Issues in client-consultant relationship

Introduction

While the management consulting industry has been growing relatively steadily over the last

decades (e.g. Ernst and Kieser 2002; Kieser 2002; Datamonitor 2005; FEACO 2006) it has

come under strong criticism within the academic and business press (e.g. Shapiro et al. 1993;

Micklethwait and Wooldridge 1996; O’Shea and Madigan 1997; Pinault 2001; Byrne 2002;

Clark and Fincham 2002; Kitay and Wright 2004; Craig 2005; Kihn 2006).

. Only a comparatively small number

of consulting projects seem to be successful. In some cases the reforms are abandoned during

the implementation phase (Brunsson 2000). In other cases “many implementation plans do not

survive contact with reality” (Obolensky 2001, p. 177). In yet other cases the consultants’

recommendations have disastrous consequences for the organisation (O’Shea and Madigan

1997; Byrne 2002; Sorge and van Witteloostuijn 2004). As the former CEO of Volkswagen,

Ferdinand Piëch, famously proclaimed: “If you want to ruin a company, you only have to try

fixing it with the help of external consultants”.

Despite such accounts the literature has surprisingly few explanations for failures in

consulting. in most cases failure is attributed to personal

characteristics of the consultant and client (e.g. lack of skills), technical shortcomings (e.g.

ineffective project management), unstable or bad consultant–client relationships (e.g. lack of

communication), and/or socio-political aspects of the client organisation (e.g. hidden agendas;

unreadiness for/resistance to change). It is usually suggested that if one attends to these issues

it is possible to increase the likelihood of the consulting interventions turning out to be

successful. In particular, the consultant-client relationship is – more or less implicitly – seen

as key for consultation success (McGivern 1983; Fullerton and West 1996; Sturdy 1997;

Fincham 1999; Karantinou and Hoog 2001; Gammelsaeter 2002; Fincham 2003; Werr and

Styhre 2003; Appelbaum 2004; Appelbaum and Steed 2005; Kakabadse et al. 2006; Sturdy et

al. 2006a).

4

Empirical studies on reasons for consulting failure are sparse, too. Lack of internal

communication was reported as the main reason for failure in CRM projects in a study by

Pries and Stone (2004). Fullerton and West (1996) focused on the relationship between

internal consultants and clients in a large British commercial organisation and concluded “that

the reason many consulting relationships fail may be a result of the different views each side

holds regarding effective relationship” (Fullerton and West 1996, p. 47). These findings echo

the widespread notion of the importance of a good and sound relationship between the client

and the consultant (e.g. Stumpf and Logman 2000; Kubr 2002; Kakabadse 2006). In a study

6

by Covin and Fisher (1991) the interviewed consultants listed a total of 62 reasons for

consulting failure, which “can be grouped into the broad themes of consultant competency

and company-tailored interventions, consultant–client relationships, and program planning”

(Covin and Fisher, 1991, p. 17). In another empirical study, Lister and Pirrotta (1996) asked

physician executives for their personal experiences of unsuccessful consultations. The authors

state that “the two issues responsible for most failed consultations were the intrusion of

internal politics into the consultation process and the failure to clearly establish and maintain

consensual goals” (Lister and Pirrotta 1996, p. 37). Following Klenter and Möllgard (2006)

the most critical reasons for failed consulting projects are the absence of tight project

controlling and an inflation of projects. Ineffective project management was also the main

reason for failure in the study by Smith (2002).

in a broader context, we see that explanations for

consulting failure fall roughly into four groups: personal characteristics of the consultant and

of the client (e.g. lack of skills), technical shortcomings (e.g. ineffective project management),

an unstable or bad consultant–client relationship (e.g. lack of communication), and/or sociopolitical

aspects of the client organisation (e.g. hidden agendas; unreadiness for/resistance to

change). The authors suggest that if one attended to these four issues it would possible to

increase the chances of the consulting interventions being successful

1..Management consultants defined

management consulting is “those who

provide general management advice within strategic, organizational, or operational

context, and who are institutionally organized in firms” (Canback, 1998).

That is not sufficient, however, to capture some key points about management

consultancy. A more comprehensive definition is:

Management consulting is an advisory service contracted for and provided to organizations

by specially trained and qualified persons who assist, in an objective and independent

manner, the client organization to identify management problems, analyze such problems,

and help, when requested, in the implementation of solutions (Greiner and Metzger, 1983).

This is an important elaboration upon the earlier definition. For example, it emphasizes that

management consultants are truly external to the organization. Normally, management

consultants would not take the place of staff within the organization. Nor would they have

direct clout in an organization. Kubr (1996) notes that “objective and independent” implies a

financial, administrative, political and emotional independence from the client. Further,

there is an implication that the resources of a firm typically back the management

consulting activities, i.e. it is typically more than a simple individual.

.

2..Why consultants?

It is worthwhile to consider why this industry has seen such incredible growth and

why it has actually been so successful. Drucker (1979) suggests management

consultancy is an extraordinary and indeed truly unique phenomenon. He suggests

two reasons why the industry exists. First, management skills, techniques and

knowledge are best learned through exposure to and experience with many different

companies in many different industries. The typical executive, however, lacks this kind

of exposure. As Drucker notes, “He works with the same organization-or at most, with

very few. He lacks exposure and cannot gain it. Nor can he simulate it.” Consultants, on

the other hand, transcend organizations and thus gain exposure. Second, Drucker

observes that executives yearn for objective insights into their management problems.

Empirical research confirms that clients turn to outside consultants primarily for new

ideas, proficiency, and impartiality/objectivity (Gattiker and Larwood, 1985).

McKinsey & Company suggests six reasons why hiring an external management

consultant makes sense in many situations:

(1) they provide competence not available elsewhere;

(2) they have varied experience outside the client;

(3) they have time to study the problem;

(4) they are professionals;

(5) they are independent; and

(6) they have the ability to create action based on their recommendations (Bower,

1982).

