A Practical Example of Client Resistance to Change
Summary:
In this article, we discuss a case from our own practice, where the management of a Slovenian family business from central Slovenia hired our consulting firm to help them develop mutual relationships, leadership systems, internal communication, and increase employee motivation. Most importantly, we aimed to guide two brothers—both owners and directors of a computer company—to better distinguish between their roles as brothers and family members from their roles as leaders and directors. This distinction was intended to significantly contribute to the planned new development cycle of the company. After three months of collaboration, they discontinued all the consulting processes we gradually introduced. The article attempts to answer the question of what went wrong, causing the planned psychodynamic consulting processes, including individual coaching for both brothers, to be terminated before they fully developed. Were the expectations of the brothers incorrect, and was their willingness to implement changes and work on themselves too weak? We try to understand the psychological defense mechanisms that prevented both protagonists of our case from entering the change process. Did we, as consultants, inadequately explain the working methods, the timeline, and emphasize the mutual responsibility for the successful initiation and final positive outcome of the consulting process? We conclude with a reflection on whether it is possible to avoid similar situations in the future, which, in a way, represent a professional failure, and certainly a business one.
Key words: consulting, coaching, resistance to change, defense mechanisms, projection
1. Introduction: About the Company and Brief Family History
The company was established in the early 1990s from an electronic device repair workshop run by the father of the two brothers who are now the owners and directors. The parents, the father—the founder and long-time owner of a once well-established electronics service, and the mother—are still alive and vital. The company’s website states that they are a family business focused on perfection and absolute customer satisfaction. Both brothers are co-owners and directors, and their father was officially part of the company’s management for a while.
In recent years, the company has focused on complex products, a large portion of which are intended for export. A few years ago, they moved into newly built, modernly equipped premises. Currently, they employ around 40 staff, half of whom are IT experts—equipment engineers, programmers, and developers. The company was operating successfully and was planning new expansions at the time of our collaboration.
The peculiarity of the relationships within the company is the almost incredible blending and intertwining of family/private and professional/occupational roles among the brothers, their wives, and their parents. The brothers are about forty-five years old. Both have sons who, for now, do not plan or show interest in working for the company. However, both wives are employed by the company. The brothers and their families live in a large family house, which has been expanded over the years and where they grew up with their parents. The brothers, especially the older one, consider this situation and way of life to be completely normal and without any reservations or embarrassment, they state that they cannot imagine life (including work life) without their parents, as they rely on their advice. Regular help with child care (meals at grandparents’ house, transportation to extracurricular activities, etc.) is also common.
It seems that mainly the father, but also the mother, have bound the two sons to themselves in such a way that they cannot imagine autonomous professional and private lives. The processes of blending and intertwining professional and private life have also engulfed both wives. The older brother clearly takes the initiative in communication processes, dominates joint meetings, and is very talkative, often steering the conversation away from the focus. He is the one who usually addresses colleagues. He creates the impression that he has assumed the role of the “new” father, with the younger brother closely by his side. The brothers share an office next to the technical rooms. Their wives share an office one floor above. The company has almost no administration in the usual sense. We have the impression that the layout of the premises and the positions of the employees indicate a kind of unconscious hierarchy and importance, suggesting that the brothers are significantly more important than their wives, and that administration is a necessary evil, while the heart of the company must be in computer technology.
The question arises as to why and how the brothers contacted our consulting firm and expressed interest in our help. We met at a business event, and they were interested in what and how we work, as they felt that there was no development, good relationships, and business efficiency in their company as they would like. They knew that they would need to redefine the organization of work, hierarchy, competencies, and responsibilities. This would be especially important before entering the newly planned business development cycle. However, it turned out that they imagined the necessary changes in a way that everything around them would change—the company’s organogram, employee motivation and productivity, and the overall working climate, while they would be exempt from these processes, and that the relationships between them, their wives, and the family environment would remain untouched. Through the initial sessions of individual coaching conducted by the consultant, it became clear that they see all problems and their potential solutions more or less outside themselves. They are unable to recognize that a significant part of the causes of the employees’ poor performance lies within them and in the fatal intertwining of business and private life.
Already in the introduction, the question arises whether the focus on perfection, as declared on their website, is truly the only possible path. This dilemma is generally present in 21st-century companies, where only perfection seems good enough.
