Oxford Handbook of Management Consulting: Timothy Clark

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/293452728
Oxford Handbook of Management Consulting
Book · May 2012

DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199235049.001.0001
CITATIONS READS
105 9,056
2 authors, including:
Timothy Clark
Singapore Management University
121 PUBLICATIONS 6,166 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Timothy Clark on 08 July 2022.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 11/08/11, SPi
chapter 1
r e se a rchi ng m a nagem en t
consu lti ng: a n
i n troduction to th e
h a n dbook
m atthias k ipping
t imothy c lark*
In a relatively short period of time management consultants and management consul-

tancy have come to occupy a significant role in modern organizations. Many major
decisions in a wide range of organizations and sectors are made with the assistance of
management consultants. The impact of their advice is hard to avoid. Indeed, whether
we are aware of it or not, many of us will have experienced the outcome of some kind of
consultancy-led initiative or programme. It is, we will argue later, this sense of influence
and power, combined with concerns in relation to their accountability, that has height-
ened the profile of management consulting in the academic literature and made it a
thriving area of research.
This volume brings together contributions from leading scholars to provide a com-
prehensive and authoritative overview of the extant literature on management con-
sulting. This Handbook is therefore designed to present the full range of research and
thinking on management consulting, dispersed amongst different disciplines, sub-
disciplines, and conceptual approaches. Each chapter reviews and critically reflects
upon the existing research on a specific topic or theme before identifying potentially
productive avenues for future research. Individually, they demonstrate the diversity
of conceptual and empirical approaches and relate these to one another so that over-
laps, parallel concerns, and areas of synergy are identified. Collectively, the range of
topics covered demonstrates that although there is a fast expanding and rich body of
research on management consulting itself, it has also been used as an illustration
by scholars working in a number of disciplines to provide an example to broader
0001476834.INDD 1 11/8/2011 5:11:48 PM

 matthias kipping & timothy clark
questions. Research into management consulting is therefore an interdisciplinary

endeavour and as such provides a route into a number of critical issues that have
occupied social science over the last fifty years or so. These issues include the shifting
nature of organizations, the rise of management, the nature of knowledge, profes-
sions, fashion, and the post-industrial economy. These chapters not only provide an
unrivaled insight into management consulting as an activity but also enable readers
to develop their broader knowledge and become better informed and more rounded
social scientists.
As will be discussed at various points in this volume, definitions of management con-
sultancy are problematic because the permeable boundaries of the industry have
resulted in significant shifts over time in the composition of the industry as well as what
comprises consulting work. This means that what comprises consulting work is dynamic,
ever shifting, and contested as new firms enter the industry and techniques deemed for-
merly appropriate, change. Although the industry is characterized by periodic structural
shifts, at its heart it is an advisory activity built on the client–consultant relationship.
However, many definitions of management consulting derive from industry bodies that
have an interest in presenting the activity in a very positive light. Following is example of
an early definition of management consulting from the Association of Consulting
Management Engineers (ACME) (quoted by Higdon 1969: 306):
Management consulting is the professional service performed by specially trained

and experienced persons in helping managers identify and solve managerial and
operating problems of the various institutions of our society . . . This professional
service focuses on improving the managerial, operating, and economic performance
of these institutions.
This definition has been echoed in many subsequent definitions (such as Kubr 2002:
3–4), where consultants are frequently portrayed, and indeed like to be portrayed, as
experts who draw on a professional knowledge-base to help solve client problems of
various kinds. They are often ‘seen as synonymous with the role of professional helpers
remedying illness in client organizations’ (Fincham and Clark 2002: 7). As a number of
the chapters in this volume demonstrate, the nature of consulting knowledge and the
degree to which it has been able to professionalize are vigorously debated issues in the
literature (Kipping and Wright, Chapter 8; Kirkpatrick, Muzio, and Ackroyd, Chapter 9;
Nikolova and Devinney, Chapter 19; Werr, Chapter 12; Morris, Gardner, and Anand,
Chapter 14; Jung and Kieser, Chapter 16). In a later section this Introduction will discuss
the rise of consulting, but it is important to note here that it is perhaps this chimeral abil-
ity to avoid precise definition and to be able to constantly reinvent its core services to
meet ever changing understandings of the problems that beset contemporary organiza-
tions, which partly underpins its growing economic importance. As an industry, man-
agement consulting has proved very adaptable, as it has sought to sustain demand for its
services in a context that, occasionally, radically alters.
In terms of structure, the first section of this introductory chapter details the mer-
its of management consulting as a research topic, highlighting three reasons why it
0001476834.INDD 2 11/8/2011 5:11:48 PM

researching management consulting 
has attracted the attention of researchers: (i) While not necessarily big in overall rev-
enue terms, it grew quickly, faster than the economy as a whole in many Western
nations, especially since the 1980s; (ii) it employed many smart, or at least well-
educated people, becoming an example of the kind of knowledge work many saw as
the future of economic and business activity; and (iii), probably most importantly, its
activities impacted an ever wider number of organizations and even society as a
whole. The subsequent section will provide a chronological overview of the evolution
of research on management consulting (for earlier reviews see Armanakis and Burdg
1988; Mohe and Seidl 2009). It will show that interest in the industry was originally
limited, mainly confined to the business and even general press as well as a few inves-
tigative journalists, but that this interest accelerated in the 1950s and reached a first
high point in the late 1960s with the publication of a small number of influential
books. From the mid-1970s attention grew and diversified, with research involving,
in addition to journalists, consultants themselves and academics from a variety of
backgrounds. Academic research in particular, but also more popular accounts of
management consulting, have exploded since the 1990s, following on from the
unprecedented growth and visibility of the industry. The final section of this
Introduction will briefly explain how this Handbook has chosen to present the cur-
rent state-of-the-art thinking in academic research as well as promising avenues for
its future development.
1.1 Assessing the Importance

of Management Consultants
Today, consultants are ubiquitous in the business world even beyond their advisory
role. They frequently pop up when one leafs through business magazines, attends busi-
ness events, or checks the shelves of bookstores or billboards at airports. There is
hardly any issue of any leading business magazine that does not have an article refer-
ring to management consulting firms or individual celebrity consultants and manage-
ment gurus. According to some accounts (e.g. Faust 2002), consultants have actually
replaced academics, and even managers, as the leading ‘experts’ on business matters,
and as such are influential in determining our understanding of contemporary organ-
izational issues. They have not only become a pre-eminent ‘reference source’ but also
(co-)author articles in popular academic journals, have written many bestselling man-
agement books, and even, in some cases, publish their own periodicals (Clark,
Bhatanacharoen, and Greatbatch, Chapter 17; Engwall, Chapter 18, both this volume).
Consequently, there seems little doubt that consultants are highly visible. However,
what are the reasons for their importance and do they merit being the focus of sus-
tained research? In the following three sections we explore different potential answers
to these questions.
0001476834.INDD 3 11/8/2011 5:11:48 PM

 matthias kipping & timothy clark
1.1.1 Consulting as an Economic Activity

There is little doubt that management consulting is a business, even if most consultants
try to think of themselves—and portray themselves—as ‘trusted professional advisors’.
Management consulting has indeed become an important economic activity. Since its
boundaries are not well delineated and shift over time, it is notoriously difficult to obtain
any accurate statistics on the size of the management consulting market, globally or for
different countries, regions, and sectors. Estimates tend to be provided by industry
groups, such as the European Federation of Management Consultancies Associations
(FEACO—Fédération Européenne des Associations de Conseils en Organisation), or
industry experts, such as Kennedy Consulting Research. Kubr (2002), who has written
a widely used ‘Guide to the Profession’, estimated the global market to be worth
US$102 billion in 1999, with Europe accounting for $33 billion, as compared to a total of
$28.3 billion in 1992 (with these totals equivalent to, respectively, $133.5 and $44 billion in
2010). According to FEACO, in 2010, the European consulting market had an estimated
value of €85 billion, with ‘business consulting’ (rather than IT consulting, outsourcing,
and a few other activities) accounting for 43 per cent of this total. Taking business con-
sulting only, and applying the same proportion as that of ten years earlier, suggests that
the global market in 2010 had a value of around $150 billion. If one takes all consulting
revenues into account the resulting market size would be closer to $350 billion.
One should take all of these data as, at best, providing an order of magnitude, which
will vary widely depending on what is included, given the vague boundaries between
business and IT consulting (and even outsourcing) and with much of the market domi-
nated by individual practitioners and small firms (see Faulconbridge and Jones, Chapter 11,
this volume; Keeble and Schwalbach 1995). Nor do these estimates take into account the
size of internal consultancy activities, which have attracted attention only very recently
(see, e.g., Wright 2009; Sturdy and Wright 2011). Given the above, plus the growth of mar-
kets other than those of North America and Europe, the above estimate of $150 billion is
probably on the low side. The largest consulting firm is (by most measures) IBM Global
Business Services, which alone had revenues of $18.2 billion in 2010, which would trans-
late into a 12 per cent market share—highly unlikely in what continues to be a very frag-
mented market. Nevertheless, not all of its activities can probably be counted as
management consulting. Against this backdrop, $350 billion seems a somewhat more real-
istic estimate of market size, since this would give IBM an approximate share of 5 per cent.
Whatever their reliability in detail, these figures do show that the market has grown
significantly relative to the early 1990s (despite some setbacks following the bursting of
the Internet bubble in the early 2000s, lack of confidence after the Enron collapse in
2001, and the 2008 economic/financial crisis). This growth has at least partially contrib-
uted to a surge in academic interest from the 1990s onwards (see below). The recent rise
of management consulting as an economic activity becomes even more pronounced
when comparing the current industry size to the late 1950s, when the first more compre-
hensive market and firm data were available (Higdon 1969: 21). At the time, the US was
by far the largest market with estimated revenues for close to 2,000 consulting firms
0001476834.INDD 4 11/8/2011 5:11:48 PM