Boston Consulting Group (BCG) has a similar perspective. It is argued consultants add

significant value, by reducing the problem resolution cycle time (Hagedorn, 1982).

McKinsey and BCG’s opinions may not actually be supported empirically, but they

provide an interesting glimpse into the industry from the consultant’s point of view.

On the contrary, it can be argued that many of the skills provide by consultants

should presumably be available internally in large companies, because major

companies encounter most types of problems over time. Bower’s (1982) points about

time, professionalism and independence could certainly vary from one situation to

another. Consultants could conceivably have a superior ability to create action, but

unless they are using proprietary techniques this would not necessarily apply across

the entire consulting industry. In fact, this may simply be a result of training. One

cannot, however, dispute that there are opportunities for consultants to bring perspective from other industries (Canback, 1999).

The role of the consultant

Schein (1990) has identified three broadly accepted models of consultation: purchase of

expertise, doctor-patient, and process consultation:

(1) Purchase-of-expertise suggests that clients are looking for consultants to

provide independent perspective to bear on specific challenges hand. There is

no expectation to focus on the client relationship per se, but rather to provide

expertise in a detached manner.

(2) The doctor-patient model has the consultant focusing on using a diagnostic

approach to examine the client organization’s problems. From their distinct

experience, knowledge and diagnostic abilities the consultants identify

strategic and organizational problems. This model emphasizes the

importance of building a strong relationships and developing trust between

the client and the consultant.

JMD

24,1

70

(3) The process consultation model considers the consultant as a facilitator with

the client actually providing much of the relevant expertise. There is a clear

distinction of roles and tasks. In the end the client chooses what to do about the

problem. The consultant provides more of the framework and methodology for

defining the problem and the best possible alternatives.

Alternatively, Nees and Grenier (1985) propose five categories of consultants:

(1) The mental adventurer analyzes truly intransigent problems such as long-term

scenarios for country development, by applying rigorous economic methods

and leveraging his or her experience base.

(2) The strategic navigatorbases his or her contribution on a rich quantitative

understanding of the market and competitive dynamics, and then recommends

courses of action without too much regard of the client’s perspective.

(3) The management physician derives his or her recommendations from a deep

understanding of the internal dynamics of the client organization, often willing

to sacrifice some objectivity to gain a realistic perspective on what is

achievable.

(4) The system architect impacts his or her clients by helping redesign processes,

routines, and systems – always in close cooperation with the client.

(5) The friendly co-pilot counsels senior managers as a facilitator rather than as an

expert, and has no ambition to provide new knowledge to the client (Nees and

Grenier, 1985).

Nees and Grenier’s model shows many similarities to Schein’s (1990) study, for

example the mental adventurer can be considered similar to the expert, the strategic

navigator, management physician and system architect correlate with the

“doctor-patient” model and the friendly copilot aligns with the process-consultation

model. Institutionally organized strategy consultants are found primarily in the

strategic navigator and management physician segments.

In any event, consultant engagements beyond simply purchasing expertise require

the development of a relationship between the consultant and the client. Turner (1982)

proposed a continuum with eight categories of client-consultant relationships. His

framework used a hierarchy of tasks to illustrate the level of extent of a client’s

involvement with a consultant. The eight task categories identified are:

(1) providing information to a client;

(2) solving a client’s problem;

(3) making a diagnosis, which may necessitate redefinition of the problem;

(4) making recommendations based on the diagnosis;

(5) assisting with implementation of recommended actions;

(6) building a consensus and commitment around a corrective action;

(7) facilitating client learning; and

(8) permanently improving organizational effectiveness.

Turner argued that until the late 1970s, consultants tended to work more as suppliers

to the client. Increasingly relationships in consulting engagements have evolved to

Client-consulting

relationship

71

build more of a partnership of mutual respect aimed at fundamentally improving the

client’s effectiveness.

In a review of the consultancy literature, Canback proposed the following trends:

. management consultants increasingly address critical, long term issues and are a

critical part of the intellectual agenda of executives (Turner’s lower three points);

. consultants add value by addressing both content and process issues based on

expertise, methodology and general problems solving skills (corresponding to

Schein’s expert and doctor-patient models);

. management consultants work together with their clients in a complicated and

fluid relationship characterized by a high degree of mutual trust; and

. management consultants are best organized in independent, specialized firms

with unique characteristics and success factors (as argued by Bower and

Henderson) (Canback, 1999).

As management consultants focus on higher order task categories, the relationships

with their clients are potentially becoming increasing complex. To further understand

client-consultant dynamics, the next section of the article addresses the concept of

client.

The role of the client

In discussing consultancy, it is important to clarify the concept of client. Schein points

out that any helping or change process always has a target or a client (Schein, 1997).

There is an assumption, for instance, that the client is always clearly identifiable, when

in reality the question of the client actually is can be “ambiguous and problematic.”

There can be complicated dynamics around this very issue. Schein proposes a

simplifying model to understand types of clients and types of client relationships. In

Schein’s model, six basic types can be distinguished:

(1) Contact clients – the individual(s) who first contact the consultant with a

request, question, or issue.

(2) Intermediate clients – the individuals or groups who or which get involved in

various interviews, meetings, and other activities as the project evolves.

(3) Primary clients – the individual(s) who ultimately “own” the problem or issue

being worked on; they are typically also the ones who pay the consulting bills or

whose budget covers the consultation project.

(4) Unwitting clients – members of the organization or client system above, below

and laterally related to the primary clients who will be affected by interventions

but who are not aware they will be impacted.

(5) Indirect clients – members of the organization who are aware that they will be

affected by the interventions but who are unknown to the consultant and who

may feel either positive or negative about these effects.

(6) Ultimate clients – the community, the total organization, an occupational group,

or any other group that the consultant cares about and whose welfare must be

considered in any intervention that the consultant makes (Schein, 1997).

Thus, concept of client is not straightforward. Different types of clients may well have

different needs, expectations, influence and degrees of participation in the consultancy.

JMD

24,1

72

The consultant, in fact the team, has to be clear as to who the client actually is at all

times in the project.

