H4's approach to strategy implementation in professional firms is built on a long history of working at the strategic management level. Within such firms there is a strong, direct correlation between strategic and organisational development. As a result, there are times when a competitive strategy cannot be developed until some aspects of the organisation itself are addressed. There are also other situations where it is relatively easy to gain agreement to what could be an effective strategy – yet it can never be implemented without significant attention to the organisation's capabilities.

The types of organisational development issues that often need to be addressed range from the very complex to the very simple. An example of the latter is where a firm adopts a strategy that will require a substantial firm-wide business development programme, but where partners lack the skill and experience in such programmes. Provided they recognise the fact and are prepared to address it then, over time, the firm's business development skills can be improved. But if they do not, issues become rather more complex ...

A convincing case

Suppose management puts forward a proposal to pursue a particular strategic direction, but a significant group of partners are not convinced such a direction is correct – or even necessary. One solution is to take these partners through the same thinking process that management itself undertook. (In these situations, we often find that management assume partners are more aware of the strategic issues facing their firm than they actually are. As a result, partners are often presented with a truncated version of a process on which management has spent considerable time.) Allowing partners to work through the issues in the same way as management, looking at the evidence, testing how management arrived at their proposals, all tend to bring most people to the same conclusion - provided the evidence is robust and the thinking consistent. If a significant number remain unconvinced, then the issue is of greater complexity still ...

Here, an issue facing many firms is the lack of a clear management structure, which inhibits the implementation of any decisions made by partners. In some cases there is no effective structure below the partnership as a whole; in others, there is a structural form, but a lack of clearly defined decision-making and implementation responsibilities. Hence, efforts to implement a strategy tend to fail.

The partnership itself is the most complex level of organisational problem. For example, some firms are unable to develop a competitive strategy because of the competing demands of individual partners or groups of them. Some partners insist that a strategy contain specific elements (e.g. that a particular practice area be a priority despite its relative strategic unimportance) even though they compromise and weaken the competitive basis of the firm. Too often, the strategy formulation phase is influenced adversely by internal politics and 'turf protection'.

In other situations, groups of partners oppose strategic proposals because they fail to see the issues facing the firm as a whole, only those that they encounter in their own group. They simply do not see its relevance. Others may oppose the proposals because they believe the evidence and analyses supporting them lead to entirely different conclusions.

Others agree to a particular strategy but then steadfastly refuse (sometimes passively, sometimes more actively) to do what is required to implement it. A common example here is when a key action step in a strategy is to develop core client teams and move away from individuals controlling key accounts. Some partners flatly refuse to co-operate while others simply opt out by doing nothing, even though they accept that action is integral to the strategy's success.

Partner problems

At the heart of strategic and organisational development in a professional firm is the attitude and behaviour of partners. Partners can block the development of what could be an effective strategy for a firm and they can block the implementation of a strategy already agreed.

There are many reasons for this type of behaviour. In some cases partners do not see the importance of development processes in their firm, or at least their relevance to themselves as individuals. They continue in their individual way and imagine that everything will be fine. Others may be very insecure and block strategic initiatives that does not benefit them or their group directly, even if the initiative is clearly in the best interests of the firm as a whole. Others still have not grasped the fundamental changes taking place in the market and their impact on the competitiveness of firms. They believe that because the firm has operated in a certain way for many years it can go on forever. They have not understood that competition makes certain types of behaviours outmoded, and that their firm will lose business to rivals if they do not adapt their behaviour in specific ways.

Finally, there are those who have a deep-seated resistance to change of any sort. Many of these people argue that they come into the firm to practice their professional skill and that is what they intend to do. Some of these do recognise the changes in the market but believe that an 'excellent professional' will always hold their own; others simply do not recognise the need to work in new ways, and refuse to recognise it. Quite often, these views conceal the deep aversion to risk that lurks in many partners.

Changing partner behaviour

At H4 Partners, we have extensive experience in dealing with these issues whether of lesser or greater complexity. An important element of our methodology is its basis in our deep knowledge of partners and partnerships. Obtaining behaviour change in a partnership is fundamentally different to approaches used in corporations. Partnerships' lack of a 'management hierarchy' creates the need for a different model of behaviour change.