researching management consulting 
reaching $426 million (equivalent to $3.45 billion in 2010) in 1954 and $850 million with
2,700 consultancies in 1968 (a 2010 equivalent of $5.33 billion). These numbers once
again do not include the tens of thousands of individual consultants acting as sole-
traders. In comparison, the UK—even if also a relatively developed market—was only
estimated to generate total revenue of £4 million in 1956 (corresponding to just under
£80 million or $123 million in 2010), with the big four firms accounting for about three
quarters of this amount (Tisdall 1982: 9). In 2010 it had grown 100-fold, generating fee
income of just under £8 billion or $23.5 billion. The UK market seems to have remained
fairly concentrated with the Management Consulting Association’s (MCA’s) now
fifty-five member firms accounting for an estimated 70 per cent of total turnover (http://
www.mca.org.uk/about-us; accessed 14 June 2011), even if the late 1980s and early 1990s
also saw a significant growth of individual and small and medium-sized consultancies
(Keeble and Schwalbach 1995).
Throughout most of this period, therefore, consulting has grown faster than the
economies of many Western nations, partially by expanding globally (Kipping 1999).
The leading firms in terms of revenue also grew much bigger. In 1968, the largest firm
in the US was the Stanford Research Institute with $60 million in revenues ($376 mil-
lion in 2010 dollars), which corresponded to a market share of about 7 per cent. Among
those firms that are still significant today, the biggest then were Booz Allen with $50
million ($313 million in 2010) and McKinsey estimated between $22–25 million (with
$24 million equivalent to $150 million in 2010), corresponding to market shares of 5.9
and 2.8 per cent respectively. Today’s firms are significantly bigger in absolute terms
but do not seem to have increased their market share. Some of the market leaders in
the 1960s actually have a lower share today. For example, with respective revenues of
$5 and $6.6 billion in 2009 Booz Allen and McKinsey only accounted for approxi-
mately 1.4 and 1.9 per cent of a market estimated at $350 billion (see, respectively, Booz
Allen Hamilton 2009 and Forbes 2010). This suggests that the market might have
undergone some structural change since the 1950s as consulting has been both
absorbed and appropriated by other occupation groups (for more details see Kipping
2002; Galal, Richter, and Vera Wendlandt, Chapter 6; McDougald and Greenwood,
Chapter 5, both this volume).
However, while the overall size in terms of markets and firm revenues is important, it
is still small when compared to many other industries. This might explain why little of
the extant research examines the industry structure or competition among the incum-
bent firms, or changes among those firms (e.g. through exit and entry). Thus, there are
few if any studies that use approaches from economics, including ‘old’ or ‘new’ industrial
organization or population ecology (see for details Saam, Chapter 10, this volume; Clark
1995). Neither have there been traditional strategy studies, based, for example, on Porter’s
(1980) Five Forces framework. Much of this has to do with the lack of statistical data on
the industry and its lack of reliability, arising from the already mentioned blurred and
fluid boundaries. The industry has a very fragmented nature, with highly visible and
increasingly large professional service providers operating alongside a myriad of smaller
niche firms and a plethora of individual consultants. But it also shows that, as a business,
0001476834.INDD 5 11/8/2011 5:11:48 PM

 matthias kipping & timothy clark
management consulting does not seem to be of major importance. According to FEACO

(2010: 9), for instance, management consulting accounted for an estimated 0.7 per cent
of European GDP in 2010 (up from 0.24 per cent in 1998 and 0.53 per cent in 2000).
Other reasons, therefore, seem to better account for the broad interest it has received
over recent decades.
1.1.2 The Human Element in Consulting

One of the reasons for the attention paid to management consulting can be found in the
human resources it employs. As the above mentioned Forbes (2010) entry on McKinsey
notes, somewhat casually, ‘[t]he firm is among the largest hirers of newly minted MBAs
in the United States’. Ruef (2002) has traced the rise of management consulting as an
employer for a large business school in the western US between 1933 and 1997, showing
that their share increased from a meagre 2 per cent in the mid-1940s to just under one
quarter of all graduates by the 1990s. In general, management consultancies developed a
complex—often complementary, sometimes competitive—relationship with business
schools (for details see David, Chapter 4; Engwall, Chapter 18, both this volume).
Consulting firms have actually become so important for business school graduates that
there are specialized websites tracking their reputation and/or offering resources to help
potential hires land a job with a consultancy (e.g., vault.com, wetfeet.com).
But management consultancies do not only target postgraduate MBAs. Indeed, the
major source of new talent in the largest consulting firms consists of recruits fresh out of
undergraduate programmes. For example, in the late 1990s, according to the managing
director of Andersen Consulting, now Accenture, the company received 3 million appli-
cations per year worldwide (Films of Record 1999). While an astonishing number at first
sight, it is less surprising when considering both the attraction of (under)graduates to
the industry and the size of Andersen Consulting, which had grown to over 70,000
employees by 2000 (http://www.accenture.com/us-en/company/overview/history/
Pages/growth-global-leader.aspx; accessed 7 June 2011). In addition, there is significant
turnover among consulting staff due, on the one hand, to the consultancy’s up-or-out
policies and, on the other, the possible recognition among employees that the job is not
so glamorous after all, given, among other issues, the long hours, extensive travel, and,
for junior consultants, limited client exposure (Alvesson, Chapter 15, this volume;
Armbrüster 2006).
Yet, it is not the sheer numbers of consultants that have attracted most of the atten-
tion (after all, employment in the sector in absolute terms is not that high), but their
‘quality’. Consultants have become, for many, synonymous with a new type of
employee, the ‘knowledge worker’, a type that has attracted significant attention in the
popular and in the more academic management literature. The term was apparently
first coined by Peter Drucker in his 1959 book The Landmarks of Tomorrow. A number
of futurologists such as Alvin Toffler (1971) and Daniel Bell (1973) noted the
macroeconomic shift from manufacturing to services in many advanced Western
0001476834.INDD 6 11/8/2011 5:11:48 PM

researching management consulting 
economics from the 1960s (Stehr 1994). Critical to these economic and social changes
was the emerging prominence of a host of knowledge occupations such as accounting,
law, IT services, employment agencies, and management consulting. Their rise has
been seen as synonymous to a new economy where people and their knowledge rather
than physical assets have become the key competitive advantage for companies (e.g.,
Eisenhardt and Santos 2001; Newell et al. 2002; Lloyd and Sveiby 1987). At the same
time, because their key assets are in their heads, knowledge workers are seen as highly
mobile, which creates numerous problems in terms of hiring and retaining talent (e.g.
Drucker 2002). Management consultancies themselves have made a contribution to
further exacerbating this issue, by encouraging their client firms to be very active in
‘the war for talent’—the title of a book by three McKinsey consultants (Michaels,
Handfield-Jones, and Axelrod 2001).
While there has been some research about what it actually means for consultants to be
defined as ‘knowledge workers’ (see Alvesson, Chapter 15, this volume; Alvesson 2004),
studies looking at how consulting firms manage their knowledge have been more
numerous (Werr, Chapter 12; Heusinkveld and Benders, Chapter 13, both this volume)
and are part of a much larger literature on knowledge management in which consultan-
cies have been, once again, seen as providing an example for other companies, given the
(supposed) knowledge-intensive nature of their business (e.g. Hansen, Nohria, and
Tierney 1999; Alvesson 2004). But knowledge was not the only area where consultants
were considered to be exemplary, even trendsetting. There was another area related to
the idea that consultants are ‘professionals’—a term they or the firms they work for often
use to describe themselves.
Consultants were not included in the original academic research and debates on
professionalism and professional occupations (e.g. Larson 1977, Abbott 1988), in part
because of the lack of awareness of their activities but also because they had not reached
formal professional status (McKenna 2006). However, they became more interesting as
a result of changes observed in traditional professions, such as accounting and law,
which gradually loosened their previous professional obligations and drifted towards a
new type of organization, the professional service firm (PSF). PSFs became a focus of
attention in organization and management theory and were used as examples for a proc-
ess, which saw traditional professional partnerships adopt more features of ‘normal’
organizations, evolving towards what are widely called ‘managed professional busi-
nesses’ (MPB) (Hinings 2005; Von Nordenflycht 2010). Much of this research ultimately
focused on the traditional professions, namely accounting and law, but some researchers
began to examine the case of consulting, where PSFs had predated external professions,
and therefore never let the latter develop fully, while looser associations between con-
sulting and professionalism—often in purely discursive form—continued to persist
(Gross and Kieser 2006; Leicht and Lyman 2006; Kipping 2011; Muzio, Kirkpatrick, and
Kipping 2011). Nevertheless, for consulting, much of the discussion centred around the
reasons why consultants had failed to develop a professional status in the first place
(Kirkpatrick, Muzio, and Ackroyd, Chapter 9, this volume). This was another issue in
which consultants were somewhat more central in the research interest.
0001476834.INDD 7 11/8/2011 5:11:48 PM

 matthias kipping & timothy clark
1.1.3 Consultants as Promoters of Organizational