It is important to consider experiences from the clients’ and consultants’, in more

detail, to understand the nature of these relationships initially from the client’s point of

view, and then the consultant’s.

Rynning (1992) offers a tentative list of factors contributing to consulting “success”

worthy of further investigation, including:

. clarity in need/problem formulation;

. number/quality of new ideas;

. new knowledge;

. special planning;

. new ways of thinking;

. level of planning;

. level of co-operational abilities;

. management of time;

. planning capabilities;

. efficiency of execution;

. strategy formulation;

. problem solving;

. implementation;

. follow-up; and

. economy.

Several issues have turned up repeatedly in examinations of OD consulting success.

In a large survey of OD practitioners, Burke et al. (1984) identified differences between

successful and unsuccessful projects in each of the consulting phases. In the entry

phase, the power of the client with whom the practitioner works, their readiness to

change and their willingness to assume responsibility for the effort and its outcome are

all positively related to success. In the contracting phase, clarity is critical. In the

diagnostic phase, successful projects use a model to organize data, moreover access to

organizational resources is key. In the feedback phase the consultant’s confidence in

the diagnosis, and the client’s affirmation of the data are critical factors. In planning

change, it is important to test plans and remain flexible. For intervention, without

supporting changes such as reward systems or management style, structural changes

will fail. Finally, in evaluation practitioners reporting successful projects were more

likely to conduct evaluations, and more satisfied with their evaluation phases (Burke

et al., 1984).

Success factors for an ideal client-consultant engagement

It is generally accepted that how the consultant puts together the consulting process

will affect the relationship with the client and consequently the success of the project.

Based on the anecdotal views, conceptual frameworks and empirical studies described

above, it is suggested that consulting engagements which possess the following

success factors will lead to more favorable project outcomes:

. competent consultants;

. an emphasis on client results vs consultant deliverables;

. clear and well communicated expectations and outcomes;

. visible executive support;

. an adaptation to client readiness;

. an investment up front in learning the clients environment;

. defined in terms of incremental successes;

. real partnership with consultants; and

. inclusion of the consultants through the implementation phase.

Sharing the blue-print

A consultant is an outsider to the client’s business. The main upside of this is that the consultant is not hamstrung by the knowledge of the client company’s past failures. The downside is that without the client sharing information, the consultant may not have clarity on the organisational goals.

A bricklayer, who understands the blue-print of the cathedral he is helping build, is more likely to identify with the higher purpose than one who is simply told to lay the walls. Likewise, sharing the strategic aims motivates and focuses the minds of both the consultant and the client. The consultant can then contribute meaningfully to the cathedral rather than to the particular wall! The client also finds it easy to measure the consultant’s contribution to the company’s strategic aims.

Balancing gut-feel and intellectual honesty

It would be naive to suggest that consultants are never hired purely to validate an executive’s gut feel. It is more common than is accepted or discussed openly.

But sometimes, in the course of investigations, things emerge that invalidate that gut feel. Times like these call for intellectual honesty on the part of both the client and the consultant. Because although differences may emerge, it is also a chance to make better informed decisions. How the differences are handled can determine whether the relationship is working or not.

Striving for manageable, open communication

Impatience is a problem when working on a large strategic project, pulling data and information from a variety of sources including interviews with people in different time-zones. It is better instead to focus on the milestones and boundary conditions.

Both clients and consultant should agree on reasonable milestones up front, with the caveat that both parties will flag any egregious developments right away. This helps both parties save time and energy otherwise wasted on micromanaging the other side’s expectations or deliverables.

Understanding the process of creation

A popular management cliché goes: “we cannot manage what we cannot measure”. Analogously, “we cannot outsource/ purchase what we do not understand”. If the client understands the process of creation, it helps in assessing the consultant’s contribution to the organisation’s goals. Equally it is the consultant’s job to make things less obscure for the client to understand.

An interesting point in projects is scope discussion. The consultant does not want scope-creep and the client does not want to leave anything meaningful out. Both parties may use different assumptions about the relationship between scope and pricing. These assumptions need to be articulated and discussed openly. This sets the right expectations, helps set milestones and helps the assessment of the output.

Passing the “chemistry” check

This is actually the very first step. The right chemistry between the client and the consultant is nearly as important as the right value/ price package. Without it, projects may happen but a relationship certainly won’t develop. Projects that help the client almost always lead to professional growth for the consultant too. But only if the chemistry was right in the first place.

To conclude, successful clients help consultants help them and consultants can also help clients better by avoiding obfuscation and random posturing.

The work of an OD consultant is often presented a series of planned stages: entry,

contracting, data gathering and diagnosis, feedback, intervention and evaluation (French, W.L.

& Bell, C.H.) with discrete tasks all directed outward, at the problem. There is an assumption

that the client knows what the problem is and that the consultant, “collaboratively” with the

client, will address these problems and fix them. However my experience of working with

clients is not like that at all, largely I think, because of three things:

• I work in the here and now, ie, I work with what ever is going on,( I don’t just direct my

attention to the content of a problem being outlined by the client, nor do I confine

myself to the client’s definition of the problem) ;

• I work with the client consultant relationship itself – with the dynamics of our

relationship, with what’s going on between us;

• I don’t work in a linear sequence of discrete steps which imply for example that

contracting happens in the beginning, that both client and consultant are clear what

the problem is, that interventions happen after data gathering and diagnosis etc. etc.

Entry

Whilst entry in the pure OD sense is about entering the client system, I think that for many

consultants it’s about getting a foot in the door and selling. At the entry stage, the client tells

you something about the problem, and is trying to work out whether you are the right

consultant. Consultants want to look good at this stage and inspire confidence. Even though

this stage often occurs over the phone, consultants, through their best paraphrasing skills,

can try to convey a sense that they have a good handle on the problem. Clients, often anxious

themselves, need reassurance and often venture a few interview type questions seeking to

ascertain the consultant’s credibility, experience and credentials. This plays right into a

collusive dynamic where the anxiety of both is alleviated: the consultant gives a confident, “ I

can handle it” answer ( and hopefully scores the job) and the client, relieved, gets a saviour.

