Humour in the Client Consultant Relationship: Who is In and Out? Timothy Clark Robin Fincham Karen Handley Andrew Sturdy

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

• Timothy Clark Robin Fincham Karen Handley Andrew Sturdy

Conception of the Client-consultant relationship

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.

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

Gwyneth Paltrow

• Peter: 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 Badge

• David: 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]

• Peter

• David:

• Beverley: LLLLLLL[llll

• Jonathan: (wry smile)

• Graham: LLllll

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

• Peter

• David:

• Beverley: : LLLLLLllll

• Jonathan: (smile)

• Graham: Lllll

English Version

• Jonathan: 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.