However, Wilke warns about this:
“Leaders are effective when they are able to bring how they really are to the task they have chosen: when they engage fully with others, when they retain the capacity to think clearly under huge pressure, when they recognize self-doubt as a powerful aid, when they accept that ‘good enough’ is often a whole lot better than perfection, when they work with others ‘as they are’ rather than expecting blind loyalty. Leaders command respect because they are real: passionate, hard-working and committed but not perfect.” (Wilke, 2005)
In the following, we will try to find the causes and mechanisms of the tendency towards control and perfection that have settled in the brothers.
2. Dynamics of the Resistance Process
In the autumn of 2019, we had our first agreements and presented our work. Subsequent events and the entire process showed that they poorly understood our working methods and ignored the suggestions that most depended on them. Perhaps we, two consultants and a psychologist who later conducted a survey on the work climate, did not clearly explain the entire process and working methods, which should have led them to results, during the initial presentation. The brothers initially decided on individual coaching sessions. However, subconscious resistances quickly began to show, manifested in canceled and frequently rescheduled sessions, and excuses about the heavy workload in their company and the supposedly unavoidable obligations associated with it.
The consultant managed to conduct a few individual coaching sessions with each of the brothers and two sessions with each of their wives. One of the purposes of the sessions with the wives was to gather additional information about the brothers’ thinking and behavior, as the consultant’s need to shed light on the causes of resistance grew with the increasing resistance of both brothers.
2.1. Coaching the Older Brother
He usually sat and talked very relaxed, almost incessantly. From the beginning, he expressed doubt in the success of the coaching. He said that he had already seen a psychotherapist but did not find or feel any benefit in delving into his childhood. He said he knew he had to act and make a change himself, but it quickly became apparent that he unconsciously sought blame mainly in his surroundings. He searched for solutions and had not found them so far. When asked what he was looking for, he could not answer and changed the subject. He spoke disjointedly, jumping from topic to topic. He was convinced that he had to say everything, give instructions, as it had always been that way: because he was the first child in the family, the older brother, and had to stand out. According to him, this behavior was adopted and became part of him. He said that the younger brother just waited to see what he would do and reacted too slowly. He said he would prefer if the younger brother took the initiative more often. He never discussed this with him. It is hard to imagine that the older brother gave the younger one enough opportunities to exchange opinions, as he also spoke non-stop during the sessions and sometimes barely took a breath.
He highlights a sort of health turning point. When he could no longer physically and mentally function some time ago, the younger brother took the initiative and leadership into his own hands for over a year. He explains that this suited him, but the consultant’s experience also indicates that the older brother often calls the younger one regarding business, somewhat supervising and directing him, which the younger brother does not like at all.
The older brother says that things are somewhat better now, but after his breakdown, the younger brother took over the burden of responsibility. Throughout the sessions, the older brother constantly talks about the turning point, expressing his fear that it might happen again, including fear of death and its consequences.
He constantly speaks in the plural and nostalgically recalls how he, his brother, and their father expanded the electronics service. He fears that he and the younger brother are not independent enough to work on their own. He finds the answer in the fact that it has always been this way. He perceives the company as a significant burden, fearing that if they distance themselves from the firm, what will they have left? This presumably refers to the family bond and marital-partnership relationships. In the same breath, he again says that they are not so closely tied that he would be afraid of living apart from the firm.
His body language is expressive and dominant during most sessions—comfortably seated in an armchair with unusually spread legs, as if he also needs physical stability “to be firmly on the ground.” When the consultant tries to encourage him to think about the causes of the problems, he repeatedly escapes into talking about the same topics.
He wants to work less. He looks up to modern entrepreneurs who work only two or three days a week, but that is not possible in their case. The consultant has the impression that he constantly expects and seeks some solution “from the outside,” which does not come. Some sessions are canceled or rescheduled—usually, his wife cancels them on the same day they are scheduled. Some, evidently due to late information from the husband, are canceled just a few minutes before the scheduled start, indicating an unconscious tendency towards direct control of every situation.
After a few sessions, the consultant feels that the older brother projects his anxieties, fears, insecurity, and inability to implement changes onto her. He says he is confident that our consulting team will help them and believes that in the end, we will not be disappointed, as we will surely find solutions. This way, he shifts all responsibility onto us, expecting some kind of recipe or instructions for use.
