Post on 03-Jun-2020
This paper is from the BAM2019 Conference Proceedings
About BAM
The British Academy of Management (BAM) is the leading authority on the academic field of management in the UK, supporting and representing the community of scholars and engaging with international peers.
http://www.bam.ac.uk/
1
Exploring the Dual Role of the Management Consultant
Authors/Contributors:
Jeanette Hartley, Open University Business School
Doctor Giacomo Carli, Open University Business School
Professor Richard Holti, Open University Business School
Contact:
Jeanette Hartley
Faculty of Business and Law
The Open University Business School
Walton Hall
Milton Keynes
MK7 6AA
Jeanette.hartley@open.ac.uk
2
Abstract Management consultants have a dual role, their client-facing role and their consultancy-facing role.
The client-facing role is well researched and understood. In contrast, research on the consultancy-
facing role is fragmented across the functions of management consultancy operations. These
functions have not so far been drawn together in a single study and the significance of the
consultancy-facing role is not fully understood. Furthermore, the existence of a dual role for
management consultants is not explicitly recognised in the literature.
We contribute to scholarly knowledge on management consultancy by conducting a
comprehensive review of existing literature that problematizes and challenges taken-for-granted
assumptions, identifies opportunities for future research and provides a theoretical framework for
further exploration of the management consultant’s dual role. Developing a more in depth
understanding of the management consultant’s role supports the conference theme of “Building
and Sustaining High Performance Organisations in uncertain times” for consultancies themselves
and their clients.
Keywords: Management consultancy, identity, liminality
Track 15: Management consultancy
Word count: 6817
3
Introduction The industry definition of management consultancy is:
“the practice of creating value for organisations, through improved performance, achieved by
providing objective advice and implementing business solutions. Management consultants help
take organisations further than they would go on their own. They do this by solving problems,
providing outside perspective and enhancing business capability.” (www.mca.org.uk/about-
us/the-consulting-industry/ accessed January 2019).
In contrast, some scholars see the outputs of the management consultancy as a self-interested
exercise in commodification (Fincham, 1999). Some even complain that there is more than an
element of con in the activities of the consulting industry (Collins, 2004). Others see management
consultants as legitimisers, only there to strengthen the client’s argument (Sturdy, Clark, Fincham,
and Handley, 2009). The views of some scholars are more aligned with those of the industry,
arguing that management consultants show a high degree of professionalism and humility and,
whilst always aware that their primary purpose is billable hours for their consultancy, clients’
needs are placed above all else and helping them is perceived to be the ultimate objective
(Kakabadse et al., 2006).
This dichotomy of views in the literature raises the question: what is the role of the management
consultant? We propose that management consultants have a dual role, their client-facing role and
their consultancy-facing role. Much of the literature focuses on the client-facing role, which is
hardly surprising as it is the most visible and well understood aspect of the dual role. In contrast
research on the consultancy-facing role is fragmented and focuses on the functions of management
consultancy operations rather than where and when the management consultant performs these
tasks. Management consultants are responsible for supporting business development (Carvalho &
Cabral-Cardoso, 2008), knowledge management and development (Ambos and Schlegelmilch
2009), people management (Alvesson and Kärreman 2007) building and maintaining internal and
external networks (Six & Sorge, 2008) and internal operations, with some management consultants
even taking responsibility for internal leadership roles (Richter et al., 2008; Bronnenmayer et al.,
2016). These consultancy-facing aspects of the role have not so far been drawn together in a single
study. The significance of the consultancy-facing responsibilities, many of which are ongoing and
must be performed alongside client delivery, has not therefore been fully understood in the
literature, and the existence of the dual role of the management consultant has not been fully
recognised. The result is that little is known about how the management consultant experiences
and manages the interplay between the client-facing and consultancy-facing aspects of their dual
role.
This failure to recognise the dual role of the management consultant has resulted in a further related
gap in the management consultancy literature concerning liminality. The concept of liminality is
based on “Les Rites de Passage” (van Gennep, 1909, translated in Turner, 1962, cited in
Söderlund and Borg, 2017). According to Gennep, liminal entities are neither here nor there, they
are betwixt and between. In the research on management consultancy, liminality is interpreted as
consultants working betwixt and between their consultancy and their client organization
(Czarniawska & Mazza, 2003; Söderlund & Borg, 2017). Existing research on the liminality of
the management consultant’s role therefore tends to focus on the client-consultant relationship
whilst ignoring transitions between the client-facing and consultancy-facing aspects of the
4
management consultant’s dual role. Studies of liminality from broader organizational contexts, not
directly related to management consultancy, but nevertheless relevant, provide greater insight on
management consultants transitioning between the multiple identities of their dual role (Beech,
2011; Söderlund & Borg, 2017).
The purpose of this paper is to explore how the management consultant’s dual role unfolds. In so
doing we contribute to scholarly knowledge of management consultancy by conducting a
comprehensive review of existing literature that problematizes and challenges taken-for-granted
assumptions about the management consultant’s dual role and identifies opportunities for future
research. We also draw on the concepts of liminality and identity work, as defined by Söderlund
& Borg, (2017) and (Beech, 2011), to provide a theoretical framework for further exploration of
the management consultant’s dual role. The paper is divided into three sections. First, we outline
the methodology used to select relevant management consultancy literature. Second, we conduct
a comprehensive critical review of the selected literature. Finally, we provide a framework for the
future exploration of the management consultant’s dual role and outline opportunities for future
research to be advanced.
