consultant-client relationship

 

The image of the client-consultant relationship varies in the literature. For example, Schein (1998:330) categorizes management consultants with respect to the role they play in interaction with the client. He distinguishes three models: “purchase of expertise”, “doctor-patient” and “process consultation”. In short,

the “purchase of expertise” model requires the consultant to bring independent perspective on the industry in hands-off relationship with the client. In the ” doctor-patient model”, the consultant carefully analysis the client organization’ problem and based on this diagnosis can quickly assess strategic and organizational blockages. This model leads to trust based relationship between consultant and the client. In the “process consultation” model there is a clear division of roles and tasks. The consultant is a facilitator while the client contributes the expertise. The client identifies the problem while the consultant provides the definition to the problem and finds the best solution. A similar segmentation is suggested by Nees and Greiner (1985:68) who divide consultants into five categories. “The mental adventurer” analyses intransigent problems by applying rigorous economic methods. “The strategic navigator” recommends courses of action based on his rich quantitative understanding of the market without regard of the client’s own perspective. The example of that model can be The Boston Consulting Group, Bain & Company and Monitor Company. “The management physician” derives his recommendation from a deep understanding of internal dynamics of the client organization-McKinsey&Company is a good example. “The system architect” impacts the client by helping to redesign systems with close cooperation with the client. “Friendly copilot” has no ambition to provide new knowledge to the client because he or she acts as a facilitator rather than expert to senior managers. “The mental adventurer” model corresponds to Schein’s” expert model”, “strategic navigator”, “management physician” but “system thinker” corresponds to “doctor-patient model”, and the “friendly co-pilot” is similar to “process consultation” model. 

 

Furthermore, Turner (1982:130) demonstrates the extent of a consultant’s involvement with a client by use of a hierarchy of tasks. He argues that relationship is built on a partnership of mutual trust aimed at improving client’s effectiveness. Turner uses eight task categories of which first five correspond to the traditional approach and the last three are evolving tasks: 1.providing information to the client, 2.solving problem, 3.making the diagnosis and redefinition of the problem, 4.making recommendations based on diagnosis, 5.assisting with implementation of actions, 6.building a commitment around corrective action, 7.facilitating client learning, 8.permanently improving organizational effectiveness. Most management consultancies prefer to work on the last three activities. Thus, it confirms that management consultant’s relationship with the client is becoming increasingly complicated because it relies on more sophisticated arrangements such as trust. However, Leontiades and Ahmet (1989 : 51-3) pointed out that management consultants have a long way before they use major influence on the core issues of their clients. CEO is firstly influenced by own instincts, followed by planning staff, the board of  directors and then by the consultants. Thus, it is not so clear how far down the task hierarchy mentioned above, consultants have really moved. 

 

According to Lowendahl ( 2005:137) client relation based strategies emphasize the uniqueness of the firm to understand and help a particular client group. In such sense the management consultancy groups are focused more on target group rather than on their professional competence. The primary strategic assets of these types of firm are the professional’s reputation among targets client group and their strong relationship. Growth of the company is based on developing new relationships of trust and confidence to new clients. Seniority and experience of professionals is a crucial factor because those are who are able to build the confidence and win new clients.  However, the critical approach questions the value of consultant because it can be argued that the client is a victim of the consultant’s rhetorical  skills and impression management. Consultants construct the organizational problems in such a way that it makes the problem possible to solve and gives the consultant power to control the process. 

 

In relation to this, four types of consultants influencing the consultant-client relationship in different ways has been distinguished in Alvesson & Johansson (2002: 233) “Esoteric Experts” –their actions are quite predictable, they asses problems in non-political way so the client is a person who purchases their services. “Esoteric experts” might use socio-political skills to get approval of problem definition and superior capacity. “Brokers of Meaning” specialize in the production of linguistic artifacts, label work and meaning production. Consultant works as coach and his professionalism is related to personal experience. In this type of consultancy the client- consultant relationship is symmetrical. Manipulation is achieved through language.”Traders in Trouble” are employed to deal with conflict-driven problems such as downsizing. They are aware that they are used as scapegoats, but are paid well for this because he or she supports the interest of the client who is paying. “Agents of anxiety and Suppliers of Security” emphasize the uncertainties of being a manager and fuel executive anxiety with a never-ending barrage of newly packaged ideas. 

 

Consultancy is a contradicted between the reassurance to management and at the same time creating insecurities because with every new management fashion, existing managerial practice is viewed as obsolete and new entrepreneurial orientation is encouraged. The asymmetry of power is in the favour of the consultant.

