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.