Suppose you hire a local landscaping firm to care for your lawn. During a backyard party, if a guest comments that your bushes are overgrown and the grass is cut unevenly, you might respond that it’s that darn service you contracted with.
If the same guest commented how beautiful your lawn looks, you might be just as likely to say “Thank you” and avoid the confusion of explaining to him that you hire a firm to handle it. You were, after all, responsible for hiring the landscapers, right?
Thick skin in consulting
The same situation applies in the consulting and professional services industry. The client tends to hold the consultant responsible when things wrong. But they’re willing to claim the credit when things go well.
A good executive knows how to manage risks. When she leads up a major initiative, she will transfer some of that risk by hiring a consulting firm to provide advice, project management and any other expertise needed to insure success for the project.
Moreover, the executive is paying a premium for consultants and expects an equally high level of competence. When things go wrong, regardless of whose fault it is, clients will hold the consultants accountable. This can range from being as subtle as asking them what their plan is to correct it, to a screaming fit of outrage .
If it occurs too often, the consultant may decide that they won’t work with such an abusive client. But often times, all a consultant can do is take it. Scapegoating comes along with the territory.
A good consulting firm needs to be successful from three aspects: Delivery, Sales and Recruiting. This is often considered the three-headed monster of consulting
The three headed monster
Delivery, the act of ...