 

The model of dominant consultant and vulnerable client may apply when the client is entering a new phase of development and needs external help. On the contrary, large client organizations have dealt with small-scale consultancies and in such case the consultancy itself can be controlled internally by the client organization. In that context, Alvesson and Johansson ( 2002: 235-139) stress the nature of management as being contingent upon plurality of consultants, clients and tasks. This kind of emphasis points out the consultant-client relationship as defined by contingent market in expertise. However, if management consultancy is defined as marketized activity, there are still constants in the relationship. In spite of variations, there remain elements of dependence on both sides. If consultant was characterized as established profession, perhaps the relationship with the client would be more formalized and to the passing on advice or solution. Because consultant expertise consists of a more uncertain set of methods which requires interpretation to discover whether indeed the client has a problem in the first place and how to apply knowledge. 

 

Another aspect worth considering, however, little research has been carried out into the ways in which consultants and clients evaluate the outcomes of consulting project. This paragraph will analyse the perceptions of both management consultants and clients in evaluating the impact of consulting interventions and what this tells about the nature of consultant–client relations. The micro-level impact of consultants within organizations is less clear-cut than macro level and popular interpretations usually fall into two distinct campshighly positive and highly negative. Consultants present a positive interpretation of their contribution to organizational change, and use rhetoric to validate their services. Advocates stress how external consultants can provide expertise which reveal new insights, instigate new initiatives, transfer skills and knowledge, or simply provide temporary skills (Kubr, 1996: 8–13). Indeed, there is no shortage of clients who claim that consultants provide added value service. In contrast to this positive image of consultants, a more negative interpretation has developed. There are examples of assignments that result in a failure or are harmful to performance. Since 1990s consultants were criticized for their role in spreading a dubious management fad — business process re-engineering (Micklethwait and Wooldridge, 1996: 40–43). Academic interpretations have added a third dimension to this debate by stressing the ambiguous nature of consulting work. Alvesson (1993: 1005–7)

 

 As follows, it has been argued that the work of ‘knowledge-intensive firms’ and ‘knowledge workers’ ( consultant) is difficult to evaluate due to the inherent ambiguity of work and the complexity of variables which make casual connection between consultancy interventions and changes in client performance difficult to establish. Thus, clients have little basis on which to assess the performance of consultants beyond the feeling that it ‘was money well spent’. Neither consultants nor clients can resolve the issue of what would have happened if consultant was not employed. Clark (1995: 18) outlines a process of ‘persuasive communication’ and argues that a critical aspect of consulting work is the management of client impressions to produce a perception of consulting success. Consultants’ reputation, trademark, methodologies, and polished presentation skills are good techniques used to promote an impression among clients of a positive outcome.

 

 Critical writers have also highlighted the political nature of consulting engagements. Managers often use consultancies to increase the legitimacy of decisions that have already been made or to act as scapegoats for unpopular actions. This review of the literature suggests that assessing the outcomes of consultant involvement in organizational change is highly political process. Sturdy (1997: 397) views consulting as ‘an insecure business’ in which both parties seek a ‘sense of control over environment and identity’. Consultants would seek affirmation from clients that they have ‘done well’ and would always react to criticisms from clients that question the value of consulting practices. 

 

The critical camp is that academic literature has emphasized the often intangible nature of consulting services. Wright and Kitay (2002: 271–278) argue that consultants and clients commonly rely on subjective assessments of consulting impact and ‘high-impact’ rhetoric is determined among large consulting firms which stress the measurable results of consulting interventions. However, this strategy has served to increase client expectations and that consultants continue to face the dilemma of successfully managing client perceptions of consulting success. Assessing impact of consultants onto client’s organization is hard especially within the process of organizational change. While consultancies themselves promote an image as successful ‘agents of change’, less favourable views can be found in the mainstream business press. 

 

The relationship between clients and consultants has been subject to a continuous debate among consultancy researchers. The paper looked into recent debates over the role and impact of management consultants and highlighted a consultancy discourse that stresses rational and tangible outcomes and examined how this relates to the contested nature of consultant–client relations. It was illustrated with reference to how consultants demonstrate value in the critical perspective. Consultants construct a reality which persuades clients that they have purchased a high qualitative service. While the functionalist literature views the client’s fear of dependence as a central dimension of the client-consultant relationship, the critical literature presents the client’s fears and anguish in the managerial role as a major force driving the demand for consulting services. By contrast, academic studies have emphasized the intangible nature of consultancy services and how consultants engage in the management of their clients’ impressions. Instead of seeing one party or the other as controlling the relationship, this article has suggested a change of perspective, in terms of recognizing that both parties mutually constitute the relationship .These different perspectives reflect similarly contrasting popular views. Maybe the answer to that question proposed at the beginning should be open ended?