Acronym

"The reality is that the fastest growing, most innovative, and most influential associations in the world are the most prolific users of consulting services."

That's an awfully strong assertion to be making without giving any examples.

It largely depends on why and how one selects and hires the consultant. If it's truly to provide the expertise or insight that is lacking within the organization, and there's a rigorous selection process to ensure that the consultant can deliver on results within that organization, then it's an excellent tactic that accomplishes things that couldn't get accomplished any other way.

However.

Too many associations (and other organizations) hire consultants for the wrong reasons or the wrong way

* To avoid the blame if a risky project goes wrong. All too often, the person who executes a failure gets the blame while the person who watched but didn't intervene escapes blame.
* Not knowing that they have staff members who are aware of a problem, deeply interested in solving it, and capable of solving it.
* Knowing about their staff members' skill and interest but automatically trusting a consultant rather than their own staff, because, really, if staff knew that much, wouldn't they be consultants?
* Listening more to the consultants who flatter them and promise magic bullets and less to the consultants who say "We can solve most of this but not all," or, worse, "Your organization isn't ready for X (especially if X is the latest buzzword)," or "You need a simple solution, not a complex one."
* All too often, hiring consultants as a form of organizational conspicuous consumption. "Oh, yeah, well, my project is so important I hire four consultants, top that!"
* We fall for brand names and for the pricing fallacy that the more expensive something is, the better. (If we think that a $10 bottle of wine is actually $70, we enjoy it more than if we knew it were $10)
* Not looking hard enough at the organizational culture and structure to make sure that the consultants' solution will be used. Unless the training, software, or processes either make staff and member lives easier or enable them to do something new that they actually want to do, they'll either ignore it (members) or find incredibly creative ways to ignore it, game it, or avoid it (staff).
*Hiring consultants and then not staying engaged in the process or giving them information about ongoing changes, new issues, etc., the equivalent of hiring an architect, telling them to build, say, a two-story house with this exact shade of maple flooring in the living room, and a 13*10 bedroom, and then when the architect asks for more details about their needs, says, "You're the expert, just do it."

Hmm, perhaps these "certain circles of association executives" appear "amused" to you because they have just heard someone make an unsupported (and unsupportable) statement like "the fastest growing, most innovative, and most influential associations in the world are the most prolific users of consulting services."

Oh dear...the consultants on the list are asking me to do more research for them!

Prove me wrong.

Steve raises a good point - prove him wrong. Please do.

I would also suggest that we depart from the cynical tone. At least that's what I will do for a moment.

Why do associations, companies, organizations of various shapes and sizes need consultants? There's an obvious answer to why consultants are necessary. We live in a world that is FILLED, FILLED with information. Great. Right? So, if someone wants to investigate the vast array of scientific arguments related to the big-bang, dissect a poem by E.E. Cummings using arguments by scholars who espouse Marxist interpretations of literature, determine the reason why some horse owners prefer Warmbloods over Thoroughbreds as Hunters, or whatever, this all can be found. Not only can you find such information, but you can find LOTS of it, much of which isn't even worthy of the blink of a reader's eye.

All sorts of information is supposedly, thanks to Google, at our fingertips - the informational world is at our beck and call. With the tap of a few buttons (even if words are misspelled), we human beings can learn A LOT about this and that. Or so it seems . . .

Regardless of how educated you are, how tech savvy you are, how quickly you can assimilate concepts, whatever-the-case, this hyper-informational world begins to overwhelm us. Besides, if you are a busy company, you and your employees don't necessarily have the time nor the resources to investigate things that affect your organization and its health.

That's why consultants are not only useful but necessary. Smart companies hires them to shift through all that "stuff," envision an aim or strategy for their company, and provide them with a type of path that leads to success.

In a word, without them many companies would be lost in a forest of informational chaos.

Uh, Steve. Not sure how to read your comment about "the consultants on the list asking you to do more research for us."

If you had cited some research I wouldn't be asking you to add any clarification. but you make a sweeping generalization without offering even a handful examples of proof.

Your language implies maybe you've done some research. If so, and if it's not too much extra work, do share a link or two so we can review and learn more. I'm genuinely interested.

