beobtained through reliable assumptions on what might beimportant to them and how this commitment and theiridentification with the organization can be fostered andchanneled into a shared vision. Consultants thereforejuxtapose their own observations, knowledge and beha-vior with the organization’s perspective, knowledge andbehavior and thus establish the context for any interven-tion strategies.

Such a view highlights the reflective nature of aconsulting process, which according to Moldaschl(2001a:145 et seq.; also 2001b:164 et seq.) is determinedby three criteria: an understanding of how it is embeddedin a social context; a consideration of any unintentionalresults of its own actions; an application of grounded the-ories and methods to itself. This, however, applies to thecomplete client consultant system, namely the consultingfirm and the organization receiving the consulting servi-ces. The consultant system must link its heterogeneousconstructions of reality with those of the organization andconstantly reconsider the significance of its positioningas well as the consequences of its activities in the organi-zation. When applied logically to the client system, thismeans encouraging the organization to consider its ownpositioning in the client consultant system, since this isthe only way of ensuring sustainability.

This applies in particular to heterogeneity in reali-ty constructions and their consequences for strategies ofaction (and thus also the establishing of a consulting

process in the client’s organization), but also to thedistribution of influence (in the sense of power and con-trol) or the way irritations are processed (e.g. organiza-tional learning). To provide access to the informationrequired for continual reflection on consulting activitiesand structuring the various consulting components, anaccompanying analysis is required to help both the con-sultant system and the organization reveal blind spotsand establish a better understanding of the consultingdynamics, on which basis a collective view of the organi-zation can be developed. However, it is not the task of anaccompanying analysis to force a particular view on theclient consultant system. Instead, it suggests possiblemeanings which may (but do not have to) be taken up inthe consulting process. Providing the client consultantsystem with reliable (consulting-independent) informa-tion on the state of developments requires as indepen-dent and critical a view as possible. The client systemand the consulting activities form the two central star-ting points here. The client consulting system can thendecide which use it makes of this knowledge. This alsomeans that a single analysis will not suffice to design aconsulting process (this would imply that it can be plan-ned rationally). Instead, this reflection must form anintegral part of the entire consulting process (in the formof self-reflection).

4.2 Differentiation: a Concept Beyond Polarization

Bridges between two poles are generally charact-erized by the fact that they establish a link and enabletransfer between the two. The study on combining diffe-rent approaches to consulting showed, however, thatthis alone does not suffice. The bridge itself must repre-sent an independent place of action accessible from bothsides (and not just a way from one side to the other). Itthen becomes a place where views are negotiated, amarketplace for ideas, a framework for intervention stra-tegies and a place of reflection on those componentsbrought from either side. If taken seriously, this meta-phor raises the question of how such an independentconcept would need to be constructed.

Firstly, it requires a stable grounding in bothapproaches, i.e. the consultant system must encompassboth sets of competences. This means that the consultantsystem must be at home on both sides of the bridge(core competences in both approaches) to be able tomeet as client consultant system on the bridge. However,this does not help to overcome their structural conflicts,which is why additional provisions also have to be made.These include at least some knowledge of the otherapproach. This might still not resolve the contradictions,

but it at least establishes basic understanding of whythe other side acts the way it does in the client systemand the strategies behind this behavior.

Secondly, the two different consulting approachesare not amalgamated, rather they are each used for dif-ferent purposes depending on the context and theirrespective functions in the consulting process. Thisextends the options open to the consulting process, butalso requires a two-track process architecture whichreflects the different areas of responsibility. The requiredsystemic or business process competences must be defi-ned for each of the individual architectural elements.Here, coordination (in the sense of developing a consi-stent consulting strategy, not an homogenous approach)is a delicate issue in regulating areas of conflict.

Thirdly, the exchange of views between the twoapproaches is not applicable to the whole consultingproject, but runs selectively through the entire consul-ting process. It surfaces at those points where decisionson the next steps are made. Accordingly, this kind of gap-determined consulting reflects and identifies its ownstrengths and weaknesses (and those of the organiza-tion) with regard to the issues or processes in question,thereby perhaps providing the organization with innova-tive problem-solving strategies.