This however, is an opportunity lost. Every contact with the client should be an opportunity to

gather data, make a diagnosis on the run, and start to work. How is the client sounding on the

phone? Do they sound distracted, anxious, smug? Do they sound as though they have no

part in the problem? How do they talk about the problem – is their description clinical,

detached, is it all over the place, panicked? How committed are they - are they prepared to

make a time to talk in person about the problems they are facing?

As a consultant, you can start to work with any of this data. You can intervene; make

observations on what you’re hearing. You can talk about how hearing about the problem and

talking with them makes you feel. You can also start to feedback your impressions of the

situation or their part in it. You can raise issues that you sense have a bearing on the problem

but have not been raised so far in the discussion - perhaps asking about players and

relationships not yet mentioned for example asking about the relationship the client has with

her boss or her colleagues etc. Take a risk and follow your hunches. Finally, you can try and

get a sense of whether you want to and can, work with this client. If you do, then you ask for a

face to face meeting. What you’re really doing is contracting for some more space in which to

explore the problem.

Contracting

Contracting for me is always about getting a big enough space in which to work. I need to get

my own sense of what the problem really is. However in the way I often see contracting

described it is actually about putting forward a fairly detailed, well documented proposal of

activities and interventions and getting the client to sign on the dotted line.

Contracting in this sense is about scoping a project and making sure the client will go along

with you, it’s a security blanket for consultants, and it holds warm a fantasy that you and the

client agree, that you have client support that they’ll keep paying and hopefully not resisting.

The term contracting has a kind of legal feel to it in the spelling out of obligations and

responsibilities…and like that other contracted relationship, marriage, a hope of safety and

ever after.

But you can’t contract for love. And you can’t contract for what you have no idea will happen.

This is why contracting can only be about space to work, and a commitment to stay with it

when things get difficult. And even then, you’ll need to recontract, for contracting and re

contracting happens at every stage of the consultancy – it never stops.

An important step to make sure you do in contracting is intervening. Yet how can you be up

to “intervention” when you haven’t even completed data gathering, diagnosis, feedback and

planning for change?! Well, you actually have a heap of data already in the way the

organisation contacted you, the way you were able to access entry, and your experience of

the client so far. So often, and I would dare to venture, every time, those things that went

really wrong with a consultancy later down the track, were occurring right there at the start.

Those first couple of interactions with a client and their organisation offer a wealth of data: the

way you experience the client may well be the way others experience him/her. Clues for

understanding the client’s contribution to the problem lie right there under your nose, or under

your skin…is the client getting to you with her sense of self importance and “busyness?” Does

the client seem so overly in charge and impressive that you feel intimidated and are asking

yourself hey, why did he ask me in if he’s got it all under control? Ignore this data at your peril.

This is where feedback, an intervention in itself, comes in.

Start to work with the client then and there, offering gentle feedback and some interpretations.

“I’m struck by how busy and speedy you seem, and how tightly you’ve narrowed down the

problem…it’s like you just want this fixed so you can go onto more important things”. Tell the

client what working with you will be like, and work with the response: “Look, working with me

will be like this, I will be straight with you and share my reactions to what’s going on and how I

feel we’re working…starting to work on this problem may well open up other issues and we

may go slower not faster, things may well get worse for a while, not better..”

If contracting is about getting clear on how you will work, the best way for the client to see

this and understand it is in the here and now of your working with them on the spot. If you and

the client can get through this, it will build your resilience to feedback and strengthen your

relationship. Later on down the track when you’re really working with resistance- you’ll need it,

ie you’ll need a strong collaborative relationship that can withstand some straight talking. If the

client doesn’t buy it, well, you’ve saved yourself problems later on. Sometimes I build in a rest

break or thinking time. Even if the client wants to commit, I say, let’s wait a few days to give

us time to think about it. Staggering the entry/contracting process can be useful in gaining

commitment, in negotiating the relationship and in beginning to work with the resistance

which will always be there.

Data Gathering and Diagnosis

Data gathering and diagnosis is seen as a discrete phase often using particular tools and

generating specific products or outcomes. Often however they are little more than a pre-sales

warm up generating predictable training “solutions”. Also, there may be an over reliance on

impressive tools and instrumentation (which cost more and require time to score and analyse)

when a more low tech anthropological approach may yield excellent results.

Data gathering and diagnosis are not neutral, scientific activities. They can in fact be more

powerful intervention strategies than anything in your consultant’s toolbox. Instead of just

“interviewing” organisation members, work with them as well. Address issues as they arise.

Keep contracting, telling them how you work, and that you will share your thoughts with them

along the way. It is in this phase of the consulting process that working transparently and

collaboratively really has impact. Talk with people about what is emerging from your

exploration of the issues, give and get feedback on what you are experiencing. Don’t just

leech information from them, put yourself on the line and give something. After all, your

assessment, your opinion is your value added – that’s why you’re the consultant! Encourage

them to talk with their colleagues, offer time to talk with you again or involve others in

resolution of conflicts or issues with your assistance. Get the managers involved, feeding back

to them constantly.

Feeding back does not mean being the messenger or doing others’ work for them. It means

working with the manager/client on issues emerging, coaching and supporting them to

confront and work through emerging issues. It means creating spaces in the middle of the

consultancy when different parties are brought together to address enduring and sometimes

previously undiscussable problems. In this sense then, the “data gathering and diagnosis”

phase is when the heat gets turned up and problems are surfaced and experienced more

acutely. This is the part where things get worse, not better, as Pandora’s Box reveals its

terrors. This is also why the more confronting you’ve been earlier on in really being straight

with the client and building the relationship, pays off. For when it comes to feeding back your

analysis, there should be no surprises – you’ve been talking and working with them on this all

along.

Feedback

This stage is sometimes run as a show and tell “presentation” to the client where consultants

can demonstrate the astuteness of their skills and the accuracy of their instrumentation.

