The paradox of ADVISING

The paradox of advising: your organization deserves better than "copy and paste".

The 21 of January 2026

Transformations rarely fail for technical reasons. They more often stumble over human issues: misunderstandings, loss of meaning, lack of alignment. Why? Because you don't transform an organization, you transform the way of thinking. The idea of considering human factors in organizational transformations seems to be accepted in our organizations. And they're right: it's people—not technology—who determine the success of a transformation, and they must be addressed. But how?

The first action organizations take is to invest heavily in external advising support. Logical? Yes! Advising means bringing new ideas, asking the right questions, and contributing to finding answers outside the box, creating a space for open dialogue, introducing new values, and fostering them. I believe that, unfortunately and all too often, transformation is understood as simply managing change, then reduced to a communication plan or a series of training sessions. However, robust support is a much richer process and, above all, is not one that evolves alongside the organization, or worse, one that imposes meaningless practices or values incompatible with that organization.

• Although external expertise is often seen as a guaranteed winning factor, some authors question its actual contribution and point out that many failures stem from poor implementation or excessive reliance (Niehaves et al., 2012).

  
  

• Imported "best practices" don't always integrate naturally, and what's more, they are often poorly understood and therefore don't have the desired impact, except perhaps for the massive production of various documents that are rarely consulted. Personally, for example, the concept of earned value seems to me of little use in the public sector. As Einstein said, " Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts" (Van Dooren, W. et al., 2010).

• Organizations have their own cultures, logics, and ways of doing things — and no external methodology can completely replace them.

So how do you get the most out of support without becoming dependent? The paradox is to choose resources meticulously and free yourself from them as quickly as possible.

How? Three easy steps:

1. Choose resources whose approach is culturally aligned with your organization

Cultural compatibility is an often underestimated success factor. Much is said about technical skills, proven methodologies, certifications, or "best practices." Yet, in the reality of transformations, it's not the method that makes the difference, but how it integrates into the existing culture.

Some concrete examples:

• A highly directive approach in an organization that values participation can create resistance.

• A highly standardized methodology can clash with a culture that favours local adaptation.

• A resource accustomed to private environments may misunderstand the political or institutional dynamics of the public sector.

Cultural alignment means verifying:

• The stance (coach, expert, facilitator, strategist),

• The way to collaborate,

• Sensitivity to human dynamics,

• The ability to understand internal constraints,

• Compatibility with the organization's implicit codes.

When the external approach resonates with the internal culture, support becomes fluid, credible, and motivating. When they clash, even the best intentions turn into friction.

2. Establish clear knowledge transfer procedures from the outset

The goal is not simply to deliver a project, but to strengthen internal capacity. Too often, organizations invest in external experts… without understanding the essence of this new approach or having a clear plan to internalize it. The result is prolonged dependency, loss of knowledge at the end of the engagement, an inability to maintain or adapt the implemented changes, and organizational fragility as soon as the consultants leave the project.

Effective knowledge transfer is not a "bonus" at the end of a project. It is a strategic pillar, to be planned from day 1. How?

• Define what needs to be transferred (skills, tools, processes, reflexes, analyses),

• Identify the individuals or internal units that will become the "internal carriers",

• Plan for structured co-construction sessions, ensuring a deep understanding of what is being transferred,

• Integrate learning activities into the project's execution itself,

• Measuring the increase in skills over time.

Knowledge transfer transforms support into a lever for empowerment, rather than a one-off service. This allows the organization to continue evolving without being perpetually dependent on external resources.

3. Continuously raise one's own level of expertise

We agree that transferring knowledge that is useless to this organization, or that we don't understand, is largely pointless. It would be a sure recipe for creating a frustrating and unproductive work environment. Furthermore, an organization that learns becomes more resilient, more agile, and less vulnerable to external dependencies.

Organizations that successfully navigate transformations are not necessarily those with the best consultants. They are those that learn faster than their environment changes. Developing internal expertise means strengthening analytical and risk detection capabilities, improving decision-making, and increasing the speed of adaptation.

How ?

• Through continuing education and structured workshops for discussion and problem-solving,

• Through experimentation and learning,

• By valuing internal initiatives and delegating responsibilities,

• By creating spaces for reflection and feedback.

An organization that invests in its internal expertise becomes less dependent on imported approaches, more confident in its own capabilities, and better equipped to navigate complexity. Because ultimately, providing support means building the collective capacity to understand and evolve—with meaning, intelligence… and autonomy.

Biblliography

1. NIEHAVES, B., PLATTFAUT, R., & BECKER, J. (2012). Business process governance: A comparative study of Germany and Japan. Business Process Management Journal , 18 (2), 347-371. https://doi.org/10.1108/14637151211225234

2. VAN DOOREN, W., BOUCKAERT, G., and HALLIGAN, J. (2010). Performance management in the public sector . London: Routledge, p.176, cited.

To quote:

Klimenko, Y. (2026, January 12). The paradox of support: your organization deserves better than "copy and paste", STAV Consulting Services, online. The paradox of support