When a prospective client utters the words, "We have a committee handling the selection process for this assignment," you might feel the urge to pack it up and head back to the office.

Maybe it's called by another name--a task force, work group, or an evaluation team--but journalist Richard Harkness once observed that a committee is "a group of the unwilling, picked from the unfit, to do the unnecessary."

For companies steeped in the committee tradition, though, members can take comfort from the knowledge that they have little or no personal accountability for their decisions. If you ask about a decision that didn't go your way, for instance, they can pin the blame on "the committee" and dodge your inquiry.

No matter what clients tell you, a committee isn't a decision-making body at all. Someone (or a small cadre) on that committee is calling the shots. The others may have veto power, but they rarely have the influence to counter the wishes of the real decision maker(s).

If you play only to a committee, you're on a fool's errand. As with any sale, your job is to find the decision makers, understand their perspectives on value, and co-design a solution with them that outshines anything your competitors can offer.

If you're facing a selection committee and you haven't any idea who has influence, or where the power lies, think twice before jumping into the fray. There's a high likelihood that one of your competitors does know the lay of the land.

I'm not suggesting that you walk away from clients who use a committee process (though some consultants choose to do that). But you do need to find a path to the real decision makers on a committee and appeal to them. If a decision maker rebuffs your efforts, you may already be out of the running. So don't be surprised if you eventually hear your committee liaison say, "Sorry, you weren't selected for this project. The committee opted to go in another direction."

Enjoy this month's issue.
And send me an email if you have comments.

Michael McLaughlin
Editor

Last month, consolidation in the HR consulting market continued as Aon Corporation scooped up HR consulting giant Hewitt Associates for $4.9 billion. According to reports, Aon plans to integrate Hewitt with its existing consulting/outsourcing business, creating a new entity called Aon Hewitt. Current Hewitt CEO, Russ Fradin, would then become CEO of Aon Hewitt.

That transaction follows on the heels of Mercer's acquisition of IPA, the health and benefits administration technology provider. And, in January of this year, Towers Watson completed the merger of Towers Perrin and Watson Wyatt.

Speaking of Hewitt, according to a recent Hewitt study, global employee engagement and morale are nose-diving as the economy picks up steam. Almost half of surveyed organizations reported a drop in employee engagement levels at the end of June 2010. It's the steepest drop-off Hewitt has reported since it began conducting employee engagement research 15 years ago.

Hewitt's analysis shows a link between employee engagement levels and financial performance. Organizations with high levels of engagement (where 65 percent or more of employees are "engaged") outperformed the total stock market index even in volatile economic conditions.

In a moment of clarity, executives at consultancies A.T. Kearney and Booz & Company ended talks about a possible merger. The two firms have danced around a possible combination before and reached the same conclusion. It's doubtful that this latest round of talks did anything more than create unnecessary firm-wide turmoil at a time when both firms need market focus, not political intrigue.

Most of us have been in meetings where the attendees reached a consensus, even though some secretly thought the decision was a bad idea. These are the people who nod yes when asked if they agree, but their brains are screaming no, no, no.

Some people are just afraid to buck the group with a dissenting view. But it's just as common that the meeting environment itself causes people to keep their mouths shut. And that can lead to flawed decisions that require substantial effort to unravel later.

You can use three tactics to transform any meeting into an effective forum for making sound decisions.

First, invite criticism. In most meetings, people tolerate a vocal naysayer--at least for a while. Eventually, though, a lone critic is branded as an impediment, and gets marginalized by the group.

Avoid this trap by including people in the meeting with diverse points of view, interests, and roles in the organization. Ask relevant experts to attend parts of the meeting to offer their perspectives. Let people know that it's not only OK to have some confrontation as the group evaluates a decision, but that you expect it. And make sure the group addresses any reasonable objections.

Next, create an environment that encourages all attendees to speak their minds. Some meeting facilitators make a point of asking each participant to offer views on a question. You might want to ask first for opinions from the least senior members of the group; that can counter any bias that higher-ups introduce if they speak first.

Finally, make the actual decision in a smaller group setting. After you've gathered the facts and ideas, select some people from the group who've worked well together and made good decisions in the past. Choose individuals with the right expertise to decide on the question at hand; they should also be able to depersonalize the debate and unite behind a decision once the group chooses its path.

Lots of people believe that they attend too many time-wasting meetings. That belief is part of the reason that so many meetings fall short of their objectives. With a few adjustments, you can bypass the mind-numbing groupthink exercises and make your meetings both dynamic and productive.

