Humour in the Client Consultant Relationship: Who is In and Out?

Timothy ClarkRobin FinchamKaren HandleyAndrew Sturdy

Conception of the Client-consultant relationship

ConsultancyClient organisation

Boundaries in the client-consultant relationship

Symbolic - ‘conceptual distinctions made to categorize

objects, practices, and even time and space’ (Lamont and Molnár, 2002,

p. 168).

Social – Objectified and stable forms of social difference that have a

constraining character.

Merton identifies the notion of “status sets”.

Liminality – part of the “consultant condition”, ‘blurring and merging of

distinctions’ (Czarniawska and Mazza, 2003).

Humour Focus on symbolic boundaries or the intersubjective creation and

experience of fleeting boundaries

A key theme in humour is the notion of inclusion and exclusion; the creation of a momentary bond – a common definition of a situation.

Laughter is a collective act which appears to tie everyone together.

Humour occurs in a “play frame” (Bateson, 1955). It is a liminal act. The conversational rules are different and ambiguity is celebrated.

Humour can show the momentary shifts in symbolic boundaries between consultants and clients depending on whether they laugh together.

Client system Consultant system

Case organisation – Imperial Building Society

Building society over 150 years old. In 2003, it had assets of over £500 million, lent around £150

million and had approximately 200 employees. In 2002 Imperial made the decision to replace its IT

infrastructure that supported the delivery of its mortgages, savings and investments products. The contract was worth just under £2 million.

Chose Puma Financial Systems whose system was used by 40% of the UK’s building societies as well as a range of banks.

Key Issues / Tensions

Extent to which system statutorily compliant Quality of the software (versions crashing, not delivering

promised upgrades, proliferation of workarounds) Ability of system to link with other elements (ATM

network, FinPlan, etc) Costs and responsibilities, trust

Meeting between clients and consultants

TC

CONSULTANT

2DAVID

PETER

DAVIDJANICEBEV

CONSULTANT

1

Gwyneth PaltrowPeter: Welcome everyone. (.) I want to introduce you to Tim. He works at [University Business

School] and is going to be observing our meetings. Tim would you like to tell us something about your project?

Tim: Thank you for letting me sit-in on your meetings. (.) I am conducting research into the transfer of knowledge between consultants and their clients with colleagues at two other universities […] (.) and […]. We are sponsored by […], (.) the main funder of social science research in the UK.

It is not intended to be evaluative in any way. I look forward to learning more about your project over the coming months and am happy to answer any questions you may have.

Peter: Great. Janice (.) when the research is finished (.) and the film of the book is made

[turns and looks at person to whom remarks addressed]

you will be played by Gwyneth Paltrow.

Participants: LLLLLLLLLL-L-l-l-l-l-l[-l-l-l

Peter: [lll Right (.) let’s follow the agenda. Minutes of the last meeting. Any comments, updates?

Red BadgeDavid: These seem a large number of problems to fix before the next conversion. We only have one more meeting

after that. Can you be confident that we can go live?Jonathan: Sure. But if you look at the incident report most of the problems are cleared-up on average in less than (.) a

day. Many of the active issues are not high priority and so show stoppers. (.) But it would be helpful if we could have more of Sarah’s time. (.) I know she’s pressed on other jobs (.) but her input would help in fixing Summit to produce the new format MFS’s and (.) QFS’s.

Beverley: He’s after his (.) red ba-hh-dge. [waves her security badge]

PeterDavid:Beverley: LLLLLLL[llll

Jonathan: (wry smile)Graham: LLllll

Beverley [She’s our-h Sarah now not your Sarah.

PeterDavid:Beverley: : LLLLLLllll

Jonathan: (smile)Graham: Lllll

English VersionJonathan: You got Georges’s report?

Peter: George sent me something that I didn’t have a clue about. Now I’ve got the English versio-h-n.

[Expansive smile

Peter

David:

Beverley: LLLLLLLLLLL[L-L-Ll

Jonathan:

Graham: LLlllllllllll

Peter: [Right uhm Do we take a machine out of Post Office Row and install some kind of temporary arrangement? It would mean maintaining a limited

Reasons for Laughing at “English Version”

Criticism of Puma: ‘I felt Peter was criticizing Puma and the way they can sometimes make things overly technical and complex’. (Imperial employee)

Criticism of George: ‘I agree with Peter. I saw that report and the guy just didn’t produce a clear report’. (Imperial employee)

Lack of clarity: ‘We are all learning fast. Peter was commenting on our frustration at having to make decisions with incomplete information’; ‘It was about Puma’s communication with us’. (Both Imperial employees)

Peter’s preference for information: ‘Peter’s not technically-minded, I can just imagine his reaction to that report. He likes things in plain English. That’s what should have been done’. (Imperial employee)

Incongruity: ‘They think of us as techies and often joke that we speak another language’. (Puma consultant)

Not funny: ‘I don’t really remember the remark. I’m not sure if I laughed’. (Puma consultant)

Key Points

Humour is a pervasive but overlooked aspect of the client-consultant relationship.

Collective response can hide important within group differences. It does not automatically signal consensus.

Humour does not represent a common definition of a situation.

Used to overcome tensions in the client-consultant relationship.

Differences in response most marked in relation to criticisms of the consultants.

Consultants themselves not unified in their response. One consultant is closer to client than the other.