Article

Management Learning

The active client: The

42(5) 485–503
© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission:
boundary-spanning roles of sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1350507611401536
internal consultants as gatekeepers, mlq.sagepub.com

brokers and partners of their

external counterparts

Andrew Sturdy
University of Bristol, UK

Christopher Wright
University of Sydney, Australia

Abstract
This article examines the active client of management consultancy as a key agent in managing and mediating
knowledge flows across organizational boundaries. From a qualitative study of a particular case of active
clients—internal consultants managing their external counterparts—three boundary-spanning roles are
identified. Active clients can act as a gatekeeper, broker and partner with respect to both consultants and
the knowledge they bring. These roles are shown to vary according to a client’s expertise, formal project
responsibilities and personal reputation, as well as the different phases of consulting projects. They not
only elucidate an otherwise neglected or static dimension of management consultancy—client activity—but
highlight the dynamic and essentially political character of serving as knowledge barriers and/or bridges in the
intermediation and co-production of management knowledge across organizational boundaries.

Keywords
active client, boundary spanning, internal consultant, knowledge co-production, process, power

Introduction
A range of actors, both internal and external to the organization, are involved in the flow of man-
agement ideas and practices (Perkmann and Spicer, 2008). In many contexts, external management
consultants play a key mediating role and have received considerable academic attention (e.g.
Hicks et al., 2009). This focus was often at the expense of their clients, who were portrayed as

Corresponding author:
Christopher Wright,Discipline of Work and Organisational Studies, Faculty of Economics and Business,
University of Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Email: [email protected]
486 Management Learning 42(5)

simple purchasers or passive recipients of consulting expertise (Werr and Styhre, 2003). Recently
however, empirical attention to client-consultant interactions and a theoretical recognition of the
processual nature of knowledge has led to more active conceptions of the client (Sturdy et al.,
2009). As Höner and Mohe (2009: 299) reported, ‘the formerly prevalent portrait of clients as vic-
tims, marionettes or passive consumers of consulting has been extensively revised’. Indeed, numer-
ous images of the client are now evident. They can be sceptical purchasers of business services
(Macdonald, 2006), or partners with consultants in the co-production of management knowledge
(Clegg et al., 2004; Fosstenløkken et al., 2003). Likewise, theoretical perspectives have emerged
pointing to the client’s contingent, dynamic and socially produced form (Alvesson et al., 2009).
And yet, despite criticism of the idea of a simply passive client, the concept of the active client
remains underdeveloped. Most views are generic—active or passive—and static. They also typi-
cally fail to incorporate the full range of client practices, including choosing not to use particular
consultants, evaluating consultant performance, and engaging with knowledge and learning.
Given the often wide use of external consultancy to import and legitimate new management
knowledge, the concept of the active consultancy client has an importance well beyond the con-
fines of consultancy. It can inform our understanding of how knowledge flows are managed across
organizational boundaries. For example, while a significant and continuing literature exists on
boundary-spanning roles and their contribution to the absorptive capacity of organizations (Aldrich
and Herker, 1977; Jones, 2006; Tushman and Scanlan, 1981), few studies have extended such
insights to the specific role of the client using external consultancy knowledge. Understanding how
different forms of organizational boundary spanning occur within client-consultant interactions
can also begin to address calls for more agential and process-oriented understandings of organiza-
tional learning and innovation (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008). Accordingly, this article aims to
develop our understanding of the active consultancy client and its implications for management
knowledge co-production.
Drawing on consultancy and professional services literature, we initially develop a framework
for the ‘active client’. This conceptually focuses first on the object of client activity, distinguishing
between the process of managing consultants, and client activity as it relates to the content—the
management ideas and practices they purvey. Second, the framework recognizes client activity
directed towards often overlapping concerns of securing organizational ends on the one hand, and
that based on personal political (identity and career) concerns on the other which have been
neglected in studies of boundary spanning. Third, it incorporates variations in the forms of activity
according to particular conditions, including the different broad dynamics of a consulting project.
Following a discussion of our research methods, the framework is then developed empirically
by examining accounts of client-consultant boundary relations in a particular context—where
internal consultants act as clients to external consultants. This somewhat unusual setting is apposite
since internal consultants acting in this role can be seen to represent an extreme form of consul-
tancy client which reveals issues of more general theoretical applicability to consulting client
activity and boundary spanning. Internal consultants typically have expertise and a formal role in
management innovation which is relatively rare within organizations (Birkinshaw et al., 2008).
They also have expertise in consultancy itself. Both these factors bring a political client interest in
external consultancy which is potentially greater than (but not substantially different from) that of
more conventional clients. In particular, externals can pose a significant threat to the expert identity
and status of internal consultants—what Carlile (2004) calls ‘knowledge at stake’—but they also
present possibilities for identification, or making boundaries more like bridges (Sturdy et al.,
2009). On the basis of this ideal typical case, we aim to develop our understanding of the active
consultancy client and boundary spanner more generally. In particular, three discernible images of
Sturdy and Wright 487

active client roles are identified reflecting varying levels of client-consultant competition and col-
laboration. We then argue that in addition to varying project conditions and dynamics, the personal
reputation and organizational legitimacy of the client play a critical role in understanding manage-
ment knowledge flow across boundaries.

Images of the active and passive management consultancy client

Although multiple conceptions of the client have been evident in the literature for some time (e.g.
Schein, 1969), a common view is that the portrayal of clients in consulting research has shifted
from buyer to victim to partner (Werr and Styhre, 2003). Here, the traditional view of an active,
if functional, role as purchasers of consulting expertise was challenged by a wave of ‘critical’
research which portrayed clients as passive victims of consultancy rhetoric (Clark, 1995). A reac-
tion against this critique pointed to variations in client-consultant dependency relations and the
possibility for more collaborative, partnership arrangements (Fincham, 1999). Our concern is not
so much with the detail of this historical narrative, but with outlining and organizing various
images of the consulting client in terms of being active and passive. Such an exercise, however,
raises a number of problems.
First, the term ‘active’ has multiple meanings beyond a commonsense notion of being engaged
in some kind of activity. Here, we use it to refer to seeking to assert control or affect the environ-
ment consciously, with deliberate action (Bohart and Tallman, 1996). Similarly, ‘passive’ does not
imply an absence of action, but an acceptance of the environment, of others’ intentions, actions and
their consequences. Thus, being active and passive are relative concepts. Furthermore, despite
cultural value often being placed on action or pro-activity, neither being active or passive necessar-
ily implies success or failure in achieving objectives (Hislop, 2002).
The second problem of classifying the active client is identifying what or who ‘the client’ is.
This is not a new challenge. Schein (1997: 202), for example, described it as an ‘ambiguous and
problematical’ process, rejecting a unitary view of the client being the organization. He favoured
a more pluralist approach which we also adopt and develop. Here, distinctions are drawn between
various clients, including the first contact for the consultant and primary owner of the problem,
those intermediate individuals or groups directly involved in a project. In addition, our analysis
extends Schein’s types to include the potential and former client, that is, those actors who engage
with consultants in between formal projects and/or in relation to various forms of consultancy
sales initiatives.
The third problem is two-fold and concerns the object and motives of client activity. This
arises from a degree of variability in focus in the literature where emphasis can be given to exert-
ing control over (i.e. actively managing) the consultants, and/or the ideas associated with con-
sulting interventions—process and content respectively. For example, a client might actively
seek out and select consultants for a project, but passively accept the management ideas involved
without much criticism or adaptation (Hislop, 2002). Both areas of focus can be considered
legitimate client domains, aimed towards organizational interests. However, research has drawn
attention to parallel and sometimes conflicting client motives. Here, the use of external consult-
ants and/or new ideas is directed at serving or defending the political and career interests of
individuals and functional groups. Thus, both ideas and consultancy use can have symbolic
value for individual clients (Armbrüster, 2006), but, as noted earlier, may also pose a threat to
their expert identity. As Höner and Mohe (2009) point out for instance, clients may have an
active interest in not systematically evaluating consultancy performance given the negative
political exposure this may bring.
488 Management Learning 42(5)