In the penultimate session, the consultant first gets the impression that the older brother wants to take a step forward and work. He thinks about his vision, the delineation of roles, and concrete steps. For the first time, he mentions that he and his younger brother might be too closely tied together and that they would need separate offices and, in general, more space. He and the consultant agree that they have made progress. They agree that he will start keeping a diary of his thoughts, feelings, and future steps.
In the last session, he says that he has indeed set up an app on his phone and proudly shows it. However, he immediately explains that he does not have time for diary writing. He constantly talks about his fears—everyone can walk around the firm uncontrollably, and anyone can enter his office unannounced at any moment. He again highlights that he and his brother do not understand how we could help them. He explains that they do not have time to deal with anything other than the company’s operations. Recently, they have even been helping operationally in the technical and software IT fields, instead of focusing on the company’s strategy and leadership. He suggests that we end the meetings for a while to “calm things down.” He states that he does not want to hurt the consultant, as they otherwise enjoy working with us, but at the moment, they really do not have time for these things
During a subsequent exchange of experiences in intervision, the consultants quickly form an image of the two brothers and their imaginary parents—the consulting pair (a woman and a man in their active years), which the supervisor also finds very plausible.
Under the influence of all the blockages and the intuition of an inevitable holistic change for which they are not prepared, as well as a deeply smoldering desire for separation, they do not want to reject or offend the consultants—imaginary parents—too harshly at this stage. This is a fantasy with which they deny the reality that their biological father and mother are aging, thereby fulfilling their desire for parents in their active years and at full strength, on whom they can continue to rely.
2.2. Coaching the Younger Brother
The younger brother mentions from the start that it was easier to work in the past because he knew, could do, and managed everything by himself. Now, this presents a ‘psychological’ problem, as he and his older brother can no longer do everything on their own. He realizes that, usually, in companies, everything depends on the boss. He admits he is afraid they will perform poorly. According to him, he is not tired from work but from ‘psyche’ and people. He himself notices a significant difference between them. The older brother knows how to ‘switch off,’ whereas he constantly has the company in his mind. He feels immense pressure from clients, colleagues, and even the older brother. They are always together, in the office and at home, solving problems for each other. He describes that everyone else stays quiet when the older brother speaks because he is assertive. He himself always adapts and prefers to take a step back. During sessions, he usually has a stern, serious expression.
In decision-making, they are different—the younger brother is more decisive, while the older brother hesitates and has difficulty making final decisions, which a successful company director should be able to do. Nevertheless, the older brother’s wishes are always in the forefront, even in private life, which the younger brother has had enough of. Despite everything, he has a lot of affection for his older brother, which is why, by his own words, he also submits to him. He feels a certain responsibility towards him.
The younger brother further explains that nothing excites him anymore; he only occasionally dreams of moving to Primorska with his family, wife, and sons to cultivate fruit, vegetables, vines, and have greenhouses. In subsequent sessions, he often talks about lacking energy for himself and personal motivation. In the business field, he himself takes on the resolution of emerging problems, so the older brother does not need to. He sees how others work and enjoy, while he has too much work, as everything in the company depends on them.
In rare moments when he expresses a desire for a life change, he mentions he was tending to the garden and some fruit trees and will be more active in the future. He nostalgically recalls times when he was more physically active and cannot understand how he let himself go, despite being used to working all day. It is important to him to be the best, or it’s all pointless—in his view, you must always be ‘top.’ To the consultant, he appears as a perfectionist and ‘control freak.’
Sometimes he doubts his managerial abilities and whether he and his brother can even be leaders. However, he would not appoint just anyone as a leader because they can still fulfill this role for now. At the same time, he is constantly bothered by the fact that they are intertwined with their families and parents. As he himself says, the consultant must understand that they share everything—the company, a large house, a yard, a big garden, vacations, and it has always been this way.
However, he also mentions that, at times, he is fed up with the company and does not feel good anymore. When there were significantly fewer employees, he enjoyed it, but not anymore—there are too many of them, and it’s all too much. He wants to escape, saying he needs a timeline and someone to map it out for him, to tell him when the right moment will be because he needs structure and a date.
In the last session, he is tense, feels immense time pressure, and can no longer work like this. He wants to postpone our joint work until next year. He explains that he cannot handle anything mentally anymore and that he is at his wit’s end. He wants a break from everything to rest and calm down so he can tackle things again after the new year, as he puts it.
