What elements define a good
strategic consultant?
Annick Versluis
Master Business Studies, track Marketing University of Amsterdam
Student number: 10662227
Date: 10-07-2014
Master thesis
Supervisor 1: Willemijn van Dolen Supervisor 2: Alexander Rinnooy Kan
Abstract
In this research, the elements to define a good strategic consultant are being studied. The strategic consultant is defined and both internal and external elements for defining a good consultant are examined. In addition, the intergenerational effects are taken into account as well. A qualitative research is conducted using semi-structured interviews to collect the data from ten Dutch strategic consultants from three large strategic consulting companies. The most referenced results adjust theoretical propositions to answer the investigated research question. The key findings for a good consultant can be summarized as follows. Good strategic consultants have the skills to analyze, to use their intelligence, to simplify, and to think out of the box and map difficulties of the client’s firm. They also must be proactive, able to manage a project, create relationships, and have charisma. The key findings for good consulting, or advice, build on good consulting should build consensus and commitment, facilitate client’s learning, and improve the long-term sustainable value of the clients’ organization by internal adjustment, external alignment and anticipation of possible futures. Alongside with the theoretical contribution made by the present study, the most important implication for managers that has been established includes a framework of elements for good consultants, good consulting, and the timing of the client-consultant interaction.
Table of contents Page
Chapter 1: Introduction 6
1.1 Introduction and research question 6
1.2 Sub-questions 6
1.3 Theoretical relevance 7
1.4 Managerial relevance 7
1.5 Study design 8
Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework 9
2.1 The strategic consultant 9
2.1.1 Historical overview 9
2.1.2 Defining the management consultant 10
2.1.3 Defining the strategic consultant 12
2.2 Internal elements 13
2.2.1 Categories of consultants 13
2.2.2 Skills 13
2.2.3 Defining a good consultant 14
2.3 External elements 14
2.3.1 Consulting objectives 14
2.3.2 Engagement 15
2.3.3 Defining good consulting 16
Chapter 3: Methodology 17
3.1 Sample 17
3.2 Data collection, coding, and analysis 18
Chapter 4: Results 20
4.1 What is a strategic consultant? 20
4.1.1 What is a consultant? 20
4.1.2 What is a strategic consultant? 20
4.2 What elements define a good strategic consultant? 22
4.2.2 Good skills and traits 25
4.2.3 Client interaction 29
4.2.4 The ideal consultant 30
4.2.5 Who determines what a good consultant is? 31
4.3 What elements define a good advice? 31
4.3.1 Definition 31
4.3.2 Elements 32
4.3.3 Bad advice 33
4.3.4 Who determines a good advice? 35
4.4 The future of strategic consultancy 35
4.4.1 Trends 35
4.4.2 Existence of strategic consultants 35
4.4.3 Stakeholders 37
4.5 Intergenerational effects 38
4.5.1 Elements of a good consultant 38
4.5.2 Elements of good advice 39
4.5.3 Trends 41
Chapter 5: Discussion 42
5.1 Discussion of the outcomes 42
5.1.1 What is a strategic consultant? 42
5.1.2 What elements define a good consultant? 42
5.1.3 What elements define a good advice? 43
5.1.4 Intergenerational effects 44
5.2 Theoretical contribution 45
5.3 Managerial implications 46
5.4 Limitations and further research 46
Chapter 6: Conclusion 46
Reference list 49
Index of Tables Page
Table 1: Interviewees 17
Table 2: Details interviewees 18
Table 3: Career path and elements 23
Table 4: Good skills and traits 26
Table 5: Elements of good advice 32
Table 6: Elements of bad advice 33
Table 7: Trends 37
Table 8: Intergenerational skills of a good consultant 39
Table 9: Intergenerational elements of good advice 40
Table 10: Intergenerational elements of bad advice 40
Table 11: Intergenerational trends 41
Table 12: Overview of good skills and traits of a good consultant 44
Table 13: Overview of the elements of good and bad advice 45
Index of Figures
Figure 1: Classification of management consultant firms 21
Figure 2: Career path and shifts 25
Index of Appendices
Appendix 1: Career path and skills (Roland Berger) 52
Appendix 2: Career path and skills (McKinsey) 54
Appendix 3: Career path and skills (BCG) 56
Appendix 4: Good skills and traits 58
Appendix 5: Elements of good advice 64
Appendix 6: Elements of bad advice 67
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Introduction and research question
Of all the relationships that executives have with outsiders, probably none is so misunderstood as the engagement with management consultants (Turner, 1982). However, consultants do exist for a reason. First of all, consultants have exposure to and experience with a wide variety of companies in a broad range of industries. This is a characteristic that is often lacking in executives. Secondly, there is a need among executives for objective insights. Consultants are a means to satisfy this need. Although both of these two reasons for the existence of consultants are compelling, there is a lack of underlying theory to provide further insight into these reasons (Canback, 1999).
Management consultants are nowadays known for their professional identity. This identity is based on specialized expertise, independence from clients, and a codified standard of conduct and behavior. Throughout the last century, consultancy has become a social structure with the potential to institutionalize extensively. However, there is no legal imperative to hire or select these management consultants. Therefore, there is no objective assessment for the presented output of management consulting (David, Sine & Haveman, 2013). Moreover, it is difficult to measure the impact or success of a service such as consulting even after it is delivered (Armbruster, 2004).
Since the term ‘consultant’ gained popularity, the importance of understanding consultants’ function increased (Jang & Lee, 1998; Poulfelt & Paynee, 1994; Wootton, 1995). The everyday work of consultants is not merely about implementing methods and technologies, it is an ongoing effort of convincing the client about their contribution and added value. Therefore, many questions arise about the foundations of a consultant’s success in legitimating their consulting (Nistelrooij, Caluwe & Schouten, 2007). For instance, why is a given advice legitimate and what elements define whether a consultant is a good consultant or an advice is a good advice?
To set the framework for legitimating the strategic consulting practices and to gain an understanding of whether a consultant and his/her recommendations are good, the following research question has been formulated:
What elements define a good strategic consultant?
