| | By Mick James
My recent piece on
internal consulting
brought forth a
fascinating postbag from
internal consultants or
those who’d once had
that role – as ever the
names of the innocent
consultants have been
suppressed to protect
the guilty clients and
employers.
Certainly, “hackles
have been raised” not
least over the issue of
credibility. What comes
across pretty clearly is
that credibility comes
at a price – to the
client!
“You cannot be a
prophet in your own
land,” comments JF, who
has worked both sides of
the fence. He finds that
his recommendations
nowadays carry far more
weight as an independent
than they ever did as an
internal, including with
his former employer who
commented: “We should
have listened to you the
first time around, but I
guess we weren’t paying
enough for the advice.”
Actually, I don’t
think this is just a
problem for internals.
How many people have
gone out to battle with
a business plan that
stated something like
“McKinsey quality – but
not at McKinsey prices”
only to return home
baffled and defeated?
JF also makes the
point that as long as
externals are brought in
to “fight fires” while
internals deal with
“smouldering issues”
they will always attract | |
| |
| | PC makes a number of
interesting points, not
least that he got a
better salary from the
move because he was at
the time exactly what
the client wanted, and
now enjoys both
stability and excellent
career prospects in the
client company. Also as
an internal employee he
has gained “rights” –
control over his working
life, the ability to
negotiate everything
from working hours to
the details of
assignments.
Which brings us, I
think to the crux of the
internal/external issue
– internal consultants
are embedded in
organisations, with all
that entails for good
and bad. For KC this is
a positive – internals
have the contacts and
the insider knowledge to
get the answers and to
play the political game.
For others it’s a minus
– thanks to WP for
pointing me in the
direction of Peter
Block’s 1981 book
Flawless Consulting ,
whose subtitle “A guide
to getting your
expertise used” pretty
much sums up the
dilemma. Block makes the
point that without a
formal contract the
“real” contract is at
best triangular
(consultant-boss-client)
or even rectangular with
the addition of the
client’s boss. I leave
it to my readers (who I
know love doing this
sort of thing) to draw
up a diagram with | |
|
| | two-way arrows
illustrating the various
relationships and power
flows that can ensue.
Is there a way beyond
this dilemma? One way
forward is suggested by
MH, who notes that
manufacturing firms have
increasingly been
outsourcing in-house
consulting, forming
independent consulting
subsidiaries. These can
work both internally and
externally, but must
also compete for
internal projects
against external
consultancies.
This neatly solves
both the credibility and
political dilemmas. But
it’s a long way round
the houses to defeat, as
PB puts it, the
“syndromes that
plague...organisations’
abilities to effectively
deploy their own
resources”.
It’s not just an
issue that affects
internal consultants.
How many times have
groups of employees sat
around open-mouthed as
consultants laid out
proposals that they
themselves have been
battering their heads
against concrete walls
for years trying to get
across? Some
organisations have
become so adept at
ignoring their workforce
that it’s no problem at
all for them to set up
an internal consultancy
unit and ignore that as
well.
For the final word I
turn to my original
correspondent Professor | |
|
| | Walt Hosbeek, who raised
this topic initially and
has worked with many
large companies to
develop internal
consulting skills. Prof
Hosbeek is currently
developing a book on a
concept with the
splendid acronym MICK
–Management Innovation
and the Competition for
Knowledge – which rests
on a complex
thermodynamic metaphor
whereby knowledge is
looked at in terms of
energy.
The goal, as he says,
is to create “the
flexible company of the
future” which can
“activate this knowledge
when necessary ...and
only then!”.
It’s an interesting
concept and in many ways
the Holy Grail of modern
corporate life. It might
also spell the death of
consulting both internal
and external, as we know
it. Fortunately, and for
the foreseeable future
at least, companies are
so profligate with this
energy source that both
these arcane forms of
life can survive!
As ever thanks to my
correspondents – if you
write to me and don’t
mind being identified in
print please mark your
email “For publication”.
I’m also happy to
network correspondents
together on an “opt-in”
basis. Just let me know.
| |
|
| | more attention and
kudos. In an ideal
world, the internal
consultancy would
control the deployment
of externals but it is
clear that this is far
from the case – PB,
another former internal
speaks of being used as
“cannon fodder” for
projects while external
strategy advisers
reigned supreme.
KC, another internal,
while acknowledging the
“high price equals good
advice” syndrome makes
the point that internals
have a lot to offer –
particularly the
knowledge of the firm’s
culture and “raison
d’etre” making sure the
company is not steered
down a route it doesn’t
wish to follow. KC also
makes the point that
unlike externals,
internals have to stay
the course – they can’t
ride off into the sunset
leaving someone else to
sort out the mess.
So it was interesting
to hear from PC, a
consultant who – with a
number of colleagues –
has done whatever the
reverse of riding into
the sunset is: moving
from an external project
to work with the client
(who is apparently so
huge the consultancy
could do little apart
from grin and bear it). | |
|
Previous Page 