If, however, it's just your opinion. That's OK by me as well. But state it as such instead of cloaking it in language (the reality is ...) that suggests it is a universal and verifiable truth. The association community can barely agree on a definition of innovation, so I'd be shocked to learn we've agreed on an understanding that associations using consultants are doing the most innovative work.

Since I also questioned the sweeping statement, let me say that I think there is a valuable conversation to be had about the value that external consultants bring to associations who choose them wisely, for the right reasons (see Ann Feeney's excellent points there).

But I'm afraid you got the discussion off on the wrong foot by opening with a sweeping statement wherein you used three measures -- two of which are so subjective as to be meaningless -- to establish some sort of false distinction between "associations that prolifically use consultants" (whatever prolifically means in this situation) and those that, I suppose, don't.

Then you said, "the consultants on the list are asking me to do more research for them! Prove me wrong."

Well, for one thing ... I am not, and have never been, a consultant. Though I do hire consultants. Because I am an association executive.

And based on my own years of experience, hiring and working on occasion with some really terrific consultants when needed (but I certainly wouldn't describe it as "prolifically"), I'm afraid I think your sweeping statement is simply wrong.

Having gotten that out of the way, I would be interested in further conversation from consultants and association executives on the right reasons to hire consultants and the best way to work with them. If you lose the hyperbole then I promise to try and lose the cynical tone that "C.C.J." dislikes. (And let me say, kudos to you, Steve, for having the conversation and not being anonymous about it. Your passion for your profession is commendable, even if I disagree with the particular statement you made.)

My apologies to all for not responding sooner.

I appreciate the positive tone of this exchange and hope you will find the information I am providing below to be of use. My apologies to Kevin as well for confusing him with a consultant I know who shares his name….but, as Kevin points out, with the pride I have in my profession he should interpret this as a compliment!

If I worded my original post a little provocatively for this audience I did so on purpose because I do feel that the use of consultants in the nonprofit world is still in its infancy if not to say underappreciated. I endorse Ann Feeney’s comments as to some of the perverse reasons that nonprofits sometimes use consultants. To her list I could add a few of my own—which I will not…… (By the way, did you all notice the consultants’ report a few weeks ago that listed the YMCA as the most recognized and valued nonprofit brand name among the US public? Would such a finding be as persuasive and credible if it had been a YMCA study and publicized only in a YMCA press release?)

But, as to Kevin’s and Jeffrey’s challenge about the ability of consultants and the organizations that employ them to quantify their effectiveness…... Following are some statistics that you may find of interest.

Growth of the Consulting Industry

According to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Management, scientific, and technical consulting services sector is projected to be one of the fastest growing and one of the highest paying over the next decade.
Wage and salary employment in the management, scientific, and technical consulting services industry is expected to grow by 78 percent, much faster than the 11 percent growth projected for all industries, ranking the industry as the fastest growing industry in the economy. All areas of consulting should experience strong growth.—BLS
My question to you is: would any industry grow four times faster than the growth rate of the GDP if it were not effective or not responding to market need? With such growth rates, clearly someone thinks consultants are worth the money they are paid, and I suspect this is smart money. Here are links to some articles and statistics on this subject:
Links Regarding the Growth of the Consulting Industry
1. http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs037.htm
2. http://www.careers-in-business.com/consulting/mcfacts.htm
3. http://www.cob.ohio-state.edu/fin/opler/trend.htm
4. http://news.top-consultant.com/US/news_story.asp?ID=3050
5. http://www.themanager.org/pdf/Consulting.PDF
6. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-60027727.html
7. http://industries.hoovers.com/business-services/consulting/industry_trends
8. http://www.allbusiness.com/trends-events/trends/11772289-1.html
Do market leaders use consultants more prolifically than others? Well, let’s take a look.