Methodology
Our methodology for selecting relevant literature for the review follows that of Ozbilgin,
Beauregard, Tatli and Bell (2011) and (Brown, 2015) and involves a comprehensive literature
search followed by a critical review. An initial search on Web of Science was performed using
search term “Management Consult*” as the title, “Management” as the category and “Article” as
the type of publication. This produced 1310 articles. We reduced the number of articles to 540 by
including only those published in Association of Business Schools ranked journals belonging to
the five groups believed to be most relevant to management consultancy: General Management
Ethics and Social Responsibility; Human Resource Management and Employment Studies;
Management Development and Education; Organization Studies, and Strategy. This acted as a
further indicator of quality and relevance. We then reviewed the abstracts of the remaining 540
articles and selected only those publications that had management consultancy as their setting or
key focus. During the review we followed Greenhalgh and Peacock (2005), employing a snowball
approach by tracing back citations in the initial set of literature to identify relevant articles. This
minimised the risk of important omissions resulting from the initial selection protocol. Alerts were
also put in place to ensure that any new, relevant material was reviewed. There were no date
constraints on the search to leave open the possibility of showing the development of management
consultancy concepts over time. However, 90% of the 163 articles eventually selected were
published from 2000 onwards.
Once selected, we grouped the articles into themes by using keywords. These included: “client
relationship” “role” “knowledge” “innovation” “operations” “liminality” and “identity”. We then
adopted an inductive approach. We first identified recurring concepts in the articles which we
grouped into what eventually became sub-themes. We then grouped these into three aggregated
themes (Gioia, Corley and Hamilton, 2012) . The first order concepts, second order sub-themes
and aggregated themes are shown in Figure 1 below:
5
Figure 1: Management consultancy concepts, sub-themes and aggregated themes
The first theme is the client-facing role which focuses on the client-consultant relationship and the
role of management consultants in the dissemination of knowledge. Liminality emerged as a sub-
theme of the client-facing role. The second theme is the consultancy-facing role and the
involvement of management consultants in knowledge management, innovation, and the
operational management of their consultancy. The third theme is identity, both the social identity
of consultants and the nature and context of management consultancy within which management
consultants perform their work. In the following review of existing literature, we first review the
role of the management consultant, we then examine identity as it relates to the nature and context
of management consultancy and identity work. Finally, we review literature on liminality relating
to the client-consultant relationship, and from broader organizational contexts.
Review of the literature
The role of the management consultant
The initial review of the literature provided extensive existing knowledge of the management
consultant’s client-facing role. The literature focuses on how and why clients employ consultants;
how clients and consultants interact and the importance of relationships and trust. In contrast, a
fragmented picture of management consultants’ consultancy-facing role emerged. When these
fragments in the literature are drawn together the consultancy-facing role appears to be significant,
encompassing knowledge management and development; business development; managing the
performance and career development of more junior consultants as well as their own development,
alongside client delivery. Scholars agree that client-facing, billable work and the needs of the client
usually take priority (Boussebaa, Morgan, & Sturdy, 2012; Heracleous & Langham, 1996;
6
Kakabadse, Louchart, & Kakabadse, 2006). There is a view that the consultancy-facing demands
placed on management consultants mean that long work hours and a frantic work pace are often a
central part of daily work life and that this leads to inefficiency (Kitay & Wright, 2007). In this
section we first examine the management consultant’s client-facing role and then their consultancy
facing role.
Client-facing role
There is some disagreement among scholars as to why clients engage consultants. Some scholars
argue that consultants are primarily there to legitimise clients’ views (Clegg et al., 2004; Sturdy et
al., 2009). These scholars identify the distinctive feature of management consultants as their
outsider relationship to the client and claim that this provides them with the ability to shape and
legitimise ideas whilst lacking the formal responsibility and accountability of managers (Sturdy,
2011). In contrast, others claim that consultants are most often engaged to implement change that
clients are unable to implement themselves, due to lack of resources or insufficient in-house
expertise (Gluckler & Armbruster, 2003; Simon & Kumar, 2001). Legitimation may still play a
part and it seems appropriate to describe management consultants as both a “locus of experience”
and “source of legitimation” (Canato and Giangreco, 2011:236). As organisational outsiders,
consultants are able to act as innovators, facilitating the flow of new ideas across organisational
boundaries whereas internal consultants and managers often experience problems, struggling to
introduce new ideas because of their status as organisational insiders (Sturdy and Wright, 2008).
In complete contrast, Furusten, (2009) argues that management consultants improvise and in doing
so act as agents of stability rather than agents of change or legitimation, empowering organisations
with tools to deal with their uncertainty, and indirectly giving them time and energy to explore and
exploit their core processes.
Another reason to engage consultants could be to implement the latest management fad or fashion.
Management consultancy is heavily criticised for cashing in on or even generating management
fads and fashions with some scholars seeing the outputs of management consultancy as an exercise
in self-interested commodification (Collins, 2004; Fincham, 1999). And yet, David and Strang
(2006) point out that business publications and general media both reflect and are causally
implicated in the demand for fashions such as Total Quality Management (TQM). Furthermore,
there is evidence to suggest, far from generating fads and fashions, consultants often re-interpret
and re-articulate management fashions in line with their own agendas, exploiting new income
opportunities without making any real change to existing service offers (Whittle, 2008). There are
risks for clients, David and Strang (2006: 216) observed during the “fashion boom” of Total
Quality Management (TQM) many generalist consultants entered what is a specialist field,
implementations by these generalist consultants were often technically weak and expected benefits
were not realised. When TQM discourse moved out of the major management publications
followed shortly afterwards by “fashion bust” the hype was over and TQM returned to its technical
roots (David and Strang, 2006: 216).
Management consultancy is a weakly professionalised field with no real credentials and few
protections for clients when it comes to selecting appropriately qualified consultants (David and
Strang, 2006). It is therefore hardly surprising that a key driver of competitiveness in consulting is
neither price nor measurable quality but experience-based trust (Gluckler and Armbruster, 2003).
