Consulting engagement

Abstract
Clients engage consultants for many reasons, not always successfully. Based
on a literature review and client and consultant interviews, this paper suggests
six universal factors ‐‐ stated as testable propositions ‐‐ to help explain
consulting engagement success. The factors are consultant integrity ‐‐ in
particular in putting the client’s interests first, client involvement and readiness
to change, a clear agreement concerning requirements and expectations,
client control of the engagement ‐‐ partly via clear and limited assignments,
consultant competence, and a good fit along a number of dimensions ‐‐
including models of consultancy, client expectations, consultant capabilities,
and consultant type. The paper also addresses the distinction between
organisation development consultation and other types of management
consulting and concludes that the distinction need not be so sharp.

Keywords
 Assignment

 Management consultants

 Organizational development

 Success

Citation
McLachlin, R. (1999), "Factors for consulting engagement
success", Management Decision, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 394-
404. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251749910274162
Download as .RIS

Publisher
:
MCB UP Ltd
Copyright © 1999, MCB UP Limited
Please note you might not have access to this content

You may be able to access this content by login via Shibboleth, Open Athens
or with your Emerald account.
Login
If you would like to contact us about accessing this content, click the button
and fill out the form.
Contact us
To rent this content from Deepdyve, please click the butt

ach year management consultants in the United States receive more than $2 billion for their
services.1 Much of this money pays for impractical data and poorly implemented
recommendations.2 To reduce this waste, clients need a better understanding of what consulting
assignments can accomplish. They need to ask more from such advisers, who in turn must learn to
satisfy expanded expectations.

This article grows out of current research on effective consulting, including interviews with partners
and officers of five well-known firms. It also stems from my experience supervising beginning
consultants and from the many conversations and associations I’ve had with consultants and clients
in the United States and abroad. These experiences lead me to propose a means of clarifying the
purposes of management consulting. When clarity about purpose exists, both parties are more likely
to handle the engagement process satisfactorily.

A Hierarchy of Purposes
Management consulting includes a broad range of activities, and the many firms and their members
often define these practices quite differently. One way to categorize the activities is in terms of the
professional’s area of expertise (such as competitive analysis, corporate strategy, operations
management, or human resources). But in practice, as many differences exist within these categories
as between them.

Another approach is to view the process as a sequence of phases—entry, contracting, diagnosis, data
collection, feedback, implementation, and so on. However, these phases are usually less discrete than
most consultants admit.

Perhaps a more useful way of analyzing the process is to consider its purposes; clarity about goals
certainly influences an engagement’s success. Here are consulting’s eight fundamental objectives,
arranged hierarchically (also see the Exhibit):

A management consultant should neither reject nor accept the client’s initial description too readily.
Suppose the problem is presented as low morale and poor performance in the hourly work force.
The consultant who buys this definition on faith might spend a lot of time studying symptoms
without ever uncovering causes. On the other hand, a consultant who too quickly rejects this way of
describing the problem will end a potentially useful consulting process before it begins.
When possible, the wiser course is to structure a proposal that focuses on the client’s stated concern
at one level while it explores related factors—sometimes sensitive subjects the client is well aware of
but has difficulty discussing with an outsider. As the two parties work together, the problem may be
redefined. The question may switch from, say, “Why do we have poor hourly attitudes and
performance?” to “Why do we have a poor process-scheduling system and low levels of trust within
the management team?”

Thus, a useful consulting process involves working with the problem as defined by the client in such
a way that more useful definitions emerge naturally as the engagement proceeds. Since most
clients—like people in general—are ambivalent about their need for help with their most important
problems, the consultant must skillfully respond to the client’s implicit needs. Client managers
should understand a consultant’s need to explore a problem before setting out to solve it and should
realize that the definition of the most important problem may well shift as the study proceeds. Even
the most impatient client is likely to agree that neither a solution to the wrong problem nor a
solution that won’t be implemented is helpful.

3. Effective Diagnosis
Much of management consultants’ value lies in their expertise as diagnosticians. Nevertheless, the
process by which an accurate diagnosis is formed sometimes strains the consultant-client
relationship, since managers are often fearful of uncovering difficult situations for which they might
be blamed. Competent diagnosis requires more than an examination of the external environment,
the technology and economics of the business, and the behavior of nonmanagerial members of the
organization. The consultant must also ask why executives made certain choices that now appear to
be mistakes or ignored certain factors that now seem important.