Consultants often get nervous at this stage, a kind of stage fright which is understandable if

you are in performance mode, up front, “presenting” rather than grounded in your own sense

of yourself and who you really are. Working as a consultant you need to have a sense of

personal authority (Gould, 1993) in that your feelings, needs and thoughts are able to be

acknowledged and brought to the consulting encounter. This means that the consultant feels

entitled to have and bring to the work their own feelings. This is linked to the notion of

“bringing who you are to what you do” (Bellman, 1990). A consultant is not just a cardboard

cut out playing a role but is able to bring who she is, and all that she is into that role. In this

sense you are not “performing” – you are being you and saying it as you see it.

Consultants get nervous about resistance or worry that their results are not spectacular

enough because they confirm what everybody knew anyway. Yet feedback should never

solely be delivered in one “presentation” – it should have been happening all along the way,

there should be no surprises, only continuous re-contracting and further interventions.

If your investigations have shown that, for example, staff are weak in areas of performance

evaluation and management, then ask where does that come from? Work with the senior

managers in feedback meetings around their own skills and relationships with their own

bosses and staff. If the data shows a lack of openness and willingness to confront conflict,

work with that in the meeting itself and their neutral or luke warm response to the feedback.

The purpose of feedback meetings should always be to bring the responsibility right back to

where it belongs. This needs to be done in a strong and supportive way, not as a blaming

exercise. Generating some real work in these meetings and addressing some difficult issues in

the here and now can be very energising and releasing for a management group.

Feedback should be about managers facing their dragons and actually working with them; it

should generate a dynamic of empowerment not an “audience” response of applause and

approval for the consultant’s “results”. The feedback meetings need to be focused very close

to home and not quickly directed outward towards a package of solutions up the consultant’s

sleeve. Working with resistance is a critical task of the feedback meeting.

Intervention

This phase is usually written about as the outcome of a planned change process and is

represented as “the solution” which is to be implemented. Often it represents the consultant’s

“product”, (eg a training package) and in fact has often been pre-empted or presold ie

“contracted” for right at the start of the consultancy – that’s why it’s the result of a “planned”

change.

However the most powerful change can come from an awareness of dysfunction in existing

relationships, and an enhanced capacity to take up one’s responsibilities more strongly.

Sometimes the most radical change comes not from replacing something with some new

process or people, but rather, from standing still and working with what’s right under the

client’s nose. By this I mean working with what’s there currently: the conflicts, the

undiscussables, and the game playing. Powerful change occurs as a result of enhanced

understanding and insight into the nature of group and organisational level dynamics.

Having an understanding of the unconscious dynamics that are played out in organizations is

an important aspect of the consultant’s repertoire. A psychodynamic approach frees people

up to explore the less rational aspects of organisational life in a way which acknowledges the

hard to talk about tensions in organisations for example around power, dependence, shame ,

authority, sex, gender, aggression, love, envy, competition and scapegoating.

It means that you can work with clients on for example, how this group seems to work like a

family with an absent father and abandoned children, or like a group of martyred women

competing with each other for most victimized status etc. For me working as a consultant with

organisations it is just not that useful to see organisations only as rational, goal driven,

problem solving entities and then to berate them for not being more so. I have found that

using an approach which acknowledges the other, less visible, but arguably more powerful

unconscious forces in organisations is both more forgiving , provides different options and is

more reparative.

By incorporating this approach in an understanding of how organisations work I am not only

addressing the pathological in organisations. Nor am I using the approach to look only at

individuals, for indeed this approach enhances our understanding of organisations at the

group, inter-group and organisation as a whole levels, providing a deeper understanding of

many features of organisations, even those that appear straight forward and ordinary. In fact

that can be its biggest strength – helping us understand why ordinary things surprise us when

they work, or frustrate us when they clearly should work, because everyone agreed they

would, but in fact, they didn’t.

Instead what I often see consultants doing is pitching too many “interventions” at the rational,

individual skill level ie,” it’s because you don’t have the skills/knowledge on performance

management that we have this problem and so we will teach you”. New products, like

training, 360 degree feedback inventories, job analysis etc are easier to identify and talk about

as interventions than the current dynamics, processes and relationships.

Finally I want to say that the main intervention can in fact be you, the consultant, and the way

you work in the client consultant relationship. The Client Consultant Relationship is the place

where working in role and emotions come to the fore. It is often in the relationship between

the client and consultant that the same problems and dynamics plaguing the client get played

out in the relationship between them (Bain, 1976; Czander, 1993). This is no coincidence; the

client represents part of the problem. This is not to say of’ course that training and other

“product” solutions cannot make a valuable contribution to the change effort but rather that

their success is dependent on a less tangible process of change that is to do with the existing

nature of relationships and organisational dynamics themselves.

Evaluation

Whilst on the one hand it makes sense to have an evaluation phase at the close of a

consultancy, how often is it characterised by a final show and tell in which consultants can

show they’ve addressed the problem and which also provides an excellent opportunity to on

sell? Just who is the evaluation in the service of? Sometimes, an evaluation is used as a

closing off and termination device, with a good dash of Public Relations thrown in.

Informally, evaluation should have been going on all along, especially if the consultant has

been using an action research frame to the work. It should become evident, through the

collaboration between client and consultant, when enough is enough, when sufficient

progress has been made. Just as a staggered entry and contracting process is useful in the

beginning of the consultancy, so too is a staggered ending. A series of final interventions

emerge naturally as successes can be acknowledged and celebrated. Where things aren’t

going well, there can be a recontracting process, or a built in time out or trial period. Like all

relationships, there are many ways to leave and make an ending or a new start. Transfer of

learning is not a separate phase when working in this way. Client learning has been occurring

all along, with the evaluation phase really representing collaborative reflection on the work

you’ve been doing together. Transfer is thus embedded in the client system which is better

equipped to deal with problems in the future.

