Consultation as a Political Process Michael Baizerman, M.S.W., Ph.D.* William T. Hall, Ph.D.
ABSTRACT: Consultation may be viewed as a political-bargaining process in which actors seek to maximize at minimal cost expertise, organizational position, and organizational reputation. A view of consultation as political process allows for a shift in language in discussions of consultation. Such a language shift suggests shifts in the social meaning of the consultation process. Emphasis was placed on four suggested functions of consultation: definition and legitimation of a situation or of facts as "'problematic"; raising the priority of an issue on the agenda of action in a consultee's agency; legitimation of deviant administrative behavior; and creation and sustenance of interagency linkages. A perspective is proposed that looks at the consequences as well as the intents of the process. This view of consultation can be studied empirically.
Consultation is a process familiar to those in the helping professions. The published literature about consultation, however, often renders the familiar unrecognizable. Missing from prescriptive papers and research reports is the "political" dimension of consultation. This is our focus. THE LITERATURE ON CONSULTATION A review of the literature on consultation in the helping professions shows that focus is placed on the consultant, the consultee, the process of consultation, and on the setting of consultation. The consultant is seen as in a social role or emphasis is placed on the personality attributes shown to be, or more frequently thought to be, necessary for "effective" consultation to occur. Much of the literature is prescriptive or proscriptive, with recommendations flowing from the data of experience. Rarely are empirical studies noted. Implicit in many papers, but rarely articulated, is the notion that the process of consultation includes "bargaining" between and among the participants. Bargaining can be viewed as an element of a sociopolitical process, hence this perspective of consultation as a political process. TOWARD A DEFINITION Politics can be defined as "the art of influencing, manipulating, and controlling so as to advance the purposes of some against the opposition of others." This definition of politics is similar to another by Harold Lasswell: *Dr. Baizerman is Associate Professor, Center for Youth Development and Research, and Associate Professor in Maternal and Child Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101. Dr. Hall is Professor, Graduate School of Public Heath and School of Social Work, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 142
community Mental Health Journal, Vol. 13 (2), 1977
Michael Baizerman and William T. Hall
143
Whether we are thinking of a body politic as a whole or face-to-face situation we are considering "arenas" in which "participants" are striving to accomplish their purposes by influencing "outcomes." The purposes are directed toward "preferred events" ("values" and "interpretations" of values in terms of "institutional practices"). Participants are seeking to maximize power and other values by influencing outcomes. They use the values at their disposal as "base values" according to "strategies," (Van Dyke, 1960, p. 132) O r Robert A. Dahl: A political system is any persistent pattern of human relationships that involves, to a significant extent, power, rule or authority. (Dahl, 1970, p. 6) [This m a y be the sense that R. D. Laing (1972) seeks to c a p t u r e in the title of his b o o k , The Politics of the Family] T h e s e notions of politics as a social, that is, interpersonal, process a n d as social structure are close to a notion of bargaining: a negotiation b e t w e e n actors (individuals, g r o u p s , organizations) settling w h a t each will give a n d take or p e r f o r m a n d receive. These notions of politics a n d b a r g a i n i n g contribute to o u r definition a n d a v i e w of consultation as a political process: Consultation is a political-bargaining process in which expertise, organizational position, and personal and organizational reputation are the currency of the bargaining between consultant and consultee; and in which each actor attempts to maximize his currency at a minimum cost. In this p e r s p e c t i v e , m u c h of w h a t is t h o u g h t of as the s e c o n d a r y c o n s e q u e n c e s of consultation, t h e d y s f u n c t i o n a l aspects of the process for the actors, or the ineffectiveness of a particular consultation bec o m e the s u b s t a n c e a n d focus of the analysis a n d the practice of consultation. A change in v o c a b u l a r y can a c c o m p a n y the c h a n g e in p e r s p e c t i v e , a n d concepts such as " p o w e r , " "conflict," " s t r a t e g y , " "tactics," " l i n k a g e , " "coalit i o n , " a n d "alliance," a m o n g others, can be u s e d w i t h a d v a n t a g e in the analysis a n d discussion of consultation. This p r o p o s e d shift in l a n g u a g e is itself i m p o r t a n t , for politics as a s y m b o l has h a d a history in the h u m a n services as a pejorative t e r m until recently. Second, a focus on politics includes a central interest on " p o w e r , " a n d the c o n n o t a t i o n s of this w o r d aside, the realities of p o w e r in p r o f e s s i o n a l practice are not often a c k n o w l e d g e d a n d less often discussed. Third, in E d e l m a n ' s (1967) p h r a s e " t h e symbolic u s e s of politics" a n d the m a n i p u l a t i o n of s y m b o l s in a political w a y b e c o m e foci of analysis a n d practice; this, too, is a subject often ignored a n d one that is t h o u g h t a n d believed b y s o m e to be antithetic to their p e r s o n a l values a n d to the social values of d e m o c r a c y a n d p r o f e s s i o n a l practice. A c c o m p a n y i n g this e m p h a s i s on the symbolic a n d i n t e r p e r s o n a l e l e m e n t s of consultation as politics is a focus on the social structural e l e m e n t s in the process. Focus on the social structure as a n analytically distinct level allows the use of the sociological notion of social role; in turn, the p e r s o n in the social
