No less than a dozen of broadly accepted models of consultancy may be found in the literature, illustrating contrasted viewpoints on the profession. To first approxima- tion, all these models may be clustered into four categories on the basis of how much expertise the client acknowledges in the consultancy. A sort of continuum will then emerge: it starts with “total” reliance on the consultant, ends with “total”
skepticism, and passes through more balanced views.
1. The classic expert model
In this model the client transfers information to the consultant and the consultant ultimately hands over solutions. It assumes a consultant’s capacity to solve the cli- ent’s problem [103]. This is a consulting-centric view, thus quite unidirectional and ideological. Nevertheless, it underscores two core reasons that made the consulting industry become so successful, which were suggested more than 30 years ago by Peter Drucker [104] and have so far stood the test of time: external consulting can be impartial because its agents are independent, and can bring new ideas because its agents are exposed to different industries/companies.
44
Other names found in the literature for this model are the purchase of expertise [105], the mental adventurer and the strategic navigator [106]. From a management perspective this model arises from the classical organization theory: it is rooted in some highly normative essays that go back to Adam Smith and some early twentieth century’s popular economic theorists [107]. These essays paved the way for the formulation of rules and how-to guides in the pursuit of “scientific” management, successful, and ultimately “perfect”, consulting. But again, this theory is widely criticized for its ideological tone [103, 48, 106, 107].
2. The doctor-patient model
This model is more balanced in that the client-consultant interaction is a joint learning process [108]. While the expertise of the consultant is omnipresent, it refers to an expertise in management and processes rather than in the client’s concrete problems. The popular analogy with a medical doctor comes from the focus on the diagnostics of the client’s problem. It ensues that the consultant’s capacity to solve the client’s problem gets “constructed” by a joint effort between the client and the consultant. Both are equally resourceful for developing the solution. It underscores the importance of developing comfort and mutual trust in the interaction [7].
Other names found in the literature for this model are the business doctor [109], the management physician and the system architect [106]. From a management per- spective this model arises from institutional economics paradigms [110] themselves connected with (and rooted in) evolutionary life science paradigms, most particu- larly system biology. In these paradigms, individuals strive to maximize their eco- nomic benefits in incomplete market situations, and institutions steer individual behaviors into certain directions in pursuit of specific goals [107]. Natural friction arises because individuals and systems (institutions) have different incentives, which may lead to potential opportunistic behaviors of either partner [107], and because a system is defined as much by its inner elements as by how these elements contrast with outside ones [111]. A fundamental postulate of system theory indeed is that changes in a system are “self-organized” and thus cannot be managed from the outside. This naturally creates friction between system (client) and non-system (consultant).
This model doesn’t acknowledge the existence of an all-embracing consulting expertise, but does not contradict the existence of an expert system that specializes in processes, routines, strategies, and hence who possesses unique diagnostic capa- bilities. The “doctor” will develop treatment plans; the “patient” will choose what specific solutions fit its interests. This theory underscores the need for developing effective terms of cooperation, so that the benefit of the consultant intervention outweighs the natural friction of this intervention on the client system.
3. The social helper model
In this model the client-consultant interaction is also a joint learning process, but, simply put, the client is the expert. The consultant’s value proposition lies in the
4 The Client-Consultant Interaction
confines of psychology and sociology frameworks. It might be best understood as assisting the client with solving a problem, therefore assuming no responsibility in this journey.
The consultant facilitates the problem-solving journey [103] within the organiza- tion by building on Drucker’s first value: the consultant is an independent party thus it can more easily facilitate teamwork and exchange of opinions within the organi- zation, foster motivation and acceptance. In addition, the consultant contributes to these discussions by building on Drucker’s second value: the consultant benefits from exposure to different industries/companies that internal experts do not possess, thus he/she has a unique potential for sharing new perspectives.
Other names found in the literature for this model are the reflective practitioner [112], the social learning model [113], process consultation [108] and the friendly co-pilot [106]. From a management perspective this theory is rooted in organiza- tional development and sociological sciences, and rationalizes the widespread dis- satisfaction with the expert model of consultancy. It goes beyond a rational
“Socrates” approach to solving a problem [114], in that it considers hidden cul- tural, political and emotional factors as intrinsic elements of the problem to be solved [115].
The core idea in this relationship is that the solutions to the client’s problem will come from a social experiment, where it is the client who brings most of the exper- tise, while the consultant brings methodologies to engage experts and assist in the confrontation of ideas. If the expert model is the conservative view of management theory, then the social helper model is its antipode, the “open” view. But as one might expect, drawbacks include frequent bias entailed by political agenda in what comes out of the problem-solving journey, at the cost of pragmatism [7, 115]. This model starts questioning the legitimacy of the industry as a whole, and opens doors for critics on the value and ethics of external consultancy.
4. The pervasive persuasive model
Over the past 25 years a body of articles [116–119] and books [120–124] –and even television shows [125]– started to question the value, legitimacy and ethics of the management consulting industry. A particular attention has been put on large consulting organizations [121–124]. In this view, consulting is a profit-driven sym- bolic interaction where either the client or the consultant is a victim. Supporters who put the client as the victim [119–123] report the creation of management fads and fashions that, together with excellent acting skills, persuade corporate execu- tives of the added value. The literature also abounds with examples where it is the consultant (or rather its reputation) which is victim of the client’s hidden political agenda, whereby the consultant is brought-in with the sole goal of supporting a predetermined outcome [124, 126]. In this case the credibility of the consulting organization—its cachet—is leveraged to impress shareholders or circumvent resis- tance from stakeholders. The consultant becomes an extension of top management authorities and so relies on impressions and rhetorics to deliver value.
46
Other names found in the literature for this model are the critical model [48, 103], the rhetorician [116], the impression manager [120], the dramaturge [127], the creator of management fads [119]. Of course this model shall not be used as a guide for aspiring consultants: it is an anti-thesis to good management and hence entails none of the successful management theories. I believe however that it is use- ful for the consultant to be aware of this view. This awareness helps one understand the extreme skepticism that he or she might sometimes face upfront, and what might go wrong in the client-consultant relationship.
The management consulting industry is a relatively new industry: the popular concepts and methods used by consulting organizations were almost all developed within the last few decades. If consultants are to their clients what doctors are to their patients, then consulting will never be accessory nor become obsolete. Recall that in the field of medicine, even the most prestigious organizations had to recog- nize and eliminate widespread ambiguous practices. Procedures such as invasive cerebral surgeries for example, became famously unethical and absurd only 50 years ago1 –nowadays it may only be found in Hollywood’s productions. And yet no one today would question the legitimacy of neurosurgeons. We might be at an historical juncture when the practice of consulting has to reflect on what is based on science and what is pure impression. But one thing is sure: when supporters of the pervasive model get fame and personal fortune for their achievement, they are neither facili- tating this reflection nor helping corporate organizations.