Passive clients Active clients

Control over consultants A C

Victims of the sales pitch Purchaser and partner

Control over ideas B D

Followers of fashion Co-producers

Figure 1. Images of the passive and active consultancy client

In Figure 1 we simplify and organize the various images and practices of the consulting client
in the literature according to levels of activity and passivity, with regard to both consultants and
management ideas. Overall, the analytical effect is to create four broad images of the active and
passive client which we examine below. Then, by drawing on a wider literature, we explore some
of the conditions, dynamics and potential consequences of client activity.

Passive clients
The first of the two images of the passive client (low assertion of control over consultants—quad-
rant A) is quite common in the critical literature. Here, the client is seen as highly dependent; lack-
ing in knowledge or experience of consultancy use; doing little to manage or evaluate consultants;
and being vulnerable to their sales techniques and political manoeuvring (Ernst and Kieser, 2002).
Indeed, such a client is also evident in prescriptive accounts—the client as ‘patient’ for example—
emphasizing the need for the client to be more active or ‘intelligent’ (Czerniawska, 2002).
Furthermore, the passive client is implied in the many accounts of active consultants—doing things
to clients as technical experts, rhetoriticians and catalysts for example (Blake and Mouton, 1983).
This also applies to the second image of the passive client, with respect to management ideas
(quadrant B). Here, the critical consulting literature, with its broader concern with management
knowledge, emphasizes the uncritical adoption of management ideas and models by clients
(Huczynski, 1993; Kieser, 2002).

Active clients
The active user of management consultants (quadrant C) involves client images as purchasers and
partners acting at the organizational boundary(Karantinou and Hogg, 2009). The purchaser deploys
resource power and project management skills to be controlling and systematic and even sceptical
in the selection, management and evaluation of consultants (Deelmann and Mohe, 2006). Such
views of the active client are reinforced by the few available images of consultants as subordinate,
outsourced ‘grey’ labour (Alvesson and Johansson, 2002; Höner and Mohe, 2009). At the same
time and as already noted, clients can also be active in the sense of using the signalling function of
consultants for their own or organizational ends (Armbrüster, 2006). Similarly, potential and inter-
mediate clients may actively resist the use of consultants because of the personal, occupational or
organizational threat they pose, or on the basis of consultants’ outsider status (Sturdy, 1997). Such
competitive positions are countered by the other dominant image of the active user of consultants—
as a partner or trusted colleague. Here, emphasis is placed on establishing and maintaining shared
Sturdy and Wright 489

objectives through negotiation and dialogue where parties co-habit a liminal space in between
organizational boundaries as part of the same project team (Czarniawska and Mazza, 2003).
The partner image has a direct parallel with that of the final category—the active client with
respect to management ideas or co-producer of knowledge (quadrant D). Indeed, it is difficult to
distinguish between this idea and the notion of joint dialogue above, especially if one adopts a
processual view of knowledge (Hicks et al., 2009). However, here the focus is more on the man-
agement ideas involved than the nature of the relationship. For example, there are variations in
emphasis within this category between developing and adapting ideas into new knowledge—
exploration, and clients actively seeking an off-the-shelf best practice—exploitation (Antal and
Krebsbach-Gnath, 2001; cf. March, 1991). Finally, as already noted, clients can be active with
respect to the symbolic, signalling and political role of management ideas for organizations, groups
and individuals (Staw and Epstein, 2000). Likewise, potential and indirect clients may actively
resist new ideas from the outside because of their foreignness or the threats they pose—boundaries
as barriers (Kipping and Armbrüster, 2002)—although, as we shall see, internal consultants as
clients can act as key mediators here.

Conditions and consequences of the active client

Having organized and outlined some of the different ways in which consulting clients can be
described as active or passive, we now briefly turn our attention to some of the conditions of such
behaviour. In particular, given our focus, we are concerned with identifying when clients are more
likely to be active. For instance, Lippitt and Lippitt (1986) distinguished between directive projects,
where solutions are recommended or imposed by consultants on their clients as ‘patients’, and non-
directive projects such as those involving process consulting. Similarly, Markham (1997: 72) out-
lines different conditions associated with client-centred projects:

• client wants independence; to learn; and to take decisions;

• consultant wants to prevent dependency and the client to grow;
• little empathy in the relationship; consultant not totally acceptable to client;
• high risk project or dynamic/long-term problem.