Trust and the degree of client satisfaction is often the product of a strong relationship that develops
7
between the client and the consultant carrying out the work. (Momparler, Carmona and Lassala,
2015). Many scholars agree that trust is the most important and critical issue in the client-
consultant relationship and that the relationship with the client required for success is that of trusted
advisor, always proactive to clients’ changing needs (Kakabadse et al., 2006; Nikolova, Möllering,
& Reihlen, 2015). There is a view that once the client comes to regard the consultant as a trusted
advisor the relationship becomes less formal and a close working relationship may then develop
(Kakabadse et al., 2006; Nikolova et al., 2015). Working collaboratively with client experts may
also result in a productive consultant-client relationship, provided the expert has legitimacy and
credibility with “boundary-spanning networks” that enable the consultant and client to leverage
relationships that facilitate power sharing and the ability to confront challenges (Sturdy and
Wright, 2011: 500). Working with the client and other suppliers may accentuate power
relationships and there is a risk of specialist knowledge, different ways of working and even
different agendas, preventing progress (Levina and Orlikowski, 2009). This may be avoided to
some extent through a strong client sponsorship (Gluckler and Armbruster, 2003).
Consultancy-facing role
In contrast to the management consultant’s client-facing role, the existence of a consultancy-facing
role is not always evident to scholars. Sturdy et al (2006: 932 ) observe that:
“Consultants typically work in the interstices between their employing organization and their client
organization. They spend much of their working time at the client site and when they return to
their home office, they are deemed to be ‘on the beach’, that is, not working”.
And yet, Ambos and Schlegelmilch, (2009) and Richter et al., (2008) are clear that, whereas
management consultants are primarily rewarded for billable hours, they must use their time away
from client site to undertake internal, non-client work. For more senior management consultants
this may involve performing a leading role in running their consultancy and developing new
business. There is a view that management consultancy as a growth industry has been immune
from disruption because it delivers specialist knowledge and is agile in developing new offers
demanded by clients (Christensen, Wang, & van Bever, 2013). However, these are uncertain times
and scholars point to the sharp decline in strategy-consulting over the past 30 years due, it is
claimed, to strategy consultants improving the problem-solving skills of their clients, to argue that
management consultancy may not be immune (Van den Bosch, Baaij, & Volberda, 2005). A
consulting firm’s growth and survival depends on maintaining profitability through high utilisation
of its workforce, the achievement of margins (Bronnenmayer et al., 2016), and the ability of its
managers to explore for new business and develop new knowledge (Rogan & Mors, 2017). The
majority of larger consultancies are global, with access to global resources to enable them to field
the best possible team.
It seems that, whereas the consultancy business model relies on consultants working long hours
on client site (Donnelly, 2015), they must also play their part in the ongoing success of their
consultancy by meeting business development targets as part of their consultancy-facing work
(Carvalho and Cabral-Cardoso, 2008). This often involves management consultants working on
sales bids leveraging existing knowledge and creating new knowledge (Haas and Hansen, 2005).
Scholars claim knowledge is a vital source of competitive advantage for consultancies (Haas and
8
Hansen, 2005; Ambos and Schlegelmilch, 2009). However, there is a view that sharing knowledge
assets may not always be of benefit for example, using codified knowledge in competitive bids
may undermine competitive performance if the knowledge has not been fully understood or is not
sufficiently customized to meet the clients’ needs. (Haas and Hansen, 2005). Nevertheless, a major
part of the management consultant’s consultancy-facing responsibilities is developing and sharing
knowledge, usually addressed through appraisal and incentive processes (Ambos & Schlegelmilch,
2009; Dunford, 2000). However, the barriers to making formal knowledge systems work are a
recurring theme in the literature. Knowledge is generally categorised as “codified;” for example,
the documented, anonymised output from previous client engagements and “tacit”, more
ambiguous, usually undocumented, based on the expertise and experience of individuals (Ambos
& Schlegelmilch, 2009). However, producing and sharing codified and tacit knowledge within
firms remains a major challenge with scholars claiming that consultants often have insufficient
time between projects for knowledge capture, leaving them unable to put the required effort into
contributing what they know to the learning potential for the firm (Ambos and Schlegelmilch,
2009). Others claim that, rather than fundamental time pressure, problems may be more deeply
embedded in cultures where sharing knowledge may be seen as giving away power and influence
(Dunford, 2000).
In addition to meeting targets for business development and the development and sharing of
knowledge, management consultants are also engaged in recruiting and managing more junior
consultants as well as ensuring their own self development needs are met (Richter et al. 2008;
Alvesson and Kärreman, 2007). An important aspect for management consultants is that their
consultancy has mechanisms in place to manage, match and develop their professional
competencies to support career progression (Six and Sorge, 2008). Trust is a feature of
consultancy, not only the trust between client and consultant (Gluckler and Armbruster, 2003), but
also the trust the consultant places in their consultancy firm. “High trust organisations” are said
to create a culture in which relationships are important and show care and concern for the other
person’s needs are valued. (Six and Sorge, 2008: 857). This is important for consultants who spend
long hours on a client’s site, sometimes with sceptical client personnel, under pressure to achieve
high standards and deliver high quality work (Mats Alvesson & Robertson, 2006).
This examination of the dual client-facing and consultancy-facing role of the management
consultant has provided some insight into the nature of management consultancy and the demands
placed on management consultants. This is now explored in more detail in terms of the concept of
identity in relation to management consultants.
Management consultants and identity
Identity is a key theme in the management consultancy literature, both the nature of management
consultancy, the context within which management consultants perform their work, and “identity
work” which emphasizes a set of processes through which people construct their distinctive self-
identity (Sveningsson and Alvesson 2003). We now review existing literature on the nature and
context of management consultancy and the ethical dilemmas consultants face when working with
clients. We also review the relevance of identity and identity work to the dual role of the
management consultant.