Although the need for independent diagnosis is often cited as a reason for using outsiders, drawing
members of the client organization into the diagnostic process makes good sense. One consultant
explains: “We usually insist that client team members be assigned to the project. They, not us, must
do the detail work. We’ll help, we’ll push—but they’ll do it. While this is going on, we talk with the
CEO every day for an hour or two about the issues that are surfacing, and we meet with the
chairman once a week.

“In this way we diagnose strategic problems in connection with organizational issues. We get some
sense of the skills of the key people—what they can do and how they work. When we emerge with
strategic and organizational recommendations, they are usually well accepted because they have been
thoroughly tested.”

Clearly, when clients participate in the diagnostic process, they are more likely to acknowledge their
role in problems and to accept a redefinition of the consultant’s task. Top firms, therefore, establish
such mechanisms as joint consultant-client task forces to work on data analysis and other parts of
the diagnostic process. As the process continues, managers naturally begin to implement corrective
action without having to wait for formal recommendations.

4. Recommending Actions
The engagement characteristically concludes with a written report or oral presentation that
summarizes what the consultant has learned and that recommends in some detail what the client
should do. Firms devote a great deal of effort to designing their reports so that the information and
analysis are clearly presented and the recommendations are convincingly related to the diagnosis on
which they are based. Many people would probably say that the purpose of the engagement is
fulfilled when the professional presents a consistent, logical action plan of steps designed to improve
the diagnosed problem. The consultant recommends, and the client decides whether and how to
implement.

Though it may sound like a sensible division of labor, this setup is in many ways simplistic and
unsatisfactory. Untold numbers of seemingly convincing reports, submitted at great expense, have
no real impact because—due to constraints outside the consultant’s assumed bailiwick—the
relationship stops at formulation of theoretically sound recommendations that can’t be
implemented.

For example, a nationalized public utility in a developing country struggled for years to improve
efficiency through tighter financial control of decentralized operations. Recently a professor from
the country’s leading management school conducted an extensive study of the utility and submitted
100 pages of recommendations. According to the CEO, this advice ignored big stumbling blocks—
civil service regulations, employment conditions, and relations with state and local governments. So
the report ended up on the client’s bookshelf next to two other expensive and unimplemented
reports by well-known international consulting firms. This sort of thing happens more often than
management consultants like to admit, and not only in developing countries.

In cases like these, each side blames the other. Reasons are given like “my client lacks the ability or
courage to take the necessary steps” or “this consultant did not help translate objectives into
actions.” Almost all the managers I interviewed about their experiences as clients complained about
impractical recommendations. And consultants frequently blame clients for not having enough sense
to do what is obviously needed. Unfortunately, this thinking may lead the client to look for yet
another candidate to play the game with one more time. In the most successful relationships, there is
not a rigid distinction between roles; formal recommendations should contain no surprises if the
client helps develop them and the consultant is concerned with their implementation.

5. Implementing Changes
The consultant’s proper role in implementation is a matter of considerable debate in the profession.
Some argue that one who helps put recommendations into effect takes on the role of manager and
thus exceeds consulting’s legitimate bounds. Others believe that those who regard implementation
solely as the client’s responsibility lack a professional attitude, since recommendations that are not
implemented (or are implemented badly) are a waste of money and time. And just as the client may
participate in diagnosis without diminishing the value of the consultant’s role, so there are many
ways in which the consultant may assist in implementation without usurping the manager’s job.

A consultant will often ask for a second engagement to help install a recommended new system.
However, if the process to this point has not been collaborative, the client may reject a request to
assist with implementation simply because it represents such a sudden shift in the nature of the
relationship. Effective work on implementation problems requires a level of trust and cooperation
that is developed gradually throughout the engagement.

In any successful engagement, the consultant continually strives to understand which actions, if
recommended, are likely to be implemented and where people are prepared to do things differently.
Recommendations may be confined to those steps the consultant believes will be implemented well.
Some may think such sensitivity amounts to telling a client only what he wants to hear. Indeed, a
frequent dilemma for experienced consultants is whether they should recommend what they know is
right or what they know will be accepted. But if the assignment’s goals include building
commitment, encouraging learning, and developing organizational effectiveness, there is little point
in recommending actions that will not be taken.

A Pervasive Issue
Viewing implementation as a central concern influences the professional’s conduct of all phases of
the engagement. When a client requests information, the consultant asks how it will be used and
what steps have already been taken to acquire it. Then he or she, along with members of the client
organization, determines which steps the company is ready to pursue and how to launch further
actions. An adviser continually builds support for the implementation phase by asking questions
focused on action, repeatedly discussing progress made, and including organization members on the
team.