Would anyone doubt that the market leader in retail is Wal-Mart? Or that the market leader in the energy sector is ExxonMobile? Or that the largest member-based nonprofits organizations are AARP and National Geographic? Take a look at these links below under the headings for each:
Links Concerning National Geographic’s Use of Consultants
1. http://mediastorm.org/services/
2. http://www.epsilon.com/About-Us/Press-Releases/052209-National-Geographic-Renewal/p106-l3
3. http://www.astd.org/content/education/certificatePrograms/online-programs/essentialsSeries/clientcontractingengagement.htm
4. http://www.universalconsulting.com/pc01.htm
5. http://www.maned.com/pdf/national-geographic-casestudy.pdf
6. http://www.klginc.com/AboutKLG/team.shtml
7. http://www.isaconsulting.com/_docs/case_studies/Case_NatGeo.pdf

Links Concerning ExxonMobil’s Use of Consultants
1. http://www.trrg.com/bio_reynolds.aspx
2. http://www.stephaniehayden.com/exxon-mobil/
3. http://www.projectconsulting.com/about/client.php
4. http://www.globalchange.com/comment.htm
5. http://www.transitionceo.com/client_list.php
6. http://www.striderandcline.com/resumews.shtml
7. http://www.abzinc.com/images/ABZbrochure.pdf

Links Concerning Wal-Mart’s Use of Consultants
1. http://www.sustainableindustries.com/sijnews/19606209.html?viewAll=y
2. http://www.haygroup.com/ww/about/index.aspx?ID=163
3. http://www.aashe.org/blog/can-walmart-and-sustainability-co-exist
4. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/technology/07blog.html?pagewanted=print
5. http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:rSISla7J0nQJ:www.mapconsulting.com/landing_pages

Links Concerning AARP’s Use of Consultants
1. http://www.edgewater.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/EdgewaterCorporateSite/Documents/White%20Papers/MonetizingKnowledgeWhitePaper.pdf
2. http://www.immersionactive.com/lower.cfm?section=thework&page=clientlist
3. http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-2706883/Precision-Response-Corporation-Signs-a.html
4. http://www.invotex.com/assets/BBJ%20Top%20Turnaround%20Firms.pdf
5. http://www.linkedin.com/pub/cyrus-bamji/0/970/683
6. http://www.sbschoiceconsulting.com/nancy_romppainen.php
7. http://www.researchworks.com/consulting_services.php
8. http://www.patchworkconsulting.com/client.html
In fact I am flabbergasted that anyone should think that consultants do not measure their success with clients and that clients do not expect their consultants to help make their performance better, faster, more efficient and more effective. Here is a link that demonstrates that those companies that do use consultants perform better in the market than before they used them.
Link regarding the relation between Consulting Services and Client Success
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1038/is_n3_v40/ai_20141978/pg_5/?tag=content;col1

Continuation....

I first noticed a possible link between the use of consultants and economic performance when I was responsible for managing a pan-European consulting operation out of Brussels from the late 1980s to and through the early 1990s. The cultural differences as concerns the perception of consulting between countries was remarkable. If I heard it once I heard it a hundred times from the French..."Look Steve, be reasonable....if you can't touch it, smell it, taste it, eat it or drink it....it doesn't exist! You are trying to sell air mon ami!"

So we had our perpetually lagging consulting practice in France along with all our other perpoetually lagging consulting practices in the Mediteranean markets--Spain, Italy, North Afric, etc.... In the meantime our consulting operations in the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, the Scandanavian countries--not to mention the US, Canada, and Japan were growing like gang busters.... So, was it just a coincidence that the world's best performing and richest economines were the most prolific users of consulting services and the poorest and weakest economines were not?

I think this rule applies similarly to the association sector as well.....Here is another hyperbole for you Kevin....or is it? I wait for someone to say: Mais non!!! Sacre bleu!!

By the way, consulting is in the ascendent in France these days. So maybe there is hope...for France....and the association community....? Qu'est ce que vous en pensez Kevin?

Not sure that I want to jump into this debate or not, but here it goes. We will be releasing our Membership Marketing Benchmarking study at ASAE09 with survey responses from over 400 associations. One cross tab shows that the largest associations (by member count) are significantly more likely to outsource membership marketing services than are smaller associations. Here is a link to find out more about the report and our "unsession" where you can come and discuss our findings: http://tinyurl.com/unsession. Tony

Steve, thanks for the links. Unfortunately, I think that AARP and National Geographic, while being fine and admirable organizations, have almost nothing in common with the professional societies and trade associations who make up the bulk of associations (and ASAE membership).

