The future of consulting

Capability, expertise and research will lead the way as consultancy firms shift focus from processes to people, writes Claire Arnold

My name is Claire Arnold, and I am a management consultant.

Are these words that should be spoken with a sense of pride, or are they a source of embarrassment – a confession to be muttered at that guilty morning croissant or the trust-circle at workaholics anonymous amid the bankers and politicians?

The world of management consulting has come under a good deal of considered attack in recent months. For example, Francis Maude at the UK Cabinet Office singled out consultancy as one of the simplest savings open to the Civil Service in its efforts to reduce overspending in the Public Sector. How has a profession that positions itself as a thought leader dedicated to making organisations effective become such an easy hunting ground for negative press and generalised opprobrium?

The answer lies in the economics and culture of global businesses – the drivers of scale and the roots of power.

Initially, many consulting businesses were advisory offshoots of big accounting firms. With their access to and relationships with the board members of client companies, they sought to extend the management letter that accompanied the accounts into an advisory service. When this practice was outlawed and firms divided, they sought a new annuity income as a platform on which they could afford to offer advice. That platform was IT.

Encoding inefficiencies
This is a capacity rather than a capability play – one supported by an invading army of systems specialists and fraught with danger for the client. IT system implementations are billed as platforms on which massive change can be achieved in businesses, whereas in truth they are a huge burden on organisations, not to mention a comfort-blanket for executives who would rather not grasp the nettle of leadership.

There are two essential dangers here. In making custom and practice electronic, businesses code in the overall muddle and inefficiency that people manage around on a day to day basis, and in doing so remove the people who add that vital dose of common sense or local knowledge needed to make things work.

Worse still, it hands over the day to day control of activity and prioritisation to a team of outsiders whose loyalty is not to your business but to theirs. This has become the way in which the global armies employed by these big firms are kept busy, and just like the British in India, they don’t just seek to win the initial engagement – they want to move in and govern.

So, is there a future for consulting or will more organisations, like Francis Maude, ask the legions of technologists to move their applications off the lawn and reconsider their contract arrangements?

The answer will depend on leadership and honesty at the top of both consulting firms and businesses. A new model for consulting is emerging: one based on valuing capability over brute capacity and automation, with that capability developed on the foundations of expertise and research.

At its heart is the knowledge that there are only three things in any organisation: the product or service that you sell or provide, the processes by which you make decisions, and your people. Between these three elements there lies the essential truth that if you don’t pay real respect to your people, no amount of systematisation will make the business work any better or cheaper.

Shaping true engagement
Respect grows from the top. ‘Employee engagement’ will not be achieved just because you’ve put in the best software, but because the leadership has made it clear what the goals of the organisation are, that these goals are supported by firm principles, and that these principles guide decision making. So, if cost cutting is a driver, it is much more powerful to ask what we will and what we will not do in the future than it is to pass the buck down and suggest that it’s possible to do it all minus a third of the workforce. That isn’t to say that once the initial question is addressed your team won’t tell you, when asked, that they could easily make things work with fewer people – but it would be their decision.

As a result the new consultancies are smaller, and staffed by people experienced both in running businesses and in working on projects; through which they have developed deep insight and innovative approaches to provide clients with educated choices.

At the heart of these consultancies is expertise and intellectual property combined with a deep and abiding drive to get to the heart of the matter. Above all, there is a new reliance upon personal integrity and honest, straight talking relationships. At Maxxim we are proud of an individual approach to organisational challenges that resolves strategic issues and that looks to connect systems and data to the real people in an organisation – its own employees.

Claire Arnold is a founding partner of Maxxim Consulting. For more information www.maxximconsulting.com

Comments: 0
Join the discussion below

The May – June 2013 Issue

Highest corporate tax
rates in Europe

European countries are scrambling to raise every last penny of funds through taxes. But some countries may have gone too far...

Belgium

Though all business taxes in Belgium can be paid online with little effort and preparation, the rates are still sky-high at 57.7 percent, including a staggering 50.8 percent total rate on profits only in social security contributions.

Belarus

In Belarus, a company spends up to 338 hours annually preparing for and paying ten different taxes and duties. The total tax rate has incredibly been lowered to 60.7 percent, from 117.5 percent in 2008.