Our approach is based on a process facilitation methodology in which we work with small groups of partners (or sometimes individuals). There is no standard approach to this work because it must vary depending on the issue or issues. The methodology, however, underpins every engagement of this type. The critical aspects of this methodology are:

• Identify the source of the problem. For example, is it one of communication, one requiring more data and analysis, a fundamental disagreement with the initial premise (e.g. 'competition is increasing') ... or what?
• Listen and understand the concerns expressed, and set these out in a coherent form for the participants.
• Facilitate a discussion to identify what the participants require in order to decide on the need for behaviour change.
• Discuss the behavioural options in relation to an agreed goal, or discuss the various options if the goal is not agreed.
• Identify courses of action that the participants are prepared to undertake and the likely outcomes. Relate the outcomes back to the original issue, and facilitate a discussion about the effectiveness of what has been agreed.
• Work with participants to reconcile any outstanding differences and develop short term action plans.
• Arrange a series of monitoring meetings whereby participants meet regularly to discuss process with us acting as facilitators.

As mentioned, the process may vary, but the underlying premise should remain the same: no-one is right or wrong in the early stages of a change programme.

Some partners may feel that the goal the programme is trying to reach is incorrect. Or that while the goal is correct, that the recommended actions are not the best way to achieve it. Here, it has to be accepted that there is more than one approach to get to the same goal - and if one approach gains greater buy-in than another, it is better to not insist that there is only one way. In fact, our process is not based on ensuring that opponents of a management proposal necessarily agree to what is being put forward (a worrying prospect for some managements!). Instead, we aim to gain agreement to undertake actions that will lead to a particular goal, even if they differ from what was originally proposed. And where the goal itself is in dispute, to allow people to test their thinking on its development - and to see if an even better goal emerges.

We operate with a completely open mind, and it sometimes happens that the opponents to a proposal are able to develop a different goal than has been proposed, or create a better initiative that will achieve the same goal.

Achieving agreement

It is important to remember that we are dealing with intelligent people, used to analysing issues and developing solutions. Accordingly, partners cannot be blamed nor prevented from doing the same when their management put forward proposals. Rather than insist that 'management must be right' it is better to allow a process that will lead to agreement and may even result in improvement.

In situations where the goal itself is in dispute, it may be best not to assume that the goal is right. We operate with a neutral stance and seek to understand the issues that concern partners. Once these are identified, there might be a need to collect further 'evidence' or undertake more analysis to confirm the correctness of the goal. Or it might even lead to the original goal's revision.

Sometimes concerns grow from a lack of clarity about the firm's current position in relation to the new goal. Allowing partners access to all the information that management had when the goal was developed, and time for them to think through the issues and options, may be all that is required for agreement. If the case for a particular course of action is strong, it tends to gain acceptance once people have been given the opportunity to test it and think it through. Put another way, apparent opposition to a proposal is often simply opposition to the process through which management are trying to reach a decision. Opening up this process - and engaging people in it - can often defuse opposition to the proposal itself.

It is often said that the best way to get people to 'buy in' to an initiative is to make them think that it was their own idea. This is a dangerous management philosophy, because it means that people are simply being manipulated. In our view you cannot manipulate intelligent people, or at least not for long. Real buy-in occurs only when people genuinely reach a conclusion about the need to do, or stop doing, something.

H4's methodology differs from the approach used by many consultants, who simply seek to obtain agreement generally. Instead, we seek to obtain agreement to a goal and then agreement as to what should be done to achieve it. Naturally, the goal must still be valid in terms of the firm's objectives, or faithful to the evidence collected about an issue. But above all, there should be no presumption that the initial formulation of the goal and actions required are the best answer. Discussion may lead to a different goal, or the original goal but with variations on how it can be achieved.

If all this results in a greater commitment to action, then the situation is enhanced. The main aim is to generate commitment and achieve a willingness to adapt behaviour – not to force an agreement that fails to lead to a genuine desire to change.