2.3 Session with the Spouses
After a few sessions with the brothers, when it became clear that they would increasingly resist change, the consultant arranged two individual sessions with each of their wives to further clarify the circumstances.
The consultant observed that the wives had adopted roles of compliant, sometimes even submissive women. One of them expressed that she found it hard to imagine what she would still have in common with her husband once their son grows up and leaves home. The established dynamic among them dictates that they all spend holidays together as well. For the older brother’s family, this is completely normal, but the younger brother would prefer to resist it. His wife shares a similar sentiment—they could spend a week or two alone, but she is not sure if the older brother’s family could manage that.
From the beginning, when they joined the company, the wives tried to introduce good practices from their previous workplaces, such as regular annual reviews. However, they were unsuccessful in implementing their ideas. Both are aware that the brothers often communicate inappropriately with their colleagues, both verbally and non-verbally (during meetings, business parties, etc.).
The roles of the wives appear somewhat schizoid: the brothers trust only them with financial operations and other details, yet their office is located on the top floor, as if they don’t quite belong together. The wives have also developed a friendly relationship—they often attend events or business functions without their husbands. The consultant feels that each wife’s roles intertwine: wife-partner, the imaginary caring mother who still takes care of her husband-son, and the trusted colleague in the family business.
2.4. Organizational Climate Survey
Additionally, we managed to conduct a survey on the working climate in the company, which yielded expected results where no extraordinary or unusual deviations were noted in any of the measured variables. The general conclusion was that colleagues rated leadership and promotion opportunities somewhat lower, while overall, they were satisfied with their work. However, the results were evidently contrary to the expectations of both brothers – directors, as they believed that their colleagues did not meet the expected productivity, were often superficial in their work, and lacked diligence. They explained that the company is relatively small (about 40 employees) and that there are not many opportunities for vertical promotions. They did not attribute much importance to horizontal promotions.
Due to the unclear organizational chart and leadership structure in the company, it remained unclear whom the surveyed colleagues understood as “management” – whether they meant designers, project managers, or also both brothers – directors. Their explanation was that lower satisfaction with the management did not reflect the true picture, as it was unclear who the leaders were.
Interestingly, they openly stated that it was not clear who belonged to the management. At the same time, it was unclear to us, the consultants, whether they understood the fact that they were the ones who should establish the decision-making structure of the company, and we could only assist them in this.
Schein warns: “We are often frustrated in our attempts to help clients because they do not accept our expertise, they file away our reports instead of acting on them, they misunderstand and twist our recommendations, or they revert to their ‘illnesses’ the minute we leave. Additionally, I can say that the latter situation does not trouble us so much as consultants, as it does the employees, but the fact is that if the client becomes too dependent on us, we are actually no longer consultants nor are we helping. We then de facto become managers wearing consultant hats.” (Schein, 1990)
In presenting the survey, they mainly problematized the alleged lack of a sense of gratitude among the employees, who, according to the survey results, were satisfied with their work but less satisfied with the management and promotion opportunities. From minute to minute, they became more agitated and dissatisfied. Their emotional response was consistent with their otherwise unconscious roles: the older brother, who had taken on parts of the father’s role, used the defense mechanism of rationalization (allegedly too small a sample, unclear leadership structure in the company, and thus misleading questions, overly complex questions…). The younger brother reacted even less maturely, oscillating between silence and outrage over the lack of gratitude that he believed employees should unconditionally show. At one point, towards the end of the presentation, the younger one spontaneously stated in front of everyone: “This is all pointless.” Thus, the survey and results were deemed inconclusive, confused, and unnecessary. In a state of affect, he certainly could not consider that the consultants, after several months of serious work on the survey and hours of coaching sessions, might feel offended by such a statement.
Two days later, we briefly presented the organizational climate survey, which generally showed solid results, to all the employees, as planned. The two consultants tried to present the conclusions in the most positive light, keeping motivation in mind as it would be essential. At the presentation in the shared workspace, the brothers appeared sullen and withdrawn. The same was true for the employees who listened with serious expressions and without speaking. The older brother addressed them (without a smile, without an opening joke or anything similar), and the younger brother did not even stand up from his chair while speaking.