Fourthly, to provide appropriate decision-makingsupport, an accompanying analysis process will berequired, which focuses on what takes place in the orga-nization during the consulting process, in particular inrelation to the consulting itself. This meta analysis exa-mines what is triggered by the consulting and why this isthe case. This kind of analysis is by no means restrictedto an assessment of whether the desired effects havebeen achieved or not. Instead, it also attempts to takeoverall corporate development into account to obtain apicture of any accompanying symptoms (e.g. unintentio-nal side-effects of interventions). The knowledge gene-rated in the process forms the basis for the subsequentsteps in the consulting process (formative evaluation).

All in all, the sustained development of organiza-tional processes is a core component of this kind of com-bined approach. In this sense, it tries to harmonize thetwo consulting concepts so that in the event of the needto intervene in a crisis, short-term emergency measurescan be introduced into a long-term development con-cept. This leads to a focus on the development of pro-blem-solving strategies from current problems for futureproblems, whereby the process-oriented coaching helpsdefine appropriate business-related support and todetermine any need for external support (e.g. through anetwork of consultants or the introduction of a supervi-sion arrangement for the consulting team).

5. Reflective-differentiating Consulting: Developments To Date

The key to combining both approaches lies in theintroduction of structural provisions that offer a way ofdealing with the conflicting requirements and strategicimplications of the two consulting strategies. Continualreflection on ongoing experiences is an indispensablecomponent in a differentiating process of this nature andincludes:

• Repeated reflection periods throughout the interven-tion, which require both distance from any ongoingactivities and a critical approach to the consulting pro-cess itself. This applies to the behavior of both consul-tants and organization alike.

• Reciprocal feedback loops within the consultantsystem and between the consultants and the organiza-tion, to handle any interaction between the two appro-aches in an appropriate manner and also to determinethe “mood” in the consulting process.

• Regular definition of upcoming systemic measures andbusiness components to enable a continual fine-tuningof any consulting activities. This should also provide anopportunity to address any unwelcome developmentsat an early stage.

Consulting orients itself around a vision of how theorganization should develop. This allows it to distanceitself both from any strong links to a particular situation(in the sense of ad hoc decisions) and rigid concepts.Constantly working on this collective vision is vital forthe development of appropriate concepts, for reconcilingthem with the actual situation and/or constraints, aswell as for verifying possible side effects for middle- andlong-term development, without having to commit im-mediately to fixed goals. The aim is to encourage, sup-port and guide organizational self-development, yet nottry to totally control it.

Quality assurance in this sense means establis-hing a critical distance between the creation of knowled-ge of the consulting process and the actual consultingitself, thus avoiding any subsequent temptation to ratio-nalize, explain or even convince oneself of the success ofone’s actions – an aspect of sensemaking explicitly refer-red to by Weick (2001). Only in this way can we keep ourknowledge up-to-date and remain able to react sensiti-vely to any internal views and problems. A supervision ofthe consulting process itself can offer valuable support(Buchinger 1998).

Through the accompanying research project, initi-al experiences with large consulting projects involving

combined consulting teams provided preliminary indica-tions of the advantages and problems associated withsuch an approach. The following problems were identi-fied: the complexity of the client consultant system,because working with two contrary approaches signifi-cantly increased the need for harmonization with a pri-marily consistent overall process (structural problems);functionalization by the client, which regularly pushedaspects of business process consulting into the fore-ground because of their rapid problem solving capabili-ties (speed of reaction), thus forcing the consulting teamto conform to company expectations (short-sightedinstrumentalization) at the expense of sustainability; theregulation of closeness and distance, since both forms ofrelationship blend into each other in reflective-differenti-ating consulting, thus creating different informationflows, loyalties and perspectives within the consultantsystem (conflict-loaded).

