Blog

Is there a reason to regulate counseling? Or is advice too difficult to grasp? Should the industry rely on professionalism and professional associations, or does the market distinguish good from bad? Andrew Sturdy, Professor of Management and Organization at the University of Bristol, introduced a number of issues to spark a debate on building the image of the sector through better governance.

Compared to many professions, and certainly the professions, counseling is weakly regulated. Anyone can become a consultant (at least on behalf of). Historically, however, the industry has actually emerged from regulation – regulation by others like banks and (as now) accountants, which has left room for advice.

In contrast, it is often argued that advice is too difficult to regulate. The associated knowledge, its dynamism, its commercial value and its co-production make the assessment difficult. Politically, too, very few, including customers, appear to be interested in regulation and even oppose it.

Of course, there are different forms of governance, particularly in relation to purchasing processes and firm and professional codes of conduct (although there is little evidence that anyone has ever been sanctioned). In the public sector too, reports are produced every few years and guidance is given to customers on how to improve their commissioning through monitoring, planning and contracting. While the latter problem has long been disputed by all parties and there are numerous loopholes, changes have occurred. Governance can happen.

technology

With the increasing use of internet-based platforms and forms of interaction, more can also be possible. It’s not difficult to imagine a ‘ratemyconsultancy.com’ site or similar internal alternatives, or to record pitches and contract discussions on Zoom ‘for future reference’. Both parties could benefit from both.

In short, despite trade secret claims, new technology could help the market better control quality. Of course, this brings with it new challenges. We just need to see the use of comparison sites in other sectors like tourism to identify these, but why not try?

The central challenge is not “bad apples” or the occasional bad practice, but rather systemic problems – “bad basements” – such as the partnership model and, in particular, reward systems. A longstanding approach has been to encourage variations in payment according to results for customers. Limited progress here may not be surprising as it is difficult, if not impossible, to measure most deliberations effectively or without conflicting views.

Probably the biggest barrier to good advice is the pressure to sell to new and especially existing customers. This is at the heart of the counseling model, from the lone practitioner trying to make a living, to the big consulting firms and their reward systems, including promotion. Reform here is urgent and would mean a major cultural change. Indeed, many would argue that this is asking too much. However, an example of a similar initiative can be found in the audit, where there are overlapping debates.

In a recent report sponsored by PwC, Professor Karthnik Ramanna of Oxford University’s Blavatnik School of Government talks about aligning employee rewards with “cultures of challenge” rather than selling. Likewise, there have been demands for a long time in consulting and on the customer side for a “series purchase” that limits the duration of the engagement or projects with a single supplier.

Governing consulting firm

Such systems always create rigidity and unintended consequences and can therefore only be part of a solution. What is needed is a debate between all parties about different options. One of the first systematic attempts to identify an agenda for improving governance in business consulting in general, a recently published research report identified four first policy issues: Reinforce, Review, Reward, and Reject. These combine hard and soft governance.

The former would not only involve reforming the reward system, but also reinforce (i.e. in some cases simply implement) the existing rules and procedures. Soft governance options involve various forms of more open review and evaluation of projects, including by third parties or meta-consultants, as well as the rejection of external advice in some cases in favor of alternative suppliers such as internal resources, including internal advice.

These topics are only a starting point for a conversation and further research. The academic team needs to hear more from consultants, companies, users, non-users, regulators and the public. This can occur in various forums, such as: B. in customer sectors and in different national contexts. The premise is that new opportunities for governance will emerge, as will many of the industry reputation challenges that are well known and longstanding.

Anyone can still become a consultant, but it’s hard to be a good one.