The paradoxical image of consultant expertise: a rhetorical deconstruction

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the paradoxical image of consultants as “experts without expertise.” It examines the extent to which different stakeholders’ perceptions of consultants’ expertise are aligned, and why. Design/methodology/approach – This research applies a creative approach to survey methodology by asking different stakeholder groups to react to consultancy expertise cartoons. This is followed by a rhetorical interpretation of the perceptions of consultants’ expertise using pathos. Findings – This survey revealed that employees are the most critical of consultants, while clients and consultants retain positive impressions of consultants’ expertise. Unexpectedly, relative to other stakeholder groups, academics occupy a moderately critical position like outsiders. Given that consultants and clients value the same indicators of expertise, this explains the latter stakeholder group’s positive valuation. Research limitations/implications – Since this study focusses on the expert image of consultants more generally, the authors cannot differentiate the conclusions for perceptions related to different types of consultants based on discipline or the image of their specific role (e.g. expert vs coach or change agent). Practical implications – Consultants and academics need pathos that is stakeholder dependent, for getting their expertise better accepted. Originality/value – This paper helps explain why managers, despite the many criticisms of the services consultants provide, continue to hire consultants for their expertise. Furthermore, it sheds light into why managers prefer the services of consultants vs those provided by academics. It also nuances the assumption that academics are the main critics of consultants. Instead, this paper identifies that the majority of consultant critiques come from employees in client organizations.

Professional image under threat: Dealing with learning–credibility tension

“…Academic debates about consultants’ professional image run from appreciation at one extreme to condemnation at the other, reflecting the mutable boundaries of the profession and the long list of roles that scholars have attributed to consultants. Bouwmeester and Stiekema (2015), for instance, propose 15 such roles that can be found in the literature, yet conclude that ‘despite huge variety in the construction and perception of consultancy roles, the quality of expertise remains a crucial component in all roles and thus a critical factor in consultants’ image’ (2015: 2438). They empirically demonstrate that consultants’ ‘expert image’ is widely acknowledged by clients and practitioners themselves, and argue that the recognition of their expert role in providing business solutions is usually the starting point for scholarly discussion – or critique.…”

The hidden price of free advice: Negotiating the paradoxes of public sector business advising

“…Advisors often managed this negative esteem signal by downplaying their own professional status, even to the extent where, as we reported in our findings, ‘the job title is Business Advisor, but as anybody would know who’s done this kind of work, you can’t advise very much’ (A3). While we note in the literature that many private sector consultants recognise the tenuous legitimacy of their own knowledge claims (Bouwmeester and Stiekema, 2015) and respond by (over)emphasising their credentials and impact (Wright and Kitay, 2002) or using ‘storytelling, rhetorical skills, and charisma to reduce interpretative variety and convey the symbolic meaning of a highly complex product’ (Nikolova et al, 2009: 295), we extend theoretical understanding of this dynamic in the public sector by showing public sector advisors take a contrasting approach through ‘talking down’ and ‘simplifying’ what they do.…”

A vezetési tanácsadói szerepek változása. Szakirodalmi kitekintés és empirikus eredmények

“…Tanulmányok vizsgálták a tanácsadói projektek sikerkritériumait (pl. : Appelbaum & Steed, 2005;Bronnenmayer, Wirtz & Göttel, 2016a, 2016b, az ügyfél-elégedettséget meghatározó főbb faktorokat (Roodhooft & Van den Abbeele, 2006) és tanácsadási szolgáltatásminőség dimenziókat (Ehrhardt & Nippa, 2005, Smith 2002, Wang, Shieh, & Hsiao, 2005, amely kutatások empirikus eredményekkel bővítették a vezetési tanácsadási szakirodalom ismeretanyagát.…”