9
The nature of management consultancy
Here we examine the distinctive nature of management consultancy and the context within which
management consultants perform their work. Scholars are unable to decide whether management
consultancy is a profession or an occupation. A profession, for example, accountancy, law or
medicine, has a governing body, mandatory qualifications, minimum standards and a distinct
identity (Kipping & Kirkpatrick, 2013). In contrast, an occupation is based on the type of work
performed, in the case of management consultancy this may be defined as knowledge work
(Fincham, 2006). An occupation does not have the structure of a profession and identity is
therefore less well defined (M Alvesson, 2001). Despite the steps taken over the years towards
professionalisation management consultancy has not fully professionalised. There is a professional
body, but membership is not compulsory and there are no mandatory qualifications or minimum
standards. This means that barriers to entry are almost non-existent and more or less anyone can
call themselves a management consultant (Kipping & Kirkpatrick, 2013). Scholars cite this failure
to define management consulting competencies as a key barrier to establishing management
consultancy as a regulated profession (Kipping & Kirkpatrick, 2013). Despite all the evidence to
the contrary, Greiner and Ennsfellner (2010) insist that management consultancy is a profession
and call on business schools, professional associations and consulting firms to work together to
regulate the industry before governments step in. However, consulting knowledge is distinctive
from that of established professions such as accounting or medicine, being “too esoteric, fluid and
changeable to be embedded in portable, transferable, and testable credentials”. Fincham and Clark
(2002: 2, cited in Sturdy, 2011). They emphasize this, noting that no sooner are the limits of the
industry identified or the composition of consultancy skills articulated then these factors (unique
tasks, skills and firms) become redundant because the nature of consultancy work has shifted.
Furthermore, Ambos and Schlegelmilch (2009) are clear that knowledge is a key source of
competitive advantage for management consultants and the last thing consultants want is for
knowledge to be standardised and shared.
There appears to be little support in the industry for professionalisation through standardisation
and regulation. Gluckler and Armbruster (2003) point out that leading consultancies have resisted
all efforts to professionalise and prefer to use their own brand, image and reputation for
differentiation purposes. Fincham, (2006) sees management consultancy more as an occupation
than a profession, defining it as knowledge work. He claims that management consultants are
ambivalent about conventional professionalisation, considering it outdated. However, constructing
occupational identity for knowledge workers is problematic with several scholars claiming the
outcomes of knowledge work, such as management consultancy, are difficult to measure (M
Alvesson, 2001; Gluckler & Armbruster, 2003; Kitay & Wright, 2007). They argue that the
“regulation of identity is crucial” for maintaining standards and control, given the ambiguity of
knowledge-intensive work (Alvesson, 2001: 865). Alvesson (2001) suggests that identity
regulation is achieved through perceptions of corporate identity and culture and individuals’
conceptions of self-value aligned to professional standards of behaviour. Kitay and Wright, (2007)
claim occupational rhetoric is essential to regulate identity and manage client expectations. On
those occasions when the clients’ expectations are misaligned, this could be due to what Wright
and Kitay (2002) describe as consultants engaging in high-impact rhetoric, over-promising
outcomes that emphasize bottom line improvements even though those improvements may take
years to realise.
10
Whether management consultancy is an emerging profession or an occupation, the absence of
effective regulation means there are no defined standards or binding ethical guidelines for
management consultants (Gluckler & Armbruster, 2003). The simple view of consulting ethics is
that the consultant should act in the client’s best interests and not manipulate the client in the
interests of the consultant (Poulfelt, 1997). However, the consultant-client relationship is not
always that straightforward, there may be many client stakeholders with needs that are
incompatible with each other and with the best interests of the client organization. This is
problematic for the consultant as it raises the question: who is the client?. Poulfelt (1997) believes
that the core of many ethical dilemmas in consulting is the need for consultants to correctly identify
their client. Even then, he identifies a number of ethical dilemmas for consultants, not least of
which is the need to maximise revenue for their consultancy which may not be compatible with
the best interests of the client. Poulfelt (1997) also sees risk in developing a close working
relationship with the client before the solution has been formulated, arguing that this may influence
the consultant and undermine objectivity and impartiality, a key reason for engaging consultants.
Greiner and Ennsfellner (2010) question whether adequate training is provided for consultants to
handle ethical issues, beyond the aspirational values of their consulting firm. They see consultants
operating in a dynamic environment where the values and rhetoric of their consultancy may serve
as guidelines, but often fall short of addressing the most complex ethical issues. This places
additional pressure on the professional identity of the consultant and relies on their individual
professional standards. O’Mahoney (2011) concurs that responsibility for ethics in management
consultancy has been individualised and that management consultancies rely on their consultants
to handle ethical issues. A more detailed examination of identity and its relevance to individual
management consultants follows.
Identity work
Identity work is defined by Sveningsson and Alvesson (2003) as a set of active processes, such as
forming, strengthening and revising, which serve to construct a sense of identity. According to
Alvesson and Willmott (2002) conscious identity work is grounded in self-doubt and self-
openness, typically contingent on inconsistencies faced in encounters with others or with our
images of them. The management consultant may have multiple identities aligned to client-facing
and consultancy-facing groups. I examine the elite identity of consultants, how this is leveraged
by management consultancies to regulate identity and the impact on the consultant.
Several scholars refer to the elite identity of consultants (Alvesson and Robertson, 2006; Kitay and
Wright, 2007; Gill, 2015). Many management consultancies project an elite image emphasising
creativity, innovation, autonomy, learning and development in relation to work. This is to ensure
they recruit and retain the brightest candidates and graduates from the most prestigious business
schools (Gill, 2015), and to promote self-discipline amongst existing consultants (Alvesson and
Robertson, 2006). However, Costas and Kärreman (2016) point out that an elite consulting identity
may not always live up to expectations. They claim consulting work in large knowledge-intensive
firms often entails the use of standardised methodologies and implementations and far from finding
the work creative, innovative and complex, individuals may find it boring and even de-skilling.
Costas and Kärreman (2016) claim that boredom is an outcome of the identity regulation fostered
by the company discourses around elite, expertise, creativity, learning and autonomy They claim
that when consultants encounter boring work, they may develop a “bored self” (Costas and
11
Kärreman, 2016: 62) and that the construction of self as bored allows consultants to both hang on
to the aspirational aspects of the identity suggested by company discourse while dealing with its
disappointments. Costas and Kärreman (2016: 75) describe this phenomenon as an “arrested
identity”.