To narrow the focus to this research, only strategic consultants have been considered. 1.2 Sub questions
Consultants are active in a wide range of industries, ranging for instance from marketing to medicine. To distinguish between different types of consultants, it is common to look at their professional area of expertise. In practice, there are many differences between the categories, as well as within each category (Turner, 1982). Furthermore, each consulting company has its own definition of their practices. When looking at management consultancy in general, what different types of consultants have in common is that that they all provide advisory service, objectivity, and experience (Canback, 1998). At the same time, the consultancy process appears to apply to a very broad range of consultant types and activities (Lundberg, 1997). For that reason, the present study focuses on one area of expertise: strategy consultancy. As compared to the more general management consultancy, the area of strategic consultancy offers its clients solutions for problems that do not have a clear outset (Hansen, Nohria &
Tierney, 1999). To clarify the functions of a management consultant and, more specifically, a strategic consultant, the first sub-question is: what is a strategic consultant?
To gain an understanding of the research question, both the internal and external elements of strategic consultants are taken into account. As stated by Nistelrooij et al. (2007), social skills and personal character and preferences are an integral part of a consultant’s professional competence. This leads to the second sub-question: what elements define a good consultant? The answer to this question sheds light on the internal, or personal, elements of a strategic consultant.
In addition to the internal, or personal, elements of a strategic consultant, the external elements are taken into account. Above all, these consist of the client-consultant relationship, as positive consulting outcomes cannot occur without a clear understanding by both involved parties. This, in turn, stresses the importance of a good relationship between the client and the consultant (Appelbaum & Steed, 2005). Therefore, good consulting is not likely to result in a good outcome without paying attention to these external elements. Thus, the third sub-question of this research is: what elements define good consulting? This sub-question relates to external, rather than internal elements that consultants deal with when giving advice to organizations.
1.3 Theoretical relevance
This study contributes to the wealth of academic knowledge for almost any reason. As stated by Appelbaum and Steed (2005), many authors have noted that, despite the size and significance of this consulting industry, there is no correspondingly large amount of available empirical data. The consultancy ‘theory’ is in a relatively under-conceptualized state (Lundberg, 1997). Furthermore, as stated recently by Nistelrooij et al. (2007), there are only a few scientific publications on this subject. Lundberg (1997) even notes that even a partially successful response to the research questions would constitute a contribution and, possibly, inspire further studies to elaborate on what follows. Thus, given a current lack of theoretical knowledge on the subject, all conclusions of the present study contribute to the theoretical body of knowledge on strategic consultancy.
1.4 Managerial relevance
In addition to the theoretical contribution (see 1.3), this research is particularly relevant for managerial purposes. As the current literature embraces a new paradigm of the consulting market, management needs a renewed understanding of their area of expertise (Creplet, Dupouet, Kern, Mehmanpazir & Munier, 2001). This new paradigm includes new competitive market structures, changed customer demands, technological innovations, as well developments of capital and political environment (Ploetner, 2008). Both for strategic consultants and for their clients need a framework to understand what elements define a good strategic consultant. In addition, the title of a consultant is not legally protected, which makes the ability to distinguish between low and high quality consultants even more important. Furthermore, strategic consultants will gain an understanding of what specific elements are most important in creating a good advice. They gain knowledge of the internal, or personal, elements of what makes a good consultant. This knowledge could be used by existing consultants for improving themselves, as well as in the selection of prospective consultants. On the other hand, strategic consultants can improve their ability to advise the client. While focusing on the elements that are part of good consulting, the efficiency and effectiveness of consulting can be enhanced.
In sum, the present research will both contribute to available theoretical knowledge and provide meaningful managerial insights. In addition, the relevance of the present study lies in that it will provide new evaluation and analysis, which is important given that the currently changed market conditions diminish the relevance of previous theoretical and managerial information.
1.5 Study design
This thesis is structured as follows. Chapter 2 starts with a description of management and strategic consultants, which includes the historical overview and the definitions of the two kinds of consultants. Thereafter, the internal elements for a good consultant are examined. This part covers the existing categories and different skills needed by a good consultant. The third part of the theoretical framework considers the external elements. This relates to good consulting and reveals the client-consultant engagement process. Chapter 3 describes how the methodology of the present research, followed by the results presented in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 discusses the main findings of the research, points out to the limitations of the study, and discusses the directions of future research. Finally, Chapter 6 provides a short summary of the findings and presents the conclusions drawn in the present study.
Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework follows the structure of the three sub-questions of this study. Therefore, this chapter starts with a description of what a consultant and, more specifically, a strategic consultant is, according to the available literature. Furthermore, both the internal and external elements of a good consultant are outlined. This encompasses the personal characteristics and inter-personal elements for a good advice, respectively.
2.1 The strategic consultant
Today, management consultancy is widely recognized with revenues of more than $150 billion, 600,000 jobs worldwide, and a strong devotion of the consultants to their careers. The field has indeed developed itself, considering that management consulting did not even exist prior to World War I and that the first management consultants appeared only at around the
turn of the 20th century (Canback, 1998; David et al., 2013;).
2.1.1 Historical overview
Since the beginning of the 20th century, a vertical integration of industrial firms took place
due to a large amount of horizontal corporate mergers (David et al., 2013). At that time, almost no one believed that the required skills for management could be systematically learned or applied. In the context of the increasing Taylorism, individuals were solely seen as efficiency experts on production procedures, time, and motion (Glücker & Armbüster, 2003). Thefore, the first consultants struggled to explain the nature and value of what they could offer (David et al., 2013).
2.1.1.1 Early 20th century
Between 1910 and 1940, a second generation of consultants appeared. David (2012) states that these consultants expanded the concept of management consulting by offering business research services. Moreover, from the 1920s onwards, consultants pioneered or implemented different techniques, such as forecasting techniques and budgeting processes (Canbäck, 1998). Another wave of industrial mergers made corporations diversify and disperse geographically. Therefore, all those firms were forced to decentralize and coordinate and control multiple subunits. Furthermore, due to the increased corporate expansion, the need of coordination and control was stimulated by a separation of ownership and control (David et al., 2013). Another factor for the rise of consultants was the Glass-Steagall Banking Act of 1933 that freed the USA banks from their previous obligation to provide consulting services to their customers (McKenna, 1995). Because of this market opening, consulting business expanded even further (Glücker & Armbrüster, 2003).
During the early post-war years, consulting experienced a big surge of formations of large firms (Canback, 1998). For corporations, this implied a scale and level of complexity that had never been seen before. Their customers were geographically dispersed and multiple product lines were offered. This resulted in an increased demand for managerial skills due to the lack of formal structures, communication, and control systems (David et al., 2013).