Conclusion

Organisational consulting is a complex and dynamic process. Trying to understand what’s

really going on can be a challenge, however having the courage to work with it is an even

greater one. Too often we as consultants don’t trust our own instincts or are too fearful of

losing the client. Other times, we are afraid to address the emotional aspects of the work and

relationship, fearing we won’t be seen as rational, objective and credible. (Beeby,M. et al

1998) Yet these dynamics are integral to our understanding of what is going on in the

consultancy and we ignore them at our peril.(Stapley, D.F.1996, Hirschhorn, L.1990) We

forget that we are in fact ourselves the best consulting instrument and that in bringing

ourselves fully to the client consultant relationship, we are in the true service of the client. The

Client Consultant Relationship provides an excellent vehicle for understanding what’s going on

in the consultancy, but it’s often the last place we want to look.

This way of working means two things. It creates a client-consultant relationship which is

intense and intimate, one in which both client and consultant see each other, and experience

each other fully as whole people. But it also means that the consultant’s role may mean at

times that you have the courage to tell the emperor he had no clothes. Working strongly and

fearlessly in role, with personal authority, is how you add value and avoid the kind of

dereliction of duty seen most starkly in the recent sagas of corporate collapses (Enron, HIH) in

which consultants absolute collusion meant they “yielded to their clients in virtually every

instance of controversy and…. failed to respond with appropriate diligence and resolve.”(Ellas

2003).

Working as an organisational consultant is a very different prospect to working as a salesman.

The difference is you are working in the client’s best interests in a way in which you too, as a

consultant, can work with integrity, authority and meaning. You are working in a way in which

every step is an intervention.

Roles of the consultant

One of the first authors to propose a classification of the roles taken by consultants was Tilles. He saw three different roles applied to the consultant: “seller of services”, “supplier of information” and “business doctor dispensing cures” (Tilles 1961 cited in Clark 1995: 88). The first describes the consultant as a person involved in a traditional sales-purchase transaction. Second describes the role as the person who supports the flow of information between the two parties and third in terms of

the consultant as a business doctor with the cure for the ill patient. Steele identified nine different roles that a consultant may adopt within the client organization in his interaction with the client: teacher, student, detective, barbarian, clock, Side 20 af 70

monitor, talisman, advocate and ritual pig (Steele 1975 cited in Clark 1995:88). In general, their role is seen as that of a professional helper or a doctor with a cure for the illnesses in the organization (Clark 1995: 89). Reasons to this according to Clark were mainly due to the fact that many of the writers in management consulting where successful consultants themselves (Clark 1995:89).The consultancy roles they seek are therefore a reflection of their own understanding of what role the consultant should adopt, in order to achieve a successful relationship with the client.

Another author who has explored the concept of roles among consultants is Fincham (Fincham 1999) He attempts to contribute to this debate and has explored the role of the consultants in a situation of change. According to him, the consulting process contains no structures or roles (like the dependent client and indispensable consultant or the resistant client and vulnerable consultant), instead the consultant-client relationship is best regarded as: “part of an overarching managerial structure and a contingent exchange that assumes a variety of forms” (Fincham 1999: 335).

8.2 Roles of the client

According to Clark, one the greatest problems the client experiences is that of being able to select and identify the consultant which fits their needs. As consultancy services are not cheap and impossible to rectify, their selection of the consultant is therefore even more crucial. Clark argues that the problem is further complicated as managers tend to focus on the here-and-now problems, rather than looking at the problems which focus on the long-term future of the company. (Clark 1995:10). However the root of the problem in selecting the right consultant is connected to the fact that consultancy services are to some degree intangible products.

First problem is that it is difficult for clients to determine exactly what is being offered and how it compares to other consultancies. (Clark 1995:11). Second, it is if difficult to determine whether the consultant did a good job. Which, as Clark also points out is something the client is looking for in order to be able to create an image of the consultant, which can help the client to select consultants in the future. (Clark 1995: 11)

This information is often given by assuring the client that the consultant understands and can relate to the problem, but also that the consultant has experience in solving these kinds Side 21 af 70

of problems. Or by referring to the biographies of the consultants in order to create an image of good quality to the client. However, this selection process is as previous mentioned complicated due to the nature of consultancy services. As consultancy services are intangible products it is difficult to prepurchase a guaranteed level of service. (Clark 1995: 12). The service furthermore necessitates an interaction between the supplier and the customer and it is therefore in the interaction between the client and the consultant that the production takes place. However, as not two customers are similar nor their needs, this illustrates a third feature of the nature of services, namely the difficulty in delivering a standardized service (Clark 1995: 13). A feature, which furthermore complicates clients’ ability to compare the services being offered. Secondly, services are consumed where it is delivered, meaning it is in the interaction between client and consultant that the final result is created. This furthermore also complicates the ability for the client to receive the same service as others have before. As a result to these characteristics the client also has problems in evaluating the level of service being offered.

Furthermore as Clark points out is the selecting and evaluation of consultancy services worsened by some of the structural characteristics of management consulting. Foremost the fact that there are no effective barriers of entry in the business. Anyone can call themselves consultants. (Clark 1995: 14) For clients this according to Clark has four consequences:

First, that the number of consultancies they can choose from is high, which makes the task of differentiating between them even more difficult. Second that the ease of entry in the business, makes it possible for all types of organizations to offer consultancy services. Third, as no industry quality threshold exist, which the consultancy companies have to overcome, it makes it up to the client to determine the quality. Fourth, consultancies are dominated by small companies and generally experience short lives. Consequently the client has many companies to choose from and due to their short life span, it is difficult for clients to develop long term relationships. (Clark 1995: 15)

The relationship between clients and consultants

The client-consultant relationship is a broad term, which can describe the client in its widest sense of the term – an organisation that employs the services of the consulting firm. However, the term client can also be used in a narrower form, which means the people or individual who collaborates closely with the consultant, discusses the assignment with him or her, receive the reports written by the consultant or the client who recommends the services of the consultants to higher management advisors in the client organisation. (Kubr 2002: 64). Furthermore as Kubr argues is the relationship always personalized on a one-to-one basis. Even though a formal contract exists between the two organizations, the service is still delivered through direct contact between the two parts and will as a result hereof depend on “the abilities and attitudes of the individuals directly involved, and on the psychological contract between them.” (Kubr 2002: 65). It is therefore recommended for consultants to determine primarily who the real client is.