144
Community Mental Health Journal
role of consultant is oriented to several sets of patterned expectations about his behavior. Some of these sets are the employing organization (agency), the organization in which the consultee is an employee, and the consultant's own profession, among others. Although the particular expectations of the consultant can only be determined empirically, it is important to examine briefly the notion of the consultant as a special type of employee--the agent. The consultant who is employed by a human-service agency acts as an agent of that agency. The core idea in the word "agent" (itself derived from the word "agency") is "acting for or on behalf of." That is, the agent is a "representative of" an agency or the consultant represents his agency. These notions of "agent," "agency," and "represent" are expressed in the employing agency's expectations for its employees who work as consultants and in the other sets of social expectations noted. Most important, these are the expectations that are experienced by the consultant (that is, his personal role conceptions) and which form the boundaries of the actual consultation (Penn o c k & Chapman, 1968; Pitkin, 1967). The consultant is "of" his agency and hence may feel, may act, and may be seen by others (for example, the consultee) as a member of an agency. Herein lies the source of the notion in our definition that organizational position and organizational reputation are some of the units of currency in consultation. I n d u d e d now are the analytical levels of person, social role, and social collectivity (that is a focus on a group or an organization as entities, not a focus on people as members of the group or organization.) Discussion can be on the patterns observed or thought to occur on each level. Similarly, the notions of power, influence, bargaining, and so on, can be used to refer to activities on each level. Last, "agency" as a factor is introduced and can be treated as a context within which consultation occurs, as a precondition or intervening variable in the study of consultation effectiveness and as a source of power, authority, and the like. In summary, a definition of consultation as politics was offered and a vocabulary was introduced. The social meanings of this vocabulary as social symbols were noted. Mention was made of these analytical levels and the notion of consultant as agent of an agency was discussed. Next, we note some plausible social norms that seem to operate in consultation when it is viewed as a political-bargaining process. CONSULTATION AS A POLITICAL-BARGAINING PROCESS From the perspective of consultation as a politicalbargaining process, there seem to be at least three social norms necessary for the process to occur: First, influencing, manipulating, negotiating, and so on, are accepted ways to control differences, to reach a settlement, and to exchange expertise. Second, the possibility (and the probability) exists that bargaining, influencing, and so on, can occur, and that the participants in the bargaining system (consultation) might gain (profit) from participation in that
Michael Baizerman and William T. Hall
145
system. Third, participation in the bargaining system is " o p e n " on some issues and "closed" on other issues. These norms can be viewed as unstated assumptions about or expectations of the consultation process, and as the substance of bargaining in the initial stages of the consultative process (for example, formulating and agreeing on a "contract"). By focusing on social norms that "regulate" the consultation process, emphasis is placed on the social system of consultant-consultee and on the social role behaviors of both actors. Clearly the consultee is not a "nonreactive" object, but is, instead, an active participant, a bargainer, too. Discussion is next on some social functions of consultation. SOME SOCIAL FUNCTIONS OF CONSULTATION Problem Creation One major social function of consultation seems to be the definition and legitimation of a situation or of facts as problematic. "Problems" do not exist out there somewhere waiting to be "discovered." Instead, these problems are man-made in that they are brought into existence in a social process of problem creation and definition. The consultant often plays a central part in this process. Many different discrete facts apply to any given situation. A fact does not have a meaning a priori, but gains meaning and social significance through interpretation. Interpretation is a process of putting facts into a context and organizing them (using certain "rules") into combinations or systems of facts. A system of facts that we do not like, which we see as "bad," is called a "problem." The word "problem" means several things: We "dislike" the system of facts; we want to do something to change the system of facts (solve the problem or cure it); action about the system of facts has a high priority (do something now). That is, people are the actors in the processes of associating facts to each other and in relabeling this analytical or empirical system of facts as a "problem." By this process the symbol "problem" is used to legitimate socially the system of facts as requiring preventive or remedial action. The consultant often plays a central part in this transformation process. By virtue of his profession, his alleged or actual expertise, his organization position, and the like, he can at least participate by noting new or u n k n o w n facts, suggesting associations between and among facts, or labeling existing systems of facts as "bad." For example, it may be a fact that 43% of the people who live in Dinkytown are under 20 years of age. It may be a fact that 28% of them have an income of $5,000 or more per year. And it may be a fact that 84% of them live in poor quality housing. We might look at these facts and conclude that most of the people in Dinkytown are doing well; or we might conclude that some of the people are doing well, or that some people are poor, or that some people--the same or others--live in substandard housing, or that some of the people are over 20 years old. We might conclude from these three facts that (a)