In the 1960s, the environment of management consulting worldwide was shaped by three major shifts. First, in 1963, the Boston Consultancy Group was formed, which operationalized the concepts of strategy consulting starting a second generation of strategy consultants. In response to the growth of management consulting, the second development was the creation of management advisory groups. These were created to augment their core accounting
practices. Thirdly, the combined consulting practices of leading academics and practitioners became known with the emergence of the Cambridge Research Institute and the Management Analysis Center (Canbäck, 1998). Alongside with these factors, regulatory changes prevented the advisors from banks and accountancies from addressing the existing need for managerial advice. As a result, the opportunities for management consulting emerged (David et al., 2013). At that point, the industry of management consulting was on the cusp of its golden age (David, 2012).
2.1.1.2 Late 20th century
In the mid-1990s, the growth of the consulting market worldwide was remarkably high compared to the gross national products (Glucker & Armbrüster, 2003). Academic interest emerged due to the increased need for managerial advisors (Sturdy, Werr & Buono, 2009). Ever since then, consultancy has been the most dynamic service industry (Glucker & Armbrüster, 2003).
The industry’s success was accompanied by the belief that consultants were active and influential players in the market identified as persons who knew what happened in both public and private sectors. Subsequently, this resulted in a powerful, high status of consultants and their important positioning in both public and private sectors (Sturdy et al., 2009).
Management consultants are now known for a professional identity. This identity is based on specialized expertise, independence from clients, and a codified standard of conduct and behavior. Throughout the century, consultancy has become a social structure with the potential to institutionalize extensively. Managers do hire consultants to deliver services. They expect consultants to be up-to-date with management practices and market information. Also, their knowledge of analytical procedures and change offers multiple services and tasks that managers cannot perform themselves (Glücker & Armbrüster, 2003). However, there is no legal imperative to call yourself a management consultant. Therefore, there is currently no objective assessment of the presented output of management consulting (David et al., 2013). Since everyone can be named a consultant, a more extensive theoretical overview requires a clear definition of a management consultant, and, more specifically, a strategic consultant. 2.1.2 Defining the management consultant
One of the first definitions of management consulting was given in 1983 by Greiner and Metzger and read as follows: “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, recommend solutions to these problems and help, when requested, in the implementation of solutions” (quoted in Canbeck, 1998).
A more recent definition by Bologa and Lupu (2014) describes consulting as selling knowledge. Specifically, consultants are hired by an organization to provide the latter with technical and business expertise and to bring forth the internal knowledge burdens during implementation. Likewise, Lundberg (1997) states that consultancy can be redefined as a generic improvement process.
Furthermore, Frank, Raschke, Wood and Yang (2001) refer to the definition of the verb ‘consult’ in the Oxford English Dictionary, which reads ‘to be counseling or seeking advice from another party’. Thus, while defining a management consultant, several key words are recurrent. The first is advisory service. This indicates the responsibility of a consultant for the
quality of the advice, but no substitutability for managers and without formal authority. Second is the objectivity and independence from the client at financial, administrative, political, and emotional levels. Third is the training and qualification of a consultant highlighting more experience than the client possesses (Canback, 1998). However, to gain a further understanding of what management consulting is, other segments should also be taken into account.
For the information system consultants, Basil, Yen and Tang (1997) note that consultants need to learn and adapt quickly to new technologies. Consultants can be defined as professionals who transfer knowledge to clients through training and helping to motivate the clients’ employees to support these changes. Moreover, collaborating at the stages of implementation with client managers and employees is the assurance of positive results. Consultants are a source of a unique talent, which client companies cannot develop within their own firms. Said differently, while managers are making decisions on what to do, consultants are helping managers how to do it. Therefore, consultants best support the leadership from a behind-the-scenes perspective.
Furthermore, the difference with traditional cooperation activities is the more active approach from the perspective of information consulting. Consultants take the initiative to develop active partnerships, as well as anticipate and assess the needs for information. Moreover, consultants deliver valuable added information and services in a specific time to the company. The consultant searches for solutions to unique and instructional needs by providing counseling and giving advice (Frank et al., 2001). Within the segment of enterprise resource planning (ERP), consultants are known to adapt the goals of the client, coordinate with the stakeholders of the client firm, and coordinate with the parties who are installing components of the ERP (Chang, Wang, Jiang & Klein, 2013).
Most generally, as stated by Lundberg (1997), consulting can be defined as an intervention, where one human system intervenes, and the other perceives this intervention as help. The common labels of ‘client’ and ‘consultant’ are the parties within the conceptualization of consultancy. It involves two human systems where the client believes help is needed and the consultant assists by providing it. In sum, the consultant is a human system that responds to the client or offers to provide help. However, the help is defined by the client and is,
therefore, perceptual and, hence, subjective.
Reviewing the definition of management consultant, Hansen and associates (1999) state that consultants do not take a uniform approach to manage knowledge and provide help. Instead, two different strategies are employed. First, companies use a codification strategy when the strategy centers on the computer. That is, the knowledge is carefully codified and stored in databases. Here, accessibility and ease of use by anyone in the company is important. On the other hand, whenever knowledge is closely related to the person who developed it, computers are used to help communicate this knowledge instead of storing it. This second strategy is the personalization strategy, which depends on the strategy chosen by the company. Therefore, this strategy is enhanced by strategic consultants and makes the distinction between management consultants and strategic consultants more clear.
Moreover, management consultants provide general management advice within organizational, strategic, or operational contexts. It should be noted that management consultants are institutionally organized in firms (Canback, 1998). This means that strategic consultants are a part of the broader definition of management consulting and need a more specified definition.
2.1.3 Defining the strategic consultant
As mentioned above, strategic consultants are part of a broader definition of management consultants. Moreover, management consultants are also present in areas such as strategy (Canback, 1998). These consultants are called strategic consultants. Thus, the assistance of strategic consultants refers to the advice relevant for strategic decisions (Ploetner, 2008). Furthermore, as stated above, strategic consultants enhance the personalization strategy, which closely links the knowledge to the person who developed it. Strategic consultants use the personalization strategy, which is different from the codification strategy used by management consultants. Moreover, strategic consultants offer their clients a very different kind of value. For instance, they tackle problems that do not have clear solutions at the outset. The goal is to create a highly customized solution to a unique problem. Therefore, the provided advice is rich in tacit knowledge and the process of sharing this knowledge is expensive, time-consuming, and slow (Hansen et al., 1999).
