I agree that communication is work - however, I believe that open lines of communication, honesty and trust can create a self-enforcing culture, one in which the benefits of open communication are worth the work needed.

To remain open to change and talking, organizations should do what makes the most sense. To be clear, I’m not advocating change for change’s sake. I’m advocating encouraging a culture of collaborative information sharing towards a common goal.

Perhaps you, Jim and I should get together and talk, because the question in your comment is ripe for discussion.

Regarding consulting: very often it’s easy for consultants to be co-opted by the client’s culture. Most of that is tacit anyway. My experience has been that I’ve put my name on reports that I had a good deal of control over only to see them ignored or end us as a footnote to another report. Jim’s comment is a good reminder of the consultant’s dilemma. In the end I’m just a hired hand.

Given all these well-known existing forces of the status-quo, what can organizations do, day-to-day, to keep themselves open to change and talking?

Your bit about the consultant’s dilemma doesn’t stop there. Quite often consultants are hired to be a rubber stamp on assumptions and are fired if they fail to parrot back their client’s assumptions.

I have had reports handed back to me with the statement, “This is not what we were looking for. We need to prove x.” But “x” was inherently wrong.

In other cases, the consultant is part of a very large process to reach a conclusion. Often the consultant is a guide on the process, but doesn’t actually control it. In the end, the consultant must put their name on a report that they had little control in generating.

In both these instances, the information provided by the consultant and tied to the consultant is not necessary from that consultant.

So, yes, sometimes we are put in a position where our livelihood requires that we participate in the spread of information we are not entirely comfortable with.