146
Community Mental Health Journal
Dinkytown has problems; (b) Dinkytown does not have problems; (c) some people in Dinkytown have problems; or (d) some people living in Dinkytown are young, poor, and poorly housed and this is a problem. We give the facts meaning by our interpretation. We transform the facts into problems. It may be that one social function of a profession is to control this type of labeling process for facts in certain specific analytical or social domains, and, by extension, to gain social legitimation "to help" those people who suffer the problems so defined--that is, to gain social control over certain population groups, access to resources to help them, and the right to help individuals who are members of the population group. Professions and disciplines use different "problem nosologies" (classification systems). These nosologies are learned in the process of becoming a professional. Staff members in agencies who are professionals may use the nosology learned in training, the nosology used by many in the agency, a personal nosology, and so on. The important point is that classification systems purport to be built on the probabilities associated with class membership of a person or fact (diagnosis), with notions of pathogenicity (cause of illness or problem), and with suggested treatments (intervention points and action goals). Consultants may be used for the reason that they have, or are thought to have, a different nosology. It may also be that the very symbol "consultant" is important to the process of problem creation. Implicit in the word "consultant" now is the notion of "expert." Authority and power are related directly to this symbol in both psychological and social ways: The "expert" is felt to be one who knows (hence, often, the origin of consultee "dependency"). One expects the expert to know, and the expert, whether or not he knows, often has legal rights and authority to act. More important here, the consultant is, in Simmel's term (1950), the "stranger," and it is in part by virtue of this social, psychological, and political status that he has authority to participate in the interpersonal bargaining on which facts and situations get defined as "problems." This leads to the second social function of consultation.
Priority Raising A second and closely related social function of consultation is to raise the priority of an issue on the agenda of action in the consultee's agency. Defining a situation or issue as "problematic" is to give this issue social legi~mation as "bad" and as requiring immediate action. Thus, as a consequence of "creating" a problem, the situation or issue is placed on the agency's agenda for action; if already on this agenda, the consultant's "word" might raise the action priority given the problem. Viewed as a political-bargaining process, a staff worker in an agency often chooses to take the status of consultee by calling a consultant who will agree with him that a certain situation or issue is problematic. In this case the political function of the consultation is to enhance the consultee's bargaining
Michael Baizerman and William T. Hall
147
position within his agency's decision-making structure so as to raise the odds of his success. This is seen more clearly if as each example is read, one inserts in it a sentence that says, "A staff person invited a consultant to help with . . . . " For example, consider this situation in a group home for adjudicated delinquents. The staff noted the broken windows, the easily broken door latch, the lack of petty cash for program, and similar things. These they defined as irritants, as things bad but tolerable. Working with a consultant, these irritants came to be defined as major problems in the facility and as barriers to an effective therapeutic milieu. Further, the staff learned that the irritants might also be defined as problems by the government staff members who inspect and license such group homes. These people were contacted and said that the failure to correct the situation could result in the revocation of the license. Another example might be that of a consultant helping with a specific research project at a youth-serving agency who suggests that the agency's record system is inadequate for the provision of base-line data necessary in the specific project. The basic record system comes to be defined as "problematic." By relating the problematic record system to state monitoring of agency service that requires certain record keeping (a different kind of problem), it was possible to gain intraagency support for basic changes in the record system. In turn, this led to staff interest in the process of research and program evaluation, and so on. The same idea is found in the use of a consultant to enhance one position vis-a-vis other staff in one's own agency, staff in other agencies, one's agency vis-a-vis another agency, one's view of a client or patient, and the like. These notions suggest several points: The staff person chooses to take the social status of consultee depending on his purpose at hand, his situation; the choice of consultant is related to this purpose at hand; and the staff person's choices may be based on political factors such as his relative bargaining power vis-a-vis others. In turn, this power is related to many sociopolitical factors such as profession, authority, and the like, which may have little to do with the particular needs or wants of a specific client or problem. As consultation can be used to legitimate (or have the social function of legitimating) intraagency participation, it may also legitimate heretofore illegitimate administrative behavior (Merton, 1957).
