Note. The following describes the client/consulting relationship while the Quality of WorkLife Index is below the Ideal Band (below 6.5). Some statements may seem harsh, but are based on experience at QWLI ’s well below the Ideal Band, and are representative of organization as we initially encounter them.

The information below is based on our experience at QWLC. This may be the same or similar to the experience of other practitioners, we are largely unaware if our experience has been or is typical (although we suspect it is based on a common experience).

1. Relationships "Above" the Client. QWLC has intentionally decided that it will not engage in a third-party contract for services. The rationale is simple. We do not want any interference in the relationship between our client and us. QWLC has repeatedly backed away from lucrative business in order to maintain this standard. What we cannot avoid, however, is the type of third party contract that may be implied between our client and the client’s sponsor. Whether specific or implied, most large complex organizations have a sponsoring authority that cannot be avoided. The impact of this relationship internal to the client organization can often be catastrophic.

2. Peer Relationships. Client peers can be supportive of what the client is attempting to do. More often than not, however, client peers can be openly subversive of the client/consultant relationship. In most cases, the client has "hired" the consultant to help in making improvements. This may mean that client peers are enjoying an indirect advantage emerging from the dysfunction in the client organization. Rather than applaud or assist the client in this effort, client peers may tend to stay at arms length, resist the use of the same consultant even if needed, or even play down positive results as they are being obtained with the next higher authority.

3. Relationships with Direct Reports. Relationships with the client’s direct reports can be a difficult one. Since this group is likely to be "middle management" by nature, their place in the organization constitutes potential intrigue in any event. In most cases, middle managers have to tell half-truths both up and down the organization landscape in order to keep peace. The lower the Quality of WorkLife Index in an organization the greater the likelihood that this poor relationship will prevail. If the client’s superiors are not openly supporting the change effort (visibly) this will be easily detected by the client’s direct reports. As a consequence of the lacking visible support, they will be far less enthusiastic about implementing any type of change. This covert sabotage (above, around, and below the client) is far more common than we might have ever expected, even in unhealthy organizations.

4. Relationships with the Organization Population. In virtually any organization we have encountered, there will be an "in-group" and an "out-group." One will want the change effort to continue because there is the potential for improvement, and the other group will not want improvements made in the organization at all. Those who favor the status quo, are often openly subversive to any change effort, but worse, they constitute a quiet undercurrent that prevents visible progress at all turns.

5. Change Agent Relationships. Remember that change agents are those directly involved in the improvement effort as coordinators, facilitators, champions, or members of teams engaged in improvement activities. To a large extent, these individuals are aligned with the client in efforts to advance improvements in working conditions. As such they constitute a front-line that is often in daily contact with those who prefer the change effort to stop. They may be very unpopular across the depth and breadth of the organization. If the change effort is extended for years, which many change efforts will, a rotation of active agents will occur. During this "transition phase" many active change agents have reported having their work life untenable. Without relative constant contact with client, the old soldiers, of the battle to improve the organization, fall into a disenfranchised and highly demoralized status.

6. Altered Relationships with Ancillary Service Providers. In many change efforts, ancillary relationships with service providers that also deliver improvements are altered. Under normal conditions, doing classical organization development work to improve the Quality of WorkLife Index scores to a level where ancillary providers will benefit required putting some initiatives on hold. Naturally, these actions are resented and often complaints arise. The client must be cautious in this area not to disrupt ancillary relationships completely, but rather to adjust the list of those who will participate to coincide with ongoing organization development activities to assure an acceptable synergy.

7. The Consultant Relationship. Throughout the change effort, the client/consultant relationship must be maintained in as healthy and open manner as possible. This is a tricky balance being in an internal/external member of the organization’s staff. If too internal the change effort can be sabotaged entirely by internal staff wanting to maintain its perceived relationships with the client. If too external, the legitimate staff may not know or understand the strategy being used, develop intense mistrust of the external consultant, and ultimately sabotage the effort for lack of ownership.

1. The Consulting Team. Among many other variations, there are two types of consultants: those who travel and consult alone, and those who are a part of a consulting fir. QWLC is a consulting firm where everyone is a generalist first and a specialist in an area that has attracted them to our firm second. We try to match a consultant’s interests and expertise with a prospective client whenever possibly. When a client falls into a special category, such as a "retainer client" we normally assign a team of at least two consultants to that client organization. One consultant is always the client lead and will primarily interact with the client even though other consultants will be in a continuous support role throughout the intervention. In addition to the on-site consulting team there is always the in-office support team that takes care of a myriad of behind-the-scenes details necessary for a professional job. From time to time the team changes, but often it will remain stable throughout the consulting engagement.