Implicit in these factors are the client’s ability/knowledge and power/dependency. Hence, we
might expect to find the active management of consultants greater amongst clients with prior
experience of consultancy (Sturdy and Wright, 2008), and in high risk and critical organiza-
tional changes (Abrahamson, 1996). Likewise, even highly dependent clients may pursue an
active approach given sufficient levels of knowledge and individual self-confidence (Fincham,
1999). This might also be guided by formal training and governance mechanisms for the man-
agement of consultancy projects, or a culture of professional purchasing or project management
(Werr and Pemer, 2007).
Pointing to likely general conditions of client activity can be helpful, but in keeping with the
study of innovation more generally, patterns need to be identified within their specific contexts
(Tidd, 2001). Furthermore, this approach to the concept of activity remains rather static. For exam-
ple, Nachum (1999) points out how it is not so much that dependency relations shape how active
the client might be, but that active participation itself creates interdependency over time. More
conventionally, a number of accounts in the business services field point to variations in the level
of client activity between phases of an engagement (Mills and Morris, 1986). Similarly, one of the
few studies of consultancy to focus on the active client identified variations over the course of the
490 Management Learning 42(5)

consulting project (Hislop, 2002). For example, in one case, a client was active in selecting a
consultant, but then chose to define the consultant as the dominant actor in the subsequent
phases—active passivity.
Hislop’s (2002) study is also unusual in suggesting specific outcomes from client activity.
Hislop rightly eschews any assumption of inherent value to management ideas and focuses instead
on how they are used and transformed. In particular, he found a close relationship between the level
of client activity in managing consulting interventions and the extent to which consulting knowl-
edge was customized. For example, high client involvement across the duration of the project
resulted in the greatest degree of customization, whereas the case of active passivity led to the
implementation of a generic solution and, in turn, greater rationalization of organizational proc-
esses to fit with the standardized system. Thus, the active managing of the process of consultancy
can impact on the content of such interactions, that is, the production of management knowledge
and associated organizational changes. However, it also shows how activity with regard to one
stage of the consultancy process (consultant selection) is not necessarily associated with activity
with respect to the adaptation of ideas.
This rare concern with the consequences of active client behaviour draws our attention to its wider
significance, beyond simply a feature of client-consultant relations. Whether passive or active, clients
are for the most part working at the organizational boundary in the identification, purchase, importa-
tion and/or legitimation of new or outside ideas and practices—what is often termed boundary span-
ning. While the concept of personnel acting as exchange agents between an organization and its
environment is well established (Aldrich and Herker, 1977; Leifer and Delbecq, 1978; Tushman,
1977; Tushman and Scanlan, 1981), research has tended to focus on situations of formalized inter-
organizational relations (e.g. supply-chain collaboration), or other specialist roles such as purchasing
managers (Ellis and Ybema, 2010). For instance, Jones (2006) builds upon prior conceptions of an
organization’s absorptive capacity by highlighting how different managers acting as boundary span-
ners, gatekeepers and change agents translate and apply new knowledge from outside the organiza-
tion and embed it within internal routines and practices. However, despite a growing recognition of
the importance of organizational (and other) boundaries within studies of consultant-client relations
(Kitay and Wright, 2004; Richter and Niewiem, 2009; Sturdy et al., 2009), the idea of consultancy
clients as organizational boundary spanners has been largely neglected. We shall argue that managers
as consultancy clients are engaged in a boundary-spanning activity which can be critical in the
co-production of management knowledge and therefore, for organizational innovation.

The study
Our study focuses on a specific form of consultancy client—specialist managers who formally
have a role as internal consultants. Although they can assume different forms and use various titles,
internal consultants are typically viewed as an alternative to external consultants, offering different
qualities. The greater organizational grounding and lower cost of internals is set against the per-
ceived independence, better access to new knowledge and greater ‘symbolic capital’ of externals
(Armbrüster, 2006). At the same time, others have argued that their combination offers great poten-
tial for innovation (Scott and Hascall, 2006). What does seem clear, however, is that when internal
consultants act in another, related role, as clients of externals, they are likely to be especially active.
As specialist managers with an internal brief for assisting in the introduction of new practices, as
well as experience in consultancy, internal consultants are unlikely to be wholly deferential or, by
contrast, prejudiced against externals. Rather, the combination of their experience and formal role
in organizational change, management ideas and consultancy, and the potential for career-enhancing
Sturdy and Wright 491

or -threatening relations with external consultants largely precludes passivity in relation to the use
of externals. For these reasons, they are an ideal group to draw on in exploring the different dimen-
sions of the active client.
This article is based on data from a larger research project investigating the activities, careers and
identities of internal consultants. The project involved an inductive, qualitative research method to
build grounded theory about those in internal consulting roles (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Data col-
lection comprised semi-structured interviews with a range of internal consultants in large Australian
and global businesses during 2004–8. Respondents were recruited by targeting organizations identi-
fied in professional publications as using an internal consulting approach. Inquiries were sent to the
senior human resource manager (HRM) in these firms, resulting in interviews with 32 internal con-
sultants from 27 companies (see Table 1). A purposive sampling method was adopted, with inter-
viewees selected on the basis of defining themselves as acting as internal consultants, or having an
internal consulting role in their job titles or descriptions. These individuals were essentially special-
ist managers (mostly in the areas of HRM and organizational change) who assisted others in their
organization through the provision of advice and expertise rather than direct authority (see Lacey,
1995).The interviews lasted between one and two hours and were recorded and fully transcribed.
Questions included respondents’ educational and career backgrounds, their position within the busi-
ness structure, their role and activities, the nature of internal client relationships and broader organi-
zational relations. In addition, we examined associated documentation, including organization
charts, policy documents, and examples of respondents’ change projects. To provide communicative
validation, interview transcripts and related notes were provided to interviewees for corroboration,
and follow-up interviews were undertaken with selected respondents.

Table 1. Interviewee respondents

Organization Number of respondents

Internal consultants
Accounting and consulting 3
Airline 1
Manufacturing 4
Industrial services 3
Insurance 3
Information technology 4
Banking 4
Retail 1
Telecommunications 1
University 2
Law firm 1
Resources 2
Local government 1
Consumer products 2
Total 32
External consultants
Solo practitioner 7
Global management consultancy 2
Global HR consultancy 2
Small change consultancy 2
Small HR consultancy 2
Small strategy consultancy 1
Total 16
492 Management Learning 42(5)

As part of this broader project, one of the key themes that emerged early on in our research was
the varied forms of interaction between internal and external consultants. In seeking to develop this
issue further we conducted a series of additional interviews with 16 external consultants who had
regular interactions with internal consultants, including those we had interviewed previously (see
Table 1). While there is always a need for caution in the treatment of interview data (Rubin and
Rubin, 2005), especially where parties may be in direct competition or in highly dependent rela-
tions, the combined interviews provided considerable insight into the active client-consultant rela-
tionship and the strategies each used in working with (and/or against) each other.
In analysing our data, we initially read and coded the transcripts and associated documentation
using the qualitative data analysis software QSR NVivo. This provided for an iterative process of
data coding, hypothesis development, analysis and recoding (Crowley et al., 2002). Following an
initial open coding process, we then identified key themes or higher level categories within which
to organize our coding concepts. For example, in terms of the higher order category of the work
activities of internal consultants, a subsidiary coding concept involved the interaction of internal
consultants with their external counterparts. This in turn included coding for the reasons why inter-
nals and their organizations used external consultants; how external consultants were managed;
different characterizations of the relationship; and the varying attitudes of internal and external
consultants to these forms of interaction. Our coded data here revealed varying forms of interac-
tion, including instances where the internal consultant sought to control the entry of external con-
sultants in a defensive or competitive mode, as well as examples of more cooperative relations. In
a third stage of selective coding of this issue, we developed the core category of the internal con-
sultant as an organizational boundary spanner, acting as both a barrier and a bridge for knowledge
exchange between the organization and its broader external context. Through reviewing and vali-
dating our coding of the data, we developed three principal images of the internal consultant as a
client and organizational boundary spanner, which we termed gatekeeper, broker and partner.
These images related not so much to fixed positions adopted by individuals, but rather to points on
a continuum from competition to collaboration that could overlap or alternate within a project or
client-consultant relationship. Our analysis suggests each of these images reflects different dimen-
sions of client and boundary-spanning activity. In the following sections we outline these images,
before discussing their broader implications.