(and Societal) Change
A third reason for the attention paid to management consultants does not concern the
liveliness of their own business or the human resources behind it, but rather the consid-
erable impact it is believed they have on other organizations (for a critical review, see
Sturdy 2011). Indeed, they are frequently portrayed as shadowy figures operating in the
background but exercising considerable influence. This has clearly been the most impor-
tant reason for the interest shown towards them both in the business press and academic
research, since their influence by far exceeds their importance both in terms of size of
economic activity and employment. As research has shown, their influence has been
widespread. They have not only influenced commercial/business organizations, but also
governments (Saint-Martin, Chapter 22, this volume) and a variety of other organiza-
tions, including non-governmental organizations (NGOs), trade unions, and the church
(Macdonald 2006; also Capron 2000). Their impact has not only been exerted through
the advice they have sold, but also, if not more importantly, through their more general
pronouncements on major issues such as regulation or health care (Kipping and Wright,
Chapter 8, this volume), and even the future of capitalism (Barton 2011), and, last but not
least, through former consultants occupying leading positions in business, politics, and
society (Kipping 2012).
Their influence is not only recent. Some, like Marsh (2008: 35–40) go back as far as
antiquity, highlighting how Plato and others as outsiders shaped Greek society and pol-
ity. Possibly even more famous is Machiavelli and his advice given to The Prince (2003)
in the book with the same name (ibid.: 43–46). However, most would argue that man-
agement consulting only emerged with the ‘visible hand’ (Chandler 1977) of manage-
ment since the second industrial revolution in the second half of the nineteenth century
(Wright and Kipping, Chapter 2, this volume; for a divergent opinion McKenna 2006).
Some of the earliest and most detailed studies of how consultants tried to change
organizations—and frequently encountered resistance in doing so—cover this period.
There is, in particular, the book by Aitken (1960), examining the failed introduction of
scientific management methods at the US government arsenal in Watertown in the early
twentieth century, which even led to a congressional investigation (providing, in turn,
much of the material for the study). At that time, the US Congress also invited well-
known consultants to give their opinion on important economic issues, for example, the
regulation of rates for railway companies (Quigel 1992). Some of them, most promi-
nently Frederick Taylor, also gave occasional lectures at the newly founded business
schools, in his case, Harvard (Engwall, Chapter 18, this volume).
In terms of the actual impact of consultants, the literature is—probably not surprisingly—
divided. The extent and effect of this impact has been one of the major issues debated
vigorously in both the popular and academic literature. Many of the studies mentioned
above have highlighted the resistance of those concerned, in these cases the workers,
against the organizational changes introduced, mostly concerning the introduction of
0001476834.INDD 8 11/8/2011 5:11:48 PM

researching management consulting 
scientific management methods (for example, Littler 1982; Downs 1990; for studies
highlighting the resistance or at least reluctance of middle managers see Cailluet 2000;
Kipping 2000; Kipping and Armbrüster 2002). There are very few studies that actually
claim, based on empirical evidence, that consultants have done harm to the organiza-
tions they advise. There are, however, a number of cases discussed by journalists and
based on court documents, where clients have alleged that the consultants did not
deliver the results they promised and, in one case, were even accused of having caused
the company’s bankruptcy (see O’Shea and Madigan 1997). It should be noted that all of
these cases were eventually settled out of court and that O’Shea and Madigan (1997)
also discusses cases where the consultants, supposedly, had a positive influence. On the
other hand, there are a number of authors, many of them action researchers, who high-
light the positive effect of their own work and the work of other organizational devel-
opment consultants (see below; also Trahair and Bruce, Chapter 3, this volume). Indeed,
as Fincham and Clark (2002) point out, many of the key authors in organizational
development were reflecting on and describing their own practice. It is unsurprising
that they present such a positive picture of the consulting process and its potential
benefits to clients.
The majority of the literature, however, remains rather neutral or uncertain when it
comes to the evaluation of the effect that consultants have. A sizeable number of com-
mentators agree that consulting interventions lead to organizational change, but they
differ in terms of its depth and directionality (see Faust, Chapter 7, this volume). There
are those who believe that consultants disseminate very similar organizational templates
to their client organizations, leading them ultimately to convergence in organizational
form or to display ‘isomorphism’ (e.g. Hagedorn 1955; Chandler 1962; DiMaggio and
Powell 1983). Others argue that most organizations will not blindly copy these templates,
but adapt, hybridize, or, more generally, ‘translate’ them (see also Nikolova and Devinney,
Chapter 19, this volume). Another view, and currently possibly the dominant one among
researchers, sees the changes, if they take place at all, as mainly superficial. Following in
the footsteps of Abrahamson (1991, 1996), they argue that consultants—and other actors
in what they term the management fashion arena—induce managers to adopt new ideas,
but, just like fashionable clothes, shed them as quickly and replace them with new fash-
ions launched by those same actors (see below; also Clark, Bhatanacharoen, and
Greatbatch. Chapter 17; Jung and Kieser, Chapter 16, both this volume). This, some sug-
gest, might not necessarily cause immediate harm, but the ever changing nature of
consultancy-led techniques at the least leads to cynicism among those affected inside an
organization.
Whatever the differences in opinion, and there continue to be many, it is clear that the
main reason that management consulting has attracted such a broad interest can be
found in the (at least supposed) impact they have had on a broad range of organizations
and on even society at large. This interest seems to have been particularly strong after the
industry ‘exploded’ in the 1990s and early twenty-first century—making consultants
much more visible actors in the economy. But, as the following section will show, there
has been even earlier research covering a number of different issues (some of them
0001476834.INDD 9 11/8/2011 5:11:48 PM

 matthias kipping & timothy clark
already addressed above). This section will provide both an overview of the evolution of
this research and a snapshot of the current situation.
1.2 Extant Research: Evolution

and Current State
The following discussion will provide a chronological overview of research publications

addressing the management consulting industry—research being broadly defined as
encompassing investigative work emanating from scholars, journalists, and self-
reflecting practitioners. As has been widely noted elsewhere, and as this section will con-
firm, more narrowly defined academic research on management consulting took off
primarily in the 1990s. Nevertheless, there were studies examining the industry and its
actors before then, usually written by journalists, sometimes commissioned by the con-
sultancies themselves or their associations. Occasionally, and more by accident rather
than design, consultants also appeared on the radar of scholars working on a number of
different issues. Moreover, despite the surge in interest directed at management consul-
tancy, even today the research output has remained on the margins of the mainstream
(defined as the top-ranked, US-based management journals), with much of it being pub-
lished in the form of monographs, edited volumes, and articles in European-based jour-
nals. Many of the scholars, journalists, and (former) practitioners publishing during the
recent research boom from the 1990s have taken a broadly critical stance towards the
industry and its activities, whereas most of the earlier publications had adopted a more
neutral or even a positive tone.
1.2.1 Early Research on Consulting

The early investigative work on management consultancy came from three rather differ-
ent sources: the (business) press, which has probably shown both the earliest and the
most consistent interest almost since the inception of management consulting; the con-
sultancies themselves as well as their associations; and scholars, with most of them
‘stumbling across’ the industry while researching other issues (e.g. Jackall 1988).
Journalistic accounts of consulting firms and, in particular, of their eponymous
founders go back to the beginning of the twentieth century (if not further). Thus, the
already mentioned resistance of workers to the introduction of scientific management
at the Watertown arsenal prompted not only the intervention of the US Congress but
also a reaction in the press, with an editorial in the New York Evening Post in 1914, for
example, supporting Frederick W. Taylor and his system (Aitken 1960: 231). In addition
to Taylor, who is widely seen as the ‘father’ of scientific management and the ‘grandfather’
of management consulting (Tisdall 1982; Wright and Kipping, Chapter 2, this volume),
0001476834.INDD 10 11/8/2011 5:11:48 PM

researching management consulting 
other leading industrial engineers (and by extension the consulting firms they founded)
also received their fair share of attention.
However, at least in the first half of the twentieth century, much of the public interest
was not due to their consulting, but their social activities. For example, Charles Bedaux,
whose firm was the most important consultancy during the first half of the twentieth
century, attracted most of the attention for the adventurous expeditions he organized
though the Rocky Mountains and the Sahara. And he received even more publicity by
hosting the wedding between Wallis Simpson and the Duke of Windsor, the former King
Edward VIII, at his château in the Loire Valley as well as organizing the Duke’s subse-
quent trips to Nazi Germany and to the United States—the latter was eventually aban-
doned in the face of significant opposition from organized labour (for details on all of
these see, in particular, Christy 1984; for his consulting activities Wright and Kipping,
Chapter 2, this volume). Thus, of the 20 articles published about Bedaux in the New York
Times between 1930 and 1944 (when he committed suicide), only two dealt specifically
with his consulting activities—one of them, incidentally, with his mission ‘to Reorganize
Economy of Greece’ (published on the first page of the newspaper on 2 August 1938).
Since the 1950s, press articles dealt more frequently with a new breed of consultancies
and, in particular, with their more prominent representatives, including Booz Allen
Hamilton and McKinsey (McKenna 2006; Kipping 2012; about their rise see also David,
Chapter 4, this volume).
Journalists and freelance authors are also behind some of the first broad overviews of
the industry. An exemplar is Higdon’s (1969) book entitled The Business Healers, which
draws on data from the US-based Association of Management Consulting Engineers
(ACME), earlier press articles, interviews with consultants and their clients, as well as
personal observations. Like many of his later emulators Higdon provides an overview of
the industry and its activities, but focuses on the most visible firms at the time, dedicat-
ing entire chapters to Booz Allen Hamilton, ‘[t]he mammoth among management con-
sulting firms’ (p. 112); McKinsey, the firm with the ‘self admitted reputation for working
with the uppermost of those on Fortune’s 500 list’ (p. 148); and George S. May, ‘The Most
Brazenly Resourceful Self-Publicist of Our Time’ and, in the eyes of most industry insid-
ers ‘the black sheep of management consulting’ (p. 149). Jean-Jacques Servan-Schreiber’s
(1968) book on The American Challenge, published as the French original Le Défi
Américain in 1967, should also be mentioned. While examining the threat to European
companies posed by US multinationals, he, in passing, highlighted the role of Booz Allen
Hamilton, Arthur D. Little, and McKinsey in disseminating an ‘American-style manage-
ment that is, in its own special way, unifying Europe’ (pp. 38–39)—an observation much
quoted and investigated in the later literature (see, for example, Kipping 1999: 209;
McKenna 2006: 165).
The consultants themselves wrote books long before the publication of In Search of
Excellence (Peters and Waterman 1982), which is often regarded as the starting point for
management bestsellers authored by celebrity consultants (Clark, Bhatanacharoen, and
Greatbatch, Chapter 17; Jung and Kieser, Chapter 16, both this volume). To mention but a
few, in addition to Taylor’s works there are, for instance, Harrington Emerson’s books on
0001476834.INDD 11 11/8/2011 5:11:48 PM