Thus, as is clear from the review of the literature outlined above, a management consultant combines different functions discussed above. His or her role lies in selling knowledge while adapting to clients’ goals, overcoming strategic burdens, collaborating and coordinating during implementation, and, above all, working with their know-how experience in a codified way. However, what a strategic consultant exactly is lacks sufficient explanations in the available literature. The literature states that a strategic consultant uses the personalization strategy and operates in a strategic context. However, while the existing theory displays the terminology of a management consultant in a more specific fashion, the precise definition of a strategic consultant has not yet been specified. Therefore, the first proposition is still broad:
Proposition 1: Strategic consultants give advice for strategic decisions in a strategic context and use the personalization strategy
This proposition relates to the first sub-question: “what is a strategic consultant?” Considering what a strategic consultant is, the following section discusses the elements for a good consultant. The relevant theoretical knowledge will contribute to the internal and personal characteristics pertinent to a good strategic consultant.
2.2 Internal elements
Proposing what a strategic consultant is starts the research to answer the main question, namely “What elements define a good strategic consultant?” The second step is to display what elements define a good consultant at an internal, or personal, level. Because Frank et al. (2001) state that individual skills and attributes are the elements of successful consulting, this section discusses the theoretical knowledge currently available to answer the second sub- question.
2.2.1 Categories of consultants
Quite some time ago, Schein (1988) categorized three models of consultation. First, the purchase of expertise model builds upon the independent perspective of the consultant on the industry and the issues at hand. In this model, there is not much interaction with the client; the model solely provides expertise in a hands-on relationship. Secondly, the doctor-patient model is distinguished. By using his or her unique experience and diagnostic skills, the consultant analyses the client organization’s problems. As a result, consultants quickly assess strategic and organizational burdens. Third is the process consultation model where the client
contributes the expertise and the consultant is the facilitator with a clear division of roles and tasks. The three models outlined above reflect the roles of a consultant as content or process provider (see Canback, 1998). In addition, building a partnership of mutual respect with the client is the aim to fundamentally improve the effectiveness of consultation (Appelbaum & Steed, 2005).
2.2.2 Skills
Furthermore, the internal elements, i.e. the skill-set of the consultant as an individual is mentioned throughout literature for its contribution to good strategic consulting. Although organizational support must provide the resources and training beeded by a consultant, specific characteristics of a consultant must be individually cultivated to accomplish success (Frank et al., 2001). Moreover, a consultant should have the skills to plan, conduct, and analyze surveys and interviews, as well as to use techniques such as group-interview and group-consensus in order to map the difficulties the client firm experiences (Clark, 1994). However, a problem in consulting is that consultants often tell their client firm what the latter already knows (Basil et al., 1997).
Furthermore, the consultant should be flexible and able to adapt quickly to the culture of the clients firm. Therefore, as the consultant should portray the image of knowing more than the client, s/he should spend much time on research before the actual meeting . Another important tip is the involvement of the client’s employees. Accomplishing this involvement, trust is created and the company can learn how to do similar project in future. Therefore, trust and confidence will determine long-term sustainability for a consultant (Basil et al., 1997).
Apart from that, consultants need three further sets of skills to be successful. Firstly, they need the skill to analyze, to create solutions and effective ideas. Secondly, the skill of project management is needed to put solutions into practice. Third is the skill to build relationships in which active listening and effective communication are attained as positive solutions (Frank et al., 2001). In addition, consultants must exhibit integrity and always put the client’s interest first. Consultants must also be competent and there must be a good fit in the model of consultancy, the client expectations, the capabilities of the consultant, and the consultant type (McLachlin, 1999).
2.2.3 Defining a good consultant
In addition to a good set of skills, a good consultant must be recognized. The recognition of consultants by their (prospect) clients is captured by two parameters. First, the word of mouth is achieved through implicit processes. The second and more important parameter is the consultant’s personality, where his or her charisma is as important as famous trademarks. Of particular importance are also the consultant’s characteristics of seriousness and stability, and synthetic competencies are important in relation to the consultants’ professional identity. Furthermore, sensitivity and feelings are the personal traits that are key to consultants, as is the ability to create logical and relevant arguments about complex and unusual problems (Creplet et al., 2001).
Next, Basil et al. (1997) propose several tips on how a consultant should handle his or her clients. These are the following; don’t go in blind, strive for a good fit, do your research, and get the staff involved. Moreover, an understanding of the client’s needs is critical to make a good consultant. False promises are the basics for a failure in the consulting job, which shows the importance of knowing exactly what the need of the client is. Furthermore, clients expect their consultants to appreciate their situation and not be overly theoretical. Finally, clients
want a custom-made solution for their challenges, rather than a standardized formula (Appelbaum & Steed, 2005).
Furthermore, Rynning (1992) selected the factors contributing to successful consulting. These are not yet investigated, but could result in defining a good consultant. According to Rynning (1992), the list of success factors includes: 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 activities, management of time, planning capabilities, efficiency of execution, strategy formulation, problem solving, implementation, follow-up, and economy. Likewise, Schaffer (2002) proposes the following three critical success factors: results, designing the projects that match client motivation, and division of large projects into faster sub-projects.
Thus, a strategic consultant could belong to different categories but must have a certain set of personal skills to be a good consultant. Moreover, some factors for being a successful consultant have been reported in previous research. Based on the overviewed literature, the following proposition can be made:
Proposition 2: Strategic consultants should have the skills to plan, conduct, analyze, and map difficulties of the client firm. They also must be flexible, able to create trust, manage a project, create relationships, and have charisma.
However, which specific categories, skills, or success factors exactly are needed has not yet been revealed in the existing literature. The second proposition relates to the second sub- question what elements define a good consultant. Considering what a strategic consultant is, and what internal elements relate to a good consultant, the next section discusses the external elements of good consulting.
2.3 External elements 2.3.1 Consulting objectives
As shown by Turner (1981), there are eight fundamental consulting objectives. These are, in the order of importance: providing requested information, providing a solution to a given problem, conducting diagnosis that may redefine the problem, providing recommendations, assisting implementation, building consensus and commitment, facilitating client’s learning, and finally, improving the organizational effectiveness. The last three objectives are particularly important to effective consulting.
Finally, Lundberg (1989) mentions three fundamental functions for achieving acceptable and ongoing levels for the human system, namely: internal adjustment, external alignment, and anticipation of possible futures. Whereby internal adjustment refers to the modification of internal relationships and activities, alignment refers to the relationship between the system and the environment; the third function ⎯ anticipation of possible futures ⎯ refers to the modification of the human system itself. These three functions jointly result in reducing the gaps between goals and performance levels, meeting input and output requirements, and more likely meeting the future adjustment and alignment requirements (Lundberg, 1997).