There is a belief that an elite identity may cause status anxiety for consultants who find themselves
under pressure to consistently achieve high standards and the potential loss of that status if they
fail to do so (Gill, 2015). Management consultancy does appear to be a stressful occupation,
consultants often work long unsocial hours under intense pressure to achieve the high standards
expected by their consultancy and the client (Alvesson and Robertson, 2006; Gill, 2015). There is
also constant pressure to develop skills (Richter et al., 2008). Mühlhaus and Bouwmeester (2016)
describe how consultants cope with stressful encounters through self-categorisation and
membership of social groups. They see social identity as a potential source of support for
consultants. They believe the pressure to excel, sell-on and show full-time availability makes
management consultancy an extreme example of a high-status, high-stress occupation. They
observe that self-categorisation as part of an elite social group helps consultants manage their stress
and creates a feeling of social inclusion. However, Gardner (2012) notes that continuously working
under pressure may be counter-productive and claims that, high pressure situations, whilst initially
enhancing team motivation and performance, may eventually result in performance detracting
behaviour such as an over-reliance on general expertise rather than specialist knowledge.
Scholars claim the nature of consultancy means that control may be accomplished through the self-
positioning of employees within managerially inspired discourses with which they become
identified and committed (Alvesson and Robertson, 2006). They believe management
consultancies actively define their employees as elite and use this shared social identity to promote
self-discipline and the desire to accomplish high standards of performance (Alvesson and
Robertson, 2006). However, Alvesson and Kärreman (2007) and Reid (2015) argue that
consultancies do not rely solely on managerially inspired discourses and elite social identity to
achieve high standards. They see performance appraisal as a key driver for consultants. Existing
theory is problematic as it does not fully reflect the unique and fragmented nature of the
management consultant’s role. However, Alvesson and Kärreman (2007: 721) do capture what
they describe as the “excess ceremoniality” of the organizational and individual identity alignment
aspects of performance appraisal and the drain on executives’ time. Reid (2015) cites SIT when
describing strategies consultants employ when deciding whether or not to disclose deviation from
expected behaviour and risk becoming a member of a de-valued group Reid (2015: 1001) found
the appraisal process in consulting to be highly subjective and open to exploitation by consultants
who are good at “passing” as an ideal worker without doing the work ( Reid, 2015: 997). Generally
speaking, those who embrace the preferred consulting identity by being available at all times and
in all places receive good performance ratings whereas those who place restrictions on their work
e.g. client locations, types of project and availability, were generally penalised and received poorer
performance ratings (Reid, 2015).
Identity and the individual self-image of management consultant are relevant to both the client-
facing and consultancy-facing roles of the management consultant as each aspect of the dual role
is likely to have multiple identities according to the management consultant’s work group at the
time. These multiple identities are explored more fully in our review of liminality.
12
Liminality
The word ‘liminality’ derives from the Latin limen, which roughly translates as threshold. The
concept of liminality is based on “Les Rites de Passage” (van Gennep, 1909, translated in 1960,
cited in Söderlund and Borg, 2017). Extending Van Gennep’s work, Turner (1969, 81, cited in
Moran 2013) developed the concept of liminality in more ‘complex’ societies, describing it as:
‘necessarily ambiguous, since this condition… elude[s] or slip[s] through the network of
classifications that normally locates states and positions in cultural space. Liminal entities are
neither here nor there, they are betwixt and between the positions assigned and arrayed by law,
custom, convention and ceremonial.’
According to Söderlund & Borg (2017: 15), there are three types of liminality. The first is the
traditional interpretation of liminality in the context of management consultancy, which they
define as positional with individuals working “betwixt and between” organizations with temporary
“rites of passage”. The second is temporal liminality, associated with a passing, transitional and
temporary condition experienced by individuals going through a process from one stable situation
or structure to another. The third is spatial liminality associated with a particular location or space
that is outside normal contexts, conditions and everyday routines such as individuals working in
specific places, between workplaces, on the way to work, or working in non-traditional physical
work contexts. In this section we review existing management consultancy literature relating to
liminality which focuses on the client-consultant relationship. We then draw on literature from
broader organisational contexts so as to examine liminality in the context of the dual role of the
management consultant, the transition between their consultancy-facing and client-facing
identities and whether multiple liminality might be relevant to the dual role.
Liminality in the context of management consultancy
The management consultancy literature on liminality tends to focus on the client-consultant
relationship and what Soderlund & Borg (2017) define as positional liminality. This is where
management consultants are working “betwixt and between” their consulting organisation and the
client organisation (Söderlund and Borg, 2017: 9). Scholars appear to be in general agreement that
liminality has relevance for the client-consultant relationship. Czarniawska and Mazza (2003: 267)
use the metaphor of a liminal space and describe consultants as “allies of management, in
temporary positions of power where usual practice and order are suspended and replaced by new
rites and rituals”. Sturdy et al., (2006: 929) describe liminality as a characteristic of the client-
consultant relationship that facilitates change, “a fluid and unstructured space … which is both
unsettling and creative”. A different perspective is taken by Borg and Söderlund (2015) who
interpret liminality as a competence, something consultants do by degrees. They claim that
management consultants frequently find themselves in time-limited and ambiguous work positions
and develop liminality competences to manage their dynamic work conditions. At the lowest level
of liminal competence they see “work as assignment handling” and at the highest level they see
“work as knowledge transfer” (Borg and Söderlund 2015: 275). In contrast, Johnsen and Sørensen
(2015) reject the transient nature of liminality altogether by suggesting that consultants dwell in a
state of permanent liminality, moving from project to project, continuously suspended between
work and personal life.