 matthias kipping & timothy clark
Efficiency as a Basis for Operations and Wages (1909) and The Twelve Principles of
Efficiency (1912); James O. McKinsey’s Budgetary Control published in 1922 (Wolf 1978);
and Maynard, Stegemerten, and Schwab (1948) on Methods Time Measurement. However,
like today, these books usually tried to summarize and publicize the consultants’ ideas
rather than reflecting on their and the industry’s activities.
There are exceptions, like C. B. Thompson’s (1917) book on The Theory and Practice of
Scientific Management, which examines the implementation and effects of the diverse
systems as well as the reactions of those concerned. He relies on ‘consulting engineers’
for part of his information (p. 36) and also includes some reflections upon the role of
consultants in this process. However, it was not until the 1970s or even the 1980s, that
consultants themselves showed more interest in their own activities and, in particular,
the evolution of their own firms and the industry as a whole. There are surprisingly few
memoirs of consultants, probably due to the secrecy with which the industry has sur-
rounded itself in order to protect client confidentiality. And the few that exist were usu-
ally limited to internal use (e.g. Neukom 1975 for McKinsey). This has changed only
recently, when a series of former consultants wrote sensationalist and—usually—
damning accounts based on their own experiences (e.g. Ashford 1998; Pinault 2000;
Craig 2005).
In terms of academic research, there were numerous, usually comparative, studies of
the different systems of scientific management that were disseminated by individual
consultants or a few larger consulting firms (for an overview see Wright and Kipping,
Chapter 2, this volume), but they paid little attention to these consulting activities per se.
The same is true for the books written about the inventors and early proponents of these
different systems, and, in particular, Taylor. Thus, in their overview of the 13 ‘pioneers’ of
scientific management, Urwick and Brech (1945) did not include either Harrington
Emerson or Charles Bedaux, who through their commercial consulting activities had
made a major contribution to disseminating these ideas (Wright and Kipping, Chapter
2, this volume). But, for that same reason, they were looked down upon, even ostracized
by the ‘purists’ within the movement. This lack of recognition within the academic litera-
ture lasted until the 1980s (e.g. Nelson 1980; Merkle 1980). It was only then that another
school of thought, that is, labour process theory, recognized the roles consultants had in
imposing scientific management onto workers (see below for more details). This ‘discov-
ery’ seems to have prompted other researchers to pay closer attention to consulting in
their own work (e.g. Nelson 1992, 1995).
Another stream of academic research concerned with consulting comes from the lit-
erature on organizational development (OD). This is related to what today is called
‘action research’, when academics were deeply involved with the subjects they were
researching and, as a result, often also gave advice (for two early examples see Trahair
and Bruce, Chapter 3, this volume). Much of this literature was written by individuals
actively engaged in consulting and focused on using behavioural science methods to
build and sustain an organizations problem-solving capability (Beckhard 1969; Bennis
1969; French and Bell 1995). Perhaps Schein (1969) provided the definitive statement on
this approach to consulting when he identified the distinctiveness of the OD practitioner
0001476834.INDD 12 11/8/2011 5:11:48 PM

researching management consulting 
as a process consultant, whose role he defined as ‘a set of activities on the part of the con-
sultant which helps the client to perceive, understand, and act upon process events which
occur in the client’s environment’ (p. 9). From this perspective consulting is a joint
endeavour in which the consultant uses their expertise in ‘processes at the individual,
interpersonal, and intergroup levels’ (ibid.) to build capacity in the client to diagnose
and resolve the problem should it occur again.
Finally, there was a concluding remark in Chandler’s (1962) book Strategy and
Structure on the spread of the multidivisional form of organization, where he noted ‘the
very significant role that management consultants [. . .] have had in bringing about the
adoption of the new structure as well as introducing many other administrative innova-
tions and practices’ (pp. 381–382)—though without providing any additional details.
While made somewhat in passing at the time, it would eventually lead to his own quip
that ‘a manager once advised a colleague that he could save the $100,000 fee that
McKinsey & Company was charging corporations to oversee their reorganization by
reading a copy of Chandler’s Strategy and Structure, which could be purchased for $2.95’
(John 1997: 152, n. 2, which refers to a 1984 chapter by Chandler). The original observa-
tion would also be echoed more than 20 years later by DiMaggio and Powell (1983) in an
article, which established the foundation for research on the role of management con-
sultants in the diffusion of management ideas/fashions (see below).
Overall therefore, prior to World War II interest in consulting was almost exclusively
limited to a few articles in the business and general press, and many of these dealt with
the more ‘newsworthy’ private lives and adventures of the most visible consultants. In
this respect they were celebrities of their time who happened to be consultants. Interest
grew from the 1950s and increasingly involved, in addition to journalists, the consultants
themselves and academics who, in the case of OD, were often personally involved in
consulting activities. A first high point was reached in 1969 with the publication of the
books by Higdon and Schein. What unites all of these authors is their generally positive
attitude towards management consultancy and their belief that it could make a positive
difference if correctly applied and used. This was to change from the mid-1970s onwards,
which also saw a broadening of the approaches towards the industry.
1.2.2 Growing Interest and Divergence

While research activity occurred from the 1990s onwards, slightly lagging with the
growth of the industry itself, there were a number of significant publications during the
mid-1970s, which in many ways shaped the directions of the studies to come. Much of
the new dynamic no longer came from the business press and journalists, but from the
consultants themselves and from academia, where opinions became increasingly
divided between those seeing management consulting as positive (and even providing
normative advice on how to become a good consultant) and others who started to exam-
ine the impact that consultants had on client organizations, but diverged in terms of
evaluating it—positively or negatively (see also Section 1.1.3 above).
0001476834.INDD 13 11/8/2011 5:11:48 PM

 matthias kipping & timothy clark
The business press continued to write about the industry at an accelerating pace (see
Kipping [2012] for an overview of articles in Business Week). But there was some change
in tone with not all reporting being positive. For instance, two lawyers wrote a popular
book that was highly critical of the US government’s use of outside advisors (Guttman
and Willner 1976; see also Saint-Martin, Chapter 22, this volume). The press in general
seemed to pay more attention to the growing influence of consultants and became more
alert towards possible downsides. Thus, it appears that the sales methods used by George
S. May, which had already been criticized by Higdon (see above), also prompted some
negative reaction in the European press, not only for his firm, but for consulting more in
general (Wright and Kipping, Chapter 2, this volume).
Possibly prompted by these criticisms, in order to ascertain their own position in
the emerging ‘management fashion arena’ (Faust 2002; Jung and Kieser, Chapter 16,
this volume), consultancies began to become more active in publishing. This not
only concerned books intended for managers, like the already mentioned bestseller
In Search of Excellence by McKinsey consultants Peters and Waterman (1982), but
others that examined their own industry or firm. Thus, Tisdall (1982) wrote a book
about management consulting in the UK, commissioned by the MCA. Her book
also seems to have been motivated by the growing success of US consultancies in
the UK (see Ferguson 2001; McKenna 2006), since it focuses mainly on the home-
grown firms and their associations, the MCA, and the Institute of Management
Consultants (IMC). The accounting firms, which had also started to develop con-
sulting activities after World War II (see McDougald and Greenwood, Chapter 5,
this volume) were among the most active in publishing their histories, probably
because many of them originated in the nineteenth century and at the time reached
milestones in their development (e.g. Coopers & Lybrand 1984; Spacek’s 1989 oral
history of Arthur Andersen). Among the consulting firms, Arthur D. Little had its
centenary history written by a journalist from the New Yorker (Kahn 1986). This
was aimed at claiming its position among the leading management consultancies,
which it only entered after World War II through operations research, having pre-
viously provided contract research for the chemical and natural resources indus-
tries. Additional firms, once again mainly accounting-based ones, followed, with
similar commissioned histories in the subsequent decade (e.g. Jones 1995; Allen
and McDermott 1993).
Most importantly, the 1980s also saw an increase in academic attention towards
management consultancy. Thus, the work on OD consulting continued with some of
the most influential publications being published as updated editions (e.g., French and
Bell 1995). Furthermore, this work branched out into a much more normative literature,
which tried to provide guidelines and advice for those wanting to offer consultancy
services; a section whose numbers were swelling as the industry overall grew and as
many of the middle managers who had been made redundant as a result of de-layering
joined their ranks. Similarly, a growing series of publications sought to make the
insights from the work of the consultants available to others, in particular managers
and management students (e.g. Biech 1999; Rasiel 2001). Others, recognizing the rise of
0001476834.INDD 14 11/8/2011 5:11:48 PM