In this thesis, the client defined on broad basis, however in the analysis I regard the client as the manager who decides to bring in the consultant. It therefore uses the same definition of the client as the one proposed by Schein. (Schein 1997) Schein points out that any helping or change process always has a client, although the question of the client can be ambiguous and sometimes the dynamics around the client can be problematic. (Ibid.)He therefore proposes a simplifying model to understand the different types of clients as well as the types of client relationships. According to Schein six basic types can be defined (Ibid):

Contact clients. The individual(s) who first approach the consultant with an issue, problem or request

Intermediate clients. The individual(s) or groups who will get involved in the project in meetings, interviews or other activities as the project evolves. Side 25 af 70

Primary clients. The clients who own the problem or the issue the consultant works on. These are often the same individuals who pay the consulting fees or whose budget covers the consultancy expense.

Unwitting clients. Members of the client organization, both above and below in the organizational hierarchy who are related to the primary clients. They are also members who are not aware they will be affected by the intervention.

Indirect clients. Members of the organization who are aware they will be affected by the interventions. They are however unknown to the consultant and may feel either positive or negative about the effects of this consultant-intervention.

Ultimate clients. The community or the whole organization that the consultant cares about. Their welfare in the organization must be considered in any intervention the consultant initiates. The typology however is not straightforward as different clients may have different needs, expectations, influence and different degree of participation in the consultancy process. As seen above the fact that many types of clients exists makes the relationship client-consultant relationship even more complicated in the sense that it becomes difficult for the consultant to know who he/she should work on.

Therefore, Schein finds it important that the consultant always keeps in mind who the client really is in order to achieve more successful relationships.

Kubr also argues that for a successful client-consultant relationship to function there needs to be a close collaboration; however, the consultant should not be mistaken that this close collaboration is perceived the same by every client. Some clients might think that by collaborating they are actually doing the consultant’s job and may even refuse to give the consultant the information that is needed. Due to previous mentioned reasons in modern consulting a strong collaboration between client and consultant is needed according to Kubr (Kubr 2002: 67)

Much of the traditional theory on consulting is developed with practitioners in mind and often with a very pragmatic approach to managers. The relationship between client and consultant is understood as follows: “the client is the purchaser of consulting services, the consultant is the provider, and the client-consultant relationship facilitates the conduct of the Side 26 af 70

intervention. The scoping of the assignment, the planning and conduct of the intervention and the achievement of the required outcomes are implicitly driven by objective technical considerations and largely divorced from the consultant-client relationship”(Pellegrinelli 2002: 344)

The expert model

In the expert model it is assumed that the consultant posses expert knowledge which the client does not possess. Consultants are therefore considered to be experts in their fields. This is also the oldest established model on client-consultant interaction. Consultants know better than their clients what they need and thus the knowledge of the consultants is seen as superior to the knowledge that clients possess (O’Farrell and Moffat 1991 cited in Nikolova 2007: 5). The relationship presupposes that the consultant is neutral in order to give an unbiased view of the organization as an outsider and their relationship is generally described as a contractual relationship with a mutual agreement on objectives, scope of the project and final fee for the consultant. The asymmetric knowledge transfer between client and consultant is also a factor why the role of the client is limited the delivery of information (Lane D. 1994: 86-88 cited in Nikolova 2007: 100)

The Reflective Practitioner model

The reflective practitioner model has contrary to the expert model more emphasis on the client, which was developed as a response to the growing criticism on expert consulting, by Schön (Schön 1983). In this model, the interaction between client and consultant is seen as a reflective conversation. His understanding on the client relationship builds on the nature of consulting knowledge based on the two types of consulting expertise: Knowing-in-action and reflection-in-action (Nikolova 2007:119). Knowing-in-action is a term by Schön, which Nikolova defines as “knowledge that is based on tacit rules and procedures. It is routinely applicable when solving familiar problems” (Ibid p. 120). Schön’s main argument is that consultants, like other professionals use their knowing in action, which they reflect on. This might be a situation they have experienced before or a project they as consultants have undertaken. However, also when consultants experience unfamiliar situations they engage in reflection-in-action (Ibid). This is a process, which Schön describes as follows: “When someone reflects-in-action, he becomes a researcher in the practice context. He is not dependent on the categories of established theory and technique, but constructs a new theory of the unique case. His inquiry is not limited to a deliberation about means, which depends on a prior agreement about ends. He does not keep means and ends separate, but defines them interactively as he frames a problematic situation. He does not separate thinking from doing, ratiocinating his way to a decision, which he must later convert to action. Because his experimenting is a kind of action, implementation is built into his inquiry. Thus reflection-in-action can proceed, even in situations of uncertainty and uniqueness, because it is not bound by the dichotomies of Technical Rationality” (Schön 1983: 68-69 qouted from Nikolova 2007: 121).

The critical model

The critical model is based on the critical works on consulting and its proponents: among others: Clark, Alvesson, Clark and Salaman, Kieser, O’shea and Madigan and Jackson. Their focus aims to explain the nature of consulting and moreover the reason for client’s dissatisfaction with clients has made the starting point for the critical model. The critical model has a different approach to the relationship than Schön’s expert model. It is assumed that the knowledge transfer between the client and consultant is different and that rhetoric and stories are used by consultants to impress the client and thereby buy the services offered are important factors (Nikolova 2007:147). Consultants are therefore impression managers and their interaction is designed to lure the client. Consulting knowledge is assumed to be developed in interaction with the clients and constructed during client-consultant interactions. It does not exist prior to the However consultants “do not possess and cannot deploy a body of formal, authoritative theoretical professional knowledge to underpin their work, because there is no such knowledge” (Fincham and Clark 2002: 8-9. The critical model proposes that meanings are subjectively constructed and therefore follows an interpretivist epistemology (Nikolova 2007: 141).