Legitimation A third social function of consultation is to legitimate deviant administrative behavior by helping the consultee move outside established patterns of intraagency decision making. The staff person who cannot realize satisfaction within the established agency decision-making structure can choose to use a consultant to help him circumvent that structure. Redefining a problem is one way to do this; redefining a person is another way (for example, from "bad" to "sick"; from "a drunk" to "an alcoholic"). Common
148
Community Mental Health Journal
to both of these is that the consequences of redefinition allow for the resolution (or for continued bargaining) in different decision-making structures. This is seen clearly in the use of medical consultants, especially in a hospital. Another source of examples is seen in the consequence of the ideology of citizen participation as a means of relocating the locus of, and changing the participants in, intraagency decision making. In interagency contacts a staff person's position at the agency's boundary as a referral worker, as a participant in interagency meetings, or as staff working with community groups can result in the worker learning about "outsiders" who can help him "inside." This leads to a fourth social function of consultation.
Interagency Linkages A fourth social function of consultation is the creation and sustenance of interagency linkages. Such relations among agencies are commonplace in the exchange of clients, staff funds, equipment, facilities, and the like. These transactions are the stuff of interagency systems or the social structure of the human-service system. Consultation is one such bond in the structure. A staff person can choose to be a consultee so as to involve the agency that employs the consultant. This was touched on earlier in the discussion of our definition, that is, the consultant as agent of the agency. Here is noted the importance of the agency as a source of symbolic and actual power which, when linked, can enhance the position of the agency worker vis-a-vis his many structural others (his role set) and in his many intra- and interagency bargainings. The consequences of linking an agency to one's own by using a consultant can result in the provision of actual resources (a form of power) as well as in the enhancement of one's status vis-a-vis specific others. Hence the importance of the linkage. The process of linking an agency by using consultants is facilitated by a symbolic process that occurs in the mind. As noted, when we look at a person who is an employee of an agency, we often see him as a staff person who is an agent of his organization; we can "see" him as a representative of his agency. For example, Ms. A is an employee of agency X and Mrs. B is an employee of agency Y who is consulting with Ms. A. Ms. A and Mrs. B meet to discuss a situation in agency X. On one level, Ms. A and Mrs. B can be said to have interacted. An observer present at the meeting who said that he saw the interaction would be believed for he was and heard the people talking, gesturing, "listening." The observer could also say, and would be believed, that the meeting was an example of agency interaction, for both workers met jointly as workers, as members of their employing agencies. It is in the mental process of moving from person to worker to agent to representative that the symbolic shift from personal interaction to agency interaction occurs. There are personal and social consequences of this shift in level and symbol. One of the social consequences may be that an agency can be defined by some as participating in or supporting a decision or issue without the agency
Michael Baizerman and William T. Hall
149
staff k n o w i n g this or a p p r o v i n g of the particular stance. W h e n such a definition of the situation h a s the c o n s e q u e n c e s of c h a n g i n g the a g e n c y staff's v i e w of their o w n or collective activities, w e see the social function of consultation in the process of a g e n c y interaction. O T H E R VIEWS Taken t o g e t h e r these discussions h a v e s u g g e s t e d that consultation can be v i e w e d a n d practiced as politics. It could be a d d e d that the notions a b o u t consultation a n d p r o b l e m creation are related to c h a n g i n g the consultee's " f r a m e of r e f e r e n c e , " u n i v e r s e of discourse, or " o r g a n i z a t i o n a l m a p . " Also i m p o r t a n t is the relation b e t w e e n the v i e w of consultation as politics a n d v i e w i n g it as a process of p l a n n e d social c h a n g e (Lippitt, W a t s o n , & Westley, 1958). S o m e m e n t i o n w a s m a d e of the symbolic u s a g e a n d the social m e a n i n g s of s o m e key t e r m s a b o u t consultation. E~plicit attention s h o u l d be given to the ideologies of consultation, the ideological use of these k e y t e r m s in consultation, a n d the social c o n s e q u e n c e s of the use of t h e s e ideologies in the m a i n t e nance of the existing h u m a n - s e r v i c e system. O n e e x a m p l e of this a p p r o a c h is Eaton's (1962) description of the " n e w i s m i d e o l o g y " in professional social reform movementts. REFERENCES Dahl, R. A. Modern political analysis. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1970. Eaton, J. W. Stone walls do not a prison make. Springfield, Ill.: Thomas, 1962. Edelman, M. The symbolic uses of politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1967. Laing, R. D. The polities of the family. New York: Vintage Books, 1972. Lippitt, R. Watson J., & Westley, B. The dynamics of planned change. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1958. Merton, R. K. Social theory and social structure. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1957. Pennock, J. R. & Chapman, J. W. (Eds.), Representation. New York: Atherton, 1968. Pitkin, H. F. The concept of representation. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967. Rogers, E. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press, 1962. Simmel, G. The stranger. In K. H. Wolff (Ed.), The sociology of George Simmel. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1950. Van Dyke, V. Political science: A philosophical analysis. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1960.