France

A company in France pays seven different taxes and duties, the sum of which can amount to 65.7 percent of profits; though President François Hollande has announced a wave of business tax rate cuts coming up.

Estonia

A business in Estonia pays 67.3 percent of profits in tax, 37.2 percent exclusively in social security contributions. The country has gone against the grain in Europe by raising businesses taxes from 48.6 percent in 2008 to the current rates.

Italy

While corporate income tax (IRES) in Italy is limited to 38 percent of taxable profit, a company operating in Italy can expect to pay 14 other taxes and duties, including social security contributions, bringing their total payable tax to 68.7 percent of profits, according to the World Bank.

Norway

Norway taxes motor fuels twice, with a road use tax and a CO2 emissions tax. Combined with strikes in the energy sector that have curbed output, the price of gas at a local pump has soared to $10.12 per gallon.

Turkey

Though Turkey sits on the Suez Canal and neighbours many oil rich countries, the price of a gallon of average gas clocks in at $9.41 in Turkish pumps, because of a 60 percent share of taxes. 

Israel

Like Turkey, Israel is surrounded by oil-rich neighbours, but drills very little itself. Gas prices are controlled by the government, so about half of the $9.28 per gallon goes to taxes.

Hong Kong

There are few gas stations in Hong Kong, but the ones available charge up to 76 percent more per gallon than mainland China, where the government caps the cost of fuel. A gallon at the pumps will cost around $8.61 on the island.

Netherlands

Expensive labour costs make the Dutch petrol prices the dearest in Europe, at $8.26 per gallon; though the 57 percent tax add-ons don’t help.

The credit crisis

8 February 2007
HSBC warns of subprime mortgage losses

2 April 2007
New Century goes bus

14 September 2007
Wholesale markets have dried up

17 March 2008
Rescue of Bear Stearns

7 September 2008
Rescue of Fannie Mae

15 September 2008
Lehman Brothers file for bankruptcy

3 October 2008
US congress approves $700bn bailout

14 February 2009
$787bn stimulus approved by congress

 

The effects of the current financial crisis are global and irrefutable. With the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the domino effect of irresponsible public monetary policies, huge levels of unsustainable debt, and a deregulated financial sector, has escalated to the point where no corner of the globe has been left untouched.

1973 oil crisis

October 1973
Syria and Egypt launch an attack on Israel on Yom Kippur and set off a twenty day war;

1977
US President Carter creates Department of Energy, which develops the US strategic petroleum reserve

 

The Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) used their oil reserves as a weapon with the Arab Oil Embargo against those who supported Israel. By January 1974, world oil prices were four times higher than they were at the start of the crisis, especially in the US, and the shock led to a huge drop in the stock market with NYSE losing $97bn in just six weeks.  The embargo lasted five months, and the effects are still seen today.

German hyperinflation

1922-1923

Hyperinflation
1923 – 1924
Stabilisation

 

The trouble began when Germany missed a repatriation payment, worth about one third of the German deficit in this period. Inflation was already high but by 1923 it was raging. Prices doubled within hours, and by late 1923, it cost 200bn marks to buy a single loaf of bread. People burned money as it was cheaper than buying firewood. Germany eventually regained control of its economy when it introduced the Rentenmark into circulation in 1923, and then the Reichmark in 1924.

The Great Depression

1929-1933
The Great Crash
1934-1939
Recovery and Recession

 

After the decadence of the Roaring Twenties, the 1930s saw the biggest economic slump of all time. The stock market crashed on 29 October 1929, and optimism and decadent living tumbled along with the figures. The GDP fell from $103.6bn in 1929, to $66bn in 1934 and the subsequent years of recovery were the most dramatic in US history.

1907 bankers’ panic

1907
Otto Heinze and his brother Augustus Heinze bought shares of United Copper.

 

The stock market was already cautious over the tight money supply, but the US was thrown into a depression after the stock market fell nearly 50 percent from its peak in 1906. The Heinze brothers thought they could influence market shares but ended up bankrupting lenders that provided the financing to buy the stock. A chain reaction left nine institutions bankrupt. By February 1908, the panic was over and the government created the Federal Reserve system, to prevent banks from exercising too much control over the economy.