researching management consulting 
knowledge-intensive firms, developed titles specifically focusing on how to manage

these firms (e.g. Maister 1993). Since the 1990s, dedicated textbooks have been pub-
lished for the growing number of consulting courses (e.g. Wickham 1999; Biswas and
Twitchell 2001).
Taken together, all of these books might subsequently have become the most suc-
cessful parts of consulting-related publications in terms of sales. But with very few
exceptions—namely O’Mahoney’s (2010) recent textbook—they contain little if any
research, and will therefore not be discussed further. Another important exception
was first published by the International Labour Office in 1976 under the title
Management Consulting: A Guide to the Profession. While in part aimed at offering
advice to consulting practitioners, it also provides an in-depth overview and analysis
of the industry and its various facets. This is probably still the single most comprehen-
sive contribution to the literature from a practical perspective and is currently in its
fourth edition (Kubr 2002).
At the same time, other academics became interested in consulting, albeit usually
tangentially. Their work, however, foreshadowed some of the subsequent develop-
ments during the 1990s, when scholarly interest in the industry accelerated, as some
might say, ‘exploded’ (Ernst and Kieser 2002). First of all, there were some studies that
looked at consulting from a labour perspective. These studies examined cases where
consultants had contributed to the degradation of work and the deskilling of workers
posited by Braverman (1974). The most comprehensive work of this kind was con-
ducted by Littler (1982) based on several case studies of UK firms, whose consultant
was Bedaux. Subsequently, there were a growing number of studies, also by labour his-
torians, examining the reaction and resistance of workers to this process (e.g. Downs
1990). Bedaux, in particular, received increasing attention in terms of his personal life
(Christy 1984) and his consulting activities (Kreis 1990). Consulting received even
greater academic attention as labour process theory morphed into critical manage-
ment studies, where the focus extended beyond the politics of work organization and
capitalism into a more general critique of managerialism, hegemony, and power (see
below; also Nikolova and Devinney, Chapter 19; Czarniawska and Mazza, Chapter 21,
both this volume).
Second, mirroring the remarks by Chandler (1962) and Servan-Schreiber (1968),
DiMaggio and Powell (1983: 152) highlighted that ‘[l]arge organizations choose from a
relatively small set of major consulting firms, which, like Johnny Appleseeds, spread a
few organizational models throughout the land’. Their widely cited article became a kind
of manifesto for what has since been called ‘neo-institutionalism’ in management and
organization theory. And their example of consultancies as a force for mimetic isomor-
phism has significantly influenced subsequent studies of consultants as transmitters of
organizational templates (even if that idea was first voiced by Hagedorn 1955), leading to
many studies of diffusion. Unlike labour process theory, this was a more neutral view,
which is why it was eventually questioned by more critical scholars and those seeing a
translation rather than transmission process at work (for details Faust, Chapter 7, this
volume).
0001476834.INDD 15 11/8/2011 5:11:48 PM

 matthias kipping & timothy clark
1.2.3 Current State of the Art: Some Light, Many Dark Spots
The past two decades saw a general increase in publications on consulting from all the
sources mentioned above, including, in particular, from former consultants, some of
whom wrote some very harsh criticisms of the industry based on their own experiences
(see above). Journalists also showed an increased interest in the industry, both using
them as ‘experts’ on management matters and examining the consulting firms and their
role in more depth. While some of their accounts were almost ‘hagiographic’, such as
Edersheim (2004) on McKinsey’s Marvin Bower, many others took a more critical
stance, for example O’Shea and Madigan (1997), who used court filings to identify some
of their (alleged) failures, or Byrne (2002), who, following the Enron collapse, high-
lighted that many other firms advised by McKinsey had gone bankrupt.
More importantly, from the point of view of this Handbook, is the fact that this period
also saw academic research on management consulting come into its own, that is, it
treated the industry and its rapid growth as a phenomenon worthy of examination per
se. Many researchers adopted a ‘critical approach’ (Clark and Fincham 2002). Much of
this work is summarized in the chapters of this Handbook. This section, therefore, only
provides some more general remarks about the features of this research, as it has evolved
over the last two decades and presents itself at the time of writing (in mid-2011).
First of all, it is necessary to stress the importance of the work by Abrahamson (esp.
1991, 1996, 2011), who has drawn the attention of researchers towards the notion of ‘man-
agement fashions’ and of ‘fashion-setting communities’, and how the latter, which include
management consultancies, produce ideas to be consumed by managers. This sparked
research on the different waves of management fashions, usually based on a bibliometric
approach which, although criticized for its somewhat simplistic assumptions and meth-
odological shortcomings (e.g. Clark 2004), nevertheless highlighted the tremendous
impact and influence of fashionable ideas. More importantly, this research also drew
attention to the different actors within the fashion-setting communities, not least the
management consultants (e.g. David and Strang 2006), who had so far remained fairly
marginal, or rather, tangential in the interests of scholars. However, much of the research
and the subsequent publications on the topic emanated from Europe and were published
in European-based journals or, even more frequently, in the form of monographs or
contributions to edited volumes. This is all the more surprising as the industry itself
originated in the United States, where it continues to have its largest market today
(Wright and Kipping, Chapter 2; David, Chapter 4, both this volume; McKenna 2006;
Kipping 2012).
The explanation for this can be found in the fact—and this is the second important
observation about the extant academic literature—that research on management con-
sultants has found it difficult to meet the two most important conditions for publication
in the top-rated management journals in North America: the need to contribute to a
major theoretical concern and to collect systematic, ideally quantitative data as the basis
for statistical analysis and hypothesis testing. Consulting has yet to find its ‘grand’ theory
(see Salaman 2002) and, from what has already been noted above, is an industry difficult
0001476834.INDD 16 11/8/2011 5:11:48 PM

researching management consulting 
to put into databases—partially due its unclear and fluid boundaries, and partially due
to the reluctance of the main actors to share information for fear of breaching client
confidentiality. Sturdy and colleagues (2009) note the lack of research based on observa-
tions of the detailed mechanics of the client–consultant relationship in situ. Much of the
empirical research on consulting has therefore been conducted in the form of semi-
structured interviews or observational studies—which only rarely find their way into
these top-rated journals—or by historians, who are more used to incomplete data and
more amenable to either filling gaps through triangulation or living with the idea that
certain facts are ‘possible’ or ‘likely’ (rather than certain within a particular confidence
interval).
Some consulting research has been able to attach itself to bigger questions and there-
fore find its way into those journals—but this has been and continues to be an exception.
This concerns research that has dealt with the issue of knowledge management, which
was quite fashionable in the 1990s, where some empirical studies led to publications in
leading US journals such as Academy of Management Journal, Administrative Science
Quarterly, and Strategic Management Journal (e.g. Hansen and Haas 2001). But even with
respect to the knowledge-management strategies being pursued in consultancies, the
vast majority of the research was published either in practitioner-oriented journals (less
interested in formal rigour) or European outlets, which have tended to value the interest
in the phenomenon per se—something that is now also changing. Slightly more success-
ful were studies of management consulting that addressed the widely debated issues
around PSFs and their evolution (see above; also Morris, Gardner, and Anand, Chapter 14;
Kirkpatrick, Muzio, and Ackroyd, Chapter 9, this volume), but even here most of the
cases came from the more central, ‘traditional’ professions such as accounting and law,
since they offered, by definition, more comprehensive and complete data (for overviews
see Hinings 2005; Von Nordenflycht 2010).
What should also be noted here is that the lack of publications in top-rated US jour-
nals is by no means a reflection of the ‘quality’ of the extant literature. Rather, although
the topic has attracted few scholars from the United States (something that is apparent
by looking at the contributors to this Handbook), the literature is more varied in its
underlying theoretical frameworks and, possibly, somewhat more critical than it might
have been otherwise—and this is, we believe, ultimately a good thing.
Third, it needs to be highlighted that different academic disciplines have contributed
to a very different degree to consulting research. In this respect, sociology—as well as
management and organization studies based on sociological approaches—and econom-
ics present the opposite ends of the spectrum (see, respectively, Faust, Chapter 7; Saam,
Chapter 10, both this volume; also Armbrüster 2006). While research based on the
former abounds, at least in relative terms, economists have produced little to elucidate
the management consulting industry, with almost all studies coming from heterodox, in
particular neo-institutional rather than orthodox, neo-classical economics. This is not
surprising given the lack of data for econometric analysis and the complexity of the phe-
nomenon, which make formalization, for example through game theoretical modelling,
close to impossible. A similar dichotomy can be found between history and geography.
0001476834.INDD 17 11/8/2011 5:11:49 PM

 matthias kipping & timothy clark
The former has produced a large body of—usually atheoretical—research, not only in
English but also in many other languages, tracing the industry’s development either in
particular countries or focusing on particular types of service, such as strategy or scien-
tific management (see Part I in this volume for the latter and also above). A geographic
perspective, by contrast, has only informed a handful of major studies despite significant
potential, which could have linked the consulting phenomenon to important issues such
as globalization (and spatial dislocation) or the rise and role of cities (see, for details,
Faulconbridge and Jones, Chapter 11, this volume).
The chapters in this volume attempt to reflect the diverse, albeit skewed, nature of the
extant academic literature. They also attempt to highlight possible avenues for future
research within existing approaches. Thus, the final chapters in this Handbook point to
important issues, where management consulting has yet to become the object of serious
study, including, in no particular order, ethics, post-colonialism, and gender. The next
subsection gives an overview of the Handbook’s structure and briefly summarizes the
main contribution of each of the chapters.
1.3 Structure and Contribution