13
The literature also focuses on the liminality of the location of client work and what Söderlund and
Borg (2017) define as spatial liminality, where traditional routines, norms and activities are
suspended or renegotiated. A good example of this is provided by Sturdy et al. (2006) who
describe business meals with clients as liminal spaces where many of the rituals of the organization
are suspended or lessened and replaced by the rituals of eating and socializing. They see such
liminal spaces being used tactically to pursue the politics of organizational change by more
informal means, where perhaps certain people are invited to engage in these rituals while others
are not. Sturdy et al. (2006) claim that different degrees of liminality may be achieved depending
on the location and time of day. Meals held on-site during the day are closer to the daily work
activity and norms than dining in the evening at a restaurant or home. Management consultants
spend much of their time on client site, which for them may be regarded as a liminal space (Andrew
Sturdy et al., 2006). In the next section we review literature on liminality from broader
organisational contexts to explore how liminality may relate to the management consultant’s dual
role.
Liminality from broader organizational contexts
The review of liminality in the context of management consultancy in the previous section
demonstrates that existing literature has tended to focus on the liminality of management
consultants working “betwixt and between” their consultancy organisation and their client
organisation, defined by Söderlund and Borg (2017: 9) as positional liminality. There is also some
focus on spatial liminality and the impact of management consultants spending much of their time
on client site (Söderlund and Borg, 2017). We now explore liminality from broader organisation
contexts to provide additional insights on how liminality is experienced by management
consultants. We noted that Management consultants spend much of their time on client site, which
for them may be regarded as a liminal space (Andrew Sturdy et al., 2006). However, they may still
need to seek out what Shortt (2015: 654), in her study of hairdressers, describes as “transitory
dwelling spaces”, such as store rooms, stairways and corridors, away from the client. Shortt (2015)
found that this may be to escape organizational tensions, to gain inspiration, to socialise or simply
for privacy to conduct non-client business. A further view on liminality is that it may be inter-
spatial. Management consultants spend much of their time travelling to and from client sites in
different parts of the country and globally and it is claimed that individuals who regularly travel
between locations, such as management consultants, experience inter-spatial liminality and
construct trans-local identities on the move (Daskalaki, Butler and Petrovic, 2016). Moran (2013)
agrees to some extent with the interpretation by Johnsen and Sørensen (2015) that liminality for
management consultants may be a permanent state, pointing out that the linear progression
through the pre-liminal, liminal and post-liminal stages may be contested and that liminality, in
the context of prison long-visit suites, may be a static rather than transient state. Similarly, in their
study of inter-organizational relationships within industrial supply chains, Ellis and Ybema (2010)
found that managers were in a permanent state of liminality, discursively marking shifting
boundaries that variously positioned themselves, and their colleagues, competitors, customers and
suppliers, as organizational insiders or outsiders, depending on the situation. They challenge the
notion of those performing in-between positions, such as management consultants, ever reaching
the final recognition stage of their re-constructed identity. They argue that those who transcend
organizational boundaries, switching between in and out, crossing and stretching boundaries on
their own terms, are in a permanent state of liminality.
14
It seems there is much support, even from broader organizational contexts, for liminality being a
more static, longer term, even permanent state for management consultants. However, when
considering the dual role of the management consultant, what Söderlund & Borg (2017: 15)
describe as transitional “liminality as a process” appears to be relevant. They see this as individuals
going through a process from one stable situation or structure to another, where the sense of self
is significantly disrupted, and individuals must handle the pressure and tensions from transitioning
among multiple identities. The management consultant, working on a client engagement on client
site, and therefore already in a liminal but relatively stable situation, must transition to their
consultancy-facing identity to undertake non-client work. When considering the transitional
process of liminality, Söderlund and Borg (2017: 7) refer to liminal “triggers” which may be
compulsory or voluntary. There are internal triggers for transitional liminality within the
management consultant’s role. The consultancy-facing role is fragmented, with responsibilities
across knowledge management and development, people management, business development and
even internal team leadership responsibilities. These tasks all involve different groups and the
construction of potentially different identities (Beech, 2011; Söderlund & Borg, 2017).
The re-construction of identity during the liminal transitions of people in organizations is
conceptualized by Beech (2011). He perceives this as dialogic “identity re-construction” (Beech
2011: 296). The liminal identity work framework conceptualized by Beech (2011) may be applied
to management consultants. The starting point is the management consultant’s client-facing
identity. The first practice in constructing their consultancy-facing identity is experimentation
where versions of the self are tried out. Beech (2011) proposes that this occurs as an inside-out
dialogic orientation. This is followed by dialogic two-way interplay and the liminal practice of
reflection. Finally, an outside-in dialogic orientation through the liminal practice of recognition of
the consultancy-facing identity. Construction and re-construction of identity for management
consultants is multi-directional as they dip in and out of client-facing and consultancy-facing work
throughout the day, and between their multiple client-facing and consultancy-facing identities.
In this section we reviewed literature on liminality in the context of management consultancy
which focused on the client-consultant relationship. We then reviewed liminality from broader
organizational contexts, to gain additional insights relating to the management consultant’s dual
role. The re-construction of identity during the liminal transitions of people in organizations
conceptualized by Beech (2011) is highly relevant to management consultants experiencing and
managing the interplay between the client-facing and consultancy-facing aspects of their dual role.
This is explored in more detail in the next section which focuses on opportunities for future
research to be advanced.
Opportunities for Future Research
In the previous section we reviewed existing literature including liminality and its relevance for
the management consultant’s dual role. In this section we provide a framework for the future
exploration of the management consultant’s dual role and outline opportunities for future research
to be advanced.
The review of existing literature on liminality from broader organisational contexts provides
additional insights on how liminality is experienced by management consultants in managing the
interplay between the client-facing and consultancy-facing aspects of their dual role. It is clear
15
from the liminality identity work framework conceptualized by Beech (2011) that liminality is
strongly associated with identity work, which emphasizes a set of processes through which people
construct and re-construct their distinctive self-identity (Sveningsson and Alvesson, 2003). The
framework for further exploration of the management consultant’s dual role is shown below:
Figure 2: Theoretical framework for the exploration of the management consultant’s dual role
In the framework we adopt the three types of liminality identified by Söderlund and Borg (2017).
