‘We need a workshop’
A director asks for a half-day workshop to make a fragmented team collaborate. The director will open the session and leave.
Inquire: What can the team decide? What in its tasks, incentives, and management makes collaboration difficult? What will the director contribute after the opening? Try: ‘I can help design the session. First, can we agree what people will be able to change and how you will support the decisions?’ Review: Did you clarify purpose and authority before selecting activities?
Two clients, one internal consultant
Your manager allocates two days a week. The service sponsor assumes you are available whenever needed. You have begun covering the difference.
Inquire: Who agreed the priority and capacity? Which work is being displaced? Try: ‘We currently have two different assumptions about my availability. Can the three of us agree what can be delivered in the allocated time, and what would need to change?’ Review: Did you make the conflict visible without making either party the villain?
The recommendation is already chosen
A sponsor asks for an independent review, then makes clear that only one recommendation will be acceptable.
Inquire: Is the task to investigate, validate evidence, communicate a decision, or implement it? What discretion remains? Try: ‘If the decision has been made, we can agree work that supports implementation. If this is an independent review, I need room to reach a different conclusion. Which are you asking for?’ Review: Did you establish an honest purpose and avoid promising an independence you cannot deliver?
Repeatedly missing access
You are asked to deliver findings but cannot meet the people who do the work. Meetings keep being cancelled.
Inquire: What prevents access? Does the sponsor still want this work? What claims would the available evidence support? Try: ‘Without those conversations I can give you a limited desk review. I cannot claim it represents how the service operates. Shall we change the access, the scope, or the deadline?’ Review: Did you connect your requirement to quality and purpose?
A new objection at every meeting
Every practical concern receives an answer, but the assignment never reaches a decision.
Inquire: Is there a substantive gap, an absent decision maker, a risk to someone’s status, or an unwanted proposal? Try: ‘There seems to be something we have not yet addressed. What makes this difficult to commit to?’ Review: Did you listen before calling the pattern resistance? What changed when you discussed the relationship?
A report that must also build capability
The client wants a report by a fixed date and wants the team to learn how to investigate future problems.
Inquire: Which inquiry tasks can the team own? What time is protected? Who will lead the next review? Try: retain the report, add joint interpretation and a client-led inquiry cycle, and agree evidence of learning. Review: Did the contract resource both aims, or simply add ‘capability building’ to the promise?
‘AI means we should deliver faster’
A team can generate analyses and documents quickly, while its sponsor presses for shorter delivery times. It is unclear whether understanding and decisions are improving.
Inquire: Which part of the work is actually faster? What still needs human inquiry, verification, consent, and judgement? Who checks errors and consequences? Try: ‘We can reduce drafting time. Let us agree how that changes cost or scope, and what evidence and client decisions still require time.’ Review: Did you distinguish faster production from useful learning and responsible action? This is a consulting scenario, not an assessment of any particular AI tool.
The principal client is absent
The person who asked for the work cannot attend. A colleague is present but is unsure what they can decide.
Inquire: What authority has been delegated? What can usefully happen today? Which decisions need the principal? Try: ‘We can explore the situation and prepare options. Before committing to a scope, can we confirm who has authority and arrange a decision conversation?’ Review: Did you use the time without inventing an agreement?
A 25-minute practice round
- 3 minutes: choose a real moment, define the purpose of the conversation, and explain only the context needed.
- 6 minutes: practise with a colleague playing the client and another observing. The observer notes actual words, questions, assumptions, and shifts in responsibility.
- 5 minutes: hear the client’s experience, then the observer’s evidence. Avoid a flood of advice.
- 6 minutes: replay the difficult moment with one deliberate change.
- 5 minutes: reflect and choose one action to try in practice.
If practising alone, write both sides of the exchange, including the response you least want to hear. Ask what that response would make you change. The triad rehearsal was part of the wider teaching repertoire; it was not completed in the September online session.
A short reflection after real work
- What was I trying to make possible?
- What did I observe, and what did I infer?
- Where did I take over, withdraw, or conceal a requirement?
- What did the client contribute or decide?
- What did the intervention change, including unintended effects?
- What will I repeat, alter, or test next time?