of the Handbook
This book is not the first attempt at summarizing the extant academic literature and
offering a kind of stepping stone for future research. While geared more towards
practitioners, Kubr (2002) also provides an overview of some of that literature. Two
edited volumes were published in 2002 with more of an academic focus. Clark and
Fincham (2002) brought together some of the leading critical researchers on man-
agement consultancy. Although not intended to imply that these commentators and
researchers shared identical views about consulting as an activity, the label ‘critical’
was used to highlight the fact that client demand for consulting cannot be assumed.
Building on Alvesson’s (1993) observation that consulting is beset by ambiguities in
relation to the nature of its knowledge (i.e., its constant churn), its perceived value
(i.e., is it superior to other forms of knowledge on organizations?), and its relation to
the outcomes of a project (i.e., did consultants make the difference?), it is argued that
consultants have to actively convince clients of their value and worth. The critical
approach therefore emphasizes the inherent vulnerability of consulting to shifting
perceptions of its legitimacy and value and the need to constantly establish its credi-
bility via a range of strategies. By contrast, the contributions in Kipping and Engwall
(2002) took a more comparative and historical perspective, examining the develop-
ment of the industry in a wide range of countries, focusing in particular on how con-
sultants gained legitimacy, how they managed their knowledge, and how they
interacted with their clients. Finally, concurrently with this Handbook, Avakian
and Clark (2012) are publishing a double volume collection of many of the key
0001476834.INDD 18 11/8/2011 5:11:49 PM

researching management consulting 
publications on management consulting. These two volumes compliment this

Handbook in that they provide ready access to many of the works that have most
influenced thinking about management consulting and are frequently referenced in
the subsequent chapters.
In terms of its structure, this Handbook is organized around some of the dominant
themes in the literature. Thus, the first part focuses on the history of the industry, which
not only reflects the fact that management consultants have influenced organizations
for over a century, but also the strength of historical research on the industry. The chap-
ters are organized chronologically, with Wright and Kipping examining the important
origins of consulting in engineering and scientific management (see also above).
Breaking with some perceived wisdom they show how consultants contributed signifi-
cantly to the spread of these approaches, some of which continue to be applied today.
The next chapter by Trahair and Bruce traces the trajectories of two of the pioneers of
the human relations school, Elton Mayo and Eric Trist, whose ideas influenced many
human resources (HR) consultancies and whose action research also prefigured some
of the later OD consulting. David, in the following chapter, focuses on the institutional
context, in which strategy consulting emerged and expanded in the United States, sug-
gesting that changes in this context created opportunities subsequently exploited by a
number of still well-known consultancies. The next two chapters (by, respectively,
McDougald and Greenwood, and Galal, Richter, and Wendlandt) focus on firms that
entered management consulting later from different origins—respectively, accounting
and information technology. In both cases, they not only show how these firms eventu-
ally came to dominate the industry (or became pre-eminent players in the industry),
but also explain the consequences of this evolution for the organization management
and continuing resilience of these firms.
The second part of this Handbook provides extensive overviews of the various dis-
ciplinary approaches in the research on consulting, highlighting the significant differ-
ences in their respective contributions. Sociological perspectives, as shown in the
chapter by Faust, have so far dominated much of the extant research. He subdivides
the rich literature into two major perspectives, institutional and cognitive–cultural on
the one hand, relational and structural on the other, and argues for an increased dia-
logue, if not integration, between the two. In another broad-based overview, Kipping
and Wright examine management consulting from one of the key debates in the social
sciences—the extent to which national business systems are converging. While the rel-
evant literature seems to point towards convergence, there are also counter indica-
tions depending, to a large extent, on the level of analysis. As mentioned by Faust and
discussed above, one of the major sociological questions concerns the nature and role
of professionalism and professionalization in management consulting. The quite
extensive extant research is examined in depth by Kirkpatrick, Muzio, and Ackroyd,
who focus on the reasons why professionalism has remained rather weak and what
consequences this has had for the industry. The final two chapters in this part of the
Handbook discuss two academic disciplines, which so far have contributed relatively
little to our understanding of the management consulting phenomenon: economics
0001476834.INDD 19 11/8/2011 5:11:49 PM

 matthias kipping & timothy clark
(discussed by Saam) and geography (summarized by Faulconbridge and Jones). In

both cases, management consulting has only received marginal attention. This is
unsurprising for economics, where mainstream approaches either lack the data or the
tools to deal with its complexity. It is more surprising for geography, where issues
of proximity and distance play an important role for consulting success with clients,
and where consultants have played an important part in the decisions about the
(re)location of economic activities.
The next three parts develop in greater depth three of the issues that have found most
attention in the previous literature: knowledge management, relationship with manage-
ment fashion, and consultant–client interaction. The chapters in the part on knowledge
management address the notion that, at their core, management consultants are creators
and disseminators of management knowledge and have therefore been viewed as exem-
plars of knowledge-management processes. Werr begins with a broad overview examin-
ing the nature of consulting knowledge, how it is shared within the firm, whether these
processes impact on performance, and how consultancies create new knowledge.
Heusinkveld and Benders pick up on the last theme and explore how consultancies
engage in ‘new concept development’ and then apply this knowledge in different client
contexts. Morris, Gardner, and Anand draw on the literature on professional service
firms to initially examine the different macrostructural arrangements adopted by con-
sulting forms and how these have changed over time. Following this they discuss the
microstructural arrangements, which underpin how work is organized in these firms.
Alvesson’s chapter completes this part by identifying the special features of knowledge
work and what these imply for the management of knowledge workers, their retention,
and identities. This chapter stresses the importance of normative control within consult-
ing firms.
The chapters in the fourth part of this Handbook focus on the relationship between
management consulting and fashion. Jung and Kieser examine the nature of manage-
ment fashions, their importance in generating client demand, and the role that consult-
ants play as members of a ‘management fashion arena’. Clark, Greatbatch, and
Bhatanacharoen look at a group of celebrity consultants known as management gurus.
They stress how their celebrity status is founded on their ability to create and dissemi-
nate fashionable management ideas through bestselling management books and lec-
tures. Engwall’s chapter turns to examining the relationship between business schools
and strategy consulting in terms of the latter’s supply of graduates, their role in fostering
‘celebrity consultants’, and the way in which these consultancies have emulated various
features of business schools.
The fifth part of this Handbook focuses on a core and much researched aspect of
consulting—the client–consultant relationship. Nikolova and Devinney provide a
detailed overview of the literature on this relationship by identifying three broad and
contrasting models: the expert/functionalist, the social learning perspective, and the
critical approach. The features of each model are explored in relation to a common set of
factors (nature of consulting, nature of client–consultant interaction, power relations).
Fincham seeks to rebalance the current focus on the consultant side of the relationship
0001476834.INDD 20 11/8/2011 5:11:49 PM

researching management consulting 
by stressing the role of clients. His chapter demonstrates how such an approach can
generate new understanding in relation to the knowledge creation, power, and depend-
ency in the client–consultant relationship, and the notion of the client itself. Czarniawska
and Mazza adopt a social constructivist perspective to examine the client–consultant
relationship; drawing on Luhmann, the role of consultants as ‘merchants of meaning’;
and, drawing on ideas from anthropology, consulting as a ‘liminal condition’. Saint-
Martin looks at the role of consultants in central government, why their use has
expanded and the possible consequences of the growing influence of consultants for the
operation of government (both positive and negative).
The final section of this Handbook is intended to be exploratory by considering how
to develop existing areas of focus in terms of potential gaps but also identifying new
approaches that are currently absent from the literature but have strong potential to con-
tribute to broadening our understanding consulting work. In this respect Sturdy draws
together a number of the themes of earlier chapters and introduces others to identify
productive areas for future research in terms of empirical, theoretical, and methodologi-
cal focus, as well as addressing the absence of importance groups such as employees,
unions, and citizens. Freeman and Krehmeyer discuss how different approaches from
the literature on ethics could expand our understanding of consulting work, help focus
on the codes of ethics that operate within the consulting industry, as well as assist in
addressing debates around the ethics of consulting (i.e., confidentiality, client’s interest,
conflicts of interest). Kelan reviews the literature on gender in consulting to illustrate
that many of the broader endemic organizational gender issues are present within con-
sulting. This chapter emphasizes the fact that future work would benefit from examining
the gendered nature of the career model, consulting skills, and the notion of the ideal
consultant. The final chapter of this Handbook by Frankel and Shenhav considers the
implications of a post-colonial perspective for future thinking and research on consult-
ing work. Their main point is that studies examining consulting work at a global level,
and in emerging markets in particular, need to move away from such stereotypes as
‘Western-advanced’ and ‘Third World-developing’ since these perpetuate historical
power relations and a ‘sense of supremacy’, with the former shaping the latter in their
own image. To overcome this imbalance and to ensure appropriate prominence for and
sensitivity to non-Western interests they propose a ‘hybrid space’, which actively recog-
nizes the immediate market conditions of the relationship as well as the ‘historically sit-
uated geopolitical context’.
Individually, the chapters offer authoritative overviews of the key themes in the extant
and emergent literature on management consulting. Collectively, they demonstrate the
breadth of empirical and theoretical approaches adopted, the opportunities to extend
these, and the degree to which work in this area is highly interdisciplinary. As we stated
at the outset of this chapter, research on management consulting is a vibrant area of
study which generates important insights that contribute to broader debates in business
and management and the social sciences. We very much hope that the contributions in
this Handbook will galvanize readers to conduct research that further expands our
understanding of management consulting.
0001476834.INDD 21 11/8/2011 5:11:49 PM