However, these implementation difficulties arecompensated for by the following qualitative advantagesfor the consulting process: the increased tapping of ent-repreneurial potential through a linking of concrete busi-ness support with sustainable development of the com-pany’s problem-solving repertoire; the increase in accep-tance in the company for change processes by building astrategy for the future together; the improvement in thecompany’s internal capacity to reflect through an enhan-ced ability to observe.

Behind these positive effects lie the improvedability of organizations to learn and the advancement ofcorporate self-development and adaptability (cf. Wim-mer 2004:190 et seqq.). However, effectively implemen-ting a concept of this nature requires a combined set ofvalues and views in the consultant system. This is notsomething that can be forced. The prerequisites for this,namely a relationship of mutual trust and respect for theother side’s expertise and a striving for understanding oftheir procedures, similarly cannot be achieved throughmutual assurance, rather only through a systematic in-ternal information policy and continual harmonization ofinterventions in the consultant system. Reflection pha-ses and an external supervisory analysis are a possibleway of addressing the differences and thus enablingconstructive collaboration despite the contradictions.

6. References

Baecker, D. (2003): Organisation und Management. Frankfurt/Main:Suhrkamp.

Buchinger, K. (1998): Supervision in Organisationen. Den Wandelbegleiten. Heidelberg: Carl-Auer, 2. Edition

Froschauer, U. (2002): Was heißt „Steuerbarkeit“? Verblassende

Mythen zielorientierter Kommunikation in Organisationen. In: Neumann-Braun Klaus (Hg.): Medienkultur und Kulturkritik.

Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag, p. 112 - 132.

Froschauer, U. & Lueger, M. (2003): Das qualitative Interview. Zur Praxis interpretativer Analyse sozialer Systeme. Wien: WUV.

Groth, T. (1999): Wie systemisch ist „Systemische Organisationsbe-ratung“? Neuere Beratungskonzepte für Organisationen im Kontextder Luhmannschen Systemtheorie. Münster: LIT.

Kieser, A. (2002): Wissenschaft und Beratung. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter.

Kolbeck, C. (2001): Zukunftsperspektiven des Beratungsmarktes.Eine Studie zur klassischen und systemischen Beratungsphiloso-phie. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitätsverlag.

Königswieser, R. & Exner, A. (1998): Systemische Interventionen.Architekturen und Designs für Berater und Veränderungsmanager,Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.

Königswieser, R. & Hillebrand, M. (2004): Einführung in die systemische Organisationsberatung. Heidelberg: Carl Auer.

Lindblom, C. E. (1959): The Science of Muddling Through. In: Public Administration Review 19, p. 79-88.

Lueger, M. (2001): Auf den Spuren der sozialen Welt. Methodologieund Organisierung interpretativer Sozialforschung. Frankfurt et al.:Peter Lang.

Luhmann, N. (1988): Was ist Kommunikation. In: Simon Fritz B.(Hg.): Lebende Systeme. Wirklichkeitskonstruktio-nen in der systemischen Therapie. Berlin u.a.: Springer, S. 10 – 18.

Luhmann, N. (2000): Organisation und Entscheidung. Opladen-Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.

March, J.G. (1988): Decisions and Organizations. Oxford-New York:Basil Blackwell.

Moldaschl, M. (2001a): Reflexive Beratung. Eine Alternative zu strategischen und systemischen Ansätzen. In: Degele, N., Münch,T., Pongratz, H., Saam, N. (Eds.): Soziologische Beratungsforschung.Perspektiven für Theorie und Praxis der Organisationsberatung,Opladen: leske+budrich, p. 133-157.

Moldaschl, M. (2001b): Implizites Wissen und reflexive Intervention.In: Senghaas-Knobloch, E. (Ed.): Macht, Kooperation und Subjekti-vität in betrieblichen Veränderungsprozessen. Münster u.a.: LIT.