3. Missed Opportunity for the Client and Consultant
As a company engaged in psychodynamic organizational consulting, we first questioned whether we had made any mistakes or taken an inappropriate approach, or perhaps even overestimated our own capacities. The consultant’s emotional experience of the client’s personality and the entire process is inevitable and part of the usual dynamics of consultancy work. It is crucial that a properly educated and experienced consultant is aware of this.
The brothers were usually open in contact, appearing simple and unpretentious, despite running a successful company. Because of this, the consultants had pleasant feelings during the cooperation. We sincerely wanted to help, knowing that there would be no progress without motivation and action related to changes within themselves and in the relationships within the intertwined family dynamics.
This was one of the reasons we did not want to overestimate or generalize the otherwise solid results of the survey during the presentation, but rather describe the state as experienced by the employees according to the standardized survey methodology.
At the same time, we were cautious because we wanted to continue working and thought that if we interpreted the negative results deviations too harshly, further cooperation would be less likely.
However, that is precisely what happened.
The consultants wonder whether the survey results were perhaps presented too academically, not simply enough, and without a clearly expressed perspective on how to proceed. The consultants’ good intentions in this direction were increasingly stifled by the immature emotional reactions of both brothers during the presentation.
As mentioned, the topic of gratitude was a hot point of this conversation. So—the brothers believe that the employees do not try hard enough because they are not grateful to them for providing business and clients, good working conditions, and regular, very solid salaries. In their view, gratitude should be shown through self-sacrifice, diligence, and inexhaustible (self)motivation. Sound familiar? Both brothers experience all this in relation to their father and the inheritance of his craft or business.
With inexhaustible will, diligence, and sacrifice (even a large part of their private lives), they manage the company entrusted to them by their father—the pater familias, without whom they cannot imagine their business life, and probably not their private life either, and they make this clear.
Obholzer and Miller are convinced that resistance to change in work organizations is inevitable: “It is clear… that leadership essentially involves managing changes, both internal and external to the organization, and fitting and servicing mechanisms that enable the connection of these two components, operating one with the other in a place of change that is emotionally possible and realistic in terms of external and internal needs. The key question here is whether change is ever internally motivated or whether it inevitably comes through changes in the external environment.”
With the possible exception of succession issues, most changes seem to be motivated by shifts in the environment that affect the work setting. Changes that are generated internally can be rejected or ‘encapsulated’ (the institutional equivalent of a body affected by infection or the psychological encapsulation of a traumatic experience within a part of the self). If there are external factors that can penetrate the institution and increase the pressure contained in the encapsulated part, it is likely that the process of institutional resistance to change will create a balance that results in an unchanged state. Therefore, resistance to change inevitably exists in the institution.” (Obholzer, Miller, 2004)
The external processes in their company – the introduction of a new production program and modern quality standards – indeed created pressure that seemed to equalize primarily with the encapsulated part of the emotional states in both brothers and did not allow for a new step towards development.
The consultants did not have strong feelings of rejection due to the brothers’ negative reactions, as they did not expect much enthusiasm in the first place. However, they were surprised by the immaturity of their reactions, mixed with their disappointment that the brothers could not see and feel that something was wrong with their perception of their surroundings. The final proposal by both brothers to freeze the collaboration for a few months was partially expected and understood. At that moment, the brothers were not able to gain insight into their experiences, especially not into the fact that they would have to start implementing changes first and foremost within themselves.
John Newton warns about the complex perception of an individual’s history of roles in a work organization: “For example, we may need to be reminded that we should not fall into the trap of the eternal power of the familiar metaphor: when we cannot resign from the family, it is possible to resign from our work organization; we experienced the power of our parents long before we could conceptualize the notion of their authority and the way they exercise it, and hence, it can influence how we respond to the power and authority at work, possibly inspiring or confusing these concepts based on earlier experiences. And while we strive to shape our own work experience, we must be aware that other players—the roles from the work environment—are also grappling with their own role histories.” (Newton, 2006)
In the future, the brothers, with the help of an expert, should gain insight into their own processes and the development of role history, to make the transformation process successful.
Perhaps the most important thing for understanding resistance to change and the termination of the process was the consultants’ feeling that, in the brothers’ fantasy, they represented a good, vital parental couple. Many things align: the consultants are also a couple privately, and the brothers know this. During meetings, all four of us were always present, and we listened to them with genuine interest. First, to gather as much information as possible ‘between the lines,’ but also because we quickly got the impression that both brothers had a strong need to confide in someone and complain about how difficult, demanding, and responsible their entrepreneurial-directorial life is in the extremely competitive environment of computer technology and industrial applications. However, when we stopped being just listeners (understanding parents) and explained our view on the state of the organizational climate in the company, things fell apart.