Barbarians at the gates: controlling the entry of competitors across

the organizational boundary
Echoing much of the literature on internal consultancy, a pervasive theme that emerged from our
interviewees was that of competition and control. Many emphasized their efforts to control the
selection, entry and use of external consultants, acting essentially in the role of organizational
boundary gatekeeper (see also Mohe, 2005) or primary clients. Hence, Peter, an internal consultant
based in a large accounting firm, spoke about the constant cold-calls from external consultants and
his role in deciding who would be allowed to pitch for work:

At least three or four external consultants contact me each week and I would probably maybe talk to one
of them. I mean the other three they ring on the phone, I just say ‘sorry, not interested’.

These respondents stressed an active role as savvy consumers of consultancy services with consid-
erable discretion, carefully investigating applicants’ skills and references. Despite the overlapping
occupational identity, several client interviewees also expressed scepticism too, highlighting their
Sturdy and Wright 493

ability to see beyond a convincing sales pitch and distinguish those with the required expertise.
Hence Della, a senior internal consultant in a large industrial services company, emphasized her
rational approach to selection:

I have limited time. I don’t want to be sold at. I want to assess who is the organisation (consultancy firm)
that’s going to come closest to meeting my requirements, not who is the organisation that are best at selling
their skills.

Indeed, several internal consultants questioned whether externals posed a competitive threat at
all given their own strength in this gatekeeping role and their superior technical expertise. Hence,
Sophie, from a global engineering firm, dismissed the potential for what she termed ‘rogue buying’
of external consultancy by colleagues without first gaining her approval. In this sense, she played
a role similar to that of central purchasing departments in client firms who control and sometimes
frustrate both external consultants and those in other client roles (Werr and Pemer, 2007). Others
stressed a demarcation between the strategic activities of the internal consultant (implying a supe-
rior knowledge claim), and the use of external consultants as extra resources or ‘grey labour’,
engaged in more routine tasks.
In addition to accounts of controlling external consultants crossing the organizational boundary,
internals sought to control those who were already elsewhere in their firm. In one case, the com-
petitive threat posed by externals was quite explicit:

So when the external tries to become intimate with my managers and starts cutting me out of the game, I
have got a problem with that. So I sit them back on their backsides, I will phone them and I will berate
them for what they have done... ‘You are eating into my game. I want to know what you are doing with my
managers’ ...if they break that agreement too many times I will isolate them and move them out (original
emphasis).

Other internals practised more subtle forms of gatekeeping by undermining external consultants’
relationships with managers. As Joan, an experienced external consultant noted of internals:

often the tougher thing is the passive resistance from … (an internal) who is not fully on board, and who’s
saying different things to different people. That sort of stuff undermines the trust of the senior people in
the organisation, and that’s much harder to re-establish.

However, not all internal consultants had the same capability. For example, as Angela, an inter-
nal OD consultant in a large resource company confided:

there is no mandate that says, if you want facilitation, you have to go through OD (internal consultants) to
get it. You can pick up a phone and call your mate …(an external). We’re none the wiser.

To be a successful gatekeeper relied to a significant extent on the internal consultant’s personal

reputation and legitimacy as an internal expert. As Daniel noted, he could sometimes use his sub-
ject expertise to prevent senior managers from hiring externals:

I’m quite confident to say to the MDs [managing directors] in my business that I don’t agree with that.
Quite often that’s the point at which they’ll start to doubt themselves, so if I can get that seed of doubt in
there, then I can often stop it.
494 Management Learning 42(5)

Overall, the image of internal consultant as gatekeeper reflects the active client as a selective
boundary spanner, controlling the selection and entry stages of the consulting process by way of
quality control and/or protecting self-interest. This is much like practices reported elsewhere of
conventional clients who are savvy, sceptical or sophisticated consumers (e.g. Macdonald, 2006)
and those potential clients who resist consultancy usage (e.g. Sturdy, 1997). However, the data also
revealed more subtle approaches, little discussed in the literature, including hidden resistance and
efforts to raise their own organizational status and reputation as credible alternatives to using exter-
nal consultants based on both their technical expertise and the relevance of their organizational
knowledge. Such competitive approaches, however, represented only part of these clients’ relation-
ships with external consultants, one directed towards constructing the organizational boundary
largely as a barrier rather than a bridge.

Intermediaries and interpreters: brokering external expertise

The second theme emphasized by respondents was their client role as intermediaries between inter-
nal colleagues and external consultants; an imagery we have characterized as that of broker and
one which connects directly with conventional notions of organizational boundary spanning. Here,
the internal consultant was able to scan the firm’s environment and identify and oversee the adop-
tion of external knowledge (Tushman, 1977). Moreover, this role hinged upon their social capital
and professional networks which allowed them to source new or relevant expertise (Burt, 1997).
For example, interviewees spoke at length about the importance of their external networks of
friends and colleagues in other organizations. In addition to keeping abreast of the latest manage-
ment ideas, this external networking allowed internal consultants to share their experiences of
external consultants and consulting firms, assisting their gatekeeping role. Once again, this paral-
lels the practices of the more active of conventional clients who seek out information on external
consultants through informal channels to assess the all-important ‘networked reputation’ of exter-
nal providers (Glückler and Armbrüster, 2003).
The clients’ brokering role also involved what was effectively outsourcing of their own services
when they lacked the time, resources or desire to undertake tasks themselves. Indeed, this was also
seen by some respondents as a useful strategic response to the competitive threat posed by external
consultants. In these situations, respondents saw themselves as intermediate clients intervening
within established consultant-client boundary relations and becoming the contact client with the
external consultant (Schein, 1997). For instance, Peter spoke about how offering himself as a bro-
ker of the consultant-client relationship proved an effective form of intervention where senior
partners in his accounting practice had a track record of by-passing him:

so a tactic that I’ve taken on is that there is one division I know who were using an external consultant. So I
heard about it and went along to the business head and said… ‘Alright, well I’ll tell you what we’ll do, we’ll
take over the management of that (project)…’, and he was just delighted to actually give that away. So now
it is advertised as a ‘Learning and Education’ (internal) product and we manage the external provider.