 matthias kipping & timothy clark
Note
* We are grateful to Pojanath Bhatanacharoen, Robin Fincham, and Chris Wright for their
helpful comments on an earlier version of this chapter.
References
Abbott, A. (1988). The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Abrahamson, E. (1991). ‘Managerial Fads and Fashions: The Diffusion and Rejection of
Innovations’. Academy of Management Review, 16/3, 586–612.
Abrahamson, E. (1996). ‘Management Fashion’. Academy of Management Review, 21/1,
254–285.
Abrahamson, E. (2011). ‘The Iron Cage: Ugly, Uncool, and Unfashionable’, Organization Studies,
32/5, 615–629.
Aitken, H. (1960). Taylorism at Watertown Arsenal: Scientific Management in Action, 1908–1915.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Allen, D. G. and McDermott, K. (1993). Accounting for Success: A History of Price Waterhouse
in America 1890–1990. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Alvesson, M. (1993). ‘Organizations as Rhetoric: Knowledge Intensive Firms and the Struggle
with Ambiguity’, Journal of Management Studies, 30/6, 997–1,019.
Alvesson, M. (2004). Knowledge Work and Knowledge-Intensive Firms. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Armenakis, A.A. and Burdg, H.B. (1988). ‘Consultation Research: Contributions to Practice
and Directions for Improvement’. Journal of Management, 14/2, 339–365.
Ashford, M. (1998). Con Tricks: The Shadowy World of Management Consultancy and How to
Make it Work for You. London: Simon & Schuster.
Avakian, S. and Clark, T. (eds.) Management Consultants—Volumes 1 and 2 (Part of the Inter-
national Library of Critical Writings on Business and Management Series). Edward Elgar.
Barton, D. (2011). ‘Capitalism for the Long Term’. Harvard Business Review, 89/3 (March),
84–91.
Beckhard, R. (1969) Organizational Development. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bell, D. (1973) The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting. New York:
Basic Books.
Bennis, W.G. (1969) The Nature of Organization Development. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Biech, E. (1999). The Business of Consulting: The Basics and Beyond. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass Pfeiffer.
Biswas, S. and Twitchell, D. (2001). Management Consulting: A Complete Guide to the Industry.
2nd edn. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Booz Allen Hamilton (2009). Annual Report for 2009. http://www.boozallen.com/about/
annual-report; accessed 14 June 2010.
Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth
Century. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Byrne, J. A. (2002). ‘Inside McKinsey’. Business Week, 8 (July), 54–62.
Cailluet, L. (2000). ‘McKinsey, Total-CFP et la M-Form: Un exemple français d’adaptation d’un
modèle d’organisation importé’. Entreprises et Histoire, 25 (October), 26–45.
0001476834.INDD 22 11/8/2011 5:11:49 PM

researching management consulting 
Capron, M. (2000). ‘Les experts des comités d’entreprise en France: une coopération originale
avec les représentants des salariés’. Entreprises et Histoire, 25 (October), 93–103.
Chandler Jr, A. D. (1962). Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial
Enterprise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chandler Jr, A. D. (1977). The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business.
Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Christy, J. (1984). The Price of Power: A Biography of Charles Eugène Bedaux. Toronto:
Doubleday.
Clark, T. (1995). Managing Consultants: Consultancy as the Management of Impressions.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Clark, T. (2004). ‘The Fashion of Management Fashion: A Surge Too Far?’ Organization, 11/2,
297–306.
Clark, T. and Fincham, R. (2002). Critical Consulting: New Perspectives on the Management
Advice Industry. Oxford: Blackwell.
Coopers & Lybrand (1984). The Early History of Coopers & Lybrand. Fiftieth anniversary,
1898–1948. Reprint. New York: Garland.
Craig, D. (2005). Rip Off! The Scandalous Inside Story of the Management Consulting Money
Machine. London: The Original Book Company.
David, R. J. and Strang, D. (2006). ‘When Fashion is Fleeting: Transitory Collective
Beliefs and the Dynamics of TQM Consulting’. Academy of Management Journal,
49/2, 215–233.
DiMaggio, P. and Powell, W. (1983). ‘The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and
Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields’. American Sociological Review, 48 (April),
147–160.
Downs, L. L. (1990). ‘Industrial Decline, Rationalization and Equal Pay: The Bedaux Strike at
Rover Automobile Company’. Social History, 15/1: 45–73.
Drucker, P. F. (1959). The Landmarks of Tomorrow: A Report on the New ‘Post-Modern’ World.
London: Heinemann.
Drucker, P. F. (2002). ‘They’re Not Employees, They’re People’. Harvard Business Review, 80/2
(February), 70–77.
Edersheim, E. H. (2004). McKinsey’s Marvin Bower: Vision, Leadership, and the Creation of
Management Consulting. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Eisenhardt, K. M. and Santos, F. M. (2001). ‘Knowledge-Based View: A New Theory of Strategy?’
In A. Pettigrew, H. Thomas, and R. Whittington (eds), Handbook of Strategy and Management.
London: Sage’ 139–164.
Emerson, H. (1909). Efficiency as a Basis for Operations and Wages. New York: The Engineering
Magazine.
Emerson, H. (1912). The Twelve Principles of Efficiency. New York: The Engineering Magazine
Company.
Ernst, B. and Kieser, A. (2002). ‘In Search of Explanations for the Consulting Explosion’. In
K. Sahlin-Andersson and L. Engwall (eds), The Expansion of Management Knowledge:
Carriers, Flows, and Sources. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 47–73.
Faust, M. (2002). ‘Consultancies as Actors in Knowledge Arenas: Evidence from Germany’. In
M. Kipping and L. Engwall (eds.), Management Consulting: Emergence and Dynamics of a
Knowledge Industry. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 146–163.
FEACO (2010). Survey of the European Management Consultancy 2009/2010. Brussels:
Fédération Européenne des Associations de Conseils en Organisation (FEACO).
0001476834.INDD 23 11/8/2011 5:11:49 PM

 matthias kipping & timothy clark
Ferguson, M. (2001). From Efficiency Engineer to Consultant, From Productivity to Strategy: The
History of Management Consulting in Britain. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Films of Record (1999). Masters of the Universe, Channel 4 (UK), London.
Fincham, R. and Clark, T. (2002). ‘Introduction: The Emergence of Critical Perspectives on
Consulting’. In T. Clark and R. Fincham (eds), Critical Consulting: New Perspectives on the
Management Advice Industry. Oxford: Blackwell, 1–18.
Forbes (2010). ‘McKinsey’. In ‘America’s Largest Private Companies’. Available at http://www.
forbes.com/lists/2010/21/private-companies-10_McKinsey-Co_IPPW.html; accessed 30
September 2011.
French, W.L. and Bell, C.H. (1995) Organization Development: Behavioural Science Interventions
for Organization Improvement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gross, C. and Kieser, A. (2006). ‘Are Consultants Moving Towards Professionalization?’ In
R. Greenwood, R. Suddaby, and M. McDougald (eds), Professional Service Firms (Research
in the Sociology of Organizations, vol. 24). Oxford: JAI Press, 69–100.
Guttman, D. and Willner, B. (1976). The Shadow Government: The Government’s Multi-Dollar
Give-Away of its Decision-Making Powers to Private Management Consultants, Experts and
Think Tanks. New York: Pantheon.
Hagedorn, H. (1955). ‘The Management Consultant as Transmitter of Business Techniques’.
Explorations in Entrepreneurial History, 7, 164–173.
Hansen, M.T. and Haas, M. R. (2001). ‘Competing for attention in knowledge markets:
Electronic document circulation in a management consulting company’. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 46/1, 1–28.
Hansen, M T, Nohria, N. and Tierney, T. (1999). ‘What is your strategy for managing knowl-
edge ?’, Harvard Business Review, 77/2, 106–16.
Higdon, H. (1969). The Business Healers. New York: Random House.
Hinings, C. R. (2005). ‘The Professions’. In S. Ackroyd, R. Batt, P. Thompson, and P. S. Tolbert
(eds), The Oxford Handbook of Work and Organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
485–507.
Jackall, R. (1988). Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate Managers. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
John, R. R. (1997). ‘Elaborations, Revisions, Dissents: Alfred D. Chandler Jr’s, “The Visible
Hand” after Twenty Years’. Business History Review, 71/2, 151–200.
Jones, E. (1995). True and Fair: The History of Price Waterhouse. London: Hamish Hamilton.
Kahn, E. J. (1986). The Problem Solvers: A History of Arthur D. Little, Inc. Boston: Little Brown.
Keeble, D. and Schwalbach, J. (1995). ‘Management Consultancy in Europe’. ESRC Centre for
Business Research, University of Cambridge, Working paper no.1.
Kipping, M. (1999). ‘American Management Consulting Companies in Western Europe, 1910s
to 1990s: Products, Reputation, and Relationships’. Business History Review, 73/2, 190–220.
Kipping, M. (2000). ‘Consultancy and Conflicts: Bedaux at Lukens Steel and the Anglo-Iranian
Oil Company’. Entreprises et Histoire, 25, 9–25.
Kipping, M. (2002). ‘Trapped in Their Wave: The Evolution of Management Consultancies’. In
T. Clark and R. Fincham (eds), Critical Consulting: New Perspectives on the Management
Advice Industry. Oxford: Blackwell, 28–49.
Kipping, M. (2011). ‘Hollow from the Start? Image Professionalism in Management Consulting’.
Current Sociology, 59/4 (July), 530–550.
Kipping, M. (2012). From Racket to Riches: The Management Consultancy Business in Historical
and Comparative Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
0001476834.INDD 24 11/8/2011 5:11:49 PM

researching management consulting 
Kipping, M. and Armbrüster, T. (2002). ‘The Burden of Otherness: Limits of Consultancy