I believe that the brothers’ perception of us as a creative parental couple is also indicated by their thinking that, during the period of freezing collaboration, they still wanted to leave the door open for occasional advice, as they stated. So, first a strong impulse for separation, provoked by immature disappointment with the interpretation of the survey, and later the need to soothe the imaginary father and mother by retaining the right to receive occasional advice, so that the fear of separation would not be too strong. By rejecting the consultants, they play out and temporarily resolve the conflict related to separation from their parents.
We can also look at resistance to change and the ultimate blockage from the aspect of psychological mechanisms of ‘psychological shelter,’ as developed by Steiner, Armstrong, and Mojović. For the brothers, the primary family and the extension of these relationships into business likely represent a psychological refuge, where they feel safe from the supposedly threatening environment.
It seems they have stored their own bad—threatening parts of the self in the environment—in the collective. During coaching sessions, they talked about their occasional own weariness, fatigue, and lack of motivation for development. The younger brother mentioned in a coaching session that he sometimes thinks about completely giving up running the company. Realizing such ideas would likely result in their strong feelings of ingratitude towards their parents and the legacy they received, even though it has proven to be psychologically very burdensome. They projected these unwanted parts of the self onto their employees and now view them as poorly motivated, ungrateful, and superficial people who urgently need their direct help even in direct production.
However, as Mojović warns: “The internal pathological organization contains anxiety by offering itself as a protector but simultaneously dominates the personality. The balance is detrimental to the developmental path.” (Mojović, 2011)
The developmental path is indeed stalled at this moment, and we can only guess what would need to happen in the internal and external world of the brothers for them to feel the need and sincere motivation for change again.
Special attention in the treatment would be required for their narcissism, which manifests as a strong need for omnipresence, control, and assistance in everything and everyone in the company. Long, Newton, and Chapman warn: “The need to make a move from the position of ‘narcissism of role’ to ‘centrality of role’ has proven to be very important. By narcissism of role, we mean the tendency of some to experience their role as the most important or dominant in the organization. In this case, all other roles are perceived as servants to the dominant role. This can also apply to the role of an entire subsystem… Also, the role dialogue may fail when the less desirable aspects of narcissism are not transformed, for example, when the role holder refuses to change the absolute centrality of their role.” (Long, Newton, Chapman, 2006)
To conclude the case analysis, let’s return to the basics—the fundamental assumptions, as defined by Bion. Stokes summarizes Bion’s assumptions of ‘dependency’ and ‘pairing’: “The distorted baD (‘dependency’) creates a culture of subordination where authority stems solely from position in the hierarchy, demanding unquestioning obedience. The distorted baP (‘pairing’) creates a culture of conspiracy, supporting pairs of members in avoiding the truth instead of seeking it.” (Stokes, 1994)
In our case, this is clearly visible: the brothers perceive their authority as the only possible one since it stems from the hierarchy—ownership and management of the company. Therefore, until recently, they did not have defined leaders of departments and divisions.
At the same time, we can also describe their relationship as a kind of ‘pairing,’ which in this case is extremely unproductive and continues to hold them in the grip of immature defense mechanisms, instead of finding new strength for development or seeking truth, as Stokes states.
4. Reflections for the Conclusion
What options does a consultant working in the field of systemic psychodynamic organizational consulting have to prevent similar unfavorable outcomes of initiated processes to the greatest extent possible?
The general finding, also stemming from psychotherapeutic practice, is that some people simply cannot be helped. Either they are never sufficiently prepared for self-work, living in a zone of deceptive comfort, or their deeply hidden unconscious processes prevent them from gaining insight into personal problems and challenges. Therefore, they cannot work on personal development. When a consultant detects a clearly expressed desire from a leader to develop their leadership capacities while strengthening the organization, they must always strive to selflessly help them on this path.
Good preparation of the client (an individual in the role of a leader, manager, director) for entering the development process is crucial. This is important because this person usually hires the consultant to work in the entire company and approves the planned program of consultations, research and testing, workshops, lectures, etc.