It follows that managers should be willing to experiment with new procedures during the course of
an engagement—and not wait until the end of the project before beginning to implement change.
When innovations prove successful, they are institutionalized more effectively than when simply
recommended without some demonstration of their value. For implementation to be truly effective,
readiness and commitment to change must be developed, and client members must learn new ways
of solving problems to improve organizational performance. How well these goals are achieved
depends on how well both parties understand and manage the process of the entire engagement.

People are much more likely to use and institutionalize innovations proved successful than
recommendations merely set forth on paper. Experiments with implementing procedures during the
course of a project rather than after the assignment’s completion have had very good results. All in
all, effective implementation requires consensus, commitment, and new problem-solving techniques
and management methods.

6. Building Consensus & Commitment

Any engagement’s usefulness to an organization depends on the degree to which members reach
accord on the nature of problems and opportunities and on appropriate corrective actions.
Otherwise, the diagnosis won’t be accepted, recommendations won’t be implemented, and valid data
may be withheld. To provide sound and convincing recommendations, a consultant must be
persuasive and have finely tuned analytic skills. But more important is the ability to design and
conduct a process for (1) building an agreement about what steps are necessary and (2) establishing
the momentum to see these steps through. An observation by one consultant summarizes this well.
“To me, effective consulting means convincing a client to take some action. But that is the tip of the
iceberg. What supports that is establishing enough agreement within the organization that the action
makes sense—in other words, not only getting the client to move, but getting enough support so
that the movement will be successful. To do that, a consultant needs superb problem-solving
techniques and the ability to persuade the client through the logic of his analysis. In addition,
enough key players must be on board, each with a stake in the solution, so that it will succeed. So
the consultant needs to develop a process through which he can identify whom it is important to
involve and how to interest them.”

Consultants can gauge and develop a client’s readiness and commitment to change by considering
the following questions.

 What information does the client readily accept or resist?

 What unexpressed motives might there be for seeking our assistance?
 What kinds of data does this client resist supplying? Why?
 How willing are members of the organization, individually and together, to work with us on
solving these problems and diagnosing this situation?
 How can we shape the process and influence the relationship to increase the client’s
readiness for needed corrective action?
 Are these executives willing to learn new management methods and practices?
 Do those at higher levels listen? Will they be influenced by the suggestions of people lower
down? If the project increases upward communication, how will top levels of management
respond?
 To what extent will this client regard a contribution to overall organizational effectiveness
and adaptability as a legitimate and desirable objective?

Managers should not necessarily expect their advisers to ask these questions. But they should expect
that consultants will be concerned with issues of this kind during each phase of the engagement.

In addition to increasing commitment through client involvement during each phase, the consultant
may kindle enthusiasm with the help of an ally from the organization (not necessarily the person
most responsible for the engagement). Whatever the ally’s place in the organization, he or she must
understand the consultant’s purposes and problems. Such a sponsor can be invaluable in providing
insight about the company’s functioning, new sources of information, or possible trouble spots. The
role is similar to that of informant-collaborator in field research in cultural anthropology, and it is
often most successful when not explicitly sought.

If conducted skillfully, interviews to gather information can at the same time build trust and
readiness to accept the need for change throughout the organization. The consultant’s approach
should demonstrate that the reason for the interviews is not to discover what’s wrong in order to
allocate blame but to encourage constructive ideas for improvement. Then members at all levels of
the organization come to see the project as helpful, not as unwanted inquisition. By locating
potential resistance or acceptance, the interviews help the consultant learn which corrective actions
will work and almost always reveal more sound solutions and more willingness to confront difficulty
than upper management had expected. And they may also reveal that potential resisters have valid
data and viewpoints. Wise consultants learn that “resistance” often indicates sources of especially
important and otherwise unobtainable insight.
The relationship with the principal client is especially important in developing consensus and
commitment. From the beginning, an effective relationship becomes a collaborative search for
acceptable answers to the client’s real concerns. Ideally, each meeting involves two-way reporting on
what has been done since the last contact and discussion of what both parties should do next. In this
way a process of mutual influence develops, with natural shifts in agenda and focus as the project
continues.

Although I have somewhat exaggerated the level of collaboration usually possible, I am convinced
that effective management consulting is difficult unless the relationship moves farther in a
collaborative direction than most clients expect. Successful consulting is expensive not only because
good consultants’ fees are high but also because senior managers should be involved throughout the
process.