2.3.2 Engagement
In addition to the fundamental consulting objectives, Turner (1981) also states that the last three essential objectives should be recognized as explicit goals at the start of the engagement process.
However, prior to the mid-1990s, consultants were still playing the central role in this engagement process while guiding with their knowledge and distancing other parties (Sturdy et al., 2009). Frequently, whenever the consulting work was done, the client was left with no clear idea of how to make further improvements (McLachlin, 1999). At the same time, the interaction between the consultant and the client is the main factor for the success of the consulting work and, consequently, for the very survival of the consulting company (Nikolova, Reihlen & Schlapfner, 2009).
Furthermore, Basil et al. (1997) explain the engagement between the client and the consultant as to ‘customerize’ the consulting business. This way of doing business has the purpose of making the consulting firm more responsive to its customers. The consulting companies organize their business around the business of their client in which ‘customerize’ consultancy helps the client to focus on their entire organization. So, their strategy is an information flow and people can be aligned by consultancy.
On the other hand, the client-consultant engagement process needs to be specific. Misspecifications in system components include misapplied or improbable meanings. This results in a high probability for misunderstood outcomes. This can and does occur in the relationship between the client and consultant (Lundberg, 1997). Therefore, the consultant’s keeping his or her promises is crucial to overcome misspecifications. Since every consulting project has these expectations, promises are the single most important action to be kept by consultants. The more implicit the promise, the less firms accomplish to deliver on those promises. In order from most explicit to most implicit, these promises made by consultants are: on time and on budget, doing what you say you will do, sustainable results, setting a higher standard, helping an organization do what it did not think it could (Czerniawska, 2006).
Moreover, reducing the uncertainty in the consulting process stems from identifying, examining and (re)designing misspecifications. In consulting, this relates to analysis, diagnosis, problem identification, and problem solving. Furthermore, in a consultancy relationship, both the clients and the consultant must come to share values and assumptions, strategic beliefs and operational expectations (Lundberg, 1997).
2.3.3 Defining good consulting
As suggested by Reihlen and Nikolova (2010), consultants gain their competitive advantage primarily from having the skills to create and sustain knowledge resources and institutional capital. Therefore, mastering the production and management of knowledge is of high importance for consulting companies. Moreover, there must be an integrated fit with the knowledge base of the consultant to create a useable organizational design for the client. Alongside with to the required skills and knowledge resources, organizational learning is claimed to be pivotal in the creation of sustainable competitive advantage for consulting firms. Organizational learning is defined as gaining knowledge and skills. Social learning networks are positively related to consulting companies, making this an extra focus for good
consulting (Bologa & Lupu, 2014). Moreover, successful consulting results from cross-institutional support, training, and sharing resources (Frank et al., 2001).
Also, good consulting should incorporate double-loop cognitive feedback systems, since a consultant is shaped by and relies upon the institutional environment. As a result, the public becomes a co-producer of consulting knowledge (Reihlen & Nikolova, 2010). Therefore, incorporating the client in the knowledge production will contribute to good consulting. Moreover, Glücker and Armbrüster explain (2003) the motivation to hire consulting services. Consultants are known to be up-to-date with management practice and market information, as well as have the knowledge about analytical procedures and change that clients themselves do not know. Furthermore, Creplet et al. (2001) state that consultants contribute their best practices to improve the client firm’s daily operations.
Thus, the external factors that contribute to define the elements of a good consultant are based upon fundamental objectives, functions, and the client-consultant relationship. Deriving from the overviewed literature, the following proposition can be made for the objectives and functions of good consulting:
Proposition 3a: Good consulting should build consensus and commitment, facilitate the client’s learning, and improve the organizational effectiveness by internal adjustment, external alignment, and anticipation of possible futures.
For the engagement process, the following proposition is formulated:
Proposition 3b: Good consulting is based upon a specified client-consultant relationship characterized by shared values and assumptions, strategic beliefs and operational expectations.
The propositions above relate to the third sub-question on what elements define good consulting. All of the propositions formulated in the preceding subsections are based on the current theory presented in the theoretical framework. In what follows, the present study explores whether these and/or other elements define a good strategic consultant. Therefore, the three sub-questions underlie the structure of the subsequent analysis and will be represented in the results section.
Chapter 3: Method
To gain a thorough understanding of Dutch strategic consultants, the present study uses a qualitative exploratory approach. This method has been chosen for its flexibility, richness of data it provides, and its ability to fulfill the research purpose of identifying and understanding the full range of activities and factors behind strategic consulting. Because little is known about this field of expertise, qualitative methods are advocated for their ability to discover the underlying nature of this phenomenon (D’Abate, 2005).
3.1 Sample
In total, ten consultants have been interviewed. Five of them are the so-called top consultants, which means they fulfill or fulfilled a high position in a strategic management firm and have many years of strategic consulting experience. The other five interviewees are the so-called high potentials, which means they started to work in the strategic consultancy more recently and have a maximum of five years of working experience. They have selected by the approached five top consultants on the grounds of a high potential for a future career in the strategic consulting industry. Therefore, all ten selected interviewees either have the potential or the current status of a good consultant. Interviewing this sample should accomplish an understanding of the underlying elements that define a good strategic consultant. Regarding gender distribution in the sample, eight men and two women have been interviewed. This unequal distribution is caused by the small amount of women currently working in the strategic consulting industry. The interviewees all belong to three Dutch strategic consulting firms, namely: the Boston Consultancy Group (BCG), McKinsey, and Roland Berger Strategy Consultants (Roland Berger). Moreover, as shown in Table 1, the distribution of the high potentials and top consultants was almost equal.
Table 1. Interviewees
Consulting firms
BCG McKinsey Roland Berger
Hans Weijers Robert Reibestein Tijo Collot d’Escury
Top consultants
Frans Blom Wiebe Draijer
Jacqueline Govers Joost van Hilten Bart Dingmans
High potentials
Jasper van Wamelen Sanne Dassen
To avoid misinterpretations while interviewing, all interviews were held in Dutch since it is the mother tongue of both the interviewer and the interviewees. In the subsequent analysis, the key citations were interpreted and translated into English (see Appendix for all relevant and used translations).