Such examples reflected more than carrying out the role of conventional purchasing depart-
ments as the internal client often co-branded with the external in providing the service, thus ren-
dering the traditional organizational boundary quite diffuse. Indeed, unlike the gatekeeper role
which focused on the entry stage of the consulting process, acting as a broker potentially extended
the client’s involvement to the diagnosis and implementation stages of the consulting project.
However, obscuring boundaries through co-branding carried with it additional reputational risks.
Sturdy and Wright 495

Indeed, some interviewees spoke about how they laid out strict governance mechanisms for the
behaviour of external consultants in their interactions with other client managers. Such a dis-
course was often linked to the evaluation of consultant performance in terms of value for money
and knowledge transfer. The reputational risk of using external consultants is vivid in the case of
internals and co-branding, but once again, also often applies to more conventional clients and acts
as a source of their active management of consultants—the protection of personal reputation
when using outsiders.
The image of the internal consultant as broker extended beyond the role of a structural inter-
mediary to that of interpreter across cultural boundaries for both external consultants and inter-
nal colleagues. For example, several respondents emphasized the need to carefully brief and
closely monitor external consultants in their interactions with other internal employees to ensure
consistency with their organization’s activities. From an external consultant’s perspective,
Dimity spoke of how her expertise in business process reengineering relied upon the internal
consultant acting as a translator of the client organization’s norms and customs; ‘in terms of the
culture I was blind and he (the internal consultant) was my guide’. This conforms to the estab-
lished view of the value of internal consultants more generally—their organizational knowl-
edge—but once again, it also echoes the few available accounts of those conventional clients
who work closely with external consultants in the liminal space of project teams, such as the
client project manager (Sturdy et al., 2009). Here, clients act as a cultural and political bridge,
actively mediating between the external consultants and organizational peers. This boundary
spanning is achieved by becoming partially removed from their regular operational worlds and
identifying with the project tasks and even the consultants. Indeed, such identification was espe-
cially evident in another aspect of the brokering role of the internal consultants—translating the
realities of external consultancy to internal managers. Hence, Keith, an internal consultant in a
food company, spoke about how he had sometimes had to chastise his colleagues for their treat-
ment of external consultants. Similarly Faye, an HR internal consultant in an insurance com-
pany, noted how she had to engage in damage control and stand up for the external provider
when things had gone wrong.
The image of the internal consultant as a broker then, conforms much more closely to classic
boundary-spanning roles than that of gatekeeper. However, it also highlights their complex identity
as not only members of their organizations, but also specialists with access to external knowledge
and expertise and a shared occupational identity as consultants (Wright, 2009). Sourcing and man-
aging external consultants for their internal colleagues could prove valuable in building their repu-
tation as ‘cosmopolitans’ and in filling resource gaps. But it also carried risks for the internal
consultant’s legitimacy, particularly when services were co-branded. Finally, internal consultants
acted as cultural and political boundary spanners or translators between external consultants and
management peers in order to overcome misconceptions and conflicts and crucially smooth the
flow of externally sourced management ideas and practices.

Collaboration and co-production: social ties and partnership

While the imagery of gatekeeper and broker stressed the competitive or, at least, overtly control-
ling aspects of the relationship between active clients and external consultants, the third group of
images that emerged from our data highlighted more cooperation. What we have termed partnering
referred, not to formal partnership contracts, but to instances where internal and external consult-
ants worked closely together. For internal consultants as clients, this was a potentially significant
means of learning and professional development and, as noted above, ensuring external providers
496 Management Learning 42(5)

understood the internal culture and political landscape of their organization. Moreover, unlike
brokering imagery, the internal consultant was able to emphasize a greater front stage role with
fellow client managers.
Internal consultants’ use of the imagery of partnership highlighted varying levels of engage-
ment. For some, a controlling influence on the relationship persisted, but others saw external con-
sulting partners more as peers and colleagues in the design and implementation of organizational
innovations. For Daniel, this involved issues of trust and knowledge sharing:

So I think of them (externals) being part of my extended team ... It is a true deeper relationship and that
means total transparency. I share all information with them. Organisational information, we share on an
emotional level and a psychological level, so they know how I feel about things in the organisation. I might
tell them about things that I don’t agree with. So it is at that level.

The co-production of management knowledge was also stressed. As was the case in the broker
role, at a basic level this involved characterizations by internals of the blending of their detailed
knowledge of the organizational context with the consultant’s external expertise or methodologies,
resulting in a more customized organizational solution. At a deeper level, however, both parties
provided examples of a more open process of collaborative exploration where the boundary dis-
tinctions between internal and external knowledge blurred. Here, in keeping with the more positive
images of joint consultant-client project work, interactions were presented as a meeting of minds
in which internal and external consultant brainstormed and bounced ideas off one another. Hence,
Sam, the director of a boutique external strategy consultancy, talked about how after half a day
working with the internal consultants in a client company: ‘I’m not sure whose idea is on the white-
board anymore’. Similarly, from an internal consultant’s perspective, Teresa spoke about how her
partnering with a trusted external consultant often involved egging each other on and taking risks
in pushing the limits of what might work in presentations to senior internal managers.
Examples of such knowledge partnerships between insiders and outsiders were characterized as
developing over time, within and often beyond a single consulting project. Accounts were also rich
in the imagery of reciprocity, trust and strong interpersonal ties—social embeddedness (Das and
Teng, 1998). For instance, externals spoke about how they would go ‘the extra mile’ and never
abuse confidences. Similarly, internal consultants spoke about standing by their external counter-
parts even in situations where things had gone badly and internal colleagues were unhappy. In
particular, the image of ‘true partnership’ was raised by several respondents as implying a suffi-
cient level of trust for one party to challenge and confront the other without harming the underlying
relationship (Nooteboom et al., 2007). For externals this was often represented as being frank and
fearless in breaking bad news or holding up the mirror to their internal consultant counterparts
although, as Daniel pointed out, this had its limits:

There are times when Charlie (external consultant) is the chap with the leadership role, and you try and
push something and he says ‘shut up, you are just carrying on like a dill, I’ve got to tell you this is what’s
happening’. And he’ll be right and I’ll have to listen...So there will be times when he’s in the power seat
and I’m going to comply with what he’s advising me to do. And then there will be times when I will say,
‘hang on Charlie, don’t forget who is signing the cheque here son!’ So it does move back and forward.

