Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Consultancies: Agents of Organizational Development. Part II

1994, Leadership & Organization Development Journal

Abstract

Presents the results of a first research survey of consulting firms within the United Kingdom. Examines the usefulness of knowledge typology as a way of categorizing firms and the differences, if any, between the firms. Explores the firms′ sources of knowledge, knowledge networks, transfer of knowledge or expertise, and consultant knowledge and skills. Discusses the implications of the survey and presents an agenda for action which comprises of future research into the usefulness of the typologies. Concludes by saying that a more precise instrument is needed to classify parts of organizations as well as the whole and there is a need to examine the particular problems of managing a consultancy firm.

Key takeaways

  • This industry is management consultancy and it is characteristic of what we call a "knowledge industry".
  • In addition, we can divide knowledge industries into those which transfer knowledge or expertise (e.g. consultancy, training, education), and those which do not (e.g. law, architecture).
  • Greiner and Nees are insistent that it is the firms' style that dominates the professional values of the consultants it employs, a point taken up by Pennarola (1992), who stresses that firm culture, rather than professional culture, is the defining experience of management consultancy work.
  • Now it is clear, should the authors' arguments be accepted, that the different typologies of knowledge would lead to different modes of organization of management consultancy work (Table III).
  • Nor does it imply any necessary difference in their position in our knowledge of typology creation, praxis or application; though we would expect process firms to be more based in clan control than the task firms.