Why is it that the relatively simple idea of having a problem, getting someone to help us to find a solution and then implementing that solution goes chaotically wrong every day? The rate of failure in the delivery of sustainable change programmes seems to continue unabated as we fail to learn from previous errors. After delivering, studying and being a recipient of change for so many years, the root of why we don’t do it very well (I believe) is stunningly simple – the answer is ‘humanity’.

We can take an inanimate object like a broken wooden toy and with a small amount of expertise fix it to the satisfaction of a child. But the moment we try to fix, repair or resolve issues that involve people then we enter the world of tantrums and tears as people fight to get what they want from a situation.

Never was that more apparent than in the global financial crash in 2008. Many people cited lots of good theoretical reasons as to why the problem occurred – to me the answer was tucked away in a three-line box in a newspaper. The head of a global bank admitted that the financial world’s ‘greedy and short-termist’ approach contributed to the crisis. I would suggest that it did more than contribute to the problem – I would argue it was the problem!

If this is the case then the foundation of the global crisis (like so many bubbles before) is rooted in human emotion. So, even when the next procedural, political or policy solution is implemented we can pretty much guarantee that the core human drive of short-termist greed will kick in to find ways to bend, block or bypass the wonderful new systems.

The crux of the Seven Cs from the outset has been rooted in the notion that change which is not sustainable is of limited value, and in many cases causes more problems than if we had left the system alone in the first place. And importantly – this is to stress the point that the Seven Cs is not the answer – if I promoted that idea then I too am falling into the same trap of offering the latest panacea to sell a few more books and line my pockets with the increased income.

I believe the answer is to accept that human thoughts, feeling and behaviour lie at the core of delivering sustainable change and not to judge people for being human – rather to accept that that is the way of the world and then build a solution that also builds the core humanity of sustainable change into any solution that is proposed. In this way you can start to really deliver change that is sticky and adds true value and not just short-term solutions.

The underlying proposition that drives this book is that change is failing to deliver the anticipated benefits. There is both documented and anecdotal evidence that this failure to deliver sustainable change at times reaches 80–90 per cent – something that would not be tolerated in most professions or industries. As a result, consultants are being associated (and blamed) with the failure to deliver sustainable change. This has led to the ever-increasing reduction in the perceived brand value of the consultant.

It might be that you do a great job, don’t chase the money, follow an ethical path and always seek to satisfy the customer. However, call yourself a consultant with caution and trepidation because the brand is suffering. It seems that in so many cases clients believe that they are not receiving value through sustainable change. Instead they are getting (or believe they are getting) short-lived, faddish solutions that collapse the moment the consultant walks out of the door.

The Seven Cs framework is designed to help deliver value through sustainable change for the client. This phrase – ‘value through sustainable change’ – is the foundation stone that underpins and drives the whole concept and framework presented in this book. This is because the following factors must be present and managed in any effective consulting process:

• Change – a change must always take place. If the client or consumers do not think, feel or behave any differently at the end of the engagement, then what is the value? It is imperative that the consultant and client are both clear as to the change that is required.
• Value – there must be explicit value realization. Only by understanding and taking responsibility for the change and the value derived from the change can the consultant and client develop their capacity to repeat the activity and so enhance performance further at a later date.
• Sustainability – there is little point in making a change that has value if it does not stick. This is the root problem with so many change programmes. The consultant and client have a great time, make amazing leaps in performance, celebrate their success and then move on – only to find that little value remains three to six months later.

This failure to hold on to the gains and drive ‘sticky’ change often stems from a simple failure to understand and manage many of the deep forces that drive change. No matter what the engagement, the process will be quite simple – the consultant enters, does something and then leaves. Although much of the energy is focused on the middle stage (while the consultant is around), much more effort needs to be expended in understanding and managing what will happen once the change is implemented and the consultant departs.

The reality is that once the consultant departs one of three things can happen – the change can build on the early gains and get better, it can stay the same, or it decays and gets worse. The factors that will drive this post-intervention decay will generally be the systematic or contextual forces that cause all change programmes to fail. These include apathy, resource shortage, political action and environmental changes – the list is almost endless and probably impossible to complete. However, the consultant’s job is to understand just what detrimental forces will impact on the change and take action (while still in the engagement phase) to put opposing forces in place that will compensate and counteract the repressive forces. This might be to create internal champions or agents of change, ensure the budget is held back, develop symbolic artefacts to reinforce the need for change, or arrange for post-intervention activities. No single action is the right one. What is important is that the consultant and client consider what repressive forces will kick in post-engagement and ensure that pre-emptive action is taken to compensate.

Repressive forces

The primary determinant that drives any successful outcome will be the balance between the repressive forces that cause the client and company to revert to the old way of operating and the positive forces that help them hold on to the gains (see Figure 2.1). Although the repressive forces will often depend on the content of the client’s project, there are a number of common repressive forces that will cause the engagement to fail to deliver sustainable value.