The imagery of internal and external consultants as partners therefore highlighted a far more
symbiotic relationship than was the case in brokering roles or more conventional boundary span-
ning. Clearly however, the discourse of partnership also provided an ideological justification for
Sturdy and Wright 497

internal consultants in terms of their status and knowledge claims. Partnership implied security in
both their role as organizational representatives and skilled professionals who were willing to share
their knowledge and were open to learning with their trusted external colleagues. As noted above,
however, such relations were dynamic, involving tensions and the potential for a return to more
competitive interaction and boundary-spanning roles.

Discussion and conclusion

We have argued that internal consultants—in their dealings with externals—represent a particularly
active form of consultancy client, a phenomenon much talked about in the consultancy literature,
but not explored systematically. However, our focus has broader implications for the study of
knowledge flow and boundary spanning in particular. For instance, our study reveals different
dimensions, roles and dynamics of the active client which incorporate the process and content of the
client-consultant relationship, both of which inform how management knowledge is co-produced.
A key finding from our analysis was the different active roles our consultant-clients played in
spanning the organizational boundary (see Figure 2). These partly overlap with the conventional
and largely static understandings of both the active client and boundary spanner (Aldrich and
Herker, 1977; Mohe, 2005). However, they are by no means fixed. Indeed, in keeping with the
dynamic nature of consultancy relationships and the idea that client activity can vary in its form
and intensity, we have focused on the role of the client over time, both within and between formal
projects. Clearly, a host of factors might influence which role is taken. For example, given its typi-
cally project-based form, one approximation of the dynamics of consultancy is its classic project
stages (search and selection; diagnosis and planning; implementation and evaluation and beyond)
(Lippitt and Lippitt, 1986). Each of these can be linked to our principal images of internal consult-
ants as active clients.
As a gatekeeper, the internal consultant focused primarily on controlling the entry of external
consultants across the organization boundary, through the filtering of cold-calls and active involve-
ment in search and selection. Where externals had by-passed the internal consultant, gatekeeping
strategies sought to undermine the externals’ legitimacy and other client relationships. Brokering
imagery focused on the more conventional boundary spanner and contact client roles in the early
stages of the consulting process, but extended to diagnosis, design and, potentially, implementa-
tion, particularly where interventions were co-branded. In such situations, the imagery of the client
included acting as an interpreter of internal culture and politics, as well as supporting externals
when things had gone wrong. Finally, the role of partner highlighted further variations in the forms
of client activity and boundary spanning, particularly through the active involvement of both exter-
nal and internal consultants in the design and implementation of organizational innovations, as
well as their evaluation and the development of an on-going, post-project relationship of interac-
tion. Here, client activity extended across the full scope of the consulting process and sometimes
involved a much deeper level of engagement.
Largely implicit in the above relationship dynamics are different roles in the selection, use,
adaptation and co-production of management knowledge (see Figure 3). Indeed, it is sometimes
difficult empirically to separate the two objects of client activity we identified earlier—process and
content. Nevertheless, we can draw out some implications of client activity for the ways in which
management knowledge was produced and consumed, specifically the inter-relation between local
and foreign knowledge within consulting projects. In particular, our research builds on the insights
of Hislop (2002) who pointed to some of the ways in which client activity affects the customization
498 Management Learning 42(5)

(a) Gatekeeper: Internal consultant decides which external consultants work within the
organization and acts as a ‘contact’ or ‘primary’ client, exercising quality control. Imagery of
competition, control and organizational boundary as barrier.

ORGANIZATION

Operational Internal External

Manager Consultant Consultant

(b) Broker: Internal consultant becomes the ‘contact’ client, sourcing, managing and protecting the
external provider as well as an interpreter of local knowledge. Internal scans the environment for
consultancy expertise via professional and social networks. Imagery of bridging organizational
boundaries.

ORGANIZATION

Internal
Consultant

External
Operational Consultant
Manager

(c) Partner: Internal consultant acts as a ‘contact’ client but also collaborates directly with the
external consultant in knowledge production/exploration. Imagery of partnership and trust which
obscures organizational boundaries.

ORGANIZATION

Internal External
Operational Consultant Consultant
Manager

Figure 2. The boundary-spanning roles of the internal consultant as client

of management ideas as they flow across organizational and related boundaries. Our research sug-
gests that the three client roles of gatekeeper, broker and partner were broadly associated with
different forms of knowledge production and consumption.
Sturdy and Wright 499

Boundary- Search and selection Diagnosis, planning and Completion and

spanning role implementation evaluation

Gatekeeper Active in determining the Limited role Limited role

engagement and entry
of external consultants—
‘quality control’.

Broker Active in the search and Co-branding with external. Active in contractual
selection of external Co-production confined to design and evaluation of
consultants. oversight of project management; external consultant.
limited front-stage role.
Acts as knowledge
boundary spanner. Acts as cultural intermediary,
customization/exploitation of
external consulting knowledge for
organizational context.

Partner Active in search and Full engagement in design and On-going

selection (shaped by delivery of consulting project— relationship with
existing relationships). co-production of intervention as both external. Evaluation
client and consultant. based on trust and
strong social ties.
Knowledge exchange and exploration
between internal and external
consultants.

Figure 3. Client roles and knowledge production across consultancy process

In the gate keeper role, internal consultants sought to maintain their control, and even monop-
oly, over the provision of management expertise within their organizations, often viewing exter-
nal consultants as a competitive threat to their role and status. In some cases, their efforts
appeared to be based on the personal political threat of externals as much as any concern for
organizational interests such as quality control. Accessing external knowledge was pursued
largely on the internals’ own terms with limited internal adaptation evident, at least initially. A
similar pattern of the exploitation of management knowledge was evident in the broker role,
although in these cases, the externals played a greater part in the delivery of advice and services.
Furthermore, in the co-branding of interventions with internal consultant clients, a greater degree
of co-production was evident, particularly through the explicit customization and translation of
generic methods for the local organizational context. However, it was the partner role which
illustrated the greatest potential for the co-production of new knowledge or exploration. This
was highlighted in the high level of engagement of both internal and external consultants in the
design and implementation of consulting interventions. In some of the examples provided, the
much deeper level of knowledge sharing and trust between the parties was presented as innova-
tive work. Importantly, the role of the internal consultant client as a partner to the external con-
sultant also held the promise of a relationship extending beyond the confines of a single project.
In keeping with much of the literature on knowledge flow (e.g. Nooteboom et al., 2007), the
socially embedded nature of this relationship appeared to offer greater potential for the interplay
of local and foreign management knowledge.
500 Management Learning 42(5)

