5. MAKING DECISIONS - ENSURING QUALITY. A consultant can be evaluated according to the range and quality of his or her repertoire of interventions. The repertoire needs to be large enough to enable the consultant to provide appropriate help to a variety of client systems with a wide range of problems. The consultant must possess an internal conceptual framework within which to organize his or her thinking about specific types of interventions. This skill can be learned, but there is a certain amount of intuition involved in performing at a high degree of professional expertise. When a "critical moment" arises in a consulting intervention, the consultant who can think of the greatest number of possible reactions or is the most likely to behave effectively. Thus, creative thinking is essential for the would- be consultant. Yet, even though a large repertoire of ideas, strategies, and techniques increases the probability of a successful endeavor, it does not ensure absolute success. For the consultant to have alternative behaviors at his or her disposal is important, but having a framework of values or criteria for making choices between or among alternatives is equally important. When a consultant chooses an inappropriate response, he or she jeopardizes progress. Rosenberg (1951) revealed these interesting dilemmas that face the consultant: * A consultant who develops empathy for the client generates fewer causal hypotheses about the client's needs and motivations. * The consultant who identifies deeply with and becomes an advocate for the client is often a poor resource of help. Under these circumstances the consultant is unable to generate alternative ideas for problem- solving action and has more limited value criteria for choosing appropriate ways of helping. Identifying the real client(s) and deciding how to relate to him, her, or them are often two of the most difficult tasks facing the consultant. Often the consultant must deal with the important and puzzling issue of how to relate to one or more insiders as part of an ad hoc change-agent team, without creating difficulties with the rest of the system because of this special working relationship. Even though a client expects new experiences and activities as a result of working with a consultant, this prospect usually generates caution or insecurity about departing from the status quo. Consequently, the consultant is almost always faced with a series of questions about the appropriate degree of risk taking. Regarding decision making about interventions, consultants often become so focused on questions of what to do and say in their interactions with clients that they forget other intervention decisions concerning the context, the timing, and the methodology of offering help. Lippitt and Lippitt (1985) suggested that consultants deal with these four issues: 1. Direct or Indirect Intervention. The consultant must consider whether the intervention should be direct and face-to-face or preformed through some other medium. 2. Focal Point of the Intervention. When determining the focus of an intervention, the consultant must choose one of these possibilities: a. An individual in his or her intrapersonal dynamics; b. Interpersonal relationships and cliques, subgroups, or clusters within the client system; or c. The total system or organization. 3. Whether to Intervene. Part of the work of every consultant is to determine whether to intervene or not. It should be sharply differentiated from the consultant's neglect or avoidance of decisions that he or she is not able or ready to make. 4. Proactive or Reactive. One of the most critical decision dilemmas in working with client systems is the degree to which the consultant should be a proactive initiator or interventions or a responder to the problem-solving efforts and initiatives of the client (p. 211). Redl (1941) developed a principle in working with teachers that also applies to the consultant's situation: "One should not intervene to influence an individual member of the group unless the effect is at least neutral, if not positive, for the total group; similarly, one should not intervene to influence the total group unless the impact will be at least neutral, if not positive for each individual in the group." In determining the focal point of the intervention, therefore, the consultant must consider the potential side effects. To improve feedback from clients, Lippitt and Lippitt (1986) employed the following questionnaire to assist them in evaluating their work immediately. The following are some typical questions included on questionnaires that they asked their clients. 1. The most helpful thing you did today was 2. The thing you did (or did not do) that you found least helpful was 3. Something you learned from our work today was 4. What you did to facilitate this learning was 5. Words or phrases you would use to describe your consulting today are It is a trap at the beginning of a new client relationship to reuse a design or activity that worked well in an intervention with another client. Each client situation presents a new and unique challenge for the consultant, and only through a thorough diagnosing of what the client needs can the consultant make any type of decision which is appropriate for the new client.