Most of us define our markets (and thus our missions) much more narrowly than "people above a certain age" and "people interested in travel and world geography." If a consultant says to me, "We understand associations, because we worked with AARP" (and yeah, this has happened), then all they've proven is that they don't understand my association.

Of course, it all comes down to what KIND of consultant you're talking about. A consultant to redesign a publication ... well, AARP puts out some nice publications. So, maybe. A consultant to help develop "strategy"? Far fewer parallels there.

That's the problem with the broadness of your statement, I think. Hire an outside salesperson and you've hired a consultant. Hire an expo designer and you've hired a consultant. Hire a freelance writer and you've hired a consultant. The larger an organization gets, the more this sort of outsourcing becomes economical, even necessary. That's not to say that they became large *because* they used consultants.

So when you bring the discussion down to the more narrowly-focused (and yes, smaller) world in which most associations live and operate, the more interesting question to me is not, how much does an association outsource versus how much does it do in-house -- but rather, what sort of things should associations hire consultants for? How can an association truly understand what its (as much as I hate this phrase) "core competencies" are (many associations, in my opinion, get this wrong)? How can an association build INTERNAL capacity for leadership and vision in the right way for the right things, that will drive its unique marketplace with a deeper level of understanding? (I know that you're not suggesting that associations should become checkbooks whose core competency is paying bills on time...)

What started all this off was the following assertion: "The reality is that the fastest growing, most innovative, and most influential associations in the world are the most prolific users of consulting services."

I would argue that AARP and National Geographic are certainly innovative and certainly influential. If I were to list "fastest growing" as well as "innovative" examples I might also list the Project Management Institute and the Institute of Internal Auditors Internaitonal and perhaps ASME International. And along with this I could also site the many, many times these associations (who are also active in ASAE) use consultants.

My purpose is not to try to impress anyone with size and numbers but rather to make the point that those organizations that do best are those that recognize they don't know it all and can't do it all themselves.

Wasn't it the ancient Greeks who noted that "hubris preceeds the fall?" It is precisely this point that matters in factors relating to success: those organizations that look outward, that have a sense of their own limitations...are the ones that do best, go furthest and suceed most spectacularly.

One of the best association managers I have ever met is Virgil Carter, whom many of you know. I have learned so much from him. Yet, those who know him know him to be one of the most modest, unassuming men you could ever meet. This modest man laid the groundwork for growth for two of the associations I noted above and yes he did it in part using talent from every place he could find it--internal as well as external to his organization.

Management is not a game in which the idea is to accumulate as many people and assets as you can under your own umbrella. Rather, it is to realize your mission in the most efficient, effective way possible. And yes, for all the reasons that have been noted by everyone in this thread, the judicious and intelligent use of consulting talent always plays a role in mangement success. Consulting is and should be part of a manger's tool box. Ruling out its use in principle is like the carpenter who refuses to use any tool but his hammer to build a house--he probably won't get very far!

Appreciate you taking the time Steve to respond in a more thoughtful manner to the questions Kevin and I raised. As a consultant (and former association exec), I obviously believe consultants have a significant contribution to make.

In your most recent response you state: "My purpose is not to try to impress anyone with size and numbers but rather to make the point that those organizations that do best are those that recognize they don't know it all and can't do it all themselves."

If this is the case, your original assertion that triggered the questioning seems out of place and not entirely necessary to making your most recent point. An association that recognizes it doesn't know it all doesn't necessarily have to fill its knowledge gap with consultants although that is one logical source.

Numerous speakers have addressed ASAE audiences over the years about the value of fresh, different, and iconoclast perspectives in producing innovative results. Gary Hamel and Franz Johansson immediately come to mind. While consultants certainly can offer those perspectives so can a whole host of other sources.

My objection was (and still is) you elevating the value that consultants can potentially bring to association innovation with your blanket assertion that the most innovative associations are the most prolific users of consulting services. It's a statement open to far too much interpretation of the variables involved. An association could outsource its IT, its meeting planning, its HR, its publications, etc. and not necessarily end up with innovation in each of those functional areas.