Nagel, R. & Wimmer, R. (2002): Systemische Strategieentwicklung.Modelle und Instrumente für Berater und Entscheider. Stuttgart:Klett-Cotta.

Neuberger, O. (2002): Rate mal! Phantome, Philosophien und Phasen der Beratung. In: Mohe, M., Heinecke, H.J., Pfriem, R. (Eds.):Consulting – Problemlösung als Geschäftsmodell. Theorie, Praxis,Markt. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, p. 135-161.

Tamotsu, S. (2000): Social Processes. An Introduction to Sociology.San Jose u.a.: iUniverse.com.

Simon, H.A. (1981): Entscheidungsverhalten in Organisationen. Eine Untersuchung von Entscheidungsprozessen in Managementund Verwaltung. Landsberg am Lech: verlag moderne industrie, 3rd Edition

Trebesch, K. (2000): Organisationsentwicklung: Konzepte, Strategien, Fallstudien. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.

Türk, K. (1995): „Die Organisation der Welt“: Herrschaft durch Organisation in der modernen Gesellschaft. Opladen: Westdeut-scher Verlag.

Weber, M. (1980): Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Tübingen: Mohr, 5th Edition

Weick, K.E. (1985): Der Prozeß des Organisierens. Frankfurt/Main:Suhrkamp.

Weick, K.E. (1995): Sensemaking in Organizations. Newbury Park-London-New Delhi: Sage.

Weick, K.E. (2001): „Drop your Tools!“ Ein Gespräch mit Karl E.Weick. In: Bardmann, T.M. & Groth, T. (Eds.): Zirkuläre Positionen 3. Organisation, Management und Beratung. Wiesbaden: Westdeut-scher Verlag, p. 123–138.

Wimmer, R. (2004): Organisation und Beratung. SystemtheoretischePerspektiven für die Praxis. Heidelberg: Carl-Auer.

Roswita Königswieser / Martin HillebrandSystemic Consultancy in Organisations

Order Form

Available at your local bookshop or by post from:

Carl-Auer Verlag, Häusserstr. 14, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany

Fax +49 (62 21) 64 38 22

Roswita Königswieser /Martin Hillebrand

Systemic consultancy in Organisations, Concepts-Tools-Innovations

in print 2005

www.carl-auer.de Please use capital letters!

NAME

EMAIL

DATE/SIGNATURE

STREET

TOWN

Roswita Königswieser, Dr. phil.

Königswieser & Network

Systemische Beratung und Entwicklung GmbH, Wien

Focus: systemic consulting in complex change processes in interna-

tional organizations; integration of business process and systemic

process consulting; scientific research and publications; executive

coaching; training for change managers and consultants.

Martin Hillebrand, Dipl.-Psych.

Königswieser & Network

Focus: design and coaching for complex, sustainable change process-

es; implementation of strategies for planning, target agreements and

remuneration systems; training for change managers and consultants.

Within a few short years, systemic organizational con-sultancy has developed into an effective consulting ap-proach and is becoming increasingly popular in profitand non-profit organizations alike. It particularly out-shines conventional consulting methods in situationswhere these have reached their limitations. RoswitaKönigswieser and Martin Hillebrand provide a conciseand well-founded introduction to the idiosyncrasies ofthis approach and describe the characteristic attitudeand view of the world that set systemic consultantsapart. The authors offer a fascinating insight into theirmany years of consulting experience and include casestudies from large and medium-size organizations toillustrate the practical implementation of their interven-tion techniques.The book presents the principles of systemic organiza-tional consultancy in a well-founded and practical manner. It also includes a series of five supplementary articles,which explore some of the key issues that can influenceorganizational dynamics and are of particular relevancein a consulting context.

“We have experienced many different consultingapproaches and forms of management training in thepast, but the work done by Königswieser & Network wastruly remarkable. It is largely thanks to them that theemployees involved in the project in our organization arenow highly motivated, raring to go and brimming withenthusiasm.” Wilhelm Braun, Eurovia Services