The consultant must begin to establish an atmosphere of mutual trust and honesty, which becomes a reciprocal process, as Hetty Einzig beautifully describes: “Another way of saying this is that there are no passengers on the bus. Coach and leader both play their part. Concerted action not only requires trust and patience but must be preceded by an acceptance of responsibility—a belief that each of us must play our part in service to the whole.” (Einzig, 2017)
The consultant must also pay attention to even the smallest details in initial conversations, meetings, and first sessions. It is very useful to more precisely check the readiness and motivation of the client—the individual and the work organization they lead—e.g., with a type of semi-structured interview in which prepared questions are interwoven with the client’s free thoughts: leader, manager, or members of the collective.
Another unique skill is effective time planning of the process: the frequency of sessions and joint workshops with the selection of appropriate methods most suitable for the individual work environment. It is often very difficult to find a balance between not overburdening the client with time and maintaining the necessary intensity of the consulting process so that it does not begin to wither. Adjustments must be made continually, with sensitivity to any undesirable phenomena and deviations.
Kilburg lists factors contributing to negative coaching results in clients, highlighting: “Lack of motivation, unrealistic expectations from the coach or coaching process—the client expects the coach or the process to replace or do the work of the director.” (Kilburg, 1996)
It is clear that a consultant’s livelihood depends on successful and sufficiently extensive work with clients and companies. However, the consultant must be honest with themselves and not blindly persist in realizing even the most well-conceived and planned process. This temptation always has enough fuel, stemming from the threat of reduced material well-being if the consultant stops. If this is compounded by impulses from the narcissistic part of the consultant’s self, manifesting as stubbornness, a sense of intellectual superiority, and futile persistence, the circle of failure is completed.
It is also necessary to add that while writing this article, the consultants occasionally felt strong feelings of regret, which were only slightly related to the loss of business but much more to the missed opportunity to truly help someone in trouble. Emotions ranged from disappointment to outrage, realizing we could not help ‘friends’ who did not know how to accept and use help.
Schein is pragmatic: “First, I assume that clients, whether they are managers, subordinates, children, or friends, often seek help when they do not know exactly what their problems are. They know something is wrong, but the help they really need is to discover what is wrong. Once they get the answer to this question, they often can find the solution themselves.” (Schein, 1990)
It is beneficial for unsuccessful attempts or completely terminated consulting processes to become part of the consultant’s experience, as this strengthens their capacity for self-observation, analysis of applied methods, and a general critical view of themselves and their profession.
At the same time, they can constantly be aware of the limited reach of their knowledge and tools offered to the client. Regular supervision by an experienced colleague, mentor, or teachers met during specialized education helps them greatly.
Expert review: Dr. Sci. Med. Jasmina Knežević Tasić, Psychiatrist, Psychotherapist, Group Analyst, Systemic Psychodynamic Organizational Consultant, Belgrade
Cited literature:
George BINNEY, Gerhard WILKE, Colin WILIAMS: Living Leadership (G. Wilke) (A Practical Guide for Ordinary People) – Find Yourself in Leading People, 2005
Hetty EINZIG: New Generation Coaching (The Future of Coaching – Vision, Leadership and Responsibility in a Transforming World) 2017
Richard R. KILBURG: Toward a Conceptual Understanding and Definition of Executive Coaching – Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 1996
Susann LONG, John NEWTON, Jane CHAPMAN: Coaching in Depth: The Organizational Role Analysis Approach/Role dialogue: Organizational Role Analysis with pairs from the same organization), Karnac 2006
Marina MOJOVIĆ: Manifestations of psychic retreats in social systems, in Hopper, E., Weinberg, H. (eds) Social Unconscious in Persons, Groups and Societies) Karnac: London 2011
John NEWTON: Coaching in Depth: The Organizational Role Analysis Approach), Karnac 2006
Anton OBHOLZER, Sarah MILER: Lidership, Followership and Facilitating the Creative Workplace in Working Below Surface – The Emotional Life of Contemporary Organization – Karnac – London 2004
Edgar H. SCHEIN: A General Philosophy of Helping – Process consulting: Sloan – Management Review, Spring 1990
Jon STOKES: The Unconscious at Work in Groups and Teams, Contributions of the Work of Wilfred Bion v knjigi The Unconscious at Work (1994 – Edited by A. Obholzer and V. Zagier Roberts)