One way of passing this “Consul-Way” on to newcomers is to assign them to
projects with experienced colleagues from the outset. For instance, one newcomer
reports how remarks and corrections to his performance help him to adjust and to align
with the company expectations:
I would probably say, that the biggest eye opener was the one I got from Eric after the first
meeting we had with XX [customer], where he called me afterwards and said to me: “You have
to be a little more sharp around the edges. It is what they buy us for [. . .] not as consensus
seeking, and you know, going with the flow [. . .]”, and I am rather ambitious, so that hit me
hard and I have thought a lot about that afterwards (Newcomer, Consul).
Even when newcomers in Consul are experienced consultants, with good and reputable
track records from elsewhere, the institutional order is difficult to escape also in
instances where the “Consul-Way” seem counter intuitive to what the consultants have
succeeded with before. One experienced newcomer states:
And I can see, that some of what Consul preaches and some of what Consul claims to work
and create enormous improvements, conflicts more or less with my previous experience
(Newcomer, Consul).
The newcomers’ experience of what works in other situations is, in other words,
challenged by the experience built up in the methodological apparatus advocated by
Consul and reified in templates, agendas, and materials found in the databases.
The newcomer, then, is caught between his own knowledge and experience of what
works and the established knowledge base in Consul.
These examples are seen as ways of instigating the institutional order on the
newcomer, formally as well as informally. Introducing the new employee to the
procedures and administrative routines of the company as well as to the “Consul-Way”
from the outset sends a clear signal of what tools to apply when, where and how.
Also the institutional order is conveyed to newcomers either explicitly by old-timers
giving advice and guidance, or implicitly by newcomers working together with
old-timers on projects.
However, as with Major Bank, the institutional order is also constantly challenged
by the entry of newcomers. For instance, one newcomer mentions a specific example of
how a presentation of how to minimize tensions and frustrations associated with
mergers and acquisitions, which proved successful in a previous job, has been modified
and transferred into the new setting by reusing PowerPoint presentations:
I have a PowerPoint presentation about mergers and change management that I have used
previously, and some of the slides about what you need to be aware of, different reactions in
a change process were used in a modified form (Newcomer, Consul).
Also pinpointed actions directed towards specific businesses or sectors which
newcomers with specialized knowledge challenge the institutional order by offering
new ways of approaching certain sectors. One newcomer explains how his knowledge
of the public sector has caused a change in the way estimates and proposals are written
and presented to potential public clients because this has to be different from private
clients. One manager explains that it is part of their recruitment strategy to hire people
with sector specific knowledge, and newcomers are described to take with them
knowledge from specific industries where Consul has had no projects previously.
Such experience is subsequently incorporated into the existing framework in the
SBR
5,2
136
business area and informs other methods used. Besides, contributing to develop a new
area of expertise, the newcomers’ contributions are said to benefit the organization in
terms of creating a base for future discussions and synergies in other projects. Even in
cases where the consultant is not fully booked on projects outside the house, the
following quote illustrates how newcomers are expected to actively engage in the
company, and thus contribute to change the organizational make up:
You shouldn’t just be here to [. . .] you mustn’t just be a trailer, right, not just be coupled on and
ride along. You can do that, but that is not someone you want to have hanging around, right?
You can be as good as it gets, but we want someone who steps up to the plate and do things,
develop some competencies, do stuff, do something [. . .] our internal systems. Do something on
our internal procedures. Do things that others don’t (Senior consultant at Consul).
Other examples of the existing frameworks being extended or challenged by induction
newcomers into the organization count the integration of knowledge, templates and
methods from other consultancy houses into the organizational knowledge base.
Rethinking induction
The two cases presented may be said to represent two different ways of inducting
newcomers but with the same background, namely to induct new kinds of newcomers
out of necessity due to labor shortage, either because of rapid growth or because of the
need to rethink the company profile. In the bank, there is a sense of the usefulness of
recruiting “outsiders” by recruiting employees from the service sector in general in
order to help change the internal and external image of the bank. However, the meeting
between the new recruits and the firm institutional order does not make an easy
renewal of the banks. The status quo, however, is also challenged to some degree as the
organizational rhythm is beginning to swing through new beats and new ways of
working and new routines are slowly entering the branches. In the consultancy
company, the institutional order is in the making due to the rather young organization,
and although induction seems to be an important means in this process as new
methods and sector specific knowledge is readily accepted into the organization,
newcomers report how they in the so-called Consul-Way meet a strong organizational
culture and a strong sense of right and wrong in relation to performance. The strong
normative approach to consultancy along with a strong sense of “we do things this
way” in the company, provides the frame against which all new ideas and initiatives
are measured, which points to the simultaneous maintenance of status quo.
When rethinking induction, metaphors can be useful, as with the rhythm metaphor.
Another metaphorical way of seeing induction, is as a generative dance (Sprogoe
and Rohde, 2009). Building on the understanding proposed by Cook and Brown a
generative dance within the doing of work “[. . .] constitutes the ability to generate new
knowledge and new ways of using knowledge – which knowledge alone cannot do”
(Cook and Brown, 1999, p. 394). When we coin induction as a generative dance, it is a
way to describe how the social interaction inherent in induction (the “dance”) leads to
something else (is generative), in this case learning. However, the dance metaphor
allows us to understand the renewal as well as the status quo of induction. On the one
side, the dance is not static as the dancers and their performance constantly adapt to a
specific context as it is continuously influenced by music, other couples on the dance
floor, the size and composition of the floor, the dancers’ experience, and whether
the partners know one another, etc. (Feldman and Rafaeli, 2002). On the other side,