I work on a team of 6 internal performance consultants for a large US company. We have recently had a large number of our internal business operation areas not wanting to own the action plans for our performance improvement recommendations. Many of our operations areas look for us to "solve" their problems versus partnering to analyze, recommend actions, and take ownership of their own improvement. I was hoping someone may have some insight into how we can correct this situation

Are you following any specific model, such as DMAIC from Six Sigma or another problem-solving model? How are roles being defined? Who is doing the analyzing? What does your project charter, if any, look like? How are they being involved in the process?

From your post seems like you are doing the analyzing and recommending instead of facilitating in a way that helps them analyze, identify, and build solutions.

If you gave me a report with recommendations to improve my department, I don't think I'd own those actions either-- they aren't my actions, they aren't my ideas, and they don't fit my agenda necessarily.

If I wasn't part of the process to create solutions, I likely would not feel much ownership or incentive to implement them.

The process used is the Performance DNA process. I'm finding it's a delicate balance between making recommendations and "partnering" with the business to define what needs to be fixed and how to meet business goals. If too much is left to the business, the usual solution wanted is training.

chris85,

Amy_L hits all the right notes.

All I would add is that hammering out the upfront expectations and alignment is possibly the single most important step in any partnering/coaching/consulting/mentoring...et al relationship.

As we learned in "chaos theory 101" all systems have a sensitive dependence on initial conditions. Your work is not exempt for that reality.

I looked up Performance DNA and from what I can tell it's the HR equivalent of internal auditors. No one likes to see them coming towards their department.

What I read about Performance DNA just validates what I posted before-- you do all the analyzing and recommending, they are not involved. And, the whole things seems to start with some assumptions about performance being the problem, rather than a project team determining what the problem really is.

Are these people inviting you to their department and initiating the review based on a specific business need or are you going to them based on some other criteria?