Beware of Collusive Client Relationships
by Richard A. Headley

About six months ago I was enjoying the give and take of collegial exchange, better known as a "bull session," when one of the less experienced OD practitioners in the group jumped into the fray. He was enthusiastic about his latest project with a department manager. It involved a team building activity and the more he spoke the more concerned I became.

After nearly twenty years in the Training/OD field, you get these vibrations at times when something just doesn't ring true. In this case, I perceived that my young colleague has gotten himself into a situation where he had a solution in search of a problem. The worst of it — based on my knowledge of this particular department — was that team building was not appropriate to the organization difficulties they were experiencing.

The incident made me think about client / consultant relationships that never come to grips with core issues. This doesn't occur by chance but results from a conspiracy or collusion between the two parties. And if I wanted to be brutally honest with myself, I know I could dredge up several similar examples from my own early OD practice.

My dictionary states the "conspiracy" and "collusion" are synonyms. Collusion is defined as "a secret agreement between two or more persons for a deceitful (or fraudulent) purpose." This is a bit heavier than the issue I had in mind, but deceit is involved . . . usually self-deception on the part of both client and OD consultant. Basically I'm describing a contract founded upon maintaining low expectations and demands and thus precluding the resolution of organization problems.

A contract or agreement to take the low-risk approach is more than likely to be tacit, yet it has a powerful negative effect on the quality and results of the OD intervention. There are obvious ethical considerations here if the OD practitioner knowingly participates in or fosters a collusive strategy of this nature. He or she is treading on thin ice by any contemporary code of ethics one might turn to for guidance.

A recent journal article* cites "misrepresentation and collusion" as one of the five ethical dilemmas arising from role conflict and role ambiguity. The article discusses both conscious, overt collusion as well as a more benign form which stems from "inappropriately structuring the relationship between structuring the relationship between change agent and client system or thorough avoidance of unresolved issues."

My immediate concern lies with this latter collusive state although the former is more serious, ethically speaking. In either event, the nature of the relationship is tainted and the outcome is questionable. Benign collusion, in my opinion, is more prevalent and results from inexperience and fear which are especially present when both client and consultant have relatively little experience in the OD process.

These new consulting situations can readily tap ito the secret fears or doubts on both sides that;

• We are not clever or resourceful enough to do what's really needed
• We cannot control change; it will get out of hand
• It's too difficult, long or costly (if we dig too deeply).

All this and more may lead a manager and practitioner to a tentative, overly-cautious contract whose unstated them is "if you don't ask too much of me, I won' ask too much of you." Under these circumstances, "too much" is too much effort, too much risk, too much time, etc.

While we "veterans" in the bull session tried to help our young friend understand the ethical trap he seemed to be in, another professional with about five years experience cited a similar incident from his past efforts. He had eagerly undertaken a project with a division manager who had a reputation as being a "hard nose." He figured if he could work successfully with him, he could work with anyone.

However, the practitioner's good intentions and high expectations soon evaporated. The division manager made it clear he had no time for a lengthy diagnosis; he knew both what was wrong and the right solution for it. All he wanted, as it turned out, was a pair of hands to carry out his preconceived notions. Unfortunately our colleague went along with this tactic only to find the project quietly disintegrating i his hands. Instead of sticking a feather in his cap, he ended up eating crow. Sharing this bad experience appeared to allow the new OD practitioner in our midst to accept the idea that it's essential to avoid taking the easy way into a project to hook a client.

This tale of woe reflects many of the behaviors marking a collusive client / consultant relationship. They are usually excessively polite, the diagnosis is superficial and there are often delays in all phases. Finally, few, if any, hard measures are used to evaluate the change effort. Of course, these flaws can arise from other causes besides collusion, but it's the nature of the contract and the artificial limits set that create the collusive situation discussed here.

As we've seen, it may be tempting to give in to our lack of confidence and experience, to convince ourselves that by pursuing a collusive strategy we are at least getting our foot in the door with a particular client. Who doesn't prefer amiable client relations? Besides the state of the art offers no guarantees of success. But the price paid is too high.

This same trap, I soon discovered, when I later kicked this idea around with some knowledgeable folks, can befall therapists and counselors. As in our field, these professional must also be on the alert to setting up relationships where both parties unconsciously hold back, staying at the fringe of the problems or conditions needing to be confronted.

I raise the collusion issue more to remind myself o the possibility of collusion creeping into my current and future work and to check it out with others who may have perceived the same low-risk tendencies. Hence I can't offer a "solution," per se, but when I did thrash around in my own experience for some common sense methods to avoid inadvertent collusive client relationships. I came up with the following thoughts:

• We should be realistic about our own capabilities and inform the client accordingly . . . which may mean telling the client that the job that you believe is called for is beyond your present skills and experience. Suggest a more senior consultant (internal or external) and maybe ask to assist that person.
• Early on, determine the level of risk we and the client are willing to dare. If it appears the clients i not ready to make the necessary commitment to the planned effort, propose not starting at all.
• Seek help from ore experienced practitioners when we detect (usually in our gut) that we are fearful or reticent about constructing a contract the way we know it should be.
• Always recommend mechanisms to verify results. That will be a good sign that we are not avoiding an objective assessment of our contributions.

By the end of our bull session, we all felt we had learned (or relearned) a valuable lesson about the ethics of our practice. I would like to hear from my colleagues about other ways to prevent creating or drifting into a comfortable design or relationship that evades the hard issues and tasks necessary to genuine organizational change.

*Wooten, Kevin C. and White, Louis P. "Ethical Problems in the Practice of Organization Development," ASTD Journal, April 1983, 16-23

Return to top of page

Return to Articles