2. Approach Compatibility. QWLC’s approach to helping an organization solve its most serious problems has evolved over decades of experience. It is a comprehensive approach for complex issues focused on the human elements in an organization. It finds and can fix the most complex of issues. Our sad experience has been that clients who do not believe there is a fix to their dilemmas often hire us. They wish to give the illusion of progress by engaging the fad-of-the-month and think we are their answer. Nothing could be further from the truth. The price we often demand for serious work is a serious price in terms of professional fees, as well as commitment from the organization. We try not to engage any but the most serious of clients knowing that it will result in less than desirable results if we do.

3. Technology Compatibility. The Technology in use by QWLC is highly sophisticated, and measurement intensive. Many client organizations are unaware that such a technology exists and often fail to give it the credibility it deserves in being able to diagnose accurately and create viable strategies effectively. QWLC invented and refined this 21^st Century Technology during the last millennium and has been the only organization developer to do so

4. The Client Relationship. The client position is a tough one. The client must maintain productive relationships with the internal team while getting help from outside the organization (through the consulting relationship) to improve those very same internal relationships. This is a tremendous balancing act. In the midst of this, the client and consultant must enjoy a special relationship wherein the client is willing to listen and trust that the consultant knows what is best for an organization they haven’t been steeped in like those that internally surround the client. This is an easy task when direct reports to the client are fully engaged with the change effort, but is considerable task when they are not. The client/consultant relationship is especially difficult to maintain when the consultant must alter the way the client interacts as part of the improvement project. At best, this eventually ought to be a part of the agreement early on.

5. Internal Change Agent Relationships. Almost from the first day of intervention, people the consulting organization will begin developing relationships with change agents and others in the client organization. It will be the consulting team’s job to use this network to collect information, develop response strategies, and change the change agent relationships as part of the on-going intervention. QWLC has had few clients where members of the client organization change agent team did not want to make a mid-career life change and come to work for us. Part of this phenomenon arises from our training strategy: Train everyone as though he/she were ultimately a potential employee. We do not hold back anything in our efforts that would otherwise provide our client organizations with the best possible skill transfer.

6. Performance Standards. QWLC created its consulting standards in 1990 and strictly abides by those standards. The standards are published on the Internet, are framed and displayed on our facility, and are often included in proposals to assure they are considered by our potential clients. There are three standards to which we ascribe: to the public at large, to a client specifically, and to our organization development domain. Each of these standards helps us self-govern our actions as a professional consulting firm.

1. The Casual contact Period. QWLC is well known for being low-key in its marketing and sales approach to potential clients. We tend to model or demonstrate our processes to people and expect they will initiate a buying situation rather than have us initiate it. Most of out marketing contact is through the mail or at community service events. On average, our casual contact period lasts from six to eighteen months or longer in some cases for retainer clients. The period may be substantially less for event-based prospects. Our "Advertising" is minimal, and normally quite up-scale – news articles, community service, and VIP demonstrations. When a potential client has expressed interest we continue to feed the client information that will result in a bone fide request for proposal. At this time, we enter the pre-work period.

2. The Pre-work Period. Once a client has interest in our working together, we undergo a variety of meeting and presentations. The smart buyer will typically not engage us without our being exposed to the top management team at one or more meetings or abbreviated events. On occasion, a client may hear about us through an influential third party and dispense with meeting of events involving direct report, but this is not typically the case. The pre-work Period may also involve creating several proposals that will ultimately fit the needs of the organization and fall within a financial range they feel comfortable pursuing.

3. The Diagnostic Period. The diagnostic period can last 30 to 120 days – normally about 90 days. During this period, the QWLC consulting team is collecting information that will allow the creation of an accurate "picture" of the organization and the establishment of an accurate Quality of WorkLife Index. Once established, the Consulting team can outline a comprehensive strategy that will allow the client organization to progress toward an Ideal QWLI Band (between 6.5 and 7.5). Once this basic diagnostic period has been completed, all future measurements can be related to this baseline for the purpose of making such important calculations as Return-on-Investment.

4. The Extended Relationship Period. Most clients continue beyond the baseline diagnostic of this period through an extended relationship that often lasts for years. The duration of this period is often determined at the conclusion of the diagnostic period, and influenced by the level of activity that can be undertaken by the organization and still fulfill its purpose. Under normal conditions, the period will last for three to five years while periods of capacity development fluctuate. It is not unusual for gains made during the first year to be replaced by discouraging backsliding during the second year, and eventually recovered fully during the third year. This cycle is normal, yet many client organizations get nervous during the tougher second year and abandon the project, or cut back on its emphasis. We often equate this period to the prescription of antibiotics taken to overcome an infection. If the full prescription is not taken a predictable relapse occurs.

5. The Disconnection Period. At some point in time, as the organization approaches an Ideal QWLI Band, QWLC begins to withdraw completely from the client organization, In some cases, withdrawal is initiated by the client organization