First is positional liminality, the traditional interpretation of liminality relating to the management
consultant’s client-facing role, with individuals working “betwixt and between” organizations with
temporary “rites of passage” (Turner, 1982, cited in: Borg and Söderlund, 2015: 262; Czarniawska
and Mazza, 2003: 269). The client, hosting those from outside their organisation, may also become
liminal. The second type of liminality, often used in relation to the client-facing role, is spatial
liminality. This is associated with a particular location, space or mental state that is outside normal
contexts, conditions and everyday routines such as individuals working in specific places, between
workplaces, on the way to work, or working in non-traditional physical work contexts. Spatial
liminality may be relevant to the client-facing and consultancy-facing identities, depending on
where the work is performed. Finally, temporal liminality is associated with a passing, transitional
and temporary condition experienced by individuals going through a process from one stable
situation or structure to another. We propose that management consultants regularly transition
between their consultancy-facing and client-facing identities but also within their consultancy-
facing identities, constructing and re-constructing different identities according to their specific
work group at the time. We also propose that management consultants experience multiple
16
liminality situations at the same time, transitioning between their multiple identities whilst also
experiencing liminality associated with location and their client engagement.
Future research focused on liminality and identity work in the context of the management
consultant’s dual role will help us to understand whether transitions from one management
consulting identity to another align with existing liminality practices of people in organisation,
such as those conceptualised by Beech (2011), or whether the context of management consultancy
provides something new. Such research would enable us to gain a more in depth understanding of
the nature of the management consultant’s consultancy-facing role, how this unfolds and the
interplay between the consultancy-facing and client-facing aspects of the dual role. The evaluation
of key findings in terms of management consultants’ perceptions of successful strategies for
managing transitions between the multiple identities of their role may also provide new insights
for practitioners on how to manage their dual role. And, how to balance the demands of client-
facing and consultancy-facing work whilst leveraging opportunities to build skills and internal
networks. The insights gained from the research will contribute to management consultancy theory
and practice as well as supporting the conference theme of “Building and Sustaining High
Performance Organisations in uncertain times”, not only for management consultancies, but also
the skills and knowledge consultancies are then able to transfer to their clients.
.
17
References (1507) Alvesson, M. (2001). Knowledge Work: Ambiguity, Image and Identity. Human Relations,
54(200107), 863–886.
Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. (2007). Unraveling HRM: Identity, Ceremony, and Control in a
Management Consulting Firm. Organization Science, 18(4), 711–723.
Alvesson, M., & Robertson, M. (2006). The Best and the Brightest: The Construction, Significance
and Effects of Elite Identities in Consulting Firms. Organization, 13(2), 195–224.
Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (2002). Identity Regulation as Organizational Control: Producing
the Appropriate Individual. Journal of Management Studies, 39(5), 619–644.
Ambos, T. C., & Schlegelmilch, B. B. (2009). Managing knowledge in international consulting
firms. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(6), 491–508.
Beech, N. (2011a). Liminality and the practices of identity reconstruction. Human Relations,
64(2), 285–302.
Beech, N. (2011b). Liminality and the practices of identity reconstruction. Human Relations,
64(2), 285–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726710371235
Borg, E., & Söderlund, J. (2015). Liminality competence: An interpretative study of mobile project
workers’ conception of liminality at work. Management Learning, 46(3), 260–279.
Boussebaa, M., Morgan, G., & Sturdy, A. (2012). Constructing Global Firms? National,
Transnational and Neocolonial Effects in International Management Consultancies.
Organization Studies, 33(4), 465–486.
Bronnenmayer, M., Wirtz, B. W., & Göttel, V. (2016). Determinants of perceived success in
management consulting. Management Research Review, 39(6), 706–738.
Brown, A. D. (2015). Identities and identity work in organizations. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 17(1), 20–40.
Canato, A., & Giangreco, A. (2011). Gurus or wizards? A review of the role of management
consultants. European Management Review, 8(4), 231–244.
Carvalho, A., & Cabral-Cardoso, C. (2008). Flexibility through HRM in management consulting
firms. Personnel Review, 37, 332–349.
Christensen, C. M., Wang, D., & van Bever, D. (2013). On the cusp. Harvard Business Review,
(October 2013), 106–114.
Clegg, S. R., Kornberger, M., & Rhodes, C. (2004). Noise, Parasites and Translation: Theory and
Practice in Management Consulting. Management Learning, 35(1), 31–44.
Collins, D. (2004). Who Put the Con in Consultancy? Fads, Recipes and ‘Vodka Margarine.’
Human Relations, 57(5), 553–572.
Costas, J., & Kärreman, D. (2016). The bored self in knowledge work. Human Relations, 69(1),
61–83.
Czarniawska, B., & Mazza, C. (2003). Consulting as a Liminal Space. Human Relations, 56(3),
267–290.
18
Daskalaki, M., Butler, C. L., & Petrovic, J. (2016). Somewhere In-Between: Narratives of Place,
Identity, and Translocal Work. Journal of Management Inquiry, 25(2), 184–198.
David, R. J., & Strang, D. (2006). When fashion is fleeting: Transitory collective beliefs and the
dynamics of TQM consulting. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 215–233.
Donnelly, R. (2015). Gender, careers and flexibility in consultancies in the UK and the USA: a
multi-level relational analysis. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
26(1), 80–99.
Dunford, R. (2000). Key challenges in the search for the effective management of knowledge in
management consulting firms. Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(4), 295–302.
Ellis, N., & Ybema, S. (2010). Marketing Identities: Shifting Circles of Identification in Inter-
organizational Relationships. Organization Studies, 31(3), 279–305.
Fincham, R. (1999). The consultant-client relationship: Critical perspectives on the management
of organizational change. Journal of Management Studies, 36(3), 335–351.
Fincham, R. (2006). Knowledge work as occupational strategy: Comparing IT and management
consulting. New Technology, Work and Employment, 21(1), 16–28.
Furusten, S. (2009). Management consultants as improvising agents of stability. Scandinavian
Journal of Management, 25(3), 264–274.