The interpretive model

The interpretive model is according to Nikolova a model, which has a dialectic nature and combines the previous three models. A dialectic approach is an approach where each model is counter posed and their differences outlined. (Nikolova 2007: 151 - also see the work of Morgan 1983: 377). By introducing the ideas of Schön of different practice communities and Loasby concept of interpretive communities the model argues that some of the problems, which may arise during client-consultant interaction in terms of knowledge, transfer can be found in the existence of different interpretive communities. (Nikolova 2007: 152) It is their membership to different interpretive communities that according to Nikolova is the reason “why clients and consultants may have problems in understanding each other’s language” (Nikolova 2007: 283).

The role of the consultant

In this section I will analyse upon the role of the consultant seen from the managers point of view. I will first look upon the different abilities the consultant has according to the client, and secondly I will analyse upon what trust in regards to the consultant means for the manager. Especially trust was seen by the client managers as crucial to a good relationship.

12.1 Abilities of the consultant according to the client

In this section it is analysed what abilities and skills the consultant has according to the client in order to analyse their perception of consultants as well as how they should be managed.

Educational sense

A skill which is valued by the client is the educational sense on which the consultant also was judged by. However, this skill was most valued in situations where new strategies should be implemented or

in the implementation of Six Sigma. Social skills and being able to relate to the organisation which the consultant should work with is also important as illustrated below:

“So the social skills, being able to catch the culture and the nerve in the organisation they have to work with. That is very decisive the way I see it”. (Götzsche)

The role of the consultant varied much according to the nature of the assignment. A manager below describes his relationship with a Six Sigma consultant:

”So the consultant both had a coaching and supervising task and help as well as helping us put on these models and help us understand them. Cause we later have to take them over later. If the social skills were not present with the consultant, then neither I nor the group would have been capable of solving this. So the presence of social skills was quite decisive in the collaboration between me the consultant and the group”. (Goetzsche) Side 60 af 70

12.1.1 Challenging the client view

It also was important to the client managers that they did not hire a consultant who only followed their lead. Contrary they wanted a consultant who was able to challenge their own ideas. This was considered important to them and a part of being a consultant.

”… that is part of being a consultant, that is to say it is not coherent dear friend…And that is part of that discussion and dialogue that goes on in such a process. It both goes on between internal people in their group but also towards the consultant. He should be able to act as a sparring partner in this regard.” (Damgaard)

The outsider perspective which the consultant is considered to provide was also very important to the client manager,

“Of course it is an advantage that they know our business. All the things about sales, how and why knowledge about the market in general…Basic knowledge about our business it is quite important they know that. At least as a starting point”. (Damgaard)

The outsider perspective is also valued by the client in order to get inspiration in this case as the consultant is not familiar with the business. As the client expresses the fact that the consultant is not familiar with their business can become an advantage as well. This can be seen below in the quote by Damgaard:

”Sometimes we can become so fed up with our knowledge, that we think this is the way we have always done it, it cannot be done in other ways. Whereas consultants, who might come from another branch of business, can come up with some suggestions, some inputs which can put another angle to the project”. (Damgaard)

As well as having a person to play the devil’s advocate in order to challenge the client view. This is illustrated below. In this case both the consultant’s educational sense; his ability to play the devil’s advocate as well as his outsider abilities is used. Furthermore this Six Sigma consultant was not an expert, actually he did not knew anything as Götzsche mentioned.

Sometimes, you cannot see the forest for the trees. In this case (Six Sigma) the case was about asking questions, being the devil’s advocate, if you decided to go in this direction, use that strategy, what scenario would you then end with. Side 61 af 70

Götzsche

Another factor that is important according to the client by being the devil’s advocate is trust. It is important in trusting the consultant to ask the right questions as a devil’s advocate and as an objective partner.

12.2 Trust to the consultant

In order to make the collaboration work between the client manager and the consultant, trust was considered crucial to the managers. It was important that trust was in place, as

The quote below shows that trust to the consultant arises as the consultant is not trying to follow his own agenda. Contrary as the consultant is not acting in an “I know all” role he becomes trusted by the client manager. In this situation the consultant acts like a helper and not in the role of a manager. It is in this case the balancing act between being a consultant and a manager, which make this relationship work. Empathy, instead of rejection, removes some barriers to the consultant, and therefore creates trust and mutual understanding.

”What makes me trust the consultant is that the consultant is not forcing something through. The consultant asks and help and supports me to make me recognize my business. He adds some views and some method which can help me analyse my business and measure what is good or bad about this business. In that way trust arises when a consultant enters and say what you do is idiocy and now you have to do it all differently. Any person will feel attacked by this”.

Götzsche

”Then you need to have trust in that the consultant is not telling the competitors about the strategy you are about to prepare. So trust is crucial which is why the individual person is important. I cannot just be anybody. If you do not trust the consultant then you will never succeed”.(Damgaard)

Trust is one of the most important factors to the clients. They have to be sure that they can trust the consultant on a both social and work-related level.

MODELS 5

TEXT IN BLUE EXPLANATION OF EACH STEP

The Consultant-Client Relationship:

A Systems-Theoretical Perspective

Michael Mohe and David Seidl

The critical success factors in the

client-consulting relationship

Steven H. Appelbaum

John Molson School of Business, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada and

Anthony J. Steed

Bell Canada, Montreal, Canada March 2004

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0262-1711.htm

JMD

24,1

68

Received December 2003

Accepted March 2004

Journal of Management Development

Vol. 24 No. 1, 2005

pp. 68-93

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0262-1711

DOI 10.1108/02621710510572362

Working with the Client Consultant Relationship:

Why Every Step is an “Intervention”

Naomi Raab, OD Practitioner, Vol.36 2004

Client-Consultant Relationships

- An analysis of the client role from the client’s perspective