Executive resistance to external consultants in organizational change

Project Management: Case Study

Selling Executives on Project Management

Levon Corporation executives were concerned about the company's declining revenues (Kerzner, 2013). The company's employees argued that the decline in revenues was due to the fact that industry trends were changing, and contracts were increasingly being awarded on the basis of points as opposed to the lowest bidder mechanism; since the company had no project management capability, it kept missing out on key contracts, and this affected its revenue stream (Kerzner, 2013). The employees suggested that the project management function be incorporated into the business framework to increase the company's competiveness. The executives were, however, reluctant to consider this proposal because they thought that such a move would disrupt the organization's balance of power (Kerzner, 2013). They reluctantly hired a project management consultant to evaluate the employees' suggestion, but even after the consultant had openly demonstrated that the organization was in dire need of a project management department, the executives still remained apprehensive (Kerzner, 2013).

Why did the executives refuse to listen to their employees but were willing to listen to a consultant?

There are several possible explanations for this. To begin with, since consultants are not part of the organization, they are less likely to be influenced by organizational culture and company politics, and as such, they are likely to give a more objective opinion on the issue at hand - compared to people who work in the organization and who perhaps have other vested interests (Lientz & Rea, 2003; Russell & McGovern, 2012). Moreover, a consultant comes in as a new member, which means they come in with fresh ideas and fresh perspectives that could be used to improve other areas of the organization -- areas that could also be contributing to the decline in revenues (Lientz & Rea, 2003). In this regard, the consultant, unlike the employees, plays more than just an advisory role -- in addition to giving an informed opinion on whether project management is the best way to go, the consultant will also use their expertise and perhaps their past experience with other companies to advise management on how responsibilities and duties ought to be structured under the new arrangement so that there are no overlaps, lines of authority are clearly defined, and consequently, there are no power-related conflicts amongst executives and departments (Lientz & Rea, 2003).

Why were the executives still apprehensive even after the consultant's presentation? What strategies would have been employed to get them to support the consultant's recommendations?

In my view, the consultant was not convincing enough given the executives' degree of reluctance. First, he begins his presentation by showing how misinformed the company executives are about its financial performance; and this already creates some form of disconnect between him and the executives. Then he makes this worse by failing to address the executives' most pressing need, which is to show how project management could be implemented effectively without disrupting normal business processes. Instead, he focuses on showing what the executives have done wrong. In my view, therefore, the executives remained apprehensive simply because they were not convinced that project management would be the solution to all the problems outlined by the consultant. The consultant criticized more than he did inform and persuade, and he did not show how project management would solve the organization's revenue problems.