Gardner, H. K. (2012). Performance pressure as a double-edged sword: Enhancing team
motivation but undermining the use of team knowledge. Administrative Science Quarterly,
57(1), 1–46.
Gill, M. J. (2015). Elite identity and status anxiety: An interpretative phenomenological analysis
of management consultants. Organization, 22(3), 306–325.
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2012). Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive
Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–
31.
Gluckler, J., & Armbruster, T. (2003). Bridging Uncertainty in Management Consulting: The
Mechanisms of Trust and Networked Reputation. Organization Studies, 24(2), 269–297.
Greenhalgh, T., & Peacock, R. (2005). Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in
systematic reviews of complex evidence: Audit of primary sources. British Medical Journal,
331(7524), 1064–1065.
Greiner, L., & Ennsfellner, I. (2010). Management Consultants as Professionals, or Are They?
Organizational Dynamics, 39(1), 72–83.
Haas, M. R., & Hansen, M. T. (2005). When Using Knowledge Can Hurt Performance : The Value
of Organizational Capabilities in a Management Consulting Company. Strategic
Management Journal, 26(1), 1–24.
Heracleous, L., & Langham, B. (1996). Strategic Change and Organizational Culture at Hay
Management Consultants. Long Range Planning, 29(4), 485–494.
Johnsen, C. G., & Sørensen, B. M. (2015). ‘It’s capitalism on coke!’: From temporary to permanent
19
liminality in organization studies. Culture and Organization, 21(4), 321–337.
Kakabadse, N. K., Louchart, E., & Kakabadse, A. (2006). Consultant’s role: a qualitative inquiry
from the consultant’s perspective. Journal of Management Development, 25(5), 416–500.
Kipping, M., & Kirkpatrick, I. (2013). Alternative pathways of change in professional services
firms: The case of management consulting. Journal of Management Studies, 50(5), 777–807.
Kitay, J., & Wright, C. (2007). From prophets to profits: The occupational rhetoric of management
consultants. Human Relations, 60(11), 1613–1640.
Levina, N., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2009). Understanding Shifting Power Relations within and across
Fields of Practice: A Critical Genre Analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 672–
703.
Momparler, A., Carmona, P., & Lassala, C. (2015). Quality of consulting services and consulting
fees. Journal of Business Research, 68(7), 1458–1462.
Moran, D. (2013). Between outside and inside? Prison visiting rooms as liminal carceral spaces.
GeoJournal, 78(2), 339–351.
Mühlhaus, J., & Bouwmeester, O. (2016). The paradoxical effect of self-categorization on work
stress in a high-status occupation: Insights from management consulting. Human Relations,
69(9), 1823–1852.
Nikolova, N., Möllering, G., & Reihlen, M. (2015). Trusting as a “Leap of Faith”: Trust-building
practices in client-consultant relationships. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(2),
232–245.
O’Mahoney, J. (2011). Advisory Anxieties: Ethical Individualisation in the UK Consulting
Industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(1), 101–113.
Ozbilgin, M. F., Beauregard, T. A., Tatli, A., & Bell, M. P. (2011). Work-Life, Diversity and
Intersectionality: A Critical Review and Research Agenda. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 13(2), 177–198.
Poulfelt, F. (1997). Ethics for Management Consultants. European Review, 6(2), 65–71.
Reid, E. (2015). Embracing, Passing, Revealing, and the Ideal Worker Image: How People
Navigate Expected and Experienced Professional Identities. Organization Science, 26(4),
997–1017.
Richter, A., Dickmann, M., & Graubner, M. (2008). Patterns of human resource management in
consulting firms. Personnel Review, 37(2), 184–202.
Rogan, M., & Mors, M. L. (2017). Managerial Networks and Exploration in a Professional Service
Firm. Organization Studies, 38(2), 225–249.
Shortt, H. (2015). Liminality, space and the importance of ‘transitory dwelling places’ at work.
Human Relations, 68(4), 633–658.
Simon, A., & Kumar, V. (2001). Clients’ views on strategic capabilities which lead to management
consulting success. Management Decision, 39(5), 362–372.
Six, F., & Sorge, A. (2008). Creating a high-trust organization: An exploration into organizational
20
policies that stimulate interpersonal trust building. Journal of Management Studies, 45(5),
857–884.
Söderlund, J., & Borg, E. (2017). Liminality in Management and Organization Studies: Process,
Position and Place. International Journal of Management Reviews, 00, 1–23.
Sturdy, A. (2011). Consultancy’s consequences? A critical assessment of management
consultancy’s impact on management. British Journal of Management, 22(3), 517–530.
Sturdy, A., Clark, T., Fincham, R., & Handley, K. (2009). Between innovation and legitimation:
Boundaries and knowledge flow in management consultancy. Organization, 16(5), 627–653.
Sturdy, A., Schwarz, M., & Spicer, A. (2006). Guess who’s coming to dinner ? Structures and uses
of liminality in strategic management consultancy. Human Relations, 59(7), 929–960.
Sturdy, A., & Wright, C. (2008). A Consulting Diaspora? Enterprising Selves as Agents of
Enterprise. Organization, 15(3), 427–444.
Sturdy, A., & Wright, C. (2011). The active client: The boundary-spanning roles of internal
consultants as gatekeepers, brokers and partners of their external counterparts. Management
Learning, 42(5), 485–503.
Sveningsson, S., & Alvesson, M. (2003). Managing Managerial Identities: Organisational
fragmentation, discourse and identifty struggle. Human Relations, 56(10), 1163–1193.
Van den Bosch, F. A. J., Baaij, M. G., & Volberda, H. W. (2005). How knowledge accumulation
has changed strategy consulting: strategic options for established strategy consulting firms.
Strategic Change, 14(1), 25–34.
Whittle, A. (2008). From flexibility to work-life balance: Exploring the changing discourses of
management consultants. Organization, 15(4), 513–534.
Wright, C., & Kitay, J. (2002). But does it work? Perceptions of the impact of management
consulting. Strategic Change, 11(5), 271–278.