3.2 Data collection, coding, and analysis
The interviews were semi-structured and consisted of open questions to assess the underlying elements of a good strategic consultant. Moreover, these semi-structured questions enabled the collection of multiple viewpoints. The interviews were held randomly based on the availability of the consultants. Eight interviews were held face-to-face; two interviews were conducted by phone due to time constraints of the interviewees. The interviews lasted from 25 till 65 minutes (see Table 2). The interview length is not reported more specifically due to
introducing and ending the interview on tape. On average, the length of the interviews was about 40 minutes. With respect to the exploratory nature of the present research, the interviewees were told at the beginning of the interview that any contribution on the subject would be most welcome. Also, at the end of the interview, the interviewee was asked whether there were any subjects missing to answer the research question, or whether there were any other contributions they would like to make. In order to explore the reasons behind any answer, examples were asked to be provided so that a thorough understanding on the matter could be gained. Each interview started with the simple question, e.g., the participants were asked to tell something about their career. This question was used to get the interviewee talk more easily, which was necessary for the remaining open questions.
Table 2. Details interviewees
Name Generation Interview length Gender Function Company
Hans Wijers Top consultant 50-60 min Male Retired from
consulting BCG
Robert
Reibestein Top consultant 40-50 min Male Retired consulting from McKinsey
Frans Blom Top consultant 60-70 min Male Global board BCG
Jasper van
Wamelen
High potential 40-50 min Male Junior project
manager
McKinsey
Tijo Collot
d’Escury
Top consultant 30-40 min Male Senior partner Roland Berger
Jacqueline
Govers High potential 40-50 min Female Projectleader BCG
Wiebe Draijer Top consultant 20-30 min Male Senior partner McKinsey
Joost van
Hilten
High potential 40-50 min Male Senior
consultant
McKinsey
Sanne Dassen High potential 20-30 min Female Projectleader Roland Berger
Bart Dingmans High potential 50-60 min Male Junior project
manager Roland Berger
The data were collected in the same order as the sub-questions are presented and discussed in the present study (see Appendix for further detail on the interview structure). The first part was used to define what a consultant or a strategic consultant is. Secondly, the elements of a good consultant were defined by strategically asking this question in different forms. Sample questions included: “Could you define the ideal consultant, what would that person be like?”, “What are the elements within the selection of new consultants?”, “Who are the two or three best consultants that you personally know, and why are they the best consultants?”, “What skills are important for a good consultant?”
The third part of the interview concerned the elements of a good advice. Sample questions include, among others: “What is good consulting, what elements are important?”, “Who determines whether an advice is a good advice?” This part was supplemented by questions to more deeply uncover the client-consultant relationship, as in “What is important in the relationship with the client?”, “When is this relationship important for the career of a consultant?”, “How and when are expectations set for the client?”, “What stakeholder set those expectations?”
The fourth part of the interview covered the trends in the strategic consulting market, and included the questions such as “What kind of changes do you experience or expect to experience in the nearby future?”, “What are the trends?”, “What are the differences with the new generation of consultants who just started to work in this industry?” Additionally, questions about the consulting market were asked to understand differences between the two generations of consultants.
To confirm the interpretation of the collected data, all interviews were finished with a short summary of what a good consultant is and what good advising is. Furthermore, the opportunity was given to the respondents to contribute further data to the research.
In the process of interviewing, it seemed important to link the different steps of the strategic consultant’s career to the different skills required on each of these levels. Moreover, to establish if the elements for being a good consultant differ for each career level, the interviewees were asked to answer the questions in relation to the different levels of the consulting career. This resulted in a clear overview of necessary and preferable elements for a good consultant and good consulting.
The interviews were recorded (all with permission of the interviewees) and transcribed. Afterwards, the QSR NVivo 10 software program was used to code the transcribed interviews, facilitate coding links (i.e., connections among the codes in the data) and count the instances and intersections of codes (Kreiner, Hollensbe & Sheep, 2006). The codes were structured in the same way as the guiding questions, which, in a similar fashion, enables for the direct comparison with the available literature. The frequency of codes and number of interviewees including the codes were used to analyze the data and to display the most important elements for a good consultant and good consulting (i.e. advising). This qualitative analysis resulted in a broad range of findings concerning the research question and sub-questions of the study. The results are presented in the next chapter.
Chapter 4: Results
The analysis of the interview data resulted in broad findings concerning the research question and the sub-questions. As an overview, the findings will be presented in the same order as the theoretical framework before. All relevant and used quotes are translated from the original Dutch interview and can be found in Appendix.
4.1 What is a strategic consultant? 4.1.1 What is a consultant?
Difficulties in providing the definition of a consultant are acknowledged by Hans Wijers: “The term consultant has one of the most broad definition there is, of which the title is also unprotected” and Joost van Hilten: “I cannot describe what a consultant is because everyone can call him or herself a consultant.” Both these two interviewees relate the unprotected title of consultants to the unclear and broad definition of a consultant. However, both agree that a consultant can be defined by means of how s/he performs his or her tasks (see below).
Hans Wijers explains the tasks of a consultant as predefined and conceptualized. “They got a few models on which they base their solutions, and that’s how they do it. It’s in the predefined format, like concepts.” However, these solutions are not even the key of consultant’s tasks, according to Joost van Hilten: “[…] eventually consultants solve problems ⎯ the problems for which the client does not have the resources or capabilities to solve, or whenever they are stuck with employees. Or they have a problem that needs an external perspective. Although the answer to the problem is mostly found quite easily, a lot of work is to get the organization on board, making sure that everybody agrees and commits to the solutions and feels like it is their own solution. So, if we walk out the door, there is actually something changed or will change.” In sum, consultants do not simply solve problems; they accomplish change by getting the entire organization involved.
4.1.2 What is a strategic consultant?
Strategic consulting is simply a part of the consulting market. Hans Wijers explains this by drawing a pyramid (see Figure 1). The pyramid is the entire field of consulting. He explains while pointing out the layers of the pyramid from bottom to top: “You can view it as a pyramid. Here you’ll find the audit firms, here the specialized firm, like specialized in IT marketing, logistics, or manufacturing; on top there is the strategy consulting or the top structure consulting.” All these layers of the pyramid are consulting firms; however, he then states that “Strategy consulting is just a small part of this consulting market.” So, the total pyramid is the total field of consulting in which consultants use predefined models. The top layer embraces the strategic consultants and covers only a small part of the pyramid, in which consultants use customized solutions.