Interventions in Historical Case Studies’. In M. Kipping and L. Engwall (eds), Management
Consulting: Emergence and Dynamics of a Knowledge Industry. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 203–221.
Kipping, M. and Engwall, L. (eds) (2002). Management Consulting: Emergence and Dynamics
of a Knowledge Industry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kreis, S. (1990). ‘The Diffusion of an Idea: A History of Scientific Management in Britain,
1890–1945’. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia.
Kubr, M. (2002 [1976]). Management Consulting: A Guide to the Profession. Geneva: International
Labour Office.
Larson, M. S. (1977). The Rise of Professionalism: A Sociological Analysis. Berkeley, CA: University
of California Press.
Leicht, K. T. and Lyman, E. C. M. (2006). ‘Markets, Institutions and the Crisis of Professional
Practice’. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 24, 17–44.
Littler, C. (1982). The Development of the Labour Process in Capitalist Societies: A Comparative
Analysis of Work Organisation in Britain, the USA, and Japan. London: Heinemann.
Lloyd, T. and Sveiby, K-E. (1987) Managing Know How: Add Value by Valuing Creativity.
London: Bloomsbury.
Macdonald, S. (2006). ‘Babes and Sucklings: Management Consultants and Novice Clients’.
European Management Journal, 24/6, 411–421.
Machiavelli, N. (2003). The Prince. London: Longman.
Maister, D. (1993). Managing the Professional Service Firm. New York: Free Press.
Maynard, H. B., Stegemerten, G. J., and Schwab, J. L. (1948). Methods Time Measurement.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
McKenna, C. (2006). The World’s Newest Profession: Management Consulting in the Twentieth
Century. New York: Cambridge University Press.
McKinsey, J. O. (1922). Budgetary Control. New York: Ronald Press.
Merkle, J. E. (1980). Management and Ideology: The Legacy of the International Scientific
Management Movement. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H., and Axelrod, B. (2001). The War for Talent. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
Mohe, M. and Seidl, D. (2011). ‘Theorizing the Client–Consultant Relationship from the
Perspective of Social-Systems Theory’ Organization, 18: 3–22.
Muzio, D., Kirkpatrick, I., and Kipping, M. (2011). ‘Professions, Organizations and the State:
Applying the Sociology of the Professions to the Case of Management Consultancy’, Current
Sociology, 59/6 (December), forthcoming.
Nelson, D. (1980). Frederick W. Taylor and the Rise of Scientific Management. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press.
Nelson, D. (ed.) (1992). A Mental Revolution: Scientific Management since Taylor. Columbus:
Ohio State University Press.
Nelson, D. (1995). ‘Industrial Engineering and the Industrial Enterprise’. In N. R. Lamoreaux
and D. M. G. Raff (eds), Coordination and Information: Historical Perspectives on the
Organization of Enterprise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 35–50.
Neukom, J. G. (1975). McKinsey Memoirs: A Personal Perspective. New York: Privately Printed.
Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., Swan, J., and Robertson, M. (2002). Knowledge Work and Knowledge
Workers. London: Palgrave.
O’Mahoney, J. (2010). Management Consultancy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
0001476834.INDD 25 11/8/2011 5:11:49 PM

 matthias kipping & timothy clark
O’Shea, J. and Madigan, C. (1997). Dangerous Company: The Consulting Powerhouses and the
Businesses They Save and Ruin. London: Nicholas Brealey.
Peters, T. J. and Waterman Jr, R. H. (1982). In Search of Excellence: Lessons from American Best-
Run Companies. New York: Harper & Row.
Pinault, L. (2000). Consulting Demons: Inside the Unscrupulous World of Global Corporate
Consulting. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy. New York: Free Press.
Quigel Jr, J. P. (1992). ‘The Business of Selling Efficiency: Harrington Emerson and the Emerson
Efficiency Engineers, 1900–1930’. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Pennsylvania State
University.
Rasiel, E. M. (2001). The McKinsey Way: Using the Techniques of the World’s Top Strategy
Consultants to Help You and Your Business. New York: McGraw Hill Professional.
Ruef, M. (2002). ‘At the Interstices of Organizations: The Expansion of the Management
Consulting Profession, 1933–1997’. In K. Sahlin-Andersson and L. Engwall (eds), The
Expansion of Management Knowledge: Carriers, Flows, and Sources. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press, 74–95.
Schein, E.H. (1969) Process Consultation: Its Role in Organization Development. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Servan-Schreiber, J. J. (1968). The American Challenge. New York: Atheneum.
Spacek, L. (1989). The Growth of Arthur Andersen & Co., 1928–1973: An Oral History. New York:
Garland.
Stehr, N. (1994). Knowledge Societies. London: Sage.
Sturdy, A. (2011), ‘Consultancy’s Consequences? A Critical Assessment of Management
Consultancy’s Impact on Management’, British Journal of Management, 22, 517–530.
Sturdy, A. and Wright, C. (2012). ‘The Active Client: The Boundary-Spanning Roles of Internal
Consultants as Gatekeepers, Brokers and Partners of their External Counterparts’.
Management Learning, forthcoming.
Sturdy, A., Clark, T., Fincham, R., and Handley, K. (2009). Management Consultancy in Action:
Relationships, Knowledge and Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thompson, C. B. (1917). The Theory and Practice of Scientific Management. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Tisdall, P. (1982). Agents of Change: The Development and Practice of Management Consultancy.
London: Heinemann.
Toffler, A. (1971). Future Shock. London: Pan Books.
Urwick, L. and Brech, E. (1945). The Making of Scientific Management. Vol. I: Thirteen Pioneers.
London: Pitman.
Von Nordenflycht, A. (2010). ‘What is a Professional Service Firm? Towards a Theory and
Taxonomy of Knowledge Intensive Firms’. Academy of Management Review, 35/1, 155–174.
Wickham, P. A. (1999). Management Consulting. London: FT Prentice Hall.
Wolf, W. B. (1978). Management and Consulting: An Introduction to James O. McKinsey. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press.
Wright, C. (2009). ‘Inside Out? Organizational Membership, Ambiguity and the Ambivalent
Identity of the Internal Consultant’. British Journal of Management, 20/3, 309–322.
0001476834.INDD 26 11/8/2011 5:11:49 PM
View publication stats

Oxford Handbook of Management Consulting: Timothy Clark

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Oxford Handbook of Management Consulting: Timothy Clark

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Oxford Handbook of Management Consulting: Timothy Clark

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Oxford Handbook of Management Consulting

Book · May 2012

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

In a relatively short period of time management consultants and management consul-

0001476834.INDD 1 11/8/2011 5:11:48 PM

 matthias kipping & timothy clark

questions. Research into management consulting is therefore an interdisciplinary

Management consulting is the professional service performed by specially trained

0001476834.INDD 2 11/8/2011 5:11:48 PM

researching management consulting 

1.1 Assessing the Importance

0001476834.INDD 3 11/8/2011 5:11:48 PM

 matthias kipping & timothy clark

1.1.1 Consulting as an Economic Activity

0001476834.INDD 4 11/8/2011 5:11:48 PM

researching management consulting 

0001476834.INDD 5 11/8/2011 5:11:48 PM

 matthias kipping & timothy clark

management consulting does not seem to be of major importance. According to FEACO

1.1.2 The Human Element in Consulting

0001476834.INDD 6 11/8/2011 5:11:48 PM

researching management consulting 

0001476834.INDD 7 11/8/2011 5:11:48 PM

 matthias kipping & timothy clark

1.1.3 Consultants as Promoters of Organizational

0001476834.INDD 8 11/8/2011 5:11:48 PM

researching management consulting 

0001476834.INDD 9 11/8/2011 5:11:48 PM

 matthias kipping & timothy clark

1.2 Extant Research: Evolution

The following discussion will provide a chronological overview of research publications

1.2.1 Early Research on Consulting

0001476834.INDD 10 11/8/2011 5:11:48 PM

researching management consulting 

0001476834.INDD 11 11/8/2011 5:11:48 PM

 matthias kipping & timothy clark

0001476834.INDD 12 11/8/2011 5:11:48 PM

researching management consulting 

1.2.2 Growing Interest and Divergence

0001476834.INDD 13 11/8/2011 5:11:48 PM

 matthias kipping & timothy clark

0001476834.INDD 14 11/8/2011 5:11:48 PM

researching management consulting 

knowledge-intensive firms, developed titles specifically focusing on how to manage

0001476834.INDD 15 11/8/2011 5:11:48 PM

 matthias kipping & timothy clark

0001476834.INDD 16 11/8/2011 5:11:48 PM

researching management consulting 

0001476834.INDD 17 11/8/2011 5:11:49 PM

 matthias kipping & timothy clark

1.3 Structure and Contribution

0001476834.INDD 18 11/8/2011 5:11:49 PM

researching management consulting 

publications on management consulting. These two volumes compliment this

0001476834.INDD 19 11/8/2011 5:11:49 PM

 matthias kipping & timothy clark

(discussed by Saam) and geography (summarized by Faulconbridge and Jones). In

0001476834.INDD 20 11/8/2011 5:11:49 PM