ABSTRACT: Consultation may be viewed as a political-bargaining process in which actors seek to maximize at minimal cost expertise, organizational position, and organizational reputation. A view of consultation as political process allows for a shift in language in discussions of consultation. Such a language shift suggests shifts in the social meaning of the consultation process. Emphasis was placed on four suggested functions of consultation: definition and legitimation of a situation or of facts as "'problematic"; raising the priority of an issue on the agenda of action in a consultee's agency; legitimation of deviant administrative behavior; and creation and sustenance of interagency linkages. A perspective is proposed that looks at the consequences as well as the intents of the process. This view of consultation can be studied empirically.
Consultation is a process familiar to those in the helping professions. The published literature about consultation, however, often renders the familiar unrecognizable. Missing from prescriptive papers and research reports is the "political" dimension of consultation. This is our focus. THE LITERATURE ON CONSULTATION A review of the literature on consultation in the helping professions shows that focus is placed on the consultant, the consultee, the process of consultation, and on the setting of consultation. The consultant is seen as in a social role or emphasis is placed on the personality attributes shown to be, or more frequently thought to be, necessary for "effective" consultation to occur. Much of the literature is prescriptive or proscriptive, with recommendations flowing from the data of experience. Rarely are empirical studies noted. Implicit in many papers, but rarely articulated, is the notion that the process of consultation includes "bargaining" between and among the participants. Bargaining can be viewed as an element of a sociopolitical process, hence this perspective of consultation as a political process. TOWARD A DEFINITION Politics can be defined as "the art of influencing, manipulating, and controlling so as to advance the purposes of some against the opposition of others." This definition of politics is similar to another by Harold Lasswell: *Dr. Baizerman is Associate Professor, Center for Youth Development and Research, and Associate Professor in Maternal and Child Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101. Dr. Hall is Professor, Graduate School of Public Heath and School of Social Work, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 142
community Mental Health Journal, Vol. 13 (2), 1977
Michael Baizerman and William T. Hall
143
Whether we are thinking of a body politic as a whole or face-to-face situation we are considering "arenas" in which "participants" are striving to accomplish their purposes by influencing "outcomes." The purposes are directed toward "preferred events" ("values" and "interpretations" of values in terms of "institutional practices"). Participants are seeking to maximize power and other values by influencing outcomes. They use the values at their disposal as "base values" according to "strategies," (Van Dyke, 1960, p. 132) O r Robert A. Dahl: A political system is any persistent pattern of human relationships that involves, to a significant extent, power, rule or authority. (Dahl, 1970, p. 6) [This m a y be the sense that R. D. Laing (1972) seeks to c a p t u r e in the title of his b o o k , The Politics of the Family] T h e s e notions of politics as a social, that is, interpersonal, process a n d as social structure are close to a notion of bargaining: a negotiation b e t w e e n actors (individuals, g r o u p s , organizations) settling w h a t each will give a n d take or p e r f o r m a n d receive. These notions of politics a n d b a r g a i n i n g contribute to o u r definition a n d a v i e w of consultation as a political process: Consultation is a political-bargaining process in which expertise, organizational position, and personal and organizational reputation are the currency of the bargaining between consultant and consultee; and in which each actor attempts to maximize his currency at a minimum cost. In this p e r s p e c t i v e , m u c h of w h a t is t h o u g h t of as the s e c o n d a r y c o n s e q u e n c e s of consultation, t h e d y s f u n c t i o n a l aspects of the process for the actors, or the ineffectiveness of a particular consultation bec o m e the s u b s t a n c e a n d focus of the analysis a n d the practice of consultation. A change in v o c a b u l a r y can a c c o m p a n y the c h a n g e in p e r s p e c t i v e , a n d concepts such as " p o w e r , " "conflict," " s t r a t e g y , " "tactics," " l i n k a g e , " "coalit i o n , " a n d "alliance," a m o n g others, can be u s e d w i t h a d v a n t a g e in the analysis a n d discussion of consultation. This p r o p o s e d shift in l a n g u a g e is itself i m p o r t a n t , for politics as a s y m b o l has h a d a history in the h u m a n services as a pejorative t e r m until recently. Second, a focus on politics includes a central interest on " p o w e r , " a n d the c o n n o t a t i o n s of this w o r d aside, the realities of p o w e r in p r o f e s s i o n a l practice are not often a c k n o w l e d g e d a n d less often discussed. Third, in E d e l m a n ' s (1967) p h r a s e " t h e symbolic u s e s of politics" a n d the m a n i p u l a t i o n of s y m b o l s in a political w a y b e c o m e foci of analysis a n d practice; this, too, is a subject often ignored a n d one that is t h o u g h t a n d believed b y s o m e to be antithetic to their p e r s o n a l values a n d to the social values of d e m o c r a c y a n d p r o f e s s i o n a l practice. A c c o m p a n y i n g this e m p h a s i s on the symbolic a n d i n t e r p e r s o n a l e l e m e n t s of consultation as politics is a focus on the social structural e l e m e n t s in the process. Focus on the social structure as a n analytically distinct level allows the use of the sociological notion of social role; in turn, the p e r s o n in the social