In addition to providing insights into client-consultant dynamics and knowledge co-production,

our findings build on established insights regarding organizational boundary spanning (Aldrich
and Herker, 1977; Tushman, 1977). For instance, the concepts of organizational gatekeeper and
boundary spanner have been used previously to highlight the role of managerial agency in the
absorptive capacity of organizations (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990). More recently, Jones (2006) has
also stressed the importance of organizational change agents in adapting and translating external
knowledge to organizational routines. However, variations in the level of activity and passivity in
these roles have been largely neglected, including in the increasingly common context of the client-
consultant relationship. The internal consultant as active consultancy client epitomizes the classic
view of the boundary spanner as an exchange agent between the organization and its environment.
As we have shown, internal consultants undertake multiple boundary-spanning roles across, and
sometimes within, different consultancy projects. Here, the active consultancy client is engaged
not only in the transfer and translation of outside knowledge, but also in political and cultural
negotiation with both their external counterparts and internal organizational stakeholders. However,
as we have shown, this can be a problematic role for those lacking organizational legitimacy and
the political skill to circumvent alternative forms of outside knowledge acquisition.
Indeed, our analysis supports those who have argued for a consideration of the role of power
in understanding how organizations absorb new knowledge across their boundaries (e.g.
Easterby-Smith et al., 2008). In taking on the role of the active consultancy client, whether as
gatekeepers, brokers or partners, internal consultants engaged in a form of political manoeuvring
which sought to emphasize their status as internal experts. However, such a status was by no
means assured and often contested—knowledge was ‘at stake’ (Carlile, 2004). In particular,
challenging a senior manager’s decision to use external consultants was a critical test of the
internal consultant’s wider legitimacy. Those who did so most successfully emphasized their
personal reputation as internal (functional) experts within their organizations as well as their
boundary-spanning role as a source of social capital (Burt, 1997). Such a depiction was often
supported by external consultants who presented their internal consulting partners as individuals
with significant organizational influence. Hence, like external consultants who rely upon a form
of ‘networked reputation’ in their interactions with corporate clients (Glückler and Armbrüster,
2003), so internal consultants are also engaged in reputation building within their organizations
(Pettigrew, 1975). Indeed, our data suggests that it is their legitimacy or credibility as internal
experts combined with their boundary-spanning networks and relationships that allows these
consultant-clients to engage in collaboration (brokering and partnering), power sharing and risk
taking with externals, and confront challenges if interventions go awry. More generally then, the
case of internal consultants highlights an otherwise neglected feature of client activity—the
importance of internal reputation both in supporting the non-use of consultancy (as a potential
client) and facilitating their use. The latter derives both from the value attached by externals to
clients with influence and expertise, and from the client’s role in supporting the introduction of
outside actors and ideas into their organization—the client as knowledge intermediary across the
organizational boundary (cf. Howells, 2006).
Studying internal consultants acting as consulting clients reveals a number of dimensions,
conditions and outcomes which might not have been as evident from researching clients in gen-
eral. However, this approach does have limitations and suggests areas where further investigation
is required. First, our focus on internal consultants combined with use of interviews as the main
research method meant that some features of client activity and passivity were not well repre-
sented. For example, respondents provided few examples of themselves as passive and dependent
clients or of being active in pursuing their own personal political ends. Although we would not
Sturdy and Wright 501

expect internal consultants to highlight a passive self-image, the potential for passivity exists,
especially in relation to the use of ideas or, perhaps, from over-identification with external con-
sultants. Second, the detail of knowledge production and consumption in internal-external con-
sultant relationships needs to be further developed. For instance, we were not able to assess fully
the broader organizational implications of the different forms of boundary spanning and knowl-
edge sharing. However, the use of different methods, such as longitudinal case studies of such
relationships might better chart how specific ideas and practices enter and are adapted within
organizations over time, and to what extent the roles we have identified enhance or constrain
knowledge sharing more broadly (Hicks et al., 2009). Third, while our study has drawn attention
to some of the processes involved in the rejection of external management consultancy,the whole
issue of the active non-use of management consultancy and alternative ways of organizing man-
agement innovation which constructs barriers, as much as spans them, is under-researched despite
its obvious policy implications.
A perennial theme in the study of organizational innovation and management learning is how
and why organizations and individuals engage with new ideas and practices from outside their
existing contexts of experience. In an era in which innovation is promoted as almost a moral
imperative, we are likely to witness increased organizational engagement with external knowledge
and those who have access to it. We have shown in this article how such a process can take a range
of forms according to various conditions and functional and political dynamics and choices, each
with different potential outcomes for the co-production of management knowledge. Given the
widespread use of management consultants, the role of the active consultancy client as organiza-
tional boundary spanner therefore provides additional empirical and conceptual insight into the
broader process of management learning.

References
Abrahamson, E (1996) Management fashion. Academy of Management Review 21(1):254–285.
Aldrich, H and Herker, D (1977) Boundary spanning roles and organization structure. Academy of Management
Review 2(2):217–230.
Alvesson, M and Johansson, A (2002) Professionalism and politics in management consultancy work. In:
Clark, T, Fincham, R(eds) Critical Consulting: New Perspectives on the Management Advice Industry.
Oxford: Blackwell, 228–246.
Alvesson, M, Kärreman, D, Sturdy, A and Handley, K (2009) Unpacking the client(s): Constructions, posi-
tions and client-consultant dynamic. Scandinavian Journal of Management 25(3):253–263.
Antal, AB and Krebsbach-Gnath, C (2001) Consultants as agents of organisational learning. In: Dierkes, M,
Berthoin, A, Child, J, Nonaka, I (eds) Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 462–483.
Armbrüster, T (2006) The Economics and Sociology of Management Consulting. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Birkinshaw, J, Hamel, G and Mol, MJ (2008) Management innovation. Academy of Management Review
33(4):825–845.
Blake, R and Mouton, J (1983) Consultation: A Handbook for Individual and Organizational Development.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bohart, AC and Tallman, K (1996) The active client: Therapy as self-help. Journal of Humanistic Psychology
36(3):7–30.
Burt, RS (1997) The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly 42(2):339–365.
Carlile, PR (2004) Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing
knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science 15(5):555–568.
Clark, T (1995) Managing Consultants: Consultancy as the Management of Impressions. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
502 Management Learning 42(5)