Dan Pink is the author of several bestsellers about the changing world of work, including A Whole New Mind and Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. He looked at forty years of research on human behavior and found a mismatch between what scientists know about motivation and what business does.

One trait of a great leader is the ability to motivate people to perform at levels they didn't think were possible. We asked Pink if he could give a leader just one piece of advice about managing the performance of others, what it would be.

Pink said: "My advice would be to remember that the individuals you're leading are not that different from you. Managers will say to me well, I have that desire to direct my own life, master things, and to be part of something bigger, but not everybody's like that; if you give some people autonomy, they'll just shirk.

First of all, I don't buy that because I don't think people are that much different from you and me. Second, if you think the only way some people will be motivated and accountable is if you bribe them, then why do you want them working for your organization in the first place?"

Read the rest of my interview with Dan Pink.

My colleagues at UK-based SourceforConsulting.com spend a lot of time sifting through the "thought leadership" work that consultants send into the market. I empathize with one of their contributors, Zoe Stumpf, who wrote, "I've recently spent some time looking at the thought leadership produced by a selection of global consulting firms and, to be quite frank, I now need a bit of a lie down."

Why? Because too much of the so-called thought leadership in the market is an uninspiring mix of old ideas and unsupported claims. That's unfortunate, especially given that Source for Consulting research shows that thought leadership plays an important role in clients' hiring decisions.

In the context of a selection decision, clients will most likely check out a firm's thought leadership--that is, if the work has relevance to their business and industry. Source for Consulting found that 62 percent of thought leadership fails that important test and doesn't focus on a particular sector. Of the remaining 38 percent of thought leadership material:

• 82 percent isn't eye-catching or topical enough to attract a client's attention
• 74 percent doesn't say something sufficiently new or different to make a lasting impression
• 85 percent is not based on enough hard data to convince a client to take it seriously
• 99 percent doesn't create an effective link to the firm's consulting services.

The message: If you're engaging in a thought leadership strategy, ask at least these three questions before you publish:

Does the piece say anything new or different? Or does it offer a new insight on an old idea? If you're just offering me-too ideas, you're wasting your time.

Do you have proof for your conclusions? If you make specific recommendations for changing the direction or methods of a business, you need evidence to support your ideas.

Is there a connection between your thought leadership and your service offerings? If your clients can't see how your ideas tie to your capabilities, you're squandering the marketing opportunity that thought leadership offers.

In the last month or so, the largest 25 consulting firms in the world published almost 500 new books and articles. And their websites contain more than 16,000 pieces of thought leadership. You can save yourself from drowning in that sea of words, but you must focus on client needs, be rigorous in your analysis, and make the connection between your ideas and your work.

After three years of declines, customer satisfaction with airlines in North America has jumped, according to J.D. Power and Associates' 2010 North America Airline Satisfaction Study. The study is based on opinions from more than 12,300 passengers who flew on major North American airlines between April 2009 and April 2010.

The study measures overall customer satisfaction in seven areas: cost and fees; flight crew; in-flight services; aircraft; boarding/deplaning/baggage; check-in; and reservations. For the third consecutive year, Alaska Airlines tops the list in the traditional carrier segment, followed by Continental, and American Airlines. United Airlines, which plans to merge with Continental, placed seventh on the list. For a fifth consecutive year, JetBlue Airways ranks highest in the low-cost carrier segment, followed by Southwest Airlines, and WestJet. Among other findings from the study:

• 65 percent of the traditional carriers' passengers want complimentary meals back
• Nearly half of passengers say that prices for in-flight beverages and food, checked baggage, and preferred seating are unreasonably high
• Customer satisfaction with boarding, deplaning, and baggage averages nearly 60 points higher among passengers who are not charged for the first checked bag.

Note to airline executives: Your customers may seem a bit more satisfied this year, but it's more likely that they've just lowered their expectations. If you really want to get out of the doldrums, look for ways to delight your customers, instead of nickel and diming them to death.

You can start with dumping the annoying, incremental fees for everything a passenger needs to do. If that means a fare increase, your customers will understand. The North American airline industry won't come out of its tailspin until executives learn that competing solely on price is a losing proposition in the long run. People need a reason to be your customers if you want them to stick with you.

"Drop your mind on paper."

Next month, we'll talk with Mark Levy, the author of Accidental Genius: Using Writing to Generate Your Best Ideas, Insight, and Content. Levy's book shows us how to use a simple tool called freewriting to explore our ideas and solve problems.

We'll ask Levy about the applications of freewriting for our businesses, why it works, and how to get started.

Look for the next issue of Management Consulting News on September 7, 2010.