In line with the rest of the consulting firms in the pyramid, strategy consulting sometimes also uses predefined formats. This is confirmed by Frans Blom: “Yes, some firms use predefined formats as solutions and are part of strategy consulting.” Furthermore he states that these firms use these formats because this offers comfort to the client. The reason is that it shows that, after twenty times you have used it, it does work. However, “[…] for some clients, this could be added value, for others, it is not.” So, the different layers of the Dutch consulting market do have some overlap in tasks relating to the use of predefined formats. At the same time, the level of added value while using these formats depends on the client who is asking for advice.
Figure 1. Classification of management consultant firms
Although some strategic consultants use predefined formats, Frans Blom does not believe that one model is the best. He states: “Some methods proved itself in the past, with experience and expertise. But I do not believe that one model is the best to use.” This statement confirms the small overlap between the strategy consulting area and the other two layers of the consulting pyramid, or, similarly, the overlap between predefined and custom-made advice.
Tijo Collot d’Escury defines a clear difference between strategy consultants and other consultancies. He describes that, for strategy consultants, it is important to “[…] understand the value of the bigger business concept, understand the industry, the market and driving technologies. As a result, you understand how it develops and you understand the problem of the client.” He states that strategic consultants have “a helicopter view, creativity by looking differently towards the business so that to come up with innovations like new cost structures, business models, and new markets to implement.”
On the contrary, the other layers in the pyramid have different views. Tijo Collot d’Escury describes the tasks of other consultants as “to optimize existing processes, and to make small changes. That is also fine, but the larger improvements differ.” So, he relates larger improvements to strategic consultants and smaller changes to other consultancy lawyers. This larger improvement is also acknowledged in the definition of a strategic consultant given by Wiebe Draijer, namely: “[…] a consultant that helps clients to solve a large strategic question.” Especially the word large is in line with the previously mentioned statement that strategic consultancy is solving strategic questions by making large improvements.
Robert Reibestein defines a strategic consultant as “someone who helps clients to build sustainable competitive advantage.” In addition, Tijo Collot d’Escury describes the competitive edge. He states that “[…] on the long term, changing things structurally and therefore achieving a competitive edge in comparison to your competition. Having the business take large steps ahead, not just to reduce costs by 5%, but reducing it by changing the organization as a whole is what defines a strategic consultant.” This also relates to the larger improvements made by strategic consultants mentioned above. In addition, the client needs understand this large improvement. Tijo Collot d’Escury explains: “[…] make sure the clients come along. That the client himself understands the added value, how they have to change and what they have to do differently is of utmost importance here. Finally, your aim as a strategic consultant is that a company will get through the transition period and grow to be stronger afterwards”. Strategy consul9ng Func9onal specialists Audit firms Custom-‐made advice Predefined models
Overall, the data from the interviews show that a consultant is difficult to define. The tasks of problem solving, with or without the use of predefined models, and changing the organization by getting it on board seem to define most important functions of a consultant. However, strategic consultants are a (top) niche within the consulting market and concern the cases where the questions are larger, broader, and more long-term. To conclude, a strategic consultant differs from other consultants in the scope, the long-term perpsective, and the large amount of change that s/he provides and that should result in a sustainable, competitive advantage for the client.
4.2 What elements define a good consultant? 4.2.1 Career path
The Dutch strategic consultancy market holds a specific type of career structure. To explore what elements define a good strategic consultant, every step of this career process is examined first. Furthermore, a comparison is made between the three strategic consulting companies involved and the skills attached to each career level. A detailed overview including the quotes can be found in Appendix. For the ease of use, the career steps will subsequently be labeled as follows: associate (the first), consultant (the second), senior consultant (the third), project manager (the forth), principal (the fifth), and, finally, partner (the sixth). As for the Boston Consultancy Group (BCG), their career path consists of five, rather than six steps, where their first step combines the elements (for instance, processing) of the first and second steps of the other two companies. Therefore, the second step in the career path of BCG is omitted from the analysis.
4.2.1.1 Task-Management-Relationship shift
Table 3 shows the shift in skills linked to the different levels of the consulting career path. Here, the main result is the shift from the task-oriented management to the management involving the relationship-oriented skills. Associates and consultants share the elements of responsibility, analytical skills, and transactional/processing orientation. These elements focus on the task orientation as part of their responsibility for a small part of the project. Comparably, for the senior consultant, the elements focus more on managing the project by coaching and conceptual thinking. Furthermore, the project manager focuses even more on the project management elements, such as the responsibility, project management and organizing, leadership, communication, and work planning. For instance, Jacqueline Govers explains that “[…] the first thing is problem solving, you have to be analytic in a problem-solving manner. Data crunching alone has no point if it does not result in conclusions. Second is effectiveness, because we work with hypotheses. If we were not effective, we would get stuck. Therefore, you often have to learn not to investigate everything, as you will not finish the project in that way.” This shows the shift from task orientation to management orientation. Furthermore, she explains that “[…] the interaction with the client is how to get the project done. This depends on how efficiently you get things done and how easily you can convince.” Therefore, the skill for communication gets more important, which seems to be a part of the management orientation.
Table 1: Career path and elements Roland
Berger
Skills McKinsey Skills BCG Skills
Junior consultant/ associate Project management Responsibility Delivery Analytical Convincing Fellow Analytical Create involvement Learn Associate/Analyst Analytical Energy Focus Responsibility Intelligence Processing Consultant Responsibility Associate Transactional
Senior consultant Project management Junior project manager Expertise Coaching Teamwork Consultant Cooperation with client Communication Client management Conceptual thinking Project manager Responsibility Project management Leadership Communication Acquisition Project manager Hypothesize Responsibility Work planning Communication Specialize Develop relationships
Project leader Organizing Management Conviction
Principal Acquisition Junior partner Create new projects Specialize Acquisition Principal Leadership Responsibility Time/work management Simplicity Relationship
management
Partner Checking Partner Leadership
Client relationship Team guidance Coaching Create followers Specialize Partner Develop relationships Prioritize
Next, Wiebe Draijer illustrates the graduate shift in the career path of a consultant as follows: “In the beginning of the career, the focus is on two competencies. The first is the analytical skills. These define and structure the problem alongside with collecting the insights to back it up. Second, the first years the competency to organize and process guidance is important. So, the first two years 80% are analytical skills, the rest are communicative skills. For a project manager, the organizing skill gets more weight and communicating and analytics are both weighted as quarters. By the time you are senior, you are busier with developing competencies of leadership instead of working with specific problems. The relationship skills develop from 5% in the beginning towards 40% at the end, but they will never overrule.” It seems that the career path of strategic consultants shows a shift from the task-,and problem-solving orientation (analytical skills) towards the management orientation (communication skills), and them towards the relational orientation with the client.