144
Community Mental Health Journal
role of consultant is oriented to several sets of patterned expectations about his behavior. Some of these sets are the employing organization (agency), the organization in which the consultee is an employee, and the consultant's own profession, among others. Although the particular expectations of the consultant can only be determined empirically, it is important to examine briefly the notion of the consultant as a special type of employee--the agent. The consultant who is employed by a human-service agency acts as an agent of that agency. The core idea in the word "agent" (itself derived from the word "agency") is "acting for or on behalf of." That is, the agent is a "representative of" an agency or the consultant represents his agency. These notions of "agent," "agency," and "represent" are expressed in the employing agency's expectations for its employees who work as consultants and in the other sets of social expectations noted. Most important, these are the expectations that are experienced by the consultant (that is, his personal role conceptions) and which form the boundaries of the actual consultation (Penn o c k & Chapman, 1968; Pitkin, 1967). The consultant is "of" his agency and hence may feel, may act, and may be seen by others (for example, the consultee) as a member of an agency. Herein lies the source of the notion in our definition that organizational position and organizational reputation are some of the units of currency in consultation. I n d u d e d now are the analytical levels of person, social role, and social collectivity (that is a focus on a group or an organization as entities, not a focus on people as members of the group or organization.) Discussion can be on the patterns observed or thought to occur on each level. Similarly, the notions of power, influence, bargaining, and so on, can be used to refer to activities on each level. Last, "agency" as a factor is introduced and can be treated as a context within which consultation occurs, as a precondition or intervening variable in the study of consultation effectiveness and as a source of power, authority, and the like. In summary, a definition of consultation as politics was offered and a vocabulary was introduced. The social meanings of this vocabulary as social symbols were noted. Mention was made of these analytical levels and the notion of consultant as agent of an agency was discussed. Next, we note some plausible social norms that seem to operate in consultation when it is viewed as a political-bargaining process. CONSULTATION AS A POLITICAL-BARGAINING PROCESS From the perspective of consultation as a politicalbargaining process, there seem to be at least three social norms necessary for the process to occur: First, influencing, manipulating, negotiating, and so on, are accepted ways to control differences, to reach a settlement, and to exchange expertise. Second, the possibility (and the probability) exists that bargaining, influencing, and so on, can occur, and that the participants in the bargaining system (consultation) might gain (profit) from participation in that
Michael Baizerman and William T. Hall
145
system. Third, participation in the bargaining system is " o p e n " on some issues and "closed" on other issues. These norms can be viewed as unstated assumptions about or expectations of the consultation process, and as the substance of bargaining in the initial stages of the consultative process (for example, formulating and agreeing on a "contract"). By focusing on social norms that "regulate" the consultation process, emphasis is placed on the social system of consultant-consultee and on the social role behaviors of both actors. Clearly the consultee is not a "nonreactive" object, but is, instead, an active participant, a bargainer, too. Discussion is next on some social functions of consultation. SOME SOCIAL FUNCTIONS OF CONSULTATION Problem Creation One major social function of consultation seems to be the definition and legitimation of a situation or of facts as problematic. "Problems" do not exist out there somewhere waiting to be "discovered." Instead, these problems are man-made in that they are brought into existence in a social process of problem creation and definition. The consultant often plays a central part in this process. Many different discrete facts apply to any given situation. A fact does not have a meaning a priori, but gains meaning and social significance through interpretation. Interpretation is a process of putting facts into a context and organizing them (using certain "rules") into combinations or systems of facts. A system of facts that we do not like, which we see as "bad," is called a "problem." The word "problem" means several things: We "dislike" the system of facts; we want to do something to change the system of facts (solve the problem or cure it); action about the system of facts has a high priority (do something now). That is, people are the actors in the processes of associating facts to each other and in relabeling this analytical or empirical system of facts as a "problem." By this process the symbol "problem" is used to legitimate socially the system of facts as requiring preventive or remedial action. The consultant often plays a central part in this transformation process. By virtue of his profession, his alleged or actual expertise, his organization position, and the like, he can at least participate by noting new or u n k n o w n facts, suggesting associations between and among facts, or labeling existing systems of facts as "bad." For example, it may be a fact that 43% of the people who live in Dinkytown are under 20 years of age. It may be a fact that 28% of them have an income of $5,000 or more per year. And it may be a fact that 84% of them live in poor quality housing. We might look at these facts and conclude that most of the people in Dinkytown are doing well; or we might conclude that some of the people are doing well, or that some people are poor, or that some people--the same or others--live in substandard housing, or that some of the people are over 20 years old. We might conclude from these three facts that (a)