• The client has not been sufficiently challenged in the opening stage to ensure they really understand their current position and test the seriousness of their intent to take action. The result is that they embark on the journey only to find that they do not really want to make the necessary sacrifices when under pressure.
• There is a failure to clarify what root issues really caused the present situation. The consequence is that solutions are generated that resolve surface symptoms but do not touch the root cause.
• Imported or ill-thought-out solutions are created that will not resolve the problem. This often occurs when clients think they have ready-made solutions that ‘worked elsewhere’. The trouble is that all solutions are context-dependent and can rarely be transported without some form of modification.
• The end users or consumers of the engagement are not helped to work through the pain of change and to let go of the old way of thinking, feeling and behaving. The client might be prepared to take on board a new way of working while the consultant is around to act as an external prop, but if the change feels uncomfortable then there will be a natural tendency to revert back to the old way of operating once the consultant has left.
• There is no accurate measurement and confirmation that the change has delivered the desired outcome. This is often the hard part – actually confirming that the desired change has taken place. It is easy enough to measure the extrinsic factors to demonstrate that the change has been successful, but unless the intrinsic factors are measured then any change may well be a short-term fix. No matter how pretty and big the new computer is, how all encompassing the re-engineered process is, unless people want to use the new ideas then they will fail to deliver long-term value for the business.
• Once the client’s eye is off the ball and focused on new ideas, they often fail to continue to operate in a new way. There is a natural human tendency to revert back to the comfort zone. It is easy to stay on the diet when in constant contact with the food coach, but what happens when you are out on your own and are confronted by a large chocolate cake? Unless you have really embedded a sense of self-reliance and inner security then the old urges will take over and destroy all the good work.
• The change is not properly closed down and the end of the engagement just drifts. When this happens it can leave both the client and consultant with a sense of frustration and uncertainty – neither is really sure if they have added the contracted value to the engagement.

When the client and consultant do not address these issues with passion and professionalism, the result is an engagement that fails to deliver value through sustainable change. Conversely, when the consultant and client jointly address these issues, the chances of delivering sustainable value through change are enhanced.

Reinforcing forces

The Seven Cs framework offers a number of drivers that will act as reinforcing factors to compensate for the repressive forces.

• At the very outset, ensure that the whole picture is understood and that the client is not just offering a restricted view or interpretation of their situation. The consultant must seek to understand all the parameters that will impact on the current situation and the desired outcome that the client wishes to achieve. This is important for two reasons. First, it ensures that the client confirms that they really need the support of the consultant or whether the situation is something they can resolve on their own. Second, it allows the consultant to test the client’s seriousness of intent. The consultant will not want to spend time and energy working with a client who decides halfway through the engagement that they do not really want to complete the project after all because of budget cuts/market changes/political issues (delete as appropriate). As a partnership it is right that both parties should fully challenge each other to test for seriousness of intent and that both have the right to forgo the opportunity to work together.
• It is a vary rare problem that does not have its roots in a lower-level problem – maybe one instigated weeks, months or even years ago. Although it is very easy for the client and consultant to dig only so far to clarify and understand the root cause, the consultant has a responsibility to ensure that the full depth of the problem is explored and resolved, and so is prevented from resurfacing at a later date. The consultant must always seek to ask why, why and why again and not be prepared to be put off by deflective strategies offered by the client when they feel that the questioning is becoming difficult.
• There will always be time pressure in any engagement. Both consultant and client are busy people and are probably being pressured by their boss or organization to get things moving so they can ‘get back and do some real work’. It is this repressive force that causes both parties to seek instant solutions – quick fixes that can get the problem sorted so they can get on with things. The positive force applied here must be the emotional courage and strength of both players to resist any short-term pressure, and really try to seek a solution that is most appropriate for this particular situation – and not just borrow a quick-fix solution from an earlier engagement.
• Once the diagnosis is compete and the solution is established then the client will be put under real pressure. Up to this point everything is conceptual and the client can talk about what they are ‘going’ to do. At some stage they will have to ‘do’. It is at this point they have to move out of the comfort zone and really start to address what change they will need to make to achieve the desired outcome. The positive force at this stage may well have to come from the consultant. This might be empathetic or soft support to help encourage the client through the change or, at the other end of a spectrum, it might involve adopting a more commanding presence to drive the change.
• There is a natural human tension that means we are scared to stand on the scales at the end of a week’s dieting, so we need a positive force to counter this negativity. Often the positive force comes from developing a more robust understanding of the measurement process. So often measurement is a black art that only the brave dare to understand, but measurement is a really powerful process when used in a positive way. Sometimes you have to be brave and look under the bed in order to find out that there are no monsters lying in wait.
• There is no feeling like putting on that comfortable pair of old shoes. You have worn them for years and they have always served you well. One day you decide to change and invest in a new pair. After a day or two your feet ache as the new leather fails to bend to the way you walk and you decide to go back to the old shoes just to save your aching feet. It is this natural resistance to new ways of thinking, feeling and behaving that often kills the engagement. The consultant and client must counter this repressive force with a positive one. This positive force is often one of preparation, preparation and preparation. In any change process you know that a change is coming, so the time to start getting ready for the shift is from the outset of the engagement. Be acutely tuned into what will help make the new way of working comfortable and what factors will cause discomfort. Manage both to amplify the positive forces and attenuate the areas that hinder the change.
• Finally, you have just spent the last six months running a gruelling project at work and it has really taken its toll on your work and home life. You are sure that everything is wrapped up and complete. You are so confident that when one of the team suggests that you run a closure workshop to dot the i’s and cross the t’s you politely tell them to take a hike. The job is done, so now everyone can go on holiday. This is a natural process of coming down from a big high. But sometimes you have to resist this pressure to ignore the last element because it is at this last stage that the learning takes place, the value is realized and any hidden problems are identified. The positive force required at this stage is one of perseverance – to hold on to the end and hopefully celebrate the success of the change project.

By looking at the change engagement as a battle of reinforcing and repressive forces it becomes easier to map and measure what factors will enable the change to live beyond a short-term fix and deliver value through sustainable change.