4.2.1.2 Relationship shift
Moreover, it seems clear that, from the fourth step in the career path onwards, the relationship with the client starts to get more important, which shows the shift towards a more relationship or commerce (acquisition) orientation. “The aspect of relationships becomes more and more important. A real good consultant knows that if a CEO has a problem, s/he should only think of one thing: to call his/her counselor. That is a process of years, which you build with our clients,” says Jacqueline Govers. Whereas the principal focuses on new projects by acquisition and relationship management, the partner also coaches and checks his/her own company. Moreover, as mentioned by Tijo Collot d’Escury, “[…] where consultants in the beginning of their career focus a lot on do I have the right plan, or advice, even it’s is about endless numbers behind the comma, I do think that it is more and more important when you become more senior to see how do I get it done, how to implement it and how to get the people along.”
Contrary to Wiebe Draijer’s statement that the relationship skills never overrule, other interviewees do state that relationship skills do get more and more important. Robert Reibestein, for example, says that “Gradually, it gets more and more important to know how to judge the human component and make sure that things get implemented.” Joost Hilten confirms this: “What becomes more important is the human aspect, funny enough.” Likewise, Sanne Dassen states that “[…] the client contact gets more important. When you are junior, you do have less contact with clients. As a senior, you are in charge of telling the story to the
clients and of convincing them. So these skills get more and more important.” Finally, Frans Blom explains the relationship management part as “[…] even separately from project work, you need to keep in touch with the people within the company you work for, so that you understand their agenda and help them shape it. So the skills necessary are based upon proactive thinking for the client about the individual agenda of people and the collective agenda of their company.”
However, with regard to the career path and the associated skills, Frans Blom notes that “there are no skills that were not there yet. It depends on what skills have the focus, which are more weighted.” This means that all skills of a strategic consultant should be there all along; however, the skills are differently weighted throughout each step in the career path of a strategic consultant. In sum, the career path of a Dutch strategic consultant demonstrates two remarkable shifts. First is the gradual shift in orientation from task through management to relationship. The second shift is the increasing value of the relationship with the client (see Figure 2).
Figure 2: Career path and shifts
Having set the overall career path of a Dutch strategic consultant, a more in-depth analysis of the different consulting skills has been presented. This provides in a deeper understanding on the sub-topic of the elements that best define a good strategic consultant.
4.2.2 Good skills and traits
The interviews provided a list of different skills or traits known as the elements of a good consultant. Ten of these skills or traits are most referenced by quotes and by number of interviewees. These include: analytic, understanding context, communication, empathic, intelligence manage/convince, out of the box/listening, presence/charismatic, proactive, relationship and simplify (see Table 4). While making a distinction between traits and skills, a deeper understanding of what elements define a good strategic consultant can be achieved. Firstly, good skills will be displayed (including eight elements). Secondly, good traits are explained displaying three elements.
Partner Principal Project manager Senior consultant Consultant Associate
4.2.2.1 Skills
From the interviews, it is clear that the most important skills (i.e. most referenced) to be a good consultant are analytical skills (ref 12, 7/10), the skill to understand the context (ref 14, 5/10), to communicate (8, 5/10), to be intelligent (ref 8, 5/10), to manage and convince (ref 25, 9/10), to think out of the box and listen (ref 9, 4/10), to be proactive (ref 8, 6/10), to develop relationships (ref 8, 5/10) and the skill to simplify (11, 7/10). Hereby, the most referenced skill is manage and convince. As Jacqueline Govers says, “[…] what makes top consultants better is having a strong opinion that is well founded and that they want to sell it, make other people believe they want it. Being convincing in a discussion. Lots of people think they are right, but you still have to convince people.” Likewise, Sanne Dassen states “[…] convince a team of your opinion. So manage, working with different personalities and cooperating with them is something I have learned and what you definitely need to do.” Additionally, Frans Blom points out the importance and the pitfall of convincing: “You have to be convincing in such a way that you show people the direction instead of merely telling them what to do. In other words, you need be convincing without being cocky.” Furthermore, the audience whom a consultant has to convince is not solely the senior clients, as, according to Joost van Hilten, “[…] the people that will execute and implement are the most important to take on board.” Finally, “[…] if you can express yourself well, speak out your thoughts, carry them out, and also present well, that is what makes a good consultant.” (Bart Dingmans). In sum, the skill to convince and manage depends on presentation and self-expression.
Secondly, analytic skills are important for a good consultant: “It is extremely important to be analytical and conceptually very good.”(Frans Blom). The importance of analytical skills is further confirmed by Jacqueline Govers: “A good consultant is analytically strong.” The next skill for a good consultant is the skill to simplify. As Frans Blom states, “[…] it is really important for me to explain well, doing so quick and simple. Making things easy after receiving all complexity, choosing a direction and making it simple together after having conducted the appropriate research. In other words, to simplify, I think, it is important to make it simple, comprehendible, and understandable.” Moreover, it is pivotal to be bale to “structure complex problems in smaller pieces” (Jasper van Wamelen), “you should be able to develop insights from complex data; to make a synthesis that is valuable, not a mere fact, but an insight.” (Wiebe Draijer). This all comes down to “recognizing the right solution based on unclear circumstances” (Joost van Hilten).
Furthermore, the interviews show that understanding the context is important for a good consultant. As Robert Reibestein explains, “seniors should understand how the mind of a CEO works, what is implementable and what is not, thereby understanding the context of the client’s company. So it is actually the other way around.” Additionally, Jasper van Wamelen says a good consultant should be able to “really imagine what the CEO deals with”. Also, “the consultant should keep a strong link with the overall strategy of the clients’ company, to know where the competitive added value for the company is.” (Frans Blom). This overall strategy perspective is also named in the statement by Wiebe Draijer, namely: “He or she should be able to see the long term perspective and not being driven by short term commercial targets. The consultant should be able to see the long-term perspective and relationships instead of the need to sell the next project.” This also contributes to the skill of intelligence. As Hans Wijers explains, “[…] be able to think from the external context to the inside of the business. Such as, what is happening in the society, how to finance, what it all means for the company.” Jacqueline Govers explains intelligence as “the basics, you just need