146
Community Mental Health Journal
Dinkytown has problems; (b) Dinkytown does not have problems; (c) some people in Dinkytown have problems; or (d) some people living in Dinkytown are young, poor, and poorly housed and this is a problem. We give the facts meaning by our interpretation. We transform the facts into problems. It may be that one social function of a profession is to control this type of labeling process for facts in certain specific analytical or social domains, and, by extension, to gain social legitimation "to help" those people who suffer the problems so defined--that is, to gain social control over certain population groups, access to resources to help them, and the right to help individuals who are members of the population group. Professions and disciplines use different "problem nosologies" (classification systems). These nosologies are learned in the process of becoming a professional. Staff members in agencies who are professionals may use the nosology learned in training, the nosology used by many in the agency, a personal nosology, and so on. The important point is that classification systems purport to be built on the probabilities associated with class membership of a person or fact (diagnosis), with notions of pathogenicity (cause of illness or problem), and with suggested treatments (intervention points and action goals). Consultants may be used for the reason that they have, or are thought to have, a different nosology. It may also be that the very symbol "consultant" is important to the process of problem creation. Implicit in the word "consultant" now is the notion of "expert." Authority and power are related directly to this symbol in both psychological and social ways: The "expert" is felt to be one who knows (hence, often, the origin of consultee "dependency"). One expects the expert to know, and the expert, whether or not he knows, often has legal rights and authority to act. More important here, the consultant is, in Simmel's term (1950), the "stranger," and it is in part by virtue of this social, psychological, and political status that he has authority to participate in the interpersonal bargaining on which facts and situations get defined as "problems." This leads to the second social function of consultation.
Priority Raising A second and closely related social function of consultation is to raise the priority of an issue on the agenda of action in the consultee's agency. Defining a situation or issue as "problematic" is to give this issue social legi~mation as "bad" and as requiring immediate action. Thus, as a consequence of "creating" a problem, the situation or issue is placed on the agency's agenda for action; if already on this agenda, the consultant's "word" might raise the action priority given the problem. Viewed as a political-bargaining process, a staff worker in an agency often chooses to take the status of consultee by calling a consultant who will agree with him that a certain situation or issue is problematic. In this case the political function of the consultation is to enhance the consultee's bargaining
Michael Baizerman and William T. Hall
147
position within his agency's decision-making structure so as to raise the odds of his success. This is seen more clearly if as each example is read, one inserts in it a sentence that says, "A staff person invited a consultant to help with . . . . " For example, consider this situation in a group home for adjudicated delinquents. The staff noted the broken windows, the easily broken door latch, the lack of petty cash for program, and similar things. These they defined as irritants, as things bad but tolerable. Working with a consultant, these irritants came to be defined as major problems in the facility and as barriers to an effective therapeutic milieu. Further, the staff learned that the irritants might also be defined as problems by the government staff members who inspect and license such group homes. These people were contacted and said that the failure to correct the situation could result in the revocation of the license. Another example might be that of a consultant helping with a specific research project at a youth-serving agency who suggests that the agency's record system is inadequate for the provision of base-line data necessary in the specific project. The basic record system comes to be defined as "problematic." By relating the problematic record system to state monitoring of agency service that requires certain record keeping (a different kind of problem), it was possible to gain intraagency support for basic changes in the record system. In turn, this led to staff interest in the process of research and program evaluation, and so on. The same idea is found in the use of a consultant to enhance one position vis-a-vis other staff in one's own agency, staff in other agencies, one's agency vis-a-vis another agency, one's view of a client or patient, and the like. These notions suggest several points: The staff person chooses to take the social status of consultee depending on his purpose at hand, his situation; the choice of consultant is related to this purpose at hand; and the staff person's choices may be based on political factors such as his relative bargaining power vis-a-vis others. In turn, this power is related to many sociopolitical factors such as profession, authority, and the like, which may have little to do with the particular needs or wants of a specific client or problem. As consultation can be used to legitimate (or have the social function of legitimating) intraagency participation, it may also legitimate heretofore illegitimate administrative behavior (Merton, 1957).