Clegg, SR, Kornberger, M and Rhodes, C (2004) Noise, parasites and translation: Theory and practice in
management consulting. Management Learning 35(1):31–44.
Cohen, WM and Levinthal, DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation.
Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1):128–152.
Crowley, C, Harré, R and Tagg, C (2002) Qualitative research and computing: Methodological issues and
practices in using QSR Nvivo and NUD*IST. International Journal of Social Research Methodology
5(3):193–197.
Czarniawska, B and Mazza, C (2003) Consulting as a liminal space. Human Relations 56(3):267–290.
Czerniawska, F (2002) The Intelligent Client. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Das, TK and Teng, B-S (1998) Between trust and control: Developing confidence in partner cooperation in
alliances. Academy of Management Review 23(3):491–512.
Deelmann, T and Mohe, M (eds) (2006) Selection and Evaluation of Consultants. Munich: Rainer Hampp
Verlag.
Easterby-Smith, M, Graça, M, Antonacopoulou, E and Ferdinand, J (2008) Absorptive capacity: A process
perspective. Management Learning 39(5):483–501.
Ellis, N and Ybema, S (2010) Marketing identities: Shifting circles of identification in inter-organizational
relationships. Organization Studies 31(3):279–305.
Ernst, B and Kieser, A (2002) In search of explanations for the consulting explosion. In: Sahlin-Andersson,
K, Engwall, L (eds) The Expansion of Management Knowledge: Carriers, Flows, and Sources. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press, 47–73.
Fincham, R (1999) The consultant-client relationship: Critical perspectives on the management of organiza-
tional change. Journal of Management Studies 36(3):335–351.
Fosstenløkken, SM, Løwendahl, BR and Revang, Ø (2003) Knowledge development through client interac-
tion: A comparative study. Organization Studies 24(6):859–880.
Glückler, J and Armbrüster, T (2003) Bridging uncertainty in management consulting: The mechanisms of
trust and networked reputation. Organization Studies 24(2):269–297.
Hicks, J, Nair, P and Wilderom, CPM (2009) What if we shifted the basis of consulting from knowledge to
knowing? Management Learning 40(3):289–310.
Hislop, D (2002) The client role in consultancy relations during the appropriation of technological innova-
tions. Research Policy 31(5):657–671.
Höner, D and Mohe, M (2009) Behind clients’ doors: What hinders client firms from ‘professionally’ dealing
with consultancy? Scandinavian Journal of Management 25(3):299–312.
Howells, J (2006) Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy 35(5):715–728.
Huczynski, A (1993) Explaining the succession of management fads. International Journal of Human
Resource Management 4(2):443–463.
Jones, O (2006) Developing absorptive capacity in mature organizations. Management Learning 37(3):355–376.
Karantinou, KM and Hogg, MK (2009) An empirical investigation of relationship development in profes-
sional business services. Journal of Services Marketing 23(4):249–260.
Kieser, A (2002) Managers as marionettes? Using fashion theory to explain the success of consultancies.
In: Kipping, M, Engwall, L (eds) Management Consulting: Emergence and Dynamics of a Knowledge
Industry. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 167–183.
Kipping, M and Armbrüster, T (2002) The burden of otherness: Limits of consultancy interventions in histori-
cal case studies. In: Kipping, M, Engwall, L (eds) Management Consulting: Emergence and Dynamics of
a Knowledge Industry. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 203–221.
Kitay, J and Wright, C (2004) Take the money and run? Organisational boundaries and consultants’ roles.
Service Industries Journal 24(3):1–18.
Lacey, MY (1995) Internal consulting: Perspectives on the process of planned change. Journal of
Organizational Change Management 8(3):75–84.
Leifer, R and Delbecq, A (1978) Organizational/environmental interchange: A model of boundary spanning
activity. Academy of Management Review 3(1):40–50.
Lippitt, G and Lippitt, R (1986) The Consulting Process in Action. San Diego, CA: University Associates.
Sturdy and Wright 503

Macdonald, S (2006) From babes and sucklings: Management consultants and novice clients. European
Management Journal 24(6):411–421.
March, J (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science 2(1):71–87.
Markham, C (1997) Practical Management Consultancy. London: Accountancy Books.
Mills, PK and Morris, JH (1986) Clients as ‘partial’ employees of service organizations: Role development in
client participation. Academy of Management Review 11(4):726–735.
Mohe, M (2005) Generic strategies for managing consultants: Insights from clients’ companies in Germany.
Journal of Change Management 5(3):357–365.
Nachum, L (1999) Measurement of productivity of professional services: An illustration on Swedish manage-
ment consulting firms. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 19(9):922–949.
Nooteboom, B, Van Haverbeke, W, Duysters, G, Gilsing, V and van den Oord, A (2007) Optimal cognitive
distance and absorptive capacity. Research Policy 36(7):1016–1034.
Perkmann, M and Spicer, A (2008) How are management fashions institutionalized? The role of institutional
work. Human Relations 61(6):811–844.
Pettigrew, AM (1975) Towards a political theory of organizational intervention. Human Relations 28(3):191–208.
Richter, A and Niewiem, S (2009) Knowledge transfer across permeable boundaries: An empirical study of cli-
ents’ decisions to involve management consultants. Scandinavian Journal of Management 25(3):275–288.
Rubin, HJ and Rubin, IS (2005) Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Schein, E (1969) Process Consultation: Its Role in Organization Development. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Schein, E (1997) The concept of ‘client’ from a process consultation perspective: A guide for change agents.
Journal of Organizational Change Management 10(3):202–216.
Scott, B and Hascall, J (2006) Inside or outside: The partnerships of internal and external consultants. In:
Biech, E (ed.) The 2006 Pfeiffer Annual: Consulting. San Francisco, CA: Wiley, 209–222.
Staw, BM and Epstein, LD (2000) What bandwagons bring: Effects of popular management techniques on
corporate performance, reputation, and CEO pay. Administrative Science Quarterly 45(3):523–556.
Strauss, A and Corbin, J (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing
Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sturdy, A (1997) The consultancy process—an insecure business? Journal of Management Studies 34(3):389–413.
Sturdy, A and Wright, C (2008) A consulting diaspora? Enterprising selves as agents of enterprise.
Organization 15(3):427–444.
Sturdy, A, Werr, A and Buono, AF (2009) The client in management consultancy research: Mapping the ter-
ritory. Scandinavian Journal of Management 25(3):247–252.
Sturdy, A, Handley, K, Clark, T and Fincham, R (2009) Management Consultancy: Boundaries and
Knowledge in Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tidd, J (2001) Innovation management in context: Environment, organization and performance. International
Journal of Management Reviews 3(3):169–183.
Tushman, ML (1977) Special boundary roles in the innovation process. Administrative Science Quarterly
22(4):587–605.
Tushman, ML and Scanlan, TJ (1981) Boundary spanning individuals: Their role in information transfer and
their antecedents. Academy of Management Journal 24(2):289–305.
Werr, A and Pemer, F (2007) Purchasing management consulting services: From management autonomy to
purchasing involvement. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 13(2):98–112.
Werr, A and Styhre, A (2003) Management consultants—friend or foe? Understanding the ambiguous con-
sultant-client relationship. International Studies of Management and Organization 32(4):43–66.
Wright, C (2009) Inside out? Organizational membership, ambiguity and the ambivalent identity of the internal
consultant. British Journal of Management 20(3):309–322.