Legitimation A third social function of consultation is to legitimate deviant administrative behavior by helping the consultee move outside established patterns of intraagency decision making. The staff person who cannot realize satisfaction within the established agency decision-making structure can choose to use a consultant to help him circumvent that structure. Redefining a problem is one way to do this; redefining a person is another way (for example, from "bad" to "sick"; from "a drunk" to "an alcoholic"). Common
148
Community Mental Health Journal
to both of these is that the consequences of redefinition allow for the resolution (or for continued bargaining) in different decision-making structures. This is seen clearly in the use of medical consultants, especially in a hospital. Another source of examples is seen in the consequence of the ideology of citizen participation as a means of relocating the locus of, and changing the participants in, intraagency decision making. In interagency contacts a staff person's position at the agency's boundary as a referral worker, as a participant in interagency meetings, or as staff working with community groups can result in the worker learning about "outsiders" who can help him "inside." This leads to a fourth social function of consultation.
Interagency Linkages A fourth social function of consultation is the creation and sustenance of interagency linkages. Such relations among agencies are commonplace in the exchange of clients, staff funds, equipment, facilities, and the like. These transactions are the stuff of interagency systems or the social structure of the human-service system. Consultation is one such bond in the structure. A staff person can choose to be a consultee so as to involve the agency that employs the consultant. This was touched on earlier in the discussion of our definition, that is, the consultant as agent of the agency. Here is noted the importance of the agency as a source of symbolic and actual power which, when linked, can enhance the position of the agency worker vis-a-vis his many structural others (his role set) and in his many intra- and interagency bargainings. The consequences of linking an agency to one's own by using a consultant can result in the provision of actual resources (a form of power) as well as in the enhancement of one's status vis-a-vis specific others. Hence the importance of the linkage. The process of linking an agency by using consultants is facilitated by a symbolic process that occurs in the mind. As noted, when we look at a person who is an employee of an agency, we often see him as a staff person who is an agent of his organization; we can "see" him as a representative of his agency. For example, Ms. A is an employee of agency X and Mrs. B is an employee of agency Y who is consulting with Ms. A. Ms. A and Mrs. B meet to discuss a situation in agency X. On one level, Ms. A and Mrs. B can be said to have interacted. An observer present at the meeting who said that he saw the interaction would be believed for he was and heard the people talking, gesturing, "listening." The observer could also say, and would be believed, that the meeting was an example of agency interaction, for both workers met jointly as workers, as members of their employing agencies. It is in the mental process of moving from person to worker to agent to representative that the symbolic shift from personal interaction to agency interaction occurs. There are personal and social consequences of this shift in level and symbol. One of the social consequences may be that an agency can be defined by some as participating in or supporting a decision or issue without the agency
Michael Baizerman and William T. Hall
149
staff k n o w i n g this or a p p r o v i n g of the particular stance. W h e n such a definition of the situation h a s the c o n s e q u e n c e s of c h a n g i n g the a g e n c y staff's v i e w of their o w n or collective activities, w e see the social function of consultation in the process of a g e n c y interaction. O T H E R VIEWS Taken t o g e t h e r these discussions h a v e s u g g e s t e d that consultation can be v i e w e d a n d practiced as politics. It could be a d d e d that the notions a b o u t consultation a n d p r o b l e m creation are related to c h a n g i n g the consultee's " f r a m e of r e f e r e n c e , " u n i v e r s e of discourse, or " o r g a n i z a t i o n a l m a p . " Also i m p o r t a n t is the relation b e t w e e n the v i e w of consultation as politics a n d v i e w i n g it as a process of p l a n n e d social c h a n g e (Lippitt, W a t s o n , & Westley, 1958). S o m e m e n t i o n w a s m a d e of the symbolic u s a g e a n d the social m e a n i n g s of s o m e key t e r m s a b o u t consultation. E~plicit attention s h o u l d be given to the ideologies of consultation, the ideological use of these k e y t e r m s in consultation, a n d the social c o n s e q u e n c e s of the use of t h e s e ideologies in the m a i n t e nance of the existing h u m a n - s e r v i c e system. O n e e x a m p l e of this a p p r o a c h is Eaton's (1962) description of the " n e w i s m i d e o l o g y " in professional social reform movementts. REFERENCES Dahl, R. A. Modern political analysis. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1970. Eaton, J. W. Stone walls do not a prison make. Springfield, Ill.: Thomas, 1962. Edelman, M. The symbolic uses of politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1967. Laing, R. D. The polities of the family. New York: Vintage Books, 1972. Lippitt, R. Watson J., & Westley, B. The dynamics of planned change. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1958. Merton, R. K. Social theory and social structure. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1957. Pennock, J. R. & Chapman, J. W. (Eds.), Representation. New York: Atherton, 1968. Pitkin, H. F. The concept of representation. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967. Rogers, E. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press, 1962. Simmel, G. The stranger. In K. H. Wolff (Ed.), The sociology of George Simmel. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1950. Van Dyke, V. Political science: A philosophical analysis. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1960.
